Amsterdam’s urban food system knows a painful paradox of food insecurity and food waste. BuurtBuik’s community kitchen cooks free meals of surplus food while creating opportunities for social contact. This research examined how participating in BuurtBuik as a guest is related to guests’ perceptions of social cohesion in the community kitchen and the wider neighbourhood.
Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, the study combined a survey (n = 33) with two focus groups (n = 9) to provide contextual depth. A multidimensional, multi-level perspective on social cohesion was operationalised to measure and compare perceptions of social cohesion at two levels (community kitchen and neighbourhood) of guests of BuurtBuik Jordaan. Their personal circumstances and their reasons for joining were also considered.
The findings indicated that BuurtBuik can be seen as a socially cohesive “third place”. Guests’ valued aspects such as acceptance, respect for shared rules, and trust. Social and relational motivations for joining were associated with stronger social cohesion perceptions in the community kitchen, while pragmatic or moral reasons were valued less and were not associated. Culinary conviviality seemed to play a key role in strengthening social cohesion. Neighbourhood social cohesion was significantly lower, but half of the guests reported improvements in this due to participating in BuurtBuik, especially in social networks and participation. Effects were stronger for regular and nearby residents, and factors such as income, food companionship at home, and consistent table partners at BuurtBuiks also played a role. This indicated that social cohesion and its improvements were not experienced evenly by all guests.
Limitations included the cross-sectional design and small sample, restricting generalisability and causality. The study contributes to science through operationalising a theoretical framework on social cohesion that includes the deeper components of this ‘catch-all’ concept. It contributes to literature on “more than food aid” by positioning community kitchens as both social infrastructure and food provision. Practically sustaining culinary conviviality through funding and volunteer training could strengthen the social outcomes of BuurtBuik. Still, food aid initiatives such as BuurtBuik should be seen as a temporary relief rather than a structural solution to food insecurity. Future research could include a longitudinal and comparative research design. A qualitative direction could be on the ‘invisible’ rules of culinary conviviality and how the usage of surplus food may be experienced differently across groups.
Keywords: community kitchen, social cohesion, neighbourhood, commensality, food insecurity