298
K. Specht et al.
the concept of “social entrepreneurship” is common in UA, and alternative economic
models that focus on greater cooperation between consumers and producers often
come to fruition. UA therefore promotes a diversified urban economy and added
value by way of urban production (Brandt et al. 2018; Pearson et al. 2010). This
also helps cities to become more resilient in terms of food supply and food security
(BMUB 2015). As with other green infrastructure, UA may help to upgrade urban
neighbourhoods, stemming a decline in value of urban infrastructure and real estate
(Voicu and Been 2008), particularly in regions affected by shrinkage. Municipalities
also benefit from UA, such as when green spaces are tended communally by garden
initiatives, reducing the financial burden on cities (Rosol 2006; Stierand 2012).
15.3.4 Limitations
Aside from these positive attributions, there are also voices in the academic debate
that challenge the functions and services provided by UA, or at least limit them.
For example, it is said that, although locally initiated urban gardens improve neighbourhoods, they may ultimately encourage gentrification processes and damage the
neighbourhood’s social fabric (Cohen and Reynolds 2014; Specht et al. 2017; Horst
et al. 2017). There is also criticism that the oft-touted tremendous openness may
not signify openness for everyone. After all, the use of former public open spaces
for urban gardens excludes non-gardeners from using these spaces, raising doubts
about whether they are indeed of interest to the general public (Sondermann 2014).
With reference to the integrating effect of UA, mostly associated with intercultural
gardens, it is noted that colonial ways of thinking are re-inscribed in that the better-off
bring good food to disadvantaged social groups (McClintock et al. 2016).
Another key limiting factor that must be mentioned is the availability of land,
which is a necessary condition for any kind of UA. Undeveloped areas are highly
sought after, particularly in growing cities with a high influx of newcomers, resulting
in strong competition for land use and high land prices. In this context, inner-city
urban gardens particularly compete with investors usually keen to implement real
estate projects, e.g. for residential purposes (Schmidt 2016; Berges et al. 2014;
BMUB 2015). Since urban gardens are mostly projects that are initiated and run
by residents, they are financially inferior to commercial real estate development and
usually unable to compete successfully for urban open spaces (Berges et al. 2014).
As a result, land reserves are increasingly being covered with buildings, and urban
greenery and urban gardens are in conflict with other uses (BMUB 2015). This
situation is exacerbated by the principle of “inner development before outer development” defined in the many national building codes - e.g for Germany in the Federal
Building Code (BauGB) (Siedentop 2010; Koch 2017). The aim of this requirement
is to reduce land consumption, which leads to the re-densification of central areas and
fewer building land designations as urban expansion. Concerning the availability of
land for urban gardens, this means that more infill sites are developed, more brownfields are covered with buildings, and more land is recycled, putting even greater
K. Specht et al.
the concept of “social entrepreneurship” is common in UA, and alternative economic
models that focus on greater cooperation between consumers and producers often
come to fruition. UA therefore promotes a diversified urban economy and added
value by way of urban production (Brandt et al. 2018; Pearson et al. 2010). This
also helps cities to become more resilient in terms of food supply and food security
(BMUB 2015). As with other green infrastructure, UA may help to upgrade urban
neighbourhoods, stemming a decline in value of urban infrastructure and real estate
(Voicu and Been 2008), particularly in regions affected by shrinkage. Municipalities
also benefit from UA, such as when green spaces are tended communally by garden
initiatives, reducing the financial burden on cities (Rosol 2006; Stierand 2012).
15.3.4 Limitations
Aside from these positive attributions, there are also voices in the academic debate
that challenge the functions and services provided by UA, or at least limit them.
For example, it is said that, although locally initiated urban gardens improve neighbourhoods, they may ultimately encourage gentrification processes and damage the
neighbourhood’s social fabric (Cohen and Reynolds 2014; Specht et al. 2017; Horst
et al. 2017). There is also criticism that the oft-touted tremendous openness may
not signify openness for everyone. After all, the use of former public open spaces
for urban gardens excludes non-gardeners from using these spaces, raising doubts
about whether they are indeed of interest to the general public (Sondermann 2014).
With reference to the integrating effect of UA, mostly associated with intercultural
gardens, it is noted that colonial ways of thinking are re-inscribed in that the better-off
bring good food to disadvantaged social groups (McClintock et al. 2016).
Another key limiting factor that must be mentioned is the availability of land,
which is a necessary condition for any kind of UA. Undeveloped areas are highly
sought after, particularly in growing cities with a high influx of newcomers, resulting
in strong competition for land use and high land prices. In this context, inner-city
urban gardens particularly compete with investors usually keen to implement real
estate projects, e.g. for residential purposes (Schmidt 2016; Berges et al. 2014;
BMUB 2015). Since urban gardens are mostly projects that are initiated and run
by residents, they are financially inferior to commercial real estate development and
usually unable to compete successfully for urban open spaces (Berges et al. 2014).
As a result, land reserves are increasingly being covered with buildings, and urban
greenery and urban gardens are in conflict with other uses (BMUB 2015). This
situation is exacerbated by the principle of “inner development before outer development” defined in the many national building codes - e.g for Germany in the Federal
Building Code (BauGB) (Siedentop 2010; Koch 2017). The aim of this requirement
is to reduce land consumption, which leads to the re-densification of central areas and
fewer building land designations as urban expansion. Concerning the availability of
land for urban gardens, this means that more infill sites are developed, more brownfields are covered with buildings, and more land is recycled, putting even greater