The multidisciplinary report: Environmental special course at the Helsinki University

Centre for Environmental: Urban Ecosystem Services

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Attractive shared spaces for social

and environmental interaction
The role of ecosystem services in social sustainability and
quality of life
A. Hkkinen1, H. Kaasalainen2, V. Laitinen1, C. Nollet3, O. Sagizbaeva4, C. Sannemann5,
S. Vuorinen1
1

University of Helsinki, Faculty of Science

University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social sciences
3
University of Helsinki, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry
4
University of Helsinki, Faculty of Medicine
5
University of Helsinki, Faculty of behavioral sciences, Institute of Behavioral Sciences
2

4 April 2012

Abstract
The present report has been created for the HENVI Workshop 2012: Ecosystem services in urban areas. We are
aiming at building an understanding how social sustainability and quality of life could be created by cultural
ecosystem services. Urban green areas have an important role to play in our everyday life. To come to this
conclusion we first define the key concepts of our topic which are cultural ecosystem services and social
sustainability. We then move to explore human-environment relationship in urban areas, followed by more in-depth
analysis of different user groups. These ideas are illustrated by urban cultivation as an example of cultural ecosystem
services. Finally we discuss the possibility of urban cultivation supporting social sustainability and come up with a
conclusion and questions about our reflection.
Keywords: (cultural) ecosystem services, health, (urban) cultivation, social sustainability, equity, place attachment,
human-environment relationship.

Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1
Cultural ecosystem services ................................................................................................................ 2
1.2
Social sustainability ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.3
Nature and human well-being.............................................................................................................. 3
2
Human-environment relationship................................................................................................................. 4
2.1
Place attachment ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2
Affordances ........................................................................................................................................ 6
2.3
Relevance in understanding cultural ecosystem services ...................................................................... 7
3
Different users of urban environment ........................................................................................................... 7
4
Urban cultivation as a cultural ecosystem service ......................................................................................... 9
4.1
Current projects .................................................................................................................................. 9
4.2
Challenges of urban cultivation for social sustainability ..................................................................... 10
5
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Questions ........................................................................................................................................................... 13
References ......................................................................................................................................................... 14

1 Introduction
1.1 Cultural ecosystem services
Ecosystem Services, in general, are defined as resources and processes supplied by natural
ecosystems to humans, i.e. benefits obtained from ecosystems. They have different spatial cover, from
local to global scale. With a scientific framework this concept has an open view on various services,
classified in 4 categories:

Provisioning: products obtained from ecosystems (e.g. food, fuel, water).

Regulating: benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes (e.g. climate, disease
control).
Supporting: necessary for production of all other ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling,
pollination).
Cultural: non-material benefits (e.g. spiritual and religious, aesthetic, recreation and
tourism). (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005)).

All of these ecosystem services have their importance and necessity for human life and well-being.
Cultural ecosystem services are wide and various. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has
presented, in 2005, their main outcomes as good social relations (social cohesion, mutual respect, ability
to help others), basic material for good life (adequate livelihood), and health. This can come from different
benefits such as spiritual and religious, recreation and tourism, aesthetic, inspirational/artistic, educational,
sense of place, cultural heritage and scientific values (MEA 2005).
In urban areas internal ecosystem services are fundamental. Urban population is growing but stays
dependent from nature for its survival. Urban ecosystem services are, indeed, very important for a good
quality of life, and natural functions cannot be replaced to fulfill social needs. Cultural value has a major
importance in the city as it increases physical and psychological well-being of urban citizens. Some
studies have shown that natural environments for example reduce stress, compared to urban environments
which increase it, hence green space value (Bolund, Hunhammar 1999).
There are needs, which are required by human life (freedom, self-development, recreation, etc.).
These needs have to be met at different level, from the personal to the collective, to benefit the individuals
and also the whole society (Chiesura, de Groot 2003). An integration of those needs in a social
sustainability is important and can be done within cultural ecosystem services. Focusing on the sociocultural perspectives, the human being must be seen in its social and psychological context, to understand
its vision of well-being and its attitude toward the natural environment.

1.2 Social sustainability

Social sustainability is an important pillar of sustainable development integrating human rights, labor
rights, and corporate governance. It is based on the vision that future generations should have the same or
greater access to social resources as the current generation, as well as an equal access to these resources
within the current generation. It means a fair repartition of resources and to avoid exclusion, so that all
citizens can participate and enjoy socially, economically and politically in society (Dempsey, Brown &
Bramley 2012). According to Dempsey et al., some green space is an aspect of everyday life to which
residents and users need equitable access (Dempsey et al. 2011). In that aim, the equity is an important
concept that should be developed for a sustainable development, and which can be included in urban green
areas.

The inter- and intra-generational equity can be partly met through cultural ecosystem services, which
benefit social sustainability and well-being; e.g. urban cultivation offering lots of various affordances to
different kinds of people. Some studies have shown that the emotional dimension of natural experiences
seems to be a universal component of human well-being (Chiesura, de Groot 2003). No significant
gender-related differences were found in terms of emotional experiences and motivations to go in green
urban area, only age-related variations. Moreover, a feeling of unity with others was expressed by people
going there, increasing social integration (Chiesura 2004). Urban nature fulfills some universal immaterial
needs socially and psychologically essential for all human-being. In the aim of a social sustainability, it
should be used to reinforce equity between people, all of them being able to enjoy equally from its various
benefits.
With growing interest in densifying the cities, urban green spaces become endangered. In addition to
other services, the cultural aspect of urban ecosystem services should be valued. In order to develop social
sustainability, cities should be able to provide well-being for the heterogeneous lot of urban dwellers.
Green spaces offer a wide range of possibilities to a wide range of humans, thus making urban green a
desirable choice for offering a solution to essential needs of social sustainability.

1.3 Nature and human well-being

Natural environments which support environmental and social interactions seem to have a potential in
increasing both the physical and social well-being of citizens.
There are a considerable number of studies that confirm the psychological and physiological benefits
of nature.
The Finnish researcher Tyrvinen et al. (2007) has studied the significance of nature for citizen in
Helsinki and Tampere. They also tried to find out if there is a connection between the use of nature and
psychological well-being. The citizens favorite places were usually in nature or forest, not in built
environment. If the favorite place was in wide outdoor area, recovering was stronger than if the favorite
place was in a city park. Usually the nature experiences are sought outside the city because it is hard to
find for example a silent place in the city. Residence in nature areas contributes psychological well-being
by increasing positive feelings. 5 percent of the citizens did not think that nature has resonance for them,
but many citizens are inadaptable to urban life.
Among the foreign research, we can note the works, which are listed in the article by (Chiesura, de
Groot 2003):

A park experience may reduce stress (Ulrich 1981)

A park experience may enhance contemplativeness, rejuvenate the city dweller, and
provide a sense of peacefulness and tranquility (Kaplan 1983).
Evidences from experimental research show that natural environments are a powerful
source of restorative experiences (Hartig et al. 1987, 1991). Among the key components
of the restorative experience Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) mention escape, fascination,
extent, action and compatibility.
The hypothesis about the restorative function of natural environments has been tested in
many empirical studies. Ulrich (1984), for example, founded that hospital patients who
could look out on trees and nature from their windows recovered more quickly than those
whose views where restricted to buildings. Later studies have led to similar results,
strengthening the assumption that natural environments have a positive influence on
psychological and mental health. Contemporary research on the use of urban parks and

forests, for example, verifies beliefs about stress reduction benefits and mental health
(Hartig et al. 1991; Conway 2000).
In a survey among parks visitors a significant relation was found between use of the
parks and perceived state of health: those who used local parks frequently were more
likely to report good health than those who did not (Godbey et al. 1992).
Schroeder (1991) has shown that natural environments with vegetation and water induce
relaxed and less stressful states in observers compared with urban scenes with no
vegetation.
This ability of natural elements to function as natural tranquillizers may be particularly
beneficial in urban areas where stress is an all too common aspect of daily living (van
den Berg et al. 1998).

Beside aesthetic, psychological and health benefits, natural features in cities can have other social
benefits:

Nature can encourage the use of outdoor spaces, increases social integration and
interaction among neighbors (Coley et al. 1997).
The presence of trees and grass in outdoors common spaces may promote the
development of social ties (Kuo et al. 1998). Kuo et al. (1998) also found out that
greenery helps people to relax and renew, reducing aggression.

2 Human-environment relationship
Providing social equity, one of the key principles of social sustainability, can be seen as a major
challenge in all the cities of the world. The question of how to provide equal opportunities for well-being
for an entire population of a city is not an easy one. From the point of view of psychology, the problem
might be re-conceptualized as the problem of how to create spaces that would provide equally positive
emotional, cognitive and behavioral responses for all the groups of people varying in their physical,
mental, social, and cultural backgrounds. In order to understand such a complex set of possibilities, we
need to have some understanding how the relationship between a human and his/her environment
develops. Again, the question is not an easy one, and will be analyzed in this chapter in more detail.
There is no single accepted psychological theory of human-environment relationship, but there are
several capturing essential aspects of this complex relationship. Many of these are used in environmental
psychology, a multidisciplinary field of science sometimes considered as applied psychology. The field is
oriented to multiple focuses: fundamental science, practice, and informing policy (Gifford 2009). Despite
this variation, the general, overarching focus of environmental psychology is to understand the complex
bidirectional set of relations between people and their built, natural, and living environments (Gifford
2009, Stokols 1995) - making it the perfect arena of our study. We hope to clarify the psychological
relationship between humans and environments relevant to cultural ecosystem services and social
sustainability by providing two viewpoints from environmental psychology. First, a theory of place
attachment is presented to illustrate the many dimensions which influence the formation of peopleenvironment relations. Secondly, theory of affordances is presented as an example of a potential and
widely applicable tool in analyzing these relationships. Finally, a short conclusion of these theories and
guidelines to assess cultural ecosystem services are provided.

2.1 Place attachment

The psychological effects of environments are not solely unidirectional. Rather they build up in
constant interaction where both environment and people influencing one another. These kinds of models
are called transactional, and are one of the key areas of environmental psychology. They highlight the
enduring qualities, or effects, of interdependence between people and their environments (Stokols 1995).
One of these enduring qualities is place attachment: "the bonding that occurs between individuals and
their meaningful environments" (Scannell, Gifford 2010a), Similar to the concept of sense-of-place, placeidentity, place-dependency, and others, it is a long studied phenomenon, and a concept defined in various
ways. Scannell & Gifford (ibid.) provide a tripartite organizing framework aiming to capture the essential
dimensions of the concept. These dimensions can be seen as essential in any transactional theory trying to
capture the complex nature of human-environment relationship. The dimensions are in their terms: person,
process, and place. We shortly introduce the dimensions, as explained in the article, and provide an idea of
the relevance of place attachment in the larger context of cultural ecosystem services and social
sustainability.

The person dimension refers to the actor, i.e. who is attached. Place attachment can be
expressed both by individuals and groups, and though they are distinct phenomena, they
might as well overlap. Individual level is about personal connections, like personal
memories, milestones etc. At group level, attachment might be comprised by shared
symbolic meanings of a place, representing for example, cultural-historical or religious
meanings and values.
The process dimension is about the psychological ways in which individuals and groups
relate to a place. In line with some social psychological theories, the authors further
divide the psychological process dimension of place attachment into three subcategories:
affect, cognition, and behavior. Dimension of affect means, that bonding to a place is
always emotional. Though emotions can be negative, place attachment mostly refers to
positive emotional bonding. The cognitive component refers to memories, beliefs,
meaning, and knowledge people relate to the place. Place attachment as behavior is
concerned with the actual behavior people exhibit related to attachment. These might
include proximity-maintaining behaviors and reconstruction of lost places.
The place is mentioned by the authors as perhaps the most important dimension of place
attachment, and it refers to the actual object of attachment, i.e. what it is that we attach
into. Attachment has been found to occur both at the social and the physical level. Social
attachment is close to the idea of a sense of community with social interactions and group
identity being of important determining factors. Physical attachment might occur at
different spatial scales: e.g. one's room, the city, the world; built environment, nature.
The level of specificity is an important aspect to understand the place dimension of place
attachment.

Place attachment as a positive bond to ones environment by definition has an aspect of well-being,
thus having relevance as a cultural ecosystem service. In addition, place attachment might provide other
beneficial effects. From those listed by Scannell & Gifford (2010a), we identified three potential effects,
directly relevant for social sustainability: place-protective behavior, increase in pro-environmental
behavior, and a heightened sense of safety. The resulting effects of place attachment depend on the
dimensions which are at each time actualized in the model. As an example we shortly discuss the
relationship between the role of natural environments and pro-environmental behavior.
If the place affords social interactions, it is prone to enhance place attachment (e.g. Fried 1963). This
type of place attachment can be termed civic place attachment, which can be contrasted to environmental
5

place attachment (Scannell, Gifford 2010b). They (ibid.) found out that environmental place attachment is
connected to pro-environmental behavior independent of age, gender, education, length of residence or
hometown, whereas civic place attachment had no such connection. They suggested it to be the answer to
previously found conflicting results in the positive (Clayton, Opotow cop. 2003) vs. negative connection
(Uzzell 2002) between place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. Additionally, Duerden & Witt
(2010) found evidence, that direct environmental experiences in teaching were more effective in changing
environmental attitudes than indirect experiences. They also found that perceived freedom in direct
experiencing, i.e. the amount of voluntary interaction with nature was an important factor in the quality of
direct experiencing.
Additional research on the relation between the various urban ecosystem services and place
attachment is needed, and we can only conclude, that places affording both social and environmental
interactions in many spatial scales and for as wide variety of people as possible, are most desirable, as they
offer the possibility of combining the benefits of both civic and natural place attachment, i.e. increasing
emotional well-being, feeling of security, and pro-environmental behavior, among other things. The
organizing framework of place attachment does not give any precise tools to analyze how the essential
dimension might be realized in an actual setting. In the next section we aim to clarify how the idea of a
place affording social and environmental interactions, or possibilities of action, can be more precisely
assessed via psychological theory.

2.2 Affordances
Another, widely influential theory of people-environment relationship, that can be considered as
transactional, is that of ecological psychology (Stokols 1995). Loosely related to Barker's ecological
psychology (1968), J.J. Gibsons ecological psychology, an almost lifelong developed theory in the field
of perceptual psychology, is a theory of perception and action with its central tenet stating that the
behavior of humans is guided by directly perceived action possibilities, affordances (Gibson 1977, Gibson
1979). Gibson (1977) suggests that the composition and layout of surfaces constitute what they afford, so
perceiving them would be the same as perceiving their affordances. It is important to note, that they are
relationships between the world and the actor, and that they are perceived directly and automatically
without the need to be desired or known (Norman 1999). Gibson rejected internal mental models as
playing part in the perception and action of humans, and insisted that the relevant focus of learning and
behavior should be in the information that is available in the environment (Greeno 1994). As a
consequence, the theory is often considered applicable only to explaining movement and orientation, in
contrast to object recognition and higher cognitive processes, like learning. Another shortcoming is that
the theory isn't well developed in assessing the role of emotional or motivational factors (Kytt 2004b).
However, when defined as a relation between a perceiver and his/her environment, affordances are a fine
example of operationalizing a real transactional approach - taking equally into recognition the
environment and the actor. As such, we might be able to deal with the environmental and socio-cultural
context in a psychologically relevant way (Kytt 2004a). These are not easy issues, but relevant in
pursuing a transactional model. Gifford (2009) suggests that it is exactly the lack of analytical tools to
handle the subject, which explains why these approaches have not been largely utilized in environmental
psychology.
As an attempt to expand the relevance of ecological psychology in the context of environmental
psychology, we conclude with presenting two approaches to these issues. There are basically two ways
how to approach the subject: either the differing contexts of behavior or the differing cognitive structures
have to be assessed. Winkel et al. (2009) suggested that ecological psychology would benefit from a
division in physical, social and economic contexts. This way, in addition to visual stimuli or visual
context, more complex affordances could be seen present in more complex situations. Another thoughtful
6

re-conceptualization is presented by Kytt (2004a, p. 35-38), who uses Neisser's (1994) conceptualization
of multichannel perception to organize different types of affordances. Direct perception yields affordances
for movement and orientation, object recognition yields affordances based on knowledge, and social
perception yields affordances relevant to social behavior (though utilizing both direct perception and
object recognition). She also divides affordances to potential and actualized, i.e. not yet discovered and
perceived, used, or shaped, respectively. A final distinction, which she uses to elaborate on the emotional
dimension of affordances, is positive and negative affordances, the latter representing danger. Although
focusing only on direct perception, her work on child friendly environments is an example of successful
use of affordances in environmental psychology (Kytt 2004b, Kytt 2002). Instead of taking into account
the cognitive component, she built a two-dimensional model categorizing child-friendly environments as a
function of the amount of affordances and the possibility to freely move around. Her empirical work
confirmed that the environments with most affordances, and the best possibilities to independent mobility,
were the ones with most actualized affordances and the most preferred.
With a more complete account of affordances we might be able to build a theoretically sound
systematic understanding of how places could afford social and environmental interactions, among other
things.

2.3 Relevance in understanding cultural ecosystem services

Transactional theories offer possibilities to evaluate the human-environment relationship from a
psychological perspective. However, the relationship being of a complex nature, an overarching model is
hard to develop. Place attachment as a transactional psychological phenomenon yields a good starting
point, and the tripartite organizing framework (Scannell, Gifford 2010a) offers an understanding of the
essential dimensions. The concept of affordances offers a lot of potential in analyzing various settings in
terms of transactional psychology, as it highlights the role of perception and action in relation to the
environment. Although it has already been used effectively, for example to explain essential aspects of
child-friendly environments, we suggest, that it would be highly beneficial for the theory to take into
account at least emotional and cognitive factors. A taxonomy, like the one provided by the tripartite model
of place attachment, could be a successful starting point. This kind of larger perspective would offer a
flexible tool to organize, study, and analyze the various behavioral interactions of different people with
different environments. Thereby we might understand the psychological effects of urban green spaces in
relation to different behaviors in a thorough way.
Place attachment as a positive bond to ones environment is a source of well-being, and a possible
cause for place-protective behavior, pro-environmental behavior, and a sense of security and belonging.
To assess the place attachment effects of an ecosystem service, the variations in person, process, and place
dimensions have to be taken into account. Based on the theories and literature reviewed, and in line with
the ideals of social sustainability, we conclude in the following suggestion: ecosystem services should aim
at affording as much voluntary social and environmental affordances for as wide variety of people as
possible, in a long temporal frame and on multiple spatial scales.

3 Different users of urban environment

Probably the most inspiring aspect about the human-environment relationship from a sociological
point of view, when thinking about the availability of nature for different groups, is the people who
practice it. Who are they? How do they organize their action? Why do they do it? These are the questions
we are concentrating in the following chapters.
7

According to Pierre Bourdieu, people have different preferences and ways of acting depending on
their social and cultural backgrounds. It defines how much we have tools, capital to act in society. There
are three different types of capital: cultural, social and economic. According to Bourdieu, all people
possess at least some social, cultural and economic capital, but what explains the inequalities between
people living in a modern society, is how big are the differences in the amounts of capital one has from all
three categories. He claims that the elite have the most capital from all these three categories, and people
from the lowest socioeconomic class possess the least of capital (Bourdieu 1984, 113- 114, 118-119).
How does the socio-economic background affect the experience of nature? As the example we can
consider the research work of Maija Faehnle et al. (2010), who studied experiencing of urban nature by
immigrants (use and experience urban nature). They collected different studies and according to them, the
socio-economic background, as well as age and gender have their own influence to ones experience. For
example, people from lower status dont get the same refreshment from nature as the people with a higher
status do. Lack of money may prevent some people from actually going to the nature due to transportation
fees or entrance fees. Childrens way of looking the nature differs a lot: they use the available space more
efficiently than adults, and also pay attention to their surroundings more carefully. They also mentioned
the difference between mens and womens habits of using nature: the fear limits womens use of nature
more often than men (Faehnle et al. 2010, 24-27).
When we approach a topic linked somehow to human interaction like the use of public space or
urban cultivation as organized action - we must carefully take into consideration the different groups that
are involved. Who are supposed to be attracted to the place or action, and who are not? Surely the natural
environments providing physical and psychological recreation are everyones right. Still those
environments and actions connected to those environments, as for example urban cultivation (see Chapter
4), are controlled by authorities, which means automatically rules and restrictions. Behind them lay values
that are discussed and argued in society all the time, but are supported by those who are in charge.
Different socioeconomic classes and groups are constantly struggling to get more or maintain their
power in society. It is mostly fight over the power to define, what is valuable and good, and what is not
(Bourdieu 1984, 477- 481). Urban cultivation takes part in this discussion also in its more political forms
as in Melbourne, Australia, where urban domestic food production and not-for- profit food organizations
have grown in numbers during the recent years. A hobby as overlooked as gardening has there turned out
to be even a politically motivated civil action that promotes anti-capitalistic values for the well-being of
people. Many food-related organizations connect responsibility and community to their agenda and some
use gardening and urban cultivation as a way to solve social problems like addictions and mental illnesses
(Edwards 2011).
If we think about urban cultivation as means to develop social equity, we could be on a right track.
There are elements that strengthen peoples sense of their own abilities and create community
involvement. Often gardens are taken care of together and are also an opportunity to socialize, chat and
strengthen bonds within the gardening group. When working towards a common goal, even cultural fences
or language barriers can lose their meaning, as reported in a case of East-Torontos community gardens.
The gardening was most often done during the evening and women, men and children were all actively
participating the way they could according to their abilities. This kind of action resulted increased sense of
safety, increased social capital and appreciation of social diversity among the participants (Wakefield et al.
2007). The more one has formal and informal social relationships, the more he is encouraged to altruism,
volunteering and philanthropy, which are the very basic pillars of a functioning society (Putnam 2000, pp.
116-117). In this way, people are cultivating something bigger than just carrots in their community
gardens, and the results may possibly be seen in the near future.

4 Urban cultivation as a cultural ecosystem service

Urban cultivation in its various forms is of interest for many city-dwellers. Some may find it as a way
to ensure that the food they eat is up to their norms. Some do it because it is a way to do something
together with other people. For some it is even a political act to resist consumerism or the citys
unreasonable town planning by taking the underutilized land in use for common good. The motives are as
various depending on, for example, people's backgrounds.
When it comes to possible shared places in the context of ecosystem services and providing social
sustainability in urban areas, we should discuss in more detail the idea of urban cultivation as a way of
experiencing social discounter in urban areas. One prominent form of cultivation offering shared spaces is
community-supported agriculture taking place in urban areas. By community-supported agriculture, local
communities start practicing agriculture together with farmers. In this responsibilities and rewards of
agriculture are shared together within all the members (Soil Association 2012). Like any other possible
method of executing urban ecosystem services, the community-supported agriculture is a way expedient to
provide affordances to varying groups of people. In addition, when applied in urban areas it is a good way
of providing something new and fresh to the city areas, not only as a hobby for people but also in making
the landscape more attractive.
Community-supported agriculture as a concept has its roots way back in 1965 in Japan. However, the
concept didnt make a big difference in the field of environmental issues before the 1980s when it was
adopted also in the US (Van En 1995). However, it has been only recently when the concept has become
to the consciousness of bigger audiences, or at least that can be considered as the current situation in
Finland. Recently there have been certain approaches made towards the concept of community-supported
agriculture in Helsinki, where the idea behind the concept has set off many urban cultivation projects.
Nevertheless, not all of these projects obey the exact principles of the original idea of communitysupported agriculture.

4.1 Current projects

A special example under the topic of urban cultivation is certainly the Herttoniemi urban cultivation
project called the Herttoniemi food cooperative. The principles behind the project are also quite similar to
those behind the actual community-supported agriculture. The Herttoniemi community-supported
agriculture can also be considered the first of its kind practiced in Finland. The community at the moment
consisting of over 100 people refers to the experiment also as the field of the urban residents
(Herttoniemen ruokaosuuskunta 2011). By this, they attach the cultivation more firmly to something that
is happening only among urban people and make it their own way of connecting with nature.
Herttoniemi food cooperatives web pages tell that the food cooperative is suitable for everyone
(Ruokaosuuskunta 2012). It is a benefit if there are many kinds of people working together. It costs
several hundred Euros per year to be a part of the cooperative. It should cover all the costs of the
cultivating and maintaining the cooperation. One can do voluntary work in the field but what one gets is
organic food from nearby. We suppose that the Herttoniemi food cooperative contributes social equity, if
it is true that everyone is allowed to participate. The food cooperative system is significant because there
people work for the common goal more than in the other examples.
There are multiple examples of urban cultivation in Helsinki region. First, satokartta is a map of
plums, apples, nuts, berries and other trees and bushes growing in parks, wastelands and forests in
Helsinki (Rosenberg). Anyone can give a tip in the satokartta.net web pages for example about a tree.
Service is free for everyone. All plants grow wildly, without gardening. That is why they provide free food
9

for anyone to pick. There are also tips about the taste and other features of the fruits and berries on the
map. Satokartta is quite new so it has not reached everyones knowledge. There are trees and bushes all
over Helsinki so it does not require almost anything to pick the fruits.
Dodo ry is an environmental organization and it has arranged many urban cultivation project, for
example beehives, Turntable guerilla gardening and sack cultivation (Dodo ry 2012). Dodo has put
beehives in Lapinlahti to produce honey. Why bees are important in cities too is that they pollinate plants.
There are instructions for anyone to start producing honey in the Dodo ry websites. Another project Dodo
has been organizing is called Turntable, which is an urban farming centre, caf, greenhouse and open
space in Pasila railway yard (Kntpyt 2012). It is the same site where Dodos urban cultivating
movement begun. This year, when Helsinki is the World Design Capital, Turntable will be a test lab for
urban cultivation and source for learning and inspiration. Turntable is very versatile and can serve many
different groups of people. If you are not interested in cultivating, you can just have a coffee and vice
versa. In Kalasatama there has begun a project in sack cultivation in summer 2010. Year 2010 there were
30 farmers, 2011 the number doubled but this year there will not be any new sacks.
Aalto city garden is part of eatable Arabianranta project (ArabianrantaToukolaVanhakaupunki
-kaupunginosayhdistys ry 2012). Garden was planned by a group of environmental arts students in Aalto
University. Garden was built in spring and summer 2011 and it is rented from the city of Helsinki for an
undefined period of time. The district association has rented the cultivation boxes to the farmers, who
helped to build the garden, and are responsible for the maintenance. There will be a couple of new boxes
this year but there is a queue for them and other free boxes. This kind of cultivation increases social
contacts between the residents, and as the area is located in densely built environment; it attracts a
constant flow of outsiders as well. One beneficial effect is that the proximity of cultivation space makes it
easily accessible, and saves time and energy.
Gardening association for children and youth aims to develop and promote gardening culture of
children and young people taking account also the principles of sustainable development (Lasten ja
nuorten puutarhayhdistys ry 2012). Association was set up in the 1920s. Association organizes clubs,
courses, camps and events around the gardening theme. Moreover, it practices education, research,
reporting and publishing and makes suggestions to authorities. There is a fee, which have to be paid in
order to become a member of the association. However, it is a good form of environmental education
because children will learn something about how nature works and where food comes from. Children
observe their surrounding more carefully and that is why childhood is the most fruitful time to learn from
the nature, for example by gardening.
Alternative Design Capital 2012 want to use public space for activism and one shape of that is
guerrilla gardening (Alternative Design Capital 2012). They want to make cities greener by urban
gardening. There will be announced planned activities in the ADC 2012 web pages and anyone can share
their own ideas and experiences. They mention also the previously discussed Turntable. That is also a way
to find other people to work with. Nevertheless, in urban cultivation projects meet congenial persons and
that way they enhance place attachment as mentioned before. Additionally, they give direct experiences
with environment, which effectively change environmental attitudes.

4.2 Challenges of urban cultivation for social sustainability

Even though these urban cultivation projects in Helsinki have been proved to improve in general
social equity and by that also be socially sustainable, there can also be some problems observed in the
matter of urban cultivation. In the Satokartta project there was internet access required to use the service.
That excludes many elderly people from using the service. However, in the future years projects requiring

10

internet access are going to be more relevant, since an increasing amount of people are able to access to
the internet and take part in these projects.
Another problem in the Helsinki urban cultivation projects is the requirement of certain language.
Most of the information about the projects is in Finnish, so that excludes for example some immigrants.
Also the information about the projects is not just clearly out there, but devotion to the subject must be
created in order to take part in these projects.
In some projects, there must be a fee paid in order to participate. That automatically excludes those
from lower income or citizens who do not have so high devotion towards the subject. Not only the
participation fee is a problem among urban cultivation, but also the projects require significant amount of
participants time. Although in the Herttoniemi food cooperative project there was the community
supported agriculture principal, in which the project participants do not have to cultivate themselves.
Another problem is that if one does not have any place to store the vegetables, they must be eaten very
quickly during the harvest and it is not possible to get the ultimate advantage of the groceries. This
example takes place in eastern Helsinki and it is not relevant for everyone to be part of it, but whoever can
start his/her own food cooperative.

5 Discussion
Based on the theories of psychological and sociological studies and highlighted by case examples in
Helsinki, we are sure to say that urban cultivation is one form of cultural ecosystem service, which by
providing social and environmental interactions has a potential in offering well-being, and placeattachment for all the people, no matter of their age, gender, culture or socioeconomic status, thus
increasing social equity and social sustainability development of urban neighborhood. However, there are
various aspects to take into account for these benefits to actualize, like the form of cultivation, the actual
site where it occurs, the social and environmental interactions it affords, and the physical and mental
individual differences.
There is a wealth of evidence from multidisciplinary studies, that urban green and urban ecosystem
services are beneficial to the citizens. The essential question is that can we determine urban cultivation as
a cultural ecosystem service. As cultivation occupies usually only small areas, and some benefits of urban
green might relate to certain specific qualities or affordances possibly not present in cultivated spaces, the
answer is not clear. In addition, cultivated areas do not recover as strongly as for example wide forests,
which is an essential aspect of sustainability. But if cultural ecosystem service are determined by their
non-material benefits, such as spiritual, aesthetic and recreational experiences, increased social
relationships, and basic material for good life and health, then we could say that urban cultivation is one
form of cultural ecosystem service in urban area. How about social sustainability?
Social sustainability is one fundamental pillar of sustainable development and it has many ways of
manifesting itself. It consists of a wide variety of aspects, from human rights to decent quality of life, and
one of its core ideals is equity and solidarity between citizens, independent of their individual differences
(e.g. gender, age, wealth, ethnicity), In socially sustainable society, citizens have a feeling that they can
impact decision relative to policy making, and that they can control the decisions of their own lives. The
question if urban cultivation in any of its forms enhances social sustainability, has been handled from
many perspectives in this report. In short, as urban cultivation might increase social capital and confidence
to each other, and might lead to several psychological and physical well-being effects, it seems evident,
that urban cultivation is capable of enhancing social equity, and thereby social sustainability. In a socially
sustainable society people feel equal, and they should feel, that the whole society is one large equitable
community that everyone is part of. Creating such a community spirit might be challenging,, but from this
11

point of view, urban cultivation is a great form of cultural ecosystem service capable of increasing social
sustainability by communal participation. We now discuss the issue of equality a bit further.
From a sociological point of view, urban cultivation could decrease the gap between higher and lower
classes. These classes are often defined as polarized in scales measuring three types of capital: cultural,
social, and economical. For example, it has been studied that people from lower economic classes lack the
accessibility to nature because of poor wealth, and that they cant get as much refreshment from nature
when compared to people from higher classes. If urban cultivation can enhance economic and social
sustainability and status as studied, we can understand the social equity benefits from a sociological aspect
as well. Another sociologically interesting question is about power. Who really has the right and power to
say who has right and access to cultivation? This can be an interesting matter in many societies, and it has
lead for example to guerrilla gardening and other political actions. It also has arguably led to an effect, that
people who are concerned how their food is produced, have organized themselves and started to cultivate
their own food as self-sufficiently and independently as possible.
Of course we cannot claim that urban cultivation could solve every problem of inequity and the lack
of social sustainability in societies. Actually, it might be seen, that the idea of urban cultivation as a
problem-solver is quite idealistic. Although its open and achievable to almost everyone in its many forms,
it might not attract everyone to participate. It is not possible to force people to fields, although it might to
be best for them and for the whole society. It would be preferable, if urban cultivation could be advanced
so that everyone who's interested in it could have a possibility to participate. Let us discuss this further.
From a psychological perspective, the problem of equal attraction might be conceptualized in a more
exact form by understanding the complex people-environment relationships. One practical problem is, that
due to the complexity of the relationship, studying environmental effects to human mind and well-being
becomes complicated. Different people, with different personal and cultural histories, experience
environmental and social interactions in different places in different ways. However, we have an initial
understanding of the essential dimension of long-term people-environment effects. We could study them
separately, or try to understand the overall beneficial effects affected by interactions between all of the
dimensions. One of these overall beneficial effects is place attachment. Natural environments are good
candidates in increasing well-being by place attachment in many cases. This trend should be examined
further, but because of the range of individual differences within urban populations, it seems clear that
only by maximizing the amount and variation of voluntary action possibilities related to both social and
natural interactions, the issue of attractiveness might best be addressed.
As its not possible to make people support and like the same way of life, cultivation should be
voluntary. However, people not willing to participate would still benefit from the many indirect and direct
benefits of urban cultivation, like air purification, aesthetics, food production, safer neighborhoods, and
stronger community spirit. An aspect not studied in this report is other forms of ecosystem services urban
cultivation could offer. This is a major issue and should be studied further. In addition to the well
documented health and social benefits, it is also possible, that by increasing equity, these kinds of places
could have a role in breaking the segregating trends and uneven distribution of power in societies.
So, should cities and societies stress more to urban cultivation? And what would be the benefits if so?
Local food, increasing well-being, wider social relationships/networks, health benefits, etc. As the list
goes on, the answer becomes more obvious: definitely yes. If we think about advantages of society where
altruism is spreading and people are willing to help each other, not to mention the environmentalism, we
cant deny the effect for common good. As urban cultivation takes many forms, both municipal and selforganized, and reflects struggle towards a more sustainable lifestyle, it could be a driving factor towards
sustainable development globally. At a global scale, in addition to equally afforded mental and physical
well-being., we might expect large scale effects yet to be studied. For example, in a globalized world, the

12

possibility of societal and market effects via increased self-sufficiency in food production, and the
changing, power equalizing, roles of citizens, cant be ruled out.
But how could urban cultivation be increased and advanced to meet the needs of a wide range of
people? Is there any ways of supporting local communities for finding themselves from the field? And
what should be the main goal for all of this? Urban cultivation for sure is not the only way to enhance
social sustainability and equity, but with its cultural and other ecosystem services, multitude of
implementation possibilities, and rich variation in social and environmental interactions it affords, it can
be argued to be an effective one. After all, equity is by definition improved, when the achievability of a
service is equally increased to citizens from any background. Urban cultivation might also encourage
people to explore their city in a new aspect. Cultivated areas can also be very surprising elements in city
structure. As public spaces, they can be also places, where people can just go for recreation, even if its
not their own parcel. Cities become more attractive and pleasant places to live, and by increasing urban
green areas, the amount of recreational places for citizens increase.
We have reported multidisciplinary studies of how sites of nature and ecosystem services have an
effect on peoples well-being by both physiological and psychological means. We have related these to the
equity aspect of social sustainability by building a rationale with psychological and sociological theories,
and we have presented some state-of-the-art examples of urban cultivation in Helsinki. Urban cultivation
as a urban ecosystem service aiming at increasing social sustainability would optimize its environmental,
social, psychological and health benefits, when their inherent possibilities for social and environmental
interactions are afforded for as wide a variety of people as possible, and when the spaces they occupy are
multiple in scale and public for anyone to access. Even so, this should by no means happen at the expense
of other valuable ecosystem services. However, cultivation in cities, in its many forms, could offer a
collage of attractive shared spaces for social and environmental interaction. A network providing a wealth
of benefits is equally for everyone. A goal is worth striving for.

Questions
1. "What do you think the applicability of affordances are in the research work of an
environmental psychologist. Is the concept too theory-driven when taken into account the
complex human-environment relation present in everyday life? Would a more
comprehensive taxonomy help (in practice), or possibly even make the theory-load worse?"
2. "PehmoGIS is a great tool for acquiring place-dependent data, as it can be accessed by a
wide variety of people and gives data interesting to both researchers and planners. Would
you see the future of environmental psychology in digital tools? How about experimental
research (e.g. field experiments) or different forms of survey-research (e.g. interviews,
questionnaires)? Are people in the practice side interested in environmental psychology?"
3. Transactional, and other psychological theories are often basic theory oriented, and
resource-intensive to conduct in practice. What do you think will be the role of
environmental psychology in relation to participatory/co-design movement in planning and
the user-centered paradigms in design when assessing the human perspective in built
environments? Is there a gap between research and practice? What would the future look
like?"

13

References
ArabianrantaToukolaVanhakaupunki -kaupunginosayhdistys ry, Kaupunkiviljely. Available:
http://artova.fi/kaupunkiviljely [2012, 4/2/2012].
Barker, R.G. 1968, Ecological psychology: concepts and methods for studying the environment of
human behavior, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 242 pp.
Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. 1999, "Ecosystem services in urban areas", Ecological Economics, vol.
29, no. 2, pp. 293-301.
Bourdieu, P. 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. xiv+613.
Chiesura, A. 2004, "The role of urban parks for the sustainable city", Landscape and Urban Planning,
vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 129-138.
Chiesura, A. & de Groot, R. 2003, "Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective", Ecological
Economics, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 219-231.
Clayton, S.D. 2003, "Identity and the natural environment: the psychological significance of nature",
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 353 pp.
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: conceptual and operational definition. In S. Clayton, S.
Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA (2003), pp. 4565.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. & Brown, C. 2011, "The Social Dimension of Sustainable
Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability", Sustainable Development, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 289300.
Dempsey, N., Brown, C. & Bramley, G. 2012, "The key to sustainable urban development in UK
cities? The influence of density on social sustainability", Progress in Planning, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 89-141.
Dodo ry. Available: http://kaupunkiviljely.fi/ [2012, 4/2/2012].
Duerden, M.D. & Witt, P.A. 2010, "The Impact of Socialization on Youth Program Outcomes: A
Social Development Model Perspective", Leisure Sciences, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 299-317.
Edwards, F. 2011, "Small, Slow and Shared: Emerging Social Innovations in Urban Australian
Foodscapes" in Australian humanities review, M. Rooney & R. Smith edition, ANU E Press, vol. 51,
Canberra, Australia, pp. 115-134.
Faehnle, M., Jokinen, J., Karlin, A. & Lyytimki, J. 2010, Kaupunkiluonto ja monikulttuurisuus
maahanmuuttajat luontoalueiden kokijoina ja kyttjin, Suomen ympristkeskus, Helsinki.
Fried, M. 1963, "Grieving for a lost home" in The urban condition: People and policy in the
metropolis, ed. L.J. Duhl, Simon & Schuster, New York, pp. 124-152.
Gibson, J.J. 1979, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Gibson, J.J. 1977, "The Theory of Affordances", in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an
Ecological Psychology, Shaw, R. & Bransford, J. edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 67-82.
Gifford, R. 2009, "Environmental psychology: Manifold visions, unity of purpose", Journal of
Environmental Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 387-389.
Greeno, J.G. 1994, "Gibson's affordances", Psychological review, vol. 101, no. 2, p. 336.
14

Guerilla Gardening Network Helsinki | Alternative Design Capital 2012. Available:

http://adc2012.org/projects/guerilla-gardening-network-helsinki/ [2012, 4/2/2012].
Hartson, H.R. 2003, "Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design",
Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 22, no. 5, p. 315.
Herttoniemen ruokaosuuskunta. Available: http://ruokaosuuskunta.fi/2011/herttoniemenruokaosuukunta/ [2012, 4/3/2012].
Kntpyt 2012, Dodon kaupunkiviljelypuutarha Pasilan ratapihalla kasvukaudesta 2012 lhtien.
Available: http://kaantopoyta.fi/ [2012, 4/2/2012].
Kytt, M. 2004, "Children in outdoor contexts: Affordances and independent mobility in the
assessment of environmental child friendliness", ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Kytt, M. 2004, "The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of actualized
affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments", Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 24,
no. 2, pp. 179-179.
Kytt, M. 2002, "Affordances of children's environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs
and rural villages in Finland and Belarus", Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 22, no. 1-2, pp.
109- 123.()
Lasten ja nuorten puutarhayhdistys ry, Puutarha lapsille ja nuorille. Available:
http://www.lastenpuutarha.fi/yhdistys/tarkoitus/ [2012, 4/2/2012].
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Available:
http://www.maweb.org/en/Framework.aspx#download [2012, 4/2/2012].
Neisser, U. 1994, "Multiple Systems: A New Approach to Cognitive Theory", European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 225- 241.
Norman, D.A. 2002, The design of everyday things, New York: Basic Books, 272 pp.
Norman, D.A. 1999, "Affordance, conventions, and design", Interactions, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 38-43.
Putnam, R.D. 2000, "Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community", Computer
supported cooperative work: Proceedings of the ACM conference 2000, p. 357.
Rosenberg, J. 2011, Satokartta.net avattu Kartta Helsingin julkisista ruokapuista- ja pensaista
[Homepage of ArabianrantaToukolaVanhakaupunki -kaupunginosayhdistys ry], [Online]. Available:
http://artova.fi/uutiset-mainmenu-387/2336-satokarttanet-avattu-kartta-helsingin-julkisista-ruokapuista-japensaista [2012, 4/2/2012].
Ruokaosuuskunta 2012. Herttoniemen ruokaosuuskunta. Available: http://ruokaosuuskunta.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2011/08/Oma_pelto_konsepti_2012_ok.pdf [2012, 4/2/2012].
Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. 2010, "Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework",
Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1-10.
Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. 2010, "The relations between natural and civic place attachment and proenvironmental behavior", Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 289-297.
Soil Association, Why CSA? Available:
http://www.soilassociation.org/communitysupportedagriculture/whycsa [2012, 4/2/2012].
Stokols, D. 1995, "The paradox of environmental psychology", American Psychologist, vol. 50, no.
10, pp. 821- 837.

15

Tyrvinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Korpela, K. & Yln, M. 2007, Luonnon merkitys kaupunkilaisille ja
vaikutus psyykkiseen hyvinvointiin, Metlan tyraportteja 52:57-77, Helsinki, Finland.
Uzzell, D. 2002, "Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability",
Environment and Behavior, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 26-28.
Van En, R. 1995, "Eating for Your Community. A report from the founder of community supported
agriculture", A Good Harvest (IC#42) [Homepage of Context Institute], [Online]. Available:
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC42/VanEn.htm [2012, 4/2/2012].
Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J. & Skinner, A. 2007, "Growing urban health:
Community gardening in South-East Toronto", Health promotion international, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 92-101.
Winkel, G., Saegert, S. & Evans, G.W. 2009, "An ecological perspective on theory, methods, and
analysis in environmental psychology: Advances and challenges", Journal of Environmental Psychology,
vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 318-328.

16