Article

Urban Studies1–20� Urban Studies Journal Limited 2019Article reuse guidelines:sagepub.com/journals-permissionsDOI: 10.1177/0042098018819734journals.sagepub.com/home/usj

The ‘fluid governance’ of urbanpublic spaces. Insights from informalplanning practices in Rome

Chiara CertomaGhent University, Belgium

Lorenzo ChelleriUniversitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain

Bruno NotteboomKU Leuven, Belgium

AbstractThis paper investigates the emergence of informal planning practices and their relationship withthe new geometries of power and responsibility that characterise what is here defined anddescribed as ‘fluid governance’; and that leads to co-creative forms of public space governance. Inparticular, the research explores the key role played by some politically progressive forms ofurban gardening in pivoting actions that transform green spaces through informal planning intoareas for food production and collaborative management. This challenges traditional governancenetworks and re-defines the functioning of public spaces. The case of Parco delle Energie inRome (Italy) serves as an example of a process of space re-appropriation, planning and finally co-management performed by a dense network of very diverse actors, who established a collabora-tive framework with the administration in order to re-shape decision-making dynamics. Acomparative analysis of international cases confirms that urban gardening is challenging the domi-nance of a traditional planning perspective worldwide, both spatially as on the level of governance,and is turning citizens’ dissensus into a productive force in the re-imagination and stewardship ofpublic urban space. The conclusion suggests the self-design and co-managing capacities of urbangardeners and citizens could lead to adequate synergies between actors, enabling new urban gov-ernance models in line with the global ambition to build more sustainable and inclusive cities.

Keywordsgovernance, informality, land use, planning, public space, urban gardening

Corresponding author:

Chiara Certoma, Centre for Sustainable Development -

CDO, Department of Political Science, Ghent University,

Belgium.

Email: Chiara.Certoma@UGent.be

Received June 2018; accepted November 2018

Introduction

The difficulties faced by institutional plan-ning in dealing with the increasing urbanisa-tion pressure and social exclusion (Beall,2002; Watson, 2009) have recently given riseto the emergence of citizens’ autonomousprocesses impacting on the structure and func-tioning of urban space. These processes areprogressively turning from mere expression ofnon-planned urban informality experiences(Roy, 2005) into something different andworthwhile of closer investigation, i.e. thestructured or quasi-structured projects of infor-mal planning aimed at a systematic andorganic collective re-appropriation and revitali-sation of public spaces for public benefit(Corsın Jimenez, 2014; Roy, 2005).

Going beyond the existing literature oncounter-planning practices, this paperexplores the concept of informal planningand the new form of urban governance thatis related to it. By counter-planning initia-tives we mean bottom-up initiatives andactions in urban space that go against

official government planning, which is expe-rienced as a form of oppression and control.Informal planning is in this paper conceivedas an organised form of collective planningthat builds upon grassroots initiatives butalso entails different forms of collaborationand dialogue with official planners. Thebackground section clarifies the differencebetween urban informality and informalplanning and advocates greater attention tothe latter, as it can generate sustainable andlong-lasting arrangements even in absence ofthe State, rather than temporary initiatives,as is often the case with urban informalityoutcomes. We propose a conception ofinformal planning processes that trans-gresses the usual legislative framework ofconventional planning (Thorn et al., 2015;Uzzell, 1990); and advances new collabora-tive practices for the reproduction of thepublic and public space. Furthermore, weclaim that these processes require a new gov-ernance context, which we define as ‘fluid

“ ”

Parco delle Energie

2 Urban Studies 00(0)

governance’, referring to continuous restruc-turation of power and responsibilitydynamics, and involving different public andprivate actors.

We explain our theoretical frameworkand complement it with the results of a fieldinvestigation focusing on urban gardeninginitiatives in Rome, Italy. The case studyallows us to scrutinise how informal plan-ning practices and fluid governance pro-cesses work in reality. Specifically, we focuson the transformation of a contested formerindustrial area into a fascinating example ofnature re-production in the city, the Parcodelle Energie (Energy Park), situated on theeast side of Rome (section ‘Exploring newmodes of urbanisation in Rome: the case ofParco delle Energie’). Our analysis shows thedriving role of community allotment garden-ers in supporting the planning and the gov-ernance of a large public green area whoseborders and fate has been the subject of mul-tiple disputes. Indeed, the case study aims atunveiling the complex relationships betweendifferent forms of governance, both in orga-nisational and spatial terms, related to urbanpublic green spaces – notably from a plan-ning perspective, by framing this local casein an international perspective.

In the section ‘Urban gardening and‘‘fluid’’ governance: A comparative analysis’the paper refers to a global set of cases –particularly on urban gardens co-creationand co-management in European cities. Incomparison with the Rome case they areintended to throw light on the mutual char-acter of fluid governance and informal plan-ning. This concluding discussion shows howthe process of negotiation between institu-tional, private and community actors is com-posed of ingredients identified in the Romecase, despite other cases not necessarily fol-lowing the exact same trajectory.

From urban informality toinformal planning: Catalysing anew model of fluid governancefor urban public spaces

Disentangling the informality imbroglio

The emergence of new modes of urbanisa-tion (Roy and AlSayyad, 2004), as OrenYiftachel claims, requires us to recognise thenew geography of globally expanding urban‘grey space’ (Yiftachel, 2009a) situated‘between the whiteness of legality/approval/safety, and the blackness of eviction/destruc-tion/death’ (Yiftachel, 2009b: 89). Indeed, ifduring the last century the black-and-whitedistinction between planned and unplannedspaces was still clear, and urban informalitywas framed as a Global South housing issue(De Soto, 2000; Hall and Pfeiffer, 2013),nowadays the decrease of this distinctioncharacterises much of the Global Northmetropolis as well (Davis, 2006; Neuwirth,2006; Watson, 2009). Indeed, in a recentbook, Mukhija and Loukaitou-Siderisexplored how, even across the USA, illegaland spontaneous in-law units, street food,and community gardens happening invacant plots, represent essential informaleconomic activities which increasinglyoccupy private and public urban spaces(Mukhija and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2014). Inrecent decades, we have been accustomed tosee planning practice as a facilitator of mar-ket forces (Tasan-Kok and Baeten, 2011), aslocal governments have been required tofacilitate the regulation of society by themarket (Hofmeyr, 2011). The neoliberalgovernmentality (Barry et al., 1996a; Hardtand Negri, 2000; Harvey, 2005) producedthe progressive commodification of publicspace and privatisation of the city (Brennerand Theodore, 2002; Sennett, 1970; Zukin,1995), urban infrastructures and services

Certoma et al. 3

(Bakker, 2003; Pırez, 2002). Spontaneousand often individual initiatives for caring ofprivatised or abandoned space has been themost immediate reaction to the pervasive-ness of neoliberal transformation of the city(Shatkin, 2004). This urban informalityexpresses the very diverse concretisations oflegitimacies, where ‘squatter settlementsformed through land invasion and self-helphousing can exist alongside upscale informalsubdivisions formed through legal owner-ship and market transaction but in violationof land use regulations’ (Roy, 2005: 145). Avariety of self-organised and spontaneousinterventions by informal actors re-appropriated neglected urban spaces orabandoned infrastructures (Groth andCorijn, 2005; Hou, 2010; Jimenez, 2014).These experiences have also been framedwithin the concepts of everyday urbanismexperiences (Chase et al., 1999; Powell,2012), insurgent planning (Miraftab, 2009),insurgent public space (Hou, 2010), counter-planning (Shatkin, 2004) or do-it-yourselfmechanisms (Bermann and CloughMarinaro, 2014). All of them represent aconceptual step forward from the propertyvalue of land to its use value (Mitchell,2003). This emphasis on processes and func-tions rather than on forms and structures(Banerjee, 2001) has characterised most ofthe people-driven experiences in urbanisa-tion (Kyessi, 2005; Thorn et al., 2015),bringing to light the ‘urban commons’ issue(Colding et al., 2013; Follmann and Viehoff,2015). Current notion of commoning(Walljasper, 2010) emphasises a particularagenda and set of processes in which it isconceived as a process-oriented practice (e.g.Dzokic and Neelen, 2015) that allow for thenegotiation of traditional public space ele-ments. Such a globally emerging mode ofurban space reproduction stands at the basisof the need to overcome the gaps between

informal and institutional planning (Uzzell,1990), through the rise and understanding ofa new conception of planning practices(Ballard et al., 2005; Dierwechter, 2002;Watson, 2009).

The concept of informal planning refersto an unusual but emerging process influen-cing planning practices, in which a variety ofactors (formal and informal) are involved ina continuous negotiation about space usesand management which are not conceived,nor regulated, by formal planning docu-ments. This could be seen in line with other,or previous concepts as collaborative plan-ning, or community-led planning. However,our understanding of informal planningrefers to a process in which (informal) actorstend to negotiate some forms of living andusing urban space, usually as a consequenceof a lack of adequate institutional care.Also, this informal planning practice devi-ates significantly from the concept of urbaninformality itself, because it ‘leads us toreconsider the post-Lefebvrian critique ofplanning as a tool of domination and it sug-gests that planning per se can be a co-creative process, empowering citizens in self-producing public space’ (Certoma andNotteboom, 2017: 16). As a consequence,while urban informality can be described asan antagonistic expression of people’s dis-sensus towards institutional spatial andorganisational plans, or even as a form ofprivate self-help initiatives, informal plan-ning refers to collectively organised andstructured initiatives aimed at designing theform and functions of public spaces and ser-vices in the absence of a legal definition, gui-dance and funds provided by the public orprivate sector (Corsın Jimenez, 2014;Vestbro, 2013). This allows the entering ofinformal actors in institutional planningprocesses and the redefinition of what isurban, and for whom.

4 Urban Studies 00(0)

A fluid governance context for informalplanning. The case of urban gardening

In order for this to happen, planning pro-cesses need to be supported by a governmen-tality that, while unveiling the dichotomybetween the State and the market, is charac-terised by a distinctive rationality that gath-ers together a network of heterogeneousactors. Wide social (horizontal and vertical)networks, bridging scales and stakeholders(Ernstson et al., 2010) make it possible to re-appropriate (Pruijt, 2013), to co-design(Egyedi and Mehos, 2012) and finally to co-manage urban spaces (Rosa et al, 2013).Planning entails an ‘orchestration and man-agement of development and of the interre-lationships between people and place andvarious uses and activities’ (Parker andDoak, 2012: 7), thus a number of relevantfactors and external conditions (e.g. politi-cal, economic and socio-demographic, envi-ronmental) have a significant impact on it(Chhotray and Stoker, 2010). Their interplayresults in specific forms of governance,which, in the case of informal planning, wesee as a ‘fluid’ form of governance. Thefluidity refers to the dynamic character ofpower and responsibility of heterogenoussocial actors that temporarily assemblearound a disputed state of fact (Marres,2012), such as the creation of a park, anddeploy multiple sets of tools and variousmodalities of social interaction (Latour,2005). This fluid character obviously gener-ates issues of legitimacy (Haines et al.,2008), efficacy, accessibility and publicbenefit (Oakley, 2001). Moreover, it maybring about diverse consequences in termsof the (dis)empowerment of different socialgroups – helping or hampering them toincrease their wellbeing (Drydyk, 2013).Nevertheless, it is clear that both the tradi-tional models of state- (or administration-)led governance and the market-led neolib-eral governance (Clarke, 2016) are

increasingly challenged by these new formsof agency (Alkire, 2008). Not accidentally,fluid governance processes often emerge inundefined ‘grey’ spaces where the erosion ofthe classical public domain and the existenceof spaces inbetween public and private fuelthe development of informal planning.

A broad variety of citizen-driven initia-tives for urban regeneration, the sharingeconomy, the management of commons(Borret, 2001) and collaborative planningcan be regarded as examples of informalplanning; however urban gardening is par-ticularly interesting, both for its wide diffu-sion and for contemporary tackling withspatial and social planning aspects.

Based on the case study of the Parco delleEnergie in Rome (Italy), this paper addressesone of the most common facets of the infor-mal planning experience in the GlobalNorth: i.e. the role that progressive forms ofurban gardening may have in catalysingurban informality practices through emer-ging and innovative governance process.

In introducing urban gardening, however,some clarifications are necessary. It is nowapparent that the broad diffusion of urbangardening initiatives (encompassing tradi-tional allotments, community and collectivegardens, guerrilla gardening but also roofgardens, vertical gardens or any other formsof greening and cultivating in the city) arenot always endowed with a political charac-ter (Certoma and Tornaghi, 2015), nor arethey all inspired by the same values. It is notuncommon that urban gardening projectsare co-opted in the neoliberal urban agendaby local administrations (Ernwein, 2017;Rosol, 2012) turning into manifestations ofneoliberal politics (Barron, 2017; Quastel,2009). These gardening projects can behardly interpreted as revolutionary experi-ences (Pudup, 2008; Smith and Kurtz, 2003;Weisman, 2009), as they are unable toaddress the dynamics of accumulation andexclusion (McClintock, 2014) and can

Certoma et al. 5

generate enclosures and gentrification(Stehlin and Tarr, 2016).

Nevertheless, many gardening experi-ences share an advocacy approach towardthe collective re-appropriation of urbanspace (Staeheli et al., 2002). They are con-sidered to be a ‘progressive and access-widening activity, enhancing social life andcohesion, with the garden becoming a sitefor subversive events or a manifestation ofcritical engagement’ (Certoma, 2018: 34).Gardens acquire thus a politically libera-tory function (McKay, 2011) and becomethe site for an affirmative kind of politicsvia participatory democracy processes(Pares et al., 2014 ). In this paper, we areinterested in the latter form of urban gar-dening and how it fits in (and enables)informal planning experiences. In fact,urban gardening has often been conceivedas an expression of counter-planning(Purcell, 2013), i.e. a form of dissensusmanifestation against the coercive power ofofficial planning that, building upon grass-root initiatives, refuses any collaborationor compromise with government. However,it is now clear that urban gardening shouldrather be considered as an exemplaryexpression of informal planning (Certomaand Notteboom, 2017), i.e. a collaborativeform of planning relying on the innovativemodels of co-design and co-management ofurban space involving private and publicactors.

Exploring new modes ofurbanisation in Rome: The caseof Parco delle Energie

We complemented our theoretical explora-tion with an in-depth case study in Rome(Italy) and with worldwide examples in thediscussion section (section ‘Urban gardeningand ‘‘fluid’’ governance: a comparativeanalysis’).

The Parco delle Energie owes its name tothe original intention of the public adminis-tration to turn it into a showcase of alterna-tive energy plants (see below for adescription of the park’s history). The casehas been selected amongst a large number ofurban gardening initiatives in Rome, as it ischaracterised by a complex relationshipbetween community associations, publicadministrations and private companies; andit became a public concern in Rome thanksto public protests events and manifestations.Relevant information has been collected viabibliographic research on both scientific andgrey literature (including reports, flyers,manifestos, etc.), available on the web orretrieved in the Historical Archive of thepark itself. Further data have been collectedthrough participant observation in publicinitiatives held at Parco delle Energie, andthrough ten open interviews and transectwalks with selected gatekeepers in Rome.These include the founders of the urban gar-deners group called Whatzappa Foundationoperating in the Parco delle Energie; ofZappata Romana, a voluntary associationwhose aim is to establish a network of allthe gardening associations in Rome; of theForum Territoriale Permanente, a citizen’sassociation whose purpose is the collectivemanagement of the Parco delle Energie; withrepresentatives of the WWF local commit-tee, between September and January 2016.

Informality and urban gardening practicesin Rome

The city of Rome has a long history ofurban informality (Insolera, 2011;Oecumene, 2013), which can – to a certainextent – be explained by the absence of ageneral regulatory plan for the city’s devel-opment between 1962 and 2003 (Aureliet al., 2010). Unregulated urban expansioncontributed to the environmental degrada-tion, economic deprivation and social

6 Urban Studies 00(0)

marginality, which still disproportionatelyaffect diverse areas of the city (d’Albergoand Moini, 2013) and stimulated the realisa-tion of urban informality initiatives (Careri,2002; Franck and Stevens, 2006; TechnischeUniversitaet Berlin, 2002) conferring anextemporaneous character to Rome’s land-scape (Urban Transcripts, 2011). Amongstthe others, urban gardening projects deservea special attention, as they contribute totransform the meaning of spontaneous re-appropriation of urban public space: fromextemporaneous (and often individual) prac-tices of urban informality to more structuredand impactful initiatives of informalplanning.

The urban gardening movement emergedin Rome about 20 years ago (Bell et al.,2016) and rapidly turned into a widespreadmovement. Today, the map of urban garden-ing initiatives in Rome provided by the asso-ciation Zappata Romana documents 214projects (Zappata Romana, 2018) realisedby local citizens’ informal committees, com-munity and allotment gardeners, environ-mental and social associations, and guerrillagardeners (Gnessi, 2012). No form of urbangardening was regulated in Rome up untilthe summer 2014, when the municipal regu-latory norms for allotment gardens wereissued. Today, the network of Rome’s urbangardens counts mainly urban allotments (102in total, including small parcels of land forindividual cultivation in the context of largergreen areas), 67 community gardens (i.e. avaried set of green spaces used for gardening,staging cultural events, food production,community meetings, etc.), and 31 guerrillagardening initiatives (namely extempora-neous actions in small derelict fractions ofurban green spaces or brownfield sites).However, despite their different configura-tions, they all share a common raison d’etre:it was not only the pleasure of enjoying greenareas per se that inspired Rome’s inhabitantsto engage in urban gardening, but the need

for well-kept public spaces in which socialrelationships, place attachment, and politicalcommitment could be exercised (InterviewZappata). In such a context, the governanceof informal planning processes, characterisedby the cooperation of different actors (e.g.gardening groups, social centres, schools,parks management offices, senior centres,migrant communities, etc.), is of crucialimportance (Interview Zappata).

The case of Parco delle Energie is particu-larly interesting as it provides a clear exam-ple of how informal planning can take placewhen alternative models of public-space gov-ernance emerge.

From the SNIA industrial plant to theParco delle Energie

The 14 ha on the east side of Rome formerlycovered by the industrial plant SNIAViscosa (previously CISA Viscosa) consist ofthree separate areas (as illustrated in Figure1) which share an intertwined history(Forum Territoriale Permanente, 2013). Thearea numbered ‘1’ in the figure was formallyassigned by the city administration to thesocial centre eXsnia Viscosa in the 1990s.Area 2 was to become Parco delle Energie(despite this name being commonly used torefer to the whole perimeter), hosting thecommunity allotments. Area 3 is privatelyowned by one of the largest constructioncompanies of Rome, Societa Ponente s.r.l.(Fanelli, 2014), and has recently seen theappearance of a pond. The surroundingneighbourhood, named Pigneto-Prenestino,is one of the most densely populated inEurope (about 153 inhabitants/ha and atotal population of about 140,000 people),and the availability of green space within it(4 m/inhabitant) is far below the Italian legalstandard (9 m/inhabitant). The neighbour-hood presents the highest index of socialhardship and housing discomfort, as well asthe highest rate of early migrants residency

Certoma et al. 7

(Comune di Roma, 2018). The entire SNIAperimeter is wedged between a large railwaydeposit and the consular road ViaPrenestina, which also hosts a major a majorartery linking the centre of Rome to its east-ern outskirts.

From 1922 until 1954 the entire area wasthe property of SNIA Viscosa and hostedone of the major industrial plants in Rome,employing about 2000 workers in the pro-duction of rayon through the chemicalrefinement of cellulose. The surroundingneighbourhood was originally a dormitoryarea, until the plant was eventuallyclosed (Fanelli, 2014). In 1965 the GeneralRegulatory Plan of Rome proposed to repur-pose the land of SNIA Viscosa into an areaof administrative offices. However, theseoffices were never built, and the 14 ha werespared from the massive overbuilding thathas characterised the east side of Rome atthe time. Nonetheless, a fraudulent modifi-cation of the General Regulatory Plan ofRome in the 1990s allowed the building com-pany Societa Ponente to acquire a large part

of the area (Figure 1, bottom of area 3) andto start the construction of a shopping mall(Interview Zappata).

In 1992, area 1 (Figure 1) was occupiedby a group of squatters who turned it into asocial centre called eXsnia, the presence andactivity of which was formally recognisedand authorised by the city’s administration.This enabled the neighbourhood associa-tions, working with activists from the socialcentre, to re-mobilise the plight of local inha-bitants who, since 1980, were asking for thecreation of a park in the area (InterviewForum). In 1992, autonomous investigationsin the archives of the District Councilallowed the neighbourhood associations todenounce the illicit intervention in theGeneral Regulatory Plan of Rome and theillegal building permission granted to SocietaPonente (Interview Forum), as well as theinfringement of national environmental pro-tection norms concerning historical pine-woods protection (which partially applied tothe area acquired by Societa Ponente)(Interview WWF). As a consequence of the

Figure 1. A Google Map-based satellite view of the former SNIA Viscosa plant with subsections indicatingcurrent uses.

8 Urban Studies 00(0)

ensuing judicial investigation, a section ofthe industrial sheds and 2.5 ha of historicalpinewood (Figure 1, area 2) were expro-priated, and in 1995 the green-left city coun-cil, led by the former Mayor FrancescoRutelli, established the Parco delle Energie.

Meanwhile, excavations executed bySocieta Ponente had caused the emergenceof a 6-m-deep carbonated water pond(Figure 1). Citizens and the social centre’sactivists occupied the ruins of the factoryand cried out in protest, demanding thatthe area was turned into public propertyand that the pond was protected andannexed to the newly established Parcodelle Energie (Interview Forum). Buildingworks by Societa Ponente were subse-quently halted by local authorities, leavingbehind the unfinished structures of theshopping mall, but while the pond waseventually expropriated as well by the cityadministration, it remained inaccessible tocitizens because the surrounding landsremained in the hands of Societa Ponente(Fanelli, 2014). In 2011 local WWF acti-vists initiated a large wildlife survey thatdocumented more than 40 resident andmigratory bird species and about 20 speciesof small mammals and fish populating thepond and its surroundings (InterviewWWF; Pigneto Prenestino, 2016), a rich-ness which is partly due to the pond’s con-nection to other bodies of water in the city.Moreover, the environmental value of thepond went beyond its biodiversity, as itswater, air and soil quality was certified tobe excellent by academic research commis-sioned by local associations (Passatore,2014). At this stage, it is important to pointout that the emergence of the pond in theParco delle Energie was not serendipitousfor the activists’ cause, since it resultedfrom mismanagement practices which havebeen taking place in the city for decades,deeply affecting the urban environmentand the lives of its citizens.

From 2005 onwards, a new City Councilheaded by the right-wing Mayor GianniAlemanno proposed several projects for thetransformation of the third area (Figure 1),all of them involving the Societa Ponente.However, none of these projects have everbeen realised, particularly because of thestrong opposition from the newly consti-tuted Forum Territoriale Permanente delParco delle Energie (Permanent local forumfor the Parco delle Energie).

The Forum was established in 2008 bythe social centre eXsnia and a large numberof neighbourhood associations (includingenvironmental and sporting associations,informal citizen groups and urban garden-ers), who obtained the logistic support ofthe economic and environmental depart-ments of the city administration, as well asthe left-wing District Council. Apart frommonitoring the activities of the SocietaPonente and the decisions of the cityadministrations, the Forum is committed topromoting an informal planning processinvolving professionals, activists, privatecitizens, schools, associations and engagedacademics in the management of the exist-ing Parco delle Energie (Interview Forum;Forum Territoriale Permanente, 2013;Merlo, 2014). The Forum advocates for theadministration to make the park publiclyaccessible and to expropriate the remainingprivate area. Furthermore, since the expro-priation of land by public authorities is leg-ally nullified in the absence of a newbuilding plan within the decade followingthe expropriation date (Interview WWF),The Forum is committed to produce newproposals via informal planning processes(Interview Forum).

Urban gardening at the Parco delle Energie

The realisation of the Parco delle Energiewas made possible by the URBAL Europeanaction (2008–2011),1 which granted the

Certoma et al. 9

funds to restore part of the abandonedindustrial sheds according to green buildingprinciples, and provided the solar installa-tion (Interview Forum). Initially, therestored building (see picture B, Figure 2)was intended for the Rome Gardens Office,but eventually it was offered to the Forum asa space for social activities (meetings,courses, children camps and laboratoriestogether with the Historical Archive ofSNIA). A nearby building was covered withpanels and destined for sports activities, fes-tivals and open-air meetings. The park is sur-rounded by and includes a historicalpinewood (picture A, Figure 2), a dog area,a playground (picture C, Figure 2), urbanallotment gardens (picture F, Figure 2), anda second sports area (which is still to be rea-lised). The pond and its surroundings havealso been revitalised, offering silence and awindow to nature within this dense neigh-bourhood (see pictures d, e, Figure 2). Asillustrated through the pictures, land use andfunction have been changed and open-air

public services have been provided (seeFigure 2). Amongst the new functions andservices, urban gardening plays a key role instrengthening the community’s day-to-daymanagement of the whole area. Gardenersengage in maintenance (e.g. daily cleaning ofthe entire park, cutting of brushes and treebranches, closure of the park at night, rea-lisation of fences for dog and kids areas), ororganisational (e.g. weekly updating to localadministration office, task distributionbetween different associations) and socio-cultural functions (e.g. network activitieswith other urban gardeners for the realisa-tion of ecological corridors, joint events,city-wide mobilisation for the lake, lobbyingon development plants for the neighbour-hood). All decisions concerning the park andthe programming of initiatives are debatedin the Forum, where they can only be takenin consensus with all the participants(Interview Whatzappa).

Despite the intense commitment of theForum, the Parco delle Energie was

Figure 2. The internal organisation of the Parco delle Energie (photo by Chiara Certoma; graphicelaboration by Lorenzo Chelleri.).

10 Urban Studies 00(0)

progressively abandoned by the local admin-istration as soon as the URBAL projectended. As a result, in 2013 a group of citi-zens gave birth to a voluntary associationcalled Whatzappa Foundation (2016) thatasked the Gardens Office (EnvironmentalDepartment) of the Rome Administration,in accordance with the District Council, tocultivate an abandoned portion of the park(Figure 1). Owing to the lack of internalstaff and economic support for the mainte-nance of the Parco delle Energie, theGardens Office made an informal agreementwith the gardeners. In exchange for the per-mission to establish allotments for foodgrowing and exchange in the neighbour-hood, they were asked to take care of themaintenance of the entire park (InterviewWhatzappa). Today, the 28 allotments coveran area of 80 m2, and 15 volunteers andabout 80 occasional collaborators cultivatethese weekly. All of the volunteers are locals.Water pipes for irrigation have been realisedby Whatzappa at its own expenses, togetherwith a common area for shedding tools andfences. Works have been done voluntarily,in order to keep the park accessible, cleanand alive; however only non-written agree-ments have been concluded with theAdministration. Whatzappa Foundation isindeed still waiting to be officially recog-nised in order to get a formal contract formanaging the park, based on the recent offi-cial allotment gardens rules of Rome(Interview Whatzappa). Nevertheless, thecatalysing role of urban gardeners in theemerging governance routines of the Parcodelle Energie clearly revolves around theinterest of many local residents. For exam-ple, the Whatzappa Foundation autonouslypaid specialised laboratories for constantmonitoring of the soil, air and water qualityin the park (Interview Whatzappa).

Urban gardening and ‘fluid’governance: A comparativeanalysis

Between counter, informal and formalplanning

In the case of the Parco delle Energie, theprocess of developing informal planning inbetween counter- and formal planning hap-pened in several subsequent stages, whichcan also be found in comparable interna-tional examples:

(1) In the first phase, squatters drew atten-tion to the area, after which activists,neighbourhood associations and thesocial centre stepped in. This enabledthe emergence of a new model of gov-ernance and co-management of spaces,since the private owner had suspendedits construction plans. The process canbe seen as an example of informal plan-ning practices proposing an alternativeurban culture in managing publicspaces. Many informal planning experi-ences through urban gardening arecharacterised by similar aims (Lambornand Weinberg, 1999; Schmelzkopf,1995), at least in their very initial stage.

(2) In a second phase, a more complex andstructured organisational logic emerges.In the Parco delle Energie case, the devel-opment of a new type of multi-actor andmulti-scale organisation (e.g. the ForumTerritoriale Permanente) represents thissecond step. It was enabled by the cross-scale collaboration of the associationsinvolved, but also supported by theMunicipality of Rome. Similar informalgovernance processes allowing civil soci-ety to interact with private actors (suchas the Societa Ponente) have alsoemerged in urban gardens elsewhere in

Certoma et al. 11

Europe. For example in the De Site gar-den in Ghent (De Site, 2016) represents acoproduction of the City Administrationand neighbourhood groups dealingwith a private real estate developer(RabotSite, 2017) or the FederacionRegional de Asociaciones Vecinales(Regional Federation of NeighbourhoodAssociations) in Madrid (Ioannou et al.,2016).

(3) In the third and most recent stage, themaintenance of the Parco delle Energie(which would usually fall under thepublic administration’s responsibility)was taken over by the urban gardenersof Whatzappa Foundation. The powerbalance seems to have shifted further inthe direction of community actors. Inthe literature, this evolution is oftenobserved as actually supporting neolib-eral planning practices instead of con-tradicting them (McMichael, 2012),because the municipality rids itself ofsuch eminent public tasks, such asthe maintenance of public space (andthe financial responsibility for it),potentially leading to further publicbudget cuts and an increasing de-responsibilisation of the city adminis-tration. For example, some urbangardening initiatives in Berlin sincethe early 1980s (most notably theKinderbaurnhof Mauerplatz Kreuzberg),have been interpreted in such fashion(Rosol, 2010). It has also beenobserved that handing over publicspace to a limited group of citizenscan lead to new forms of enclosure orgentrification (Tornaghi, 2014). Onesuch example would be the De BoersePoort, another urban gardening initia-tive in Ghent, that – despite goodintentions – struggles to actually reachand involve low-income and migrantpopulation in its management activi-ties (Certoma and Notteboom, 2017).

However, the case of the Parco delleEnergie demonstrates that eventhough the maintenance of publicspace is, to a certain extent, handedover from the Municipality to com-munity actors, the variety of activitiesand users together with the commit-ment of a body as the Forum and therefusal of commercial activities canreduce the risk of the gardens becom-ing the instrument of neoliberal plan-ning and gentrification. Furthermore,another factor in favour of takingthese risks is the fact that withoutsuch structures, the park would verylikely fall into degradation.

The three stages exemplified in the case ofthe Parco delle Energie (counterplanningstage, informal planning, and shifting rela-tions between administration and commu-nity actors) can be found in many projectsof urban gardening. However, neither arethey all manifested in every case, nor do theynecessarily occur in this exact order. As amatter of fact, many urban gardening proj-ects start from the actions of communityactors, and gradually enter a process ofnegotiation and co-management with officialinstances and the owners of the land (forexample, the Okotop Heerdt in Dusseldorf(Sondermann, 2014), which started as anactivist ecological garden project andevolved into an active involvement of theorganisers in the city planning process).

The increase in influence and power ofurban gardeners often gains momentumwhen gardening associations start workingin networks. For instance, the Libere RapeMetropolitane network in Milan evolvedfrom a network providing practical supportand information on gardening, eventuallybecoming an instrument for mobilisingpower and negotiating with the municipalityin order to stop a construction project. Italso obtained an agreement for the co-

12 Urban Studies 00(0)

management of municipally owned yetvacant green sites (Silvestri, 2016). Anotherwell-known case is Incredible Edible, a net-work of urban gardeners that started out inthe UK in 2007 and evolved into a supportnetwork that spans over 100 sites in the UKand worldwide. They focus on communitybuilding, education as well as business sup-port, and the network offers practical advicein setting up gardens, community projectsand business endeavours, as well as supportin dealing with local governments (Clarke,2010; Incredible Edible, 2016; Thompson,2012).

However, not every urban gardening ini-tiative is initiated by community actors. Asurban gardening has become increasinglyaccepted as a tool in, at worst, a sophisti-cated form of city marketing and, at best, agenuine attempt to create equitable andhealthy cities, governmental institutions andeven private partners are increasinglyinvolved in these initiatives from the begin-ning. A recent example is the VoedseltuinRotterdam, a social project founded to pro-duce food for Rotterdam’s food bank, spon-sored by the municipality; or theaforementioned De Site garden in Ghent,whose site is actually owned by a privatedeveloping company and part of a public–private development scheme for the area.Although the municipality will relocate thisgarden when the site is redeveloped, theentanglement of public, community and pri-vate actors represents its strength as well asits potential weakness (Certoma andNotteboom, 2017).

The case of the Parco delle Energie andthe other cases mentioned above demon-strate that a context of fluid governance canprovide a resilient base for public spaceplanning and management in complex andheterogeneous social formations that is oftenlacking in more static and one-sided powerconstellations. Nevertheless, the cases alsodemonstrate that continuous alertness, and

a willingness to meet the needs of commu-nity actors throughout the process, espe-cially when private owners or investors areinvolved, is crucial.

Access, enclosure and networks: Beyondthe public–private dichotomy

The continuous process of negotiation thatis at the basis of the fluid governancedescribed in the previous paragraphs is verymuch related not only to the organisational,but also to the spatial conditions of a lot ofthe current urban gardening initiatives.Most of them take place in a specific type ofurban open spaces, i.e. ‘inbetween’ not onlylegally or in terms of use but also spatially,and which cannot be defined as either publicor private. The following section exploresthe spatial context and the modes of appro-priation in the Parco delle Energie and otherexamples of urban gardening, and how theseset out the spatial conditions for a negotia-tion process between different societalgroups and agendas, allowing new forms ofsocial integration and cohesion (Reynolds,2015). Among the merits of urban gardeningemerging in ‘spaces of uncertainty’ cut outin the urban void (Cupers and Miessen,2002), is that citizens gain access to theseformerly closed-off areas, even if their statusas public space is ambiguous and contested.Well-studied examples are the urban gardenson marginal or yet-to-develop spaces inBerlin, which however became a trademarkof the fast changing socio-economic andtransition context into a privatised economyand increasing real estate development pres-sure after the Wende (Rosol, 2010). Anarchetypical case is the Rosa Rose garden,forced to move several times (Bendt et al.,2013). In the opposite context of ‘shrinkingcities’ (with Detroit as prime example),urban gardens and their communities oper-ate in a context of increasing availability ofpublic as well as private land, whereby the

Certoma et al. 13

access of formerly inaccessible groundsenables urban gardening to redefine theurban tissue (Oswalt et al., 2005; TheGreening of Detroit, 2016).

With reference to the current notion ofcommoning introduced in section ‘Fromurban informality to informal planning:Catalysing a new model of fluid governancefor urban public spaces’, the Parco delleEnergie presents some interesting elementswhen considering the present ‘commons’, i.e.lawns and trees, a dog area, a playground,planned sporting areas and areas that arecared for by specific groups (e.g. the allot-ments gardened by Whatzappa Foundation).A central issue in the reflection on commons– which definitely applies for urban garden-ing – is enclosure (De Cauter, 2013): thenegotiation between different users is sup-ported by a spatial interaction between thedifferent parts of the park, but also by theirrelative autonomy. For example, the woodenfences around the allotments in the Parcodelle Energie provide both transparency andintimacy, creating a condition in betweenpublic space and a space cultivated by a spe-cific group (e.g. Whatzappa Foundation).This combination of both spatial and pro-grammatic/social enclosure and disclosure isa central characteristic of urban gardens allover the globe and comes in many varieties.Some urban gardening initiatives aim at aclosed-off space, such as the much-mediatised organic rooftop gardening inNew York (Eagle Street Rooftom Farm,2012), which is inaccessible to those notbelonging to the community-supported agri-culture programme. However, all of theaforementioned cases include degrees ofenclosure. In Okotop Heerdt, Dusseldorf, agradient has been built between a publiclyaccessible park, the more private organicgardens and the dwellings on the terrain(Sondermann, 2014). The access toVoedseltuin, Rotterdam, which strives forsocial inclusion and rehabilitation of

homeless and drug addicts, fosters care forhandicapped people, and educates schoolchildren, is regulated in space and time, withrestricted access for the public at large(Stichting, 2014). The power relationshipsbetween different actors thus result in differ-ent spatial arrangements and degrees ofopenness, searching for a balance of publiclyaccessible space and spaces used by specificgroups.

The recent trend to stimulate public–private partnership in the management ofurban space, including the common areas(Sutherland, 2011) opens the door to theexpansion of neoliberal governmentalitywith the public giving room to private orga-nisations (including business companies, butalso associations). This evidence might raisedoubt about whether the fluid governancehere described is actually overlapping withthe neoliberal one, because it is clear that inboth the cases the mobilisation of privateactors is paired with the reduction of thespace of competence, responsibility andintervention of the public authority.However, there is a crucial differencebetween on the one hand an agency directedtoward the interest of a market organisationand civil society organisations, and on theother an agency necessarily aimed at publicbenefit. The possibility for the latter to enablethe collaborative action in the public sphere issubject to the creation of adequate spaces andrules which differ from those regulating boththe traditional and neoliberal governance. Onthe contrary the non-linear and networkedcharacter of fluid governance might allow it.

Conclusions

This paper, dealing with the role of urbangardening in the inception of new models ofurban governance, started with a prelimi-nary exploration of the scholarly debate oninformality practices. The aim was toexplore how informal planning practices can

14 Urban Studies 00(0)

lead to the co-management of public spaces,supported by fluid geometries of governancethat emerge between public and privateagency. With the aim of exploring the trans-formation of urban neglected and ‘grey’spaces, we devoted particular attention tourban gardening. This activity is generallyunderstood as an expression of citizen dis-sensus toward the neoliberalisation of publicspace (Staeheli et al., 2002) and as an oppor-tunity for direct commitment in reshapingboth people’s daily space and the inducedgovernance model (Brenner and Theodore,2002; Schmelzkopf, 1995). Indeed, urbangardening can be regarded as a clear exam-ple of informal planning, in which the syner-gies among different actors determine theemergence of a fluid governance model, rely-ing on dynamic processes of co-decision andco-management of urban public spaces,oriented toward a more sustainable and justcity (Anguelovski, 2014). This is clearlyexemplified by the Parco delle Energie case.It shows how, by emerging from vernacularpractices of urban informality, urban gar-dening is introducing an increasingly struc-tured mode of interaction between differentstakeholders and actors, which can influencepublic space management in Rome. Thesubsequent discussion of our case study inthe international context allowed us to criti-cally define some more generic characters ofurban gardening contributing to the interna-tional call for fluid governance approaches.The fallacy of urban planning in addressingthe speed, social justice and complexity ofurban transformations (Neuman, 1998) cre-ated the fertile soil for urban gardening(among others community-led approaches)to propose a re-framing of the neoliberalgovernmentality, usually structuring marketforces around the drivers of urban planning.The complex network of actors involvedwith urban gardening and the co-design and

co-management of public spaces leads to aconcretisation of legitimacies emphasisingthe need of stepping from a property valueto a use value approach in driving urbantransformation processes. This is in turn theempirical evidence for the theoretical differ-ence between the classic literature of urbaninformality (De Soto, 2000) and the emer-ging conceptual framing of informal plan-ning practices (Roy, 2005), re-shapingthrough a dynamic process nested withinnegotiations, the relationship between insti-tutional, private and community actors overtime. Supported by a variety of similar inter-national experiences, the case study confirmsat least the need to scale up the disruption ofthe classic public/private dichotomy which isnow leading urban transformation, and tore-discuss ownership, commoning and enclo-sure within planning practices. How success-ful experiences in urban gardening couldfacilitate and scale up this re-framingthrough fluid governances is one of the keyquestions here, and research into this themecan, and needs to, bridge the gap betweenurban studies theory and practices. Thechallenge here is also to position emergingcommunity-led initiatives among the toolsof sophisticated forms of city marketing (seethe Rotterdam or Ghent examples presentedin the last section). We suggest, thus, thatfurther research is needed in order to betterunderstand fluid governance, how it couldinfluence market forces within urban plan-ning and management and pave the way forcollaborative planning.Weblinks asdf

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the followingfinancial support for the research, authorship,and/or publication of this article: This paper hasbeen created in the course of a research projectfunded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020

Certoma et al. 15

research and innovation programme under theMarie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No740191.

Note

1. For details on the action see http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/regions/latin-america/urbal_en (accessed 23 February 2019). For furtherinformation see ‘Progetto di recupero di unvecchio magazzino situato nell’area ex-SniaViscosa’, available at: https://www.comune.roma.it/pcr/it/newsview.page? contentId=NEW126906 (accessed 23 February 2019).

ORCID iD

Chiara Certoma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7154-0915

References

Alkire S (2008) Concepts and measures of agency.

OPHI Working Paper 9: 1–23.Anguelovski I (2014) Neighborhood as Refuge:

Environmental Justice, Community Reconstruc-

tion, and Placeremaking in the City. Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT Press.Aureli PV, Mastrigli G and Tarrata M (eds) (2010)

Rome: The Centre(s) Elsewhere. Milan: Skira.Bakker K (2003) Archipelagos and networks:

Urbanization and water privatization in

the South. Geographical Journal 169(4):

328–341.Ballard R, Habib A, Valodia I, et al. (2005) Glo-

balization, marginalization and contemporary

social movements in South Africa. African

Affairs 104(417): 615–634.Banerjee T (2001) The future of public space:

Beyond invented streets and reinvented places.

Journal of the American Planning Association

67(1): 9–24.Barron J (2017) Community gardening: cultivat-

ing subjectivities, space and justice. Local Envi-

ronment 22(9): 1142–1158.Barry A, Osborne T and Rose N (eds) (1996a)

Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism,

Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Govern-

ment. London: UCL Press, 189–207.

Beall J (2002) Globalization and social exclusion

in cities: Framing the debate with lessons from

Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbaniza-

tion 14(1): 41–51.Bell S, Fox-Kamper R, Keshavarz N, et al. (2016)

Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe. Abing-

don: Routledge.Bendt P, Barthel S and Colding J (2013) Civic

greening and environmental learning in public

access community gardens in Berlin. Land-

scape and Urban Planning 109(1): 18–30.Bermann K and Clough Marinaro I (2014) ‘We

work it out’: Roma settlements in Rome and

the limits of do-it-yourself. Journal of Urban-

ism: International Research on Placemaking

and Urban Sustainability 7(4): 399–413.Borret K (2001) On domains. The public, the pri-

vate and the collective. Oase 54: 50–61.Brenner N and Theodore N (2002) Cities and the

geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberal-

ism’. Antipode 34(3): 349–379.Careri F (2002) Walkscapes. Walking as an Aes-

thetic Practice. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo

Gili.Certoma C (2018) A practice-based approach to

political gardening. Materiality, performativity

and post-environmentalism. In: Tornaghi C

and Certoma C (eds) Urban Gardening as Poli-

tics. London: Routledge, pp. 32–45.Certoma C and Notteboom B (2017) Hybrid

planning in a transactive governmentality: Re-

reading informal planning practices through

Ghent’s community gardens. Planning Theory

16(1): 51–73.Certoma C and Tornaghi C (2015) Political gar-

dening.Transforming cities and political

agency. Local Environment 20: 10.

Chase JK, Crawford J and Kaliski J (1999) Every-

day Urbanism. New York, NY: Monacelli

Press.Chhotray V and Stoker G (2010) Governance The-

ory and Practice. Houndmills: Palgrave.Clarke P (2010) Incredible edible: How to grow sus-

tainable communities. Forum: For Promoting 3–

19 Comprehensive Education 52(1): 69–76.Clarke S (2016) Local place-based collaborative

governance: Comparing state-centric and

society-centered models. Urban Affairs Review

51(3): 603–627.

16 Urban Studies 00(0)

Colding J, Barthel S, Bendt P, et al. (2013) Urban

green commons: Insights on urban common

property systems. Global Environmental

Change 23(5): 1039–1051.Corsın Jimenez A (2014) The right to infrastruc-

ture: A prototype for open source urbanism.

Environment and Planning D: Society & Space

32: 342–362.Cupers K and Miessen M (2002) Spaces of Uncer-

tainty. Wuppertal: Verlag Muller + Busmann.Davis M (2006) Planet of Slums. London: Verso.d’Albergo E and Moini G (2013) Politics, power

and the economy in Rome: Continuity and

change in an urban regime, Metropoles 12:

1–24.De Cauter L (2013) Common Places: Preliminary

Notes on the (Spatial) Commons. Available

at: http://community.dewereldmorgen.be/

blogs/lievendecauter/ 2013/10/14/common-

places-preliminary-notes-spatial-commons

(accessed 30 March 2016).De Soto H (2000) The Mystery of Capital: Why

Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails

Everywhere Else. New York, NY: Basic Books.Dierwechter Y (2002) Six cities of the informal

sector – And beyond. International Develop-

ment Planning Review 24(1): 21–40.Drydyk J (2013) Empowerment, agency, and

power. Journal of Global Ethics 9(3): 249–262.Dzokic A and Neelen M (2015) Instituting com-

moning. Theme issue: ‘Commoning as differ-

entiated publicness: Emerging concepts of the

urban and other material realities’. Footprint

9(1): 21–34.Eagle Street Rooftop Farm (2012) 2012 Farm Fact

Sheet. Available at: http://rooftopfarms.org/

media/ (accessed 30 March 2016).Egyedi TM and Mehos DC (2012) Inverse Infra-

structures: Disrupting Networks from Below.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Ernstson H, Barthel S, Andersson E, et al.

(2010) Scale-crossing brokers and network

governance of urban ecosystem services: The

case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society

15(4): 28.Ernwein M (2017) Urban agriculture and the neo-

liberalization of what? ACME: An Interna-

tional Journal for Critical Geographies 16(2):

249–275.

Fanelli G (2014) La flora e la storia: La biodiver-

sita vegetale e il paesaggio di archeologia

industriale da preservare. In: Forum Territor-

iale Permanente (ed.) eXSnia: La natura rigen-

era la citta. Seminar proceedings, 24 May

2014, Casa del Parco delle Energie, Rome.

Available at: https://lagoexsnia.files.word

press.com/2014/07/atti-convegno-exsniala-nat

ura-rigenera-la-cittc3a0.pdf (accessed 23 Feb-

ruary 2019).Follmann A and Viehoff V (2015) A green garden

on red clay: Creating a new urban common as

a form of political gardening in Cologne, Ger-

many. Local Environment 20(10): 1148–1174.Forum Territoriale Permanente (2013) Breve

storia del Parco delle Energie. In: Scienziati e

studiosi per l’ex-Snia Viscosa. Seminar pro-

ceedings, 1 December 2013, Casa del Parco

delle Energie, Rome. Available at: https://

lagoexsnia.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/atti-

uniti.pdf (accessed 23 February 2019).Franck KA and Stevens Q (2006) Tying down

loose space. In: Franck KA and Stevens Q

(eds) Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in

Urban Life. Abingdon: Routledge. 1–34.Gnessi C (2012) Orto Errante per l’accampata a

S.Croce in Gerusalemme. Romanotizie.it, 11

May 2012. Available at: http://www.romanoti-

zie.it/orto-errante-per-l-accampata-a-s-croce-

in-gerusalemme.html (accessed 15 October

2014).Groth J and Corijn E (2005) Reclaiming urban-

ity: Indeterminate spaces, informal actors and

urban agenda setting. Urban Studies 42(3):

503–526.Haines F, Reichman N and Scott C (2008) Pro-

blematizing legitimacy and authority. Law &

Policy 30(1): 1–11.Hall P and Pfeiffer U (2013) Urban Future 21: A

Global Agenda for Twenty-First Century Cities.

London: Routledge.Hardt M and Negri T (2000) Empire. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Harvey D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hofmeyr B (2011) The culture and subjectivity of

neo-liberal governmentality. Phronimon 12(2):

19–42.

Certoma et al. 17

Hou J (ed.) (2010) Insurgent Public Space: Guer-

rilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contempo-

rary Cities. London: Routledge.

Insolera I (2011) Roma moderna. Da Napoleone I

al XXI secolo. Turin: Piccola Biblioteca

Einaudi.Ioannou B, Ioannou N, Moran M, et al. (2016)

Grassroots gardening movements; towards

cooperative forms of green urban develop-

ment? In: Bell S, Fox-Kamper R, Keshavarz

N and et al. (eds) Urban Allotment Gardens in

Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 62–90.Jimenez AC (2014) The right to infrastructure: A

prototype for open source urbanism. Environ-

ment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(2):

342–362.Kyessi AG (2005) Community-based urban water

management in fringe neighbourhoods: The

case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat

International 29(1): 1–25.Lamborn P and Weinberg B (eds) (1999) Avant

Gardening: Ecological Struggle in the City and

the World. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An

Introduction To Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.McClintock N (2014) Radical, reformist, and

garden-variety neoliberal: Coming to terms

with urban agriculture’s contradictions. Local

Environment 19(2): 147–171.McKay G (2011) Radical Gardening. London:

Frances Lincoln Limited.McMichael P (2012) The land grab and corporate

food regime restructuring. The Journal of Pea-

sant Studies 39: 681–701.Marres N (2012) Material Participation. Technol-

ogy, the Environment and Everyday Publics.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Merlo G (2014) L’ex SNIA: Storia di un giardino

tra relitti di cemento. Reporter Nuovo, 10 April.Miraftab F (2009) Insurgent planning: Situating

radical planning in the global south. Planning

Theory 8(1): 32–50.

Mitchell D (2003) The Right to the City: Social

Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New

York, NY: Guilford Press.Mukhija V and Loukaitou-Sideris A (eds) (2014)

The Informal American City: Beyond Taco

Trucks and Day Labor. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Neuman M (1998) Does planning need the plan?

Journal of the American Planning Association

64(2): 208–220.

Neuwirth R (2006) Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters,

An Urban NewWorld. New York: Routledge.Oakley P (2001) Evaluating Empowerment: Reviewing

the Concept and Practice. Oxford: INTRAC.Oecumene (2013) Citizenship, orientalism and the

commons. Workshop, 25–28 September 2013.

Rome. Available at: https://www.opendemocra

cy.net/oecumene-citizenship-after-orientalism

(accessed 23 February 2019).Oswalt P, Beyer E and Diekmann GA (2005)

Shrinking Cities. Hatje Cantz Publishers:

Berlin.Pares M, Marti-Costa M and Blanco I (2014)

Geographies of governance: How place mat-

ters in urban regeneration policies. Urban

Studies 51(15): 3250–3267.Parker G and Doak J (2012) Key Concepts in

Planning. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Passatore L (2014) Il nuovo lago di Roma: Qua-

lita delle acque e rinaturalizzazione dell’area.

In: Forum Territoriale Permanente (ed.)

eXSnia: La natura rigenera la citta. Seminar

Proceedings, 24 May 2014, Casa del Parco

delle Energie, Rome. Available at: https://

lagoexsnia.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/atti-co

nvegno-exsniala-natura-rigenera-la-cittc3a0.pdf

(accessed 23 February 2019).Pırez P (2002) Buenos Aires: Fragmentation and

privatization of the metropolitan city. Environ-

ment and Urbanization 14(1): 145–158.Powell LN (2012) The Accidental City: Improvis-

ing New Orleans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Pruijt H (2013) Squatting in Europe. In: The Squat-

ting in Europe Collective (eds) Squatting in Eur-

ope: Radical Spaces, Urban Struggles, Wivenhoe,

New York: Minor Compositions. 1760.Pudup MB (2008) It takes a garden: Cultivating

citizen-subjects in organized garden projects.

Geoforum 39(3): 1228–1240.Purcell M (2013) Possible worlds: Henri Lefebvre

and the right to the city. Journal of Urban

Affairs 36(1): 141–154.

Quastel N (2009) Political ecologies of gentrifica-

tion. Urban Geography 30(7): 694–725.RabotSite (2017) A temporary implementation

with a sustainable character. Available at:

18 Urban Studies 00(0)

http://www.rabotsite.be/en (accessed 23 Feb-

ruary 2019).Reynolds K (2015) Disparity despite diversity:

Social injustice in New York City’s urban agri-

culture system. Antipode 47(1): 240–259.Rosa ML, Alvares A, Bush L, et al. (2013) Hand-

made urbanism. In: Mumbai-Sao Paulo-Istan-

bul-Mexico City-Cape Town. From Community

Initiatives to Participatory Models. Berlin, Ale-

manha: Jovis. Available at: https://issuu.com/

marcoslrosa/docs/handmade_urbanism_pdf

(accessed 23 February 2019).Rosol M (2010) Public participation in the post-

Fordist urban green space governance: The

case of community gardens in Berlin. Interna-

tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research

34(3): 548–563.Rosol M (2012) Community volunteering as neo-

liberal strategy? Green space production in

Berlin. Antipode 44(1): 239–257.Roy A (2005) Urban informality: Toward an epis-

temology of planning. Journal of the American

Planning Association 71(2): 147–158.Roy A and AlSayyad N (2004) Urban Informal-

ity: Transnational Perspectives from the Middle

East, South Asia and Latin America. Lanham,

MD: Lexington Books.Schmelzkopf K (1995) Urban community gardens

as contested space. Geographical Review 85:

364–381.Sennett R (1970) The Uses of Disorder: Personal

Identity and City Life. New York: Knopf.Shatkin G (2004) Planning to forget: Informal settle-

ments as ‘forgotten places’ in globalising Metro

Manila. Urban Studies 41(12): 2469–2484.Silvestri G (2016) Community garden networks

and their impact on politics and planning –

The case of Milan, Italy. In: Bell S, Fox-

Kamper R, Keshavarz N and et al. (eds)

Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe. Abingdon:

Routledge, pp. 70–71.Smith C and Kurtz H (2003) Community gardens

and politics of scale in New York City. Geo-

graphical Review 93(2): 193–212.Sondermann M (2014) Local cultures of urban gar-

dening and planning in Germany. In: Fox-Kam-

per R and Keshavarz N (eds) Riga Event Report:

Urban Allotment Gardens in European Cities –

Future, Challenges and Lessons Learned (COST

Action TU 1201). Aachen: Institut fur Landes-

und Stadtentwicklungsforschung, pp. 15–32.Staeheli LA, Mitchell D and Gibson K (2002)

Conflicting rights to the city in New York’s

community gardens. GeoJournal 58(2–3):

197–205.Stehlin JG and Tarr AR (2016) Think regionally,

act locally? Gardening, cycling, and the hori-

zon of urban spatial politics. Urban Geography

38(9): 1329–1351.Sutherland C (2011) Shifting away from binaries:

The entanglement of insurgent urbanism, formal

participation and state action. Opinion Paper

no. 1, May. Available at: http://www.chance2

sustain.eu/29.0.html (accessed 23 February

2019).Tasan-Kok T and Baeten G (2011) Contradic-

tions of Neoliberal Planning: Cities, Policies,

and Politics. Vol. 102. New York, NY:

Springer.Technische Universitaet Berlin and Nexus (2002)

Urban catalysts: Strategies for temporary use

–Potential for development of urban residual

areas in European Metropolises. Available at:

http://www.templace.com/think-pool/attach/

download/1_UC_finalR_synthesis007b.pdf

(accessed 23 February 2019).Thompson J (2012) Incredible edible – Social and

environmental entrepreneurship in the era of

the ‘Big Society’. Social Enterprise Journal

8(3): 237–250.Thorn J, Thornton TF and Helfgott A (2015)

Autonomous adaptation to global environ-

mental change in peri-urban settlements: Evi-

dence of a growing culture of innovation

and revitalisation in Mathare Valley Slums,

Nairobi. Global Environmental Change 31:

121–131.Tornaghi C (2014) Critical geography of urban

agriculture. Progress in Human Geography

38(4): 551–567.Urban Transcripts (2011) Rome, the accidental

city. International workshop on the city, Rome,

13–17 December. Available at: http://urban-

transcripts.org/our-work/ut-2011 (accessed 23

February 2019).Uzzell D (1990) Dissonance of formal and infor-

mal planning styles, or can formal planners do

bricolage? City & Society 4(2): 114–130.

Certoma et al. 19

Vestbro DU (2013) Development aspect of formaland informal urban types. Planum: The Jour-

nal of Urbanism 26(1): 1–12.Walljasper J (2010) All That We Share: A Field

Guide to the Commons. New York, NY: TheNew Press.

Watson V (2009) ‘The planned city sweeps the pooraway .’: Urban planning and 21st century urba-nisation. Progress in Planning 72(3): 151–193.

Weisman EL (2009) Cultivating community: Thegovernance of community gardening in Syra-cuse, NY. Paper presented at 2009 Joint Meet-

ing of AFHVS and ASFS 2009, College Park,PA. Available at: https://www.cultivatingcom-munity.org/ (accessed 23 February 2019).

Yiftachel O (2009a) Critical theory and ‘grayspace’. Mobilisation of the colonised. City

16(2–3): 240–256.Yiftachel O (2009b) Theoretical notes on gray cit-

ies: The coming of urban apartheid? PlanningTheory 8(1): 88–100.

Zukin S (1995) The Culture of City. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.

WeblinksComune di Roma (2018) https://www.comune.

roma.it/web/it/analisi-statistiche.page(accessed 23 February 2019)

De Site (2016) http://www.rabotsite.be/ (accessed

23 February 2019).Green Guerrillas (2016) http://www.greengue ril-

las.org (accessed 23 February 2019).Greening of Detroit (2016) http://www.greenin

gofdetroit.com/ (accessed 23 February 2019).Incredible Edible (2016) http://incredibleedible

network.org.uk/ (accessed 23 February 2019).LagoExSnia (2016) https://lagoexsnia.wordpress.

com/2015/04/13/seconda-giornata-di-progetta

zione-sabato-18-aprile/ (accessed 23 February

2019).URBAN.LADEShttp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/

regions/latin-america/urbal_en (accessed 23

February 2019).Voedseltuin (2016) http://www.voedseltuin.com/

organisatie/ (accessed 23 February 2019).Whatzappa Foundation (2016) https://www.face

book.com/Whatszappa-Foundation-15168105

75205914/ (accessed 23 February 2019).WWF Pigneto Prenestino (2016) http://wwfpigne

toprenestino.blogspot.it/search/label/Lago%20

ex%20Snia (accessed 23 February 2019).Zappata Romana (2018) http://www.zappatarom

ana.net (accessed 23 February 2019).

20 Urban Studies 00(0)