Nomadic Gardens as a Design Paradigm: Linking Everyday Practices, Cultural Memory and Adaptive Urbanism

Abstract

Rapid, state-led urbanization in China often generates socio-spatial vulnerabilities, leaving interstitial “waiting lands” in a state of regulatory and ecological limbo. This paper investigates “nomadic gardens”—spontaneous, resident-led cultivation in Jinan—as a bottom-up strategy for adaptive capacity. Using a mixed-methods approach involving site typologies and community surveys (n = 100), we identify eight distinct garden forms that function as socio-ecological buffers, mitigating the risks of social isolation and psychological distress among elderly residents. Findings reveal a significant resilience gap caused by rigid land-use policies that prioritize ornamental aesthetics over functional productivity. We propose an Adaptive Urbanism framework that utilizes modular design and transitional governance to transform these precarious spaces into managed resilience assets. By shifting the planning focus from enforcement to risk-responsive design, this research provides a scalable model for sustainable urban risk management in rapidly transforming global cities.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Contested Space of Urban Greenery

China’s rapid, state-led urban transformation, often framed as accumulation by dispossession [1], fundamentally reshapes environments by displacing agrarian traditions and increasing socio-spatial vulnerability [2]. This uneven development results in ubiquitous interstitial spaces—vacant lots characterized by legal and spatial ambiguity [3]. This ambiguity is rooted in the complex dual-land tenure system and the struggle over territorial power [4]. From a risk management perspective, these unmanaged spaces often represent urban vulnerabilities, prone to neglect, social alienation and systemic instability.

Beyond socio-spatial precarity, these interstitial “waiting lands” also present environmental risks. Unmanaged vacant plots may intensify localized urban heat island effects, accumulate wind-borne dust, and reduce soil permeability in rapidly densifying residential areas. When residents convert these spaces into nomadic gardens, they unintentionally provide small-scale ecosystem services such as localized cooling, soil stabilization, and improved stormwater infiltration. In this sense, gardens function not only as social and cultural buffers but also as micro-ecological interventions that mitigate environmental vulnerabilities within transitional urban landscapes.

This political environment creates high transaction costs for formal projects [5], simultaneously fueling the spontaneous emergence of informal, adaptive spaces [6] shaped by institutional constraints [7]. In these ambiguous sites, residents (frequently older generations or rural migrants) spontaneously initiate nomadic gardens [8]. These plots function as socio-ecological buffers, sustaining practices of care and memory while building community adaptive capacity. Although absent from formal planning, these gardens represent a crucial, risk-reduction mechanism, providing essential social and psychological functions that mitigate the shocks of rapid urban relocation [9]. Their persistence underscores a fundamental need for productive, resident-led landscapes, contrasting sharply with formal, ornamental green spaces prioritized by municipal authorities [10].

Comparable forms of resident-led cultivation have emerged in other global contexts characterized by economic restructuring or regulatory ambiguity. In post-industrial cities such as Detroit, grassroots occupation of vacant land has operated as both food security infrastructure and community stabilization strategy [11,12]. In Berlin, interim-use gardens such as Prinzessinnengarten illustrate how temporary cultivation of residual land can evolve into recognized socio-ecological commons [13]. Similarly, Havana’s urban agriculture system demonstrates how productive landscapes may become embedded within broader resilience frameworks under conditions of systemic resource constraint [14]. These international precedents indicate that the Chinese phenomenon of nomadic gardens is not an isolated cultural anomaly, but part of a broader global pattern in which residents appropriate interstitial urban space to mitigate socio-spatial vulnerability.

In this study, “risk” refers not to food insecurity per se but to socio-spatial vulnerability generated by redevelopment pressures and rigid land-use categorization. Specifically, we conceptualize risk as a compound condition including governance precarity, loss of community cohesion, psychological stress among displaced residents, and the erosion of informal productive landscapes during transitional urbanization.

1.2. The Research Gap: From Social Phenomenon to Design Paradigm

Existing academic literature has documented the social [9,15,16], ecological [10,17,18], and governance [7,18,19] dimensions of informal urban agriculture, often framing these practices as a socio-political critique of top-down planning [9,19].

However, a critical gap remains in analyzing the phenomenon through a dedicated urban design lens. The improvised structures, resourceful use of materials, and self-organization observed in these plots are frequently dismissed as “disorderly” or “non-compliant,” overlooking the inherent design intelligence and adaptive aesthetic they possess—a form of Insurgent Public Space [20].

Specifically, the design intelligence and aesthetics of informality [21,22] in these Chinese systems—manifesting as informal landscapes, wild design, and Everyday Urbanism [15,23,24]—provide a critical counter-narrative to formal planning [25,26].

The challenge, therefore, is not merely to argue for the preservation of these gardens but to translate their functional innovation into a viable urban resilience strategy. This requires moving beyond tolerance to actively designing mediating infrastructures that reconcile grassroots ingenuity with formal risk-mitigation standards for order, hygiene, and safety [18,27].

While productive landscapes have increasingly appeared in formal planning dis-course—through community garden programs, rooftop agriculture initiatives, and “Park City” edible demonstration zones—these models remain institutionally designed and administratively managed. By contrast, nomadic gardens emerge without formal designation, operating as adaptive responses to regulatory ambiguity. This distinction underpins the argument that nomadic gardens constitute not merely a landscape type, but a design paradigm grounded in improvisation and adaptive governance.

1.3. Core Argument and Contribution

This paper reframes nomadic gardening as a design paradigm for sustainable urban risk management, analyzing the material improvisation and design intelligence embedded in these plots [28]. We argue that the precarity of the gardens results from a policy–design failure to provide frameworks for adaptive land use that reduces community vulnerability [29].

The study proposes a strategic framework that combines modular design systems with transitional governance models to legitimize and integrate these gardens as transitional landscapes until final redevelopment occurs [30]. Critically, this research employs design as a framework to legitimize adaptive practices by focusing on functional and governance specifications, rather than providing an illustrative architectural rendering. By emphasizing the design potential of informal cultivation, this research contributes to:

• Design Theory: expanding the vocabulary of urban design to include improvisation, adaptive capacity and systemic resilience.
• Policy: offering a practical model for local authorities to leverage community engagement and mitigate urban risks by transforming marginal spaces into resilient socio-ecological buffers.
• Practice: providing a replicable framework for more inclusive and culturally responsive approaches to sustainable city-making in transitional urban environments.

The findings from the Jinan case study establish that nomadic gardens are fundamentally design responses to policy constraints. To move beyond anecdotal evidence and integrate these practices into a formal planning discourse, it is essential to ground the phenomenon in a rigorous theoretical framework. The following section will therefore establish the necessary conceptual vocabulary required to rigorously analyze the spatial negotiation and design innovation present in these informal urban practices, setting the stage for the empirical analysis.

2. Theoretical Framing: The Nomadic Garden as a Design Paradigm

This section grounds the study in relevant theoretical frameworks, defining the Nomadic Garden phenomenon and establishing the conceptual vocabulary—Everyday Urbanism, Cultural Memory, Material Intelligence, and Adaptive Urbanism—necessary to analyze its spatial and policy dimensions.

2.1. From Aesthetic Inquiry to Empirical Study: A Conceptual Bridge

This study builds upon theoretical work that reframes overlooked urban spaces—such as wastelands and spontaneous vegetation—as ecologically, culturally, and aesthetically valuable, challenging conventional planning’s preference for order [31,32]. The key conceptual insight, often explored in the discourse of Insurgent Public Space [20], is that improvisation, human imprint, and transitional spaces yield valuable, unintentional design [22].

Table 1. Conceptual Bridge—Operationalizing Theory for Empirical Study.

Earlier Work [31,32]	Current Research Contribution
Design as Improvisation: Unintentional design emerges from chance and adaptation.	Informal Gardens: Residents adapt vacant land and reuse found materials; this unofficial quality becomes a design driver.
Aesthetic of the Everyday: Finds beauty in unintentional design rather than professional norms.	Aesthetic of Utility: Gardens’ beauty arises from utility, functional resilience, and human imprint rather than polished architecture. Gardens act as socio-ecological buffers against urban heat and social isolation.
Human Imprint & Sustainability: Interaction leaves traces that inspire new thinking.	Evidence of Imprints: Human traces in paths, patches, and irrigation generate patterns that can inspire formalized sustainable design.
Transitional Spaces: Neglected contexts hold latent inspirational value.	“Waiting Lands”: Community gardens on temporary plots are transitional spaces that absorb the shocks of redevelopment, reducing community vulnerability.
Nomadic Gardens as Bridge: Conceptual speculation on temporary urban gardens.	Empirical Case Study: Documentation provides a longitudinal link from concept to practice.

serves as the conceptual bridge, operationalizing these theories for empirical study.

By situating informal gardens empirically, this research documents how spontaneous interventions create aesthetic, ecological, and cultural value. These gardens function as improvisational systems, where the reuse of found materials and generation of functional patterns (e.g., paths, improvised irrigation, vertical climbing supports, and strategic arrangement of vegetable and herb beds) demonstrate a sophisticated material intelligence [33] rooted in scarcity and adaptation.

2.2. Everyday Practices, Cultural Memory, and Psychological Resilience

The widespread phenomenon of informal gardening is rooted in Everyday—the spontaneous, resident-led appropriation of space for social life and cultural expression [20,34]. In China, this practice is deeply tied to cultural memory which functions as a strategic asset for adaptive capacity. Older migrants reclaim idle land to cultivate traditional foods, herbs, and berries, preserving rural knowledge that acts as an informal resilience mechanism [35]. These activities serve as a powerful counterpoint to social risk and urban alienation, embodying sensory memory that supports residents’ perceptions of agency and systemic belonging [10].

Gardening is thus more than recreational; it is a psychologically and socially sustaining practice that fosters well-being, particularly for aging or relocated populations, while integrating cultural and ecological sustainability principles [9,36]. The gardens act as active terrains of cultural continuity and social expression, contributing significantly to community cohesion and intergenerational learning in otherwise fragmented urban environments [36]. Thus, these gardens are not merely recreational; they are adaptive infrastructures that mitigate the public health risks associated with the psychological stress of involuntary relocation [9].

Comparable forms of citizen-led urban greening have emerged internationally through community gardens, tactical urbanism initiatives, and urban agriculture programs that emphasize participatory adaptation within formal planning systems. Cities such as New York, Berlin, and Melbourne have incorporated community-managed productive landscapes into broader sustainability and resilience strategies, recognizing their role in strengthening social cohesion, ecological awareness, and adaptive governance. These initiatives also align with global policy frameworks, including UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) [37] and the New Urban Agenda [38], both of which emphasize inclusive public space, ecological resilience, and community participation in urban governance. Situating the Jinan case within this international context highlights how resident-led cultivation practices contribute to a broader global paradigm of adaptive urbanism while revealing the distinct policy constraints that shape their development in the Chinese urban environment.

2.3. Policy, Governance, and the Politics of Informality

Informal urban gardens often exist in a “gray zone”—neither fully sanctioned nor entirely contested [35,39,40]. This precarity represents a significant governance risk, where the lack of formal recognition creates a vulnerability for both the residents and the city’s green infrastructure. While these spaces exemplify bottom-up placemaking and what Lefebvre [3] termed the “right to the city” [41], their current legal vulnerability reflects a failure of policy to utilize the adaptive capacity of the community as a tool for transitional risk management.

The necessity for community-led governance and lightweight rules emerges as a mechanism for sustaining equitable and inclusive practices, particularly in contexts dominated by formal top-down frameworks, such as Shenzhen’s “We Garden” project [36,42]. Chinese studies show that informal gardens rely heavily on resident-led initiatives (or chengshi kaihuang) which often operate at odds with municipal regulations yet serve critical ecological and social functions [15].

This duality underscores a central thesis: the legal vulnerability of nomadic gardens is not a failure of community will but a failure of policy and design frameworks to recognize and support temporary, productive landscapes [10,29].

2.4. A Paradigm Shift Towards Adaptive Urbanism

Literature underscores a need for a paradigm shift in urban design. Standardized green spaces often render residents passive, whereas informal gardens exemplify co-creation, improvisation, and resilience [15].

We adopt the framework of adaptive urbanism, rooted in Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory [43] and self-organization principles [44,45] to analyze how the material intelligence of nomadic gardens can inform risk-responsive design [18,35]. This approach emphasizes that urban planning should facilitate socio-ecological buffers—temporary, resident-driven gardens that enhance the city’s overall adaptive capacity and reduce the vulnerability of fragmented urban environments [15,41].

Such a shift requires moving from a policy of control to a policy of facilitation, recognizing that design must be responsive to everyday practices and the lived experiences of urban residents [29,36]. By incorporating the adaptive strategies observed in informal gardens, urban designers can craft landscapes that are not only ecologically resilient but socially inclusive and culturally meaningful.

3. Research Design and Policy Context: The Basis for Nomadic Practice

3.1. Research Design and Methodology

This study employed a mixed-methods approach [46], combining quantitative and qualitative data to capture both the measurable use patterns and the mechanisms of adaptive capacity that residents deploy to mitigate the risks of social fragmentation during redevelopment.

Fieldwork was conducted in Changqing District, Jinan, China, between June and September 2025, with assistance from two master’s students who conducted interviews in Mandarin, administered surveys, and supported translation.

Participants were selected using a purposive sampling strategy, targeting residents who were either actively engaged in cultivating the informal garden plots or living in close proximity to them. Random or probability-based sampling was not employed, as the objective was to capture informed experiential perspectives rather than generate statistically representative data. Access to respondents was facilitated through informal community networks. A long-term resident familiar with the gardening group introduced the researchers to potential participants, helping establish trust, particularly among elderly residents. Participation was entirely voluntary and based solely on individual willingness to engage in the study. No institutional or administrative authority mediated recruitment.

Given the demographic structure of the community—where a significant proportion of participants were elderly and expressed discomfort using QR codes or digital forms independently—an assisted face-to-face questionnaire administration method was adopted. The two assisting master’s students conducted the survey using their own mobile devices. Each question was read aloud clearly and neutrally in Mandarin, and respondents provided verbal answers that were recorded directly into the digital questionnaire without interpretation or modification. Younger participants who preferred independent participation were able to complete the questionnaire via QR code on their own devices. In all cases, researchers remained available to clarify questions when necessary.

This survey was administered to 100 residents of the Dashiziyuan community and focused on various aspects of their interactions with the nomadic gardens, including demographic information, participation frequency, motivations, and governance preferences.

Prior to participation, all respondents were informed verbally about the academic purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of participation, their right to withdraw at any time, and the anonymous handling of data. No personal identifying information was collected. Consent was obtained verbally or implied through voluntary completion of the questionnaire.

The research design comprised three complementary stages:

• Quantitative Survey: a structured questionnaire was distributed to 100 residents of the Dashiziyuan community, collecting data on demographics, frequency and purpose of visits, perceived benefits and indicators of psychological resilience and vulnerability reduction.
• Qualitative Interviews: semi-structured interviews with residents living adjacent to Plots 1–3 explored themes of governance, intergenerational learning, and spatial justice, capturing diverse perspectives from both long-term residents and migrant gardeners.
• Site Documentation and Typology: systematic site observations—including mapping, photography, and sketching—documented spatial organization, material improvisation, and patterns of use, providing the basis for the typological and policy analyses presented in Section 3.2.

Together, these stages produced a multi-layered understanding of nomadic gardens as both social systems and design artifacts, allowing triangulation between user perception, spatial form, and institutional context. The methodological relationships among these research components are summarized in Figure 1.

The questionnaire included indicator-based questions related to psychological motivation, well-being, and perceived benefits; however, it did not employ standardized psychometric scales. The quantitative component was designed to provide descriptive insight into resident motivations and governance preferences, complementing qualitative findings rather than establishing causal statistical relationships through regression modeling.

While the survey includes 100 respondents from a single residential compound, the study does not aim to produce statistically generalizable conclusions across all Chinese cities. Rather, it provides an in-depth examination of a structurally recurring phenomenon observed primarily in older residential neighborhoods, where informal cultivation emerges in residual spaces under conditions of policy ambiguity. The selected case enables close empirical observation of governance dynamics, spatial adaptation, and resident perception. Broader comparative research across multiple neighborhoods or newly built developments may further examine how formal policy frameworks could accommodate or integrate such practices.

3.2. Policy and Institutional Context: Planning Constraints and Spatial Temporality

The spontaneous emergence of nomadic gardens in Jinan must be understood within China’s highly centralized system of land ownership and urban planning. This institutional framework creates a condition of socio-spatial risk, as it leaves limited room for community-led uses of vacant land, thereby increasing the vulnerability of displaced residents. As a result, informal cultivation occupies an ambiguous legal and spatial position—one defined as much by regulation as by the ingenuity of residents who adapt within it.

At the national level, the Land Administration Law (1986) [47] and the Urban and Rural Planning Law (2008) [48] establish the state’s dominant control over land and its formalized allocation, rendering unregistered or spontaneous cultivation technically unauthorized. The Provisional Regulations on the Administration of Landscaping of Urban Gardens (1982) [49] further reinforce a preference for professionally designed, ornamental landscapes. Contemporary national directives, such as the Guideline on Green Development in Urban and Rural Areas [50] and the 14th Five-Year Plan for Urban Green Infrastructure [51], emphasize ecological and aesthetic enhancement, yet primarily address large-scale planning, leaving a ‘resilience gap’ where smaller, adaptive green practices are ignored.

At the provincial and municipal scales, these principles are operationalized through comprehensive standards and planning controls. The Park City framework [52] and the Residential Area Green Space Construction Standard (2025) [53] encourage ecological integration but prioritize uniformity and permanence. In Jinan, local instruments such as the City Greening Regulations [54] and the Urban Green Line Management Measures [55] delineate strict green boundaries, inadvertently excluding flexible, small-scale, or transitional uses.

The Dashiziyuan community illustrates how these overlapping regulations materialize spatially. The studied site is officially designated for public facility construction, producing two distinct conditions of temporal constraint: one parcel faces imminent redevelopment under confirmed planning permits for resettlement housing and a kindergarten [56,57], while adjacent plots remain temporarily stable yet legally vulnerable. These differentiated states of precarity define the gardens’ “nomadic” character, serving as a grassroots response to the risks of land-use uncertainty and social dispossession.

Recognizing this dynamic temporality is essential for urban design. It reframes the legal constraint not as a barrier but as a parameter that can guide adaptive, modular interventions—transforming vacant land from sites of regulatory limbo into productive, community-driven green infrastructure.

3.3. Case Study Context: Redevelopment Pressures in Dashiziyuan

The empirical work is situated in the Dashiziyuan Community (Jinan’s Changqing District), which is under systemic redevelopment pressure. The study focuses on specific vacant plots (Plot 1–3) informally appropriated by residents (primarily elderly rural migrants). This population’s reliance on informal agriculture represents a form of adaptive capacity that counters the vulnerability inherent in the city’s formal urbanization agenda.

The plot’s future is defined by legal precarity, as detailed in official government announcements regarding future land allocation (see

Table 2. Summary of Urban Development Projects in Dashiziyuan Community, Jinan (2021–2024).

Project	Release Date	Purpose/Use	Implications for Informal Gardening	Source
Kindergarten Construction	3 January 2024	Institutional facility (0.36 ha)	Formal land use leads to the permanent displacement of gardens, resulting in a disruption of community resilience and the loss of local adaptive capacity for elderly residents.	Jinan City Changqing District Dashiziyuan Community urban village renovation resettlement kindergarten
Residential Resettlement & Public Housing	28 January 2021	Affordable housing + public facilities (40,516 m2 plot)	Formalization prioritizes housing density over productive landscapes, increasing the socio-spatial vulnerability of the community and altering established resilience-building social practices.	Changqing District Wenchang Sub-district Office Dashiziyuan Community old residence renovation resident livelihood security housing project
Land Expropriation Pre-announcement No. 7	27 February 2024	Municipal roads, protective green spaces, urban infrastructure	Signals the total erasure of informal spaces; creates a governance risk where the absence of transitional green infrastructure leaves the community without a socio-ecological buffer during the long construction phase.	Land acquisition pre-announcement Jizhangzheng Pre-Announcement (2024) No. 7 [58]

). This friction between bottom-up practice and top-down policy, as visually documented (Figure 2), reinforces the gardens’ status as temporary, improvisational, and socially negotiated spaces.

4. Empirical Findings: Community Demands and Design Mandates

4.1. Demographic and Use Patterns

As shown in Figure 3, more than one-third of respondents (37%) were over 60 years old, confirming that elderly residents constitute a primary user group. This demographic concentration reinforces the garden’s function as a socio-ecological buffer for populations most vulnerable to social isolation during redevelopment.

Use was frequent (34% daily or 39% a few times a week) and focused on gardening (45%) and sitting/socializing (34%). Figure 4 demonstrates that 73% of respondents visit the gardens at least several times per week, indicating that these spaces function as routine social infrastructure rather than occasional recreational areas.

The data confirms the informal garden’s role as a vital social and productive space, utilized most frequently by the most demographically stable and culturally rooted segment of the community—older, long-term residents. The concentration of activities on gardening and socializing underscores the role of nomadic gardens as adaptive infrastructures. By providing a stable social environment for the most vulnerable demographic segment—older, long-term residents—these spaces effectively mitigate the risk of social isolation during the destabilizing process of urban redevelopment.

4.2. The Conflict of Aesthetics: Demand for Organization

The community expressed a strong demand for standardization, highlighting a core aesthetic and practical conflict within the informal space. While the gardens are highly used, their lack of organization severely limits utility. Critical concerns reported were limited space (70%), lack of clear rules or organization (59%), and difficult access (51%), with 46% noting the chaotic appearance. These functional issues directly influence desired improvements, which prioritized more trees/shade (74%) and sitting benches/paths (61%). The tension between functional constraints and mandated solutions is summarized in

Table 3. The Risk-Management Logic.

Area of Systemic Risk	Residents’ Concerns (The Vulnerability)	Residents’ Desired Improvements (The Resilience Strategy)
Spatial & Access Risk	Not enough space (70%)	Sitting benches and paths (61%). Strategy: Enhance site safety and equitable access
	Difficult to navigate (51%). Risk: Social conflict and exclusion of vulnerable groups	Organized garden beds (30%). Strategy: Build community adaptive capacity through self-management
Governance Risk	No clear rules or organization (59%). Risk: Site degradation and legal instability	More organization/cleanliness (32%)
Environmental Risk	Messy or chaotic appearance (46%). Risk: Public perception of “blight” leads to premature demolition	More trees/shade (74%). Strategy: Create a socio-ecological buffer that provides cooling and aesthetic value
Infrastructure	(Lack of water/tools not listed here)	Water supply/tool storage (21%)

, which juxtaposes the community’s primary pain points with their highest-priority requests.

The conflict identified here is essential for the design problem: the “messy” appearance is not a reflection of low interest, but rather of the current structure’s failure to support high demand. The Adaptive Urbanism solution must, therefore, introduce a lightweight, flexible framework that accommodates the existing productive functions while solving the circulation and aesthetic demands for shared public use.

These findings indicate that the ‘messy’ appearance is not merely an aesthetic issue, but a governance vulnerability. By introducing a lightweight framework, the proposed design paradigm manages these spatial risks, transforming a site of potential conflict into a stabilized socio-ecological buffer.

4.3. Governance Preferences and Participation Constraints

The survey conclusively established that the gardens fulfill vital needs related to cultural memory, psychological resilience, and ecological utility, thereby providing a clear mandate for formal recognition. The gardens are overwhelmingly valued for their productive utility: top reasons cited included providing fresh food (78%) and serving as a meaningful activity for elders (71%), with many valuing memories of rural life (67%). Personal motivations strongly align with psychological resilience—the majority participate to be outdoors (85%), find peace of mind (77%), and enjoy the growth process (78%).

As illustrated in Figure 5, psychological motivations strongly shape engagement with the gardens. A large majority of respondents reported valuing time outdoors (85%), enjoyment of the growth process (78%), and peace of mind (77%). These findings indicate that participation is not driven primarily by economic necessity, but by emotional, restorative, and experiential dimensions. The gardens thus function as in-formal socio-ecological infrastructures that support mental well-being and everyday resilience.

As shown in Figure 6, cultural motivations for gardening were strongly expressed. 78% of respondents identified fresh food as a key reason for gardening, while 71% valued the meaningful activities it offers to elderly participants. 67% noted the importance of these gardens in evoking memories of rural life, illustrating a profound emotional connection to gardening practices.

Furthermore, the gardens are critical for intergenerational knowledge transmission; a large majority (79%) agreed younger generations could benefit, primarily through learning respect for nature (76%) and how to grow vegetables (75%).

Despite this high social value, the community recognizes the need to formalize governance, directly supporting the push toward Adaptive Urbanism. An overwhelming 98% agreed coordination was necessary to maintain organization. Crucially, preferred structures leaned towards community self-management, with residents favoring a Committee of residents (52%) or the introduction of Plot numbering and rules (50%). The combination of these preferences directly mandates the need for lightweight, resident-led governance structures that integrate formal clarity with grassroots autonomy.

Figure 7 illustrates a clear preference for community-led governance structures, with 52% of respondents favoring a resident committee and 50% supporting formalized plot numbering and rules. Additionally, 39% preferred no formal structure, highlighting the diverse opinions on how the gardens should be organized. This data mandates the proposal for lightweight, resident-driven governance frameworks, as part of the Adaptive Urbanism model, where informal spaces are managed collaboratively but with minimal top-down control.

Even with these mandates for community-led governance, the study identified critical participation barriers that must be addressed by any formal design solution. The top challenge, reflecting the intense redevelopment pressure detailed in Section 3.2, was the lack of available land (90%). Other significant functional constraints included rules that forbid it (65%) and no tools or water access (60%).

These findings converge into clear mandates for an Adaptive Urbanism solution:

• Aesthetic/Functional: Introduce lightweight structures (paths, shade, benches) and organization (numbered plots) to address “messy” appearance and access issues (Section 4.2).
• Socio-Cultural: Prioritize space for vegetable cultivation and elder socialization to support cultural memory and well-being.
• Policy/Governance: Establish a clear, facilitated framework for community-led management (resident committee/rules) and guarantee access to essential infrastructure (water, tools).

4.4. Synthesis of Findings and Design Mandates

Qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses and semi-structured interviews decisively reinforced the core demands identified in the quantitative data, framing the design problem as a tension between the need for bottom-up autonomy and improved functional organization.

4.4.1. Qualitative Reinforcement

The open-ended comments underscored three critical, practical constraints that necessitate design and policy intervention: Access to Land, the need for formal Management and Organization, and the severe lack of Water and Tools Availability (

Table 4. Key Themes and Representative Comments from Residents’ Open-Ended Responses.

Theme	Representative Resident Comments	Frequency/Notes
Access to Land	“Ensure the distribution of land for planting and provide more space”	Recurrent concern about limited plot availability
Management & Organization	“There should be someone to manage and more land should be available”	Highlights need for oversight, plot assignment, and rules
Water & Tools Availability	“There are no basic resources such as water sources and power supplies”; “Hope to provide water sources, tools, and power supply”	Key resource constraint for gardening participation
Environmental Quality & Aesthetics	“Hope to retain planting while maintaining the beauty and tidiness of the community environment”	Residents link planting with improved environment and visual appeal

). These insights confirmed the possibility of a hybrid aesthetic, where residents desire to “retain planting while maintaining the beauty and tidiness of the community environment,” confirming that formal structure must support informal production

In addition to the survey comments, semi-structured interviews provided deeper in-sight into residents’ lived experiences and perceptions of precarity, health, and governance. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic coding approach. Initial open coding identified recurrent expressions related to land access, health autonomy, tenure insecurity, governance expectations, and intergenerational transmission. These preliminary codes were subsequently grouped into higher-order analytical categories aligned with the study’s resilience and governance framework. Coding was conducted manually by the first author and iteratively refined to ensure internal consistency across transcripts. Selected representative excerpts are summarized in

Table 5. Thematic Summary of Interview Excerpts (Semi-Structured Interviews, n > 10).

Theme	Representative Excerpt (Translated)	Analytical Implication
Health and Food Safety	“Vegetables from the supermarket are sprayed. What we grow ourselves is healthier and tastes better.”	Gardening framed as food safety autonomy and embodied health practice
Meaningful Activity in Later Life	“Idle is idle. You have to find something to do.”/”Planting is like exercise.”	Cultivation as daily structure, purpose, and physical engagement for elderly residents
Tenure Insecurity	“They have cleared it several times… because planting here is not allowed.”	Regulatory ambiguity produces structural precarity
Land Scarcity & Competition	“I wanted to plant, but I couldn’t get a plot.”	High demand and absence of formal allocation mechanisms
Intergenerational Learning	“Children don’t even recognize vegetables now.”	Gardens function as informal environmental education spaces
Governance Preference	“It should be spontaneous… those who want to plant, plant.”	Preference for resident-led, minimally bureaucratic management

.

4.4.2. Design Mandates

This synthesis, which validates the theoretical argument for Cultural Memory and Resilience by showing gardening provides elderly residents with essential structure and purpose, yields three distinct mandates that must underpin the Adaptive Urbanism design solution:

• Prioritize Productivity and Cultural Continuity: The design must allocate permanent, demarcated space for food production, supporting the cultural practices and psychological well-being of the primary user group (elderly residents).
• Establish Transitional Governance Infrastructure: The design must incorporate lightweight, modular infrastructure (e.g., standardized plot sizes, integrated water access) that enables community-led management (committees and rules) while addressing the constraints of land scarcity.
• Facilitate Hybrid Aesthetics: The design must reconcile the desire for organization and public access (paths, seating, shade) with the existing informal, productive character of the gardens, moving from a policy of outright control to one of facilitation.

These findings provide the robust empirical foundation for the subsequent discussion on design strategies that reconcile grassroots practices with urban redevelopment pressures. In summary, these mandates transition the nomadic garden from a spontaneous social phenomenon to a structured risk-management asset. By addressing the identified ‘resilience gaps’—specifically the lack of physical infrastructure (water/tools) and the absence of formal governance—the proposed design paradigm converts urban vulnerability into adaptive capacity. This ensures that the transitional ‘waiting lands’ of Jinan function as socio-ecological buffers that stabilize the community’s well-being throughout the high-risk period of urban redevelopment.

5. Legal and Policy Context: The Basis for Nomadic Precarity

5.1. Introduction: The Policy Gap for Bottom-Up Greening

The proliferation of nomadic gardens in Jinan illustrates a critical bottom-up model of resident-led urbanism [15,35]. These gardens occupy residual urban spaces and operate outside official planning frameworks. This policy gap represents more than a mere ‘lack of space’ for community greening; it signifies a systemic failure to harness the adaptive capacity of residents. When planning frameworks ignore these spontaneous interventions, they overlook a vital mechanism for risk mitigation and community-led maintenance. This section analyzes the national and local legal environment to explain the structural precarity of the gardens and their potential for integration [41]. This duality between formal governance and informal practice reveals an urgent need for adaptive policy mechanisms. Current frameworks fail to utilize the community’s adaptive capacity, creating a governance risk where productive urban land remains in a state of ‘limbo’—vulnerable to neglect rather than serving as a resilient socio-ecological buffer.

5.2. National Constraints: Land, Planning, and Aesthetics

The legal framework governing land use in China establishes strict boundaries that create structural precarity for spontaneous cultivation. Core national legislation, including the Land Administration Law (1986) [47] and the Urban and Rural Planning Law (2008) [48], mandates that land use conform to master plans, creating a condition of structural vulnerability for improvised greening. By categorizing these gardens as legally non-compliant, the current system increases the risk of social friction and ignores the potential for these sites to act as informal risk-mitigation assets during urban transitions.

Furthermore, the Provisional Regulations on Urban Landscaping (1982) [49] set standards favoring professionally designed, ornamental green spaces, contributing to the perception of informal gardens as “messy” or “uncivilized”. Locally, Jinan’s policies reinforce this precarity: the Jinan City Greening Regulations (2022) [54] and the Urban Green Line Management Measures (2023) [55] strictly prohibit unauthorized occupation or modification of designated green spaces.

5.3. Policy Tension: Aspirational Goals vs. Restrictive Enforcement

A significant tension exists between China’s high-level environmental goals and local enforcement. Aspirational policies, such as the China Guideline on Green Development (2021) [50] and the Shandong Province Park City Construction Guidelines (2024) [52], promote ecological enhancement, biodiversity, and community participation through “Park+” initiatives. These goals align closely with the benefits of nomadic gardens, but lack mechanisms for formal recognition.

In contrast, local enforcement prioritizes standardized maintenance, infrastructure quality, and formal aesthetics. Regulations in Jinan strictly protect green space boundaries and prohibit unauthorized modification (e.g., Jinan City Greening Regulations, 2022 [54]; Jinan City Urban Green Line Management Measures, 2023 [55]). Technical standards further formalize design and maintenance requirements, ensuring that community participation remains regulated and officially sanctioned (e.g., Jinan Municipal Bureau of Forestry and Greening, 2024 [59]). This juxtaposition structurally marginalizes improvisational and productive nomadic gardens, leading to their removal despite their alignment with broader green objectives.

5.4. The Policy–Design Gap

The analysis reveals a fundamental policy–design gap that must be addressed. This gap consists of two elements: (1) A Recognition Gap, where informal cultivation is legally invisible, and land use remains binary (authorized/unauthorized), leaving productive uses perpetually precarious. (2) A Design Specification Gap, where policies fail to specify acceptable structures or aesthetics for provisional gardens, favoring ornamental landscaping. Closing this gap requires creating a bridge: policy must be adapted to accommodate “interim gardens” as a transitional risk management strategy. By establishing clear, yet flexible, design and management standards, the city can mitigate the risks of site degradation while leveraging resident-led initiatives to build urban resilience. The core policy constraints and opportunities are summarized in

Table 6. Key Regulations, Implications, and Relevance to Nomadic Gardens.

Policy/Regulation	Key Provisions	Relevance to Nomadic Gardens
Land Administration Law (1986) [47]	Defines ownership & use rights; prohibits unauthorized land use.	Gardens on public/collective land are legally precarious; improvised structures may constitute violations. Creates legal vulnerability; prevents the formalization of adaptive capacity in vacant lands.
Urban and Rural Planning Law (2008) [48]	Requires land use conformity to statutory plans.	Citizen-led vegetable plots are non-conforming; explains enforcement risk; current rigidity hinders the creation of transitional socio-ecological buffers.
China Guideline on Green Development (2021) [50]	Promotes ecological health and green lifestyles.	Opportunity: Aligns with outcomes of nomadic gardens but lacks mechanisms for formal recognition. Use “Green Lifestyles” as a mandate for community-led risk reduction and resilience.
Provisional Regulations on Urban Landscaping (1982) [49]	Emphasizes professional, ornamental design.	Constraint: Favors formal landscaping; justifies removal of provisional, productive gardens.
Jinan Local Regulations (Redevelopment/Landscaping)	Prioritizes infrastructure, aesthetics, and uniform standards in transitional spaces.	Constraint: Enforcement rules often override aspirational policies, placing informal gardens at risk of removal. Over-prioritization of aesthetics creates a resilience gap, as functional, productive landscapes are removed in favor of ornamental ones.

Note: The “Jinan Local Regulations” entry synthesizes the constraints found in the Jinan City Greening Regulations (2022) [54], the Jinan City Urban Green Line Management Measures (2023) [55], and the Jinan Municipal People’s Government General Office (2020) Notice concerning the suppression of unauthorized informal green spaces [60].

.

6. Discussion: Bridging the Gap Between Practice, Preference and Policy

6.1. Synthesis of Empirical Findings and Policy Context

This section synthesizes findings from the community survey (Section 4) and the legal-policy review (Section 5) to address the central research objective: designing a viable, formalized approach for “nomadic gardening”. Translating the adaptive intelligence of informal practice into a formal solution requires addressing three strategic challenges for urban resilience:

• The Tension Between Informal Practice and Risk Mitigation: Reconciling spontaneous productivity with the need for systemic safety, hygiene, and public standards.
• The Resilience Gap: Bridging the structural divide between high-level green goals and its restrictive enforcement that increases community vulnerability.
• The Adaptive Urbanism Mandate: Establishing flexible design and governance principles to formalize productive landscapes as socio-ecological buffers.

6.2. The Aesthetic and Functional Conflict: Practice vs. Preference

Triangulation of qualitative fieldwork and survey data highlights a central conflict between residents’ resourceful gardening activities and the spatial form in which these activities manifest, demanding a hybrid design solution.

Fieldwork reveals that gardening practice is driven by flexibility, resourcefulness, and minimal investment, employing salvaged materials and ad hoc divisions (Section 5). However, this informal aesthetic generates significant functional and organizational dissatisfaction:

• Aesthetic and Organizational Demand: Residents prioritize “standards,” “tidiness,” and “reasonable management,” with 46% of respondents reporting the plot “looks messy or chaotic” and 59% citing “No clear rules or organization” as major concerns.
• Functional Need: While residents strongly prefer a Community Vegetable Garden, they expect it to be formally governed, clean, and orderly, creating a clear mandate for structure.

Survey results emphasize that nomadic gardening is primarily a social rather than a subsistence-driven activity, supporting the theoretical framework of Everyday Urbanism. Social interaction, communication, and “peace of mind” (77% approval) are top motivations, highlighting the plot’s function as a vital social condenser for long-term, senior residents. Successful formalization must therefore prioritize social resilience, integrating shared amenities (seating, shade structures requested by 74%) and communal spaces alongside productive planting to support community health and resilience. By addressing the 77% demand for ‘peace of mind,’ the design acts as a preventative health infrastructure, mitigating the psychological risks inherent in urban displacement.

6.3. The Policy Blind Spot: Nomadic Gardening as a Response to Risk

The nomadic and precarious status of these gardens results directly from rigid and exclusionary local policy frameworks (Section 5), which fail to provide a regulatory category for temporary, productive urban land use.

Urban land is categorized strictly as formal green space or vacant “non-space.” Productive landscapes fall into a policy blind spot because they defy the mandate for purely ornamental design and strict control over land-use change. The lack of legal recognition and the looming threat of displacement force gardens into temporary, low-investment states. The “nomadic” nature of these gardens is therefore a strategic response to legal and tenure risk. Residents engage in low-investment, high-mobility cultivation to maximize utility while hedging against the risk of imminent displacement. The legal refusal to recognize these spaces creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of vulnerability; formalizing ‘interim gardens’ is therefore a transitional risk-management strategy that stabilizes the land and the community.

The high demand for infrastructure—specifically, “water sources, tools, and power supply”—directly highlights functional limitations caused by the policy gap. Providing formal infrastructure would not only improve usability (addressing the 60% barrier) but would also signal tenure security, incentivizing residents to invest time and maintain higher standards. This policy exclusion creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: the legal refusal to recognize these spaces ensures they remain precarious and vulnerable, thus reinforcing the planners’ aesthetic objection. Closing this gap requires a formal framework that can flexibly accommodate “interim gardens.”

6.4. Strategic Implications for Design Intervention

The design intervention must pivot decisively from the municipal preference for passive, ornamental greenery towards active, productive social space. Our findings show that the gardens’ primary value lies in their utility: they offer essential well-being benefits, particularly for elderly residents, and serve as high-frequency social hubs (Section 4.1 and Section 4.3). Therefore, formal recognition is non-negotiable. The design must secure permanent, visible space for vegetable cultivation and integrate necessary social amenities—like seating, shade structures, and accessible pathways—to support the active use demonstrated by the community. This move formally elevates the social value of production and community over mere aesthetic control, serving as a critical act of spatial justice.

While grassroots creativity is vital, the ad hoc nature of the gardens leads to functional problems concerning access, safety, and aesthetics. The solution is not rigid formality but minimal, flexible formalization through lightweight infrastructure. To address the 51% of residents concerned about access and the 60% barrier of resource scarcity, the design must implement adaptive infrastructure—modular planting beds and clear, permeable pathways. Critically, centralized infrastructure—such as reliable water access, secured composting bins, and communal tool storage—must be introduced. This is not merely an aesthetic choice; it is a risk-reduction measure that ensures the garden can function as a reliable socio-ecological buffer even during redevelopment shocks. This approach enforces a necessary order, moving the gardens from legally non-compliant chaos to structured flexibility, while still accommodating and celebrating the grassroots creativity the residents value.

The overwhelming desire for collective action is a key design asset. With 98% of residents agreeing coordination is necessary and demonstrating high individual motivation, the design must recognize and channel this energy, rather than ignoring it. The core strategic requirement is the creation of a transitional governance model. By facilitating self-regulation (supported by 98% of residents), the design builds community adaptive capacity, ensuring that the garden remains a self-sustaining asset rather than a site of regulatory neglect. This mandate requires the design to integrate management structures—such as communal storage areas, clearly delineated plots for assignment, and visible notice boards—that support and enable a resident-led system of shared responsibility and resource management. This ensures long-term community ownership and self-regulation, securing the garden’s future viability beyond the initial design implementation.

Formalizing nomadic gardens in this manner achieves more than just compliance; it is an act of spatial justice. It integrates high-value social practices into the urban fabric, addresses infrastructure and governance gaps created by outdated policy (Section 5), and preserves the functionality, social cohesion, and ecological contributions of grassroots gardens. The proposed Adaptive Urbanism approach provides the necessary framework to translate resident-led resilience into formal, policy-compliant design.

At the same time, formalization introduces potential risks that must be critically acknowledged. Institutional recognition and structured governance mechanisms, if implemented rigidly, could unintentionally exclude low-income migrants or informal users who currently access the gardens through flexible, community-based arrangements. Bureaucratic allocation systems, user fees, or overly restrictive regulations may transform inclusive grassroots spaces into controlled environments. To prevent this outcome, the Adaptive Urbanism framework must embed inclusivity safeguards within its governance model—ensuring transparent plot allocation, non-commercial management structures, and open participation principles. Formalization should therefore function as protective stabilization rather than regulatory enclosure, preserving accessibility while enhancing spatial and legal security.

7. Synthesis: From Social Drivers to Risk Mitigation

7.1. Synthesis of Key Findings

This research systematically analyzed the phenomenon of “nomadic gardening”—the spontaneous, resident-led cultivation of vacant urban land—and proposed a viable formalization strategy. By triangulating evidence from policy review (Section 5), fieldwork and quantitative community survey data (Section 4), and design interventions (Section 6), the study confirms the central thesis: the nomadic garden is a resilient, resident-led placemaking response to policy gaps that neglect productive urban landscapes. Successful formalization requires a dual-pronged solution combining standardized design and secured land tenure.

From this synthesis, several insights emerge that clarify both the motivations behind, and the challenges faced by, nomadic gardening practices:

• Resilience Assets: The activity is primarily motivated by deep psychological resilience factors (77% sought peace of mind). These are not merely personal preferences but serve as informal risk-mitigation mechanisms that protect the mental health of senior residents during the destabilizing shocks of urban redevelopment.
• Aesthetic and Functional Conflict: Informal practices, constrained by legal precarity (Section 5), conflict with the community’s desire for standards, tidiness, and robust infrastructure (59% cited lack of rules, 70% cited limited space; Section 4). This necessitates a hybrid aesthetic.
• Dual-Pronged Solution: The design proposal (Section 6) addresses these conflicts through:

  ○

  Design: Modular raised beds, standardized plot organization, and permanent infrastructure (water, composting).

  ○

  Policy/Governance: Formalizing tenure and institutionalizing management via a Temporary Use Agreement and a resident-led Community Garden Committee (CGC).

In essence, this study does not propose creating a new garden but legitimizes and supports the ongoing management of existing practices, transforming precarity into adaptive urban resilience.

7.1.1. Policy Implications for Adaptive Urban Governance

The synthesis of empirical findings and legal analysis reveals that nomadic gardens are not marginal anomalies, but structurally emergent responses to regulatory blind spots. Translating this adaptive capacity into durable urban resilience requires policy transformation in four interrelated domains: legal recognition, governance structure, infra-structural provision, and aesthetic reframing.

7.1.2. Legal Recognition and Tenure Security

Survey data indicate pronounced insecurity, with 89% of respondents expressing concern about potential garden removal during redevelopment processes. This anxiety mirrors the structural vulnerability described in Section 5, where land-use laws classify informal cultivation as non-compliant. Municipal policy must therefore transition from tacit tolerance to explicit recognition. Nomadic gardens should be formally acknowledged as interim productive landscapes that contribute to ecological health, social cohesion, and preventative well-being infrastructure. Legal protection must extend not only against commercial redevelopment or non-green conversion, but also against displacement by standardized ornamental landscaping that privileges aesthetic conformity over functional resilience. Without such recognition, productive landscapes remain legally invisible and perpetually precarious.

7.1.3. Community-Based Governance as Adaptive Capacity

An overwhelming 98% of respondents agreed that coordination mechanisms are necessary, and a majority favored structured, resident-led management models. This signals a high level of collective readiness for self-regulation. Policy frameworks should therefore institutionalize lightweight governance structures—such as registered resident committees or supervised self-management agreements—that formalize existing social cohesion rather than replace it. Such mechanisms align with Adaptive Urbanism principles by embedding flexibility within institutional scaffolding, transforming informal cooperation into recognized civic infrastructure.

7.1.4. Infrastructural Minimalism and Risk Mitigation

Demand for water access, tools, seating, and orderly pathways reflects not aesthetic ambition but functional necessity. The absence of basic infrastructure reinforces the perception of disorder while simultaneously limiting the gardens’ resilience capacity. Municipal intervention should prioritize minimal but strategic infrastructural provision—modular planting beds, controlled composting systems, shared water points, and permeable access paths. These measures reduce hygienic and safety concerns while preserving grassroots adaptability. Formal infrastructure thus becomes a risk-reduction instrument rather than an aesthetic imposition.

7.1.5. Reframing Aesthetics: From Ornament to Productivity

The tension between improvised materiality and formal landscaping standards reveals a deeper normative bias embedded within urban greening policy. Current frameworks privilege ornamental uniformity, rendering productive landscapes culturally legible as “disorder.” However, survey results demonstrate that residents prioritize use-value, peace of mind, and social interaction over visual conformity. Policy reform must therefore expand the definition of acceptable urban green space to include edible, provisional, and community-managed typologies. Recognizing productive cultivation as a legitimate aesthetic category is essential for bridging the policy–design gap identified in Section 5.

7.2. Broader Implications: Shifting the Paradigm

The findings from the Dashiziyuan case study provide compelling evidence for a necessary paradigm shift in how Chinese cities manage public space and citizen engagement. Similar dynamics have been documented in cities undergoing economic restructuring and land-use transition beyond China. As discussed in Section 1.1, interim-use gardens in Berlin, post-industrial cultivation initiatives in Detroit, and embedded urban agriculture systems in Havana demonstrate that resident-led productive landscapes frequently emerge under conditions of regulatory ambiguity and socio-economic stress. The Jinan case therefore reflects a broader structural pattern in which grassroots cultivation operates as a spatial response to institutional rigidity.

The proposed model suggests a shift toward Risk-Responsive Planning. Authorities must transition from dictating form to facilitating adaptive capacity. By establishing flexible standards, the city can manage sanitation and safety risks without destroying the social resilience provided by resident-led greening.

7.2.1. Shifting from Top-Down to Adaptive Urbanism

The phenomenon of nomadic gardens serves as a powerful critique of traditional, centralized urban planning, which rigidly categorizes land as either formal, maintained green space or temporary voids, failing to recognize the value of active citizen engagement. The proposed model suggests a shift toward a facilitated, flexible, Adaptive Urbanism through:

• Facilitation over Dictation: Authorities must transition from dictating the precise form and practice of public space to empowering resident-led initiatives (Section 5). This means establishing simple, flexible standards that govern outcomes (e.g., public health, access) rather than strictly controlling inputs (e.g., approved materials, precise aesthetics).
• Recognizing Spatial Agency: Informal greening is an act of spatial justice, allowing marginalized residents, particularly the elderly, to reclaim agency and cultivate urban identity. By recognizing and formalizing this bottom-up action, planning moves toward fulfilling the “right to the city” by supporting those who are often overlooked in large-scale master plans.

7.2.2. Formalizing the Productive Landscape

The spontaneous emergence of informal gardens across Chinese cities underscores the urgent need to formally recognize urban agriculture as an essential urban function, not a temporary nuisance.

By integrating modular planting systems, decentralized water access and waste management (composting), and lightweight social amenities and clear circulation pathways into municipal planning protocols, cities can:

• Ensure Secured, High-Standard Green Space: Standardized, modular systems address the community’s demand for order and cleanliness (Section 4), enabling the creation of secure, self-maintained community gardens that meet public standards without requiring heavy government investment in upkeep.
• Transform Vacant Land: This approach provides a practical tool to transform temporarily vacant or underutilized land into self-sustaining social and ecological assets, contributing to ecological health and green lifestyles as mandated by high-level national guidelines (Section 5).

This formalized approach to productive landscapes offers a scalable method for planners to reconcile policy aspirations with grassroots practices, fostering resilience and legitimacy in transitional urban spaces.

7.3. Typology: A Map of Urban Resilience

While the investigation of the Dashiziyuan community in Jinan provided an in-depth view of three closely related plots that highlight the dynamics of social organization and latent threat, field observations and photographic documentation reveal a far more complex typology of informal cultivation extending across multiple Chinese cities. This diversity underscores the necessity of a flexible, modular framework applicable across various scales and regulatory contexts. Although identified through fieldwork in Jinan, these typological variations resonate with documented forms of interim and community-led cultivation in European and North American cities, suggesting that the spectrum of land-tenure precarity and adaptive spatial negotiation observed here has broader analytical relevance.

7.3.1. Type 1: Community-Scale Residual Plots (High Social Potential, Imminent Threat)

These gardens occupy large, entire leftover parcels originally earmarked for public facilities or future redevelopment. For example, Plot 1, designated for a kindergarten project, has an official land area of ≈ 0.36 ha /3600 m². They constitute the highest potential for collective action and social organization, functioning as a de facto urban micro-commons. The observed spatial organization—a mosaic of individual vegetable beds, shared social infrastructure (e.g., seating, play areas), and improvised utility systems (water, composting)—highlights the existence of robust, resident-led governance strategies despite the absence of formal recognition (Section 5 and Section 6). The high visibility and planned alternative use define these plots as subject to the most imminent institutional threat, underscoring the need for formalized, modular interventions that can negotiate planned obsolescence (Figure 8a,b). Latent Threat: Adjacent Plots 2 and 3 (≈3250 m² each) exhibit comparable cultivation practices but, lacking current demolition notices, function as relatively stable intermediate resources, illustrating the variability of land tenure precarity (Figure 8c).

7.3.2. Type 2: Micro-Gardens at Building Edges (Individual Agency, Low Visibility)

Operating at the smallest scale, these gardens involve cultivation directly under windows, along stairwell floors, or on small terraces. These interventions (typically <1 m²) serve as vital points of personal expression and highly localized food access. The use of improvised vertical structures and localized water collection systems exemplifies site-specific design ingenuity and resourcefulness. These micro-gardens demonstrate residents’ micro-scale design intelligence and latent capacity for greening, which, with structured guidance, could be formally recognized and integrated into resilient urban greening strategies (Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11).

7.3.3. Type 3: Storefront and Threshold Gardens (Commercial Interface, Reclaimed Space)

Found predominantly in older commercial-residential blocks, these gardens manifest as small beds or containers positioned directly in front of shops. They not only enhance visual appeal and improve the microclimate but also assert the agency of business owners in appropriating underutilized urban space for multifunctional purposes. This practice strategically blurs the public–private interface, transforming a commercial façade into a productive space—such as an improvised edible terrace garden serving as a ‘green curtain’ (Figure 10). This functional reclamation challenges conventional expectations of urban ornamental landscaping (Section 4).

7.3.4. Type 4: Fence-Line and Peripheral Gardens (Adaptive Aesthetics, Transitional Margins)

These linear beds are established along compound fences or in narrow strips opposite residential walls. Their location in transitional spaces highlights an adaptive aesthetics and the process of quiet negotiation of legitimacy characteristic of nomadic gardens. Functionally and socially, these strips serve as intergenerational micro-commons, demonstrating an evolution from cautious, debris-bounded rectangles to dense, cultivated ribbons of green that often outshine adjacent formal green belts (≈ 303 m × 0.20 m to 0.55 m) (Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14).

7.3.5. Type 5: Peripheral Plots in New Developments (High Regulatory Tension, Organized Precarity)

In recently constructed compounds, residents often cultivate marginal parcels just outside formal property boundaries. Despite formal prohibitions, these plots are frequently well-organized (e.g., ≈7.78 m × 2.45 m or 205 m × 4.21 m), yet their legal precarity is high. This type mirrors the nomadic nature of the gardens by highlighting the acute tension between resilient resident initiative and stringent regulatory constraints (Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14). The high level of organization in the face of imminent clearance demonstrates the fragility of informal gardens in transitional urban spaces.

7.3.6. Type 6: Informal Riparian Gardens (Infrastructural Repurposing, Narrative Space)

These gardens emerge along the margins of disused or intermittently active stormwater channels or canals. Riparian gardens exemplify how underutilized infrastructural edges can be repurposed into productive landscapes outside formal planning frameworks. The construction of terraced plots, improvised fences, and stairs on the dry banks of a concrete-lined channel demonstrates a highly site-specific and intricate design response (Figure 11). These function as semi-public spaces fostering multi-generational engagement and exhibiting strong narrative and aesthetic qualities.

7.3.7. Type 7: Vertical Façade Gardens (Resilience and Resourcefulness)

Informal gardens also manifest vertically, with climbing vegetables and plants integrated into residential façades or walls. Even in highly regulated, exclusive compounds, vertical gardens reveal the resilience and ingenuity of informal urban cultivation by reclaiming the vertical dimension for food production and greenery (Figure 15). This practice demonstrates the surprising reach of nomadic cultivation practices into otherwise tightly controlled spaces.

These gardens occupy the narrow, consistent green strips that run alongside utility corridors or residential compound edges. Despite their modest footprint, these strips demonstrate careful spatial organization and material improvisation. This type is particularly vulnerable, as illustrated by a flourishing ecosystem along a utility corridor that was subsequently erased by necessary underground pipeline replacement works, highlighting the immediate fragility of tenure in spaces with critical infrastructure (Figure 16).

The diversity of nomadic gardens illustrates that this phenomenon is not a single typology but a flexible, adaptive urban practice. Its resilience lies in the ability to occupy highly constrained or underutilized spaces and negotiate institutional constraints. This continuum highlights that effective formalization requires a design-led framework that is modular, context-sensitive, and flexible. The eight principal garden types identified through field observation, detailing their typical locations, material characteristics, and socio-design significance, are synthesized in

Table 7. Diversity of Forms: Evidence of Scale, Shape, and Context.

Typology	Typical Location & Scale	Characteristics & Materiality	Socio-Spatial/Theoretical Significance	Risk Profile	Resilience Role
1. Community-Scale Plots	Large residual lots/courtyards within compounds (≈3000 m2).	Modular, salvaged materials, shared infrastructure (compost, water).	Functions as an Urban Micro-Commons; evidence of Collective Action and resident Governance Strategies.	High social displacement and land-use conflict risk.	Primary socio-ecological buffer; builds high collective adaptive capacity.
2. Micro-Gardens at Building Edges	Front of windows, terraces, stairwell floors (<1 m2).	Vertical planters, pots, climbing vines; highly individualized.	Manifests Micro-Scale Design Agency; contributes to Localized Resilience and aesthetic diversity.	Low visibility risk; high vulnerability to individual displacement.	Personal psychological buffer; demonstrates micro-scale spatial agency.
3. Storefront/Threshold Gardens	Commercial-residential interfaces, shop fronts.	Containers, small beds, vertical climbers; blurs property lines.	Strategic appropriation of the Public–Private Interface; enhances Business Microclimate and functional use of frontage.	Economic/commercial boundary risk; legal ambiguity of public–private interface.	Socio-economic resilience; enhances street-level microclimates and social safety.
4. Fence-Line/Peripheral Gardens	Narrow strips along fences, opposite walls (≈0.5 m wide).	Organized linear beds, hedges; exhibits adaptive aesthetics.	Transformation of Transitional Urban Space; practice of Quiet Negotiation of Legitimacy; intergenerational micro-commons.	High risk of “aesthetic policing” by municipal authorities.	Adaptive boundary management; facilitates intergenerational knowledge transmission.
5. Peripheral Plots (New)	Margins outside newer compound fences (High Visibility/Precarity).	Delineated plots, raised beds, informal fencing; meticulous organization.	Represents highest Regulatory Tension; highlights the Fragility of Informal Tenure in modern development.	High regulatory conflict and “zero-tolerance” enforcement risk.	Organized resistance to spatial vulnerability; tests the limits of formal governance.
6. Informal Riparian Gardens	Margins of disused canals/stormwater channels.	Terracing, intricate wooden/natural structures; site-specific design.	Repurposing of Infrastructural Corridors; fosters Multi-Generational Engagement; high Narrative and Aesthetic Value.	High environmental risk (flooding/pollution) and infrastructural instability.	Ecological remediation; repurposes high-risk “non-spaces” into productive assets.
7. Vertical Façade Gardens	Walls and façades of residential compounds (Vertical Dimension).	Vigorously climbing plants, minimal material investment.	Demonstrates Cultivation Resilience; successful Reclamation of Vertical Surfaces in tightly regulated spaces.	Spatial constraint risk; potential building code/safety non-compliance.	Intensive resourcefulness; maximizes resilience in hyper-dense urban environments.
8. Linear Edge Gardens	Narrow green strips alongside utility corridors.	Careful spatial organization, linear arrangement.	Evidence of Material Improvisation; extreme Vulnerability to Infrastructural Works; low-tenure security.	High infrastructural fragility; extreme vulnerability to underground utility works.	Transitional utility maximization; provides ecological connectivity in high-risk zones.

.

7.4. Typological Implications for Adaptive Urban Practice

The eight-part typology detailed in this subsection demonstrates that informal urban cultivation is not a monolithic practice but a highly differentiated, adaptive socio-spatial strategy. This continuum, ranging from large Community-Scale Plots (Type 1) to low-visibility Micro-Gardens (Type 2) and precarious Riparian Gardens (Type 6), necessitates a fundamental shift in planning frameworks.

The typological variation establishes that land tenure precarity is not uniform; instead, it operates along a measurable spectrum defined by regulatory visibility and institutional threat. For instance, highly organized plots in new developments (Type 5) face acute and imminent threat despite meticulous cultivation, whereas low-visibility interventions (Type 2) achieve spatial security through strategic camouflage and scale. This diversity challenges the simple binary of “formal” versus “informal,” revealing that these gardens constitute a continuous, active negotiation of legitimacy based on spatial maneuverability. The typology thus serves as an empirical tool for mapping the political ecology of urban land access.

The resilience inherent in this typology underscores the inadequacy of rigid, top-down planning solutions. The core finding is that effective engagement requires a modular, context-sensitive, and design-led framework that matches the intervention strategy to the garden type. For example:

• Type 1 (Community-Scale) requires formal governance support and shared modular infrastructure.
• Type 2 (Micro-Gardens) calls for policy recognition of micro-scale design intelligence and integration into flexible building codes.
• Types 4 and 8 (Edge Gardens) suggest that marginalized infrastructural strips can be officially redesignated as transitional green corridors, shifting their status from overlooked residual space to recognized ecological assets.

Ultimately, this typology provides the empirical foundation for a flexible model of urban intervention required to integrate resident-led productive landscapes, validating the necessity for design solutions that are as robustly resilient and adaptively responsive as the nomadic gardens they aim to support.

7.5. Design as the Solution: Reframing the Problem

The analysis demonstrates that the primary challenge of nomadic gardens does not lie in gardening itself—which is socially, ecologically, and culturally valuable—but in how informal practices materialize in urban space. Improvised boundaries, eclectic containers, and ad hoc fences, while highly resourceful and reflective of grassroots resilience, often appear “messy” or “unhygienic” to municipal authorities. This reinforces the perception that informal gardens hinder modernization.

Through a design-oriented lens, the tension is entirely reframed: the ‘messiness’ of informal gardens is a functional vulnerability caused by a lack of infrastructure. The issue is not gardening but the policy-induced risk of neglect.

This study positions nomadic gardens as transitional design assets. By providing modular, standardized systems, design becomes the decisive tool for mitigating urban risk and granting these practices a legitimate, stabilized place within the official urban fabric.

This study positions nomadic gardens as a design challenge, highlighting opportunities for modular, flexible, and socially oriented infrastructures that:

• Organize space visually through standardized planting systems (e.g., modular raised beds).
• Integrate essential services such as water access, tool storage, and composting.
• Align with broader urban sustainability goals and existing high-level policy frameworks.

The future of China’s nomadic gardens will be determined not by repression or passive tolerance, but by design. By recognizing nomadic gardens as transitional design assets rather than policy failures, urban authorities can transform them into prototypes of adaptive urbanism, where design becomes the decisive tool for granting them visibility, stability, and a legitimate place within the official urban fabric.

7.6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Several limitations highlight opportunities for future investigation:

• Longitudinal Governance Study: The long-term effectiveness of the CGC model remains untested. Future studies should examine succession, conflict resolution, and financial sustainability over 5–10 years.
• Economic Valuation of Social Capital: Further research should quantify social capital generated by community gardens (e.g., reduced healthcare costs, increased community trust) to justify policy and financial support.
• Replicability Across City Tiers: The case study is a mid-tier city; future work should evaluate applicability in Tier 1 cities (e.g., Shanghai, Shenzhen) and Tier 4 cities with differing demographics and land pressures.

Addressing these research avenues will be essential to fully integrate design-led legitimacy into urban policy, ultimately informing a scalable, evidence-based model for Adaptive Urbanism across diverse urban contexts.

7.7. Discussion: Limitations

This study is limited to one residential compound in Jinan and reflects the demo-graphic composition of that site, which includes a high proportion of elderly residents. The findings therefore illuminate context-specific dynamics rather than offering national statistical representation. However, the recurrence of similar informal cultivation practices in older Chinese residential neighborhoods suggests structural patterns worthy of broader comparative study. Future research may examine newly built neighborhoods to assess whether adaptive policy frameworks could formally incorporate such productive landscapes at earlier stages of urban development.

8. Conclusions

This study has examined the phenomenon of nomadic gardens in Changqing District, Jinan—a rapidly urbanizing peripheral district shaped by transitional land-use dynamics—and argues that informal, resident-led gardening constitutes a form of adaptive capacity rather than an expression of spatial disorder.

Through the triangulation of fieldwork, survey data, and legal–policy analysis, the research identifies a systemic resilience gap rooted in rigid land-use categorization. This gap marginalizes productive landscapes and generates socio-spatial vulnerability in transitional residential environments.

By reframing the issue through a design and governance lens, the study positions nomadic gardens as adaptive urban assets and socio-ecological buffers. Modular, flexible infrastructures—such as standardized planting systems, decentralized water access, and shared amenities—offer pathways for legitimizing these practices and integrating them into formal risk-mitigation strategies that support community well-being and social stability.

The proposed Adaptive Urbanism framework advances a pragmatic strategy for transitional risk management. Formal recognition, combined with resident-led governance mechanisms, can shift nomadic gardens from precarious sites of regulatory ambiguity into structured yet flexible components of urban resilience systems.

While the findings are derived from a single case study and reflect the demographic structure of one compound, the recurrence of similar cultivation practices in older Chinese neighborhoods suggests broader structural dynamics observable in cities experiencing rapid economic restructuring and regulatory transition. Future research may examine newly built neighborhoods to assess how adaptive policy frameworks could integrate productive landscapes at earlier stages of development.

Beyond legal precarity, nomadic gardens also face a demographic vulnerability. The practice is sustained primarily by older residents who retain embodied agricultural knowledge and cultural familiarity with cultivation. As generational transitions accelerate and redevelopment reshapes neighborhood demographics, this informal knowledge system risks erosion. Without institutional embedding in planning and design frameworks, such practices may re-cede—not due to a lack of social value, but due to an absence of structural continuity mechanisms. Integrating productive landscapes into future green-space design is therefore not an act of nostalgic preservation but a strategic effort to transmit locally embedded adaptive practices into emerging urban generations.

Ultimately, the sustainability of nomadic gardens depends not on tolerance alone but on calibrated institutional recognition. By aligning legal frameworks, design standards, and community governance, cities may transform informal adaptive practices into durable contributions to resilient urban futures.