Challenges of Urban Agriculture: Highlights on the Czech and Slovak Republic Specifics

filozofick á fa k u lta u niv erzit y k a r lov y, 201 4

CURRENT CHALLENGES

OF CENTRAL EUROPE:

SOCIETY AND ENVIRONMENT

Jan Vávra, Miloslav Lapka,

Eva Cudlínová (eds.)

ReviewersJoanna Hernik, Ph.D., West Pomeranian University of Technology, SzczecinIng. Martin Pělucha, Ph.D., University of Economics, PragueJames Sandy Rikoon, Ph.D., University of Missouri, Columbia

Editors © Eva Cudlínová, Miloslav Lapka, Jan Vávra, 2014© Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Filozofická fakulta, 2014

Za obsah a jazykovou správnost odpovídají autoři

Všechna práva vyhrazena

ISBN 978-80-7308-551-3

KATALOGIZACE V KNIZE – NÁRODNÍ KNIHOVNA ČR

Current challenges of Central Europe: society and environment / Jan Vávra, Miloslav Lapka, Eva Cudlínová (eds.). – Vyd. 1. – Praha : Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Filozofická fakulta, 2014. – 194 s. – (Varia ; sv. 29)

ISBN 978-80-7308-551-3

316.3 * 502/504 * 316.42 * 502.131.1 * 316.3/.6 * (4-191.2).– society – Europe, Central – 21st century– environment – Europe, Central – 21st century– social change – Europe, Central – 21st century– sustainable development – Europe, Central – 21st century– man and society – Europe, Central – 21st century– collective monographs– společnost – Evropa střední – 21. stol.– životní prostředí – Evropa střední – 21. stol.– sociální změna – Evropa střední – 21. stol.– udržitelný rozvoj – Evropa střední – 21. stol.– člověk a společnost – Evropa střední – 21. stol– kolektivní monografie

303 – Social processes [18]316.4 – Sociální procesy [18]

Acknowledgementte editing process and publishing of this book was supported by the project Postdoc USB (reg. no. CZ.1.07/2. 3. 00/30.0006) realized through the EU Education for Competitiveness Operational Programme. te project is funded by the European Social Fund and Czech state budget.

Jan Vávra, Miloslav Lapka, Eva Cudlínová (eds.)Current Challenges of Central Europe: Society and Environment

Vydala Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Filozofická fakulta,nám. Jana Palacha 2, Praha 1,jako 29. svazek řady Varia

Jazyková redakce Peter Kirk JensenTypografická osnova František ŠtormSazba z písma Skolar PE Dušan Neumahr (www.togga.cz)Vytiskla tiskárna Nakladatelství KarolinumVydání první, Praha 2014

Contents

Introduction 7

Introduction to Central Europe: What Does It Mean in the 21st Century? 9[Mikuláš Huba]

What Are the Challenges of Central Europe? 12[Miloslav Lapka, Jan Vávra, Eva Cudlínová] Transcultural Communication in the Central European Region: Freedom, Equality and Ties with the Natural Environment 20[Zdenka Sokolíčková]

Examining the Transition Toward Sustainability in Higher Education in Central Europe 44[Andrew Barton, Jana Dlouhá]

Biodiversity Loss and Public Opinion: What Is the Situation in Central Europe? 68[Anna Kalinowska]

Challenges of Urban Agriculture: Highlights on the Czech and Slovak Republic Specifics 82[Barbora Duží, Aeila Tóth, Mária Bihuňová, Robert Stojanov]

Green Growth from the Viewpoint of the Czech Republic 108[Jan Vávra, Eva Cudlínová, Miloslav Lapka]

Complementary Currencies: je Hungarian Example 133[Katarína Zuntychová]

Some Additions to Sustainable Development in Visegrad Countries, Especially in Hungary 155[Tibor László Csegődi]

Resumé 187Information about authors 189Index 193

introduction 7

Introduction

Dear readers,the book which you are going to read, tries to raise a question, and hopefully suggest some answers as to what the current challenges of the central euro-pean area are. It was prepared as a follow -up to the 3rd year of international interdisciplinary conference titled Our Common Present: Current Challenges of Central Europe held in April 2013 in Prague. A social sciences’ perspective on the human -environment relationship is emphasized in the individual chapters due to the scope of the conference and the long -term interest of the editors. Ne book starts with a short introductory essay on what Central Europe is. Nis essay is followed by eight peer -reviewed chapters, the first one trying to summarize the content of this book, its message and some de-bates about Central Europe. Together, thirteen authors from five countries present their selection and understanding of important current challenges of Central Europe, both in case studies and wider theoretical reflections.

We would like to use this introduction to say many thanks to the authors of the chapters and all of the people who helped us with the preparation of this book. We also would like to acknowledge the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague and Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice for their support.

We wish you a good reading experience and we hope that this book will bring a lot of inspiration for your own reflections on Central Europe, global challenges, socio -cultural changes, the environment, sustainability, and our common present in general.

Jan Vávra, Miloslav Lapka, Eva CudlínováOctober 2014

82 current challenges of central europe: society and environment

Challenges of Urban Agriculture: Highlights on the Czech and Slovak Republic Specifics

Barbora Duží, A@ila Tóth, Mária Bihuňová, Robert Stojanov

1. Introduction

Central and Eastern Europe represents a specific geographical, political and social environment. One of its inseparable parts is food production and its changing position in urban environments. In this chapter, we explore the role of urban agriculture practices, including their relationships to the wider peri -urban surroundings and rural neighborhood. We also frame urban ag-riculture not only narrowly, just as in the food production activities in cit-ies, but also mention other non -production dimensions and values that are difficult to measure or calculate, such as social, environmental, health, edu-cational, aesthetic, and others.

We introduce the topic through a wider discussion on urban planning and sustainable development, as well as future urban -rural trajectories. We provide an input into current trends in urban agriculture in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Urban agriculture is generally perceived as an en-gagement in agricultural activities realized within the urban area of cities or their close surroundings. Due to the great diversity of urban agriculture, we primarily focus on the gardening level, the bo@om -up approach and the stakeholders’ perspective.

In the following paragraphs, we deal with the typologies, dimensions and definitions of urban agriculture and provide a short excursion to the his-tory of urban gardening. We also discuss the role of gardening as a potential contribution to the improvement of individual and household resilience to economic fluctuations, climate variability, and food insecurity. Our aim is to show the main trends and types of food production and its value -added dimensions in the urban environment.

As we describe various forms and types of urban agriculture activities in urban environments, we place a@ention on the Czech and Slovak expe-rience of the post -communist period and development since the 1990s. In the case of the Czech Republic, we concentrate on educational gardens as a specific, multifunctional and multidimensional garden. Environmental

challenges of urban agriculture 83

education constitutes an important pillar of the overall educational system and recently, educational gardens have experienced a dynamic development. In the Slovak Republic, we focus aMention on the development of household and allotment gardens as the most frequent forms of urban agriculture in Slovak towns and cities.

Oe methods mostly consist of applying literature review; a more detailed description of educational gardens in the Czech Republic, and household and allotment gardens in the Slovak Republic is supported by field research. In the case of 10 educational gardens, we employed more detailed field research, accompanied by informative interviews with garden stewards who described garden history, purposes, functions, appearance, structure, educational tools, and activities for the public.

Focusing on current urban issues, European municipalities and urban planners face many challenges about how to ensure sustainable develop-ment (Echenique, Hargreaves, Mitchell, & Namedo, 2012; Keivani, 2010) and to guarantee the quality of the environment, well -being and necessary services for urban inhabitants and new incomers, in order to avoid a serious social exclusion while providing and maintaining the vast urban infrastruc-ture and tackling with urban sprawl (Suditu, 2012). Oese works stress the role of cities and urban environment as being multifunctional landscapes (Deelstra, Bozd, & van den Biggelaar, 2001). In addition to that, European cities also deal with pressure on how to adapt its infrastructure to climate change (European Environmental Agency, 2012). Oe main adaptation chal-lenges rest on how to regulate flood water, mitigate urban heat, improve air quality, protect vulnerable groups against extreme weather events, or more generally, how to ensure sustainable and climate friendly urban development (e.g. Westphal, 2003).

Moreover, post -communist Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) cities have to cope with contradictory city development, and pressures caused by multi-ple transformations from former defunct communist methods of controlled urban planning to a new market -oriented environment. Oese contradic-tions are still manifested in the urban, social and institutional structures of post -communist cities (Sýkora & Bouzarovski, 2012). A specific problem for post -communist cities, delayed approximately thirty years compared with democratic states, rests on protecting the urban environment and greenfield sites together with the need to regenerate devastated and usually abandoned sites – commonly defined as brownfields (e.g. Dair & Williams, 2007; Dixon, 2007; Duží & Jakubínský, 2013). All these changes also affect existing garden-ing and food provision practices realized in cities, generally called urban agriculture or urban gardening, depending upon the focus and scale.


2. Position of urban agriculture within urban environments

In this section, we provide a short list of issues connected with urban agricul-ture and urban planning to show their position. At first, urban agriculture is place and space oriented and related to “greenery” or “green infrastructure”. It is based on a top -down approach through planning instruments and man-agement of land use and nature in urban green spaces or boSom -up initia-tives and planning instruments aimed at “greening of cities” (Zareba, 2010; Csete & Horváth, 2012; Tóth & Feriancová, 2013). Urban greenery then pro-vides a large range of ecosystem services and values such as refuges for ani-mals and plants, a place for sport, gardening, recreation and tourism, as well as the working place of urban inhabitants (Librová, 2002; Pearson, Pilgrim, & PreSy, 2010). On the other hand, urban agriculture is not just a green or natural part of urban areas, but is production oriented and rather belongs among “urban productive landscapes” with some proportion of greenery and sense of the rural (Matos & Batista, 2013). Barthel, Crumney and Sve-din (2013) also focus on the connection between food production, ecosystem services and biodiversity.

le second dimension is essentially connected with lifestyles or a way of living in general, specifically spending leisure time, and shopping habits and is stakeholder oriented. Since the 1970s, social scientists, e.g. Inglehart (1990) highlighted evolving post -materialist values among the representatives of post -modern society, including puSing more aSention on the quality of in-dividual as well as social life. lese approaches were manifested in a focus on nutrition and the environmental quality of food production (Librová, 2002; Clayton, 2007; Gerster -Bentaya, 2013; Kiesling & Manning, 2010) and people started to be more responsible and active also in case of shopping, consuming and gardening. Social scientists provide various terms on how to grasp these changes, such as Silent Revolution (Inglehart, 1990), or ecological luxury of a garden (Librová, 2002). Except for a focus on changes, Librová (1994) or Smith and Jehlička (2013) point out some persisting trend in the human way of life, resting on some natural modesty and self -resilience. Smith and Jehlička describe it as “quiet sustainability” (Smith & Jehlička, 2013), Librová (1994) expresses these aSributes with the term “colorful”.

le third and most basic issue deals with ensuring food production and nutrition. le question on how to ensure basic needs and to feed people still remains, the simple question of dealing with food production, process-ing and consumption. Although food production in cities has not always stayed at the centre of the urban management agenda, in the light of the historical development of towns and cities and rural -urban relations, it has never been excluded (for details see Björklund, 2010). But recently, facing economical fluctuations and a rise in global change challenges, more peo-


ple look for a way on how to increase individual or community resilience through food security (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2008), applying some alternative economic elements, or how to be more independent of external supplies, including food (Redwood, 2009; Grofová & Srnec, 2012; Galhena, Freed, & Maredia, 2013; Johanisová, Crabtree, & Fraňková, 2013). Urban agriculture can bring great value to the current discussion, especially the dimension dealing with self -subsistence and the self -provision of food (see Alber & Kohler, 2008; Rose & Tikhomirov, 1993; Jehlička, Kostelecký, & Smith, 2012; Barthel, Crumney, & Svedin, 2013; Smith & Jehlička, 2013).

We frame urban agriculture in terms of green infrastructure, stakehold-ers and food production itself. But finally, in relation to stakeholders, we add gardening as an instrument of process and social change, puling social and environmental innovations into practice through grass root activities, com-munity development projects or social programs. Public activities aimed at strengthening social ties, a sense of community or support of the inclusion of socially disadvantaged groups may use garden practices or activities as an instrument leading to the greening or improvement of neglected spaces which are community centered. oe results of these processes are mutu-ally beneficial for people and the environment. ous, urban agriculture brings strong social and community dimension into the discussion (see Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012; Bendt, Barthel, & Colding, 2013; Kirwan, Ilbery, Maye, & Carey, 2013).

Urban agriculture also comprises a policy dimension and issues related to ownership, land estate and urban planning process. Selectively, some pro-grams and cooperation dealing with urban agriculture on municipality levels, let’s mention local food networks and programs1 and peri -urban regional platforms in Europe, and gathering selected peri -urban regions in Europe.2

Despite the importance and need to create a favorable policy environment for the sustainable development of urban agriculture or incorporation of this issue into planning and policy -making, there is still a lack of structural, political, and legislative support, or even a recognition of their importance. It is therefore a challenge for future urban planning and spatial planning on a regional and local scale.

1 www.foodlinks.net2 www.purple -eu.org


3. Typologies and definitions of urban agriculture

3.1. DefinitionsHow can we frame and define urban agriculture? We offer several definitions, concentrated on various aspects of urban agriculture.

Experts from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Na-tions (FAO, 2007, p. v) stress the food production dimension, but also recog-nize its wide diversity and the difficulty to grasp precisely the issue when they point out: “Urban agriculture is a dynamic concept that compromises a variety of livelihood systems ranging from subsistence production and processing at the household level, to more commercialized agriculture. It takes place in different locations and under varying socio -economic condi-tions and political regimes.”

Many more issues emerge, but nobody questions that urban agriculture or gardening is an inseparable part of the urban environment. As we men-tioned in the introduction, urban agriculture was framed not just as agri-culture production in an urban environment, but comprised more functions and dimensions, the most important are social, economic, environmental, health, and educational.

Selected aspects of urban agriculture have become the research interest of a wide spectrum of scientists with wide backgrounds, such as landscape and applied ecology, agronomy, sociology, anthropology, geography, land-scape architecture, urban planning, ecology or environmental studies, and others. Specific topics of urban agriculture have even become the topics of students and their final theses.3

Agricultural production practiced in urban environments tends to be strongly context -related (to local markets, citizens, urban spaces, historical traditions, cultural heritage, etc.) and it is widely recognized that it provides multiple effects and services.

Cities Feeding Program (in Mougeot, 2006, p. 79) provides appropri-ate definitions, while concentrating on a multidimensional scale of urban agriculture and its production and supply function: “Urban agriculture is located within (intra -urban) or on the fringe (peri -urban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non -food products. It (re-)uses on a daily basis human and natural

3 A few examples from the Czech Republic: Klouparová, P. : Allotment gardens as a cultural phenomenon; Frélichová, V.: Food with farmer’s face: Community supported agriculture in the Czech Republic; Hrazdírová, E.: Gardener: Producer of healthy food or lover of che-mistry?

Slovak Republic: Petríková, P. : Assessment of the current private gardens in Nitra; Rz-epielová, M.:Urban agriculture in the Slovak Republic; Tóth, A.: Green infrastructure of the rural sezlement and its surrounding landscape.


resources, products and services largely found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplies on a daily basis human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area.”

He international network RUAF Foundation – Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security provides a more detailed definition of urban agriculture on its web pages (RUAF Foundation, 2014, paragraph 1). Shortly, urban agriculture can be defined as the “growing of plants and raising of animals within and around cities.” In a detailed definition, it points out inter-links and interactions between urban economics and ecological system: “He most striking feature of urban agriculture, which distinguishes it from rural agriculture, is that it is integrated into the urban economics and ecological system: urban agriculture is embedded in – and interacting with – the urban ecosystem. Such linkages include the use of urban residents as laborers, the use of typical urban resources (such as organic waste compost and urban waste water for irrigation), direct links with urban consumers, direct im-pacts on urban ecology (positive and negative), being part of the urban food system, competing for land with other urban functions, being influenced by urban policies and plans, etc. Urban agriculture is […] an integral part of the urban system” (RUAF Foundation, 2014, paragraph 2).

As a result of a long -term discussion among scientists gathered in COST Action Urban Agriculture Europe,4 reflecting other typologies and experi-ences, they define Urban Agriculture in the COST Barcelona Declaration (2013, p. 1) as: “[…] spanning all actors, communities, activities, places and economies that focus on bio -based production, in a spatial context that, according to local opinions and standards, is perceived as ‘urban’. Urban Agriculture takes place in intra -urban and peri -urban areas”.

His definition reflects the multidimensional aspects of urban agriculture, and moreover, highlights the fact that we cannot set up strict borders on where the urban ends and rural starts.

3.2. Types of urban agriculture generallyDue to the significant diversity of its forms and dimensions, it is not easy to set up a clear typology of urban agriculture. Inspired by the literature review (FAO, 2007; Lohrberg & Timpe, 2011; Tóth & Feriancová, 2013; RUAF Foun-dation, 2014), we have come up with a certain kind of rather open typology, based on the various perspectives mentioned in the introduction.

From a place and space perspective, we can distinguish intra -urban (takes place within the urban structure of a city) from peri -urban (practiced at the urban periphery). As for geopolitical location, there are vast differences

4 He project is a part of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology cooperation framework, see hsp://www.urbanagricultureeurope.la.rwth -aachen.de/.


among developing countries, developed countries and countries in transi-tions – usually from socialist planning to a market -oriented environment (Smith & Jehlička, 2013). Also quite important is the size of the towns or cities.

Urban agriculture may be differentiated depending on size of plots, start-ing from small -scale, through middle -scale, up to large -scale. For exam-ple, Lohrberg and Timpe (2011) found a feasible way to distinguish mainly between the farming and gardening level. On one hand, the farming level consists of mostly professional actors, while on the other hand, the garden-ing level is characterized by more civil -society actors. den, they distinguish

“rural -like farming”, which rises up to 20–200 ha. “Urban farming” is rela-tively smaller, from 2 to 20 ha, but more intensive. “Gardening” is performed at a significantly smaller scale, up to 2 ha.

From the stakeholders’ perspective, urban agriculture provides various forms of individual or collective/community farming. An in -depth socio-

-demographic analysis shows that urban gardeners are not just old fash-ioned, immigrants or poor people using gardening as a survival strategy (Alber & Kohler, 2008) as it may seem at first glance, but it includes a wide spectrum of people regardless of education, gender, income or age. Some empirical researches confirmed the great variety of stakeholders involved, for example Jehlička, Kostelecký and Smith (2012) in the case of Czech and Polish gardeners or Supuka, Feriancová and Tóth (2013) in the case of Slovak urban farmers. When focusing on gardening management itself, there is a wide spectrum of environmental performance from conventional to en-vironmentally friendly or organic practices (for details see Simon, Recasens, & Duží, 2014).

Taking into account the food production perspective (FAO, 2007), we can set up various forms of commercial -market oriented, then traded surplus, or just non -profit or self -provision/subsistence purposes of practicing urban gardening. It is also related to intensive, productive (just food production) or more diverse (ornamental, hobby, natural) purposes. As for the content of gardens, we may differentiate between vegetable, fruit, cereals, vineyard, orchard, flowers, herbs, livestock, or just energetic plants. de main types or urban agriculture can be:

1) traditional household gardens,2) community or allotment gardens,3) productive farms,4) institutional gardens (therapeutic gardens at hospitals, school gardens,

or educational gardens at Environmental Education Centers).

During the last few decades, new forms of gardening practices using high levels of social innovations, environmental friendly lifestyles and mixed bo}om -up or top -down approaches have been emerging; for example, com-


munity supported agriculture (CSA), community composting and garden-ing, guerrilla gardening and squat farming, urban food strategies, support of small entrepreneurs, local food chains, including market gardens and farm-ers’ markets, the Slow Food initiative, including a revival of local food pro-duction and farm shops and markets (Giacché & Tóth, 2013; Spilková & Per-lín, 2013). Some of them use the internet as a market tool for online fresh fruit and vegetable shopping, prepared vegetable and fruit boxes.

`ese activities have been developing in large cities (Prague, e.g. the com-munity garden Kokoza, Bratislava – Community Garden Krasňanský zelovoc) and even in smaller cities such as Nitra (Hide park). ̀ ese activities are very diverse and difficult to catch. Non -governmental organizations use the in-ternet for the online mapping of gardening and they create environmental maps as an instrument for environmentally friendly consumers, gardeners and citizens. Maps include bio and fair trade markets, green sites, natural protected areas, natural gardens – they show localization, provide a short description, etc.5

Table 1 briefly summarizes the main types of urban agriculture from several perspectives, especially place and space, stakeholders, food security and social innovation.

Tab. 1. Summary of selected urban agriculture types according to various perspectives

Perspective Types

Place and space, location Intra-urban / peri-urban

Small-scale / middle-scale / large-scale (gardening level/farming level)

Gardens on balcony / wall / roof / land

Stakeholder and organisation Individual, collective / community

Organized / spontaneous

Top-down / bopom up / mixed

Food security and performance Commercial / traded surplus / non-profit / self-provision / subsistence

Vegetable / fruit / vineyard / orchard / hop garden / herbs / livestock / energetic plants / flowers

Agroforestry / livestock / vegetable /mixed

Productive / mixed / non-productive

Aquaponic / hydroponic / soil

Conventional / environmentally friendly / organic practices

5 See www.komunitnizahrady.cz, www.veronica.cz/ekomapa, www.debnicka.sk, www.eko--mapa.sk, www.kokoza.cz, www.kpzinfo.cz, www.prodajzodvora.sk.


Social change and innovations Traditional forms (household gardens, allotment gardens, productive farms, institutional gardens)

New forms (community supported agriculture, community gardens, community composting, urban food strategies, guerilla gardens, institutional educational gardens)

Mixed forms (farmers’ markets, new forms of allotment gardens)

Source: Authors’ interpretation based on own literature review and field research.

Depending on the geographical dimension, every town features its unique structure, size and historical development of urban and peri -urban envi-ronment and then may serve its own typology. For example Tóth and Fe-riancová (2013) describe the typology of urban agriculture in the city of Nit ra as the following:

1) Container production on balconies and parapets – mostly vegetable, herbs, less fruit, for self -supply.

2) Private/Household gardens – with ornamental, recreational and pro-duction functions.

3) Production gardens at a blocks of flats – with a spatial division accord-ing to ownership.

4) Allotment gardens in the intra -urban and peri -urban area of the city – with different forms of spatial arrangement and various proportions of production and ornamental parts.

5) Urban vineyards – as residuals of historic landscape utilization.6) Orchards in private and allotment gardens.7) Blocks of fields – agricultural land.

3.3. Challenges and risksFAO (2007), Gerster -Bentaya (2013), RUAF Foundation (2014) and others sum-marize the main potentials of urban agriculture for the future. sey consider a contribution to food security and healthy nutrition as the most important assets, based on an improved diet, especially of poor urban population, and others. Another challenge is to contribute to the local economic development, increase income diversity and subsistence, and increase family resilience to economic fluctuations. se inevitable potential rests on social impacts, such as poverty alleviation and social integration of disadvantaged groups. Finally, urban agriculture contributes to urban environmental management: it uses organic waste and produces compost, harvests rain water and extends green spaces in urban environments. Urban agriculture also creates aesthetic and educational dimensions, while creating green and varied landscapes, show-


ing urban inhabitants how to grow crops, and raising awareness of the in-habitants about food production and processing.

As we indicated in the previous part, urban agriculture also brings some potential risks and constraints. Ie most important is to take into account the performance of agricultural production (conventional or environmen-tally friendly) and the location of agricultural sites. Urban agriculture could be carried out on vacant, derelict or abandoned former industrial places without any available information about safety and a healthy limit for agri-culture. Ie most serious risks could cause contamination of the environ-ment through air, soil or water and subsequently a transmission into the crops, thereby impacting the health of consumers. For instance, a group of Polish scientists conducted a research project dealing with the pollution of allotment gardens located close to an oil refinery and found a range of heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, copper, chromium, zinc and manga-nese, determined in the leaves and roots of the vegetables. Iey determined heavy metal accumulation in the soil, dust fall (measure of air pollution), as well as ground water (Mikula & Indeka, 1997). Based on an analysis of several studies (e.g. Mikula & Indeka, 1997; FAO, 2007; Galhena et al., 2013; Šarapatka et al., 2010), we provide a brief summary of these risks as:

− contamination of crops with pathogenic organisms or residues of agrochemicals and other pollutants through contaminated soil, water or air;

− transmission of diseases from domestic animals to people (zoonosis);− threat of local water sources or underground water contamination

due to uncontrolled treatment of fertilizers, pesticides or rich manure from animals;

− lack of information on how to grow plants and keep livestock respon-sibly, unhygienic handling of crops and animals;

− poor environmental conditions of land, further depletion of soil qual-ity;

− inappropriate drawing of water sources.

4. History and development of urban gardening types: Highlights of household gardens, allotment gardens and educational gardens in the Czech and Slovak Republics

Iis chapter provides a description of allotment gardens and household gar-dens as the most typical types of urban agriculture in the Czech and Slovak Republics. We also mention some specific political circumstances that influ-enced their development and character. A more detailed analysis is devoted to Czech educational gardens and Slovak household and allotment gardens.


We do not aim at providing an exhaustive description and analysis, but rather a collection of apt and illustrative cases.

4.1. Allotment gardensAllotment gardens and their supportive associations have a long tradition in most of the countries of Europe, dating to the turn of the 19th century. Rey draw mainly from two sources, French (Christian -enlightened) and German (educative -modernist). Rese sources have been permanently penetrated and connected with industrialization, rapid rural -urban migration, and the need to ensure food for the urban poor and promote factory workers; the second source was rather related to the possibility for recovery or the recreation of urban inhabitants (Macl, 2002; Kloparová, 2009; Librová, 2002; Gibas, 2011a; Gibas, 2011b; Gibas et al., 2013).6 In times of economic crisis or war, the role of allotment gardens stressed more on the food production and self -provision dimension. A detailed analysis of the history and development of allotment gardens from the European and Czech perspective is provided by the publi-cation by Gibas and colleagues (2013) and is not the core of this chapter. We focus on Slovak specifics, followed by Czech.

During the second half of the 20th century, especially in the communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, allotment gardens received strong recognition and support from national and regional policies, together with their “organized and controlled character” within the national garden-er’s unions. In the Czech and Slovak Republic, gardening and second living experienced a huge development during the political normalization period of the 1970s and 1980s. Re normalization period followed a short period of reform thinking, and democratic enthusiasm evolved during the 1960s but was aborted by the Soviet Army invasion in 1968, seoing up a severer political regime. When a complex system of repression took place and the ideas of democracy faded away, some urban inhabitants found escape either to the countryside, to the cooages, or to garden allotments within urban or rural

6 In 1819, there was a law enacted which directed officers to offer small plots of land to poor people in Great Britain. In France, Charity Conférences de Saint Vincent de Paul start-ed to distribute some plots for poor people; while in Germany, doctor Daniel Goolob Moritz Schreber promoted gardening as an ideal way of recovery. Re twentieth century brought some new challenges for urban gardening, mainly during the times of financial crises or world wars; lets mention the so -called makeshiw and war gardens (for example, Kriegsgemüsegartens in Austria). In 1930, the idea of the “gardens for paupers”, also start-ed in Germany, were known also “Schrebergärten”, initiated by the above -mentioned D. G. M. Schreber. He started with playgrounds for children living in cities. Near the childrens’ playgrounds there were established gardens for the families. In France, there were Labor Garden Colonies; in Poland and Austria, there were gardens set up in the suburb zone. In Switzerland, several well -off people offered their land for common gardens (Benčať, 1997; Gibas et al., 2013).


environments (Eislerová, 2006; Buček, 2012; Benčať, 2007). Moreover, some people used coPage gardens as “a second living possibility”. We gardening movement was strongly organized within the Czechoslovak Union of Gar-deners and officially promoted by the communist government.

From the 1990s, and acer the split of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, the character and number of organized gardeners declined, but unions partly followed new trends (web sites, magazines, Facebook ac-tivities, e -promotion). We extent of allotment gardens, located in aPractive town environments, has been shrinking due to a clash with development projects and the process of building up city centers. Wese trends are going hand in hand with changing aPitudes, the perception of urban gardening as subsistence rather than to recreation and health (van den Berg, Winsum-

-Westra, de Vries, & van Dillen, 2011; Peleška, 1997), a generational change, and a shic in how urban inhabitants spend their leisure time.

Allotment gardens represent a type of collective garden which are more organized and connected to the long -term development of many voluntary and organized interested “associations” (hunting, bee -keeping, gardening, fishing, librarian, scientific, etc.).

In the case of both republics, before 1989 the land was given to the mem-bers of the Czechoslovak Association of Gardeners without aPention to the previous land owner (the land became the property of the state or coopera-tive societies). In the Slovak Republic, acer 1989 the original owners of the land got into a legal conflict with the gardeners who were cultivating “their” plots of land. In 1991, the Act No. 229/1991 had been authorized, thereby adjusting the owner’s rights to land and other agricultural properties. Cur-rently, there is an ordinary Act. No. 64/1997 on land exploitation in allotment gardens and land ownership regulations. In the Czech Republic, continuing discussions about the necessity to adapt laws dealing with urban allotment gardening are taking place, although no result has been achieved yet.

When taking a look at Slovakia, it is, similarly to the Czech Republic, considered as a country of allotment holders/gardeners. Wis phenomenon rose during the communist era, when people could not travel abroad, so they spent a lot of their free time and holidays in the countryside. In the late 1980s, Slovakia was going through deep political and economic changes which lec a visible mark also on the structure of Slovak towns. Allotment gardens – or “garden colonies” as they are called in Slovakia – have appeared as a particularity of cities and urban environments. Allotment gardens, as they are known nowadays, date back to the 1960s. Wey were set up for cit-ies with over 50,000 inhabitants, but several years acer, smaller cities and towns also established allotment gardens.

We first guidelines for allotment gardens in Slovakia were approved by the Slovak Association of Gardeners and Fruiterers in 1957. Between


1965 and 1968, the establishment of allotment gardens was extended while between 1979 and 1984, another expansion is dated. In this period, 109,000 new gardeners were recorded. ATer ten years, the number of members increased twice – to 220,000, with a total area of 5,500 hectares of gardens (Benčať, 2007). _is expansion strove to elaborate on expanded guidelines of the aesthetic and planting regulations for allotment gardens; including a catalogue of the architectural design of cobages suitable for allotment gardens, and depending upon localization, was published in 1977. _ere were 24 types of garden cobages for the lowlands, uplands and mountain regions. For beginners and those who wanted to have a garden, some model allotment gardens were established in the exhibition area of Agrokomplex in Nitra in 1982. _ere you could see 12 different types of gardens, with an area of 400 m2 (Benčať, 2007).

_e following types were presented: a vegetable type, a vegetable type with greenhouse, a multifunctional garden in the lowlands, a multifunc-tional garden in the upland, a fruit type, a vineyard type, a garden in the suburbs in the heights, a garden in the suburb near a stream, a recreational garden, a garden with animal breeding, a private garden in the lowlands, and a private garden in the heights. _ese types have been recently supplemented with a bio garden, and examples of bio-composting, types of mulching, plant allelopathy, suitable garden equipment, etc. (Bihuňová & Kubišta, 2009).

_e size of allotment gardens varies between 250 and 400 m2. Each allot-ment garden is connected to a water supply system and electricity is avail-able. _e allotments are used as fruit and vegetable gardens, vineyards, as well as recreational and flower gardens. _ere are no regulations stipulating the minimum area of the plot, which has to be actively used for production (fruit, vegetable). _ere are only building restrictions. Cobages can have a maximum size of 40 m2, there are no limitations regarding cobage height. _ere are many different types of cobages, ranging from a simple garden shelter, up to summer cobages where the gardeners can live during the summer months.

Currently, the Slovak Union of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners has 82,000 members and 1,380 associations. _e Czech Union has 170,000 mem-bers, 2,700 associations and 17 special organizations (Český zahrádkářský svaz, 2014; Slovenský zväz zahrádkárov, 2014). _e unions offer advice on ecological cultivation and the protection of fruit, vegetable and perennials, as well as legal advice for free. _ey provide the material and financial support of several activities. Members organize diverse exhibitions of fruit, vegetable and plants; wine competitions; educational events, as well as thematic visits and excursions.

Most of the recent garden owners have inherited them and therefore their connection with garden work and affinity for gardening can vary be-


tween none to serious. :eir role has changed from a focus on food security or escape in the past, to more diverse purposes nowadays, but gardeners spend a significant part of their time in their gardens. It is a place where they can discover a sense of their everyday lives and become an active part of the community.

4.2. Household gardens in the context of the predominantly rural landscapes of the Slovak RepublicHome or household/private gardens have been an important part of the local food system for centuries, regardless of their urban or rural location. :eir role is emphasized especially in developing countries as an instrument on how to avoid malnutrition or the food insecurity of urban inhabitants (FAO, 2008; Galhena et al., 2013). But they play a serious role in developed, and an even more important role in post -communist, countries where they help in-habitants to overcome economic transitions and difficulties (Sýkora & Bou-zarovski, 2012). Self -provision, household resilience and other activities are widely discussed by social scientists, especially when dealing with motiva-tion. Jehlička and Smith (2012, 2013) introduce three or four main streams and concepts regardless of geographical location, type of political regimes or existence of economic crisis):

– coping or survival strategy of the poor (e.g. communist or post--communist “shortage”);

– “fashion” or trend of middle class;– socio -cultural reaction to short -term crisis (2008, potential change

aher abatement);– quiet sustainability (ongoing and sustainable trend of sharing, repair-

ing, gihing and bartering.

Home gardens are predominantly small -scale subsistence agricultural sys-tems, with a potential for some trade surpluses and usually consist of small plots around households. :ey may be distinguished as kitchen, backyard, farmyard, compound or homestead gardens (Niňez, 1987; Galhena et al., 2013). :e main differences from other types of agricultural systems (espe-cially commercial farms) are their size; they occupy a small area and pur-pose; production is rather supplemental than a main source of income and they are located near households (Marsh, 1998). Moreover, home -owners usually grow more sorts of plant and ensure themselves day -to -day access to fresh and nutritious food from home production (Bentanya, 2013), with possibilities for fresh food storage or processing.

During the period aher WWII, quite a different situation developed in the former communist Central and Eastern Europe when compared to the western cultures of Europe, dated from the second half of the 20th century


to the 1990s. Household gardens, especially those bigger and more com-mercial ones (close to farming scale), faced some contradictions in the form of a strong regime pushing them to shiR to collective forms of farming, in accordance with the Soviet Union model, mainly in peri -urban and rural areas. Swain (2001) describes this process and highlights some differences between countries, especially fewer regulations in Hungary and Poland. During the 1990s, the process of restitution enabled some former farmers and gardeners or their descendants to get back their assets. \ey can treat them according to their consideration.

When focusing on Slovak specifics, in many cases it is difficult to clearly determine whether a household garden has a predominantly urban or rural character. Besides traditional forms of agriculture, urban agriculture is also present in intra -urban areas of small towns and villages which stand for small urban centers in the agricultural landscape of Slovakia, which repre-sents 49.2 % of the overall territory (Klinda et al., 2011). \is percentage of agricultural land use is similar to the Czech situation, where agricultural land consists of 53.5 % of the overall land (Souhrnné přehledy o půdním fondu z údajů katastru nemovitostí za rok 2014 v České republice, 2014).

In larger towns and cities, the need for productive land is partly satisfied by the allotment gardens which were formed at the urban fringe, usually connected to grey infrastructure elements. As mentioned before, agricul-ture has the largest proportion in Slovak land use. \erefore, the Slovak countryside has always been formed and influenced by agricultural land use. \e footprint of agricultural production can be clearly read on current landscape and seklement structures as well. In terms of urban agriculture, production outside the built -up area is of no relevance. Smaller urban seklements like towns and villages, especially those located in the Dan-ube Lowland (the southwestern part of the country), were formed by the intensive growing of crops in private gardens within the intra -urban area of the seklement. For the largest villages of this region, large gardens at private houses with a very high amount of polytunnels (hoop greenhouses) were characteristic.

\e most intensive growing took place in the second half of the 20th century. Heading to the turn of the century, it became consecutively less intensive, and nowadays we can see a significant conversion of urban agri-culture in intra -urban areas of towns and villages. \ere were several fac-tors and circumstances which caused a downgrade of personal agricultural production in small urban seklements, among others lowering the prices of crops by big supermarket chains and thereby disturbing the local markets. \is relationship between villager and land has a long tradition and deep roots in the history of the Slovak countryside. In the past, people were also cultivating the land outside the built -up area with their own hands. \is


changed significantly with the phenomenon of agricultural collectiviza-tion aGer World War II. Villagers lost their piece of land outside the village and all that was leG was the personal garden at their houses. As they were fundamentally bounded with land cultivation, the urban agriculture under-went a first significant change (from growing for own use in orchards and vegetable plots to intensive farming and trading with crops).

AGer the mentioned conversion of urban agriculture by a changeover to a market economy, a lot of urban farmers lost their motivation to grow crops. Sere is also a special type of urban gardening in Slovak villages in the form of production plots at blocks of four or eight flats. Sese gardens and their gardeners are still productive as they grow vegetable for their own use. Seir character is similar to community gardens in bigger towns and cities. Concerning an overall state, urban agriculture in small Slovak seWle-ments faded and its potential is currently not fulfilled. Serefore, we now face a great challenge: How to bring back urban agriculture to the scene of small Slovak urban seWlements? Which tools would be applicable and which approaches would contribute to the sustainable development of small urban seWlements in Slovakia?

We have to find out how to re -motivate the urban gardeners of Slovak towns and villages. According to contemporary approaches, we can consider agritourism and local markets to be a contribution to the sustainable devel-opment of small urban structures. By some initiatives, through top -down approaches we could stimulate several boWom -up reactions (e.g. establishing of local markets to enable trading with bio -products of local farmers and aGerwards promoting and supporting agritourism to increase the demand from local to micro -regional or regional would motivate urban gardeners to produce bio -products like vegetable, fruit, cheese, honey, eggs, etc. and to sell them on local markets to local people and visitors as well). Another positive impulse for urban agriculture would be its integration into the education process of primary schools.

To sum up, household gardens represent outdoor living spaces for hu-mans where they spend a part of their leisure time and have production, recreational and social functions. During the last few decades, the original perception of the private gardens with the main production function was changed, on behalf of recreational and ornamental function. We can remark on it mostly in intensively urbanized areas (Bihuňová & Kubišta, 2007). But on the other hand, the inhabitants of the urban and industrial areas are interested in planting their own bio -products influenced by the initiatives of a short supply -chain and slow food (Tóth & Feriancová, 2013).


Picture 1. An intra -urban production garden with exterior and interior (green-house) production at housing estates in the small town Tvrdošovce

Author: A;ila Tóth.

4.3. Specifics of the Czech Republic – Educational gardensBoth the Czech and Slovak Republics have a long tradition of institutional gardens with educational potential. Traditionally, botanical gardens were established by universities and especially school gardens for basic and sec-ondary education, and even a school subject “gardening” was established as an obligatory part of the educational system. A quite high proportion of schools is endowed with school gardens.

In this part we focus on the Czech situation, especially from the 1990s to now. According to representative empirical research, around 80 % of schools still own gardens (Burešová, 2005). School gardens as an educational tool are honored in other countries, some authors use the term “garden -based education” to describe the process of learning and activities being done in school gardens (Williams & Dixon, 2013; Dilafruz & Brown, 2012).

nere is also a strong historical background of environmental educa-tion and “eco” pedagogy reaching back to the beginning of the 20th century, persisting during communist times and newly supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport and Ministry of the Environment since the 1990s (Aleš Záveský, Aleš Máchal, Květoslava Burešová, Danuše Kvasničková, and many others). Moreover, a network of various environmental educa-tion centers, mainly non -governmental or school organizations has been developing, mainly since 1989 (currently with 38 official members). Most of them established gardens to serve as multiple educational tools in terms of


the complex fulfillment of educational goals, such as knowledge (informa-tion), a(itudes (values), and practices (skills) (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2008). Educational gardens are concentrated in Prague (Toulcův Farmstead) or Brno (Lipka, Rozmarýnek, Kamenáčky, etc.), but many of them are also located in rural areas and small towns.

Oe Slovak Republic faces a li(le delay in educational gardening, however we can mention some developing projects of educational gardens in Brati-slava, the farm in Stupava, Mašekov Mill, or the Eco center Sosna Košice.

Oe ownership of gardens stands as a strong educational tool for schools as well as environmental centers. Oey can be used as an information platform for the public, open air classroom and background for education, a living textbook of biology and other subjects, a place for practical gardening, educa-tion courses and excursions for the public, open access spaces, an example of good practices, a place for gathering, games and a practical gardening workshop for children (Carney, 2001; Burešová, 2005; Fančovičová & Prokop 2011; Williams & Brown, 2012).

We reviewed approximately 30 gardens in the Czech Republic and based on literature review, enriched by our observations and interviews with selected representatives, we have created a short summary of the main garden types. We also point out that most gardens usually contain more garden types or elements together. Table 2 shows a great variety of gardens and their characteristics.

Tab. 2. Types of educational gardens

Type of garden/element Characteristics

Playing Garden Garden dedicated to children, containing a number of playing elements for children to support engagement of human senses.

Biotope Garden Main purpose of the garden is to run biological observations, it serves as a mosaic of biotopes typical for Europe: mixed forest, meadow, steppe, lake, wetland, also gardens etc.

Permaculture / Natural Garden Close to environmentally and climate friendly garden types. Besides food production, they include natural elements, ecological practices and combine old and new approaches. Czech natural gardens are inspired by the Austrian project of natural garden promotion “Natur im Garten” and try to follow their rules and principles. Although, each garden is unique and entails a footprint on their founders.


Food garden Garden focused on the production of mainly nutrition rich plants (containing high amount of proteins), to ensure food and seed security.

Garden of old sorts and cultivars Gardens oriented especially to revival of old and regional varieties of fruit trees, plants and crops.

Old times garden (Grandmother's Grandparent's Garden)

Old farmsteads or parts of gardens, enriched by current environmental practices. Oe aim is to show traditional ways of farming. Besides this, various art and craR courses are offered (wool processing, poTery, herbal medicine).

Source: Authors’ own interpretation based on literature review and field research.

In most of the analyzed gardens, we observed a strong environmental di-mension, based on proper natural resource management, support of diver-sity, soil protection and an overall responsible approach. For instance, they focus on a closed cycle of various nutrients (composting), rain water har-vesting, use of human work rather than mechanization. Oe garden usually includes more biotopes such as a vegetable garden, an orchard, a flower bed, bodies of water, a small forest, bushes and shrubs, herbs, lie -fallow elements, places for useful predators and pollinators to live and hide: hiding places for birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, plant rotation, combination of various sorts of crops in garden beds, including edible weeds and edible forests, etc.

Oese environmental aTributes correspond with the principles of en-vironmental friendly gardening (Vlašínová, 2006; Šarapatka et al., 2010; Simon, Recasens, & Duží, 2014). Oe innovative dimension is very important. Educational gardens invite natural elements and promote a change of garden perception – to be considered not only as a place for the production of food, but a certain kind of natural ecosystem. Moreover, some gardens introduce

“chaos”, “wilderness” and “lie -fallow part” as an inherent part of the garden. From our perspective, these gardens could serve as a strong example of environmentally and climate friendly gardening, which is strongly needed to be managed in urban and rural environments.


Picture 2. ,e Educational Herbal garden Tiree Chmelar is located in Valtice and is managed by the non -governmental organization Herbal Garden (it holds a Natural Garden certificate)

Author: Barbora Duží.

5. Conclusion

We tried to cover the vast diversity of urban gardening through the exam-ple of the Czech and Slovak Republics (the former Czechoslovakia) as post-

-communist countries. Our findings are based on an extensive literature re-view on the elaborated issue, with a particular focus on the works of Czech and Slovak authors.

Ze chapter introduces and analyses the issue of urban agriculture in both countries and explains ongoing trends and tendencies. We point out that urban agriculture or gardening has never been excluded from the urban environment, quite the opposite, gardening has been developing and chang-ing in urban and rural environments and has not yet disappeared. Depending on the specific type of gardening, each kind of garden diversely focuses on the use of place and space, food security, the stakeholder’s engagement or introduction of environmental and social innovation.

From the vast diversity of urban gardening, we put more a^ention to allotment and household gardens and education institutional gardens. Ze


Slovak Republic especially shows a prevailing rural and agricultural charac-ter of the country with difficulties to distinguish between rural and urban agriculture due to small -scale sePlements. Even though dramatic changes towards market oriented and globalization tendencies have been developed in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, old forms of gardening such as allotment gardens or household gardens have persisted or have been transformed into new forms. Moreover, issues like food security, environmental quality and health are becoming more important and concrete in periods of incessant economic imbalances and fluctuations.

Educational gardens are presented as a unique garden type of the Czech Republic with a strong potential for raising public awareness and environ-mental education and spreading ideas and practice of environmentally and climate -friendly gardening. Although we are aware of the risks connected to gardening in urban environments, we perceive them as a challenge for future improvements.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the COST Action TD 1106 Urban Agriculture Europe, repre-sented by the action chair Frank Lohrberg, for the unique opportunity to share knowl-edge on an international level and to confront national perspectives in an interna-tional platform. Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge the support of research into urban agriculture by the research project KEGA No. 001SPU-4/2014 Green Infra-structure and Urban Agriculture. Preparation of this chapter was also supported by the Charles University Research Development Scheme (PRVOUK) No. 43 – Geography.

References

Alber, J., & Kohler, U. (2008). Informal Food Production in the Enlarged European Union. Social Indicators Research, 89, 113–127.

Barthel, S., Crumney, C., & Svedin, U. (2013). Bio -cultural Refugia – Safeguarding Diversity of Practices for Food Security and Biodiversity. Global Environmental

Change, 23(5), 1142–1152.Benčať, F. (1997). 40 rokov organizovaného záhradkárstva na Slovensku [40 Years of

Organised Gardening in Slovakia]. Bratislava: ZÁHRADKA.Bendt, P., Barthel, S., & Colding, J. (2013). Civic Greening and Environmental Learn-

ing in Public -access Community Gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109, 18–30.


Bihuňová, M., & Kubišta, R. (2007). Záhrada ako životný priestor cloveka [Garden as a Living Space for Human]. Dom a bývanie, 1(2), p. 84–86.

Bryant, R. C. (2012). Keynotes: ee discovery of Urban Agriculture. In COST Action Urban Agriculture Europe: Documentation of 1st Working Group Meeting (pp. 5–9). Aachen: COST, ESF, RWTH Aachen University.

Björklund, A. (2010). Historical Urban Agriculture: Food Production and Access to Land in Swedish Towns Before 1900. Stockholm: Acta Univerzitatis Stockhlomiensis.

Buček, A. (2012). Zahrady, zahrádkářské kolonie a město Brno [Gardens, Garden Al-lotments and the City of Brno]. Retrieved from hup://www.enviweb.cz/clanek/obecne/91804/zahrady -zahradkarske -kolonie -a-mesto -brno

Carney, J. (2011). Growing Our Own: A Case Study of Candidates Learning to Teach for Sustainability in an Elementary School. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2, 18 p.

Clarke, S., Varshavskaya, L., Alasheev, S., & Karelina, M. (2000). ee Myth of the Urban Peasant. Work Employment & Society, 14(3), 481–499.

Clayton, S. (2007). Domesticated Nature: Motivations for Gardening and Perceptions of Environmental Impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 215–224.

COST Action Urban Agriculture Europe. (2013). Retrieved from hup://www.urbanagri-cultureeurope.la.rwth -aachen.de/

Csete, M., & Horváth, L. (2012). Sustainability and Green Development in Urban Policies and Strategies. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 10(2), 185–194.

Český zahrádkářský svaz [Czech Union of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners]. (2014). Retrieved from hup://www.zahradkari.cz/czs/uvod_eng.php

Dair, C., & Williams, K. (2007). Sustainable Land Re -use: ee Influence of Different Stakeholders in Achieving Sustainable Brownfield Developments in England Location. Environment and Planning, 38(7), 1345–1366.

Deelstra, T., Boyd, D., & van den Biggelaar, M. (2001). Multifunctional Land Use: An Opportunity for Promoting Urban Agriculture in Europe. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 4, 33–35.

Dilafruz, R., & Brown, J. (2012). Learning Gardens and Sustainability Education: Bridging Life to Schools and Schools to Life. New York: Routledge.

Dixon, T. (2007). ee Property Development Industry and Sustainable Urban Brown-field. Regeneration in England: An Analysis of Case Studies in eames Gateway and Greater Manchester. Urban Studies, 44(12), 2379–2400.

Duží, B., & Jakubínský, J. (2013). Brownfield Dilemmas in the Transformation of Post--Communist Cities: A Case Study of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Human Geographies, 7(2), 53–64.

Duží, B. & Stojanov, R. (2013). Educational Dimension of Urban Gardens: Cases from the Czech Republic. In eProceedings of XXVth Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology, 29 July – 1 August 2013, Rural Resilience and Vulnerability: ae Rural as Locus of Solidarity and Conflict in Times of Crisis (p. 367–368). Florence: European Society for Rural Sociology. Retrieved from hup://real.mtak.hu/8135/1/Nemes-GFlorence75.pdf


Echenique M. H., Hargreaves, A. J., Mitchell, G., & Namedo, A. (2012). Growing Cit-ies Sustainably. Does Urban Form Really Ma`er? Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2), 121–137.

Eislerová, H. (2006). Konec zahrádkářů v Čechách a na Moravě (dokumentární film) [ke End of Gardeners in the Czechia and Moravia (documentary film)]. Re-trieved from h`p://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/1100627928-ta -nase -povaha-

-ceska/406235100011020-konec -zahradkaru -v-cechach -a-na -morave/European Environmental Agency. (2012). Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe:

Challenges and Opportunities for Cities Together with Supportive National and Euro-pean Policies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union.

Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2011). Plants Have a Chance: Outdoor Educational Pro-grammes Alter Students’ Knowledge and A`itudes towards Plants. Environmental Education Research, 17(4), 537–551.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2007). Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri -urban Agriculture. Rome: FAO.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2008). An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. Rome: FAO.

Galhena, D. H., Freed, R., & Maredia, K. M. (2013). Home Gardens: A Promising Ap-proach to Enhance Household Food Security and Wellbeing. Agriculture & Food Security, 2(8),1–13.

Gertser -Bentaya, M. G. (2013). Nutrition -Sensitive Urban Agriculture. Food Security, 5, 723–737.

Giacchè, G., & Tóth, A. (2013). COST Action Urban Agriculture Europe: UA in Barcelona Metropolitan Region. Short Term Scientific Mission Report. Barcelona: COST, Uni-versitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Retrieved from h`p://www.urbanagricultu-reeurope.la.rwth -aachen.de/files/130319_stsmreport_barcelona.pdf

Gibas, P. (2011a). ke Struggle over Nature and Relaxation in (Sub)Urban Space: ke Case Study of Garden Colonies in Kbely, Prague 19. Urban People, 13(2), 221–233. Retrieved from h`p://lidemesta.cz/archiv/cisla/13-2011-2/the -struggle -over-

-nature -and -relaxation -in-%28sub%29urban -space.htmlGibas, P. (2011 b). Falešná zeleň a rajské zahrady [False Greenery and Paradise Gar-

dens]. A2, 2011(11). Retrieved from h`p://www.advojka.cz/archiv/2011/19/falesna--zelen -a-rajske -zahrady

Gibas, P., Matějovská, L., Novák, A., Rolfová, E., Tvardková, E., Valešová, I., & Veselý, M. (2013). Zahrádkové osady: Stíny minulosti nebo záblesky budoucnosti? [Allotment Gardens: Shadows of Past or Glimps of Future?]. Praha: Charles University.

Grofová, Š., & Srnec, K. (2012). Food Crisis, Food Production and Poverty. Agricultural Economics, 58(3), 119–126.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shi^ in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Prince-ton University Press.

Jehlička, P., Kostelecký, T., & Smith, J. (2012). Food Self -Provisioning in Czechia: Beyond Coping Strategy of the Poor: A Response to Alber and Kohler’s ‘Informal


Food Production in the Enlarged European Union’ (2008). Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 219–234.

Jehlička, P., & Smith, J. (2012) An Unsustainable State: Contrasting Food Practices and State Policies in the Czech Republic. Geoforum, 42(3), 362–372.

Johanisová, N., Crabtree, T. & Fraňková, E (2013). Social Enterprises and Non -market Capitals: A Path to Degrowth? Journal of Cleaner Production, 38, 7–16.

Keivani R., (2010). A Review of the Main Challenges to Urban Sustainability. Inter-

national Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 1(1–2), 5–6.Kiesling, F., & Manning, C. M. (2010). How Green is Your pumb? Environmental

Gardening Identity and Ecological Gardening Practices. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 30, 315–327.Kirwan, J., Ilbery, B., Maye, D., & Carey, J. (2013). Grassroots Social Innovations and

Food Localisation: An Investigation of the Local Food Programme in England. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 830–837.

Klinda, J., Lieskovská, Z., et. al. (2011). Správa o stave životného prostredia SR v roku

2011 [State of Environment in Slovak Republic in 2011]. Ministerstvo životného prostredia, SAŽP.

Klouparová, P. (2009). Zahrádkářská kolonie jako kulturní fenomén: Etnologická interpre-

tace (diplomová práce) [Allotment Garden as a Cultural Phenomenon: Ethnologi-cal Interpretation (final thesis)]. Brno: Masaryk University.

Librová, H. (1994). Pestří a zelení [Colourful and Green]. Brno: Veronica.Librová, H. (2002). Ekologický luxus na zahradě [pe Ecological Luxury in the Gar-

den]. Sociální studia 8, 163–173.Lohrberg, F., & Timpe, A. (2011). Urbane Agrikultur – Neue Formen der Primärproduk-

tion in der Stadt. PLANERING. FarchzeitschriW für Stadt, Ragion und Landesplan-

nung, 5, 35–37.Macl, O. (2002). Zahrádkářské hnutí. Etapy vývoje, zakladatelé, vznik v regionech [Garden-

er’s Movement. Development, Founders, Formation in Regions]. Hradec Králové: Územní rada ČZS Hradec Králové.

Marsh, R. (1998). Building On Traditional Gardening to Improve Household Food Security. Food Nutrition Agronomy, 22, 4–14.

Matos, R. S., & Batista, D. S. (2013). Urban Agriculture: pe Allotment Gardens as Structures of Urban Sustainability. In M. Özyavuz (Ed.), Advances in Landscape

Architecture (pp. 457–512). InTech.Mikula, W., & Indeka, L. (1997). Heavy Metals in Allotment Gardens Close to an Oil

Refinery in Płock. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 96(1–4), 61–71.Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. (2008). Metodický pokyn k zajištění EVVO

[Methodology of Environmental Education]. Praha: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.

Mougeot, L. J. A. (2006). Growing Be�er Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development. O�awa: International Development Research Centre.


Niinemets, U., & Penuelas, J. (2008) Gardening and Urban Landscaping: Significant Players in Global Change. Trends in Plant Science, 13(2), 60–66.

Niňez, V. K. (1987). Household Gardens: beoretical and Policy Considerations. Ag-ricultural Systems, 23, 167–186.

Pearson, C. J., Pilgrim, S., & Precy, J. N. (Eds.). (2010). Urban Agriculture Diverse Activi-ties and Benefits for City Society. Special Issue of International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. London: Earthscan.

Peleška, S. (1997). 40 let Českého zahrádkářského svazu 1957–1997 [40 year of Czech Gardener’s Union]. Praha: Český zahrádkářský svaz.

Redwood, M. (Ed.). (2009). Agriculture in Urban Planning. Generating Livelihoods and Food Security. London, Ocawa: Earthscan, International Development Re-search Centre.

Rose, R., & Tikhomirov, Y. (1993). Who Grows Food in Russia and Eastern Europe? Post -Soviet Geography, 34(2), 111–126.

RUAF Foundation. (2014). What is Urban Agriculture? Why is Urban Agriculture Important. Retrieved from hcp://www.ruaf.org/urban -agriculture -what -and -why

Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community -based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transi-tions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, 381–400.

Simon, M., Recasens, X., & Duží, B. (2014). Dimensions of Urban Agriculture: Environ-mental Performance. Working Text of COST 1106 Urban Agriculture Europe.

Slovenský zväz zahrádkárov [Slovak Union of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners]. (2014). Retrieved from hcp://www.zvazzahradkarov.sk

Smith, J., & Jehlička, P. (2013). Quiet Sustainability: Fertile Lessons from Europe’s Pro-ductive Gardeners. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 148–157.

Souhrnné přehledy o půdním fondu z údajů katastru nemovitostí za rok 2014 v České repub-lice [Summary of Land Use of the Czech Republic in 2014]. (2014). Praha: Český úřad zeměměřičský a katastrální.

Spilková, J., Fendrychová, L., & Syrovátková, M. (2013). Farmers’ Markets in Prague: A New Challenge within the Urban Shoppingscape. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(2), 179–191.

Spilková, J., & Perlín, R. (2013). Farmers’ Markets in Czechia: Risks and Possibilities. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 220–229.

Strejčková, E. (2005). Děti, aby byly a žily [Children to Be and to Live]. Praha: Ministry of Environment.

Suditu M. (2012). Urban Sprawl – be Legal Context and Territorial Practices. Human Geographies – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, 6(1), p. 73–77.

Supuka, J., & Feriancová, Ľ., & Tóth, A. (2013). Mestské poľnohospodárstvo – tradície a nové cesty rozvoja [Urban Agriculture – Traditions and New Ways of Develop-ment]. Životné prostredie, 47(4), 237–241.

Supuka, J., & Tóth, A.(2013). Tradičné a nové poľnohospodársky využívané plochy na území mestských a vidieckych sídiel [Traditional and New Agricultural Areas at


the Territory of Urban and Rural SeBlements]. In H. Žarnovičan (Ed.), Krajinno-ekologický výskum historických prvkov agrárnej krajiny (pp. 58–63). Bratislava: Come-nius University.

Sýkora L., & Bouzarovski S. (2011). Multiple Tranformations: Conceptualising the Postcommunist Urban Transition. Urban Studies, 49(1), 43–60.

Swain, N. (2001). Traditions of Household Farming and Gardening in Central Europe. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.

Šarapatka, B., et al. (2010) Agroekologie: Východiska pro udržitelné zemědělské hospodaření [Agroecology: Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture]. Olomouc: Bioinstitut.

Tóth, A. (2012). Greening Agriculture as a Challenge for Landscape Architecture. In S. Sundaresan & N. Faltmann (Eds.), Greening Agriculture: Which Way to Proceed? Young Scientist Forum 2012 (pp. 2–3). Wien: Centre for Development and Research BOKU Wien.

Tóth, A. (2013). te Multifunctionality of Urban Agriculture and its Contribution to an Integrated Rural Development. In Ľ. Vozár (Ed.), Zborník z VIII. Vedeckej konferencie doktorandov s medzinárodnou účasťou konaná pri príležitosti Európskeho týždňa vedy (pp. 82–85). Nitra: SPU.

Tóth, A., & Feriancová, Ľ. (2013). Mestské poľnohospodárstvo v kontexte zelenej infraštruktúry sídla [Urban Agriculture in the Context of the Green Infrastruc-ture]. In L. Lackóová (Ed.), Veda mladých 2013 – recenzovaný zborník (pp. 74–86). Nitra: Slovak University of Agriculture.

van den Berg, A. E., van Winsum -Westra, M., de Vries, S., & van Dillen, S. M. E. (2010). Allotment Gardening and Health: A Comparative Survey Among Allot-ment Gardeners and their Neighbors without an Allotment. Environmental Health, 9(74), 1–12.

Vlašínová, H. (2006). Zdravá zahrada [Healthy Garden]. Brno: ERA.Westphal, L. M. (2003). Urban Greening and Social Benefits: A Study of Empower-

ment Outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 137–147.Williams, D. R., & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of Garden -Based Learning on Academic

Outcomes. Synthesis of Research Between 1990 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 211–235.

Zareba, A. (2010). A Multifunctional Mosaic of Green Spaces in the Context of the Lower Silesia Region (Southern Poland). Problems of Sustainable Development, 5(1), 45–51.

resumé 187

Resumé

Kniha Current Challenges of Central Europe: Society and Environment nava-zuje na mezinárodní mezioborovou konferenci Our Common Present: Current Challenges of Central Europe, čímž pokračuje v několikaleté řadě publikací, vydávaných v návaznosti na konferenci Naše společná přítomnost, konanou každoročně od roku 2011. Kniha je kolektivní monografií 13 autorů z 5 států, kteří se v 8 recenzovaných kapitolách zamýšlejí nad různými výzvami, jimž současná střední Evropa čelí. Jednotícím prvkem je, kromě geograficko-

-kulturního vymezení, také orientace na vztah společnosti a životního pro-středí, jak vyplývá již ze samotného názvu knihy.

Úvod ke knize obstarává stručný esej slovenského geografa a poslance Mikuláše Huby Introduction to Central Europe: What Does It Mean in the 21st Century? V následující kapitole, nazvané What Are the Challenges of Central Europe? vysvětlují editoři knihy Jan Vávra, Miloslav Lapka a Eva Cudlínová koncept publikace a zamýšlejí se nad specifiky střední Evropy a také tím, co vyplývá z jednotlivých kapitol této knihy. Zdenka Sokolíčková přispěla studií Transcultural Communication in the Central European Region: Freedom, Equality and Ties with the Natural Environment věnovanou filosofickému zamyšlení nad transkulturní komunikací ve střední Evropě s důrazem na vztah člověka a životního prostředí. Další kapitola, jejímiž autory jsou Jana Dlouhá a Andrew Barton, se věnuje proměnám vzdělávání (k udržitelnosti) ve státech střední Evropy. Její název je Examining the Transition Toward Sustainability in Higher Education in Central Europe. Pod názvem Biodiver-sity Loss and Public Opinion: What Is the Situation in Central Europe? se Anna Kalinowska zamýšlí nad reakcí veřejnosti na ztrátu biodiverzity a celkové vnímání tohoto problému, zejména v Polsku. Challenges of Urban Agricul-ture: Highlights on the Czech and Slovak Republic Specifics, jejímiž autory jsou Barbora Duží, Aeila Tóth, Mária Bihuňová a Robert Stojanov je věnována problematice městského zemědělství v Česku a na Slovensku. Jan Vávra, Eva Cudlínová a Miloslav Lapka jsou autory kapitoly Green Growth from the Viewpoint of the Czech Republic, věnované koncepci zelené ekonomiky a její aplikaci v Česku. Katarína Zuntychová se zabývá lokální měnou Kékfrank v Maďarské Šoproni v kapitole Complementary Currencies: Ze Hungarian Example. V poslední kapitole Some Additions to Sustainable Development in the Visegrad Countries, Especially in Hungary autor Tibor László Csegődi ro-


zebírá problematiku úspory energie v Maďarsku a roli místních samospráv v procesu snižování spotřeby energie.

Stručné představení jednotlivých kapitol ukazuje celkovou šíři záběru této knihy. Ta je dána specializacemi jednotlivých autorů, mezi nimiž na-jdeme filosofy, kulturology, sociology, ekonomy, právníky, odborníky na pedagogiku, ale i environmentální vědce a ekology.

Právě šíře záběru této knihy, ovšem s jasně definovaným tématem i geo-grafickým zaměřením, je největším přínosem k současným navýsost aktu-álním akademickým i praktickým debatám o vztahu společnosti a životního prostředí i o problematické a měnící se identitě střední Evropy.

information about the authors 189

Information about the authors

Andrew Barton received his Bachelor of Arts (Honors) and Master of Inter-national Studies from the Department of Political Studies at the University of Otago, New Zealand, and a Post Graduate Diploma in Development Studies from Massey University, also in New Zealand. He has worked previously as a journalist, teacher and translator, and as a senior advisor to the Minister for Tertiary Education in New Zealand. He is currently a researcher at the Charles University Environment Centre in Prague with an interest in edu-cation for sustainable development in higher education and regional devel-opment in post -socialist societies.

Mária Bihuňová holds PhD in Landscape Architecture at the Department of Garden and Landscape Architecture at the Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra. Since 2006 she has been employed as a research assistant in the mentioned university. She focuses on evaluating the recreational potential of landscape, design of public, semi -public and recreational sites and gar-dening. Currently, she is actively involved in the European COST Action on Urban Agriculture in Europe and COST Action Urban Allotment Gardens in European Cities. She is a member of the Association of Garden Design and Landscaping.

Tibor László Csegődi received his law degree from Eötvös Loránd Univer-sity, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences in Budapest, and Eötvös Loránd University’s Bibó István College of Law. He also received a degree in eco-nomics (Regional and Environmental Economic Studies, MSc.) from Szent István University, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences. He completed the course requirements (got absolutorium) at Szent István University, Man-agement and Business Administration PhD School as a full -time PhD student. Currently he works as assistant lecturer at Szent István University Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences Institute of Economics, Law and Statistical Methodology. His research is framed by rural development, environmental economics, environmental law, climate protection, energy efficiency and renewable energies, climate protection training, eco -efficient operation of SMEs, local climate friendly and energy conscious partnerships.


Eva Cudlínová has graduated from the University of Economics, Prague. She has worked in the Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Since 2007, she has been the head of the Department of Regional Management, Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice. She is interested in environmental and ecological economics and at the moment mostly involved in the study of the concepts of bioeconomy and green economy/growth.

Jana Dlouhá graduated from the multidisciplinary Environmental Protec-tion Institute and Philosophy of Education Department at Charles University. She worked in the Geological Institute and Czechoslovak Federal Ministry of Environment. For two decades she has been a member of the Charles Uni-versity Environment Centre where she is currently in a research position in the Department of Education for Sustainable Development. Jana Dlouhá is involved in (inter)national expert groups; she is the founder and editor-

-in -chief of the Czech peer -reviewed electronic journal focused on environ-mental and SD education – Envigogika, and is also active in environmental NGOs. She is engaged in numerous national and international projects and networks of cooperation, being elected as a vice -president of the COPERNI-CUS Alliance network (2015–2016). Jana Dlouhá is the author of more than 100 publications – articles in journals, book chapters, she is an invited edi-tor of the Journal of Cleaner Production.

Barbora Duží holds a PhD in Applied and Landscape Ecology at Mendel Uni-versity in Brno. She is a member of the Department of Regional Management, Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice. Her research concentrates on the human aspects of environmental issues such as the perception of environmental changes or risks, the ways of societal adap-tion to climate change and environmental education. She also explores the changing urban environment, especially urban agriculture as a member or European COST Action on Urban Agriculture Europe. She is also a member of the Czech Beekeepers Union.

Anna Kalinowska (PhD in ecology) is the director of the University Centre for Environmental Studies and Sustainable Development – inter -faculty unit of the University of Warsaw for teaching and research on sustainable devel-opment. She is the author of many papers and books on nature conservation, environmental policy and education. She is also actively involved in several national and international institutions, advisory commiuees and NGOs, like REC, CCMS/NATO, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

information about the authors 191

Miloslav Lapka’s field of interest is environmental sociology and landscape ecology. Between 1983 and 2010 he worked in the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, including the positions of head of the socio -ecological department in the section of landscape ecology, and head of the scientific council. Since 2010, he has been involved in the University of South Bohe-mia in České Budějovice and Charles University in Prague. He published more than 100 scientific papers in the field of environmental and social sci-ences, his last work is the monograph Towards an Environmental Society? Concepts, Policies, Outcomes.

Zdenka Sokolíčková completed her MA (2007) and PhD (2010) in Culturol-ogy at Charles University in Prague. In 2011, she received a double -degree MA in Euroculture at Palacký University in Olomouc (Czech Republic) and the University of Groningen (the Netherlands). In 2011, she joined the De-partment of Cultural and Religious Studies, University of Hradec Králové as a research assistant. During her studies and later as a lecturer, she com-pleted several research internships, e.g. in Germany, Italy, Cyprus, Lithu-ania and Japan. Her academic interest is focused on the interaction among culture, values and natural environment. She is married to a polar ecologist and has one child.

Robert Stojanov is an Assistant Professor at the Geographic Migration Centre, Department of Social Geography & Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague. Robert received his PhD in Envi-ronmental Geography. His principal areas of interest are environmental change and population dynamics, social and economic impacts of climate change and adaptation strategies, migration and development, and the ef-fectiveness of development interventions and financial flows such as devel-opment aid and remipances.

A=ila Tóth studied Landscape Architecture at the Slovak University of Ag-riculture in Nitra and the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna. Since 2012, he has worked at the Slovak University of Agricul-ture as a PhD student doing research in Green Infrastructure in the context of rural seplements and landscapes. Since 2014, he has been developing his dissertation as a visiting PhD scholar at the Vienna University of Technol-ogy. Since 2012, he has been actively involved in the European COST Action on Urban Agriculture Europe as an Early Stage Researcher.


Jan Vávra has received his MA and PhD in Culturology at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. Currently he works at the Department of Regional Management, Faculty of Economics, University of South Bo-hemia in České Budějovice. His research, framed by cultural ecology, rural and environmental sociology, and ecological economics is mostly focused on the social perception of environmental problems, the carbon footprint of households, food -self provisioning, economic alternatives and other as-pects of sustainability.

Katarína Zuntychová is a project manager at Sluňákov – the Olomouc Cen-tre of Environmental Education. She has experience with community pro-jects in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and the UK. She is a founder of an ur-ban garden in Olomouc aiming to get people growing herbs and vegetables in their local community, and develop an understanding of the broader en-vironmental, cultural and economic aspects of sustainable food production.

index 193

Index

adaptation 15, 18, 83, 118, 158agriculture 70, 78, 113, 156, 176 community supported a. 86, 90 urban a. 14, 82–102 Austria 10, 12, 16, 23, 25, 32, 45, 46, 49, 71,

73–74, 79, 92, 99, 115, 138–139, 141, 143–144, 146–147

bank (banking) 134–138, 147, 167biodiversity 13–14, 26, 44, 68–79, 84 International Year of B. 70, 76bioeconomy 18, 113biosphere 15, 109

coal 58, 157brown c. 108, 116, 120–121, 124–126

capital 137, 143, 144, 146 cultural c. 39, natural c. 79, 113 social c. 25, 136, 139 transcultural c. 24, 34, 36capitalism 28, 31, 36, 114, 142, 149 carbon emissions see greenhouse gasesclimate change 13, 18, 24–25, 32, 44, 57, 70,

73, 78, 83, 110, 116, 117, 157–158, 165, 168, 183

Cold War 10, 15cooperative 93, 133–134, 137, 140, 144–146,

148–149

communism 15, 18, 25–26, 31, 35–37, 53, 71, 79, 83, 92, 93, 95, 98, 115–116, 139,

competitiveness 26–28, 31, 113, 118complementary currency 14, 133–150

Croatia 12, 147crisis 37, 39 financial c. 13–14, 62, 108, 112, 115 economic c. 18, 30, 92, 95, 160–161 environmental (ecological) c. 31, 68, 78culture 9, 10, 12, 14–16, 18, 20–40, 46–47, 49,

58, 61–63, 110, 133, 158, 163, 165, 176 c. ecology 12, 20currency see complementary c.

Czechoslovakia 93, 101, 115, 138Czech Republic 9, 12–15, 17, 23, 24, 26–27,

29–30, 32, 45–49, 52–55, 71–72, 74, 79, 82–83, 86, 88, 91–94, 96, 98–99, 101–102, 108, 111, 114–126, 165

ecology 13, 15, 21–22, 27, 31–32, 37–40, 48, 56, 58–60, 68, 84, 86–87, 94, 99, 109–110, 112, 116, 120, 163, 165,

cultural e. see culture e. crisis see crisis e. economics see economics e. footprint 120, 126 e. modernization 114economics 20–21, 33, 35, 47, 54, 57, 60, 109, 114 ecological e. 109–110, 114 environmental e. 109–110

green e. 111, 113–114

economy 9, 12–18, 20–22, 24–25, 27–33, 36–39, 45–47, 49, 52, 56–59, 62–63, 71, 73, 82, 84–87, 90, 93, 95, 97, 102, 108–121, 124–126, 132–150, 155–159, 163, 165, 168, 184

e. crisis see crisis e. recession 14, 18, 28, 53, 108, 112, 115,

120–121 e. growth 18, 28, 52, 110–115, 118, 125, 155 green growth 14, 108–114, 118–121, 123,

125–126

green e. 18, 108–113, 118–119

education 13, 14–15, 18, 28, 33, 70, 73, 75–78, 82, 86, 88, 90, 94, 97, 121, 136, 149, 159, 168, 178

higher e. 14, 44–64, 120 e. for sustainable development 44–46,

49, 52–64

e. garden see garden tertiary e. see higher e.electricity 58, 94, 116, 121–126, 157, 159, 169,

172–177, 184 solar (photovoltaic) e. see photo-

voltaics


emigration see migrationenergy 14, 24, 26, 31, 108-126, 155–184 e. demand 13, 110, 116, 120, 155–184 e. efficiency 60, 108, 110, 112, 114, 155 e. poverty 158–159, 163–164, 168 renewable e. 26, 73, 112, 113, 114, 121–126environmental crisis see crisis environmental economics see economicsequality 14, 18, 20–22, 29–39, 112, 146ethics 29, 33, 35, 38–39, 163ethnicity 26, 30, 36–37, 39

farming 86, 88–90, 95–100, 137 finance 133–150 f. crisis see crisisfood 13, 69–70, 82–92, 95, 97, 99–102, 111–112,

144, 164freedom 14, 20–40, 59, 62–63

garden 82–102 allotment g. 83, 86, 88, 90–96, 101–102 community g. 85–86, 88–90, 97 educational g. 82–83, 88, 90–91, 98–102 household g. 88 – 91, 95–97, 101–102gardening 82–102, 141 guerrilla g. 90Germany 9, 12, 16, 23, 25, 31 – 32, 45 – 46, 49,

58, 71, 73 – 74, 78 – 79, 92, 115, 123–125, 137–139, 146–147

global warming see climate change globalization 14, 17 – 18, 24, 32, 34, 102, 116government 28, 53, 55–59, 64, 75, 93, 109, 112,

116, 118, 119, 132, 138 local government 14, 157–159, 164–168,

176–177, 183–184 governance 24, 38, 45, 47, 49, 62, 64, 126, 145 green economy see economygreen growth see economyGreen New Deal 108, 111–112 greenhouse gases 108, 117, 120, 122, 125–126,

155–157, 162, 183 Gross Domestic Product 27, 49–50, 60, 63,

113, 115, 117, 120, 124, 126, 157, 160–161, 164 growth 27, 31, 62, 108, 141, 167 economic g. see economy green g. see economy

Hungary 12–14, 17, 23, 27–28, 30, 45–46, 49, 60–62, 71, 73–74, 78–79, 96, 115, 140–150, 155–184

identity 13, 15, 24, 30, 35, 125immigration see migrationinequality 50, 52, 108, 114–115, 119, 126, 139innovation 48, 58, 63–64, 85, 88, 90, 101, 113institutions 9, 13, 15–17, 25, 32 - 33, 35, 45,

75–76, 78–79, 83, 88, 90, 98, 101, 122, 126, 142, 145, 157, 163, 167, 177

higher education i. 46–64 interdisciplinarity 12–13, 15, 17, 45, 53–56,

62, 64, 76–77 Iron Curtain 9, 26, 29, 31, 143Italy 12, 23, 33

Kékfrank 14, 133–134, 143–150 Kyoto protocol 110, 117

landscape 15, 22, 26, 28, 31, 69–70, 83–84, 86, 90, 95–96, 116, 121, 158

Liechtenstein 12lifestyle 84, 88, 139lignite see coalLocal Exchange Trading Systems 134–136,

140–141, 143

migration 25, 29–30, 92 emigration 25, 37 immigration 21, 25, 29, 36, 88minority 26, 30, 36, 78money see financemulticultural(ism) 13, 25, 29municipality 54, 58, 76, 83, 85, 138, 144, 157,

159, 165, 167, 176 – 177, 180, 183–184

Natura 2000 69–79 natural gas 121, 125nature 14, 20–22, 24, 32–33, 37–39, 53, 59, 68,

71, 74–77, 84, 86, 88–89, 99–101, 112, 125, 162–163

n. protection 68–79, 89, 116, 121 n. resources 10, 26, 31, 60, 71, 100, 110,

113, 119–120, 168, 184 neo-liberalism 28, 59, 114, 116, 155Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)

25, 54, 56, 74, 79, 116, 118–119, 125, 142, 168–169, 177

nuclear power 116, 121, 125, 157, 169, 173–174

OECD 49–51, 56, 63, 108, 111–113, 119–120, 156, 184

index 195

photovoltaics 58, 108, 121–124, 126, 177Poland 12–13, 17, 23, 25, 29–30, 46, 49–50, 56,

58–60, 70–79, 92, 96, 115, 125politics 9, 12–26, 29, 33–39, 47, 52–57, 59–64,

71, 79, 82, 85–87, 91–95, 108–109, 114–119, 121, 125, 139, 158, 163, 168

politicians 14, 20, 25, 28, 31, 53, 59, 118–119, 123–126, 134,

post-communism 15, 45, 50, 52–53, 56, 58–59, 62, 64, 82–83, 95, 101, 115, 142, 149

post-socialism see post-communismpoverty 25, 32, 44, 90, 108, 112–114, 119, 126, 145 energy p. see energy

research 16, 47–49, 51–56, 61–63, 73, 75–76, 86, 88, 91, 98, 109, 113, 134,141, 159, 164, 176

resources see natural r.rural 24, 60, 82, 84, 86–88, 92–96, 99–102,

141, 157, 164, 170–171, 178

Slovakia 9, 12–14, 17, 23–27, 34, 46, 49, 55–56, 71–74, 78–79, 82–83, 86, 88, 91–99, 101–102, 115, 165

Slovenia 12, 23, 46, 49, 56–58, 71, 73–74, 79, 160, 161

socialism 28, 32, 36, 45, 49, 52, 55–56, 60, 88, 139, 143

solar electricity see photovoltaicsSopron 14, 133, 143–150 species 33, 40, 68–79

sustainability 10, 14–15, 26–27, 31–33, 44–64, 79, 83–84, 95, 109–111, 113, 120, 139, 142, 158, 167, 176, 184

sustainable development 12, 14, 18, 44–64, 70, 76, 78, 82–85, 97, 108–118, 126, 155–156, 168, 184

Switzerland 12, 16, 29, 45, 92, 135, 146

technology 15, 25, 33, 113–114, 119, 125, 141, 158, 163, 176

transcultural 14, 20, 22–25, 35–40

t. capital see capital transdisciplinarity 49, 54, 63–64, 109transformation see transitiontransition 13–14, 18, 25, 39, 112, 125 higher education t. 44–64 low-carbon t. 13, 121, 123–124 post-communist t. 15, 25–26, 31–32, 36,

45–47, 62–64, 71, 73, 83, 88, 95, 108, 115–117, 139–143

trust 13, 15, 25, 33, 37, 123, 126, 136, 142

university see educationUkraine 12, 23–24, 37unemployment 18, 25, 31, 50, 113, 124, 138,

140, 164, 178 urban 24, 82–102, 124–125, 138, 141–146, 158,

164, 169, 170–171, 176–178, 184 urban agriculture see agriculture u. sprawl 70, 78,

values 69, 159–162 ecological v. 10, 84–85

financial v. 71, 138–140, 143, 147 human v. 10, 21, 25, 28, 33–38, 44, 57, 61,

63, 82, 99, 110, 158, 163, 165Visegrad countries 10, 13–14, 139, 155

World War I 9, 24, 92, 143 World War II 13, 24, 26, 92, 95, 97, 116, 125,

143

Challenges of Urban Agriculture: Highlights on the Czech and Slovak Republic Specifics

Documents

Transcript of Challenges of Urban Agriculture: Highlights on the Czech and Slovak Republic Specifics