Social capital in urban agriculture initiatives.
| Autor | Caldas, Luiza Costa |
-
Introduction
Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) can be defined as the growing of plants and the raising of animals within and around cities (FAO, 2017), and what distinguishes it is its greater connection with the dynamics of cities (Mougeot, 2000). Other factors that make it unique are related to the limited access to land, use of alternative means for cultivation and the involvement of nontraditional farmers (Pfeiffer, Silva, & Colquhoun, 2014).
The practice of urban agriculture has recognized social, economic and ecological benefits (Pearson, Pearson, & Pearson, 2010) that are motivators of people's engagement in such activities. Among them, we can list reducing disparities in access to quality food, improving public health, reducing heat islands effects and energy consumption, increasing opportunities for composting, rainwater harvesting and drainage, and increasing pollination and seed dispersal (Ackerman, 2012; Barthel, Parker, & Ernstson, 2013; Branco & de Alcantara, 2011; Pearson et al., 2010).
In addition to these benefits, social aspects are important for understanding the dynamics of the movement, and it is possible to observe the importance of social networks for the implementation and maintenance of urban agriculture practices (Artmann & Sartison, 2018). The characteristics of these relationships can facilitate or hinder the mobilization for targeted actions (Glover, Parry, & Shinew, 2005).
In the city of Sao Paulo, according to Caldas and Jayo (2019), there are two basic models of urban agriculture: "scale urban agriculture", focusing on food production and generally located in peripheral regions, and "visibility urban agriculture", generating environmental awareness and raising visibility to the political agenda of urban agriculture, which is mainly located in the central regions of the city. For each of these models, different difficulties and motivations are expected.
According to Kanosvamhira and Tevera (2019), the success of urban agriculture depends heavily on the organization of urban farmers for access to resources and advocacy, with social capital being an important tool for community development of public policies and programs. Exploring and taking advantage of the existing social capital is important, not only to get commitment from farmers in the development phase of policies but also for their maintenance and effectiveness (Kanosvamhira & Tevera, 2019).
Similar studies can be found since the 1980s, arguing that people become more able to support projects proposed by government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) when they are organized into groups, and their knowledge is incorporated into the planning and structuring phases of those projects. For example, De los Reyes and Jopillo describe how, from 1976 to 1980, the National Irrigation Program in the Philippines managed to integrate farmers into associations by encouraging them to implement processes for project management (De los Reyes & Jopillo, 1986). Pretty, Thompson and Kiara (1995) narrate how, in 1988, the Kenya Ministry of Agriculture adopted a water harvesting strategy to reduce aridity in the region through a strategy of community mobilization around the conservation of the environment. In Bogota, since 2006, local government programs have revitalized the urban agriculture practice through training, promoting the connection of communities and motivating them to produce part of their food and connect with nature (Sendra & Pita, 2017).
Based on the recognition of this potential, this article aims to investigate urban agriculture in the city of Sao Paulo from the perspective of social capital. The specific objectives are (1) to identify the effects of social capital that influence urban agriculture and (2) to investigate social capital formation within the network of initiatives (its sources and the challenges imposed onto its development).
The contribution of this article is to highlight aspects that facilitate or hinder the formation of social capital in urban agriculture initiatives in the city of Sao Paulo, in addition to highlighting the relevance of public policies that contribute to the mobilization of capital and to overcoming challenges in the field.
We carried out interviews with representatives of 16 gardens in the city of Sao Paulo and organized them into categories. At the end, a data structure was created in order to promote the articulation with concepts from the theory initially presented.
1.1 Social capital
The concept of social capital currently applied in the social sciences is strongly influenced by the theoretical framework of Bourdieu, Coleman, Lin and Putnam that on the one hand share commonalities, while on the other hand are based on distinct theoretical traditions (Bianchi & Vieta, 2020; Tzanakis, 2013).
For Bourdieu, social capital is "the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 21). The network of relationships is the product of individual or collective investment strategies, conscious or not, with the objective of reproducing social relationships in short-term utility (Bourdieu, 1986). The network is capable of producing and reproducing durable relationships that can ensure symbolic and material profits. However, the amount of social capital one possesses depends on the size of the individual's network and the amount of economic, cultural and symbolic capital possessed by the individuals to whom he is connected. Subjective values, laws and norms sustain social capital and enshrine symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 22).
Bourdieu's approach, therefore, considers the context in which the individual is inserted and the position he/she occupies in a social field. Access to a group depends on the economic capital it has, which limits its ability to socially climb and achieve a power position. Social capital is, at the same time, an element that strengthens social institutions and mutual exchange and that excludes those whose position is not privileged by access to symbolic and economic capital (Daly & Silver, 2008).
Like Bourdieu, Lin (1999) also explores social capital as resources that are imbricated in social relationships. Social networks, wealth, power and reputation are examples of these resources.
For Coleman (1988), social capital is a conceptual tool that seeks to explain social action, matching the perspective of individual interests and social context. Coleman describes the term as a public good and a resource available to the actor, yet less tangible than other types of capital. According to him, social capital "is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors--whether people or corporate actors--within the organizational structure" (Coleman, 1988, p. 98). Social capital, in this way, can be defined as aspects of the social structure that serve as resources for actors to achieve their interests. Coleman thus treats the sources and derived benefits as social capital itself, defining it in different forms: obligations, expectations and reliability of structures; potential information channels; norms; authority relationships; appropriable social organizations and intentional social organizations (Coleman, 1988).
Portes (1998) suggests differentiating sources and resources of social capital. Sources of social capital allow individuals to make their resources and improvements available to others. Sources that facilitate the access of members of a network to its resources can be consummatory or instrumental. Consummatory sources are accessible through the introjection of values and the internalization of norms that are good for everyone, such as traffic rules, the obligation to pay off debts and the inhibition of crimes. Instrumental sources are exchanges motivated by expectations of future payments and compensation.
Social capital can be seen as structured by social networks. These contribute to social capital generation according to their characteristics, or to a form of social capital itself, for the capacity of generating trust. Social networks, therefore, are intrinsically related to social capital. Part of the concept of social capital involves the conditions of relationships between people that allow resources to be accessed and mobilized for action (Lin, 1999).
The density of a network, that is, the ratio of existing relationships to possible relationships, influences exposure to ideas and information. Higher network densities can reduce the cost of acquiring information (Coleman, 1988). This means that social relationships make it possible to obtain information faster and at a lower cost.
Putnam, Leonardi and Nanetti (1993) stress that investing in social capital not only benefits the individual but also others involved in the network. The authors deal with collective action, seeing social capital as a characteristic of communities and nations, producing civic engagement. Their approach, however, like Coleman's, is criticized for not considering the context and power relations in the dynamics of networks (Bianchi & Vieta, 2020).
Despite the differences among approaches, aforementioned authors agree that networks are important, as their formation and structure cause effects in the generation, acquisition and dissemination of information, in the mobilization and allocation of resources, in the commitment to common rules, in the resolution of conflicts (Barnes, Lynham, Kalberg, & Leung, 2016; Bodin & Crona, 2009) and have effects on learning, trust and leadership (Bodin, Crona, & Ernstson, 2006).
Finally, the effect of social capital on the development of individuals' skills is also highlighted, that is, this capital can be converted into human capital (Coleman...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
