Health & Place 27 (2014) 84–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Health & Place journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/healthplace

Therapeutic experiences of community gardens: putting flow in its place Hannah Pitt n Department of Health and Social Sciences University of the West of England Glenside Campus Blackberry Hill Stapleton Bristol BS16 1DD, UK

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 7 November 2013 Received in revised form 6 February 2014 Accepted 8 February 2014 Available online 27 February 2014

This paper develops the concept of therapeutic place experiences by considering the role of activity. Research of community gardening finds that particular tasks are therapeutic and exhibit the characteristics of flow, but those who lack influence over their community gardening are less likely to benefit from flow as their sense of control is reduced. The notion of emplaced flow is proposed to locate individual experiences amongst socio-spatial factors which limit self-determinacy and therefore affect wellbeing. Emplacing flow prompts critical reflection on who is excluded from therapeutic place experiences, and whether sites offering momentary escape have an enduring impact on wellbeing. & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Community garden Therapeutic place UK Wellbeing Flow

1. Introduction It has long been thought that certain places are conducive to healing with gardens one environment associated with recovery and relaxation (Aldridge and Sempik, 2002; Cooper Marcus and Barnes, 1999; Milligan and Gatrell et al., 2004: 1782; Ward Thompson, 2010: 189). How such places enhance wellbeing is poorly understood (Andrews, 2004; Duff, 2011; Hawkins et al., 2013; Kearns and Andrews, 2010: 313; Rose, 2012: 1381). In this paper I aim to understand processes through which therapeutic place experiences benefit wellbeing1 and address the need for greater attention to the therapy of bodily motion (Doughty, 2013, Gatrell, 2011, 2013) by examining the role of activity. Research of community gardening demonstrates that what people do is as significant as where they are, and reveals activities which are therapeutic. I employ Csikszentmihalyi's concept of flow (2002) to characterise how activity enhances wellbeing and compare experiences of community gardens to identify factors which prevent individuals achieving flow. I suggest flow should be emplaced to recognise how activity and environment interact, and to locate individual experiences within socio-spatial relations.

n

Tel.: þ 44 117 32 88550. E-mail address: [email protected] 1 Wellbeing is notoriously difficult to define (Fleuret and Atkinson, 2007) but at its simplest conveys “healthiness and happiness” or being well and feeling well (Kearns and Andrews, 2010: 309). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.02.006 1353-8292 & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Although wary of ever-expanding empirical application of the therapeutic place concept (Andrews, 2004: 308; Kearns and Andrews, 2010: 313) community gardens bring fresh insights. A community garden is somewhere people come together to grow plants and share the benefits of doing so (ACGA, no date; FCFCG, no date a). They allow comparison of individual experiences so move discussion of wellbeing beyond the predominant focus on individuals (Doughty, 2013: 141; Kearns and Andrews, 2010: 318; Williams, 2007: 3). Community projects contend with funding and public policy revealing how socio-economic forces shape therapeutic experiences, bringing a much-needed critical perspective (Andrews, 2004: 308; Kearns and Andrews, 2010: 322). Community gardens have been considered as therapeutic places for elderly people (Hawkins et al., 2013; Milligan and Gatrell et al., 2004) and those with mental health issues (Parr, 2007). The cases discussed here offer a broader perspective as they involve people with varied backgrounds and health profiles whilst contrasting case studies suggest factors which prevent places being universally therapeutic. This paper outlines the evolution of the concept of therapeutic places to highlight gaps in understanding how places like community gardens enhance wellbeing, before introducing Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow to explain the therapy of bodily activities. Next I present three case studies and explore how gardening is experienced as flow, then argue the need to consider this as emplaced within spatial and social influences. Finally I consider how social relations affect sense of control in ways which limit the potential to find therapy in a community garden.

H. Pitt / Health & Place 27 (2014) 84–91

2. Understanding therapeutic places Understanding links between place and health took a significant step when Will Gesler recognised that humans have long sought sites conducive to healing, or ‘therapeutic landscapes’ (1993). He identified their common characteristics including a natural setting, sense of place and symbolic significance which interact to create a restorative atmosphere. Subsequent studies identified additional social, symbolic, built and natural contributors (Collins and Kearns, 2007; Conradson, 2005: 337). The notion of therapeutic landscapes was criticised for focusing on special healing sites (Milligan and Gatrell et al., 2004: 1783; Smyth, 2005: 489) as everyday places also enhance health (Milligan and Gatrell et al., 2004: 1783; Smyth, 2005: 490; Williams, 2007: 2; Wilson, 2003). Research identified mundane health-enhancing locations so therapeutic place came to denote an environment conducive to wellbeing (Williams, 2002: 148). Hugely diverse places have been considered therapeutic (Williams, 2007: 9) including beaches (Collins and Kearns, 2007), pampering spas (Little, 2013) and homes (Williams, 2002), whilst some suggest therapeutic places might be imagined (Andrews, 2004; Rose, 2012). Anthony Gatrell recently challenged a site-based perspective and proposed the notion of therapeutic mobilities to heighten attention to journeys and bodily movements (2011 and 2013). Therapeutic places were initially treated as having innately healthy qualities (Andrews, 2004: 309; Atkinson and Fuller et al., 2012: 7; Duff, 2011: 151; Smyth, 2005: 490). This was particularly problematic in the case of natural environments equally capable of inducing stress (Milligan, 2007; Milligan and Bingley, 2007). The concept developed in recognition that a place may be healing and/or hurtful for different individuals and across time (Conradson, 2005; Cutchin, 2007; Gesler, 2005: 296; Smyth, 2005; Williams, 2007: 2). Understanding this ambiguity requires attention to subjective experiences of places (Milligan, 2007: 267) as relational events (Conradson, 2005; Duff, 2011). Conradson argues that the outcome of a place experience is never pre-determined or guaranteed to be therapeutic, rather “positive experiences of these places always derive from particular forms of socio-natural engagement” (2005: 338). From a relational perspective there are no definitive criteria for therapeutic places as nowhere is intrinsically healing (Conradson, 2005: 338; Cutchin, 2007; Duff, 2011: 155; Collins and Kearns, 2007). Rather a therapeutic place experiences is a “positive physiological and psychological outcome deriving from a person's imbrication within a particular socio-natural material setting” (Conradson, 2005: 339). A relational perspective on therapeutic places is required as nowhere is unambiguously therapeutic, but makes it difficult to know where to seek therapy or how to shape places to enhance wellbeing: if individuals find different places healthy anywhere might be therapeutic. As Pain and Smith identify a holistic understanding of wellbeing risks concepts which represent everything and nothing (2010: 301), so with a relational interpretation therapeutic places are everywhere and nowhere. Understanding therapeutic encounters redirects attention from spatial characteristics to qualities of experience, but how place experiences heal has been inadequately interrogated (Conradson, 2005: 346; Duff, 2011: 155; Milligan and Bingley, 2007: 809; Rose, 2012: 1381). To address this Emma Rose (2012) considers psycho-social processes and proposes that mentalising–attending to states of mind in oneself and others–explains how viewing places is therapeutic. She emphasises symbolic aspects and visual appreciation which–as community gardens demonstrate–are not the only modes of encounter. Alternatively, Anthony Gatrell (2013) and Karolina Doughty (2013) focus on bodily processes to understand how walking and its motive qualities are therapeutic. Walking is one physical activity which enhances wellbeing (Doughty, 2013, Gatrell, 2013, Milligan and Bingley, 2007), others

85

being beach sports (Collins and Kearns, 2007) dance (McCormack, 2003), and gardening (Milligan and Gatrell et al., 2004). Yet the moving body has been relatively neglected in wellbeing geographies (Kearns and Andrews, 2010: 315) so it is not clear how activities become therapeutic or what conditions facilitate this. The tendency towards disembodied perspectives is epitomised by one of the most widely cited explanations of how gardens restore health (see Adevi and Martensson, 2013; Fieldhouse, 2003; Hawkins et al., 2013; Hitchings, 2006; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1995). Attention Restoration Theory (ART) suggests that natural environments are inherently restful so demand less of our limited capacity for attention which is easily overworked so becomes fatigued or stressed (Hartig and Evans et al., 2003; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). As Cameron Duff has identified this focuses on cognitive processes, paying little attention to the qualities of place and how they are shaped (2011). It treats place as ready-made location for therapeutic activities (Duff, 2011) which is particularly flawed in the case of gardens which gardeners actively shape. ART posits a remarkably passive person–place interaction which does not consider activity or how bodily motion contributes to healing. Hawkins et al. (2013) found that in communal contexts a combination of doing gardening activities and being in the garden environment are therapeutic. My intention is to further interrogate the qualities of garden ‘doings’ and the interaction between activity and environment to counter previous neglect of bodily movement. The concept of flow explains how certain activities are restorative so helps identify characteristics to be replicated elsewhere to create further opportunities for therapy. 2.1. Flowing movements The concept of flow is perhaps the most well developed characterisation of positive human experiences, supported by extensive psychological research. Csikszentmihalyi describes flow as “the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter” (2002: 4); time passes quickly and one ceases to feel separate from task or world. By concentrating on an activity one becomes so absorbed that it feels effortless and other concerns are forgotten (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). This is not a state of inaction as skill and effort are required, hence certain activities are conducive to flow. They are achievable but not so simple they can be done without concentration and require practice to achieve a degree of skill which allows the body to move with little conscious direction (2002: 103). Csikszentmihalyi suggests that tasks with clear goals are advantageous, and ideally one should receive immediate feedback on success, however the activity should be intrinsically rewarding or autotelic2 (2002: 67). Csikszentmihalyi identified the characteristics of flow based on extensive research of intensely positive experiences (2002) making the concept an empirically grounded explanation of the links between activity and wellbeing (Asakawa, 2010; Robinson and Kennedy et al., 2012). It has influenced occupational therapy (Robinson and Kennedy et al., 2012) including therapeutic gardening (Fieldhouse, 2003). By analysing numerous accounts of optimal experiences Csikszentmihalyi identified key attributes common across a vast range of activities (2002). These provide a framework for understanding therapeutic experiences which highlights commonalities whilst accommodating the variety of activities considered by research in this field. Flow arises from engagement in a 2 Gardening has end products–plants and often food–but this does not preclude the achievement of flow because of the significant time delay between effort and achievement, and as many garden tasks are not directly productive (e.g. weeding), especially in communal contexts where an individual contributes only part of the labour. Whilst community gardeners often grow food they are often doing so for leisure, hence gardening can be autotelic.

86

H. Pitt / Health & Place 27 (2014) 84–91

task (Carr, 2011: 113) so the concept addresses gaps in understanding the role of bodily activity in therapeutic place experiences. Unlike other psychologically derived theories such as ART it does not focus on cognitive processes but considers moving bodies. From this perspective wellbeing geographers might consider whether therapeutic experiences demonstrate the characteristics of flow, or examine whether the absence of flow's attributes limits the achievement of therapy. Flow theories usefully characterise bodily activities which might be experienced therapeutically so can help design interventions to enhance wellbeing (Carr, 2011: 134). Bringing together theories of flow and therapeutic places offers the benefit of close psychological attention to individual experiences, whilst setting them in socio-spatial context. The concept of flow characterises positive experiences which relieve stress so can help identify potentially therapeutic activities (Robinson et al., 2012), but it is not definite that momentary experiences have enduring wellbeing benefits (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000: 11). Whilst Cskszentmihalyi details which kinds of activity result in flow he focuses on individuals so does not consider how social relations and environment might affect experience. His focus is person and activity, and although he acknowledges that wellbeing is enhanced when external conditions match goals (2002: 42) he does not suggest which environments facilitate flow or how places might be shaped to support it. To redress this, the concept of flow needs to be emplaced to consider how forces beyond the individual shape momentary experience. Places conceived relationally comprise a complex of social, material and natural processes crossing various scales (Massey, 2005), which a person interacts with and is shaped by (Conradson, 2005). Emplaced flow recognises how socio-spatial processes affect an individual as s/he seeks to become absorbed in an activity, and considers how place makes a difference to momentary experiences. Greater dialogue between concepts of flow and therapeutic places reveals factors which facilitate therapeutic experiences, thus identifying how person–place interactions can be designed to enhance wellbeing. The case of community gardening initiates this dialogue as it entails pleasurable activities in shared environments where spatial characteristics are significant determinants of positive outcomes whilst contrasts between gardens and gardeners suggest socio-spatial factors which limit the achievement of therapeutic experiences. After introducing the empirical research I emplace flow in community gardens by considering how spatial characteristics influence therapeutic activity, and how social relations alter the potential for flow.

3. Researching community gardening Community gardening organisations report positive health impacts (FCFCG no date b; Quayle no date; WRO, 2012: 39) with research identifying mental and physical benefits of participation (Armstrong, 2000; Clavin, 2011; Corrigan, 2011; Fieldhouse, 2003; Hale and Knapp et al., 2011; Kingsley and Townsend et al., 2009; Milligan and Gatrell et al., 2004; Stuart, 2005; Teig and Amulya et al., 2009; Twiss and Dickinson et al., 2003; Wakefield and Yeudall et al., 2007). I explored this at three community gardens in Wales UK, as part of an ethnographic investigation of their impacts (Pitt, 2013). The case studies represented different locations and organisational structures:3 3

Case studies were offered anonymity, all personal names are pseudonyms.

Garden One: a small inner-city garden at a community centre serving a deprived neighbourhood; aims to provide opportunities to learn gardening and space for local groups; maintained by volunteers in their leisure time. Garden Two: in a semi-urban area suffering post-industrial decline; a large garden initiated by a regeneration charity to provide environmental training and a horticultural enterprise; managed by staff assisted by volunteers and people on schemes to encourage the long-term unemployed into work. Garden Three: on the edge of a rural town; created by a group of friends keen to source local, organic produce and take practical environmental action; volunteer-led with no external funding. Research participants were aged 19–60 þ, including employed, retired and unemployed people; participants presented a range of physical and mental health issues with anxiety and depression reported most. The case studies were investigated through regular participant observation over a year, plus 32 semi-structured interviews with visitors, volunteers and staff. I did not directly ask about wellbeing but the topic arose during discussion of the benefits of gardening and gardeners’ motivations. Fieldwork and analysis followed a sensory ethnographic approach to develop a holistic understanding of place experiences through practices which enable bodily empathy (Pink, 2009). Interviews were fully transcribed and together with fieldnotes were analysed thematically through a process of open coding, sorting, and identifying themes and patterns (Crang and Cook, 2007: 143). Comparisons were made across the case studies to identify trends according to age, employment status or gender; analysis identified common and contrasting gardener experiences at each site and across the three. 4. Experiencing community gardens as therapeutic Once familiar with the case studies it became apparent that gardeners and visitors often–but not always–experienced them as therapeutic. When asked to describe their motivations volunteers mentioned how participation helped them feel good, with pleasure and enjoyment by far the most commonly described feelings about the gardens. This was reported as a key benefit of involvement with participants saying they continued gardening for the opportunity to enjoy themselves, particularly through socialising. Gardeners characterised them as “therapeutic”, “healthy”, “healing” places, “good for wellbeing”, where they “feel better”. Exercise and fresh food were mentioned as physical benefits but mental restoration was most noted, particularly the sense that community gardens relieved stress; volunteers suffering depression and/or anxiety said this was eased through gardening. Staff, volunteers and visitors at each garden noted such benefits, suggesting that community gardens foster the positive emotional experiences of subjective wellbeing (Conradson, 2012: 16). This was not universally true with volunteers most likely to find the gardens therapeutic; I will demonstrate that Gardens One and Three were more conducive to therapeutic experiences than Garden Two where participants reported positive and negative encounters. The following discussion indicates aspects typically said to contribute to the therapy of community gardening. Melissa was a forty-something volunteer who went to Garden One most weekends to help maintain it and see fellow gardeners: Me: What's it like being in the garden? Melissa: I think it's a good way to get rid of stress, and to be nice and calm. Me: What do you think it is about it that gets rid of the stress?

H. Pitt / Health & Place 27 (2014) 84–91

Melissa: I suppose it's because you're taking your mind off your worries aren't you? And I don't know, just the fact that you're working around nature I suppose. And I think green is meant to be a good colour to sort of de-stress people. […] Um I suppose the smells and the fact that you're–you see benefits from it: just harvested a load of carrots. I just think it's the fact that you’re taking your mind off everything else, just concentrating on what you’re doing, where you're weeding or pruning stuff. You know it's a good way to not think about your work and other stresses. The factors Melissa mentioned were reported across the three case studies, and have been identified by previous research (Hale and Knapp et al., 2011; Kingsley and Townsend et al., 2009; Milligan and Gatrell et al., 2004). They support the suggestion that a combination of the qualities of the garden environment and the activities of gardening are therapeutic (Hawkins et al., 2013). I will explore in detail how activities are experienced therapeutically for two reasons. Firstly, work distinguishes gardening from other therapeutic encounters with green environments. Volunteers from Garden Three all stressed this to show why they needed the garden in a rural area. Thirty-something volunteer Simone explained: “it's lovely to go for a walk up in the hills and connect with nature in that way but for me it's more–you're more involved if you're actually working, on the land, doing something. Whether it's chopping wood or I dunno, tending animals or something. For me, gardening here, it's a way of being outside and working in it, it's a kind of deeper connection really”. The second reason for focusing on gardening activities is that several participants referred to tasks as therapeutic and described how they relieve stress. When I interrogated this the process described exhibited characteristics of flow, suggesting this as an appropriate conceptualisation of therapeutic community garden experiences. The next section explores how gardening was experienced as flow. 4.1. Flowing garden activities The importance of physical activity was most acute for volunteers at Garden Two who were unemployed and said going there was better than being “stuck indoors” or “doing nothing”. Like volunteers suffering depression, gardening motivated them to be active and provided distraction from worries or boredom. These feelings may arise from cultural associations between physical activity and mental health (Parr, 2007) particularly for unemployed people facing government pressure to work. Michael, aged 20, having never had a permanent job he said made him feel “worthless”. Before a placement at Garden Two he had never gardened but found he loved the physical work: “come home sweating, dirty, that's what I like”. Although staff and volunteers at Garden Two all complained of stressful tensions there, several reported relaxing moments of absorption in gardening with Michael one who found specific garden activities restorative. That this was possible in spite of problems at the garden suggests gardeners there sometimes achieved a flow state during which they forgot unhappy conditions. Weeding and digging were most often reported as relaxing activities with paid and volunteer gardeners finding them therapeutic. Will an employee at Garden Two liked these tasks as they were “mentally easy and quite peaceful”. Whilst digging was physically hard he found it “mentally quite relaxing […] nice, tranquil, easy and err you’re just there doing it with your thoughts to yourself”. Will would happily dig all day as it made time pass;

87

others agreed time flew during gardening as they became “absorbed” and their “mind switched off” or “let go”. As Melissa described above, concentrating on weeding distracted her from stressful thoughts. Maggie–an older gardener on the unemployment scheme at Garden Two–said that working made time disappear and “this idea of me and mine, of who I am and what I think I am, it just drops away”. She called this losing her sense of self, another trait of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). These descriptions suggest that certain activities were experienced as flow as the repetitive, physical action of weeding and digging was conducive to pleasing absorption. That this is an attraction of community gardening is confirmed by the tendency for volunteers to fall behind in administrative responsibilities; as a volunteer from Garden One said “people want to garden not do accounts”. To better understand flow experiences I observed and practiced tasks reported as therapeutic. Bodily actions are difficult to verbalise because they are achieved without cognitive reflection (McCormack, 2003; Sennett, 2008: 50) so through observation, discussion and reflexivity I gained a sense of how gardening flows as this incident illustrates: I asked Simone to explain how she was planting onions and she replied that she “just pushed them in the ground” but her technique was quite accomplished. She took an onion from the bag, held it between thumb and two fingers to push the base a little way into the soil. With her hand over the onion she crabbed her fingers down around it until they touched the soil, then pulled them in towards her palm dragging earth around the onion to cover the base. As her hand rose she lifted a small amount of soil, crumbling it between her fingertips to fall lightly over the onion. I asked how she decided the space between them, she paused, “I don’t know”. She arched her hand over one of the bulbs to form the size of a full grown onion, paused again, then suggested that looked about right (fieldnotes, Garden Three). Simone moved too quickly to be cognitively processing decisions, only stopping to reflect when I asked her to explain something. The easy movements of flow require bodies to move rhythmically and smoothly which takes skill (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002: 52); as one becomes expert a task is completed quickly with fewer inefficient movements and less concentration. Through repetition bodies learn to move habitually and work with apparent ease (Edensor, 2010: 15; Ingold, 2000: 60; Sennett, 2008) with this rhythmic motion contributing to the restorative effect of activities like walking and cycling (Gatrell, 2013, Spinney, 2006). This satisfying sensation was termed eurhythmy by Lefebvre who thought a harmonious state of synchrony amongst the world's motion to be the natural, healthy state for living beings (Lefebvre, 2004). Rhythmic motion feels good (Edensor, 2010: 15) so the repetitive, seemingly automatic movements of garden activities contribute to flow. Simone's difficulty in verbalising what she was doing suggests a flow state because this is characterised by a lack of conscious mental exertion and sense of acting without direction. As a skilled gardener who has practised these actions Simone could complete them seemingly automatically, it felt effortless despite her exertion and concentration. This capacity to act without conscious reflection and to move habitually provides a sense of stillness which buffers us from the stress of constant change (Bissell, 2011), as things seem to ‘just happen’. Simone's attention focused on one goal which filtered out irrelevant information, reducing feelings of disorder which arise from being overwhelmed by a wealth of stimuli (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Her intentions were directed to one task hence her consciousness–thoughts, intentions and feelings- became more ordered resulting in a sense of harmony (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002: 41) which

88

H. Pitt / Health & Place 27 (2014) 84–91

Simone described as feeling “more herself”. Focusing on an activity she was less likely to be self-conscious or worry how she was perceived by others (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002: 63). A second example illustrates how garden activities flow: during her training placement Toni told me sowing seeds at Garden Two is “de-stressing […] it's quite therapeutic and relaxing, you can just drift off, I don't have to think”. Her eyes focused on the tray, her hands moved with ease to level the compost. Next she used the end of a pencil to make a series of wells for the seeds, working methodically back and forth, pausing occasionally to correct an error. She concentrated but seemed relaxed: “you’ve got to make sure you're doing the right distance but that's not hard”. Her absorption was facilitated by it being a relatively simple task that she had practiced to proficiency; repetition built into a rhythm and it involved physical not cognitive exertion. She had a clear, achievable goal, her capacity matched the task, it was not so simple that no skill or concentration was required so she remained focused. She was absorbed in the activity, avoiding distractions which soak-up limited cognitive resources, maintaining an ordered, healthy consciousness (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Such activity is especially therapeutic because it has visible results which signal success (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Kaplan and Kaplan, 2005: 278, Sennett, 2008). As Bill who volunteers at Garden Three noted he could “do something that actually has an end result, like growing a few things or doing a bit of weeding” then “you can see a physical result so you've got a sense of achievement”. This is only considered on completion as absorption in the activity prevents reflection which might cause self-criticism or other negative feelings (Carr, 2011: 114). Typical garden activities are well suited to achieving flow and this contributes to therapeutic experiences of community gardening. Gardeners achieved flow through gardening even amongst various problems at Garden Two, highlighting how the state entails complete absorption as other matters fade away. Characteristics of flow explain how these activities become therapeutic, so might signpost other potentially healing activities. However, Csikszentmihalyi focuses on individuals, neglecting social influences on therapeutic experiences (Conradson, 2005: 105; Pain and Smith, 2010: 301; Philo and Parr, 2003). It is important to recognise how the environment and other people determine the potential for activities to be therapeutic: flow must be put in place. 4.2. Emplaced flow Emplacing flow means considering how spatial characteristics support or inhibit therapeutic activities, and how social relations coalescing in a place alter the potential for flow. It looks beyond the individual to identify how socio-spatial processes determine the likelihood of becoming absorbed in an activity, and beyond the moment to consider longer-term impacts. To emplace flow in community gardens I begin by considering how their spatial characteristics alter the potential for flow, then look to wider processes. Csikszentmihalyi (2002: 46) does not detail how places enable flow, but suggests it is often achieved away from one's everyday environment. Community gardens offer this sense of escape (Hawkins et al., 2013; Milligan et al., 2004) although the three case studies varied in scale, appearance and location all offered escapism. Participants highlighted how gardens contrast with other familiar places, a relief from indoor environments where they spend most of their time. Staff at Garden Two agreed being outside as a benefit of their jobs, drawing comparison with unpleasant office environments where they would be “stuck inside four walls”. Staff in the community centre at Garden One took breaks in the garden to “escape” computers and artificial light. This garden was repeatedly referred to as an oasis of colour and calm amongst urban buildings and noise.

Even in a green, rural area participants described a sense of escape at Garden Three. Sarah said her days were dominated by time indoors at a computer so volunteering there offered a pleasant contrast: “It just gets you away from the sort of–it just helps–being removed physically is somehow helpful. You can see town but you're not right in the middle of it. Sometimes when you live in town and you work in town you just need a bit of time, out.” Volunteer Sean gained similar feelings from travelling to Garden One where he could not be distracted: “that's almost one of the attractions, coz you're separated from all the troubles and what not you have at home”. Physical distance from home or work reinforces mental distance from stresses to offer therapeutic place experiences (Collins and Kearns, 2007; Conradson, 2005). Flow is more likely in places felt as ‘away’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) so therapy is enabled by moving to places contrasting with other everyday environments. Emplacing flow highlights the importance of where an activity like gardening is undertaken, and of access to contrasting places in daily life. It suggests that to improve wellbeing, policy makers and practitioners should create everyday places of contrast, and lifestyles allowing time in diverse environments. Contrasts between the case studies suggest places like community gardens can be deliberately shaped for flow as Gardens One and Three were found particularly restorative whilst Garden Two was not. Visitors to Gardens One and Three found they invited relaxation as volunteers had worked to make the gardens look pleasant and provide facilities for comfortable relaxation. In contrast volunteers and staff at Garden Two felt insufficient effort had gone into enabling relaxation with a lack of enticing aesthetic features or amenities; some criticised mess and neglect for discouraging positive encounters. Therapeutic places are made not discovered (Duff, 2011) with community gardens becoming restorative through deliberate efforts to enable therapeutic experiences. Places where people feel comfortable encourage them to engage in activities and become absorbed enough to achieve flow, but it is not just inappropriate material features which prevent this. Most participants at Garden Two complained of tensions between staff and inadequate respect from managers which made the garden an unhappy place and deterred involvement. A number of participants told me that they would be interested in volunteering after their unemployment placements but decided otherwise having become frustrated by disorganisation and left feeling unappreciated. Many complained that a lack of opportunities for people to “get involved” and “have a say” discouraged engagement, in sharp contrast to Garden One where volunteers all reported a sense of belonging and pride in having shaped the garden. The group at Garden Three freely participated as they chose, and shaped it to their preferences because they had no external bodies or funders to answer to. Being able to modify an environment allows people to develop the sense that this is their place which enhances wellbeing (Einwalter, 2007: 304; Gesler, 1993). The case studies suggest that a sense of belonging facilitates therapy as someone is unlikely to linger long enough to flow somewhere they feel unwelcome. That Garden Two was experienced as both restorative and stressful demonstrate that no place is inherently therapeutic, however, comparing three gardens reveals that spatial characteristics influence the extent to which people achieve therapeutic experiences. Gardens One and Three were more likely to facilitate moments of flow as relaxing environments where gardeners could become absorbed in activities. These gardens offered opportunities to shape events and environment which is significant as feeling in control of one's actions is a central characteristic of a flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002: 60). This resonates with the notion that

H. Pitt / Health & Place 27 (2014) 84–91

self-determinacy and agency contribute to wellbeing (Carr, 2011: 125; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000: 10; Ulrich, 1999: 38). A gardener may never have complete control over his/her experience but the degree to which s/he feels in control varies in ways which alter the potential for therapy. Sense of control4 is not wholly selfdetermined hence individuals felt varying degrees of control according to the organisation of their garden and their position within its social relations. At Garden Two experiences were more constrained by organisational needs such as strategic objectives and funder targets which reduced gardeners’ potential for therapeutic experiences. So we must consider individual flow experiences as emplaced within social processes across various scales which impinge on sense of control.

5. Locating control and its limits To understand sense of control Toni's experience is instructive as she was involved in Garden Two in roles offering varying degrees of self-determinacy which affected her ability to experience flow. She came to the garden on a programme for unemployed people with health issues during which she complained about disorganised work, being expected to take responsibility beyond her status and poor relations between colleagues. But Toni loved gardening and the physical activity helped her recuperate from illness, so when the placement ended she decided to return as a volunteer. As volunteer Toni's time was no longer directed by superiors or scheme so she determined her own routine. She found being “left to my own devices” more relaxing as she could “do as you please”. She worked on tasks she enjoyed without pressure or responsibility and could focus on a task such as sowing seeds, so was more likely to experience flow. Activity and location had not changed but her status had: she gained a sense of control over her experience so found it more relaxing. This contrast explains why paid staff were more likely to have negative experiences of community gardening: they were not free to choose tasks and were directed to activities they did not enjoy, hence did not feel in control of their garden experiences. Toni's transition illustrates how sense of control is socially constrained, by employment hierarchies for example, which reduce selfdeterminacy so limit the potential for flow. Flow experiences are also emplaced in relations beyond the micro-scale, amongst wider social forces such as government unemployment policies. As noted above volunteers who were unemployed sometimes found community gardening therapeutic, but these encounters did not reverse economic deprivation or reduce the stress of joblessness. Michael hoped the training programme at Garden Two would lead to a gardening job but his chances of any employment were very limited in such a deprived area. Unemployed volunteers enjoyed gardening but it was only time and space out from their struggles; at the end of a placement they could not continue gardening due to the benefits system. Michael's placement ended when funding was exhausted and the organisation could not source additional income. This raises questions regarding who is free to seek therapeutic experiences and how structural forces limit access to places like community gardens. Feeling well has to be supported by access to material necessities which are not equally distributed across 4 Similar issues are considered in discussions of human agency and wellbeing (e.g. Duff, 2011). I refer to sense of control as this terminology is used in flow theories, and it more closely reflects how research participants described their experiences. Interrogating contrasts between agency and sense of control is a potentially fruitful area for dialogue between positive psychology and wellbeing geographies.

89

society (Kearns and Andrews, 2010: 311) so the therapeutic properties of a place have to be set in socio-economic context (Conradson, 2007: 46, 2012: 26). Social forces limit gardeners' sense of control over their garden experiences, hence they are not always free to find flow. We should question whether brief periods of flow enhance a gardener's overall wellbeing as the relationship between momentary and long-term positive states is unclear (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000: 11). It is not clear if the duration of therapeutic experiences alters their impact, or if there is a diminishing return from participating in the same therapeutic activity repeatedly. Most research participants were involved in community gardening for less than a year which suggests a temporal limit to its therapeutic potential. Flow experiences are therapeutic because they are an escape from daily life, they have power through contrast which could be lost if they became more routine. Places people enjoy escaping to might only enhance that part of life spent there without altering the wider network of social forces which pull a gardener away from wellbeing. The conditions under which flow enhances overall wellbeing are unknown (Carr, 2011: 133) and require further investigation as flow may provide temporary restoration rather than enduring benefits. Sean thinks Garden One does little to improve life in a deprived neighbourhood: “so they leave the garden and they walk down a shit strewn street and they're thinking ‘yeah I feel better but the area I live in is still exactly the same’.” Escaping to a therapeutic place locates someone amongst different relations but s/he remains tied to other relations which constitute him/her and this limits the degree of transformation (Conradson, 2005: 341). Whilst a moment of flow may relieve stress this should be placed in context to understand the extent to which it enhances wellbeing. Emplacing flow heightens awareness of spatial, social and temporal factors which limit the potential for positive experiences, and demonstrates that an individual's capacity to find therapy is determined by the degree of control s/he feels over her place experience.

6. Conclusion This research finds community gardens to have much in common with other places celebrated as therapeutic, particularly their ability to provide physical and mental distance from stress (Collins and Kearns, 2007; Conradson, 2005). It contributes to discussion of therapeutic place experiences by interrogating the role of bodily action. Comparing community garden experiences shows that what people do is as important as where they are, and that having the freedom to pursue a favoured activity in a preferred place is hugely significant to finding therapy somewhere. I have shown that gardening is therapeutic not through passive presence in place but through moving in ways conducive to intensely focused moments of absorption in skilled rhythmic activities. Typical garden activities enable what Csikszentmihalyi terms a flow state and I argue that the concept of flow helps to understand processes through which place experiences become therapeutic. Flow reveals how bodily actions are relaxing so helps to identify activities to be promoted for their therapeutic potential. Analysis of community gardening suggests that identifying places where it is possible to achieve flow will help locate therapeutic experiences, but that opportunities to develop a sense of belonging are also required. I have argued that flow has to be emplaced to recognise how socio-spatial factors affect an individual's ability to

90

H. Pitt / Health & Place 27 (2014) 84–91

become absorbed in an activity. Wellbeing geographers should trace the forces which alter an individual's sense of control over his/her situation by recognising relations stretched across multiple scales which limit self-determination. The concept of emplaced flow is proposed to stimulate greater dialogue between theories of flow and therapeutic places, to understand how space might be shaped and experienced to enhance wellbeing. Emplaced flow offers a holistic conception of the relationship between wellbeing and place which recognises that an individual is not the sole determinant of his/her condition. By recognising socio-spatial relations which limit an individual's sense of control emplaced flow brings a critical perspective to places like community gardens, questioning who is excluded from therapeutic place experiences and the extent to which a restorative moment brings enduring wellbeing benefits. Other therapeutic activities might be similarly examined to identify additional socio-spatial characteristics which foster or inhibit the achievement of flow. Further research could usefully test whether there is a diminishing return when therapeutic activities like gardening are repeated or routinised, and whether momentary escapes have longer term impacts on wellbeing.

Acknowledgements The research on which this paper is based was funded by Cardiff University Presidents Scholarships. My thanks go to all research participants. References Adevi, A., Martensoon, F., 2013. Stress rehabilitation through garden therapy: the garden as a place in the recovery from stress. Urban For. Urban Green. 12, 230–237. Aldridge, J. and Sempik, J., (2002) . Social and therapeutic Horticulture: evidence and messages from research, CCFR Evidence Issue 6, Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough, 〈http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/Publica tions/Evidence6.pdf〉. American Community Garden Association-ACGA, (no date) What is a community garden? ACGA, Pennsylvania, 〈www.communitygarden.org/learn〉. Andrews, G., 2004. (Re)thinking the dynamics between healthcare and place: therapeutic geographies in treatment and care practices. Area 36, 307–318. Armstrong, D., 2000. A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: implications for health promotion and community development. Health Place 6, 319–327. Asakawa, K., 2010. Flow experience, culture, and wellbeing: how do autotelic Japanese college students feel, behave and think in their daily lives? J. Happiness Stud. 11, 205–223. Atkinson, S., Fuller, S. and Painter, J., (2012) Well-being and place, Well-Being and Place, Ashgate, London, 1–14. Bissell, D., 2011. Thinking habits for uncertain subjects: movements, stillness and susceptibility. Environ. Plan. 43, 2649–2665. Carr, A., 2011. Positive Psychology. The science of happiness and human strengths Second Edition. Routledge, London Clavin, A., 2011. Realising ecological sustainability in community gardens: a capability approach. Local Environ. 16, 945–962. Collins, D., Kearns, R., 2007. Ambiguous landscapes: Sun, risk and recreation on New Zealand beaches. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscape. Ashgate, London, pp. 15–32 Conradson, D., 2005. Landscape, care and the relational self: therapeutic encounters in rural England. Health Place 11, 337–348. Conradson, D., 2007. The experiential economy of stillness: places of retreat in contemporary Britain. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscape. Ashgate, London, pp. 33–48 Conradson, D., 2012. Wellbeing: Reflections on geographical engagements. In: Atkinson, J., Fuller, S., Painter, J. (Eds.), Wellbeing and Place. Ashgate, London, pp. 15–34 Cooper Marcus, C., Barnes, M., 1999. Healing Gardens. Wiley, New York Corrigan, M., 2011. Growing what you eat: developing community gardens in Baltimore, Maryland. Appl. Geography 3, 1232–1241. Crang, M., Cook, I., 2007. Doing Ethnographies. Sage, London Csikszentmihalyi, M., (2002) Flow. Rider, London. Cutchin, M., 2007. Therapeutic Landscapes for older people: care with commodification, liminality and ambiguity. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscape. Ashgate, London, pp. 181–198.

Doughty, K., 2013. Walking together: the embodied and mobile production of a therapeutic landscape. Health Place 24, 140–146. Duff, C., 2011. Networks, resources and agencies: on the character and production of enabling places. Health Place 17, 149–156. Edensor, T. (Ed.), 2010. Ashgate, London Einwalter, D., 2007. Reclaiming the therapeutic value of public space through roadside art and memorials in rural Nevada. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscape. Ashgate, London, pp. 333–348 FCFCG, (no date a) Getting involved, Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, Bristol 〈http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/farms-gardens/getting-involved〉. FCFCG, (no date b) Gardening and Health, Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, Bristol, 〈http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/gardening-a-health〉. Fieldhouse, J., 2003. The impact of an allotment group on mental health clients. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 66, 286–296. Fleuret, S., Atkinson, S., 2007. Wellbeing, health and geography: a critical review and research agenda. N. Z. Geogr. 63, 106–118. Gatrell, A., 2011. Mobilities and Health. Ashgate, London Gatrell, A., 2013. Therapeutic mobilities: walking and ‘steps’ to wellbeing and health. Health Place 22, 98–106. Gesler, W., 1993. Therapeutic landscapes: theory and a case study of Epidaruros, Greece. Environ. Plan. D: Soc. Space 11, 171–189. Gesler, W., 2005. Therapeutic landscapes: an evolving theme. Health Place 11, 295–297. Hale, J., Knapp, C., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J., Sancar, F., Litt, J.S., 2011. Connecting food environments and health through the relational nature of aesthetics: gaining insight through the community gardening experience. Soc. Sci. Med. 72, 1853–1863. Hartig, T., Evans, G., Jamner, L., Davis, D., Garling, T., 2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 109–123. Hawkins, J., Mercer, J., Thirlaway, K., Clayton, D., 2013. ‘Doing’ gardening and ‘being’ at the allotment site: Exploring the benefits of allotment gardening for stress reduction and healthy aging. Ecopsychology 5, 110–125. Hitchings, R., 2006. Expertise and inability: cultured materials and the reason for some retreating lawns in London. J. Mater. Culture 11, 364–381. Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1995. Restorative experience: the healing power of nearby nature. In: Francis, M., Hester, R. (Eds.), The Meaning of Gardens. MIT Press, Cambridge MA Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 2005. Preference, restoration and meaningful action in the context of nearby nature. In: Bartlett, P. (Ed.), Urban Place: reconnecting with the natural world. Massachusetts MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 271–299 Kearns, R., Andrews, G., 2010. Geographies of wellbeing. In: Smith, S., Pain, R., Marston, J.P., Jones, J.P. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Geographies pp. Sage, London, pp. 309–328 Kingsley, J.Y., Townsend, M., Henderson-Wilson, C., 2009. Cultivating health and wellbeing: members' perceptions of the health benefits of a Port Melbourne community garden. Leisure Stud. 28, 207–219. Lefebvre, H., 2004. Rhythmanalysis. Time and everyday life. Continuum, London. Little, J., 2013. Pampering, well-being and women's bodies in the therapeutic spaces of the spa. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 14, 41–58. McCormack, D., 2003. An event of geographical ethics in spaces of affect. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 24, 488–507. Massey, D., 2005. For Space. Routledge, London Milligan, C., 2007. Restoration or risk? Exploring the place of the common place. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscape. Ashgate, London, pp. 255–272 Milligan, C., Bingley, A., 2007. Restorative places or scary places? The impact of woodland on the mental well-being of young adults. Health and Place 13, 799–811. Milligan, C., Gatrell, A., Bingley, A., 2004. Cultivating health’: therapeutic landscapes and older people in northern England. Soc. Sci. Med. 58, 1781–1793. Pain, R., Smith, S., 2010. Introduction: Geographies of Wellbeing. In: Smith, S., Pain, R., Marston, S., Jones, J.P. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Geographies pp. Sage, London, pp. 297–298 Parr, H., 2007. Mental health, nature work, and social inclusion. Environ. Plan. D: Soc. Space 25, 537–561. Philo, C., Parr, H., 2003. Introducing psychoanalytic geographies. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2, 283–293. Pink, S., 2009. Doing Sensory Ethnography. Sage, London. Pitt, H., 2013. Growing Together. An ethnography of community gardening as place making, Cardiff University, Cardiff UK. Quayle, H., (no date) The true value of community farms and gardens: social, environmental, health and economic. Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, Bristol, 〈http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/publications/290-truevalue-research-〉. Robinson, K., Kennedy, N., Harmon, D., 2012. Happiness: a review of evidence relevant to occupational science. J. Occup. Sci. 19, 150–164. Rose, E., 2012. Encountering place: a psychoanalytic approach for understanding how therapeutic landscapes benefit health and wellbeing. Health Place 18, 1381–1387. Seligman, M., Csikszentmihalyi, M., 2000. Positive psychology an introduction. Am. Psychol. 55, 5–14. Sennett, R., 2008. The Craftsman. Yale University Press, London Smyth, F., 2005. Medical geography: therapeutic places, spaces and networks. Prog. Human Geogr. 29, 488–495.

H. Pitt / Health & Place 27 (2014) 84–91

Spinney, J., 2006. A place of sense: a kinaesthetic ethnography of cyclists on Mont Ventoux. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24, 709–732. Stuart, M., 2005. Lifting spirits: creating gardens in California Domestic Violence Shelters. In: Bartlett, P. (Ed.), Urban Place: reconnecting with the natural world. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 61–88 Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J., Litt, J., 2009. Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health Place 15, 115–1122. Twiss, J., Dickinson, J., Duma, S., Kieinman, T., Paulsen, H., Rilveria, L., 2003. Community gardens: lessons learned from california healthy cities and communities. Am. J. Public Health 93, 1435–1438. Ulrich, R., 1999. Effects of Gardens on Health Outcomes: Theory and Research. In: Copper-Marcus, C., Barnes, M. (Eds.), Healing Gardens. Wiley, New York, pp. 27–86 Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., Skinner, A., 2007. Growing urban health: community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promot. Int. 22, 92–101.

91

Ward Thompson, C., 2010. Linking landscape and health: the recurring theme. Landsc. Urban Plan. 99, 187–195. Williams, A., 2002. Changing geographies of care: employing the concept of therapeutic landscapes as a framework in examining home space. Soc. Sci. Med. 55, 141–154. Williams, A., 2007. Introduction: The continuing maturation of the Therapeutic Landscape concept. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscape. Ashgate, London, pp. 1–14 Wilson, K., 2003. Therapeutic landscapes and first nations peoples: an exploration of culture, health and place. Health Place 9, 83–93. WRO, (2012) Community Grown Food in Wales. Wales Rural Observatory, Cardiff 〈http://www.walesruralobservatory.org.uk/sites/default/files/COMMUNITY% 20GROWING%20DRAFT%20REPORT%20FINAL.pdf〉.