Page 1

THESIS REPORT

URBAN AGRICULTURE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

Lobke Jansen

Jimmy Wolf


THESIS REPORT

URBAN AGRICULTURE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

June 2nd 2010, Zwolle/Amersfoort

AUTHORS Jimmy Wolf, 2410137 Lobke Jansen, 2409555

STUDY Urban and regional planning

COACH Mr. H. Hacco没, Saxion University of Applied Sciences ASSESOR Mrs. G. Stegeman, Saxion University of Applied Sciences

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the authors.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

2


Management summary This thesis report is about urban agriculture and is mainly divided into adaptation measures and the mitigation effects of urban agriculture on global warming. We devoted the first chapter to form a good picture about urban agriculture and the connection between the adaptation and mitigation effects. Both positive and negative aspects will be mentioned and to get a visual idea how urban agriculture looks like there will be given a few case studies where it is already implemented. To compare these case studies for adaptation effects and mitigation effects on global warming we need a type of rating system, which allows us to rate the different case studies subjectively. The mitigation effects on global warming are divided in labels which contain the improvement in air quality, energy cut down for local apartments and the ability to hold water. The adaptation effects are measured in the social effects, the economic effects and the organization effects. By scoring different ratings on the different labels you already get a good indication of which type of urban agriculture has got the most advantages, but this is not exact enough to give a good prediction. Therefore we need a second rating system to get a good measure. Because the labels are not all of the same importance to the success of urban agriculture so we divided these labels in different weighting factors and composed a multicriteria-analyses. The difference in weighting factors are indicated and explained in this multicriteria-analyses table. From this point on we have 2 different indications how to get a good rating on the different case studies and point out the best case studies for this thesis. By these 2 calculations (these can be found in chapter 2.3) we composed our own final rating for these case studies which are shown on the lower left corner of every case study. After rating 5 different case studies, the most sufficient type of urban agriculture is rooftop gardening. The greatest advantage of rooftop gardening is that it reduces energy usage and it has many social benefits in comparison to other types of urban agriculture. At this moment it is of importance to find a suited location to implement rooftop gardening. We chose a representative city for the Netherlands and the most suitable city is Amersfoort, because of its size, inhabitants and sustainability. The municipality of Amersfoort is also busy with the “Amersfoort vernieuwt� program, which means they will rebuild and renew great parts of the city. An area called Schuilenburg is the most suited because it has many flat rooftops and low income inhabitants. There will be done a research how rooftop gardening will implement in this part of town. Finally this thesis will result in an advice. Here we will reflect on our own findings and give advice about why urban agriculture should be implemented, how it can be implemented and other points of interest.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

3


Preface After completing the theoretical part of our study in spatial planning, it was time to start thinking about an educative, challenging, unique and most of all interesting project to research before we could receive our degrees in spatial planning. While searching for such a suitable project we both discovered that we were especially interested in climate change and the impacts it has on the Dutch society and landscape. Because of this mutual interest we decided to work together but we still didn’t have an object to study and research. During conversations and interviews with Huib Haccoû we found out that Dutch spatial planning has a huge influence and responsibility in climate proofing the Netherlands. Huib Haccoû advised us to look at urban agriculture/agriculture to learn if we liked a project in this direction. After watching some YouTube films and reading a few articles we decided to take on this project and we plunged ourselves into the world of climate change and urban agriculture/agriculture. After a rough start defining and shaping the project we eventually took off with a clear goal and task division. During the project we were part of the informative climate classes organized by Huib Haccoû. These classes were always very informative and we could help others solving or helping out with their problems during the researches which, of course, they did for us too. Because we did not have a working environment but researched mostly at home, it was very challenging to keep our minds focused. It’s easily to get distracted when there is nobody watching you. Luckily, we were able to motivate each other so we managed to keep more or less to our time planning. Working together has turned out well for us and it gave an extra dimension to the research. We were constantly able to discuss the project and test each other.

The past five months have resulted in this report. We hope it is everything which is expected. Last but not least we want to thank a few people who contributed to our research.

Prof. H. Haccoû Dr. G. Stegeman Dr. M. Beguin Mr. W. Oxener Mr. B. Blijleven Dr. J. Klostermann Dr. ir. A. Dieleman Ir. L. Heutink Ing. E. van Groningen Ing. W. Kuijper The climate class

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

Coach Owner of Haccoû Consulting & Design Course Director International Master Program Coordinator International Cooperation External environmental advisor Landscape architect Urban planner Researcher governance of climate adaptation DLO-researcher Livestock researcher Developer food strategy Amersfoort Conceptual planner Owner of Zooow! Building formats

Saxion University of Applied Sciences Saxion University of Applied Sciences Municipality of Amersfoort Municipality of Amersfoort Municipality of Amersfoort Wageningen UR Wageningen UR Wageningen UR Stichting Eemstad Lab

Students of Saxion University

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

4


Table of content ABBREVIATIONS

9

INTRODUCTION

10

THE PROBLEM CONSEQUENCES POSSIBILITIES RESEARCH APPROACH READING INDICATOR

10 10 11 11 11

1 URBAN AGRICULTURE: THEORETICALLY

12

1.1 URBAN AGRICULTURE 1.1.1 THE BENEFITS AND NECESSITY OF URBAN AGRICULTURE 1.1.2 THE DISADVANTAGES/BOTTLENECKS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE 1.1.3 TYPES OF URBAN AGRICULTURE 1.2 MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 1.2.1 THE BENEFITS AND NECESSITY OF MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 1.2.2 LONG TERM MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 1.2.3 EU AND NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK 1.3 ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE 1.3.1 THE BENEFITS AND NECESSITY OF ADAPTATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 1.3.2 SHORT TERM ADAPTATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 1.3.3 EU AND NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK 1.4 MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE VS. ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE 1.4.1 COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES 1.4.2 INTERFERENCE IN PRACTICE 1.5 CONCLUSIONS

12 12 13 13 13 14 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 20

2 URBAN AGRICULTURE: METHODICALLY

21

2.1 MITIGATION 2.1.1 AIR LABEL 2.1.2 ENERGY LABEL 2.1.3 WATER LABEL 2.2 ADAPTATION 2.2.1 SOCIAL CAPITAL 2.2.2 ECONOMIC LABEL 2.2.3 ORGANIZATION LABEL 2.3 MULTICRITERIA-ANALYSES 2.3.1 LABELS 2.3.2 MULTICRITERIA-ANALYSES

21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 25

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

5


2.3.4 FINAL SCORE

25

3 URBAN AGRICULTURE: PRACTICALLY

27

3.1 CASE STUDY 1: ROOFTOP GARDENING IN ST. PETERSBURG. 3.1.1 FACTSHEET 3.1.2 SUB CONCLUSION 3.2 CASE STUDY 2: ALLOTMENT AND COMMUNITY GARDENING IN LONDON 3.2.1 FACTSHEET 3.2.2 SUB CONCLUSION 3.3 CASE STUDY 3: URBAN FARMS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3.3.1 FACTSHEET 3.3.2 SUB CONCLUSION 3.4 CASE STUDY 4: BACKYARD GARDENING AND GREENHOUSE ROOFTOPS IN THE GAZA-STRIP 3.4.1 FACTSHEET 3.4.2 SUB CONCLUSION 3.5 CASE STUDY 5: COMMUNITY GARDENING IN HAVANA 3.5.1 FACT SHEET 3.5.2 SUB CONCLUSION 3.6 CONCLUSION

27 27 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33

4 URBAN AGRICULTURE ON ROOFTOPS: PRACTICALLY ADVANCED

34

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 4.1.1 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 4.1.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 4.1.3 WATER 4.2 SOCIAL BENEFITS 4.2.1 HEALTH 4.2.2 RECREATION 4.2.3 EDUCATION 4.2.4 PARTICIPATION 4.2.5 COHESION 4.2.6 SAFETY 4.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS 4.3.1 (SELF)EMPLOYMENT 4.3.2 FOOD SECURITY 4.3.3 DURABILITY 4.3.4 VALUE INCREASE 4.4 CHALLENGES 4.4.1 QUANTIFICATION BENEFITS 4.4.2 CONSTRUCTION 4.4.3 ACCESSIBILITY 4.4.4 COSTS

34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

6


5 URBAN AGRICULTURE: APPLIED IN AMERSFOORT

39

5.1 PLACEMENT IN AMERSFOORT 5.1.1 AREA OF CHOICE 5.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF AREA 5.2 SPATIAL NEEDS AND EFFECTS 5.2.1 SPATIAL NEEDS 5.2.2 EFFECTS 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5.3.1 AIR QUALITY 5.3.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 5.3.3 WATER ABSORPTION 5.4 SOCIAL EFFECTS 5.4.1 HEALTH 5.4.2 EDUCATION 5.4.3 RECREATION 5.4.4 PARTICIPATION 5.4.5 COHESION 5.4.6 SAFETY 5.5 ECONOMICAL EFFECTS 5.5.1 (SELF)EMPLOYMENT 5.5.2 FOOD SECURITY 5.5.3 SHARE IN MARKETS 5.5.4 DURABILITY 5.5.5 VALUE INCREASE 5.5.6 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 5.6 LEGAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION 5.6.1 STAKEHOLDERS 5.6.2 BASIS 5.6.3 INVOLVEMENT GOVERNMENT 5.6.4 POLICIES 5.6.5 COMMUNICATION AND AWARENESS

39 39 39 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 44

6 URBAN AGRICULTURE: ADVISE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

45

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

45 45 46 47 47

WHY URBAN AGRICULTURE? WHY ROOFTOP GARDENING? WHERE TO IMPLEMENT URBAN AGRICULTURE? HOW TO IMPLEMENT URBAN AGRICULTURE? RECOMMENDATIONS

LIST OF DEFINITIONS

48

LIST OF FIGURES

50

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

7


LIST OF SOURCES

51

LITERATURE (BOOKS) INTERNET PUBLICATIONS (PDF, ARTICLES) INTERVIEWS

51 51 52 56

APPENDIX 1 CASE STUDIES

57

APPENDIX 2 INTERVIEWS

71

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

8


Abbreviations AR4 CO2 EU FAO GHG’s IPCC KNMI MCA ppm TAR UA UNFCCC WHO WMO

Assessment report 4 Carbon dioxide European Union Food agriculture organization of the united nations Greenhouse gasses Intergovernmental panel on climate change Royal Dutch meteorological institute Multi-criteria analysis Parts per million Third assessment report Urban agriculture United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change World health organization World Meteorological Organization

At page 48 a list of definitions with definitions used in this report can be found.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

9


Introduction It is beyond doubt: the climate is changing globally. The inevitable effects of this change are visible, today and in the future. Temperatures in the Netherlands have increased over the last decades more than the worldwide 1 average . Therefore it’s necessary that mankind learns to live differently and make the world climate-proof. 2 This way the effects of climate change can be altered .

The problem 3

Since the last century the climate is changing. This time not only due to natural, predictable climate variability th which occurs constantly but also because of human influence. Over the 20 century global economies have industrialized and grown more than 40 times their original size. As an effect the need and use of energy began 4 to rise . This resulted into a much higher concentration of greenhouse gas (GHG’s) emissions in the atmosphere. For example the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by 80% between 1970 and 2004 and 5 GHG emissions grew by 70% between 1970 and 2004 . Due to these increased emissions mankind is the cause of a predicted temperature increase of 1,1 to 6,4 1 degrees Celsius this century . This temperature increase has also consequences such as increased rainfall and a 5 sea level rise of 18-59 cm . These consequences occur due to the build-up of GHG’s in the atmosphere. GHG’s 4 absorb some of the outgoing heat radiation and reradiate it back to the earth’s surface . Therefore climate change is also known as global warming.

Consequences The increasing temperature, the increasing rainfall and the rising sea level are the major changes in the climate. The effects of climate change differ from region to region. Over a decade ago the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been introduced to consider possibilities on how to stabilize and reduce global warming by reducing the emission of GHG’s and to cope with an inevitable temperature increase. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty joined by a majority of the countries. The treaty has been extended by the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been developed from its origin in Japan in 1997 to 6 entering into force in 2005. Currently 187 countries have signed and ratified the Protocol. The objective is a global GHG reduction of 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2012. All members of the European Union (EU) have signed the protocol. Because the EU wants to decrease their emission of GHG's by 8%, the contribution to this decrease has been determined per member. A large part, 70%, of these emissions occur in cities on the European continent. A great factor in the amount a member has to decrease is found in economical status. The Netherlands have to decrease their emission by 6%. 1 The main climate consequences for the Netherlands will result in : • • • • •

1

Frequently extremely warmer and dryer summers. More frequent and heavier rainfall. Increasing peak discharges of the rivers. Decreasing biodiversity because of adapting or migrating plants and animal species. Changes in agricultural and tourist sectors (positive and negative).

Source: Source: 3 Reference: 4 Source: 5 Source: 6 Source: 2

Netherlands Environment Assesment Agency, 2005. The effects of climate change in the Netherlands. Minister of VROM Mrs. Cramer, 2009. Speech at International Urban Planning Congress Amsterdam. Glossary page …. http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_global_warming.php IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report. http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

10


Possibilities Theoretically there are two fundamental response strategies on climate change; adaptation and mitigation. 7 Adaptation aims to alleviate impacts, such as an inevitable three degree Celsius temperature increase , through various actions. Mitigation on the other hand is a strategy to limit climate change by reducing greenhouse 8 gasses (GHG) and developing ‘sink’ opportunities . The Dutch government uses both climate mitigation and adaptation in order to prevent and adapt to the climate changes. The biggest challenge in making the Netherlands climate-proof is to alter spatial planning. The living environment has to be adjusted and/or changed in order to accommodate the effects of climate change and to enable for measures to enhance the climate proofness of cities in the Netherlands. Though there are several possibilities to adjust spatial planning in the Netherlands this research will focus on urban agriculture. Urban agriculture is the use of space in the city for the production of a diversity of food and non-food products. This 9 lies in a range of vegetable gardens to greenhouses on rooftops . Fact: 10 50% of the world’s population lives in cities.

Research approach The research aim is to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the relation between spatial planning and climate change, by focusing on the contribution what urban agriculture can bring as an adaptation and mitigation strategy, thus contributing to a climate neutral urban development strategy. The main question of this research is: ‘To what degree can various types of urban agriculture contribute to climate neutralizing urban development in a representative Dutch city regarding the improvement of environmental, social and economic aspects.' The sub research questions are: • What is urban agriculture, what are the benefits and difficulties? • What is climate change and adaptation and mitigation of climate change? • How are climate change and urban agriculture related? • How can we define and analyze several case study on relevance and applicability? • Which case study is best applicable and what are the benefits and difficulties of this case study? • What is a representative Dutch city which can serve as a test case for urban agriculture? • What are the consequences of the urban agriculture case on the representative city? • How can it best be implemented?

Research intention This thesis is intended to be used within a municipal organization in order to establish knowledge concerning urban agriculture and the possibilities it has. It is meant to raise awareness. This thesis is especially meant for the department of urban development and management, section environmental services of the Amersfoort municipality.

Reading indicator This research has been divided into five chapters. The first chapter is a theoretical chapter to further explain urban agriculture, climate adaptation and climate mitigation to give a more complete picture how these aspects will be used. The second chapter introduces a method to rate different types of urban agriculture through the use of labels and a multicriteria-analyses. In the third chapter several case studies will be rated by the method explained in chapter two and concludes in a final score. The fourth chapter gives advanced information about the benefits of the best case study. Chapter five presents the best case study and how this type of urban agriculture could be applied in the representative city. The sixth and final chapter results in conclusions and recommendations. 7 8

9

Source: Source: Source: Source:

10

IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report. Fussel, H. R.J.T. Klein. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Interview Huib Haccoû, 2010 Brook, R., J. Davila. 2000. The Peri-Urban Interface: A tale of two cities.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

11


1

Urban agriculture:

theoretically

The term urban agriculture is for most people not hard to understand. The shortest explanation available is the term itself, which indicates agriculture in an urban area. Therefore a lot of people think to have a clear picture about what urban agriculture actually is, but do not think about other possibilities like different types of urban agriculture, benefits and disadvantages. To make it even more complicated, these aspects can be separated in mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Both different ways of closing in on urban agriculture have benefits and disadvantages. This chapter provides necessary theory on urban agriculture, mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

1.1

Urban agriculture

There have been many different definitions of urban agriculture offered in the growing literature of urban agriculture. The current definition that is widely accepted by international organizations as the UNFCCC and IPCC is created in 1999 and is still being used today. This definition is: "Urban Agriculture is an industry located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, an urban centre, a city or metropolis, which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food products, reusing mainly human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban 11 area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area" . This definition has been created by Luc Mougeot of the International Development Research Centre and used in technical and training publications by UN-HABITAT’s Urban Management Program , FAO’ s Special Program for Food Security and international agricultural research centers. Fact: 12 800 million people are involved in urban agriculture world-wide and contribute to feeding urban residents. 1.1.1 The benefits and necessity of urban agriculture The benefits that urban agriculture brings along to cities that implement this practice are numerous. The transformation of cities from only consumers of food to generators of agricultural products contributes to social, economical and environmental benefits. A summary of benefits for urban agriculture: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

11

Source:

12

Source:

Urban agriculture raises the air quality. Urban agriculture saves energy. Urban agriculture has water absorbing abilities. Urban agriculture improves social engagement and awareness. Urban agriculture improves health conditions. Urban agriculture improves levels of food security and availability. Urban agriculture improves the quality of the urban environment through greening. Urban agriculture assists to close the open loop system in urban areas characterized by the importation of food from rural zones and the exportation of waste to regions outside the city or town. Wastewater and organic solid waste can be transformed into resources for growing agriculture products: the former can be used for irrigation, the latter as fertilizer. Vacant urban areas can be used for agriculture production. Other natural resources can be conserved. The use of wastewater for irrigation increases the availability of freshwater for drinking and household consumption. Urban agriculture can help to preserve bioregional ecologies from being transformed into cropland. Local production of food also allows savings in transportation costs, storage, and in product loss, what results in food cost reduction.

Mougeot, L.J.A. 2005. Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. FAO. 1999. Urban and peri-urban agriculture.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

12


1.1.2 The disadvantages/bottlenecks of urban agriculture Most disadvantages of urban agriculture originates due to the lifestyle of most inhabitants of the urban areas. Growing your own vegetables requires dedication to look after the vegetables every day and knowledge how to 13 grow the vegetables. A summary of disadvantages/bottlenecks concerning urban agriculture: • • •

A lot of people which live in urban areas have limited knowledge how to grow vegetables properly. A lot of people don't have the time available to grow their own vegetables. As a basic rule: bigger projects equal more anonymity which degrades the social aspect of urban agriculture. The difference between growing your own food and buying it in the supermarket does not have great economical profit. Urban agriculture needs a lot of promotion and communication. There are seasons in which same kinds of vegetables can be yielded. The price for these vegetables is low and cannot be traded because everyone yields them at the same time. It is possible to deepfreeze or waking (short boil, put it in an airtight jar) the vegetables. Urban agriculture can be sensitive for vandalism. It is almost impossible to provide a city 100% by the use of urban agriculture.

• • • •

1.1.3 Types of urban agriculture Urban agriculture can be used for a great variety of purposes. Some types of urban agriculture are used on a large, commercial scale and produce and maintain a variety of vegetables and livestock. On the other hand there are small scale types of urban agriculture which are used as vegetable gardens and produce only a small amount of vegetables. The research is limited to small scale (district or neighborhood) urban agriculture with vegetable production. Due to the limited scale level the following types of urban agriculture are researched: • • •

Rooftop gardening City farms Community gardening

• •

Allotment gardening Greenhouse gardening

The types of urban agriculture which are excluded are types which are used commercially and those which maintain livestock, produce trees and aquatic farming.

1.2

Mitigation of climate change

According to the English dictionary mitigation means relief. In a climate context mitigation means relieving pressure on nature by reducing or eliminating GHG’s such as CO2, in other words the environmental effects. These aspects will be divided into air quality, energy efficiency and water absorption. The definition of climate mitigation which will be used during this research is: Any adjustment that permanently eliminates or reduces the human causes of long term risks of climate change 14 such as the emission of greenhouse gasses and enhancing sink opportunities . The long-term risks of climate changes are mostly unknown, but there are several predictions concerning the consequences of rising GHG concentrations in the atmosphere such as a sea level rise and more extreme weather conditions. A more extreme example is the planet Venus, where global warming is totally out of control. This tells us that there is no natural limit to global warming. A more exact prediction of the raise in temperature in combination with CO2 emissions is the table on page 14 about long term mitigation. There are a few primary GHG’s in the Earth’s atmosphere both anthropogenic as natural. These are: • Water vapor (H2O) • Carbon dioxide (CO2) • Nitrous oxide (N2O) • Methane (CH4) • Ozone (O3) This research will focus on the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). The definition also includes sink opportunities which is any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere. 13 14

Source: Source:

Interview municipality of Amersfoort: Willem Oxener, landscape architect. Appendix 2 IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

13


1.2.1 The benefits and necessity of mitigation of climate change The necessity of mitigation of climate change is the rapid growth of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The growth in many sectors are growing exponentially and will continue to do that if there are no actions taken. Adaptation is part of the solution, but we need to eliminate or reduce the human caused greenhouse gasses for a long term solution to live on this planet. Fact: By 2015 about 26 cities in the world are expected to have a population of 10 million or more. To feed a city of 15 this size – at least 6000 tons of food must be imported each day. 16

The largest sector which is polluting the atmosphere are emissions caused by fuel combustions (79%) as can be seen in figure 1. How much fossil fuels are used for transportation and how much could be saved by urban agriculture is illustrated with the next example: ‘Fossil fuel use for transportation generates about a third of global carbon dioxide emissions, and global trade alone accounts for 1/8 of world energy use. Much international and intra-national transportation is foodrelated. In the industrial world a typical mouthful of food travels 2000 km from farm gate to consumer. Even in relatively tiny Britain, food related transport accounts for 25% of all trips. Thus, local food production for local consumption has considerable potential to reduce the need for transportation and thus the rate of atmospheric 17 CO2 accumulation and possible climate change’ . A big part of the pollution created by the combustion of fossil fuels could be eliminated by the use of urban agriculture. Because the distance between farm gate and consumer is shortened and therefore less transport is needed. When urban agriculture is used in combination with energy saving and energy delivering options the CO2 emissions will be reduced even further. An option could be rooftop gardening or greenhouse gardening. Chapter four will continue on the possibilities of several types of urban agriculture.

Figure 1: GHG emission in CO2 equivalents.

The beauty of the mitigation effects of urban agriculture is that it works both ways. As shown above, urban agriculture reduces energy usage and therefore fuel combustion, which are the most polluting aspects , but also by the use of photosynthesis urban agriculture eliminates the damage that already has been done to our environment. Fact: CO2 absorption by the vegetable depends on the light intensity and CO2 concentration in the air. At a light 2 2 18 radiation between 150 and 750 W/m the CO2 absorption is between 2 and 8 g/m /hour.

15 16

17 18

Source: Source: Source: Source:

Drescher A.W., P. Jacobi, J. Amend. 2000. Urban Food Security: Urban agriculture, a response to crisis? European Environment Agency. 2010. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990 – 2008 and inventory report 2010 DEFRA. 2005. The validity of food miles as an indicator for sustainable development.

Dieleman, A., A. de Gelder. 2009. Hogere co2-concentratie basis voor meerpoductie.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

14


The Dutch climate zone The Dutch climate zone has got a so called Cfb-climate, a mild sea climate with mild winters and cool summers. The climate is influenced by the North Sea, which moderates the temperature throughout the whole year. The last decades the temperature is fluctuating, but there is a noticeable rise in temperature. It has not yet been proven that the cause of these fluctuations are the increase of greenhouse gasses. Köppen climate classification The Köppen climate classification is one of the most widely used climate classification systems. It was first published by German climatologist Wladimir Köppen in 1884, with several later modifications by Köppen himself notably in 1918 and 1936. Later, German climatologist Rudolf Geiger collaborated with Köppen on changes to the classification system, which is thus sometimes referred to as the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system. The system is based on the concept that native vegetation is the best expression of climate. Thus, climate zone boundaries have been selected with vegetation distribution in mind. It combines average annual and monthly temperatures and precipitation, and the seasonality of precipitation. For a good overview of the Dutch climate zone and comparable zones see the picture below. Countries with a comparable climate zone in Europe are: Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, West Germany and a few areas in East Germany, a great percentage of France, the Northern regions of Spain and the Southern regions of Denmark. There are also a few other places around the world with a comparable climate zone like the Netherlands. These climate zones are located in New Zealand, parts of Southern Australia, a part of Argentina, a small part of Brazil, a part of Colombia, a small part of Venezuela and a small part of Ecuador. The rest of the comparable climate zones around the world are very small and insignificant for this research. For a detailed world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification see appendix 2.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

15


1.2.2 Long term mitigation of climate change IPCC also has made a prediction about long term mitigation of climate change. Shown in figure 2, this prediction assumes six different stability levels of CO2 emissions varying from 445 to 1130 ppm CO2. To explain this table the most beneficial and the least beneficial situation will be explained. The most beneficial situation is a stabilization of 445 and 490 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and assumes that there will be taken action on a short notice and that these actions are drastic. This means there is still a global temperature increase of 2.0 to 2.4 degrees Celsius. In this situation the highest amount of concentration CO2 occurs between the year 2000 and 2015. Since its already 2010 this scenario is almost unachievable, but it would result in a decrease of 50 to 85 ppm CO2 in the year 2050 compared to the year 2000. The least beneficial situation in this table is at a stabilization level of 855 to 1130 ppm CO2. This means there will be global temperature rise of 2.9 to 6.1 degrees Celsius. The highest amount of CO2 concentration levels will occur between the year 2060 and 2090. This results in an increase of 90 to 140 ppm CO2 concentration levels in the year 2050 compared to the year 2000. Stab level (ppm CO2-eq)

Global mean temperature increase at equilibrium (Celsius)

Peak year co2

Reduction in 2050 co2 emissions compared to 2000

445 – 490 490 – 535 535 – 590 590 – 710 710 – 855 855 – 1130

2.0 – 2.4 2.4 – 2.8 2.8 – 3.2 3.2 – 4.0 4.0 – 4.9 4.9 – 6.1

2000 – 2015 2000 – 2020 2010 – 2030 2020 – 2060 2050 – 2080 2060 – 2090

-85 to -50 -60 to -30 -30 to +5 +10 to +60 +25 to +85 +90 to +140

Figure 2: Mitigation of climate change stabilization levels

It can be concluded that mitigation of climate change works over a long period of time. A rise in temperature is inevitable, but we can reduce it how sooner we take actions. 1.2.3 EU and national policy framework Ever since scientists have recognized and acknowledged climate change and its effects the goal has been to decrease or stop and therefore mitigate climate change. The IPCC has global sectors in which mitigation is of 19 great use, which are energy supply, transport, buildings, industry, agriculture, forests and waste. Policies were made to provide guidelines and measures on how to reduce the emission of GHG’s, municipalities are trying their best and are competing of being the most climate-proof municipality in the Netherlands. The Dutch government has set a measurable goal being a 30% reduction of CO2 in 2020. These measures are taken for the future, the build environment which already exists is not taken into account. In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol to prevent climate changes and global warming runs out. To keep the process on the line there is an urgent need for a renewed climate protocol. At the conference in Copenhagen 2009 the parties of the UNFCCC met for the last time on government level before the climate agreement needed to be renewed. The Copenhagen Accord asked countries to submit emissions targets by the end of January 2010, and paves the way for further discussions to occur at the 2010 UN climate change conference in Mexico and the 20 mid-year session in Bonn. By early February, 67 countries had registered their targets. Despite widely held expectations that the Copenhagen summit would produce a legally binding treaty, the 21 conference was plagued by negotiating deadlock and the "Copenhagen Accord" is not legally enforceable.

19

Source: Source: 21 Source: 20

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php BBC. 2010. Harrabin’s notes: After Copenhagen.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

16


1.3

Adaptation to climate change

Adaptation is a word that although it seems self explainable, remains vague and undefined. It means adjusting the current situation so it will fit for future situations. Concerning climate change the concept of adaptation is not very different. Countless definitions of adaptation have been invented over the years. The definition of adaptation which will be used in this research originated in assessment report 4 (AS4) by the IPCC. This definition is: Initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected 22 climate change effects . Initiatives and measures are technologies, processes, and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or effects below anticipated future levels. These should decrease the vulnerability which is the degree to which a natural or human system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change. A human system is any system in which human organizations play a major role for example the agricultural 22 system . The definition states that not only expected climate change effects should be reduced by adaptation but also actual (current) climate change effects. Actual effects of climate change are also called climate variability. 1.3.1 The benefits and necessity of adaptation of climate change Only recently the necessity of an adaptation strategy is recognized. Though the UNFCCC had as a priority in 23 1994 to establish adaptation as a priority the focus was eventually solely placed on mitigation . Therefore 24 adaptation policies are scarce and haven’t been developed as far as mitigation policies have over the years . The issue of adaptation has become particularly important when the IPCC published their third assessment report (TAR). Since this report adaptation became a more urgent policy priority for climate change. The European Commission Green Paper on adaptation explained and stressed that without proper adaptation measures damages and associated economic costs will rise sharply until 25 2080. Figure 3 shows the costs with and without adaptation measures. The figure explains that damage costs without adaptation measures are much higher than when adaptation measures have been taken. Despite the need and success of mitigation based strategies, see paragraph 1.2, to reduce long term emission of GHG’s, an unavoidable degree of climate change will occur. Climate change is inevitable even if GHG’s were reduced to zero as of 22 now . This is due to historical GHG Figure 3: Impact of adaptation measures on damage due to low and high sea level rise. Costs with and without adaptation measures. emissions and climate variability.

22 23

Source: Source:

24

Source:

25

Source:

IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report. European Environment Agency, 2009. Report on good practice measures for climate change adaptation in management plans. Groot, M.I., L.M.L. Wielders, G.J. van de Vreede. 2008. Relatie tussen mitigatie en adaptatie op gebouwniveau: inventarisatie van tegenstrijdigheden en synergismen. European Commission. 2007. Green paper: adapting to climate change in Europe: options for EU action.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

17


26

Climate variability is an important factor when looking at adaptation strategies. Climate variability refers to variations in the mean state and other statistics of the climate on all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events. This may occur due to natural internal processes within the climate system or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external circumstances. An example of climate variability is El Ni単o. An inevitable natural event which takes place every three to seven years. Coping with both historical emissions as climate variability means adapting to the circumstances so natural and human systems are less vulnerable to climate change. Adaptation of climate change is also a necessity because of the benefits it creates for current generations who bear the costs of climate change to also profit from them. The introduction of these measures are therefore more likely to achieve a basis with inhabitants because adaptation measures are on a local or regional level. Urban agriculture is especially a good example of an adaptation strategy because it creates a focus on social and economical aspects by preparing and improving the surroundings of inhabitants in a city to climate change, see paragraph 1.1.1. Fact: 27 Low income urban dwellers spend between 40% and 60% of their income on food each year. The major characteristics of an urban agriculture adaptation strategy are behavioral and spatial adjustments. Behavioral and spatial adjustment have an effect on the economic and social wellbeing of a community. Figure 4 summarizes the social and economical characteristics which benefit a community by using urban agriculture. Socially

Economically

Health Education Recreation Participation Cohesion Safety

(Self)Employment Food security Share in markets Durability Value increase of buildings/surroundings Financial feasibility

Figure 4: Social and economical benefits of urban agriculture

1.3.2 Short term adaptation on climate change Adaptation strategies aim at short term solutions and adjustments. This is mainly because adaptation is for a great part a reactive strategy. The actions taken are mostly a reaction on changes or expected changes in the climate. Short term adaptation is for example the changing of crop mixes or planting and harvesting dates. Adaptation concerns also long term measures but the effect of these measures can be seen and profited of by inhabitants. For example transforming agricultural production by introducing integrated farming. Long-term solutions also include building resilience into the physical infrastructure of the built environment. Urban agriculture is on both sides of adaptation. By changing places, crops and growing cycles but at the same time integrating another method of agricultural produce, both long and short term adaptation are in order. 1.3.3 EU and national policy framework In 1.3.1 the necessity and need for policies concerning adaptation of climate change is explained. Next to this Green Paper the European Commission also produced a White Paper about adapting to climate change called towards a European framework for action. The European Commission aims at a comprehensive adaptation strategy in 2013. The conversion of the Green Paper from science to policy has resulted in 2007 in the National Adaptation Strategy for the Netherlands. The policy describes the main adjustments that have to be made to Dutch spatial planning. This concerns mainly spatial adjustments per area type, a social and governmental task, an intersectoral and integral approach and a first attempt of an agenda. The agenda on adaptation will be presented in the course of 2010.

26

27

Source: Source:

Smit, B. I. Burton, R.J.T. Klein, J. Wandel. 2008. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. IDRC/UN-Habitat. 2003. Guidelines for municipal policymaking on urban agriculture.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

18


1.4

Mitigation of climate change vs. adaptation to climate change

The IPCC mentions both climate mitigation as adaptation strategies as separate but what are the commonalities and differences between these strategies and is it possible to use them in addition or complementary to each other concerning urban agriculture? 1.4.1 Commonalities and differences The two strategies have a different history as described above. But in order to make a fair comparison between 28 the two methods their commonalities and differences are shown in figure 5 below. Mitigation

Adaptation

Common target Distinct characters

Sustainable development Proactive action, long term reduction of climate change impacts

Temporal effect

Benefits to later generations

Geographic effect Co-operation degree required Sectoral effect

Global benefits, varying per region Global Focus on emissions from fossil fuels Setting of emission targets has to be adjusted regularly to take into account new projections Free-riding problem, especially motivated with countries less vulnerable to climate change Some options have high local secondary benefits. Technology transfer.

Sustainable development Reactive action, iterative depending on the real impacts of climate change. Proactive based on projected impacts Benefits can more or less be appropriated by those bearing costs Primarily local benefits National, regional Very heterogeneous with some stress on agriculture Reactive adaptation can wait until more concrete evidence of climate impacts is available. Unfair, the victims are not always responsible for causing climate change Some options are beneficial in the absence of climate change ‘winwin’ option. Technology transfer.

Relation to uncertainty

Equity

Secondary benefit

Figure 5: Commonalities and differences between adaptation and mitigation of climate change

1.4.2 Interference in practice Though both strategies aim to avoid damages of climate change and seek ways of developing present and 29 future generations in a sustainable manner , it is of importance to know whether they interfere, positively or negatively, with each other when used together. Agentschap NL, a Dutch governmental organization specializing in spatial planning, environment and sustainability, issued for a research regarding this interference and whether synergy is a possibility. The research describes adaptation and mitigation measures concerning drought, water storage, heat stress, energy, efficiency and sustainable energy. By confronting them it shows 29 whether they have a neutral effect, a positive effect or a negative effect on each other . The research concluded that only a few mitigation measures have a negative effect on adaptation. For example passive sun-energy and increasing daylight causes warmer houses which is unwanted in summertime due to the higher demand for cooling. Adaptation measures also don’t have a lot of negative effects on 30 mitigation. The measure which is most harmful to mitigation is the use of air-conditioning .

28

Source:

29

Source:

Hanh, H.D., A. Michaelowa, D. D. Tuan. 2007. Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development. Groot, M.I., L.M.L. Wielders, G.J. van de Vreede. 2008. Relatie tussen mitigatie en adaptatie op gebouwniveau: inventarisatie van tegenstrijdigheden en synergismen.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

19


1.5

Conclusions

Urban agriculture has many benefits like improving the air quality, reduce energy usage, social benefits and economic benefits. These advantages are very important for future generations and for the habitability of this planet. The most important bottlenecks are mostly originated by the lack of knowledge, lack of time and lack of making much money by producing vegetables. The bottlenecks of urban farming do not compensate the advantages, because many bottlenecks could be resolved fairly easily. Not all types of urban agriculture will be used on the continuance of this research. This research will continue with the following types of urban agriculture because they are most relevant when looked at size, commerciality and most important social aspects: • Community gardening • Rooftop gardening • Greenhouse gardening • City farms • Allotment gardening Mitigation and adaptation are important aspects to build a better and more sustainable future. Both strategies have totally different results, but the main goal is the same. Based on this chapter it is possible to use adaptation and mitigation in the same strategy. Though the strategies are in very different development phases there are a lot of commonalities between adaptation and mitigation strategies. They both aim for sustainable development and they deal with climate change. The strategies are complementary to each other as can be seen in figure 5. While mitigation seeks to reduce and prevent the emissions of GHG’s in the long run, adaptation can be the solution for short-term climate change measures. This research divides several subjects over mitigation and adaptation. This division can be seen in figure 6. Mitigation Adaptation Air quality Energy efficiency Water absorption

Social (health, education, awareness etc.) Economic (employment, food security, feasibility) Organization (policy, basis, stakeholders)

Figure 6: Division subject mitigation and adaptation

The current generation will also benefit from these measures which can result in a larger basis with the people. It is important to know where the bottlenecks are but also where the measures of both strategies can strengthen each other. Therefore climate adaptation and mitigation will be used complementary to each other to create one strong strategy for present and future generations. The next chapter is about a method to analyze case studies on the five types of urban agriculture mentioned above. This method is used for both mitigation and adaptation.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

20


2

Urban agriculture:

methodically

In the previous chapter urban agriculture is defined and the strategies of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change are explained. In this chapter we are going to make a translation how these aspects of both strategies, mentioned in figure 6, can be analyzed and rated in a logical and grounded manner. This chapter introduces labels on all aspects of mitigation and adaptation strategies. These labels enable us to research the case study in a qualitative way. All labels are connected to weighing factors which allow us to rank some aspects higher than others because of their importance in relation to urban agriculture. The ratings form the basis of a multicriteria-analyses. This rating strategy will be further explained in this chapter.

2.1

Mitigation

As shown in chapter 1 there are a lot of aspects that can contribute to the solution of global warming considering urban agriculture. This paragraph explains the method how different types of urban agriculture considering mitigation are rated. This will be done by three types of labels. The first label regards the ability of the vegetation to improve air quality, the second label regards the ability of the vegetation to insulate and 30 therefore how energy efficient it is and the third label regards the ability of the vegetation to hold water. 2.1.1 Air Label The importance of the quality of the surrounding air is obvious. The most important question is how to remove the poisoning gasses and particulates. It is well known that plants and trees absorb gasses (CO2) and maybe less known that they also absorb particulates and reduce the urban heat island effect. Absorbing particulates and reducing CO2 from the air has almost got the same buildup as shown on the label below, but this label only indicates the absorption of particulates, but it effects both aspects. The effects of inhaling particulate matter have been widely studied in humans and animals and include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, and premature death. The size of the particle is a main determinant of where in the respiratory tract the particle will come to rest when inhaled. Because of the size of the particle, they can penetrate the deepest part of the 31 lungs. The air label indicates the absorption of particulates by different types of vegetation. The coniferous species absorbs the most particulates as shown in label 1 on the bottom of this page. This is a good indication of what types of vegetation should be used in combination with urban agriculture. The plants used for urban agriculture are in this label "permanent plants", but in combination with glass houses, vegetables could be grown and these fall in the category "bushes & hedges". The permanent plants growing in the Dutch Climate zone only grow specific vegetables. This moderate sea climate is able to grow leek, radish, lettuce, peas, French beans, carrots, unions, 32 paprika, cucumber and tomatoes . Permanent plants have a grade D and bushes & hedges have a grade C. Both are not bad for the air quality, but in many cases the vegetation used for urban agriculture could easily be used in combination with coniferous species or hardwood. These additions are also beneficial to the social aspects of urban agriculture which you can read more about in paragraph 2.2.

30 31

32

Source: Source: Source:

Vlaskamp, W., L. Heutinck. 2008. Thesis: Er was een een stad bedekt met groene daken. Region four: Laboratory and Field operations. 2008. PM 2.5 Objectives and History: environmental protection agency. http://www.boerenbond-welkoop.nl/pagina/advice.html?ID=63089

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

21


2.1.2 Energy Label In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×1018 J) with 80 to 90 percent derived from the 33 combustion of fossil fuels. This is equivalent to an average power consumption rate of 15 terawatts (1.504×1013 W). Not all of the world's economies track their energy consumption with the same rigor, and the exact energy content of a barrel of oil or a ton of coal will vary with quality. There are many solutions needed to lower this energy consumption to really take effect worldwide, but a good start is the use of urban agriculture. Urban agriculture has many benefits, but in this paragraph there will be referred to the energy label used in "Er was eens een stad Bedekt met groene daken" to find out how energy efficient urban agriculture is and compare them with comparable case studies in chapter 4. The label indicates the energy efficiency of the substrate used on rooftops. Substrates used for urban agriculture are commonly rather thick, because the vegetation needs good rooting for optional growth. Therefore most urban agriculture would rate an A or an B label in this label. Urban agriculture is also suited to combine with glass houses (on rooftops and also on ground locations) to save even more energy, which u can read more about in chapter 4. Urban agriculture is very energy efficient and is suited for many locations.

2.1.3 Water label Urban agriculture has many benefits and one of them is the ability to absorb water. On normal rooftops without a substrate, 100% of the rainfall will wash into the sewers. This is a total waste of this fresh water resource and it could lead to overflowing the sewage system. Urban agriculture will make use of this fresh water resource and will grow a great verity of vegetation. The comparison in the label is based on the thickness of the substrate. This will be measured per 100 m2, because the water absorption varies on larger scales. An A label will be rated if the substrate is thicker than 50 cm. The slope of the roof is not included in the calculations of this label, because there is no good data available about the subject yet. This could be an idea for future research for improving urban agriculture. In this label urban agriculture would in most cases rate an A or an B label because of the rather thick substrate needed on rooftops as said in the previous paragraph. Some good examples can be found in chapter 3 "Case studies". Ready more about this in chapter 3.

33

Source:

BP. 2009. Consumption by fuel 1965 – 2008: statistical review of world energy.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

22


2.2

Adaptation

2.2.1 Social capital One of the main pillars of urban agriculture is social capital also referred to as the invisible wealth of a community. Urban agriculture aims at supporting, maintaining and improving social bonds and wellbeing. The definition of social capital we utilize is the following: Social capital are the processes and conditions among people that lead to accomplishing a mutual social 34 benefit . Valuing and measuring social capital is debatable because of the lack of generally accepted definitions and measuring tools. Though social is one of the important issues concerning urban agriculture we gave values and composed a label. We assumed that the following subjects are most important concerning social urban agriculture. Each item will be explained and is equally important. A case study gets rated A when all subjects have taken part positively, B when only four subjects etcetera, etcetera. Health Gardening and small size agriculture is a physical activity in which all people can take part. It does not strain the body to much. Being outside and surrounded by green/plants has a positive effect on stress and other mental diseases or difficulties. Next to this gardeners are able to consume healthier food. Health improvement is also measured by label air; the reduction of CO2. Education Learning about the way our food grows and where it comes from. A lot of children but also adults do not know the origin of their food or how it is grown and where it travels. Climate change is also a learning factor. Recreation Recreation is not often found near residential areas. Urban agriculture functions as a nearby green relaxation source. Participation Means the accessibility of Urban Agriculture. Participation exists in three forms: Private: for example on rooftops or in backyards. Solely accessible for the residents of the house or apartment building. Semi-public: for example allotments, community gardens, office garden. Limited access only for members and employees. Anyone can become a member. Public: for example open community gardens and allotments. Free access for everyone. Cohesion Urban agriculture is able to increase a sense of neighborhood and community. Residents learn to know each other faster and meet each other more often. Safety In urban areas there is an increased chance on vandalism and therefore it could occur you have to fence off urban agriculture sites from the public. This is mostly the case in ground bound urban agricultural projects. If there is no need for fencing of the site from the public this label increases one step.

34

Source:

Pennings, L. M Witteloostuijn. 2003. Sociaal kapitaal.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

23


2.2.2 Economic label Another important pillar of urban agriculture are economics. The following shortlist represents the economic label. The assumption has been made in accordance of the RUAF Magazine which describes the following 35 shortlist as key for urban agriculture . The rating is based on whether it has taken part in the case study. (Self)Employment Urban agriculture creates self-employment and income, especially for the urban poor lacking access to other jobs and as a complementary source of income to low and middle income households. Food security By farming inhabitants contribute to their own food requirements and if it is possible requirements for others. Share in markets Excess food production can be sold in a local shop. Durability Are the materials which are used concerning urban agriculture sustainable and is there organic produce. Value increase Green areas near residential areas add value to property. Financial feasibility The possibility of grants to maintain urban agriculture and can the project maintain itself. 2.2.3 Organization label An important influence in succeeding or failing urban agriculture is the organization. The organization consist out of the subjects displayed below. Are all these subjects represented in the case study and to what degree? Stakeholders The involvement of stakeholders not only inhabitants or residents but also contributing companies and governments. Basis Is there a basis founded for the project? Not only with inhabitants but also companies and government. Involvement government On which level is the government involved. Are they only facilitating or are they guiding? The participation ladder is of importance. Policies Urban agriculture is anchored in policies. The project is also anchored in the process. Within an organization there is a specific person who you can address to with questions about urban agriculture. Communication and awareness To succeed with urban agriculture there has to be communication between the residents to improve the quality of the products and cooperation.

35

Source:

http://www.ruaf.org/node/240

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

24


2.3

Multicriteria-analyses

To rate the case studies on mitigation and adaptation aspects you need a uniform method to rate every type of urban agriculture represented in the case studies. To realize this we combined the labels used in the previous paragraph with a multicriteria-analyses. This chapter explains the values given to the labels, the multicriteriaanalyses and how the calculations are used to rate the different case studies in chapter 3. 2.3.1 Labels The labels vary from A to G. As seen in the first two paragraphs label A is the best rating given to a specific subject and G is the worst. A high rating results into a higher score. On what aspects the different labels are rated can be found in paragraph 2.1 and 2.2. The value of each rating is displayed in figure 7. Label rating Value

A 6

B 5

C 4

D 3

E 2

F 1

G 0

Figure 7: Label ratings and values

2.3.2 Multicriteria-analyses The case studies are rated by different labels. These labels differ in importance and therefore we added a weighing factor for every label. For example, the air label is much more important than the water label because it is key in the research of climate change. The water label is only a convenient advantage, but is no part of the solution to the global warming. For this reason the air label gets a weighting factor of 10 and the water label a weighting factor of 4. The descriptions of every label and weighting factor is given on the next page. 2.3.3 Calculating multicriteria-analyses To calculate the final score for a given case study the following steps need to be taken. First the case study is rated according to the labels presented in paragraph 2.1 and 2.2. For example the air label rates an A, the energy label a C and so on. Here you determine the rating for every label. As said in paragraph 2.3.1. every rating receives a specific value. There is no difference in value ratings yet. So every A rating gets 6 points, every B rating 5 points etcetera. When this is determined, multiply the label rating with the correct weighting factor as shown on the next page. For example, multiply the air label rating by 10, multiply the energy label rating by 9 and so on. Add up all these scores to calculate the final score to determine how efficient that example of urban agriculture is on every level. An example is displayed in figure Method Air label Energy label Water label Social capital label Economic label Organization label

Label rating A (6) B (5) A (6) B (5) C (4) D (3)

Weighting factor 10 9 4 8 7 6

Final score 60 (6 x 10) 45 (5 x 9) 24 (6 x 4) 40 (5 x 8) 28 (4 x 7) 18 (3 x 6) 215

Figure 8: Example multicriteria analyses

2.3.4 Final score The final score can vary from 0 to 264. If a case study reaches a final score of 264 it means that it scores a label rating of all A's and a final value of 0 means it scores a label rating of all G's. Of caurse there are a lot of varieties in between. The different scores are divided into rating stars as shown here to the right. This final rating is done for every case study and is rated according to this research. The rating will be shown in the conclusion of every case study.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

25


2.3.5

Multicriteria-analyses table

Method

Weighting factor

Description

Air label

10

Energy label

9

The fact that our planet is getting polluted is undeniable. The usage 18 of 474 exajoules (474Ă—10 J) with 80 to 90 percent derived from the combustion of fossil fuels is polluting our planet at a very high rate. Therefore there have to be taken actions to prevent it as soon as possible. Realistic long term mitigation strategies predictions can be found on page 12. For this reason the air label for urban agriculture scores a value of 10 in this table. As said in chapter 3, urban agriculture is very energy sufficient, because of the thick substrate needed to support urban agriculture. Energy usage has to go down to take effect on the air quality. Energy usage is closely linked to the air quality at this moment, because of the high percentage of fossil fuels combustion. Shown in the previous description the energy usage worldwide is enormous and therefore it needs to go down. The use of urban agriculture could provide a discrete portion of that.

Water label

4

Social capital label

8

Economic label

6

Organization label

5

The energy label has gotten a value of 9 in this analyses. The reason for this is that the energy usage is subordinate to the air quality but is still an important part of the solution. The most important part of this label is the potential to use free and fresh rainwater to grow vegetation and not overflowing the sewers. Besides advantages of urban agriculture, this label does not provide a solution for problems like air quality or huge energy usage. Therefore this label got a value of 4 in this analyses. The social aspects of urban agriculture are the backbone for its success or failure. There are situations thinkable that urban agriculture could work without the social aspects, but in that case the government has to intervene or another major party. The main purpose of urban agriculture is the raising of air quality and the energy label is the main solution, but of its importance to succeed the social capital label will be given a value of 8. Urban agriculture is not mainly for creating jobs, but it creates the opportunity to feed mostly people with less income and therefore saving money to spend on other expenses. Urban agriculture could easily replace food banks. In other cases urban agriculture will have the purpose of recreation. For this reason this label will receive a value of 6. The organization label is important for the progress of building urban agriculture in the city, but the first step is to integrate urban agriculture in policies of the government so organizations like building cooperation's will also benefit by building this. The main reason to grade this label a value of 5 is because urban agriculture will not come into existence by only privately owned urban agriculture, but it has to integrate on a larger scale and on every new building.

Figure 9: Weighing factors multicriteria-analysis

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

26


3

Urban agriculture:

practically

Testing a method is essential in order to prove it works. The method described in the previous chapter will be tested and used in this chapter. Because of our need to indentify and analyze case studies on urban agriculture the method is used on five case studies. These five case studies represent five forms of urban agriculture which are within our research limitation described in the introduction. These are: • Rooftop gardening • Greenhouse gardening • Allotment gardening • Community gardening • City farms. The five case studies have been analyzed extensively by using the method. The full description of the case studies can be found in appendix 1. The summarized description is displayed in a fact sheet. This fact sheet has been invented to reproduce the information gathered in the analysis of the case studies per label. Per label a short description is given, how it s mentioned in the case studies, how it is rated, what the weighing factor is and what the final value is. This final value displays the suitability of a case study.

3.1

Case study 1:

Rooftop gardening in St. Petersburg.

The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study concerns St. Petersburg, Russia. The project was initiated by the St. Petersburg Urban Gardening Club (UGC), a non-profit foundation on a local scale level. The potential for rooftop gardening in St. Petersburg is huge. The UGC has done research, conducted tests and now has excellent information for interested Russian city farmers. For example, in just one district it is possible to grow 2000 tons of vegetables per season from 500 roof tops. An important factor is that all agriculture is placed on existing rooftops. The projects within the case study are: • Horticultural therapy project • Growing chicory salad • Gardens in city prison • Secondary school No. 42 3.1.1

Factsheet

Label

Description

Case study

Type of vegetation

Permanent vegetable plants

Substrate isolation thickness

Substrate of 25 – 50cm.

Absorption

High water absorption through substrate and water reuse system

Health

Therapy garden Vitamin rich food growth On rooftops school Live biology class Gardening lessons Creative outlet for inmates Hospital recreational goal Semi-public Group formation More interaction No unwanted access No vandalism

Air

Energy Water

Social capital

Education

Recreation Participation Cohesion Safety Economic Employment Food security

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

Rating

Weighing factor

Final value

D

10

30

B

9

45

A

4

24

A

8

48

B

6

30

Volunteers Contributes to urban food supply 100% of prison food supply

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

27


Markets Durability

Local Exchange and Trading Schemes Lightweight products Organic produces No land lease Yes beautification. No grants.

Value increase Funding Organization

A Stakeholders Basis Involvement government Policies Communication and awareness

5

30

UGC’s network Not inventoried Historical basis Some resistance unusual idea Facilitating role. Possible though difficulties A lot of effort Television Radio Newspapers Awareness increased greatly. 207

3.1.2 Sub conclusion Rooftop gardening has a score of 207 points. This means that this case study used urban agriculture on rooftops in a responsible way concerning the labels described in the factsheet. It scores very high on social and environmental labels. Mostly because everyone is able to participate. Because of this the rooftop gardening case study receives the following rating:

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

28


3.2

Case study 2:

Allotment and community gardening in London

The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study concerns London, Great Britain. The case study does not have clear initiators because of the historical bounds London has to urban agriculture. The main goal of this case study was to feed families, the urban poor. Nowadays it is still for feeding working class families and more and more for middle class recreationists. The case study contains several methods of urban farming such as allotments, community gardening and greenhouse farming. The projects within the case study are: • Lea valley: sea of glass • City farms and community gardens • Allotment: a potted history • School gardens 3.2.1

Factsheet

Label

Description

Case study

Type of vegetation

Bushes and hedges Vegetable plants

Substrate isolation thickness

No layer of substrate

Absorption

Ground absorbs all water

Health

Sense of purpose Reduced mental illnesses Teaching packs School nutritional education All UA is recreational Private and semi-public Work together Teach each other Trade with each other A lot of vandalism Tipping

Air

Energy Water Social capital

Education Recreation Participation Cohesion

Safety Economic Employment

Rating

Weighing factor

Final value

C

10

40

G

9

0

A

4

24

B

8

40

E

6

12

A

5

30

Paid employees Volunteers N/A Not permitted Local Exchange and Trading Schemes Non Locations near industrialized areas. No effect on value. No grants for allotments etc. Glasshouse doe receive grant

Food security Markets Durability Value increase Funding Organization Stakeholders

Basis Involvement government Policies

Communication and awareness

Large group of stakeholders Non-profit organization Municipality Department of health. Historical basis Four fifths of Britains garden Facilitating Complex Policy provides possibilities for environmental productive approach Awareness very high TV shows on prime time 146

3.2.2 Sub conclusion Allotment and community gardening in London scores 146 points in the fact sheet. This is mainly due to the fact that energy efficiency is not a factor in this case study. The rating of this case study is:

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

29


3.3

Case study 3:

Urban farms in the United States of America

The department of Urban and Regional planning of the University of California conducted a research to describe and analyze urban farms throughout the United States of America. The urban farms described in this study contribute in a significant way to the health, education, environment and economy of their local communities. The projects are initiated and demanded by local communities. Urban farms are located inside or on the fringe of a city. The following six projects are mentioned in the research: • Zenger Farm: Portland,. • Wood Street Urban Farm: Chicago. • Somerton Tanks Farm: Philadelphia. • Red Hook Community Farm: Brooklyn. • Troy Gardens Community Farm: Madison. • Alemany Farm: San Francisco, California 3.3.1

Factsheet

Label

Description

Case study

Type of vegetation

Bushes and hedges Permanent vegetable plants

Substrate isolation thickness

No substrate layer is used

Absorption

Ground absorbs all water

Health

Diet-related Nearby healthy food supply Programs in gardening, cooking and composting Weekly school classes Field trips Summer programs N/A Public Several groups participate No mix of groups Liable to vandalism Fences and surveillance needed

Air

Energy Water Social capital

Education

Recreation Participation Cohesion Safety Economic Employment

Rating

Weighing factor

Final value

C

10

40

G

9

0

A

4

24

C

8

32

C

6

24

A

5

30

Paid jobs local community At-risk youth Volunteers 50% sold on markets. Nothing goes directly to household 50% of yield to local outdoor farmer food markets N/A N/A Not financial feasible Grants needed Support NGO’s

Food security Markets Durability Value increase Funding

Organization Stakeholders Basis Involvement government Policies Communication and awareness

Local groups NGO’s Demanded and initiated by community. Facilitating Policies enable UA Mout-to-Mouth promotion Awareness of food increased. 150

3.3.2 Sub conclusion Urban farms in the United States of America scores 150 points in the fact sheet. The case study scores high on water absorption and very low on energy efficiency. Therefore this case study rates:

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

30


3.4 Case study 4: Gaza-strip

Backyard gardening and greenhouse rooftops in the

The department of projects and external relations of Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee-Gaza and the Consulat General De France A Jerusalem implemented and researched urban agriculture in refugee camps. The project tries to develop different urban agriculture activities in several Refugees Camps in the Gaza Strip. The implementation concerned growing crops in backyards and in 20m2 or 40m2 greenhouses on rooftops. The crops and greenhouses have been provided totally equipped by the department. The objective of the project is to improve health, food security, environmental and social situation of the 81 families which participated in the project. 3.4.1

Factsheet

Label

Description

Case study

Type of vegetation

Permanent vegetable plants

Substrate isolation thickness

A substrate of 25 – 50 cm

Absorption

High water absorption due to the substrate

Health

Direct easy access healthy food Recover severed connection agriculture Higher food quality Intensive technical training Children are taught by parents N/A Semi-public. Only the 81 selected families could participate. Enhanced relationship neighbors Backyards victim of plundering Greenhouses very safe

Air

Energy Water

Social capital

Education Recreation Participation Cohesion Safety Economic Employment Food security

Rating

Weighing factor

Final value

D

10

30

B

9

45

A

4

24

C

8

32

C

6

24

B

5

25

81 families were employed Income generated 20 – 30% 30 % of needed food N/A Sustainable lightweight greenhouses. Sustainability of houses increased due to substrate N/A Not profitable. Fixed costs are paid by government Running costs by owners

Markets Durability

Value increase Funding

Organization Stakeholders

Basis Involvement government Policies Communication and awareness

Department of external relations GAZA External greenhouse organization Participating families Large basis. Participants originally agriculturists Open authoritarian style. Policies altered to provide for UA N/A 180

3.4.2 Sub conclusion The case study backyard gardening and greenhouse rooftops in the Gaza-strip scores 180 points. This case study scores very good on the energy, water and organization label. The weakest label is air quality due to the fact that only permanent vegetable plants are cultivated on the roof. This case study rates:

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

31


3.5

Case study 5:

Community gardening in Havana

Havana, Cuba is described as a continuous productive urban landscape. This means that they are able to use urban agriculture throughout the year. Urban agriculture was promoted in Cuba after the crisis when Cuba lost more than 75% of its import and export capacity. Urban agriculture in Cuba is focused on community gardens on the city fringe or in the city centre adjacent to major roads. the case study defines various kinds of community gardens being: • Plots (less then 1000m2) • Intensive cultivation gardens ( between 1000m2 and 2000m2) • Urban gardens ( between 2000m2 and 5000m2) • High yield urban garden (over 10.000 m2) Though these areas seem large pathways take up a lot of the available space. It is not unusual that a 1000m2 growing area requires a 3000m2 site. 3.5.1

Fact sheet

Label

Description

Case study

Type of vegetation

Permanent vegetable plants Bushes and hedges

Substrate isolation thickness

The substrate is used but it does not have an energy saving factor

Absorption

Ground absorbs all water and water is reused

Health Education

Fresh supply of food in institutions Students and schoolchildren are taught how to grow food Only small part of people Public or semi-public sites Cultivation occurs in groups rather than alone Fences are needed Trespassing is common

Air

Energy

Water

Social capital

Recreation Participation Cohesion Safety Economic Employment

Rating

Weighing factor

Final value

C

10

40

G

9

0

A

4

24

B

8

40

B

6

30

B

5

25

Volunteers Residents Contributes to the household needs and to urban food supply A small part is sold on local markets. N/A Due to beautification of common areas. Grants

Food security Markets Durability Value increase Funding Organization Stakeholders Basis Involvement government Policies Communication and awareness

Not inventoried. Due to the crisis very large Open authoritarian style Top down organized all policies provided Government communication is optimal. The awareness in UA is great. 159

3.5.2 Sub conclusion The case study on community gardening in Havana scores 159 points in the factsheet. The best points of this case study are the water label, social capital, economic and organization labels. This case study scores worst on energy efficiency. This case study is rated:

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

32


3.6

Conclusion

As is shown in the table below, case study 1 rooftop gardening and case study 4 greenhouses on rooftops score the most points in the fact sheet. This is mainly because they have benefits considering energy efficiency. They do score less in the air label than the other case studies mainly because these case studies concerned just permanent vegetable plants. As two of the important parts of urban farming are social capital en economics, the first case study scores very high on both points. This is why the method of urban farming we will use on a representative city will be rooftop farming in combination with rooftop greenhouse gardening. Label

Rooftop gardening

Allotment & community gardening

Urban farms

Backyard gardening & greenhouse gardening

Community gardening

Air Energy Water Social capital Economic Organization

30 45 24 48 30 30 207

40 0 24 40 12 30 146

40 0 24 32 24 30 150

30 45 24 32 24 25 180

40 0 24 40 30 25 159

Figure 10: Label rating: the best case study

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

33


4

Urban agriculture on rooftops: Practically advanced

Using the method on several urban agriculture case studies in the previous chapter, resulted in the best case study being rooftop gardening. Though the previous chapter explained the basics for each case study, this chapter will describe advanced information about the benefits and bottlenecks of rooftop gardening in particular. The information in this chapter is of importance to be able to apply rooftop gardening on the city of Amersfoort. The term green roofs is interchangeably used for urban agriculture on rooftops.

4.1

Environmental benefits

4.1.1 Air quality improvement Urban agriculture improves the particulates intake and CO2 reduction, but this quality is not linked to building on rooftops. The same effect would occur by using the other types of urban agriculture, but building urban agriculture on rooftops will generate more available space to use this practice. Urban agriculture on rooftops enhances cooler indoor and outdoor temperatures, because it improves the urban heat island effect. Areas within a city are often significantly warmer than the surrounding rural areas. There are several causes but one is linked to vegetation. Due to the removal of vegetation and their 37 replacement by roads and other constructions. These surfaces absorb solar radiation and re-radiate it as heat . Rooftop gardens work to reduce the urban heat island effect because they decrease the hot and radiating areas and replace them by vegetation that absorbs solar radiation which produces less heat. Although calculating the precise temperature decrease due to green roofs is very difficult, but green roofs are considered to be a 35 powerful way to battle the urban heat island effect . 4.1.2 Energy efficiency The greatest benefit for using urban agriculture on rooftops is the energy efficiency. The substrate used for growing vegetation will act as an insulator and this will result in less heat loss. This will result in less energy consumption for the inhabitants and therefore it will indirectly improve the air quality. A Canadian study found that, with 6% (6.5 million m2) green roof coverage, the annual GHG emission was 36 reduced by 1.56 Mega tons direct from buildings . Air quality is also improved due to the diminishing presence 37 of air pollutants as chemicals and allergens like pollen . This filtration can happen with any type of garden or 38 vegetation. Figure 11 describes the reduction of particulates of green roofs. 1m2 grass roof 1,5m2 uncut grass

Removes 0,2 kg of airborne CO2 particulates annually Produces oxygen to supply 1 person annually.

Figure 11: air pollutants reduction

4.1.3 Water Water that runs off surfaces such as rooftops are called urban stormwater. It represents water that could be absorbed into the soil if the area was not paved or build upon. Green roofs have a big impact on stormwater 36 quantity because they retain a portion of the rainfall. This has been recognized by several studies . Though the impact of green roofs has been recognized the information about how much a green roof can retain is not consistent. The amount of rainfall that can be retained depends on thickness of substrate, vegetation depth, 36 temperature, wind, sun and duration of rain. Figure 12 shows the inconsistencies. Sholz-Barth, 2001 Peck, 1999

Average of 75% can be retained In summer 70 – 100% can be retained In winter 40 – 50% can be retained

Figure 12: Amount of rainfall retained by green roofs

36

Source:

37

Source:

38

Source:

Peck, S. 2003. Towards an Integrated Green Roof Infrastructure Evaluation for Toronto. The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor. Sutic, N. 2003. How Green Roofs Can Improve the Urban Environment in Uptown Waterloo (Undergraduate Thesis). Cardinal Group. 2002. Public Benefits of Green Roofs.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

34


4.2

Social benefits

4.2.1 Health In a society where obesity is an issue of concern, urban gardens create an opportunity for residents to increase their physical activity through gardening. Gardening is also a form of physical activity in which many people can take part, despite mobility restrictions. Gardening is also enjoyed by people of all ages. The link between 39 increased physical activity and community gardens has been well documented in the literature. Gardening and rooftop gardening have a positive effect on psychological and physical well-being of a community. Psychological studies have shown that the green areas in the city relieve stress effects thereby 40 improving health . A research showed that people living in high-density developments are known to be less 37 susceptible to illnesses if they have a balcony or terrace garden . 4.2.2 Recreation Urban agriculture initiatives can improve aesthetic value of a community and provide more outdoor space for residents and visitors. Rooftop gardens provide a pleasing and convenient space for residents. Widespread implementation of rooftop gardens and community gardens could potentially provide more recreational and leisure space for urban residents. Hotels, restaurants and other businesses are able to use their rooftops to crop their own food like restaurant ‘De Kas’ in Amsterdam. For hotels it provides functional and effective outside space for customers. 4.2.3 Education Education about agriculture combined with environmental awareness can occur close to schools. Children and older students do not have to leave the schools terrain. Because of the central position of schools and other community buildings in a district or neighborhood makes that these locations are explicitly convenient to educate the community. The education can be given to people of all ages. 4.2.4 Participation Rooftop gardens are mostly private. They exist on rooftops of for example apartment buildings. These are solely accessible by residents of the building. These residents, which are sometimes not familiair with each other, have free access to the gardens. There are also semi-public rooftop gardens for example on community buildings and schools were a limited amount of people (mostly member) can sign up to maintain and harvest the gardens. 4.2.5 Cohesion Urban agriculture is able to provide residents with a higher sense of community. Residents and therefore also participants experience a sense of belonging as a member in a community. Growing food, whether on a rooftop or in a community garden, provides benefits to people from diverse backgrounds, languages, and cultures. Community empowerment, attachment to locality, and the sense of ownership that can be generated from food projects can stimulate more involvement in local issues which can lead to effective action to defend and 39 improve community amenities. Social isolation is also reduced when people have a community rooftop garden in which to participate. The gardens are also a source of pride and a social center which provide social cohesion with the gardeners. Gardening is an international activity that crosses cultural gaps. Food growing can 41 serve as a way of breaking down barriers between people through a focus on the common interest of food . 4.2.6 Safety 41 Reduced crime has been associated with communities that have gardens . The presence of people spending time outside in gardens may discourage crime. Residents who invest in their gardens are very keen on the safekeeping of these gardens. They are present in it and therefore protect it from vandalism. Rooftop gardening has an extra advantage of being on a roof. The location is less accessible hen common community gardens. Therefore rooftop gardening is overall much safer and there is no need for fences, surveillance camera’s etc. 39

Source:

40

Source: Source:

41

Twiss, J., J. Dickinson, S. Duma, T. Kleinman, H. Paulsen, L. Rilveria. 2003. Community gardens: Lessons learned from California healthy cities and communities. Mazereeuw, B. 2005. Urban agriculture: feasibility of rooftop community gardens. Schmelzkopf, K. (1995). Urban community gardens as contested space. Geographical Review, 85, 364-381.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

35


4.3

Economic benefits

4.3.1 (Self)Employment Urban agriculture can also create local employment and generate income. For volunteers this income is mostly in the form of food which does not have to be bought in stores. By integrating rooftop gardening paid jobs are also created. A project in Toronto created 1.350 jobs by implementing rooftop gardening. Though these rooftops counted 6.5 million m2. Jobs are created in: • • • •

manufacturing and selling materials designed specifically for green roof construction and maintenance selling specialized plants for green roofs (e.g. garden nurseries) designing and engineering of green roofs 37 contracting and landscaping

4.3.2 Food security Initiatives such as rooftop gardens contribute to urban food self-sufficiency and food security by helping to provide all citizens with increased access to nutritious foods. The food produced in community gardens or rooftop gardens are local sources of food that require minimal travel distance to reach consumers. In terms of volume of food, one study estimated that if 6% of rooftops in Toronto were ‘greened’ and only 10% of 42 these rooftops grew food, a yield of 4.7 million kilograms of produce per year would be generated . Gardens can produce 10% of the total need of food in a city. 4.3.3 Durability Ultraviolet rays and fluctuating temperatures can damage rooftops over time. Green roofs are covered soil and vegetation, and thus protect rooftops from ultraviolet rays as well as the stress caused by expansion and 43 contraction. In this way, green roof reduce cracking and aging of roofs and enhance roof durability . This enhanced durability results in rooftop life extension which contributes to cost savings and sustainability by reducing resource use. Green roofs insulate buildings by preventing heat from moving through the roof. Shading the external surface of the building envelope has been shown to be more effective than internal 37 insulation . 4.3.4 Value increase More green space is a good addition to any building or home. The addition of private amenity space resulting from an addition of a rooftop garden could allow for increased financial benefit to building owners through 36 increased rental income and increased condominium fees .

42

Source:

43

Source:

Peck, S. 2003. Towards an Integrated Green Roof Infrastructure Evaluation for Toronto. The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor. Peck, S., C. Callaghan, M. Khun, B. Bass. 1999. Greenbacks for Green Roofs: Forging a New Industry in Canada.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

36


4.4

Challenges

While there are many benefits associated with urban agriculture, there are also several challenges and difficulties. These need to be taken into account in the next chapter. 4.4.1 Quantification benefits The main challenge is that some of the benefits described above are difficult to quantify because of their social nature. Social is an important factor in urban agriculture and rooftop gardening. An effective cost-benefit 44 analysis Is therefore hard to outline . 4.4.2 Construction Integrating rooftop gardening on new buildings is rather simple. When the qualifications and specification of rooftop gardening are defined the construction can be worked into a planning process. Existing buildings, which have to be retrofitted, are an entirely different story. There needs to be determined whether the 44 building can sustain the additional weight. 4.4.3 Accessibility The accessibility of rooftops could provide rooftop gardening with a problem. Not all buildings are prepared for frequent rooftop access. Interior aspects of the building such as stair and elevator access could have to be 44 altered. The roof also has to be fenced off for safety . 4.4.4 Costs One of the greater bottlenecks of rooftop gardening and especially the installation of one are the costs. Though costs of installation are offset by savings incurred later on, the payment can be deterrent to installing a green 44 roof. Insurance on rooftops may also cause a problem.

44

Source:

Mazereeuw, B. 2005. Urban agriculture: feasibility of rooftop community gardens.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

37


Representative Dutch city The chosen (parts of) case studies which will become a full climate adaptation and mitigation strategy concerning urban farming needs to be tested. In order to do this we choose a representative Dutch city. In this chapter assumptions have been made. These assumptions will be explained but it is our opinion while others may think otherwise. Duurzaamheidsmeter The local sustainability measurement tool (duurzaamheidsmeter) exists since 1999 and is developed by COS Nederland. COS Nederland is the association of centres for international cooperation. Every four years, in a year of municipal elections, COS Nederland lobbies to convince as many municipalities as possible to take part in the Duurzaamheidsmeter. The last results are of November 2009.

Method The Duurzaamheidsmeter consists of three lists of questions divided into the people, planet, profit principle. The following scheme explains the general content of each question list. All questions lists could be filled out on the website of COS Nederland. The responsibility of correctly filling out the questions lies with the municipality. Because of the public's right of access of the document social control should make municipalities handle carefully and truthfully. People

Planet

Profit

Participation inhabitants Social policies International cooperation

Climate & energy Sustainable water management Nature and environment

Sustainable government Sustainable mobility Sustainable business/industry

Results In 2009 167 Dutch municipalities participated in the Duurzaamheidsmeter. These municipalities represent 49% of the Dutch population. As is shown in the following table there are six municipalities which scored 90% or over. City People Planet Profit Percentage Breda Alkmaar Nijmegen Groningen Tilburg Amersfoort Apeldoorn

94% 94% 92% 92% 92% 92% 89%

Average city size and choosing a city When accumulating the population of these cities and dividing them by the number of cities (seven) represented in the shortlist the average city size is 158.000. Because this shortlist only contains fairly big cities we choose between Apeldoorn, 155.108 inhabitants and Amersfoort, 141.211 inhabitants. Though Apeldoorn has a population which is closer to the average mentioned above there are more smaller municipalities. Next to this the city of Amersfoort has equal grades in all categories. The score of this city is very even which means they spend as much attention to people as to planet and profit. The total percentage is also higher than Apeldoorns. This why we assume that Amersfoort Is a representative city for the Netherlands and we will apply the case studies on this city.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

38


5

Urban agriculture:

applied in Amersfoort

As concluded in the previous chapter rooftop gardening is the case study we intend to use on the representative city of Amersfoort. This chapter does not only explain the benefits of rooftop gardening but will show what the consequences of this method of urban agriculture is on the city.

5.1

Placement in Amersfoort

Amersfoort is a city with many different districts and neighborhoods. To be able to make adequate suggestions on what the benefits of rooftop gardening for Amersfoort are, we have chosen a district. The choice of a certain district has been suggested by Edward van Groningen, researcher at Eemstad Lab. He suggested to apply urban agriculture and therefore rooftop gardening on an ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ district. The program ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt is a joined initiative by the municipality of Amersfoort and the housing cooperation’s Alliantie Eemvallei and Portaal. The aim of this program is to improve the quality of several districts. Vital, varied and safe districts for a good life with opportunities is of importance. This has to be done in good consultation with residents and other stakeholders in the district. The six themes on which the program is set are: Living together Living Work Education Livability Service provisions The choice of an ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ district is based on the fact that these existing districts are undergoing a transformation due to reconstruction. By considering an even implementing urban agriculture on rooftops, these districts are more viable to achieve. They already are in transition and urban agriculture can be take into account in plan and policy making. 5.1.1 Area of choice The chosen area is the district of Schuilenburg. Out of the areas that are represented in the ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ program this area has most potential due to the presence of several flat rooftops.. 5.1.2 Description of area Schuilenburg lies southeast of the centre of Amersfoort and next to the A28. The district was built in the sixties. The northern part of Schuilenburg is characterized by many stair case entrance flats and gallery entrance flats. These flats make up the 44,2% social rent housing in the district. The southern part is known for expensive private housing, 27,7% and private rental apartments. 28,1%. In figure 13 Amersfoort is displayed as a total and with a cut out of the Schuilenburg district.

Figure 13: Amersfoort and Schuilenburg

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

39


5.2

Spatial needs and effects

Important to know is the amount and size of available rooftops for gardening. This information is not available by the municipality of Amersfoort or the housing cooperation’s. Therefore we estimated the amount by calculating the average roof size in Schuilenburg. This proves that the average available roof is approximately 2 48 meters long and 10,5 meters wide which makes 504m rooftop per building. In Schuilenburg are 26 apartment buildings with the average amount of rooftop space. 20 of these apartment buildings are in ownership of housing cooperation’s. The total amount of space available for rooftop gardening in Schuilenburg 2 is therefore set on 13.104m . This amount will be leading in the following paragraphs. 5.2.1 Spatial needs When a city is growing, the available ground is getting more rare and expensive. The available ground is often claimed by several functions in a zoning plan. A strategy to create more space is to build on top of each other and create flats or apartment buildings. The prime advantage is this strategy is that developers only pay for a patch of ground, but if they build higher, they only have to pay for the construction costs. This more economic use of space only focuses on earning money and therefore they only build space where people can live or work, but did not focus on other needs like urban agriculture. In most cases the space is created and the rooftops function as heat absorbers. The need for more multifunctional use of every patch of available space is growing and urban agriculture is developing to use these rooftops as functional as possible. In previous chapters you can read about all the other advantages of urban agriculture to, but the fact that urban agriculture is very functional is undeniable and therefore it should be implemented in as much available locations as possible. 2

In Schuilenburg alone there is 13.104m available space on rooftops, assuming that these rooftops are able to 2 support urban agriculture, to implement urban agriculture. An average person needs 418m of space to provide 45 itself with vegetables yearly . So the available space in Schuilenburg could provide vegetables for about 32 people every year. Recon the food miles for these vegetables and the saved energy is building up, which also indirectly improves the quality of the air. 5.2.2 Effects The spatial need for a city to be completely self-sufficient in terms of food production on rooftops is not realistic. If the city of Amersfoort would want to do this, it needs a rural area the size of Amersfoort itself. Urban agriculture on rooftops would at this moment provide about 10% of the city's need for food. In combination with all the other benefits for environmental, social and economical aspects it could have a big impact worldwide if enough cities would implement urban agriculture. The most important thing people have to realize is that 1 rooftop implemented with urban agriculture will not have an effect on global warming, but people should not forget that every little tree, every little plant and everything that lives on the reaction of photosynthesis provides a little part of the solution for the bigger problem. The biggest problem is the awareness and the creation of possibilities for people to contribute their little part. Every little contribution used on a worldwide scale could have a great impact on the bigger problems like global warming and food security.

5.3

Environmental effects

The difficult part about the environmental effects is that the improvements are mostly long term and therefore it is for some people difficult to comprehend that these changes have an impact at all. The good part is that most people are aware that global warming is already taking effect and that we should do something about it as soon as possible. The biggest impact for this awareness towards most people around the world was the documentary "An inconvenient truth" made by Al Gore. This was one of the stepping stones which had to be taken to make the broad public aware of our uncertain future and the fact we have to act as soon as possible.

45

Source:

Mazereeuw, B. 2005. Urban agriculture: feasibility of rooftop community gardens.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

40


5.3.1 Air quality By using urban agriculture the air quality will improve undeniably, but the effects are not as noticeable as the social effects. The biggest advantage of urban agriculture is the removal of particulates from the air. These particulates cause asthma and lung cancer and there have the greatest impact on the environment of any city and therefore also on Amersfoort. The reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere is very important to reduce global warming, but this aspect does not have a noticeable effect on the citizens of the city of Amersfoort. The reason for this is that at sea level CO2 concentration is 0.038% and for humans to notice the effects of CO2 concentration it has to be more than 1%. At this concentration humans have to be exposed to this concentration for a rather long period and the only effect we would feel is dullness. This means that CO2 concentrations outside have to be more than 26 times as high to give a noticeable effect, but the effects globally are well known. Different type of vegetation will have more or less effect on the air quality. The main difference for this effect is the difference in photosynthesis. This difference is determined by the surface of the leafs. So it is quite obvious that trees will have more effect then small plants. In chapter 2.1.1 "Air label" the buildup in absorbing particulates per type of vegetation is shown. The best results in air quality for any city and therefore also for the city of Amersfoort is to plant more vegetation throughout the city. A good way for getting this result is to create possibilities for people to participate in urban agriculture. The best result to improve the air quality is to combine urban agriculture with coniferous species or hardwood. 5.3.2 Energy efficiency For improving the energy efficiency of the buildings in the city of Amersfoort with urban agriculture it is essential to use the rooftops. this way the substrate used for urban agriculture is used as an insulator and this way the buildings don't lose as much heat as with normal rooftops and therefore use less energy. The most efficient way to reduce energy consumption is to combine urban agriculture on rooftops with glasshouses. This way the excess heat could be captured and stored in underground reservoirs and could be used in the winter. The exact figures how much energy could be saved is determined by many factors like size, type of plants, type of ventilation etc. Therefore it is very difficult to give exact numbers, but at the university of Wageningen they are doing research by using very precise instruments. Some information gathered at this university is used for this research. To cut down the energy usage is indirect an air quality improvement, because most energy is gathered by burning fossil fuels. Therefore the noticeable changes are air quality improvement and a little step closer towards a climate neutral city. 5.3.3 Water absorption On normal rooftops water absorption is 0%. This fresh water resource is all wasted and flushed down the sewers. The advantage of urban agriculture is that this fresh water is absorbed and used to grow vegetables. The water absorption depends on the thickness of the substrate, slopes of the rooftops, time of the yeah etc. The main improvement for the city of Amersfoort is that less water is flushed down the sewer, which will result in less sewer blockage.

5.4

Social effects

There are many social benefits concerning urban agriculture on rooftops. These social benefits of urban agriculture have been explained in chapter 4. 5.4.1 Health Implementing urban food security means an increase in physical activities. Gardens need to be maintained throughout the week and year and there is always something to do. Because of the green surroundings and the quiet semi public space on the roof stress can be relieved. Growing your own food also helps to eat the right kinds of fresh food. This can reduce the risk of major diseases These facts count for all cities where urban agriculture is implemented and therefore are also applicable on Amersfoort.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

41


5.4.2 Education In Schuilenburg are several schools especially primary schools. The following schools are present in the area: • Prins Willem Alexander • Anne Annemaschool • Koningin Emmaschool • Vrije School Amersfoort • De Caecilliaschool • ‘t Spectrum Educating children about food, how it grows, how it can be consumed and learning them about climate change the reduction of CO2 can be done at each one of the primary schools. Children can be taught on the roofs of their own school or at neighboring apartment buildings. Because some of the schools are sometimes also used for gatherings, older participants can be taught about urban agriculture too. It helps adapting people to climate change, they can act within their own terrain and are able to see results by growing food. Due to education they can also learn about the amount of CO2 they clear from the air. 5.4.3 Recreation Recreation is of great importance in urban agriculture. Next to the food security reasons which are mentioned in paragraph 5.5.2, recreation a reason why residents could participate in urban agriculture. During the usage of urban agriculture people can enjoy being outside. Because of this the aesthetic value of the roofs are increased and people are more willingly to spend their time in their gardens. This is a general effect urban agriculture has. 5.4.4 Participation In Amersfoort is participation limited to private and semi private accessibility. This is due to the apartment buildings which are not accessible for everyone. It is not possible and maybe not even favorable to create a public urban agriculture domain. Public agricultural domains can be found in community gardens. 5.4.5 Cohesion As described in chapter four cohesion is one of the more important social parts of urban agriculture. Especially the higher sense of community and the feeling that they belong to a community is of vital importance. Though there are a number of social organizations in the district, people of different ethnicities who live in the same apartment building do not mix. As is shown in the forum part of the website randebroek-schuilenburg.nl, people think that their neighborhood was safer and more livable in the ‘70’s. the feeling that residents know each other and help each other is not present anymore. Urban agriculture can provide an environment to be together and people can stimulate each other and learn about incentives of their neighbors. 5.4.6 Safety Rooftop gardening is very safe because it is not accessible for trespassers. This is not a concern of rooftop gardening. Another form of safety being the security on the rooftops. Hereby is meant that fences need to be placed to prevent anyone from falling down.

5.5

Economical effects

5.5.1 (Self)Employment Due to the scale level on which we are working at this time, no real direct job creation is in order. Indirect job creation is in order because of the build and maintenance companies of the substrate on the roofs, the education needed for residents to start working urban agriculture and municipal workers who take care of the communication and ensure the rightful use of rooftop gardening. Self employment is a reasonably big factor in urban agriculture. Most work is done on a voluntary basis which the volunteers get paid for by the production of food which does not have to be bought in a supermarket. At this time income levels in Schuilenburg are not high. The current income of households in Schuilenburg is €28.000 per year, the average income is €33.500 per year.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

42


5.5.2 Food security Food security is of more importance the last years. So called ‘voedselbanken’ exist to assist people in need for basics as food and sometimes clothing. The ‘voedselbank’ in Amersfoort called food focus tries to obtain as much food as possible so it can be distributed to the needy. By implementing rooftop gardening in Schuilenburg, where income levels are not that high see paragraph 5.6.1, people can start taking care of their own fresh vegetable production. They are self accountable for their yield and what is planted on the roof, though it is wisely to use the plants described in paragraph 5.3. 5.5.3 Share in markets In Amersfoort exists already 18 hectares of community gardens. Because of this a Local Exchange and Trading Scheme can be set out. Local private food growers can trade food with each other so they have a greater variety of food and do not have to hold on to food for a long time. A location for such a trade off does not have to be fixed. It is arrange able that the market is on different community gardens or around the rooftop gardens. Another options is to commercially sell the products. Though this is a possibility it depends heavily on the price that can be obtained for the produce. If this is to low it is easier and more profitable to keep your own grown food. 5.5.4 Durability As explained in chapter four the durability of roofs is elongated by the implementation of green rooftops. This is caused by the substrate and vegetation layer which protects the roof. An important factor is how much the roofs can carry. 5.5.5 Value increase The Schuilenburg area is already very green. In the district are many green spots and the ‘Valleikanaal’ runs through the district. This makes that the district is beautifully green. Rooftop gardening will not add a lot of value to the houses because of the fact that green is already in place. The small amount of value that can be gained is through the extra private or semi-public space on the roof which is a part of your personal living environment. 5.5.6 Financial feasibility Financial feasibility is almost impossible to calculate due to the varied factors of urban agriculture which have a social impact and cannot be linked to a hard number of profits. This is a point that needs to be sorted out.

5.6

Legal and organizational implementation

5.6.1 Stakeholders Successfully implementing an urban agriculture strategy requires participation of various stakeholders. These are municipal authorities, housing cooperation’s, food producers/consumers, neighborhood groups, environmental groups and schools. It is very hard to describe all stakeholder because this field is not clear yet. Though this is not clear we are able to describe the primary working relationships and the initiating stakeholder. Urban agriculture should be initiated by the local authorities being the municipality of Amersfoort. They have to create awareness that rooftop gardening is a possibility. This awareness has to be created with employees of the municipality as well as residents of target areas. People have to want rooftop gardening and see the possibilities. Otherwise they will not start working it. Due to this awareness and promotion of rooftop gardening several organizations in the neighborhood, such as the schools, community centre, church and social gathering groups, can join forces to speak about implementation and to make each other curious about the possibilities. The municipality is then able to start communications with the housing cooperation’s Alliantie Eemvallei and Portaal because they are all involved in the Amersfoort Vernieuwt project. They can co-produce a plan in which rooftop gardening is implemented. The residents and organizations in the neighborhood are involved in the process due to a participation course that needs to be set out by the municipality and the housing cooperation’s. Figure 14: Stakeholders analysis

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

43


5.6.2 Basis Rooftop gardening can have a great basis in the municipality of Amersfoort. The municipality has always maintained community gardens and included community gardens in every spatial project. Only the last two city extensions, districts Nieuwland and Vathorst, have not got community gardens. This was due to the fact that a pps-construction was used and there was no room in the budget to include community gardens. In the previous chapter a target group is formulated. This target group consist out of allochthonous residents and people in the age category of 50+ as the biggest factors. In Schuilenburg are the following demographic standards in ethnicity (figure 15) and age structure (figure 16) Ethnicities in %

Netherlands

Western

Nonwestern

Turkey

Morocco

Surinam

Antilles

Remain

Schuilenburg

57,5

8,2

34,3

12

9,6

0,8

2,7

9,2

Figure 15: Ethnicities in Schuilenburg

Age structure %

0–3

4 – 11

12 – 17

18 – 24

25 – 54

55 – 64

65 – 74

75+

Schuilenburg

4,2

8,9

7,1

9,3

34,5

10,9

11,1

14,0

Figure 16: Age structure in Schuilenburg

Concluding can be said that inhabitants of Amersfoort are willing to use rooftop gardening. 5.6.3 Involvement government The government’s involvement in urban agriculture should be facilitating. A facilitating government style allows all parties to join in on communication. Though the plans of rooftop gardening should be made by parties such as the housing corporations, the municipality and other relevant stakeholders it’s important to involve residents and organization on a residential level in the process. Therefore the municipality should co-produce the plans, policies and spend much time on communication and awareness for rooftop gardening. 5.6.4 Policies For urban agriculture to work and make a difference for the problems around global warming it needs to be used on a large scale. For this to happen urban agriculture needs to be implemented into the policies of municipalities. This way urban agriculture is implemented into all new buildings or at least these building have the capability to support urban agriculture so residents can decide themselves to participate or not instead not having this choice at all. Municipalities have many ways to contribute to establish urban agriculture like offering grants or doing more research on urban agriculture. The municipality of Amersfoort was negative towards the idea to offer grants for the implementation of urban agriculture, because there is simply no money available. They are able to provide communication towards civilians to create awareness. For financing, a cooperation with the housing cooperation can be of great value. Especially in the Amersfoort Vernieuwt districts which are already under construction. The costs are therefore not very much higher. 5.6.5 Communication and awareness When implementing urban agriculture communication is of great importance. Not only inside the organizations but also towards residents and other stakeholders. As mentioned in paragraph 5.6.1 the municipality of Amersfoort should be the initiator. They should take responsibility in making people aware that there is an initiative rooftop gardening. By constantly communicating with residents their awareness and possibly also their enthusiasm in urban agriculture rises. The following communication measures can be taken: • Informative folder spread throughout the area. • Informal meetings with residents in the area. • Introducing a pilot project where only 1 or 2 flats participate to see if it works and implementation can continue.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

44


6

Urban agriculture:

advise and recommendations

This last but not least chapter of our thesis on urban agriculture is the advisory. The important facts of the previous chapters will be highlighted and recommendations are given to make sure the right path in urban agriculture is chosen and the next steps are clear.

6.1

Why urban agriculture?

The main goal of urban agriculture in combination with rooftop gardening is improving the available space usage in the urban area and advancing environmental, social and economical effects. These mitigation effects to reduce global warming in combination with the adaptation effects to adjust to future changes is an important combination to create a better world for future generations. Urban agriculture on itself could not resolve all the problems around global warming and providing the inhabitants with food, but could provide a good portion of it. To provide a city like Amersfoort with food, it should have an rural area the size of Amersfoort itself. The use of flat rooftops for urban agriculture, which are used nowadays, could provide a city like Amersfoort for about 10% of its need for food and also absorbs particulates and CO2 emissions. In combination with the social and economic effects it sums up to have a rather big impact on the community. A summary of beneficial aspects of urban agriculture: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Urban agriculture raises the air quality. Urban agriculture saves energy. Urban agriculture has water absorbing abilities. Urban agriculture improves social engagement and awareness. Urban agriculture improves health conditions. Urban agriculture improves levels of food security and availability. Urban agriculture improves the quality of the urban environment through greening. Urban agriculture assists to close the open loop system in urban areas characterized by the importation of food from rural zones and the exportation of waste to regions outside the city or town. Wastewater and organic solid waste can be transformed into resources for growing agriculture products: the former can be used for irrigation, the latter as fertilizer. Vacant urban areas can be used for agriculture production. Other natural resources can be conserved. The use of wastewater for irrigation increases the availability of freshwater for drinking and household consumption. Urban agriculture can help to preserve bioregional ecologies from being transformed into cropland. Local production of food also allows savings in transportation costs, storage, and in product loss, what results in food cost reduction.

The biggest advantage of urban agriculture is that everyone can participate and contribute to a better future in an easy and effective way. For people to participate in urban agriculture, there only has to be created a possibility. Most people cannot participate in this possibility, because the spatial development till now did not anticipate on this development. Most rooftops are high angled and this lost space could easily be used for urban agriculture and for people who are willing to participate in this possibility. It is very difficult to adapt the existing building to support urban agriculture, because there are a few but crucial requirements. The building has to support additional weight on the roof, the roof cannot be highly sloped and the roof has got to have an roof access. To start this process providing these possibilities, urban agriculture has got to be implemented into governmental policies.

6.2

Why rooftop gardening?

The main goal of an urban area is to accommodate and transport its residents and locate everything in short distances of each other to make it more efficient. This creates a compact city centre, where space is very expensive and limited. Nowadays the urban areas are fully packed with roads and buildings, which results in consequences like the urban heat island, an increase of CO2 and an increase of particulates. Most people are aware that an increase of particulates, CO2 and the urban heat island are bad for our environment and will result in an increase of global warming.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

45


Since the available space in the city centers is becoming rare, we need to look for alternative locations to implement urban agriculture. Using the rating method on several urban agriculture case studies in chapter three, we concluded that rooftop gardening is the most efficient type of urban agriculture. The biggest advantage of rooftop gardening is the decrease of energy usage due to the substrate used for growing plants. This substrate acts as an insulator and prevents heat loss. The results of the rated case studies are shown below to give an indication what advantages and disadvantages the different types of urban agriculture have: Label

Rooftop gardening

Allotment community gardening

Air Energy Water Social capital Economic Organization

30 45 24 48 30 30 207

40 0 24 40 12 30 146

&

Urban farms

Backyard gardening & greenhouse gardening

Community gardening

40 0 24 32 24 30 150

30 45 24 32 24 25 180

40 0 24 40 30 25 159

As shown in this table, the biggest advantage of rooftop gardening are the energy efficiency, social and economic aspects. Also the use of glasshouses improves the energy efficiency, but has less social advantages. Therefore we advice rooftop gardening as the best type of urban agriculture.

6.3

Where to implement urban agriculture?

Amersfoort is a city with many different districts and neighborhoods. To be able to make adequate suggestions on what the benefits of rooftop gardening for Amersfoort are, we have chosen a district. The choice of a certain district has been suggested by Edward van Groningen, researcher at Eemstad Lab. He suggested applying urban agriculture and therefore rooftop gardening on an ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ district. The chosen area is the district of Schuilenburg. Out of the areas that are represented in the ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ program this area has most potential due to the presence of several flat rooftops which is crucial to rooftop gardening. Schuilenburg lies southeast of the centre of Amersfoort and next to the A28. The district was built in the sixties. The northern part of Schuilenburg is characterized by many stair case entrance flats and gallery entrance flats. These flats make up the 44,2% social rent housing in the district. The southern part is known for expensive private housing, 27,7% and private rental apartments. 28,1%. On the following figures Amersfoort is 2 displayed as a total and with a cut out of the Schuilenburg district. . In Schuilenburg alone there is 13.104m available rooftops, assuming that these rooftops are able to support urban agriculture, to implement urban 2 agriculture. An average person needs 418 m to provide itself with vegetables. So the available space in Schuilenburg could provide vegetables for about 32 people every year. This does not seem much, but recon the food miles for these vegetables and the saved energy is enormous, which also indirectly improves the quality of the air. The most important reasons for choosing this district are: • There are many flat rooftops on which rooftop gardening can be implemented. • Schuilenburg is a part of Amersfoort Vernieuwt program for renovation. • Many low income households which can supplement their income by using urban agriculture. • Ethnic minorities often have ties to urban agriculture in their home countries and wish to maintain them here. • People in the age of 55+. They have more affection with agriculture.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

46


6.4

How to implement urban agriculture?

Rooftop gardening should be initiated by the municipality of Amersfoort. By initiating we do not mean building and planning it totally on your own but starting to create awareness. This awareness is of key importance when urban agriculture needs a firm basis. At first awareness and knowledge about urban agriculture needs to be raised in the municipal organization itself. When project leaders have a project in which urban agriculture could be an opportunity they should have to know the basics and be able to convince other parties of the advantages. When the municipal organization is aware they have to reach out to their partner in the Amersfoort Vernieuwt program; the housing cooperation’s. Within their organization the seed of urban agriculture should be planted to so a working relationship is established. When both of these leading organizations in Amersfoort Vernieuwt are aware the residents of, in this case, the Schuilenburg district should be informed. This has to be done gradually because it can be a lot of information to cope with. Informative folders need to be created to gives people information about urban agriculture, rooftop gardening, what they can grow and later on how it can be maintained. The information provided in these folders should be operational, no long talks about technical issues but in short this is urban agriculture, this is how it can be used and what your ‘income’ is. When a good basis is set with the residents a pilot project should be the next step. Several advisory bureaus, such as urban.nl, are willingly to start up a pilot project to research the effectivity and efficiency of urban agriculture on rooftops. A pilot project can be started on a very small scale of only two apartment buildings. People in those buildings are invited to join rooftop gardening. They need to receive information and lessons about how to grow food and to maintain the garden. During this pilot a constant conversation should be taking place between the residents and the municipality and housing cooperation’s. Residents have to be able to ask their questions to a fixed person within the organization. When questions stay unanswered the enthusiasm fades away quickly. The organization should also be able to be in touch with the residents at all times. They need to ask information about how the food grows and what the yield was. This pilot is of crucial value to the feasibility of rooftop gardening. Only during such a project it is possible to see the direct and indirect effects on the residents and their environment.

6.5

Recommendations • • • •

Implement rooftop gardening Use Amersfoort Vernieuwt district Schuilenburg. Fix internal communication before starting external communications with residents. Use a small pilot project to research the advantages and disadvantages.

‘THINK GLOBAL, EAT LOCAL’

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

47


List of definitions Allotments

A series of garden plots rented out to individuals. Often they are offered for the purpose of food production and may be developed to support food security. In allotment gardens, the parcels are cultivated individually, and the common areas (pathways) are often managed through volunteer activities of the garden group.

Case study

An in-depth study which concerns nearly every aspect of the subject to seek patterns and causes for behavior.

Climate

The "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of 30 years.

Climate adaptation

Initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects.

Climate variability

Actual effects of climate change. Not avoidable.

Community gardens

A piece of land gardened by a group of people (10 persons minimum) for the purpose of producing food or flowers. Community gardens are free.

Economy

Careful, thrifty management of resources, such as money, materials, or labor.

Food miles

The distance that food is transported as it travels from producer to consumer.

Global warming/greenhouse effect

The process of natural and anthropogenic gasses, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect what warms up earth.

Greenhouse gasses

Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere. Cultivating fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants.

Horticulture

Human system

A human system is any system in which human organizations play a major role for example the agricultural system.

Hydrophonic

Cultivation of plants in nutrient solution rather than in soil.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

48


LETS

An arrangement between a group of people, whereby they agree to exchange goods and services, not as one-to-one bartering but with a pooled system of credits and debits.

Mitigation

Any adjustment that permanently eliminates or reduces the human causes of long term risks of climate change such as the emission of greenhouse gasses and enhancing sink opportunities.

Natural system

Fixed or determined by nature. No human influences.

Scale level

The level in which the project takes place. International, continental, national, provincial regional, municipal, districts, neighborhood, building.

Sink

Any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere.

Social capital

Social capital are the processes and conditions among people that lead to accomplishing a mutual social benefit.

Substrate

A surface on which an organism grows or is attached.

Triple bottom line Urban agriculture

People, planet, profit.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

49


List of figures Figure 1: GHG emission in CO2 equivalents. ____________________________________________ Figure 2: Mitigation of climate change stabilization levels _________________________________ Figure 3: Impact of adaptation measures on damage due to low and high sea level rise. Costs with and without adaptation measures. ___________________________________________________ Figure 4: Social and economical benefits of urban agriculture ______________________________ Figure 5: Commonalities and differences between adaptation and mitigation of climate change __ Figure 6: Division subject mitigation and adaptation _____________________________________ Figure 7: Label ratings and values ____________________________________________________ Figure 8: Example multicriteria analyses_______________________________________________ Figure 9: Weighing factors multicriteria-analysis ________________________________________ Figure 10: Label rating: the best case study ____________________________________________ Figure 11: air pollutants reduction ___________________________________________________ Figure 12: Amount of rainfall retained by green roofs ____________________________________ Figure 13: Amersfoort and Schuilenburg ______________________________________________ Figure 14: Stakeholders analysis _____________________________________________________ Figure 15: Ethnicities in Schuilenburg _________________________________________________ Figure 16: Age structure in Schuilenburg ______________________________________________

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

14 16 17 18 19 20 25 25 26 33 34 34 39 43 44 44

50


List of sources Literature (Books) •

Bekkering, T., J. Walter. 2009. Management van processen: het realiseren van complexe initiatieven. Spectrum Houten.

Brangwyn, B., R. Hopkins, 2008. Basic handbook: primer Transition Towns. Jan van Arkel publishers Utrecht.

Cronie, R. Team ROP. 2009. Handleiding afstuderen: voor studenten en opdrachtgevrrs van de opleiding Ruimtelijke Ordening en Planologie.

Pijnenburg, B., G. Remmers, 2009. Een welvarend platteland begint in de stad: naar een nieuwe generatie stad – land relaties.

Propper, I. 2009. De aanpak van interactief beleid: elke situatie is anders. Coutinho Bussum.

Viljoen, A., K. Bohn, J. Howe, 2005. Continuous productive urban landscapes: designing urban agriculture for sustainable cities. Elsevier Ltd.

Internet •

Earth System Research Laboratory. For understanding atmospheric mechanisms that drive the earth's climate. th Retrieved: March 8 . URL: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/

Gemeente Amersfoort. Used chat service to gain information about contact persons and scanned the website for sustainability projects. th Retrieved: May 10 2010. URL: http://www.amersfoort.nl and especially http://www.amersfoort.nl/smartsite. shtml?id=172271&ch=TER

RUAF. Distance learning course on urban agriculture. Retrieved: March and april 2010. URL: http://moodle.ruaf.org/

Transition Towns. Essential explanation about the way Transition Towns work. th Retrieved: April 30 2010. URL: http://www.transitiontowns.nl/

Transition Town Amersfoort. Background information and contact persons. th Retrieved: April 30 2010. URL: http://www.transistiontownamersfoort.ning.com/

UNFCCC, essential background information climate convention and Kyoto Protocol. th Retrieved: March 10 2010. URL: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php

UNFCCC, Information provided by Parties to the Convention relating to the Copenhagen Accord. Retrieved: April 8th 2010 URL: http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php

WMO, causes of global warming. th Retrieved: March 10 2010. URL:: http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_global_warming.php

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

51


Publications (PDF, articles) •

Adaptatie voor ruimte en klimaat. 2007. Maak ruimte voor klimaat! Nationale adaptatiestrategie: de beleidnotitie. rd Retrieved: March 23 2010. Downloaded: http://www.maakruimtevoorklimaat.nl/ark-programma/nationaleadaptatiestrategie.html

BBC. 2010. Harrabin’s notes: After Copenhagen. th Retrieved: April 8 2010. Downloaded: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8423822.stm

Brook, R., J. Davila. 2000. The Peri-Urban Interface: A tale of two cities. nd Retrieved: March 22 2010. Downloaded: http://www.nrsp.org/database/documents/2026.pdf

BP. 2009. Consumption by fuel 1965 – 2008: statistical review of world energy. th Retrieved: april 14 2010. Downloaded: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/ statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_ energy_full_report_2009.xls#'Primary

Cardinal Group. 2002. Public Benefits of Green Roofs. rd Retrieved: June 3 2010. Downloaded: http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php?page=publicbenefits

Change magazine. 2007. Special aanpassen aan klimaatverandering: De weg naar een klimaatbestendig Nederland. nd Retrieved: March 22 2010. http://www.changemagazine.nl/ Downloaded:

COS Nederland. 2009. Lokale duurzaamheidsmeter: stand van zaken. nd Retrieved: March 22 2010. Downloaded: http://www.duurzaamheidsmeter.nl/LDM

Deelstra, T., D. Boyd, M. van den Biggelaar. 2001. Multifunctional land use: a opportunity for promoting urban agriculture in Europe. th Retrieved: March 19 2010. http://www.library.wur.nl/WebQuery/artik/lang/1689601 Downloaded:

Deelstra, T., H. Girardet. 2009. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. th Retrieved: April 5 2010. http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20003032306 Downloaded:

DEFRA. 2005. The validity of food miles as an indicator for sustainable development. th Retrieved: May 30 2010. Downloaded: www.wfa.org.au/entwine_website/files/.../Validity_of_food_miles.pdf

Dieleman, A., A. de Gelder. 2009. Hogere co2-concentratie basis voor meerpoductie. th Retrieved: March 20 Downloaded: http://www.library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/lang/378662

Drescher A.W., P. Jacobi, J. Amend. 2000. Urban Food Security: Urban agriculture, a response to crisis? th Retrieved: May 15 2010

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

52


Downloaded:

http://www.ruaf.org/index.php?q=system/files/files/Urban+food+security++UA+response+to+crisis.pdf

European Commission. 2007. Green paper: adapting to climate change in Europe: options for EU action. th Retrieved: March 12 2010 Downloaded: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0354:EN:NOT

European Commission. 2008. EU action against climate change: adaptation to climate change. th Retrieved: March 17 2010. Downloaded: http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/brochures/adapting_en.pdf

European Environment Agency, 2009. Report on good practice measures for climate change adaptation in management plans. th Retrieved: March 15 2010. Downloaded: http://www.water.eionet.europa.eu/ETC_Reports/Good_practice_report_final _ETC.pdf

European Environment Agency. 2010. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990 – 2008 and inventory report 2010: submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat. th Retrieved: May 28 2010 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventoryDownloaded: 2010

FAO. 1999. Urban and peri-urban agriculture. th Retrieved: April 12 2010. Downloaded: http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/COag/cOAG15/X0076e.htm

FAO. 2009. The state of food and agriculture 2009. th Retrieved: March 15 2010. http://www.fao.org/publications/en/ Downloaded:

Fussel, H. R.J.T. Klein. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. th Retrieved: March 10 2010. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~fuessel/download/cc02_published.pdf Downloaded:

Groot, M.I., L.M.L. Wielders, G.J. van de Vreede. 2008. Relatie tussen mitigatie en adaptatie op gebouwniveau: inventarisatie van tegenstrijdigheden en synergismen. rd Retrieved: March 23 2010. Downloaded: www.ce.nl/.../relatie_tussen_adaptatie...mitigatie...gebouwniveau/898

Hanh, H.D., A. Michaelowa, D. D. Tuan. 2007. Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development. nd Retrieved: March 22 2010. Downloaded: http://www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1469306203001086

IDRC/UN-Habitat. 2003. Guidelines for municipal policymaking on urban agriculture. th Retrieved: March 9 2010. Downloaded: http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10530054240E1.pdf

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. th Retrieved: March 10 2010. Downloaded: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spm.html

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

53


Retrieved: Downloaded:

th

March 10 2010. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spm.html

IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report. th Retrieved: March 10 2010. Downloaded: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html

Jansma, J.E., A.J.G. Dekking, G. Mighels, A.J. de Buck, M.N.A. Ruijs, P.J. Galama, A. J. Visser, 2009. Urban agriculture in Almere, from future scenario towards design. th Retrieved: May 13 2010. Downloaded: http://www.agromere.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/9B133549-63C7-483C-A07D8326410CC74E/104470/Agromererapportdef.pdf

Klauw van der, M. 2009. Thesis: Handreikingen voor duurzaam bouwen aan gemeenten – succesfactoren en praktijkvoorbeelden voor interne samenwerking en projectmanagement. th Retrieved: May 17 2010. Downloaded: www.we.nl/.../Handreikingen%20voor%20duurzaam%20bouwen%20aan%20gemeenten...

Klein, R.J.T., E.L.F. Schipper, S. Dessai. 2005. Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy. th Retrieved: March 12 2010. Downloaded: http://www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901105001073

Mazereeuw, B. 2005. Urban agriculture: feasibility of rooftop community gardens. th Retrieved: May 17 2010. Downloaded: www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/health.nsf/.../$file/UA_Feasibility.pdf?...

Minister of VROM Mrs. Cramer. 2009. Speech at International Urban Planning Congress Amsterdam. th Retrieved: March 10 2010. http://international.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=44445 Downloaded:

Mougeot, L.J.A. (International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) 2005. Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. th Retrieved: May 15 2010 http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-84289-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html Downloaded:

Mulder, S., A. Ettema, M. Schalkwijk. 2009. Burgerpeiling Klimaatadaptatie: beleid met burgers. rd Retrieved: March 23 2010. Downloaded: http://www.maakruimtevoorklimaat.nl/.../090604_uitgelicht_Burgerpeiling_ 2009.pdf

Myers, A. 2008. Vitalizing the vacant: the logistics and benefits of middle- to large-scale agricultural production on urban land. th Retrieved: May 18 2010. Downloaded: http://www.thoughtsonthetable.wordpress.com/.../vitalizing-the-vacant/

Netherlands Environment Assesment Agency, 2005. The effects of climate change in the Netherlands. th Retrieved: April 8 2010. Downloaded: http:/www.library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/344588

Nowak, M. 2009. Senior honors thesis: Urban Agriculture on the Rooftop. th Retrieved: April 30 2010. Downloaded: http://www.cityfarmer.org/rooftopthesis.html

Parry, J. A. Hammill, J. Drexhage. 2005. Climate change and adaptation.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

54


Retrieved: Downloaded:

th

March 13 2010. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/climate_adaptation.pdf

Peck, S., C. Callaghan, M. Khun, B. Bass. 1999. Greenbacks for Green Roofs: Forging a New Industry in Canada. th Retrieved: June 4 2010. Downloaded: http://www.greenroofs.org/pdf/Greenbacks.pdf

Peck, S. 2003. Towards an Integrated Green Roof Infrastructure Evaluation for Toronto. The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor. st Retrieved: June 1 2010 Downloaded: http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php?page=greenroofinfrastructuremonitor

Pelegrin Asencio, A. 2005. Urban agriculture initiative in Gaza refugee camps: Rooftops. th Retrieved: May 18 2010 Downloaded: http://www.homepage.mac.com/cityfarmer/FINALgazaUAJune05.pdf

Pennings, L. M Witteloostuijn. 2003. Sociaal kapitaal. th Retrieved: April 24 2010. Downloaded:

Persson, M. 2010. De stad moet radicaal anders. Article Volkskrant quire 2 page 8. th Retrieved: April 24 2010. Downloaded: www.rijnland-weblog.nl/.../1142-VOK-20100424_section2_page008_article5Duurzame-steden.pdf

Pets, J. 2001. WHO series on food security case study 2: Urban Agriculture in London. th Retrieved: May 13 2010. Downloaded: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e72421.pdf

Raemaker, J. 2007. Greenportkas Venlo: een duurzaam glastuinbouwconcept th Retrieved: April 18 2010. Downloaded: http://www.agf.nl/nieuwsbericht_detail.asp?id=26444

Reid, H. J. S. Huq. 2007. International Institute for Environment and Development: Adaptation to climate change.. st Retrieved: March 1 2010. Downloaded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19097498/Adapting-to-Climate-Change-IIED

Region four: Laboratory and Field operations. 2008. PM 2.5 Objectives and History: environmental protection agency. Retrieved: June 6th 2010. Downloaded: http://www.ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/147130.pdf

Smit, B. I. Burton, R.J.T. Klein, J. Wandel. 2008. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. th Retrieved: March 17 2010. Downloaded: www.uoguelph.ca/.../Smit%20et%20al.%20(2000)_Climatic%20Change.pdf

Stichting Innovatie Glastuinbouw Nederland and InnovatieNetwerk. 2007. Een kas voor elke woonwijk: duurzame energie voor de gebouwde omgeving uit de glastuinbouw. th Retrieved: May 18 2010. Downloaded: http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,3387931&_ dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=16959

Simonis, U.E. 2010. Climate Change: Mitigation and adaptation at urban level.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

55


Retrieved: Downloaded:

th

March 18 2010. http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=22278

Sutic, N. 2003. How Green Roofs Can Improve the Urban Environment in Uptown Waterloo (Undergraduate Thesis). st Retrieved: June 1 2010. Downloaded: http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/ers/undergraduate/90sForWeb/NSuticGreenRoofs.pdf

Teri. 2008. Background paper: adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainability. st Retrieved: March 1 2010. Downloaded: www.teriin.org/events/docs/adapt.pdf

Twiss, J., J. Dickinson, S. Duma, T. Kleinman, H. Paulsen, L. Rilveria. 2003. Community gardens: Lessons learned from California healthy cities and communities. nd Retrieved: June 2 2010. Downloaded: American Journal of Public Health, 93(9) 1435-1438.

Urban Agriculture Magazine nr. 22. 2009. Building Resilient Cities. st Retrieved: March 1 2010. Downloaded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/.../UA22-Building-Resilient-Cities

Urban Gardening Club, 2000. WHO series on food security case study 1: Urban agriculture in St. Petersburg. th Retrieved: May 13 2010. Downloaded: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e70095.pdf

Vlaskamp, W., L. Heutinck. 2008. Thesis: Er was een een stad bedekt met groene daken. st Retrieved: May 1 2010. Downloaded: http://www.hbo-kennisbank.nl/nl/page/hborecord.view/show?uploadId= vanhall_larenstein thesis%3Aoai%3Alibrary.wur.nl%3Ascriptiesvhl%2F1896850

Wageningen University, 2009. Stadslandbouw. th Retrieved: May 18 2010. Downloaded: http://www.syscope.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/26C58BDE-F4C6-43E2-9BD725B987FA893F/19744/Stadslandbouw7LR1.pdf

Wieditz, I. 2003. Urban Biodiversity – An Oxymoron? The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor. rd Retrieved: June 3 2010. Downloaded: http://www.greenroofs.org/pdf/GRIM-Spring2003.pdf

Interviews •

Marit Beguin. External environmental advisor municipality of Amersfoort. th Retrieved: May 11 2010.

Willem Oxener, landscape architect and Bert Blijleven, urban designer. th Retrieved: May 28 2010.

Edgar van Groningen, Eemstad Lab and Transition Town Amersfoort. th Retrieved: May 28 2010.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

56


Appendix 1 Case studies Chapters one and two explained the context of urban agriculture and the method we intend to use in this chapter. Urban agriculture practically contains ^& case studies varying in size and way of urban agriculture. By analyzing these case studies using the multi criteria analysis (MCA) described in chapter two, this chapter concludes in the best case study. The case study which scores highest in our multicriteria analysis is projected onto our test case, also called reference, city in the Netherlands.

3.1

Case study 1: Rooftop and institutional gardening

The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study concerns St. Petersburg, Russia. The project was initiated by the St. Petersburg Urban Gardening Club (UGC), a non-profit foundation on a local scale level. The potential for rooftop gardening in St. Petersburg is huge. The UGC has done research, conducted tests and now has excellent information for interested Russian city farmers. For example, in just one district it is possible to grow 2000 tons of vegetables per season from 500 roof tops. An important factor is that all agriculture is placed on existing rooftops. The projects within the case study are: • Horticultural therapy project • Growing chicory salad • Gardens in city prison • Secondary school No. 42 3.1.1 Air label The case study does not include a direct link to the diminishing of air pollution by using rooftop gardens. Though it is not mentioned the permanent vegetable plants (tomatoes, chicory, peppers, dill, lettuce and flowers) do absorb particulates. 3.1.2 Energy label Though it is not explicitly mentioned in the case study the energy label is applicable. Because urban agriculture is used, the substrate on the roof has to be between 25 - 50 cm thick to have enough growing room for vegetable plants. 3.1.3 Water label The horticultural project included a water system for reuse of water. Because of the thick substrate described in the energy label, water gets more absorbed. A substrate of 25 – 50 cm equals a water absorption with a maximum of 70%. 3.1.4

Social capital label

Health The horticultural therapy project aims at transforming the courtyard of the Prosthesis Institute into a therapy garden especially equipped for handicapped, mostly limb amputations. It relieves the sense of despair and inactivity and provides new opportunities for over 400 clients per year. The project concerning growing chicory was mainly targeting at making healthy vitamin rich food available for poor families in the area. Education With the project secondary school no. 42 rooftop gardens where started for producing vegetables and greens with the purpose to teach ‘live’ biology classes. They planted dill, parsley, tomatoes, lettuce, peppers and annual flowers. Seeds are collected and used next year. Other schools are implementing rooftop gardens too. The horticulture project teaches gardening skills to people possessing a reduced ability to work. Recreation The project gardens in the city prison implemented rooftop gardens for food production for the inmates and provide the inmates with a creative outlet for their energy. The horticultural therapy project has next to a health goal also recreation goal for clients.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

57


Participation Rooftop gardens are exploited by city farmers and are semi-public. For all four projects inhabitants have to be either a client at the Prosthesis Institute or in prison or in school or a house owner. Cohesion Groups of people tend to the projects. These groups are already formed due to social circumstances (school, therapy, prison). The groups interact more with each other and learn to cooperate. Because these projects are semi-public the ‘supply’ of new participants is limited. Safety Because the urban agriculture is occurring on rooftops vandalism is avoided. Unwanted excess is not possible. 3.1.5

Economics label

(Self)Employment There is no paid employment in this case study. All participants are volunteers or are socially bound to practice urban farming for reasons mentioned in social capital label. Though they are not paid, a lot of people spend their time in the gardens and voluntary employ. Food security All projects contribute to the urban food supply. They all sell or trade their vegetables and flowers on markets. The exception is the prison which uses it for feeding inmates. Share in markets Excess food production is sold on markets and in LETS. LETS are Local Exchange and Trading Schemes. Food cannot only be bought here but also traded for other foods. Durability The used materials where lightweight. Rooftops where not equipped with lightweight substrates. An important note is that urban rooftop gardening is a much cheaper method of urban agriculture than using land. The lease of land or the purchase of land increases the financial costs. In contrast rooftops are always available and free from vandalism. Organic produces. Value increase Due to beautification around the school, hospital and prison the sight has improved. Participants in the project plant seedlings from flowers around their buildings. Though beautification is in order the buildings will not increase in value due to the fact that they will not be sold except when the functions of these buildings (school, prison, hospital) is altered. Financial feasibility Not applicable. 3.1.6

Organization label

Stakeholders The stakeholders in the project are the initiator UGC, the participating institutions being school no. 42, the city prison and the Prosthesis institute. Volunteers concern an important and growing group in rooftop gardening. The stakeholders where not initially contacted and informed but during the process. Basis Urban agriculture is used by the urban poor for centuries in Russia. Therefore a historical basis is available. Agriculture on rooftops engaged in much enthusiasm but also resistance because of the unusual idea. The first rooftop gardening began without any basis. It grew trough media attention and promotion. Involvement government

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

58


The government is not involved and had only a facilitating role in urban agriculture. The government is not approached to be a partner in rooftop gardening. At first no facilitation, mainly in policies was made, nowadays the government does implement it in strategies because of the basis among inhabitants of St. Petersburg.

Policies As described above policies are implemented making rooftop gardening a possibility. Still there exist a lot of difficulties permission must be obtained for rooftop gardening. Communication and awareness The UGC has been actively promoting rooftop gardening. TV-Channels 5 and 36 of St. Petersburg, Moscow TV paid attention to the project. Local and regional newspapers as ‘Smena’ and Novosti Sankt-Peterburga’ and magazines as Ecochronicle have published articles on the experience in St. Petersburg. This resulted in a noticeable though not measurable increase in rooftop gardeners. The awareness in environmental and food growing has increased greatly.

3.2

Case study 2: allotments and community gardens

The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study concerns London, Great Britain. The case study does not have clear initiators because of the historical bounds London has to urban agriculture. The main goal of this case study was to feed families, the urban poor. Nowadays it is still for feeding working class families and more and more for middle class recreationists. The case study contains several methods of urban farming such as allotments, community gardening and greenhouse farming. The projects within the case study are: • Lea valley: sea of glass • Allotment: a potted history • City farms and community gardens • School gardens 3.2.1 Air label The permanent plants, bushes and hedged placed in the gardens improve the air quality. 3.2.2 Energy label Gardening is not energy efficient because it doesn’t insulate the building. 3.2.3 Water label The ground on which the urban agriculture takes place absorbs all water. 3.2.4 Social capital label Health Studies have proven that gardening in England creates a sense of purpose among participants. The incidence of serious and expensive illnesses are reduced. Though this is not measurable only promotable. Education City farms serve an educational role. Some have developed teaching packs which link the farm’s activities with school curriculum requirements. Visiting a city farm is for various inhabitants a first encounter with agricultural animals and food-growing in the ground. The school gardens only have a educational purpose due to their small sizes which makes the nutritional gain small. Recreation Gardening is in the United Kingdom mainly focused on recreation. Not intentionally provided but self conducted. Participation Lee valley is a private project. Therefore only employees are allowed to enter the property. The allotments can be rented and are semi public. Similar are the school gardens. City farms and community gardens are free of admission and it is possible to join a group at any time.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

59


Cohesion Because of the historical nature of gardening in the United Kingdom, social cohesion can be found on every allotment and in every city farm or school garden. Inhabitants who do or do not know each other get together to cultivate land and maintain their vegetables. Often they make trading schemes and vacation schemes. Safety Agricultural enterprises face additional problems such as vandalism and tipping. This is sometimes so severe that farming becomes unprofitable and agricultural land is left to deteriorate. These obstacles need to be addressed and, where necessary, removed because urban agriculture could potentially yield a far greater range of benefits than many of the other uses of such land. 3.2.5

Economics label

(Self)Employment Only within the project Lea Valley: sea of glass there are paid employees because of the commercial nature of the greenhouse companies. The other projects are counting solely on self employed volunteers. The National Health Services of Great Britain stated that for every Pound invested into volunteers, 2-8 Pounds worth of work are returned. Food security The main reason in the projects allotments and community gardens is to produce food for a household or close relations. Food from these allotments or community gardens cannot be sold on markets due to British law which states that sale for commercial purposes of allotment-grown food is not permitted unless it benefits the community. Lea valley contributes to household food through deliveries to supermarkets. Share in markets As stated above allotment-grown food cannot be sold for commercial purposes. It is possible to use LETS. Lea valley delivers food to supermarkets in the city. Durability No durable materials where used because no organization funded these. When gardeners have to pay it themselves it is too expensive. Value increase The projects are closed in by industrialized areas and have a beautifying effect on the surroundings. Because of the functions which rest on the surrounding areas (industry, office, transport)these buildings will not increase in value. Financial feasibility Because commercial farms are protected in the Great Britain no grants are given to allotments gardeners or commercial gardeners. The commercial greenhouse in Lea Valley does receive a grant. 3.2.6 Organization label Stakeholders The field of stakeholders is well developed and inventoried. It was not necessarily inventoried before all projects started but only during the process and the development of projects stakeholders became clear and new organizations within the playing field erected themselves. The Food Futures organization brings stakeholders together to develop a strategy for a local food economy. The most important stakeholders in urban agriculture are: • London Planning Advisory Committee • Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens • Chartered Institute of Environmental Health • Food Futures • Permaculture Association of Britain • Common Ground • National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners URBAN AGRICULTURE:

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

60


Basis The basis for gardening, and therefore urban agriculture, in the United Kingdom is great. Four fifths of British adults claim to garden no matter what and 39% describe themselves as keen. 14% grow at least their own fruit and vegetables. The basis among older people (50+ years old) is higher 21% than for younger people (20-24 years old) 5%. Involvement government The government acknowledges the need and use of urban agriculture. The London Planning and Advisory Committee states: ‘the value of agricultural land in contributing to sustainability is clear’ and recommends that ‘agricultural land within and adjacent to London needs to be maintained in productive use, particularly the land of highest quality’. The government promotes and facilitates urban agriculture. Policies Due to mixed landownership a coherent policy framework is very complex to set in place. Policies do exist on national and regional levels. These policies support a more environmental productive approach to the area surrounding London. Sustainable food production is providing for or contributing to the lists introduced by the Planning Policy Guidance. Communication and awareness Urban agriculture is promoted through various organizations. These are the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners, Common Ground, the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens and the Soil Association. These organization run several campaign such as ‘grow your own organic fruit and vegetables’ and ‘food futures’. Because of the popularity of gardening, there are TV gardening programs at prime viewing hours every night.


3.2

Case study 3: Urban farms

The department of Urban and Regional planning of the University of California conducted a research to describe and analyze urban farms throughout the United States of America. The urban farms described in this study contribute in a significant way to the health, education, environment and economy of their local communities. The projects are initiated and demanded by local communities. Urban farms are located inside or on the fringe of a city. The following six projects are mentioned in the research: • Zenger Farm: Portland, Oregon • Somerton Tanks Farm: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • Troy Gardens Community Farm: Madison, Wisconsin • Wood Street Urban Farm: Chicago, Illinois • Red Hook Community Farm: Brooklyn, New York • Alemany Farm: San Francisco, California 3.2.1 Air label The permanent plants, bushes and hedged placed in the gardens improve the air quality. 3.2.2 Energy label No substrate is used. Therefore no energy saving measures are taken. 3.2.3 Water label The ground on which the farms are build absorb all water. 3.2.4 Social capital label Health The most important health factor urban agriculture contributes to is diet-related. They especially contribute to the food deserts. These are areas with no or distant grocery stores and many nearby fast food convenience stores. Studies prove that communities living in these areas have higher rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Though a new good-food introduction is needed urban farms are not big enough to produce sufficient food for the entire community. Education Several programs in gardening, composting, cooking, and farm stand or market management. Everyone, from students to pre-school age members can participate in weekly classes, field trips and summer programs. They learn not only how to grow healthy food but also how to cook, and consume the foods that contribute to their health. To close the cycle they also learn about waste management, recycling and composting. Recreation The urban farms described do not provide recreational benefits. They aim at education, health and employment. Participation The urban farms described are all public. Though not everyone can work in one of them they are accessible for everyone to take course or to give a hand. Cohesion The urban farms aim at several groups inside the communities. These are for example students, preschool members but also high risk youth population, homeless and low income individuals. Though these groups participate they usually do not mix. Safety Urban farms are liable to vandalism because they are mostly easy accessed. Reports show that farms do need gates and fences sometimes even video surveillance. 3.2.5 Economics label: (Self)Employment

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

62


Urban farms provide employment opportunities to the local community. The farms employ mostly at-risk youth, homeless and low-income individuals. A big chunk of the work is done by volunteers. In every case described, however, the current income generated through farm sales is not enough to provide sufficient wages for the farm employees. Non-profit organizations, grants, and other forms of outside funding usually provide additional support. Food security The city farms are used to educate people about the way food grows and healthy food. Only 50% is consumed on the farm the other part is sold on markets. No food is directly used in households. Share in markets Urban farms contribute 50% of their yield to local outdoor farmer food markets. Durability No sustainable materials have been used because of the low cost build. There was no room in the budget to use sustainable materials. Value increase N/A. Financial feasibility Grant funding is in order. See (self) Employment. 3.2.6 Organization label Stakeholders The farms where initiated by local groups or non-profit organizations. they were reasonably good organized from the beginning. Publicity was a big problem, people did not know about the farms and the reason why they should visit a farm. Basis Four of these six farms owe their existence to community demand and initiative. This community demand, for access to clean, healthy foods, educational open space, and environmentally friendly employment, is growing throughout cities in the United States. Involvement government The government facilitated in the needs such as grants, up to date legislation and cheap building grounds. They do not interfere with the farm itself. Policies Policies which enable the build of urban farms have been approved in all cities. It is not always very easy because of the land that is acquired relatively cheap. Communication and awareness The urban farms promote themselves using mostly mouth-to-mouth communication. They get recommended often and that way they create a larger basis with the community. The way the local community experiences food has improved.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

63


Case study 4: Backyard gardening and greenhouse rooftops The department of projects and external relations of Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee-Gaza and the Consulat General De France A Jerusalem implemented and researched urban agriculture in refugee camps. The project tries to develop different urban agriculture activities in several Refugees Camps in the Gaza Strip. The implementation concerned growing crops in backyards and in 20m2 or 40m2 greenhouses on rooftops. The crops and greenhouses have been provided totally equipped by the department. The objective of the project is to improve health, food security, environmental and social situation of the 81 families which participated in the project. 3.2.1 Air label Due to the fact that permanent vegetable plants were used particulates are filtered out of the air. 3.2.2 Energy label N/A because of the lack of substrates. 3.2.3 Water label Because of the thick substrate described in the energy label, water gets more absorbed. A substrate of 25 – 50 cm equals a water absorption with a maximum of 70%. The project also makes use of collecting and using rainwater. The greenhouses have drainage systems to avoid filtration and to reuse water. 3.2.4 Social capital label Health The greenhouses and backyards provide to the family direct and easy access to different fresh vegetables along the year, depending on the kind of crop. The practice of urban agriculture also gives refugees an opportunity to recover the severed connection with their agricultural backgrounds. Because of this the feeling of inactivity and frustration decreases. The food grown inside the green houses and backyards is of a higher production quality than the available vegetable quality in the market since the farmers use organic farming and therefore no pesticides or other dangerous chemical products. Education The beneficiary 81 families, have received intensive technical training in different aspects of urban agriculture. This way they are able to cultivate their own crops. Moreover, they have received continuous technical advice during the entire project. Children are taught in the backyards and greenhouses about the function green spaces, to know the plants and their requirements and to have their role in the agricultural project. Recreation Recreation was not a particular part of this case study due to the great demand for (healthy) food. But, as described above, refugees felt more useful and back in touch with their farming backgrounds. Participation It is not possible for everyone to join in. Though it was possible to apply. The project was semi-public. The beneficiary families have been selected on the following criteria: • Living in a Refugee Camp. • Poor households with low income. • Family member above seven. • Basic skills and experience in agriculture. Cohesion enhancement of relationships between neighbors. It is not estrange to receive visitors for seeing the greenhouse, asking for some vegetable which he needs or simply for drinking a tea on the roof. Safety The backyards tended to be plundered every once in a while. The rooftops greenhouses on the other hand where very safe and free of vandalism.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

64


3.2.5 Economics label (Self)Employment The 81 families were employed during the projects. They were supplied with all materials and could keep the food they grew. Food security The amount of food that was grown in the gardens and greenhouses was enough to feed the families for on average 30% of their needs. The income generated (in other words the food they did not have to buy which saves money) lies between 20 and 30%. Share in markets The food was not sold nor traded because every family needed the amount of food they grew. Durability The greenhouses were made of sustainable glass. Due to the substrate on the rooftops the sustainability of the houses were increased. Because of this substrate the cooling effect inside the houses was increased. Value increase N/A. Financial feasibility Estimations show that greenhouses are not profitable for the families if they have to cover all the costs (fixed and running). Therefore the project was totally funded by the Israelian and Palestinian governments. 3.2.6 Organization label Stakeholders The project was initiated by the department of projects and external relations of PARC-Gaza. An external organization covers the initial greenhouse fixed costs in such a way that the families only have to cover running costs. No other stakeholders where involved because of the top down structure of the project. Basis There was a large basis for the implementation of urban agriculture. It is mentioned above that the refugees left their original mostly agricultural villages. They are very pleased to see more green inside the camps. Involvement government The government used an open authoritarian style. The communication was single sided and the participants functioned as recipient. Policies The government took care of the policies. Building regulations were altered. Communication and awareness Families were picked without a widely spread campaign. The governments are trying to create communication due to case study reports but mostly to show other countries their interests. Awareness is not taken into account.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

65


Case study 5: Community gardening Havana, Cuba is described as a continuous productive urban landscape. This means that they are able to use urban agriculture throughout the year. Urban agriculture was promoted in Cuba after the crisis when Cuba lost more than 75% of its import and export capacity. Urban agriculture in Cuba is focused on community gardens on the city fringe or in the city centre adjacent to major roads. the case study defines various kinds of community gardens being: • Plots (less then 1000m2) • Intensive cultivation gardens ( between 1000m2 and 2000m2) • Urban gardens ( between 2000m2 and 5000m2) • High yield urban garden (over 10.000 m2) Though these areas seem large pathways take up a lot of the available space. It is not unusual that a 1000m2 growing area requires a 3000m2 site. 3.2.1 Air label Air contamination is deducted because of the placement of permanent plants, bushes and hedges. These permanent vegetable plants take up a mentionable amount of particulates. 3.2.2 Energy label The substrate is used. This is done by raising vegetable beds. This does not have an energy saving effect. 3.2.3 Water label The ground absorbs the water. Water is reused on the site. 3.2.4 Social capital label Health Crops are cultivated on raised beds so they can come in contact with contaminated soil. Schools and restaurants are supplied with fresh organic produce on a daily basis. Education Fields of urban agriculture are placed adjacent to schools which provides an opportunity for children of the schools to educate themselves about the growth of food. Recreation The recreational aspect of urban agriculture has been recognized in the last years. Before it was all about food security. Nowadays people also do it to recreate. Participation The sites for urban agriculture are public or semi public. Most sites have been fenced of. Inhabitants of Cuba are always able to participate. Cohesion Many users of urban agriculture started by using derelict urban spaces in the city. It was available for all groups but mainly for low-income households which had a greater need for food security. The large vegetable patches between apartment buildings are cultivated with (a part of) the residents sometimes under leadership of a professional. Social cohesion increased. Safety Security is of great importance at agricultural sited in Cuba. Although fences provide a physical barrier along boundaries, trespassing is common.

3.2.5 Economics label: (Self)Employment Urban agriculture is a voluntary business.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

66


Food security Urban agriculture provides food to each household and contributes to the urban food supply. Share in markets The food produced in the community gardens is mostly used by the residents or volunteers working the patches. Also small markets are set up to sell food. Durability The materials used are not specifically durable. Vegetables are produced in an organic way without non-organic pesticides and fertilizers. This mainly due to the fact that there is a lack of hard currency (initially). Value increase The city of Havana had a major beautification benefit of urban agriculture. Sites are also placed between apartment buildings which makes the public space more attractive. Financial feasibility The Cuban government supported urban agriculture throughout Cuba.

3.2.6 Organization label Stakeholders Stakeholders where not inventoried before the project started. Basis Due to the crisis that hit Cuba the basis for urban agriculture was reasonable. People needed to provide food for their families. Involvement government The inhabitants of Cuba started with urban agriculture as a response to the crisis the country was in. the government stimulated this by introducing the NAAM model (see policies). This was all handled top down in an open authoritarian style. Policies Urban agriculture was fitted into policies as NAAM; national alternative agricultural model. This model aimed at the development of less mechanized, more labor intensive operations involving local communities to produce sustainable food production enterprises. Communication and awareness raising awareness The crisis generated an awareness among people to become vegetable producers in urban and peri-urban areas. Next to this there is a growing awareness that conventional techniques are causing environmental damage.

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

67


Case study 6

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

68


Case study 7

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

69


3.3

Case study 8

URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

70


Appendix 2 Interviews Interview 1 Location Date/Time Interviewed Subject

City hall Amersfoort. Hallestraat 24 room 1.035 May 11th 2010, 15.00. Marit Béguin. External environmental advisor.

GPR Building The sustainability tool GPR Building is used by public authorities and building professionals to design sustainable buildings. GPR is a software tool, which quantifies the environmental impact and the design quality for new buildings as well as for the refurbishment of existing buildings. It is suitable as a decision making tool as it helps to find an optimum between the reduction of environmental load along with improvement of the quality of the building. Marit Béguin is working in the implementation of this instrument in the routine of the municipality of Amersfoort. Adjustments on building level: • Low temperature heating • Heat pumps • Ventilation GPR building takes the direct environment into account and test the flexibility of a building. It has also potential of calculating the CO2 emission of the building and the build materials. A pilot is available on the internet. Marit Béguin explains that it is possible that she uses the license of the municipality to run some calculations for our project. If we assemble the information we can contact her for the calculations. Possibilities of UA Amersfoort has a lot of allotments inside the municipalities boundaries. Projects could be situated in: • Schools  for education and energy saving. • Social housing. In the area ‘Soesterkwartier’ a association of sustainable Soesterkwartier has been erected. They are concerned with the placement of solar panels, windmills and awareness. Role municipality of Amersfoort The municipality cannot be an initiator or finance the project on her own. The municipality is mainly interested in the stimulation and communication of the Urban Agriculture possibilities in the city. Raising awareness is important. Marit Béguin suggests interviewing housing corporations in Amersfoort. There are two: Portaal and Alliantie Eemvallei. In new apartment buildings associations of owners (vereniging van eigenaren) can be approached. It is not unusual that they work together on energy saving programs. At this point the policies concerning sustainability are inventoried in the municipality. It is possible for urban agriculture to join this course. Information will be spread towards project managers and it could be taken into account as an opportunity for sustainability in new projects. Sources The following sources have been pointed out by Marit Béguin. henry@picosol.nl • Vereniging Duurzaam Soesterkwartier: • VROM database on lifecycle analysis of transport of building materials. • Thesis: succesfactors implementing sustainable strategies. • Urban designer: g.blijleven@amersfoort.nl • Landscape architect: w.oxener@amersfoort.nl • When needed an address for legal advise.

When the report is finished please send it to: ah.schuurman@amersfoort.nl – jm.piessenskrzystanek@amersfoort.nl. URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

71


Interview 2 Location Date/Time Interviewed Subject

City hall Amersfoort. Stadhuisplein 1 room 3.55 May 28th 2010, 10.00. Willem Oxener, landscape architect

Projects in Amersfoort: • Medieval gardens in city park Schothorst, specifically for education. • In the old days children were taught how food grew and how to grow it. These gardens where called ‘kindwerktuinen’. • Allotment gardens/vegetable gardens are still in use in Amersfoort. Though the need of these gardens is decreasing the municipality maintained space in the city for the development of allotment gardens. Only on the districts Nieuwland and Vathorst this was not applied due to a PPS construction and high land values. Examples • Detroit: since car industry collapsed urban agriculture arose in the voids in the urban landscape. Initiated by inhabitants of Detroit in an economical aspect. • East Berlin: the courtyards inside the large apartment buildings are transformed to collective gardens. • Victorian gardens: engeland has a tradition in gardening. Mostly uppermiddle clad. People compete with each other over the biggest paprika or leek. Scale level and placement The scale on which urban agriculture is introduced cannot be too great. As a basic rule: bigger projects equal more anonymity which degrades the social aspect of urban agriculture. Cooperation and collective maintenance decreases. Willem Oxener explains preference being the use of private space for urban agriculture. For example to use front gardens as a vegetable patch. Every cooperating household can eat from the garden and has an obligation to maintain it. A private organization could work best but it is asking for a huge change of behavior. Using the public domain is not useful because of the functions that are already placed on this stressed public space. Show how much space is needed for Amersfoort to be self sufficient. 416m2 x 150.000 = 62.400.000. Points of consideration urban agriculture • Knowledge of food production. When people are beginning to grow their own food they need a great amount of help. They need guidance on where to plant it, when to plant it, to water it, to yield it and what to do when sickness sets in. when people fail several times they will not continue gardening. • The difference between growing your own food and buying it in the supermarket does not have great economical profit. • Labor-intensive. Growing your own food is highly labor-intensive. People have to make time to maintain their vegetables. In other countries (Spain, Portugal etc.) women are mostly the party which takes care of food. • There are seasons in which same kinds of vegetables can be yielded. The price for these vegetables is low and cannot be traded because everyone yield them at the same time. It is possible to deepfreeze them or ‘wekken’ (short boil, put it in an airtight jar). • Chemical insecticides and herbicides cannot be used. The food should be grown biological. • UA needs a lot of promotion and communication. • Closed-loop systems are not infallible. Due to lack of enough nutrients in soil which isn’t fallowed. • Fast growing plants are important for CO2 reduction because of they produce more leafs. • Natural insecticides such as ladybug and bumblebees. Sources • Sicco mantholt: wat moet een land doe nom een status zelfvoorzienend te bereiken. URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

72


Interview 3 Location Date/Time Interviewed Subject

Central station Amersfoort May 28th 2010, 13.00 Edgar van Groningen. Eemstad Lab. Transition Towns

Urban agriculture Two tracks are possible in UA. The first is producing food around the city the second is producing food inside the city. In the Netherlands food produced inside the city is coming from vegetable gardens, eatable public gardens and schoolgardens. Education and awareness key factors in urban agriculture. In Amersfoort the amount of vegetable gardens has decreased from 31 HA in 2000 to 18 HA nowadays. Only on the last two city expansion projects Nieuwland and Vathorst vegetable gardens where not created. This was due to the fact that it was a public-private cooperation. The ground was too expensive to plan vegetable gardens. Projects in Amersfoort • CSA: community supported agriculture. They provide the possibility to adopt a horticulturist or farmer. The adopter and adopted decide together how much the yield is worth and set a price. It depends on the yield whether you get a high reward or a lower one. • Eetbaar Amersfoort (eatable Amersfoort) Other projects • Rijksbouwmeester: using backyards for greenhouses. • Cuba case study. Using public ground between buildings. Yield of 120 tons per HA. Food production Food can be produced two thirds of the year from April till December. The peak is between June until September. Each individual has an ecological footprint of 4,5 HA in the Netherlands. This concerns all subjects not only food. The 416m2 explained in a research paper is only for growing vegetables. Meat is not included. Students of the WUR researched how much a city needs to produce to become self sufficient and how much can be produced. A general conclusion was that cities can produce 10% of their vegetables and fruit in their own cities. Economy is not a great factor. A household in the Netherlands does not have financial gain by producing their own food. Food in supermarkets is to cheap and the time spend growing food is much larger and relatively more expensive. Course: method • BBB A good useable method for the last chapter can be the triple B. In Dutch: Beeld, beheer and belang. • VVV Certain environmental factors in UA are in Dutch voedsel, volkshuisvesting and vervoer. Course: location Edgar van Groningen suggests to focus our research on the Amersfoort Vernieuwt (renewes) areas. These are for example Soesterkwartier and Kruiskamp. These areas are already in development and cultures inside the area have a need for urban agriculture for they are foreign or poor. Sources • Schoolgardens and vegetable gardens in Amsterdam. Housing corporation Ymere, Marjan Kootwijk (groenmedewerker). • VROM-raad: publieke ruimte: naar een nieuwe balans tussen beeld, beheer en belang. • Continuous productive urban landscapes. th • A possibility to make a presentation on a gathering on June 17 in front of members of the council of the municipality of Amersfoort. Make Huib Haccoû aware. URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

73


URBAN AGRICULTURE:

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS

74

Thesis Urban Agriculture  

Thesis Urban Agriculture

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you