Relating social inclusion and environmental issues in botanic gardens

Abstract

Botanic gardens have been evolving, responding to the changing needs of society, from their outset as medicinal gardens of monasteries and university gardens to more recently as organizations that contribute to the conservation of plant genetic resources. Considering that social and environmental issues are deeply intertwined and cannot be tackled in isolation from one another, a new challenge is now presented to botanic gardens: How can they redefine their purpose and expand their current roles in conservation, research, amenity and education in order to continue to be socially relevant? Empirical data regarding the impact of pilot community projects run by four UK botanic gardens show how it is possible in practice to address social, economic, political, neighbourhood, individual and group dimensions of exclusion whilst achieving public participation in plant conservation. This study presents the evaluation results regarding the outcomes of the Communities in Nature initiative which illustrated how botanic gardens can grow a social role and be socially relevant institutions that engage with their communities and address issues of social and environmental importance. Recommendations suggest that addressing social issues should target addressing the causes of exclusion as much as the effects.

Keywords:

• community engagement
• environmental issues
• social inclusion
• botanic gardens

Acknowledgements

BGCI is grateful to the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation for generously supporting the Communities in Nature initiative. BGCI is also indebted to the staff and participants from the following organizations and community groups who were involved in this initiative: Westonbirt, The National Arboretum, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, University of Leicester Botanic Garden, Bristol Zoo Gardens, Mosaic disabilities services, Broughton High School – More Chances More Choices group, The Rock Trust, Pilton Community Health Project, Mayfield and Easthouses Youth 2000 Project, Avon Club for Young People, Bristol, Bannerman Road Children’s Centre – Easton, Cabot Primary School, Chard Court sheltered housing, Holymead Junior School, Robinson House Care Home, Severn Project, Stoke Bishop Church of England Primary School, Upper Horfield Community Garden, Awaz Utaoh Asian Women’s Group, Bristol Drugs Project, Stroud Macular Disease Society and Clear for All. Last, we would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers who contributed to improving the clarity and focus of the paper and the following colleagues and friends whose feedback and comments informed the writing of this paper: Jocelyn Dodd, Professor Emeritus William Scott, Associate Professor Alan Reid, Professor Justin Dillon, Dr Elaine Regan, Kirsty Shaw, Sara Oldfield, Jennifer Mark, Liliana Derewnicka and Øystein Nilsen.

Notes

1. The word ‘issue’ is used to mean that which generates a concern and is at least potentially problematic for the environment (Summer et al. 2000).

2. Cameron (2006) explains that social inclusion is usually defined with regard to social exclusion which according to Walker and Walker (1997, 8) ‘refers to the dynamic process of being shut out, fully or partially, from any of the social, economic, political and cultural systems which determine the social integration of a person in society’.

3. The term methodology refers to the choices made as part of conducting the evaluation, that is identifying the appropriate forms of data, which cases to study, methods of data gathering and forms of data analysis (Silverman 2006). The term methods refers to the specific tools or techniques that were used to collect, analyze and interpret the data (Bogdan and Biklen 2003).

4. For confidentiality reasons, the names of the project participants quoted in this study have been changed.