Studies on human-nature interaction are growing and their relevance is increasing in the context of urbanisation (Martin et al., 2020; Knez et al., 2018; McMahan, 2018; Cervinka et al., 2012). The significance of urban gardens as elements of nearby nature within cities has long been acknowledged (Kaplan et al., 1998; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Gardening is one of the most popular and favored practices and leisure activities in different geographic contexts and societies (Chalmin-Pui et al., 2021; Church et al., 2014). Diverse benefits of urban gardening have been recorded, including increased food security (Corrigan, 2011; Wang et al., 2014), supplementing family budget especially in times of economic hardship (Church et al., 2015), improving health and well-being of gardeners (Biglin, 2020; Cabral et al., 2017; Koay and Dillon, 2020; Pálsdóttir et al., 2021), social interactions (Nordh et al., 2016), positive impact on community development and citizen activation (Armstrong, 2000; Kingsley et al., 2020; Passidomo, 2016; Slavuj Borčić et al., 2016).

The current body of literature concerning community urban gardening and urban agriculture is largely composed of research from North America (Guitart et al., 2012; Ilieva et al., 2022). There is a notable gap in understanding the benefits of urban gardening in regions experiencing economic and social transition, such as those in Southeast Europe, where home gardens have traditionally been the primary form of urban agriculture. Moreover, the focus of the contemporary research on urban gardening is particularly strong on its collective forms – allotment and community gardens. Allotment gardens are separate parcels of land in one place allocated to individuals or households for personal use (Drescher et al., 2006). Community gardens prioritize shared space, giving them a more pronounced public and democratic character compared to allotment gardens, though individual plots may exist for personal use (Bell, 2016; Firth et al., 2011). Far less studies have been conducted on home gardens, despite their significant spatial representation and exceptional resilience (Taylor and Lovell, 2014).

A significant amount of research has focused on the connection between the garden as a natural environment and human health and well-being (Biglin, 2020; de Bell et al., 2020; Pálsdóttir, 2014; Pálsdóttir et al., 2018; Pitt, 2014; Stigsdotter and Grahn, 2002; Ulrich, 1999; van den Berg et al., 2010; Vujčić, 2018). Empirical studies indicate that, overall, contact with nature is associated with a wide range of psychological and physical benefits for humans (Jimenez et al., 2021; White et al., 2021; McMahan, 2018; Cervinka et al., 2012; Hartig et al., 2011; Berman et al., 2008; Pretty et al., 2007; Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Studies suggest that horticultural activities in the garden have a particularly positive effect on life satisfaction (Waliczek et al., 2005), subjective well-being (McMahan, 2018), mental health and stress-related disorders (Pálsdóttir, 2014; Pálsdóttir et al., 2018; Vujčić, 2018).

According to Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), there are four characteristics of human-environment interaction that contribute to a restorative experience, including being away, extent, fascination, and compatibility. This theory suggests that spending time in natural environments or settings with “soft fascination” can help restore mental fatigue and improve attention and cognitive function. It proposes that nature provides a restorative effect on individuals, allowing them to recover and renew their cognitive resources. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) noted that gardening research provides the most direct evidence of soft fascination in nearby nature. Gardens offer a rich source of soft fascination including the interplay of light and shadow, and varying moods of nature influenced by changes in weather and seasons. Soft fascination can come from activities as well. Practice of gardening is considered “mind-filling” – it doesn't overpower one's thoughts and it allows for reflection (Kaplan et al., 1998, p. 69).

Occupational science provides a more profound insight into human activities and their connection to human well-being. It takes perspective of humans as occupational beings (Yerxa, 2000) having people spend their lives continuously engaged in purposeful “doing” even when it is not their obligation or necessity (Wilcock, 1998, as cited in Wilcock, 1999). However, occupation does not only mean a person's active action and work, but also states that are seemingly passive and include the dimensions of “being”, “belonging” and “becoming” (Hammell, 2014; Hitch et al., 2014; Hitch and Pepin, 2021). A balance between “doing” and “being” is central to human health and well-being (Wilcock, 1999). Community gardens are environments in which a range of occupations can be performed that include not only gardening but also interactions with other people and the wider ecosystem (Ong et al., 2019).

To explore how gardens' natural environment supports tangible and intangible benefits and how practices, through which people interact with the environment, help create meaningful places, some concepts seem particularly important. The concept of place attachment that Low and Altman (1992) defined as an affective bond that connects people with places, refers to an emotional relationship with place. In his study of space, Tuan (1979) focused on people's feelings and experiences of space. By experiences, he meant different ways through which we come to know the world: our senses (feelings), perception, and conception. Furthermore, he distinguished between “public symbols” – places that have a visual impact on people and provoke awe, and “fields of care” – places that we get to know through the senses of smell, taste, hearing and touch, that require time and prolonged experience, and evoke a feeling of affection. A similar perspective on the time dimension is shared by other authors, such as Relph (2002, p. 103) saying that genius loci take time to evolve and are created by those who live and work in places and who take care of them. By nature, gardens are “fields of care”, places that require human presence and attention, and also time to develop – time is needed to plant, nurture, weed, water and harvest the garden. Also, to enjoy it.

We can assume that gardening as a place-based practice can help create places of connection: connection to other people, connection to nature, and connection to self (Wheeler et al., 2016). In this context it may be relevant to explore how practice of gardening can support creation of social capital. The concept of social capital refers to the “social structures, institutions and shared values” that shape communities (Firth et al., 2011, p. 557). Several studies have investigated the role of community gardening in creating and fostering the social capital (Chitov, 2006; Firth et al., 2011; Kingsley et al., 2020). The study conducted by Firth et al. (2011) found that community gardens generate social capital through four key mechanisms: by bringing people together for a shared purpose, engaging in joint activities or ventures; by establishing a communal meeting place where people can gather and interact; through activities like growing, cooking, and sharing food that allow informal interactions among individuals of various ages, ethnicities, and socio-economic backgrounds; by building external connections with institutions and authorities, providing access to resources.

In Southeast European countries, following the societal and political shifts in the last decade of the 20th century, economic hardships were the main driver behind urban agriculture, acting as a “social safety net” for poorer households and providing supplementary food for middle-income families (Chisholm, 1996; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Yoveva et al., 2000; Yoveva and Mishev, 2001). Examples from Tirana, Albania (Chisholm, 1996; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000), and cities in Bulgaria (Yoveva et al., 2000; Yoveva and Mishev, 2001), illustrate this trend. A parallel scenario unfolded in Belgrade and other Serbian cities, where home gardens assumed an important role in food production during this period (Čepić, 2022; Čepić and Tomićević-Dubljević, 2017).

Three decades later, home gardens remain the dominant form of urban agriculture in Belgrade, whereas other collective forms of gardening are also present (Cepic et al., 2020). This article identifies three main types of gardens based on individual or collective use, proximity to residences, and plot ownership status: home gardens, garden colonies, and a community garden. Brief descriptions of each garden type are provided in the following paragraph.

Home gardens are sections of the property where typically one or more household members grow fruits, vegetables, and herbs in close proximity to the house. They are usually found in the outer and peripheral city zones, characterized by single-family housing, and range from 15 m2 to 800 m2 in size (Čepić, 2022) (Fig. 1). Garden colonies in Belgrade are old informal allotment gardens created in the second half of the twentieth century. Residents of newly constructed apartment buildings at that time took over nearby vacant land, dividing it into individual garden plots (Čepić et al., 2022). Typically, these lands were owned by large state enterprises. Garden colonies are distributed throughout the city near collective housing areas. There is no formal organization of gardeners or regulated right of use (Čepić et al., 2022; Djokić et al., 2018) (Fig. 2). Community garden “Baštalište" is formally organized and managed by an association of gardeners. Founded in 2013 by two non-governmental organizations, “Baštalište" features 21 individual plots, communal areas, a tool shed, and water containers, with individual plots of 36 m2 in size (Čepić, 2022) (Fig. 3).

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of the human-nature interactions in urban gardens as places of nearby nature in cities. More specifically, the aim is to explore the benefits derived from these interactions as perceived by participants in the city of Belgrade in Serbia through a qualitative research approach. The research is limited to productive, edible gardens. For the purpose of the study, urban gardens are defined as open green spaces in the city where individuals or groups of citizens grow fruits, vegetables, herbs, and/or flowers, on publicly or privately owned land, for their own use or less frequently - for sale. By including both collective and home gardens in the study, the paper aims to achieve an inclusive in-depth understanding of the practice of gardening, rather than focusing on the specificities of different garden types. Finally, the study aims to expand the geographic scope of the research by examining the case of the city in a Southeast European context.