Encouraging Inclusivity in Community Gardens
by Wong Hui Ying, Intern, CLC
Aim
The aim of this piece of research is to examine community gardening in the broader
international context, as well as how Singapore’s Community in Bloom programme has helped
encourage a sense of ownership among communities, and how this objective has been impacted
by certain unintended behaviours such as the fencing up of gardens. In particular, the issues of
how community gardens perform as community spaces, and how they can serve as platforms
for other non-gardening related programmes to encourage inclusivity will be examined.
Process
This study will look at the concept of community gardening as understood in the international
context, and then narrow it down to community gardening in Singapore, with specific focus on
the Community in Bloom (CIB) programme and a case study of a community garden in
Tampines, to provide context for the Reimagining Tampines project.
The approach to this study is as follows:
1. Literature review on community gardens – Understanding of community gardens in the
international context was gained by examining the development of community gardens
in various countries/cities1.
2. Understanding of CIB programme in Singapore – Information on the CIB programme
was gathered primarily from a case study report prepared by the Centre for Governance
and Leadership, as well as the the National Parks Board (NParks) website. Interviews
and on-site observations will also provide information specific to community gardening
and CIB in Tampines.
3. Conducting interviews with involved parties – Interviewing representatives from
NParks and Tampines residents (both those involved and not involved in CIB) will help
glean insights on both the successes and challenges faced by the CIB programme as a
whole, and the perceptions that the Tampines community may have of community
gardens.
4. International scans – Some further analysis of community gardening case studies in
other countries will be used to understand the purposes and benefits of community
gardens in these contexts. In particular, social impacts and community building will be
more closely examined. Their experiences can also be used to understand the various
ways community gardens have developed and challenges that community gardens in
Singapore might face, or provide solutions for present and/or future problems.
1
Case studies will come from the US, UK, Australia, Taipei and Seoul.
1
Drivers for Research
1. The need to reflect on the development of community gardens in Singapore – With the
number of community gardens in Singapore increasing rapidly since the launch of the
CIB programme in 2005, there is a need to take stock of its progress so far. This includes
examining areas where it has succeeded, as well as emerging issues, so that solutions
can be sought.
2. As the CIB programme grows, possible current issues need to be identified so that the
appropriate steps and measures can be taken to address them – One of the benefits
attributed to community gardens is that they are seen as an avenue through which a
sense of ownership to the wider community can be developed. However, based on
preliminary observations, other issues, such as territorial behaviour over the gardens
through the putting up of fences, have surfaced, inhibiting the development of this sense
of communal ownership. Therefore, there is a need to pinpoint what some of these
emerging issues are and examine the reasons behind them so that they can be addressed
accordingly.
2
Introduction
This report aims to examine the development of community gardens across different
contexts, and then focuses on the Community in Bloom (CIB) programme in Singapore, to see
how community gardens have contributed to one of the programme’s objectives of building
community by helping people develop a sense of place and ownership. However, as this has
been impacted by certain behaviour such as the use of fences, this report will scrutinise how
community gardens can become more effective community spaces spatially, as well as through
programmes, where the gardens serve as platforms for other non-gardening related community
activities. A community garden in Tampines, Starlight Harmony Garden, will be used as a case
study to examine the problem of fences. Proposed ideas to improve the garden as a community
space will be based on the experiences of case studies from the United States, United Kingdom,
Australia, Seoul and Taipei, along with other community gardens in Singapore.
Overview of Community Gardens
"Community gardening is a holistic activity. It engages people at many levels—
it provides food and flowers, it's healthy, outdoor exercise, it connects people
with nature and it builds communities by bringing people together."
– Sean Cosgrove, an urban planner in Toronto (Cameron, 2015)
As the world becomes increasingly urbanised and city life takes over, engagement with
nature becomes increasingly limited and discouraged (Holland, 2004). In response, Alex Wilson,
a Canadian landscape designer, community activist and writer advocated the building of
“landscapes that heal, connect and empower, that make intelligent our relations with each other
and with the natural world” (Irvine et al., 1999: p.35). Such a landscape can be embodied in the
form of community gardens, which have been spreading across cities in various parts of the
globe. A community garden can be broadly defined as a “piece of land gardened by a group of
people, utilising either individual or shared plots on private or public land” (UCANR, 2015).
Community gardens can serve a range of purposes and benefits, with the specific
purposes served and challenges faced by an individual community garden varying, often shaped
by the characteristics of the community around it. Benefits provided include the ability to grow
food, for recreation, social interaction, self-reliance, empowerment or aesthetic improvement
(Schmelzkopf, 1995). All these contribute to the development of community capital, which
consists of human, social, ecological and economic capital (Hancock, 2001). In particular, social
capital “relates to the resources available within communities in networks of mutual support,
reciprocity and trust” (Edwards, 2004: p.5); it constitutes the ‘glue’ that holds communities
together and has both informal aspects related to social networks and formal aspects related to
social development programmes. Community gardens contribute to social capital as it is
through a cohesive social network that these gardens are created, organised and managed
(Hancock, 2001).
As the focus of this study is on the social aspect of building community and sense of
ownership through community gardens, this element will be the main benefit scrutinised in this
paper. This ‘sense of ownership’ usually develops from a sense of place and attachment to a
community space, which then leads individuals to feel they have a greater stake in a public
amenity and thus value these spaces more (Conceicao, 2010). For example, in public housing
located in dense urban neighbourhoods, a sense of ownership towards otherwise
3
undifferentiated public space can be generated through community gardens (Designing Healthy
Communities, 2010).
3. The Community in Bloom programme
The CIB programme was launched in May 2005 as part of a shift to a more participatory
approach of governance, encouraging Singaporeans to become more involved in their
community, and in this case, by getting them more involved through gardening efforts
(Conceicao, 2010). CIB is a nationwide gardening movement that “aims to foster a community
spirit and bring together residents, both young and old, to make Singapore our garden”. From its
humble beginnings that started with a pilot test in Mayfair Park estate, the programme has now
grown to more than 850 community gardens today, engaging over 20,000 gardeners from HDB
estates, private housing estates, schools and organisations (NParks, 2015a). Further details on
the CIB programme can be found in Annex A.
Setting up a garden in a HDB estate
Due to the focus of this study on community gardens located in the HDB estates of
Tampines, this section will focus on how residents may set up a CIB garden in HDB estates (see
chart in Figure 1 also). Those interested in starting a CIB garden can do so in three simple steps:
1. Gather like-minded participants. The number of residents to form the gardening group
is recommended to be at least five people, though this is dependent on the garden size.
2. Approach their Residents’ Committee (RC) to obtain approval and support for the
project.
3. Contact NParks, who will help to determine a suitable site for the garden, plan the
garden layout, get gardening tips, and connect with other gardening groups. These
forms of support will help to facilitate the learning process.
Beyond these steps, NParks provides guidance and advice according to the needs of the
community garden and the community, in order to help them ensure the long-term
sustainability of the garden and aims of the programme are met (Conceicao, 2010). Selection of
a suitable site for the garden is done in consultation with HDB and the Town Councils, ensuring
that the approved lands do not have any foreseeable use in the near future, and thus available
for gardening until future development arises. In addition, there are HDB guidelines for Town
Councils that address safety and rights of use for approved land. The entire process from
inception to construction of the community garden takes approximately three months (NParks,
2015b).
4
Figure 1 How gardens are set up in HDB estates (Source: NParks)
Tampines Starlight Harmony Garden
Tampines Starlight Harmony Garden (henceforth Starlight Garden), is one of 32 public
HDB estate CIB gardens located in Tampines. Started in 2008 under Starlight RC, it is located at
the base of Block 718, Tampines Street 72 (see Figure 2). It is an award-winning CIB garden and
has been featured in multiple publications, as well as in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s
5
National Day Rally 2015. Being such a decorated garden, it also regularly hosts both local and
international visitors from various countries and organisations.
Figure 2 Location Map of Tampines Starlight Harmony Garden (marked in black circle)
Starlight Garden is managed by approximately eight gardeners, headed by Team Leader
Mr Ismail, with about three to four gardeners tending it on a regular basis. This is a decrease
from more than 10 gardeners when Starlight Garden first started. Gardeners spoken to started
gardening due to their involvement in the RC, which exposed them to the enjoyment and
benefits of the activity. Daily maintenance of watering and weeding is usually carried out by two
main gardeners, Mr Zuhir and Mdm Habibah. Before major occasions, more gardeners are
enlisted to help get the garden ready. Due to instances of stealing of produce when the garden
first opened without fences, the gardeners petitioned to their Member of Parliament (MP) to
have fences installed (photo in Figure 3), with the cost of the fences subsequently borne by the
Town Council. Nonetheless, residents can request for produce from the garden, such as pandan
leaves, curry leaves or chillis.
Annex B contains further details on Starlight Garden.
6
Figure 3 Starlight Harmony Garden with fences and locked gate (photo by researcher).
Benefits of the CIB Programme
Health benefits
By encouraging gardening, the CIB programme has provided participants with an
avenue for regular exercise that is not too strenuous, which is especially beneficial for the
elderly, who can develop stronger bones and muscles through such low-impact physical
activities. It also helps to combat mental degeneration and onset of dementia by stimulating the
mind and improving memory. As the gardeners plan their gardens and have to decide on the
size of the garden and what plants to have, their creativity, logical thinking and imagination is
enhanced. These health benefits were reflected in interviews with the Starlight gardeners, who
told of physical rejuvenation through gardening. In addition, herbs grown in the garden could be
harvested for consumption to boost one’s health.
Visual aesthetics
Community gardens also add beauty to its surroundings (NParks, 2014), as illustrated
by comments made by residents living near Starlight Garden, describing it as “nice”,
“interesting”, and “probably the best in Tampines [he’s] seen”. Additionally, it provides nice
views of greenery for units above the garden. According to Mr Ismail, visitors to the garden have
expressed that it is a landscape with a rustic feel along with urban nature. Due to edibles being
grown in the garden, residents also often request for chillis, pandan, henna or curry leaves,
rather than having to buy them.
Educational opportunities
The community gardens have also been useful platforms for educating the young and
surrounding community about the environment and various plants in the garden, as well as
exposing them to gardening as an activity. In some neighbourhoods, learning trails are
conducted to raise awareness of and educate nearby residents on the community gardens, or
are utilised by schools to teach students about plants, exemplified by collaboration between
7
Starlight Garden and Poi Ching School. As part of this collaboration, students came down to the
garden every Wednesday to garden and learn about the plants grown there. Unfortunately, this
was ended following the dengue outbreak in 2013 and subsequent concerns about the haze. Mr
Ismail also shares his experiences from participation at various events, such the World Orchid
Conference and Singapore Garden Festival, with the wider community. Community gardens in
other parts of the island are also able to learn from the expertise of Starlight Garden through
Learning Journeys conducted by the Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology (CUGE) and
NParks, or visit the garden to learn how to start their own community garden.
Community building
In order to ensure that CIB would take on a truly bottom-up approach and be a
community-led initiative, NParks let the people and organisations take the lead in making
decisions about their gardens, only guiding and advising where necessary. As the residents
worked together to make the garden possible, neighbours that previously hardly spoke to one
another got the opportunity to build relationships and bond. These relationships are not limited
to within a neighbourhood or community garden – as gardeners meet during CIB events such as
the Singapore Garden Festival, or visit other gardens to exchange ideas or help other
communities set up their new gardens, friendships between gardeners that would otherwise
not meet are forged. This was illustrated during the Community Garden Festival 2015, where
the community gardeners mingled together freely and gardeners from opposite ends of the
island joked with each other. Within companies, such as Singapore Technologies Kinetics,
community gardens encourage staff to interact across various departments and outside their
immediate teams.
In addition, garden parties can also encourage residents to enjoy the garden and interact
with other residents. One resident living near Starlight Garden described how he only got to
know several of the gardeners, including Mdm Habibah through one of the garden events two
years ago, despite having been a resident for the past 15 years. Gardens can also have open
houses that invite non-gardeners in, making the gardens more inclusive. During these open
houses, people get the opportunity to see what the garden does, as well as buy some of the
plants grown there. In gardens in the Southwest District, garden parties were organised as part
of SG50 celebrations, where senior citizens were invited to come and do craft and interact with
the gardeners. This was done in the hope that the senior citizens would recognise the gardens
as a place where they can mingle with other residents. In Punggol, the community garden is also
used as a social gathering space, where karaoke sessions are held and the needy or elderly can
enjoy social services such as haircuts provided by other residents. The use of community
gardens as platforms for activities apart from gardening has also been illustrated by more RCs
now creating sitting spaces in their gardens for people to sit and enjoy the garden.
Mosques have also utilised community gardens as an extension to reach out to the
community. Seeing the benefits of community gardening, MUIS (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura)
created incentives for mosques to work with NParks to start gardens, with three-quarters of
mosques now having community gardens. The wider community is also involved as nonMuslims ask questions about or help out in the gardens. For example, at Al-Iman Mosque, nonMuslims stop to ask about certain plants when they walk past the garden.
8
Such activities illustrate the wealth of opportunities opened up for interaction between
residents, making community gardens good places for inter-generational and inter-racial
bonding, as well as teaching the both the older and younger generation new skills. Community
building has been illustrated through an increase in graciousness and sharing as residents
shared the harvests from their gardens, or helped each other look after their gardens if they
were away. As related by Mr Ng Cheow Kheng (Director, Horticulture and Community
Gardening Division),
“What I see in gardening, somehow as you care for the plant, take care of the
plant, take care of the environment, help to beautify the environment, people
tend to be more gracious. This spirit of giving, goes together with how when you
plant the first seed, as you see the thing grow and blossom, then you have more
than what you can take, so you begin to share. So I think that it did generate this
spirit of giving.”
Potential Future Developments
As of the writing of this report, NParks is at a preliminary stage of working with HDB to
draft a new set of guidelines for the setting up of community gardens that aims to improve
garden sustainability through appropriate garden design and infrastructure for the Town
Councils’ consideration. In the new guidelines, gardens will also be encouraged to have
designated spaces for mingling and place-making so that those not directly involved in the
garden can still easily access at least part of the garden to enjoy it.
Issues Faced in Community Gardens
Perimeter fencing
Reasons for fences
In many community gardens, especially those located in HDB estates, the stealing of
garden harvests and vandalism have resulted in the putting up of fences and gates that are often
locked, such as at Starlight Garden. When asked, Mr Ng noted that most of the time, these fences
were put up due to local issues and had to be looked at on a case by case basis. For example, in
Bukit Panjang, high fences were constructed to keep monkeys out, rather than people. He also
defended the locking of the gardens when there are no gardeners around, as if it was left open
all the time, people were likely to take things, which is especially risky where rare or expensive
plants are grown. In many instances, the fences also served a primary purpose of being used as
a perimeter that demarcated an area of responsibility.
Impact of fencing
However, despite these reasons, fences are likely to inhibit the effectiveness of
community gardens as a community space. This is due to the fact that fences act as a barrier that
prevents activities from easily flowing across the perimeter of the garden, as it separates
functions and groups that differ from one another, in this case the gardeners and nongardeners. Additionally, as a type of community space, the gardens should be inviting and easily
accessible, thereby encouraging people and activities to move from the private to public
environment. However, sharply demarcated borders, such as fences, could make it difficult to
move into the community space and act as a barrier that might cause a decrease in the amount
9
of social activity and contact made between gardeners and the rest of the community (Gehl,
2011). As a result, members of the community are less likely to benefit from the place-making
process facilitated by the community garden and develop a sense of ownership to the area.
This problem is illustrated by the situation faced at Starlight Garden, which is only open
when the gardeners are around watering the plants and carrying out other maintenance. Any
visits to the garden are typically by appointment only, though the key to the garden is held by
the RC manager, who can open the garden for residents if requested. While this information is
currently not publicised to the residents, resulting in them only being able to enjoy the garden
from the outside, Mr Zuhir mentioned that there are plans to put up a signboard to inform the
residents of this. While that will hopefully improve the accessibility of the garden for residents,
the current ease of access to the garden may be hampering engagement of the residents,
possibly contributing to poor attendance of community garden events. In addition, based on
interviews with residents, the shortage of volunteers in the garden could be due to reasons such
as residents not feeling any ownership towards the garden or are unaware of manpower needs.
Possible solutions for fencing
While there are no examples of gardens that were originally fenced up and the fences
have subsequently been taken down, there are several gardens that are fenceless, and
extensions of fenced gardens do not have fences around them. Examples of fenceless, or open
concept, gardens include those managed by Moulmein Goldhill NC (Figure 4) or Zhenghua
Jelapang RC (more details below under Jelapang Farmville Garden). NParks is also looking into
alternatives to fences in order to make community gardens more effective community spaces,
such as encouraging gardens to shift to low fences or espalier2 as a perimeter marker. These will
hopefully be less of a barrier that deters residents from entering the garden as it becomes a
more transitional boundary compared to fences, functioning as a link and making the garden
more inviting (Gehl, 2011). They also have the added benefit of being more aesthetically
pleasing, along with the fact that the elderly can easily harvest from the espalier fruit trees. To
prevent stealing, a community garden trail in Bukit Panjang has responded by planting a stretch
of pandan plants for people to harvest, as an act of inclusivity and to counter stealing through
the mindset of abundance. Finally, to counter the visual effect of the fences, gardeners are
encouraged to dress up their fences with plants to soften the edge.
2
Espalier is the term used to describe the process of training trees, shrubs, and woody vines against a flat
surface, such as a wall. You can also train them to a freestanding fence or trellis (BHG, 2015).
10
Figure 4 Community garden by Moulmein Goldhill NC (Picture from: NParks (2014: p.95))
Other issues
Apart from fences, community gardens face some other issues such as complaints from
residents who feel the community gardens spoil the look of the neighbourhood and make it look
like a farm, sometimes even taking it up with their MP. Accusations and instances of mosquito
breeding are also common. For example, Starlight Garden, often faces complaints from residents
who fear that it is breeding mosquitoes, especially during dengue season. The garden has also
been summoned by the National Environment Agency (NEA) for mosquito breeding. During the
visit to the garden, when asked about the mosquito problem, Mr Zuhir mentioned that NEA
regularly fumigates the area. Despite this, large numbers of mosquitoes were still observed.
To mitigate these issues, NParks encourages gardeners to try and beautify the estate, do
their housekeeping properly and grow ornamentals rather than only edibles. Over the years,
this helped the non-gardeners to see the benefits as well, especially as gardeners shared their
harvests, eventually winning over many neighbours and bringing about good neighbourliness. It
should also be noted that many of the complaints were often linked to underlying issues rather
than the gardens itself, with mostly isolated incidents between neighbours, especially in landed
properties.
Learning From Other Community Gardens
This section will examine the experiences of other community gardens from abroad and
locally, looking at how they have helped to build community through the development of a
sense of place and ownership. Their performance as community spaces that encourage
inclusivity both in terms of their spatial arrangements as well as being platforms for other nongardening related community activities will also be studied. Further details on these case
studies can be found in Annex C.
11
The United States
Community gardens in the US have historically been linked to food production during
the World Wars (Murphy (1991) as cited in Armstrong (2000)), and were a source of
employment during the Great Depression (Armstrong, 2000). Today, community gardening is
generally conducted by growing produce on shared lots that have been divided into smaller
plots of land for each household, who usually pay a small fee. The activity is actively promoted
by various programmes and organisations, including the Green Guerrillas, who are well-known
for first advocating community gardening in New York City (Lee, 2015), or the Seattle P-Patch
programme, the largest municipally managed community gardening programme in the US (Lee,
2015), where some gardens have served as community spaces where local and immigrant
residents have the opportunity to socialise and form inter-cultural friendships (Lien, 2015).
In a community garden located in Denver, Colorado, it was found that the garden
facilitated a variety of social processes, including the creation of social connections, reciprocity
that eventually extended beyond garden activities, development of mutual trust, collective
decision-making and conflict resolution, establishment of social norms, civic engagement, and
community building. However, some also described mistrust towards those outside the garden
due to issues such as theft of produce or tools and vandalism. As residents participated in the
garden, they also experienced an increased sense of community and belonging, as the garden
provided them with something to which they could belong. The community garden also acted as
a catalyst for wider activity in the neighbourhood, with events organised by the garden
including community work days, potlucks and harvest festivals where the whole neighbourhood
was invited. This enabled more people to come into contact with the garden, and provided the
opportunity for gardeners and non-gardeners to interact, thereby strengthening the
neighbourhood and community (Teig et al., 2009).
The United Kingdom
Community gardens have served as an important source of food for residents of the
United Kingdom (UK) for hundreds of years, including the use of community allotments to
provide affordable and fresh produce to a local area during World War II (BBC, 2014). The
contemporary gardening movement was started in the late 1960s as green spaces in cities
regained interest. A key actor in the community gardening scene is the Royal Horticultural
Society (RHS), a gardening charity that promotes gardening through various activities, including
international flower shows such as the Chelsea flower show (RHS, 2015b), and campaigns such
as ‘Britain in Bloom’ and ‘It’s Your Neighbourhood’ (IYN). Britain in Bloom is a nation-wide
competition between communities, where they display achievements in environmental
responsibility community participation, and horticultural skills. In contrast, IYN is a noncompetitive scheme for community groups that want to make local areas greener, offering
advice and awarding certificates of achievement instead.
One of the greatest social benefits of the Britain in Bloom and IYN campaigns was that of
building community, where many individuals came together, and even met, for the first time, as
they worked on a community horticulture project. As people from different parts of the
community spent time together, the gardens became hubs for social activities and community
events, and greater understanding and trust was built across social boundaries, be it
12
generational, religious or ethnic. Participating in the campaign also increased civic pride, and
due to the pride built up and changes seen, people’s aspirations for their area increased.
Australia
In Australia, the emergence of community gardens was also linked to war and food
shortages in the early 20th century (Jackson, 2015). Recent interest in community gardening
started in Victoria in the mid- to late-1970s, with the establishment of a garden in Nunawadding
in 1977 (Thompson et al., 2007). Today, there are nation-wide gardening organisations
promoting the activity, such as the community-based Australian Community Gardens Network
that links up people who are interested in city farming and community gardening (ACFCGN,
2015).
The transformative social impacts of community gardening can be witnessed in
Waterloo. Consisting of three gardens, it works on an individual allotment basis where
individuals can determine what to plant. Due to the diverse ethnic mix of the community, there
was a culture of social isolation, where tenants rarely spoke to their neighbours with barriers
between residents common. However, with the introduction of the community gardens, as
people participated in gardening, activity was brought into a communal area, cultural barriers
were broken down and stereotypes challenged, resulting in people starting to talk to one
another and the forging of friendships. Consequently, an increased sense of belonging was also
generated. Due to the visibility of the gardens, the wider estate community also benefited as it
created opportunities for conversation and helped to dissipate barriers across cultures and
generations, serving as a platform for community-wide activities such as annual multi-cultural
community garden lunches (Thompson et al., 2007).
Taipei, Taiwan
In Taipei, community gardens appear in degenerated, neglected or sleeping areas of the
city (P2P Foundation, 2010). Recently, the community gardening movement gained more formal
endorsement by the city government, with bids to encourage citizens to transform idle spaces
on rooftops and in community areas into vegetable gardens (Liao et al., 2014), or the
organisation of agricultural events to promote community gardening (CNA, 2014).
Unlike previously mentioned case studies, community gardening in Taiwan has evolved
slightly differently, focusing more on providing the individual with an avenue to relieve stress
and get away from busy urban life, rather than to build community. In some cases, people can
only use a plot for a limited period of time, due to the high demand for and shortage of available
plots. For example, in a new community garden organised by the Taipei city government, where
a disused soccer stadium is being transformed into an open air leisure farm, the community can
farm at a plot for only about two months, and are expected to spend at least two hours each
week tending to their plot (CNA, 2014; United Daily News, 2014). Nevertheless, community
gardens burgeoning in the city have begun to bring together people with a common interest in
gardening, initiating a place-making process and building of a sense of community as strangers
get to know one another (Lien, 2015).
13
Seoul, South Korea
Seoul has had a long history of urban agriculture, such as the many kitchen gardens
around in the Chosun Dynasty (1394-1910) (Levenston, 2013), with the relatively recent and
rapid urbanisation of South Korea has meaning agriculture is still engrained in the older
generations’ way of life. Food scares in 2006 and 2010 also sparked citizens’ interest in urban
agriculture in the interest of food security and sustainability (Lee, 2013), contributing to the
development of a culture of urban agriculture (Burnette, 2015). However, many urban farms
are located on the outskirts of the city, making them difficult to frequent. Therefore, in April
2015, the local government launched a series of initiatives to promote and facilitate community
gardening, including a US$46 million plan to transform unused spaces in schools, parks and
apartment rooftops for urban farming. This involves establishing 1,800 urban vegetable gardens
within a 10-minute walking distance from all homes in the capital by 2018, as well as an online
integrated system for exchange of information and an open market for agricultural products
(Arirang, 2015). Such urban agriculture is expected to become an influential solution for
community revitalisation in Seoul (Levenston, 2013).
However, not all community garden projects turn out well. One such community garden
project took place on the abandoned Nodeul Island, where the plan was to create a sense of
community through eco-friendly projects such as vegetable farms. However, five months after
the start of the project, the gardens operated by communities were barren except for weeds.
Visitor numbers also decreased due to a lack of consistent programmes (Lee, 2014), illustrating
the importance of good organisation and planning, as well as responsible gardeners, to ensure
the success and sustainability of a community garden.
Jelapang Farmville Garden
Jelapang Farmville Garden is a fenceless CIB garden located in Bukit Panjang (photos in
Figure 5). The garden, which works on an allotment system where more regular gardeners get
larger plots, was started in 2013 by Mr Kelvin Wu, a grassroots leader. He had the intention of
making the community garden a focal point for people to come together to enjoy gardening as a
group. There are three objectives for Jelapang Farmville:
1. Empower the community to beautify the common area, encouraging a sense of belonging
and community ownership.
2. Re-live the "Kampong Spirit", where residents not only know one another, but care for each
other.
3. Gearing towards community and social graciousness.
In order to achieve these objectives, Mr Wu felt that it was important to do away with fences, as
it encourages bonding and ensures the garden is not exclusive. This move has enabled Jelapang
Farmville to be a place where nursery schools bring students to visit, primary school students
do homework, and residents sit around to enjoy drinks, illustrating it as an accessible
community space where residents can mingle and enjoy the garden.
14
Figure 5 Photos of Jelapang Community Garden (photos by researcher).
However, due to the fenceless nature of the garden, stealing of crops is a prevalent issue,
with Jelapang Farmville sometimes losing entire lemongrass or pandan plants. As a result, Mr
Wu reminds his gardeners of the need to have a big heart, and consider it their contribution to
community and a way to encourage community graciousness. At other times, they share their
harvests with the residents, such as winter melons or chillies, and offer to help to harvest things
like lemongrass for pandan leaves for them. Additionally, the openness of the garden has also
resulted in littering of cigarette butts on the floor by residents who sit in the garden to smoke.
2CG @ Chinese Garden
2CG @ Chinese Garden (henceforth known as 2CG Garden), also set up in 2013, was
initiated by the Active Ageing Council with the objective of getting seniors of Jurong GRC to
come together to garden, helping them to stay active and be socially engaged. Being located in
the Chinese Garden, the community garden also enjoys regular visits from visitors to the
Chinese Garden. Like Jelapang Farmville, the fenceless nature of the garden makes it susceptible
to theft, even witnessing people bringing plastic bags to harvest from the garden. This is despite
signs put up to remind visitors not to harvest from the garden. Mr Tony Yau, who is in charge of
the garden, mentioned that he considers the stealing as part and parcel of having a community
15
garden, and emphasises the process of gardening rather than the harvest. The garden also tries
to minimise growing vegetables that are easily stolen, growing more flowers and herbs.
Ideas for Consideration
As mentioned above, at Starlight Garden, only a very limited group of residents are
involved in gardening or attend the garden’s events. The presence of the locked gate, with
access only by appointment or by retrieving the key from the RC manager, presents a hindrance
for residents who wish to enjoy the garden at their own pleasure. The process of gaining access
to the garden also makes the interactions with the garden very formal, going against the
intentions of a community garden being an informal space where residents can relax and enjoy.
Therefore, by extracting learning points from the above case studies from other international
and local community gardens, ideas for consideration will target the main issue of how to make
the community gardens more inclusive both spatially, by improving access, and in terms of its
activities and programmes, so that it can become a more effective community space.
Role of Gardeners
The first point to consider is a change in the attitude that the gardeners have towards
stealing. At both 2CG Garden and Jelapang Farmville, rather than viewing it with hostility, they
have learnt to be more accepting of the occurrence of theft and, in the case of Jelapang
Farmville, are even able to view it in the more positive light of it being a contribution to the
community. While this may not be easy for all gardeners to accept, or makes stealing an
acceptable practice, it reflects a more open attitude towards the function of community gardens
being one for all to enjoy rather than only for the benefit of the gardeners.
In addition, at both 2CG Garden and Jelapang Farmville, the community garden was
started not with a focus on gardening itself, but rather a means to an end – in order to
encourage active ageing or bond residents together and contribute to community life
respectively. This difference in perspective could therefore also contribute to a lower degree of
territoriality over the garden and its crops, and thus attitude towards stealing.
Role of Town Councils and Residents’ Committees
Town Councils are responsible for controlling, managing, maintaining and improving
the common property of HDB residential flats and commercial property within the town, which
includes open spaces. Since community gardens are located on these open spaces, and
community gardens often contribute to estate improvement works that improve the living
environment (MND, 2013), Town Councils have a responsibility to ensure that the gardens do
fulfil the purposes they were intended for. This includes being a common space that benefits the
wider community, rather than just a select few residents.
More rigorous design guidelines should be introduced to guide the setting up of
community gardens on land managed by Town Councils, and help improve physical access for
the residents to these gardens. For example, more ornamental plants can be planted particularly
at the periphery of the gardens, so that the fenced up areas can be reduced and more of the
garden can be opened up for use by residents. The remaining fenced up area can be used to
continue to grow edibles if gardeners are still concerned about stealing. Such a solution enables
the gardeners to continue to enjoy the health benefits of gardening, while reducing the risk of
16
theft, continuing the benefit of improving the visual aesthetics of the area, and creating a
community space that residents will be able to access freely. Surveillance of the garden can also
be enhanced to discourage residents from stealing. This can be done by installing CCTV cameras
as a deterrent and to catch repeat offenders, or by locating new community gardens in view of
the RC office so that there is a form of supervision over the garden.
In many of the case studies, the community gardens were successful platforms for
breaking down barriers and encouraging interaction between neighbours. They started off as
places that simply brought together people with a similar interest in gardening, but also ended
up creating a wider sense of community, beyond just the gardeners, as people got to know one
another. However, in Starlight Garden, this breaking down of barriers between strangers and
being a place that visibly benefits the wider community through social activities and community
events, as was the case in many Britain in Bloom gardens and the Waterloo community garden,
has yet to be observed. On the other hand, it does appear that the CIB Awards and other
competitions provide a goal for the Starlight gardeners to work towards, bringing them
together, especially those who are otherwise not regularly involved in the garden.
In Waterloo, the community gardens were highly visible and successful at facilitating
interactions between residents, possibly partly due to the allotment gardening system. This
system encourages residents to be more actively involved in the garden as they have a plot they
are responsible for, rather than leaving a select few to manage the entire garden. Therefore, a
shift to allotment gardening might encourage a greater sense of ownership towards the garden.
This also does not have to result in a compromise in aesthetics, as illustrated by Jelapang
Farmville, where the allotment system is not easily visible due to the design. However, if there is
a shift to a fenceless garden, the gardeners have to be prepared for some of their harvests to be
lost to stealing. Alternatively, if Starlight Garden continues with fences, having an increased
number of active gardeners, possibly increased through an allotment system, will serve to
enhance the community building aspect of the garden.
Finally, drawing from the example of Seoul’s Nodeul Island, while the various RCs, NCs
and Town Councils have generally been able to prevent the problem of gardens becoming
neglected, given the decrease in number of active gardeners, Starlight Garden does appear to be
suffering from a declining number of volunteers to help maintain the garden. In addition, similar
to Nodeul Island, where a lack of consistent programmes resulted in a fall in visitor numbers,
Starlight Garden has also seen a lack of involvement in events at the garden by the surrounding
community. This is in contrast to Waterloo community garden, where large-scale events
successfully engaged the community beyond the gardeners, such as the annual multi-cultural
community garden lunches. Therefore, Tampines Starlight RC could adopt similar principles in
the management of Starlight Garden, such as by raising the profile of the garden through largescale RC events organised around the community garden.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, community gardens have been a useful way of turning underutilised
public spaces in places where community can be built through gardening and other associated
social activities. This piece has examined various circumstances where community gardens
have impacted their surrounding environment, often bringing people closer together and
encouraging the development of a sense of ownership. However, the putting up of fences in
some gardens has hindered this process, resulting in a separation between the community
17
garden space and the wider community, with the garden only benefitting a select few.
Therefore, based on the experiences of other community gardens, several solutions to counter
this problem have been considered, with the focus on how to make the community gardens
more inclusive spatially and through their programmes. With these in mind, community
gardens should continually examine how effectively they have been serving their whole
community, and seek innovative ways of ensuring their community garden is an inclusive
community space.
18
7. Bibliography
ACFCGN (Australian City Farms & Community Gardens Network), 2002. Looking back, a brief
history of community gardens. http://communitygarden.org.au/2002/10/11/looking-back200/ Accessed 2 September 2015.
ACFCGN, 2015. The Network. http://communitygarden.org.au/acfcgn/ Accessed 2 September
2015.
ACGA, 2015. Growing Community Across the U.S. and Canada.
https://communitygarden.org/mission/ Accessed 24 August 2015.
Arirang, 2015. Seoul city government to activate 1,800 urban farms.
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=178734 Accessed 20 August 2015.
Armstrong, D. 2000. A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for
health promotion and community development. Health and Place, 6, 319-327.
BBC, 2014. What’s a community garden?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/today_in_your_garden/community_about.shtml Accessed 24
August 2015.
BHG (Better Homes and Gardens), 2015. How to Espalier.
http://www.bhg.com/gardening/trees-shrubs-vines/care/how-to-espalier/ Accessed 15
September 2015.
Burnette, L. 2015. Growing Seoul: Urban Agriculture in a Modern Metropolis. Fulbright Korea
Alumni Relations. http://alumni.fulbright.or.kr/growing-seoul-urban-agriculture-in-a-modernmetropolis/ Accessed 20 August 2015.
Cameron, S. D., 2015. Gaining ground. http://www.canadiangardening.com/gardens/specialtygardens/gaining-ground/a/1470 Accessed 24 August 2015.
CNA (Central News Agency). ‘Community garden project launched at Taipei stadium’. Want
China Times. 24 February 2014. Available from: http://www.wantchinatimes.com/newssubclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140224000017&cid=1103 Accessed 20 August 2015.
Conceicao, J. 2010. A Case Study on NParks’ Community in Bloom Programme: Implementing
Active, Responsible Citizenship in Gardening. Centre for Governance and Leadership, Civil Service
College, Singapore.
Designing Healthy Communities, 2010. The Role of Community Gardens in Sustaining Healthy
Communities. http://designinghealthycommunities.org/role-community-gardens-sustaininghealthy-communities/ Accessed 1 September 2015.
Gehl, J. 2011. Life Between Buildings: Using public space. Island Press, Washington, United States
of America.
Hancock, T. People, partnerships and human progress: building community capital. Health
Promotion International, 16, 275-280.
19
Holland, L. 2004. Diversity and connections in community gardens: a contribution to local
sustainability. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 9, 285305.
Irvine, S., Johnson, L. and Peters, K. 1999. Community gardens and sustainable land use
planning: A case‐study of the Alex Wilson community garden. Local Environment: The
International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 4, 33-46.
Jackson, T. 2015. The community gardening movement. Do Something! Foodwise.
http://www.foodwise.com.au/the-community-gardening-movement/ Accessed 2 September
2015.
Lee, C-W. Urban Agriculture Policy of Seoul. 8-11 August 2013. City Farmer. Available from:
http://www.cityfarmer.org/UrbanAgPolicySeoul-Chang-WooLee.pdf Accessed 3 September
2015.
Lee, G-G., Lee, H-W. and Lee, J-H. 2015. Greenhouse gas emission reduction effect in the
transportation sector by urban agriculture in Seoul, Korea. Landscape and Urban Planning, 140,
1-7.
Lee, S. 2014. Nodeul Island : From Opera House to Vegetable Gardens.
http://sujinlee.me/nodeul-island-from-opera-house-to-vegetable/ Accessed 2 September 2015.
Lee, V. N. 2015. Community Gardens.
http://depts.washington.edu/open2100/pdf/2_OpenSpaceTypes/Open_Space_Types/cgarden_t
ypology.pdf Accessed 24 August 2015.
Levenston, M. 2013. Urban Agriculture Becomes a Powerful Solution for Climate Change and
Social Problems in Seoul, Korea. City Farmer News.
http://www.cityfarmer.info/2013/08/17/urban-agriculture-becomes-a-powerful-solution-forclimate-change-and-social-problems-in-seoul-korea/ Accessed 20 August 2015.
Liao, J-K., Sun, J. and Hsu, E. ‘New Taipei promotes urban ‘community farms’’. Central News
Agency. 7 May 2014. Available from:
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2476890 Accessed 19 August
2015.
Lien, C-Y. 2015. "Hello Green Life!"- Community Empowerment through the Urban Green
Interest Communities. Taiwan Ministry of Culture. Available from:
http://sixstar.moc.gov.tw/eng-2011/caseStudyAction.do?method=doDetail&&engId=1218
Accessed 2 September 2015.
Ministry of National Development (MND), 2013. Work of Town Councils.
http://www.towncouncils.sg/about/WorkOfTownCouncils.html Accessed 14 September 2015.
Murphy, R. 1991. Keeping a good thing going, a history of community gardening in the US. GreenUp Times, Newsletter of the NY Botanical Garden's Bronx Green-Up Program 3, 1.
NParks, 2015a. Community in Bloom initiatives.
https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardening/community-in-bloom-initiative Accessed 27 August
2015.
20
NParks, 2015b. Start a Community Garden. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardening/communitygardens/start-a-community-garden Accessed 9 September 2015.
NParks. 2014. Community in Bloom: My Community, Our Gardens. National Library Board,
Singapore.
P2P Foundation, 2010. Taipei Organic Acupuncture. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/thecommunity-gardens-of-taipei/2010/12/04 Accessed 19 August 2015.
RHS, 2011. Britain in Bloom: transforming local communities.
https://www.rhs.org.uk/Communities/PDF/Bloom/Britain-in-Bloom-Impact-Report Accessed
28 August 2015.
RHS, 2015a. RHS Vision. http://84.22.166.235/about-the-rhs/pdfs/about-the-rhs/mission-andstrategy/vision-document/rhs-vision Accessed 28 August 2015.
RHS, 2015b. What we do. https://www.rhs.org.uk/about-the-rhs/mission-strategy/what-we-do
Accessed 28 August 2015.
RHS, 2015c. RHS Britain in Bloom. https://www.rhs.org.uk/communities/campaigns/britainin-bloom Accessed 28 August 2015.
SGA (Sustainable Gardening Australia), 2015. Get Involved. http://www.sgaonline.org.au/getinvolved/ Accessed 2 September 2015.
Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J. A. and Litt, J. S. 2009. Collective
efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community
gardens. Health & Place, 15, 1115-1122.
Thompson, S., Corkery, L. and Judd, B. 2007. The Role of Community Gardens in Sustaining
Healthy Communities. Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Available at: http://soac.fbe.unsw.edu.au/2007/SOAC/theroleofcommunitygardens.pdf
United Daily News. ‘Taipei soccer stadium turned into model farm’. Taiwan Today. 19 February
2014. Available from: http://taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=214627&ctNode=413 Accessed 20
August 2015.
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR), 2015.
Community Gardens.
http://ucanr.edu/sites/MarinMG/Community_Service_Projects/Marin_Community_Gardens/
Accessed 17 August 2015.
21
Annex A: Background on the Community in Bloom Programme
Political Context
“We will encourage more Singaporeans to participate more actively in solving
their own problems and to organise themselves to do their part for their
community. An active citizenry will help us to build a national consensus,
engender a sense of rootedness, and enable the Government to serve the people
better.”
The above quote was made by then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong during a Harvard
Club Speech on 1 June 2004, highlighting a shift to a more participatory approach of governance,
and emphasising that the government was taking steps to encourage Singaporeans to become
more involved in their community. This had been preceded by a 1998 report by the Singapore
21 Committee3 which acknowledged and called for greater “active citizenship” to build a
common future where “every Singaporean matters”. This call was then translated into the
government agencies’ actions, who had to become less top-down and more people-oriented in
their policies and programmes, ensuring that people could be included and participate in their
programmes (Conceicao, 2010).
Conception of Community in Bloom Programme
In July 2004, the Garden City Action Committee (GCAC) felt that a strong partnership
between the people, private and public sectors was needed in order to sustain ‘Our Garden City’
greenery efforts. This sparked the idea of getting people involved in gardening efforts, namely
through communal gardening. Officials from the Ministry of National Development (MND)
opined that communal gardening would be beneficial to the government, people and Singapore
in five ways (Conceicao, 2010):
1. Fruits of the partnership would help make Singapore’s Garden City distinctive from
other emerging garden cities globally.
2. Provides people with more space to garden, especially for those already gardening on
the verges in front of their private homes and open spaces in front of their blocks.
3. Provides people with the opportunity to garden together, with the added bonus of
helping to create a gardening culture seen in other more mature gardening cultures
around the world.
4. Provides people with the opportunity to develop a sense of well-being, as well as a good
place to develop the young. This is especially so given our ageing population, where
community gardens may be one of the few places left that can help maintain people’s
psychological well-being.
5. They could give people a sense of place and attachment to a public space, which would
be important as it was believed a strong sense of ownership can be inspired if people
valued their spaces more deeply due to a greater stake in a public amenity.
3
The Singaporean 21 Committee was launched by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in August 1997 to
st
strengthen the “heartware” of the Republic in the 21 Century and was an endeavor to create a sense of
belonging in citizens and instill in them a desire for nationalism.
22
However, as there was no blueprint that the National Parks Board (NParks)4 could refer
to on starting a gardening culture, it decided to find a programme by looking at websites of
places that had a strong gardening culture. These included Canada, England, Australia and a few
European countries. It was found that these successful gardening cultures had the common
component of successful communal gardening groups, which NParks proceeded to focus on to
find out more about. Finally, Canada in Bloom was found to be implementable in Singapore,
with the programme in Singapore to be called “Community in Bloom”. This was chosen over
“Singapore in Bloom” to prevent confusion with a private sector flower show by the same name.
It was also more appropriate as “’community’ implies people, relationships… it was what we
were aiming for” (as quoted by Conceicao (2010: p.14)).
The Community in Bloom Logo
The Community in Bloom programme emblem is a four-petal flower. The
four petals symbolise the coming together and camaraderie of people,
particularly the four main ethnic groups, setting the stage for
strengthening social cohesion in neighbourhoods. Red represents the
vibrancy and passion of the people and programme, with the green letter
‘C’ representing the CIB gardening efforts.
About the Community in Bloom Programme
The Community in Bloom (CIB) programme was launched in May 2005, starting with an
experimental stage where it was implemented in Mayfair Park Estate only. It is a nationwide
gardening movement that “aims to foster a community spirit and bring together residents, both
young and old, to make Singapore our garden” (NParks, 2015a)5. In addition, according to Simon
Longman, Director of Streetscapes Division in NParks, it promotes a “greater sense of civic
ownership and participation amongst Singaporeans by encouraging and facilitating community
gardening” (as quoted in Conceicao (2010: p.15)).
There are four categories of CIB – public housing or Housing Development Board (HDB)
estates, private housing estates, educational institutions and organisations. The gardens are
usually started on the initiative of passionate individuals in the community, who are responsible
for organising, planting and maintaining the gardens. They usually consist of flowers, herbs,
spices, vegetables and fruit trees, but their essential aspect is that they can be a focal point
where people can gather to enjoy the activity together. The CIB gardeners can also organise
visits to meet other like-minded people at other gardens and to exchange innovative gardening
ideas, as well as to help set up new gardens in other communities (Conceicao, 2010). Today,
there are more than 850 community gardens in Singapore under the CIB programme, engaging
over 20,000 residents (NParks, 2015a).
However, the implementation of CIB is not limited to only the gardeners – the help of
other stakeholders is also required, including other government agencies, grassroots
organisations, or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Table 1 below summarises the
4
NParks is a statutory board under the Ministry of National Development.
NParks, 2015a. Community in Bloom initiatives. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardening/community-in-bloominitiative Accessed 27 August 2015.
5
23
various stakeholders whose buy-ins were required for the successful implementation of CIB, as
well as the roles that they are willing to play.
Table 1: Various stakeholders involved in CIB and the roles they are willing to play
Organisations
Roles
HDB
Lead agency for coordinating the programme in HDB
estates
NParks
Horticultural guidance, advice, training and
demonstrations
Town Councils
Site assessment and ground preparation,
infrastructure
People’s Association Programme dissemination, value-adding and liaison
with Residents’ Committee
Residents’
Programme owner at grassroots level and interface
Committee
with residents
Community
Value-adding and recurrent funding
Development
Councils
NGOs
Specialised horticultural talks and activities support
Source: Conceicao, 2010: p.28
How Residents Can Start a CIB Garden
A community that is interested in starting a CIB garden can do so in three simple steps:
4. Gather like-minded participants.
5. Approach the relevant organisations or authorities to obtain approval and support for
the project. This could be the Residents’ Committee (RC) or Neighbourhood Committee
(NC) for those in public or private housing estates respectively, or the head of the
institution or organisation for schools and other organisations.
6. Contact NParks, who will help to determine a suitable site for the garden, plan the
garden layout, get gardening tips, and connect with other gardening groups. These
forms of support will help to facilitate the learning process.
Beyond these steps, NParks provides guidance and advice according to the needs of the
community garden and the community, in order to help them ensure the long-term
sustainability of the garden and aims of the programme are met (Conceicao, 2010). The entire
process from inception to construction of the community garden takes approximately three
months (NParks, 2015b).
24
Annex B: Community in Bloom in Tampines
There are 32 HDB estate CIB gardens located in Tampines. For this study, Tampines
Starlight Harmony Garden was studied, with a few gardeners and nearby residents interviewed,
in order to find out more about how community gardening has contributed to the community.
About Tampines Starlight Harmony Garden
The Tampines Starlight Harmony Garden (henceforth Starlight Garden) is located at the
base of Block 718, Tampines Street 72. It is managed by Starlight RC, which covers Blocks 712 to
723. Starlight Garden was started in 2008, although a smaller plot was already present in 2005
at Block 720 to launch the Community in Bloom programme during a Ministerial Visit by Dr
Yaacob Ibrahim to the Tampines Central Division. It is an award-winning CIB garden, winning
the Diamond and Platinum Awards in the 2014 CIB Awards. The garden has also been featured
in multiple publications, as well as in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally 2015.
Being such a decorated garden, it regularly hosts both local and international visitors from
various countries and organisations, including Canada’s Communities in Bloom, community
gardeners from other CIB gardens, or students from Poi Ching School, located just opposite the
garden.
Interviewees
Three gardeners were interviewed – Mr Ismail (Team Leader), Mr Zuhir (Garden
Landscaping in-charge), and Madam Habibah (Plants in-charge). In addition, four non-gardening
residents were interviewed.
Management of the Garden
Starlight Garden is managed by approximately eight gardeners, with only about three to
four gardeners tending it on a regular basis. This is a decrease from more than 10 gardeners
when Starlight Garden first started. Gardeners spoken to started gardening due to their
involvement in the RC, which exposed them to the enjoyment and benefits of the activity. Daily
maintenance of watering and weeding is usually carried out by Mr Zuhir and Mdm Habibah.
Before major occasions, more gardeners are enlisted to help to get the garden ready. As helping
out in the garden is viewed as volunteering, all costs for supplies used in the garden is covered
by the RC, so the gardeners do not have pay to garden. Cash won from CIB competitions is also
used to cover the costs of maintaining the garden.
Due to instances of stealing of produce when the garden first opened without fences, the
gardeners petitioned to their MP to have fences installed (photo in Figure 5). The cost of the
fences was subsequently borne by the Town Council. Nonetheless, residents can request for
produce from the garden, such as pandan leaves, curry leaves or chillis.
Benefits Served to the Community
Several of the previously mentioned benefits have been observed through Starlight
Garden. One of the greatest benefits expressed by the gardeners is that of health. They described
of how they are physically rejuvenated through gardening, with Madam Habibah describing
how despite pain in her arm, when she gardens, she does not feel it. Mr Zuhir also mentioned
25
that gardening helped to relieve stress for him, and herbs grown in the garden could be
harvested for consumption to boost one’s health.
Another significant benefit expressed, by both gardeners and non-gardeners, was the
opportunity to meet their neighbours. Through gardening, residents got to know one another,
and through the various events organised at the garden, even non-gardeners had the
opportunity to mingle with other residents. Recent events held at the garden include a recent
Hari Raya celebration and birthday celebration at the request of a resident. One resident said
that through events held at the garden, he got to know gardeners such as Mdm Habibah in the
last two years, despite having been a resident for the last 15 years.
The Starlight Garden also contributes to improving the visual aesthetics of the area.
Residents commented that the garden is “nice”, “interesting”, and “probably the best in
Tampines [he’s] seen”. Additionally, it provides nice views of greenery for units above the
garden. According to Mr Ismail, visitors to the garden have expressed that it is a landscape with
a rustic feel along with urban nature. Due to edibles being grown in the garden, residents also
often request for chillis, pandan, henna or curry leaves, rather than having to buy them.
Beyond residents living in the immediate vicinity of the garden, the wider community
including students from Poi Ching School and other Tampines community gardens have
benefitted from Starlight Garden. Poi Ching School and Starlight Garden had a previous
collaboration that lasted over a year, whereby students would go down to the garden every
Wednesday to be exposed to gardening, helping out with weeding and trimming, while also
learning more about the numerous plants grown in the garden. However, following the 2013
dengue outbreak and subsequent haze issues, this collaboration has been put on hold, though
Mr Ismail hopes to resume it soon.
Mr Ismail also shares his experiences from participation at various events, such the
World Orchid Conference and Singapore Garden Festival, with the wider community. He also
helps to promote gardening – for example, at the SG50 Tampines Central Gardening & Green
event that was organised by the Tampines Green Committee he is a part of, gardening was
promoted and residents’ gardening skills showcased, while encouraging further bonding among
residents. A Trail Map detailing all the community gardens located in Tampines Central was also
produced. Community gardens in other parts of the island are also able to learn from the
expertise of Starlight Garden through Learning Journeys conducted by the Centre for Urban
Greenery and Ecology (CUGE) and NParks, such as one conducted for Pasir Ris Zone 12. Groups
also visit the garden to learn how to start their own community garden, as was the case for the
Dakota Crescent Gardening Group.
Observed Issues
Mosquito breeding
The first issue that Starlight Garden faces is that of potential mosquito breeding.
Especially during the dengue fever season, the garden often faces complaints from residents
who fear that it is breeding mosquitoes. The garden has also been summoned by the National
Environment Agency (NEA) for mosquito breeding. However, Mr Ismail explained that it had
occurred during the rainy season and was in a hidden area that the gardeners had not noticed.
During the visit to the garden, when asked about the mosquito problem, Mr Zuhir mentioned
26
that NEA regularly fumigates the area. Despite this, large numbers of mosquitoes were still
observed.
Engagement of Non-Gardeners
While non-gardening residents had positive or neutral impressions of the garden, the
shortage of manpower to help in the garden illustrates a need to engage the residents beyond
their enjoyment of the garden from the outside. However, this has been hampered by ease of
access to the garden, as well as attendance at community garden events. Starlight Garden is only
open when the gardeners are around watering the plants and carrying out other maintenance.
Any visits to the garden are typically by appointment only, though the key to the garden is held
by the RC manager, who can open the garden for residents if requested. However, this
information is not publicised to the residents, resulting in them only being able to enjoy the
garden from the outside. On a more positive note, Mr Zuhir mentioned that there are plans to
put up a signboard to inform the residents of this, which will hopefully improve the accessibility
of the garden for residents.
Apart from basic accessibility to the garden, attempts to engage residents through
events held at the garden do not appear to be very successful, with only a limited group
attending. Previously, more residents, in particular children, were drawn to the garden as there
was a rabbit they could play with. Unfortunately, due to the high costs of rabbit feed, the rabbit
had to be given up, and was adopted by another resident. Publicity for events is usually
conducted by displaying signs or distributing leaflets advertising it to households. Yet,
according the Mr Zuhir, residents usually only attend these events if they are passing by.
Manpower shortages
The inability to better engage residents appears to have contributed to the current
manpower shortage faced by Starlight Garden, which has seen the number of regular gardeners
drop as people move away or stop helping for other reasons. Of the residents interviewed,
reasons quoted for not participating in the garden include the lack of time, no interest in
gardening, and interestingly, that they already have a lot of people involved, and therefore he
did not think they needed any help. To further compound the issue, many of the residents who
request for leaves or produce from the garden do not return the favour by helping out in the
garden. To mitigate the manpower shortage, Mr Zuhir said he tries to encourage residents who
come for the garden events to help out.
27
Annex C: Details of International Scans
The management and development of community gardens in different countries or cities
will be examined in this section, as their origins have resulted in gardens contributing to social
capital and a sense of ownership to the community by varying extents. Each case study will
include an introduction to community gardening in that area, and detail examples of how it has
contributed to building community in the communities the gardens are located in.
One notable contrast is the different drivers for community gardening in different
locations. In the West, the growth of community gardens was driven by the community in a
bottom-up fashion. This is compared to Asian cities like Seoul and Taipei – community gardens
here are a relatively new concept and most community gardens are located in the rural areas on
the outskirts of the city, making them only accessible by car. As interest in community
gardening grew, governments there then began to undertake efforts to facilitate the
development of community gardens in more easily accessible locations within the city,
demonstrating a more top-down approach where the government takes the initiative in
promoting community gardens.
The United States
The development of community gardens in the United States (US) has links to the World
Wars. During and after both World Wars, gardens were used to boost food supplies that
required minimal transportation. For example, during World War II, under the Victory Gardens
Program, an estimated 20 million gardens produced approximately 40% of the fresh vegetables
consumed in the US (Murphy (1991) as cited in Armstrong (2000)). In addition, during the
Great Depression, nearly 5000 gardens over 700 acres were cultivated in New York City under a
programme by the Work Projects Administration, whereby city lands were made available to
the unemployed and disadvantaged (Armstrong, 2000). Today, community gardening is
generally conducted by growing produce on shared lots that have been divided into smaller
plots of land for each household, who usually pay a small fee.
The US also has other programmes and organisations that encourage community
gardening. Among the most well-known community gardening advocacy groups is the Green
Guerrillas, which was founded in 1973 and the first to advocate the cause in New York City (Lee,
2015). It was started by a small group of around thirty individuals, who threw balloons filled
with seeds and bulbs over a fence and onto a lot until they received permission from the city to
garden. The community garden movement continues to flourish as a result of the work of the
Green Guerrillas, with the success of community gardens dependent on resident gardeners, notfor-profit technical support organisations and, in the case of city-leased gardens, city agencies
working together (Schmelzkopf, 1995). There is also the American Community Gardening
Association (ACGA), a bi-national non-profit membership organisation that has the mission of
building community “by increasing and enhancing community gardening and greening across
the United States and Canada” (ACGA, 2015). The Seattle P-Patch programme, which started
with the concept of the importance of teaching young people how to grow vegetables, and is
now the largest municipally managed community gardening programme in the US (Lee, 2015) –
some of the P-Patch gardens have served the purpose of being community spaces where local
and immigrant residents have the opportunity to socialise, resulting in the formation of intercultural friendships (Lien, 2015).
28
A study conducted on a community garden in Denver, Colorado, found that the garden
facilitated a variety of social processes, as described by the community gardeners. These
processes included the creation of social connections, reciprocity that eventually extended
beyond garden activities, development of mutual trust, collective decision-making and conflict
resolution, establishment of social norms, civic engagement, and community building. However,
while mutual trust was developed between gardeners, some spoke of mistrust towards those
outside the garden due to issues such as theft of produce or tools and vandalism. As residents
participated in the garden, they also experienced an increased sense of community and
belonging, as the garden provided them with something to which they could belong. The
community garden also acted as a catalyst for wider activity in the neighbourhood, with events
organised by the garden including community work days, picnics, potlucks and harvest festivals
where the whole neighbourhood was invited. This enabled more people to come into contact
with the garden, and provided the opportunity for gardeners and non-gardeners to interact,
thereby contributing to strengthening the neighbourhood and community (Teig et al., 2009).
However, community gardens still face challenges as there is no dedicated government
grant for their development, and they are often viewed only as interim uses for underutilised
land, making them prone to removal when the land is required for other uses considered more
valuable (Schmelzkopf, 1995; Lee, 2015).
The United Kingdom
Community gardens have served as an important source of food for residents of the
United Kingdom (UK) for hundreds of years. This includes the use of community allotments in
the inner city to provide affordable and fresh produce to a local area during World War II,
similar to the US (BBC, 2014). This gardening culture has not waned since then, with more than
15% of the British population owning a plant conservatory, each city having its own gardening
society and specialised clubs, as well as numerous annual flower shows funded and organised
by these societies and clubs (Conceicao, 2010). The contemporary gardening movement was
started in the late 1960s as green spaces in cities regained interest. Many of the community
gardens were vacant lots that were transformed by local residents into green spaces that
included vegetable plots and flower gardens. These spaces gradually evolved into places that
also helped to address social and health problems, such as by bringing minority women
together via the Women’s Environmental Network (WEN) to grow fresh vegetables and herbs,
which many would have little access to due to affordability issues (BBC, 2014).
A key actor in the community gardening scene in the UK is the Royal Horticultural
Society (RHS), a gardening charity in the UK that states its charitable purpose as “to inspire
passion and excellence in the science, art and practice of horticulture”. Their vision is “to enrich
everyone’s life through plants, and make the UK a greener and more beautiful place” (RHS,
2015a). The RHS promotes gardening through various activities, including international flower
shows such as the Chelsea flower show (RHS, 2015b), and campaigns such as ‘Britain in Bloom’
and ‘It’s Your Neighbourhood’ (IYN). The RHS Britain in Bloom is a nation-wide competition
between communities across a range of categories, and is one of Europe’s largest horticultural
campaigns, with more than 1,600 communities participating each year. At Britain in Bloom, they
display how they have achieved environmental responsibility and community participation, as
well as horticultural achievements. In contrast, IYN is a non-competitive scheme for community
groups that want to make local areas greener, offering advice and awarding certificates of
29
achievement instead. Together, communities involved in both Britain in Bloom and IYN plant
115,000 trees, 352,000 shrubs and 21.6 million plants and bulbs on average annually (RHS,
2015c; RHS, 2011).
The benefits of these campaigns are not limited to the environment. There have been
benefits reaped in many other aspects – social, economic and transformational – detailed in a
Britain in Bloom impact report, which surveyed more than 230 Britain in Bloom and IYN groups
nationwide (RHS, 2011; see Table C1). With the impacts felt in so many different ways, it
illustrates how the campaigns have transformed and improved all aspects of community life.
Table C1 Benefits reaped from Britain in Bloom and It’s Your Neighbourhood campaigns
Social
 Building community by working towards a common goal, creating
opportunities for increasing understanding and neighbourliness
 Encouraging individuals to invest in their neighbourhood, contributing
to its development by volunteering
 Reducing crime and anti-social behaviour by fostering a greater
respect for and sense of ownership of local spaces
 Improved health and wellbeing through growing fruit and vegetables,
and by creating a safe, pleasant space to exercise
Economic
 Encouraging inward investment by making areas better places to be, so
locals stay and visitors are attracted to spend time there
 Attracting business support: an improved environment brings more
customers and revenues, and less graffiti and vandalism
 Helping volunteers develop a wide range of skills and helping those at
risk of social exclusion back into the labour market
 Saving local authorities money in volunteer hours, green space
management, street furniture maintenance and litter collection
Environmental
 Improving surroundings through planting, clean-up and maintenance
 Encouraging horticulture, from hanging baskets to community gardens
 Bringing in environmentally-conscious practices such as composting,
recycling and biodiversity projects
 Promoting an interest in the environment, particularly in schools
Transformational  Transforming disused space both through changing the way the land is
used, and in the community spirit it brings
 Tackling problematic spaces blighted by crime or fly-tipping by turning
areas which are drab into something more uplifting
 Regenerating places by improving their physical appearance, changing
the way people feel about where they live and breathing new life into
an area
Source: RHS (2011: p.5)
Of interest to this study is building community as one of the social benefits of the
campaigns – 90% of the groups interviewed stated that community development was the
greatest impact of their campaign, with many individuals coming together, and even meeting,
for the first time, as they worked on a community horticulture project. As people from different
parts of the community spent time together, the gardens became hubs for social activities and
community events, and greater understanding and trust was built across social boundaries, be it
generational, religious or ethnic. Participating in the campaign also increased civic pride in 79%
of survey respondents, and due to the pride built up and changes seen, people’s aspirations for
their area have increased.
30
According to the communities, the success of these campaigns in improving their
environment can be attributed to a variety of reasons. Firstly, they created goals for the
communities to work towards, and when these were achieved, gave them a sense of satisfaction.
Also, a framework for action is provided through the structure and assessment criteria, and the
judges were supportive and gave advice to help communities improve year on year. Having
flexible models of delivery also enabled communities of very different sizes and needs to decide
how they wanted to participate. Finally, participants were motivated by the ‘healthy
competition’ promoted in Britain in Bloom (RHS, 2011).
Australia
In Australia, the emergence of community gardens was also linked to war and food
shortages in the early 20th century (Jackson, 2015). Recent interest in community gardening
started in Victoria in the mid- to late-1970s, with the establishment of a garden in Nunawadding
in 1977 (Thompson et al., 2007). This helped facilitate discussions between community groups
and the local government to set up the Collingwood Children’s Farm in Melbourne and
Brunswick City Farm (ACFCGN, 2002; Thompson et al., 2007), following which the movement
spread to Sydney with the start of community gardening in Callan Park in Rozelle (Jackson,
2015). Today, there are nation-wide gardening organisations promoting the activity, such as the
community-based Australian Community Gardens Network that links up people who are
interested in city farming and community gardening (ACFCGN, 2015), or non-profit, nongovernment organisation Sustainable Gardening Australia (SGA, 2015).
The transformative social impacts of community gardening can be witnessed in
Waterloo, located 2.5 kilometres from Sydney’s Central Business District and the largest of the
inner-city public housing concentrations, comprising 2,500 dwellings and more than 5,000
tenants. The Waterloo community garden consists of three gardens, with the idea originating as
part of an urban design project for the estate. It works on an individual allotment basis where
individuals can determine what to plant. Most of the gardeners involved were aged 56 to 75,
and comprised an extremely diverse ethnic mix. This had resulted in a culture of social isolation,
where tenants rarely spoke to their neighbours with barriers between residents common.
However, with the introduction of the community gardens, as people participated in gardening,
activity was brought into a community area, and people started to talk to one another. This
helped break down cultural barriers, as well as challenge stereotypes and a historical suspicion
of strangers. Friendships were forged as gardeners shared produce with each other and nongardeners, eventually extending to exchanging of gardening tips, recipes or helping to look after
each other’s plots. Consequently, an increased sense of belonging was also generated. Due to the
visibility of the gardens, the wider estate community also benefited, as it created opportunities
for conversation and helped to dissipate barriers between strangers and generations. Crosscultural interactions have also been illustrated through annual multi-cultural community
garden lunches that have become a significant event engaging an even wider group of
participants from different cultures (Thompson et al., 2007).
Taipei, Taiwan
In Taipei, community gardens appear in degenerated, neglected or sleeping areas of the
city. The smaller urban farms are flexible and eager to take over empty spots of the city and
dominate no-man’s land, often flourishing where land owner issues are unsettled or
31
complicated (P2P Foundation, 2010). Recently, the community gardening movement gained
more formal endorsement by the city government, with bids to encourage citizens to transform
idle spaces on rooftops and in public areas into vegetable gardens (Liao et al., 2014), or the
organisation of agricultural events to promote community gardening (CNA, 2014).
Unlike previously mentioned case studies, community gardening in Taiwan has evolved
slightly differently, focusing more on providing the individual with an avenue to relieve stress
and get away from busy urban life, rather than to build community. In some cases, people can
only use a plot for a limited period of time, due to the high demand for and shortage of available
plots. For example, in a new community garden organised by the Taipei city government, where
a disused soccer stadium is being transformed into an open air leisure farm to encourage the
public to grow vegetables, the public can farm at a plot for only about two months, and are
expected to spend at least two hours each week tending to their plot (CNA, 2014; United Daily
News, 2014). Nevertheless, community gardens burgeoning in the city have begun to bring
together people with a common interest in gardening, initiating a place-making process and
building of a sense of community as strangers get to know one another (Lien, 2015).
Seoul, South Korea
Seoul has had a long history of urban agriculture, such as the many kitchen gardens
around in the Chosun Dynasty (1394-1910) (Levenston, 2013). The relatively recent and rapid
urbanisation of South Korea has meant that agriculture is still very much engrained in the older
generations’ way of life, with these ideals still visible in Seoul’s landscape. Food scares in 2006
and 2010 also sparked citizens’ interest in urban agriculture in the interest of food security and
sustainability (Lee, 2013). As a result, a culture of urban agriculture has developed, where older
women forage obscure public green spaces for herbs and vegetables in the early morning,
families in the city periphery turn their homes into partial subsistence farms by making them
out of vinyl, and Styrofoam boxes are used by small restaurants to grow vegetables and herbs
around their storefront (Burnette, 2015).
Since the community garden movement by environmentalists and city farmers in 2006,
various types of urban agriculture have appeared in Seoul. One of these is community
gardening, which has been very active, supporting community empowerment. Seoul has been
labelled by Mayor Park Won-Soon as the next “Agro City”, with 828 hectares of agricultural land,
nearly 12,000 farmers and over 140,000 informal agricultural hobbyists, with numbers growing
(Burnette, 2015; Levenston, 2013). However, many urban farms are located on the outskirts of
the city, making them difficult to frequent. This has resulted in a series of initiatives by the
government to promote and facilitate community gardening, including the establishment of
urban agriculture legislation at the national level and ordinances at the local level. In addition,
in April 2015, the Seoul city government announced a US$46 million plan to transform unused
spaces in schools, parks and apartment rooftops to activate urban farming. The plan involves
establishing 1,800 urban vegetable gardens within a 10-minute walking distance from all homes
in the capital by 2018, as well as an online integrated system for exchange of information and an
open market for agricultural products (Arirang, 2015). While much of community gardening in
Seoul is currently still focused on the economic benefits of agricultural production and
environmental benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through reduced food miles (Lee
et al., 2015), such urban agriculture is also expected to become an influential solution for
community revitalisation in Seoul (Levenston, 2013).
32
However, not all community garden projects turn out well. One such community garden
project was an effort by Mayor Park to rejuvenate the abandoned Nodeul Island located in the
middle of the Han River. The plan was to create a sense of community through eco-friendly
projects such as vegetable farms. However, five months after the start of the project, only the
half of the vegetable gardens operated by individuals were yielding crops, while the gardens
operated by communities were barren except for weeds. Visitor numbers also decreased due to
a lack of consistent programmes (Lee, 2014). Therefore, this illustrates the importance of good
organisation and planning, as well as responsible gardeners, to ensure the success and
sustainability of a community garden.
© 2015 Centre for Liveable Cities
All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior
written permission of the Centre for Liveable Cities.
33