Review of ‘Collective action and social contagion: Community gardens as a case study’ (Shur-Ofry and Malacay, 2019)
Isabel Jiménez Alonso
MASUS student at UC3M and BA in Global Studies, Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Introduction
In this analysis, a complex systems approach is used to determine the categorization of urban gardens in Jerusalem as “Institutions of Collective Action” – in Elinor Ostrom’s terms (1990) – and whether they can scale up from bottom-up initiatives at the micro level to affect patterns andbehaviors of the system at the macro scale, challenging the conventional critique that Ostrom’s alternative in common resource governance has limited influence beyond the local, micro levels (Shur-Ofry & Malcai, 2019).
Literature on the governance of common resources suggests that in absence of some sort of regulation, the resource would be deteriorated or depleted in line with the “tragedy of the commons” scenario described by Garret Hardin (1968). As an alternative, two major solutions arediscussed in the literature, namely privatization (involving the division and allocation of the resource as private property) and regulation (governmental intervention to improve resource management). However, a third alternative was proposed by authors like Elinor Ostrom, and discussed in the reviewed paper, entailing the emergence of what she called “Institutions of Collective Action” (ICAs), which entailed a model ofbottom-up cooperation and polycentric governance in the management of common-pool resources (Ostrom, 1990).
The ICAs model, although effective in many instances, has been argued to pose several limitations in its application and reproduction, especially in terms of scale beyond the local or community level. Nevertheless, authors argue that the expansion of urban gardens – which they demonstrate constitute an example of ICA – shows a dynamic that transcends the micro scale and grows to have an impact at the macro level. This phenomenonproper of self-organizing complex systems, they argue, has important implications for policy-making and contributes to the field of complexity from the social sciences perspective (Shur-Ofry & Malcai, 2019).
Describing the system: Urban gardens in Jerusalem
Urban gardens are defined as lots of urban public space which are “managed and operated by members of the local community in which food or flowers are cultivated” (Guitart et al. 2012, pp.364). In Jerusalem, the establishment of community gardens is motivated by citizens and then approved by the municipality, which remains the official holder of the gardens’ ownership. However, access to the resource – here, the gardens and related benefits – must be open to the public, with a required minimum number of members to be approved. Moving from access to governance, administrative management is shared between the Jerusalem municipality and the Aitek Forum, composed by the municipality, several ministries and non-state organizations (Shur-Ofry & Malcai, 2019, pp.67-68). Nevertheless, gardens remain grass-roots initiatives and rules and normsgoverning their internal and daily management are entirely in the hands of community members, except for very rare cases. As mentioned before, community gardens in Jerusalem have recognized positive effects in the environmental quality of the city, the community life and interpersonalrelations of its citizens, and contributes to food security and poverty alleviation, with positive influence in marginalized neighborhoods (p.69).
“Proximity and complexity in urban spaces can be used to promote social welfare and generate a positive impact while reducing negative externalities. With small, calculated interventions, policymakers can generate a greater impact through self-amplifying processes with important implications in terms of investment.”
Self-organization: from micro to macro scale
Self-organization refers to the notion that “interaction of components of complex systems leads to relatively stable states independent of any intentional design” (Cosens et al., 2021, p. 3). In social systems – which is our case of study –, self-organization occurs through formal or informal systems of governance to manage and preserve the resources on which they depend. Importantly, in social systems self-organization can occurthrough social contagion dynamics, which refer to the impact that interactions among individuals or elements of the system have on its collective behavior. To analyze the gardens’ dynamics from a macro scale, Shur-Ofry and Malcai measure their temporal, spatial and spatio-temporal diffusion to show if they expand through social contagion and present properties of self-organization typical of complex systems.
Looking at the temporal diffusion analysis, the expansion of urban gardens in the city shows a clear growth since 2000, when the first urban garden was established. When plotted in a temporal graph, the cumulative number of gardens from 2000 to 2015 forms a S-shaped curve, which according to the literature - for instance, the Bass model – is an indicator of social contagion patterns of diffusion in self-organizing systems.
Secondly, authors examine the spatial diffusion of gardens using fractal analysis. One property of self-organizing systems is fractal geometry, which consists in the repetition of the same structure throughout different scales of the system (Meadows, 2009). Using the box-counting method, results show that the spatial diffusion of urban gardens in Jerusalem has the properties of a fractal, in line with the argument that theyfollow self-organizing dynamics through social contagion (Shur-Ofry & Malcai, 2019, p. 73).
Finally, the same results are found in the spatio-temporal analysis. Looking at the spatial and temporal proximity of the gardens, authors conclude that the establishment of a community garden influences or increases the probability of the emergence of new gardens close to it in bothdimensions. This is made evident in the analysis through the identification of clusters (Shur-Ofry & Malcai, 2019,pp. 73-74).
Conclusion and implications
Considering the spatial, temporal and spatiotemporal analyses, authors conclude that the diffusion of urban gardens in Jerusalem presents dynamics of social contagion of self-organizing complex systems. Moreover, the case study suggests that ICAs, which emerge at the local level, can transcendto the macro scale, having a larger social impact in the city. Following the authors’ reasoning, before displaying the implications of this case study, it is crucial to acknowledge its limitations. Most importantly, the extrapolation of results and implications for policymaking related to governance of the commons requires caution, as this is a single case study and community gardens may differ from other ICAs, for instance, in that they are a leisure activity and do not challenge significant social problems of the city or require great amounts of funding (2019, p. 75).
Nevertheless, proving the applicability of complex systems theory to urban gardens diffusion dynamics has a great potential for political intervention, instruments such as modeling can help predict the rate and scope of expansion and plan accordingly. For example, municipal authorities may want to start community gardens in disadvantaged neighborhoods to promote their expansion in those areas — having analyzed their spatial distribution and predicted spread –, or in case the diffusion has deviated from the model due to external or unpredicted factors. This would be significant for policies directed towards reducing inequality and uneven distribution of urban resources. Complex systems tools can alsohelp to calculate the expected growth rate in the following years and estimate a budget or level of investment they may require, as well as the social and environmental impact these initiatives may generate in the communities. Finally, policymakers can even intervene to transform the spatial or temporal diffusion patterns of urban gardens. This way, proximity and complexity in urban spaces can be used to promote social welfare andgenerate a positive impact while reducing negative externalities. With small, calculated interventions, policymakers can generate a greater impactthrough self-amplifying processes with important implications in terms of investment.
As a final remark, I make a few notes with regards to this topic that may have not been addressed in Shur-Ofry and Malcai’s research. Considering the social and cultural context of the city to see how it affects the diffusion patterns examined above, according to Eizenberg & Fenster (2015) the socio-economic division of the city’s neighborhoods correlates with the presence and subsistence of community gardens. For instance, out of the 43 active gardens they list, only 9 serve disadvantaged populations in poor or peripheral zones, five serve the upper class and 29 belong to the middle class. They also found that five gardens were independent from the municipality and other organizations’ monitoring and aid (p. 1147). These findings highlight socio-economic status and culture in clustering processes, as overlooked factors that may comprise the elements of subsystems that have not been included in the work of Shur-Ofry and Malcai.
On another note, the possibilities for policy making in my view simultaneously reflect the limitations of ICAs autonomy and potential as self-organizing systems – and as institutions for governing the commons– that can expand to the macro level, as they can be subject tomunicipal, regional or governmental control or manipulation. Hence, collaboration is needed between the public and private sector, and with ICAs, to facilitate the governance of public resources at different scales of governance.
Finally, it would be interesting to conduct further research on the nature of potential disturbances that may hinder its resilience. Assessing threats – whether they come in the form of environmental problems like climate change events or water scarcity, or socio-political issues, considering the particular tensions persistent in the geopolitical area that is the city of Jerusalem –, can lead to positive outcomes. For instance, improving communication and interaction among communities of different urban gardens can have a positive impact on strengthening the social fabric across different levels of economic status and cultural backgrounds.
References
Concepts: Emergence. (n.d.). New England Complex Systems Institute. https://necsi.edu/emergence
Cosens, B., Ruhl, J. B., Soininen, N., Gunderson, L., Belinskij, A., Blenckner, T., Camacho, A. E., Chaffin, B. C., Craig, R. K., Doremus, H., Glicksman, R., Heiskanen, A. S., Larson, R., & Similä, J. (2021). Governing complexity: Integrating science, governance, and law to manage accelerating change in the globalized commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(36). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102798118
Eizenberg, E. & Fenster, T. (2015). Reframing urban controlled spaces: Community gardens in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv-Jaffa Published under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works. ACME. 14. 1132-1160.
Guitart D, Pickering C, Byrne J (2012) Past Results and Future Directions in Urban Community Gardens Research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11(4), 364–373.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hub, I. S. K. (n.d.). Generation 2030: Growing Greener Cities: Urban Agriculture and the Impact on SDG 11 | SDG Knowledge Hub | IISD. https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/generation-2030/growing-greener-cities-urban-agriculture-and-the-impact-on-sd g-11/
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
Meadows, D. H. (2009). Thinking in Systems: A primer (1st ed.). Earthscan & Sustainability Institute. 75–86.
Shur‐Ofry, M., & Malcai, O. (2019). Collective action and social contagion: Community gardens as a case study. Regulation &Amp; Governance, 15(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12256