Vrtičkarstvo (Slovenia) - Revision history

Editor2018 at 08:00, 6 September 2021

2021-09-06T08:00:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:00, 6 September 2021
Line 65:		Line 65:

	Academic approaches to urban gardening and urban policies rarely see eye to eye. Researchers understand the practice as an indicator of broader trends and social issues, yet tend to disregard the multipurpose nature of urban gardening. Narrow [[Comparative Analyses\|comparative analyses]] of local forms often fail to capture the social role of the practice. To illustrate, Alber and Kohler conclude, on the basis of the reported harvest-size alone, that the more productive gardeners in Eastern Europe grow vegetables out of poverty, while their Western European counterparts cultivate gardens as a hobby (2008). While surveys and (historical) aerial photography (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009) are valuable for assessing the spread of the practice, figuring out the particular urban problems to which the practice responds is best achieved with (auto-)ethnography and life histories (Caldwell 2011; Smith and Jehlička 2013; Matijevic 2018). In contrast, local governments are more likely to treat urban gardening either as a problem in itself, or as a publicly-administered panacea that can ameliorate any formal deficiency. What such approaches have in common is that they overlook the ambivalence of urban gardening – it is as much an urban problem as it is a solution. The challenge for policy, then, is to recognise urban gardening as a shadow companion to urbanisation and modernity and thus as a factor to include in formal policy-thinking.		Academic approaches to urban gardening and urban policies rarely see eye to eye. Researchers understand the practice as an indicator of broader trends and social issues, yet tend to disregard the multipurpose nature of urban gardening. Narrow [[Comparative Analyses\|comparative analyses]] of local forms often fail to capture the social role of the practice. To illustrate, Alber and Kohler conclude, on the basis of the reported harvest-size alone, that the more productive gardeners in Eastern Europe grow vegetables out of poverty, while their Western European counterparts cultivate gardens as a hobby (2008). While surveys and (historical) aerial photography (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009) are valuable for assessing the spread of the practice, figuring out the particular urban problems to which the practice responds is best achieved with (auto-)ethnography and life histories (Caldwell 2011; Smith and Jehlička 2013; Matijevic 2018). In contrast, local governments are more likely to treat urban gardening either as a problem in itself, or as a publicly-administered panacea that can ameliorate any formal deficiency. What such approaches have in common is that they overlook the ambivalence of urban gardening – it is as much an urban problem as it is a solution. The challenge for policy, then, is to recognise urban gardening as a shadow companion to urbanisation and modernity and thus as a factor to include in formal policy-thinking.

			==Further reading==

			Matijevic, P. 2021. Searching for the plot: narrative self-making and urban agriculture during the economic crisis in Slovenia. Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10248-4

	==References==		==References==

Editor2018 at 08:52, 20 April 2021

2021-04-20T08:52:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 20 April 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:
	[[:Category:Informal dwelling\|Informal dwelling]] – [[:Category: Informal welfare\| Informal welfare]]		[[:Category:Informal dwelling\|Informal dwelling]] – [[:Category: Informal welfare\| Informal welfare]]
	\| categories =		\| categories =
	[[:Category:Slovenia\|Slovenia]] – [[:Category: CEE\| CEE]] – [[:Category: Balkans\| Balkans]] – [[:Category: Yugoslavia\| Yugoslavia]] – [[:Category: Europe\| Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: Food\| Food]] – [[:Category: Garden\| Garden]] – [[:Category: Agriculture\| Agriculture]] – [[:Category: Subsistence\| Subsistence]] – [[:Category: Governance\| Governance]] – [[:Category: Neighbourhood\| Neighbourhood]] – [[:Category: Housing-estate\| Housing-estate]] – [[:Category: Urban\| Urban]] – [[:Category: Evasion\| Evasion]]		[[:Category:Slovenia\|Slovenia]] – [[:Category: CEE\| CEE]] – [[:Category: Balkans\| Balkans]] – [[:Category: Yugoslavia\| Yugoslavia]] – [[:Category: Europe\| Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: Food\| Food]] – [[:Category: Garden\| Garden]] – [[:Category: Agriculture\| Agriculture]] – [[:Category: Subsistence\| Subsistence]] – [[:Category: Governance\| Governance]] – [[:Category: Neighbourhood\| Neighbourhood]] – [[:Category: Housing estate\| Housing estate]] – [[:Category: Urban\| Urban]] – [[:Category: Evasion\| Evasion]]
	\| authorofpiece =Petra Matijevic		\| authorofpiece =Petra Matijevic
	\| authorinstitution =School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK		\| authorinstitution =School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK
Line 27:		Line 27:
	[[Category: Governance]]		[[Category: Governance]]
	[[Category: Neighbourhood]]		[[Category: Neighbourhood]]
	[[Category: Housing-estate]]		[[Category: Housing estate]]
	[[Category: Urban]]		[[Category: Urban]]
	[[Category: Evasion]]		[[Category: Evasion]]
Line 64:		Line 64:
	These formal procedures have replaced the informal organisation of gardening-sites and impeded the distribution of available plots. They have pushed ''vrtičkarstvo'' further into the corner: out of the public view, behind tall hedges, between tall buildings, into less populated areas. To hinder municipal attempts to identify, contact or close ''vrtičkarji'', garden-supervisors on the remaining informal sites engage strictly in person-to-person contacts when considering new applicants, collecting rents or settling disputes.		These formal procedures have replaced the informal organisation of gardening-sites and impeded the distribution of available plots. They have pushed ''vrtičkarstvo'' further into the corner: out of the public view, behind tall hedges, between tall buildings, into less populated areas. To hinder municipal attempts to identify, contact or close ''vrtičkarji'', garden-supervisors on the remaining informal sites engage strictly in person-to-person contacts when considering new applicants, collecting rents or settling disputes.

	Academic approaches to urban gardening and urban policies rarely see eye to eye. Researchers understand the practice as an indicator of broader trends and social issues, yet tend to disregard the multipurpose nature of urban gardening. Narrow comparative analyses of local forms often fail to capture the social role of the practice. To illustrate, Alber and Kohler conclude, on the basis of the reported harvest-size alone, that the more productive gardeners in Eastern Europe grow vegetables out of poverty, while their Western European counterparts cultivate gardens as a hobby (2008). While surveys and (historical) aerial photography (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009) are valuable for assessing the spread of the practice, figuring out the particular urban problems to which the practice responds is best achieved with (auto-)ethnography and life histories (Caldwell 2011; Smith and Jehlička 2013; Matijevic 2018). In contrast, local governments are more likely to treat urban gardening either as a problem in itself, or as a publicly-administered panacea that can ameliorate any formal deficiency. What such approaches have in common is that they overlook the ambivalence of urban gardening – it is as much an urban problem as it is a solution. The challenge for policy, then, is to recognise urban gardening as a shadow companion to urbanisation and modernity and thus as a factor to include in formal policy-thinking.		Academic approaches to urban gardening and urban policies rarely see eye to eye. Researchers understand the practice as an indicator of broader trends and social issues, yet tend to disregard the multipurpose nature of urban gardening. Narrow [[Comparative Analyses\|comparative analyses]] of local forms often fail to capture the social role of the practice. To illustrate, Alber and Kohler conclude, on the basis of the reported harvest-size alone, that the more productive gardeners in Eastern Europe grow vegetables out of poverty, while their Western European counterparts cultivate gardens as a hobby (2008). While surveys and (historical) aerial photography (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009) are valuable for assessing the spread of the practice, figuring out the particular urban problems to which the practice responds is best achieved with (auto-)ethnography and life histories (Caldwell 2011; Smith and Jehlička 2013; Matijevic 2018). In contrast, local governments are more likely to treat urban gardening either as a problem in itself, or as a publicly-administered panacea that can ameliorate any formal deficiency. What such approaches have in common is that they overlook the ambivalence of urban gardening – it is as much an urban problem as it is a solution. The challenge for policy, then, is to recognise urban gardening as a shadow companion to urbanisation and modernity and thus as a factor to include in formal policy-thinking.

	==References==		==References==

Editor2018 at 14:49, 17 May 2019

2019-05-17T14:49:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 17 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = Vrtičkarstvo		\| nameofpractice =Vrtičkarstvo
	\| flagemoji = 🇸🇮		\| flagemoji = 🇸🇮
	\| definition = Establishing and maintaining garden-plots by landless urban households in order to improve welfare		\| definition =Establishing and maintaining garden-plots by landless urban households in order to improve welfare
	\| location = Slovenia		\| location =Slovenia
	\| imagemap = Slovenia map.png		\| imagemap =Slovenia map.png
	\| categories = [[:Category: Slovenia\|Slovenia]] – [[:Category: CEE\|CEE]] – [[:Category: Balkans\|Balkans]] – [[:Category: Yugoslavia\|Yugoslavia]] – [[:Category: Europe\|Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\|EU]] – [[:Category: Food\|Food]] – [[:Category: Garden\|Garden]] – [[:Category: Agriculture\|Agriculture]] – [[:Category: Subsistence\|Subsistence]] – [[:Category: Governance\|Governance]] – [[:Category: Neighbourhood\|Neighbourhood]] – [[:Category: Housing-estate\|Housing-estate]] – [[:Category: ~~Informal dwelling\|Informal dwelling]] – [[:Category: Informal welfare\|Informal welfare]] – [[:Category: City~~\|~~City~~]] – [[:Category: Evasion\|Evasion]]		\| clusters =
	\| authorofpiece = Petra Matijevic		[[:Category:Informal dwelling\|Informal dwelling]] – [[:Category: Informal welfare\| Informal welfare]]
	\| authorinstitution = School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London		\| categories =
	\| ~~website~~ =		[[:Category:Slovenia\|Slovenia]] – [[:Category: CEE\| CEE]] – [[:Category: Balkans\| Balkans]] – [[:Category: Yugoslavia\| Yugoslavia]] – [[:Category: Europe\| Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: Food\| Food]] – [[:Category: Garden\| Garden]] – [[:Category: Agriculture\| Agriculture]] – [[:Category: Subsistence\| Subsistence]] – [[:Category: Governance\| Governance]] – [[:Category: Neighbourhood\| Neighbourhood]] – [[:Category: Housing-estate\| Housing-estate]] – [[:Category: Urban\| Urban]] – [[:Category: Evasion\| Evasion]]
	}}		\| authorofpiece =Petra Matijevic
	<big>'''By Petra Matijevic, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London'''</big>		\| authorinstitution =School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK
	[[Category: Slovenia]]		\| authorwebsite =[https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/people/dr-petra-matijevic Profile page at UCL]}}
	[[Category: CEE]]		<big>'''By Petra Matijevic, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK'''</big>
	[[Category: Balkans]]		[[Category:Informal dwelling]]
	[[Category: Yugoslavia]]		[[Category: Informal welfare]]
	[[Category: Europe]]		[[Category:Slovenia]]
	[[Category: EU]]		[[Category: CEE]]
	[[Category: Food]]		[[Category: Balkans]]
	[[Category: Garden]]		[[Category: Yugoslavia]]
	[[Category: Agriculture]]		[[Category: Europe]]
	[[Category: Subsistence]]		[[Category: EU]]
	[[Category: Governance]]		[[Category: Food]]
	[[Category: Neighbourhood]]		[[Category: Garden]]
	[[Category: Housing-estate]]		[[Category: Agriculture]]
	[[Category: ~~Informal dwelling]]~~		[[Category: Subsistence]]
	~~[[Category: Informal welfare]]~~		[[Category: Governance]]
	~~[[Category: City~~]]		[[Category: Neighbourhood]]
	[[Category: Evasion]]		[[Category: Housing-estate]]
	[[Category: Entry]]		[[Category: Urban]]
	[[Category: 2019 entry]]		[[Category: Evasion]]
	[[Category: SSEES]]		[[Category:Entry]]
			[[Category: 2019 entry]]
			[[Category: SSEES]]
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|-
			\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| In Slovenian cities, ''vrtičkarstvo'' is the practice of establishing and maintaining household garden plots, detached from the main place of residence. ''Vrtički'' (singular ''vrtiček''), meaning small gardens, are tended by residents of housing-estates or lodgers in urban family homes. ''Vrtičkarji'' (singular ''vrtičkar'', female ''vrtičkarica'', ''vrtičkarka'') do not have regular access to farmland or a second home and either formally rent or informally take over a plot of land.

	~~{\| class="wikitable"~~		Surveys suggest that 5 percent of all Ljubljanans (residents of Slovenian capital) keep an urban plot (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009). Gardeners cultivate land of 50 to 500 square meters, temporarily or long-term, as formal members of an association or through an informal agreement with fellow gardeners. The diminutive term ''vrtiček'' (compare with ''vrt'' for garden, and ''vrtnar, vrtnarica'' for gardener) implies an amateur or inconsequential nature of the practice. Such a name, however, disguises its vital social role.
	\|-
	\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| In Slovenian cities, ''vrtičkarstvo'' is the practice of establishing and maintaining household garden plots, detached from the main place of residence. ''Vrtički'' (singular ''vrtiček''), meaning small gardens, are tended by residents of housing-estates or lodgers in urban family homes. ''Vrtičkarji'' (singular ''vrtičkar'', female ''vrtičkarica'', ''vrtičkarka'') do not have regular access to farmland or a second home and either formally rent or informally take over a plot of land. Surveys suggest that 5 percent of all Ljubljanans (residents of Slovenian capital) keep an urban plot (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009). Gardeners cultivate land of 50 to 500 square meters, temporarily or long-term, as formal members of an association or through an informal agreement with fellow gardeners. The diminutive term ''vrtiček'' (compare with ''vrt'' for garden, and ''vrtnar, vrtnarica'' for gardener) implies an amateur or inconsequential nature of the practice. Such a name, however, disguises its vital social role.
	\|}		\|}

Line 55:		Line 58:
	Closer investigation of the dynamics of ''vrtičkarstvo'' in times of increased unemployment, poverty and uncertainty (in the late 1980s, the 1990s and again after 2009) suggests that the practice not only balanced off material shortages, but also made up for the lack of progress and social mobility. Working the soil mended the broken model of the good life by supplying a sense of continuity and certainty (Matijevic 2018: 211-35).		Closer investigation of the dynamics of ''vrtičkarstvo'' in times of increased unemployment, poverty and uncertainty (in the late 1980s, the 1990s and again after 2009) suggests that the practice not only balanced off material shortages, but also made up for the lack of progress and social mobility. Working the soil mended the broken model of the good life by supplying a sense of continuity and certainty (Matijevic 2018: 211-35).

	In the years after Slovenia’s secession from Yugoslavia in 1991, ''vrtičkarstvo'' doubled in size (Simoneti 1997). On the one hand, the expansion followed the 1990s economic crisis and the increased number of migrants from former Yugoslavia. On the other, the land-restitution process threw property rights into a temporary limbo, making squatting easier. Media coverage of the spread of the practice acquired a disdainful tone and drew parallels with informal housing settlements (e.g. Bogataj 1999). Since Slovenia joined the EU in 2004, local ideas about Europeanness transformed ''vrtičkarstvo'' into a symbol of dysfunctional governance that characterised Slovenia’s Yugoslav past. Containing ''vrtičkarstvo'' became a key indicator of success of any city administration. Since 2007, the City of Ljubljana has used two techniques to restrain the practice: removals and legalisation.		In the years after Slovenia’s secession from Yugoslavia in 1991, ''vrtičkarstvo'' doubled in size (Simoneti 1997). On the one hand, the expansion followed the 1990s economic crisis and the increased number of migrants from former Yugoslavia. On the other, the land-restitution process threw property rights into a temporary limbo, making [[squatting]] easier. Media coverage of the spread of the practice acquired a disdainful tone and drew parallels with informal housing settlements (e.g. Bogataj 1999). Since Slovenia joined the EU in 2004, local ideas about Europeanness transformed ''vrtičkarstvo'' into a symbol of dysfunctional governance that characterised Slovenia’s Yugoslav past. Containing ''vrtičkarstvo'' became a key indicator of success of any city administration. Since 2007, the City of Ljubljana has used two techniques to restrain the practice: removals and legalisation.

	The area covered by ''vrtički'' has been reduced to its pre-independence levels (Mestna občina Ljubljana 2018) in three steps. First, the local government acquired the land used for ''vrtičkarstvo'' from private owners or from the national state. Officials justified the removals by citing environmental, aesthetic or legal concerns. Second, bulldozers removed plot-holders’ property from the site. In a questionable legal move employed on one occasion, the city authorities instructed trespassers to remove their belongings themselves in order to avoid legal charges. When one such evacuation provoked an organised protest from the ''vrtičkarji'', the news landed on the front page of the national daily (Petkovšek 2008). Third, the city authorities turned to ‘legalising’ ''vrtički'' from 2009, when the Eurozone crisis roused the interest in ''vrtičkarstvo'' and the public agenda of a sustainable economy and green cities started to win EU grants. This last policy recognised ''vrtičkarstvo'' as a form of household-food self-provisioning only (Mestna občina Ljubljana 2018). Implementing it entailed ordering the measuring and harmonising of individual garden-plots, selecting occupiers through an open call, and issuing tenancy agreements.		The area covered by ''vrtički'' has been reduced to its pre-independence levels (Mestna občina Ljubljana 2018) in three steps. First, the local government acquired the land used for ''vrtičkarstvo'' from private owners or from the national state. Officials justified the removals by citing environmental, aesthetic or legal concerns. Second, bulldozers removed plot-holders’ property from the site. In a questionable legal move employed on one occasion, the city authorities instructed trespassers to remove their belongings themselves in order to avoid legal charges. When one such evacuation provoked an organised protest from the ''vrtičkarji'', the news landed on the front page of the national daily (Petkovšek 2008). Third, the city authorities turned to ‘legalising’ ''vrtički'' from 2009, when the Eurozone crisis roused the interest in ''vrtičkarstvo'' and the public agenda of a sustainable economy and green cities started to win EU grants. This last policy recognised ''vrtičkarstvo'' as a form of household-food self-provisioning only (Mestna občina Ljubljana 2018). Implementing it entailed ordering the measuring and harmonising of individual garden-plots, selecting occupiers through an open call, and issuing tenancy agreements.

Admin at 12:04, 10 April 2019

2019-04-10T12:04:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 10 April 2019
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\| location = Slovenia		\| location = Slovenia
	\| imagemap = Slovenia map.png		\| imagemap = Slovenia map.png
	\| categories = [[:Category: ~~food~~\|~~food~~]] – [[:Category: ~~garden~~\| ~~garden~~]] – [[:Category: ~~agriculture~~\| ~~agriculture~~]] – [[:Category: ~~Slovenia~~\| ~~Slovenia~~]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: ~~CEE~~\| ~~CEE~~]] – [[:Category: ~~Yugoslavia~~\| ~~Yugoslavia~~]] – [[:Category: ~~subsistence~~\| ~~subsistence~~]] – [[:Category: ~~governance~~\| ~~governance~~]] – [[:Category: ~~neighbourhood~~\| ~~neighbourhood~~]] – [[:Category: ~~housing~~-estate\| ~~housing~~-estate]] – [[:Category: ~~informal~~ dwelling\| ~~informal~~ dwelling]] – [[:Category: ~~informal~~ welfare\| ~~informal~~ welfare]] – [[:Category: ~~urbanisation~~\| ~~urbanisation~~]] – [[:Category: ~~evasion~~\| ~~evasion~~]]		\| categories = [[:Category: Slovenia\|Slovenia]] – [[:Category: CEE\|CEE]] – [[:Category: Balkans\|Balkans]] – [[:Category: Yugoslavia\|Yugoslavia]] – [[:Category: Europe\|Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\|EU]] – [[:Category: Food\|Food]] – [[:Category: Garden\|Garden]] – [[:Category: Agriculture\|Agriculture]] – [[:Category: Subsistence\|Subsistence]] – [[:Category: Governance\|Governance]] – [[:Category: Neighbourhood\|Neighbourhood]] – [[:Category: Housing-estate\|Housing-estate]] – [[:Category: Informal dwelling\|Informal dwelling]] – [[:Category: Informal welfare\|Informal welfare]] – [[:Category: City\|City]] – [[:Category: Evasion\|Evasion]]
	\| authorofpiece = Petra Matijevic		\| authorofpiece = Petra Matijevic
	\| authorinstitution = School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London		\| authorinstitution = School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London
Line 11:		Line 11:
	}}		}}
	<big>'''By Petra Matijevic, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London'''</big>		<big>'''By Petra Matijevic, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London'''</big>
	[[Category: ~~food~~]] [[Category: ~~garden~~]] [[Category: ~~agriculture~~]] [[Category: ~~Slovenia~~]] [[Category: EU]] [[Category: ~~CEE~~]] [[Category: ~~Yugoslavia~~]] [[Category: ~~subsistence~~]] [[Category: ~~governance~~]] [[Category: ~~neighbourhood~~]] [[Category: ~~housing~~-estate]] [[Category: ~~informal~~ dwelling]] [[Category: ~~informal~~ welfare]] [[Category: ~~urbanisation~~]] [[Category: ~~evasion~~]] [[Category: Entry]] [[Category: 2019 entry]]		[[Category: Slovenia]]
			[[Category: CEE]]
			[[Category: Balkans]]
			[[Category: Yugoslavia]]
			[[Category: Europe]]
			[[Category: EU]]
			[[Category: Food]]
			[[Category: Garden]]
			[[Category: Agriculture]]
			[[Category: Subsistence]]
			[[Category: Governance]]
			[[Category: Neighbourhood]]
			[[Category: Housing-estate]]
			[[Category: Informal dwelling]]
			[[Category: Informal welfare]]
			[[Category: City]]
			[[Category: Evasion]]
			[[Category: Entry]]
			[[Category: 2019 entry]]
			[[Category: SSEES]]

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

Admin at 14:18, 12 March 2019

2019-03-12T14:18:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:18, 12 March 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:
	\| nameofpractice = Vrtičkarstvo		\| nameofpractice = Vrtičkarstvo
	\| flagemoji = 🇸🇮		\| flagemoji = 🇸🇮
	\| definition = ~~establishing~~ and maintaining garden-plots by landless urban households in order to improve welfare		\| definition = Establishing and maintaining garden-plots by landless urban households in order to improve welfare
	\| location = Slovenia		\| location = Slovenia
	\| imagemap = Slovenia map.png		\| imagemap = Slovenia map.png

Admin at 12:42, 12 February 2019

2019-02-12T12:42:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:42, 12 February 2019
Line 10:		Line 10:
	\| website =		\| website =
	}}		}}
	'''''By Petra Matijevic, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London'''''		<big>'''By Petra Matijevic, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London'''</big>
	[[Category: food]] [[Category: garden]] [[Category: agriculture]] [[Category: Slovenia]] [[Category: EU]] [[Category: CEE]] [[Category: Yugoslavia]] [[Category: subsistence]] [[Category: governance]] [[Category: neighbourhood]] [[Category: housing-estate]] [[Category: informal dwelling]] [[Category: informal welfare]] [[Category: urbanisation]] [[Category: evasion]] [[Category: Entry]] [[Category: 2019 entry]]		[[Category: food]] [[Category: garden]] [[Category: agriculture]] [[Category: Slovenia]] [[Category: EU]] [[Category: CEE]] [[Category: Yugoslavia]] [[Category: subsistence]] [[Category: governance]] [[Category: neighbourhood]] [[Category: housing-estate]] [[Category: informal dwelling]] [[Category: informal welfare]] [[Category: urbanisation]] [[Category: evasion]] [[Category: Entry]] [[Category: 2019 entry]]

Admin at 08:22, 8 February 2019

2019-02-08T08:22:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:22, 8 February 2019
Line 49:		Line 49:

	Bogataj, Marjeta. 1999. ‘Zagreti vrtičkarji lope poleti spremenijo v dom’, Finance, 9 April		Bogataj, Marjeta. 1999. ‘Zagreti vrtičkarji lope poleti spremenijo v dom’, Finance, 9 April

	Caldwell, Melissa L. 2011. ''Dacha Idylls: Living Organically in Russia’s Countryside.'' Berkeley: University of California Press		Caldwell, Melissa L. 2011. ''Dacha Idylls: Living Organically in Russia’s Countryside.'' Berkeley: University of California Press

Admin at 11:38, 6 February 2019

2019-02-06T11:38:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:38, 6 February 2019
Line 19:		Line 19:

	The type of land-use analogous to ''vrtiček'' is called an ''allotment'' in the UK, a ''Schrebergarten'' or ''Kleingarten'' in Germany, a ''community garden'' in the USA, a ''działka'' in Poland (Sulima 2000), a ''hobby kert'' in Hungary (Czegledy 2002), a ''bašta'' in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a [[dacha]] in Russia and Belarus (Caldwell 2011, Hervouet 2003, Lovell 2003). The forms of this seemingly universal human activity are locally specific. The practice is contingent upon a number of factors: geographical givens, land-tenure systems and agricultural traditions, rates of rural-urban migration and immigration, formal housing provisions, and economic climates. Urban gardening is contextual and highly adaptive.		The type of land-use analogous to ''vrtiček'' is called an ''allotment'' in the UK, a ''Schrebergarten'' or ''Kleingarten'' in Germany, a ''community garden'' in the USA, a ''działka'' in Poland (Sulima 2000), a ''hobby kert'' in Hungary (Czegledy 2002), a ''bašta'' in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a [[dacha]] in Russia and Belarus (Caldwell 2011, Hervouet 2003, Lovell 2003). The forms of this seemingly universal human activity are locally specific. The practice is contingent upon a number of factors: geographical givens, land-tenure systems and agricultural traditions, rates of rural-urban migration and immigration, formal housing provisions, and economic climates. Urban gardening is contextual and highly adaptive.

			[[File:Vrtickarstvo Ljubljana Slovenia.JPG\|thumb\|300px\|left\|View of a housing estate in Ljubljana from ''vrtički''. Source: Photo by author. © Petra Matijevic.]]

	In contrast to the out-of-town Russian ''dachas'' used as second homes, hundreds of small and dispersed vegetable ''vrtički'' sites can be found within walking distance of housing estates in both the inner city and the outskirts of Ljubljana. The geographic and environmental protection regimes have curbed the rate of urbanisation in Ljubljana and kept farmland within reach of residential zones. In contrast to allotments or ''Schrebergärten, vrtički'' are less likely to be organised by a formally recognised institution. ''Vrtičkarji'' most often cultivate land on the basis of an oral or assumed owner’s consent (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009).		In contrast to the out-of-town Russian ''dachas'' used as second homes, hundreds of small and dispersed vegetable ''vrtički'' sites can be found within walking distance of housing estates in both the inner city and the outskirts of Ljubljana. The geographic and environmental protection regimes have curbed the rate of urbanisation in Ljubljana and kept farmland within reach of residential zones. In contrast to allotments or ''Schrebergärten, vrtički'' are less likely to be organised by a formally recognised institution. ''Vrtičkarji'' most often cultivate land on the basis of an oral or assumed owner’s consent (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009).

	~~[[File:Vrtickarstvo Ljubljana Slovenia.JPG\|thumb\|300px\|left\|View of a housing estate in Ljubljana from ''vrtički''. Source: Photo by author. © Petra Matijevic.]]~~

	''Vrtički'' in Ljubljana can range from a miniature vegetable garden on the side of a railway track to an enclosed plot that houses a second-home cabin. At times, they will serve as temporary first homes for homeless or immigrant urbanites. The majority of garden-sites contain dozens of intensively cultivated horticultural plots, accommodating a small shed, a canopy or a polytunnel. The tight proximity of plots encourages an internal system of governance, associated with supervision by an informal gatekeeper, commitment to hard work, the tidy appearance of the plot, a sense of accountability to your immediate neighbours, and the use of gossip as social bond and corrective (Matijevic 2018: 128-59).		''Vrtički'' in Ljubljana can range from a miniature vegetable garden on the side of a railway track to an enclosed plot that houses a second-home cabin. At times, they will serve as temporary first homes for homeless or immigrant urbanites. The majority of garden-sites contain dozens of intensively cultivated horticultural plots, accommodating a small shed, a canopy or a polytunnel. The tight proximity of plots encourages an internal system of governance, associated with supervision by an informal gatekeeper, commitment to hard work, the tidy appearance of the plot, a sense of accountability to your immediate neighbours, and the use of gossip as social bond and corrective (Matijevic 2018: 128-59).

Admin at 12:14, 4 February 2019

2019-02-04T12:14:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 4 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| In Slovenian cities, ''vrtičkarstvo'' is the practice of establishing and maintaining household garden plots, detached from the main place of residence. ''Vrtički'' (singular ''vrtiček''), meaning small gardens, are tended by residents of housing-estates or lodgers in urban family homes. ''Vrtičkarji'' (singular ''vrtičkar'', female ''vrtičkarica'', ''vrtičkarka'') do not have regular access to farmland or a second home and either formally rent or informally take over a plot of land. Surveys suggest that 5 percent of all Ljubljanans (residents of Slovenian capital) keep an urban plot (Jamnik et al. 2009). Gardeners cultivate land of 50 to 500 square meters, temporarily or long-term, as formal members of an association or through an informal agreement with fellow gardeners. The diminutive term ''vrtiček'' (compare with ''vrt'' for garden, and ''vrtnar, vrtnarica'' for gardener) implies an amateur or inconsequential nature of the practice. Such a name, however, disguises its vital social role.		\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| In Slovenian cities, ''vrtičkarstvo'' is the practice of establishing and maintaining household garden plots, detached from the main place of residence. ''Vrtički'' (singular ''vrtiček''), meaning small gardens, are tended by residents of housing-estates or lodgers in urban family homes. ''Vrtičkarji'' (singular ''vrtičkar'', female ''vrtičkarica'', ''vrtičkarka'') do not have regular access to farmland or a second home and either formally rent or informally take over a plot of land. Surveys suggest that 5 percent of all Ljubljanans (residents of Slovenian capital) keep an urban plot (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009). Gardeners cultivate land of 50 to 500 square meters, temporarily or long-term, as formal members of an association or through an informal agreement with fellow gardeners. The diminutive term ''vrtiček'' (compare with ''vrt'' for garden, and ''vrtnar, vrtnarica'' for gardener) implies an amateur or inconsequential nature of the practice. Such a name, however, disguises its vital social role.
	\|}		\|}

	The type of land-use analogous to ''vrtiček'' is called an ''allotment'' in the UK, a ''Schrebergarten'' or ''Kleingarten'' in Germany, a ''community garden'' in the USA, a ''działka'' in Poland (Sulima 2000), a ''hobby kert'' in Hungary (Czegledy 2002), a ''bašta'' in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a [[dacha]] in Russia and Belarus (Caldwell 2011, Hervouet 2003, Lovell 2003). The forms of this seemingly universal human activity are locally specific. The practice is contingent upon a number of factors: geographical givens, land-tenure systems and agricultural traditions, rates of rural-urban migration and immigration, formal housing provisions, and economic climates. Urban gardening is contextual and highly adaptive.		The type of land-use analogous to ''vrtiček'' is called an ''allotment'' in the UK, a ''Schrebergarten'' or ''Kleingarten'' in Germany, a ''community garden'' in the USA, a ''działka'' in Poland (Sulima 2000), a ''hobby kert'' in Hungary (Czegledy 2002), a ''bašta'' in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a [[dacha]] in Russia and Belarus (Caldwell 2011, Hervouet 2003, Lovell 2003). The forms of this seemingly universal human activity are locally specific. The practice is contingent upon a number of factors: geographical givens, land-tenure systems and agricultural traditions, rates of rural-urban migration and immigration, formal housing provisions, and economic climates. Urban gardening is contextual and highly adaptive.

	In contrast to the out-of-town Russian ''dachas'' used as second homes, hundreds of small and dispersed vegetable ''vrtički'' sites can be found within walking distance of housing estates in both the inner city and the outskirts of Ljubljana. The geographic and environmental protection regimes have curbed the rate of urbanisation in Ljubljana and kept farmland within reach of residential zones. In contrast to allotments or ''Schrebergärten, vrtički'' are less likely to be organised by a formally recognised institution. ''Vrtičkarji'' most often cultivate land on the basis of an oral or assumed owner’s consent (Jamnik et al. 2009).		In contrast to the out-of-town Russian ''dachas'' used as second homes, hundreds of small and dispersed vegetable ''vrtički'' sites can be found within walking distance of housing estates in both the inner city and the outskirts of Ljubljana. The geographic and environmental protection regimes have curbed the rate of urbanisation in Ljubljana and kept farmland within reach of residential zones. In contrast to allotments or ''Schrebergärten, vrtički'' are less likely to be organised by a formally recognised institution. ''Vrtičkarji'' most often cultivate land on the basis of an oral or assumed owner’s consent (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009).

	[[File:Vrtickarstvo Ljubljana Slovenia.JPG\|thumb\|300px\|left\|View of a housing estate in Ljubljana from ''vrtički''. Source: Photo by author. © Petra Matijevic.]]		[[File:Vrtickarstvo Ljubljana Slovenia.JPG\|thumb\|300px\|left\|View of a housing estate in Ljubljana from ''vrtički''. Source: Photo by author. © Petra Matijevic.]]
Line 42:		Line 42:
	These formal procedures have replaced the informal organisation of gardening-sites and impeded the distribution of available plots. They have pushed ''vrtičkarstvo'' further into the corner: out of the public view, behind tall hedges, between tall buildings, into less populated areas. To hinder municipal attempts to identify, contact or close ''vrtičkarji'', garden-supervisors on the remaining informal sites engage strictly in person-to-person contacts when considering new applicants, collecting rents or settling disputes.		These formal procedures have replaced the informal organisation of gardening-sites and impeded the distribution of available plots. They have pushed ''vrtičkarstvo'' further into the corner: out of the public view, behind tall hedges, between tall buildings, into less populated areas. To hinder municipal attempts to identify, contact or close ''vrtičkarji'', garden-supervisors on the remaining informal sites engage strictly in person-to-person contacts when considering new applicants, collecting rents or settling disputes.

	Academic approaches to urban gardening and urban policies rarely see eye to eye. Researchers understand the practice as an indicator of broader trends and social issues, yet tend to disregard the multipurpose nature of urban gardening. Narrow comparative analyses of local forms often fail to capture the social role of the practice. To illustrate, Alber and Kohler conclude, on the basis of the reported harvest-size alone, that the more productive gardeners in Eastern Europe grow vegetables out of poverty, while their Western European counterparts cultivate gardens as a hobby (2008). While surveys and (historical) aerial photography (Jamnik et al. 2009) are valuable for assessing the spread of the practice, figuring out the particular urban problems to which the practice responds is best achieved with (auto-)ethnography and life histories (Caldwell 2011; Smith and Jehlička 2013; Matijevic 2018). In contrast, local governments are more likely to treat urban gardening either as a problem in itself, or as a publicly-administered panacea that can ameliorate any formal deficiency. What such approaches have in common is that they overlook the ambivalence of urban gardening – it is as much an urban problem as it is a solution. The challenge for policy, then, is to recognise urban gardening as a shadow companion to urbanisation and modernity and thus as a factor to include in formal policy-thinking.		Academic approaches to urban gardening and urban policies rarely see eye to eye. Researchers understand the practice as an indicator of broader trends and social issues, yet tend to disregard the multipurpose nature of urban gardening. Narrow comparative analyses of local forms often fail to capture the social role of the practice. To illustrate, Alber and Kohler conclude, on the basis of the reported harvest-size alone, that the more productive gardeners in Eastern Europe grow vegetables out of poverty, while their Western European counterparts cultivate gardens as a hobby (2008). While surveys and (historical) aerial photography (Jamnik ''et al.'' 2009) are valuable for assessing the spread of the practice, figuring out the particular urban problems to which the practice responds is best achieved with (auto-)ethnography and life histories (Caldwell 2011; Smith and Jehlička 2013; Matijevic 2018). In contrast, local governments are more likely to treat urban gardening either as a problem in itself, or as a publicly-administered panacea that can ameliorate any formal deficiency. What such approaches have in common is that they overlook the ambivalence of urban gardening – it is as much an urban problem as it is a solution. The challenge for policy, then, is to recognise urban gardening as a shadow companion to urbanisation and modernity and thus as a factor to include in formal policy-thinking.

	==References==		==References==

Admin at 18:40, 24 January 2019

2019-01-24T18:40:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 24 January 2019
Line 21:		Line 21:

	In contrast to the out-of-town Russian ''dachas'' used as second homes, hundreds of small and dispersed vegetable ''vrtički'' sites can be found within walking distance of housing estates in both the inner city and the outskirts of Ljubljana. The geographic and environmental protection regimes have curbed the rate of urbanisation in Ljubljana and kept farmland within reach of residential zones. In contrast to allotments or ''Schrebergärten, vrtički'' are less likely to be organised by a formally recognised institution. ''Vrtičkarji'' most often cultivate land on the basis of an oral or assumed owner’s consent (Jamnik et al. 2009).		In contrast to the out-of-town Russian ''dachas'' used as second homes, hundreds of small and dispersed vegetable ''vrtički'' sites can be found within walking distance of housing estates in both the inner city and the outskirts of Ljubljana. The geographic and environmental protection regimes have curbed the rate of urbanisation in Ljubljana and kept farmland within reach of residential zones. In contrast to allotments or ''Schrebergärten, vrtički'' are less likely to be organised by a formally recognised institution. ''Vrtičkarji'' most often cultivate land on the basis of an oral or assumed owner’s consent (Jamnik et al. 2009).

			[[File:Vrtickarstvo Ljubljana Slovenia.JPG\|thumb\|300px\|left\|View of a housing estate in Ljubljana from ''vrtički''. Source: Photo by author. © Petra Matijevic.]]

	''Vrtički'' in Ljubljana can range from a miniature vegetable garden on the side of a railway track to an enclosed plot that houses a second-home cabin. At times, they will serve as temporary first homes for homeless or immigrant urbanites. The majority of garden-sites contain dozens of intensively cultivated horticultural plots, accommodating a small shed, a canopy or a polytunnel. The tight proximity of plots encourages an internal system of governance, associated with supervision by an informal gatekeeper, commitment to hard work, the tidy appearance of the plot, a sense of accountability to your immediate neighbours, and the use of gossip as social bond and corrective (Matijevic 2018: 128-59).		''Vrtički'' in Ljubljana can range from a miniature vegetable garden on the side of a railway track to an enclosed plot that houses a second-home cabin. At times, they will serve as temporary first homes for homeless or immigrant urbanites. The majority of garden-sites contain dozens of intensively cultivated horticultural plots, accommodating a small shed, a canopy or a polytunnel. The tight proximity of plots encourages an internal system of governance, associated with supervision by an informal gatekeeper, commitment to hard work, the tidy appearance of the plot, a sense of accountability to your immediate neighbours, and the use of gossip as social bond and corrective (Matijevic 2018: 128-59).