Changing places through Urban Agriculture

VIVIANE GOMES MEDEIROS

Changing places through Urban Agriculture

Tracking possibilities for improvement on quality of the living environment of

the residents of the Dichterhof through the use of urban agriculture

URBAN DYNAMICS PROGRAMME

THESIS MODULE

VIVIANE GOMES MEDEIROS

ALMERE, THE NETHERLANDS

JANUARY 2014

I. Preface and acknowledgements

In my experience in the Netherlands, I could broaden my knowledge a lot, personally and

academically speaking. I am very grateful to all the people I could have contact with, the

institutions and persons that supported my studies and work, and all of those I crossed paths with

somehow, that taught me something.

First, I would like to thank the CNPq (National Counsel of Technological and Scientific

Development), who granted me the opportunity to study and to have enriching experiences

abroad.

Studying at CAH Vilentum University of Applied Sciences brought me new points of view on

several subjects, and one of these is sustainability and sustainable development. Those were

brought up gradually, and the team always stimulates the students to think for themselves.

Moreover, the experience and opportunity to have an internship at the Amsterdam Academy of

Architecture brought me even more insight on bringing together the over-explored urban

environment, and the underdeveloped countryside. The research that took place there was about

searching for opportunities for urban agriculture in the city, and how the relation between this

practice and the urban environment was farer and farer over time.

This study represents an attempt to apply in an existing environment the research made so far,

and all the knowledge received through all this time through the supporters. What better location

to do it than one you are familiar with? Being a resident and having planning/design-related

studies makes you want start changes of your own living environment, and by living in it, it is

possible to affirm you know and you are part of it.

There is some hope that this project can be useful for the wellness of the people it was addressed

to, not necessarily as completely realized, but as inspiration towards a greener, sustainable

future.

Hence, I would like to thank each one of the respondents for their cooperation, and the ones that

made possible the realization of this thesis.

II. Summary

This study is focused on the city of Almere, the newest city of The Netherlands, located in the

province of Flevoland. In a scenario of global search for sustainability and disconnection of the

urban dweller with production activities and nature in general, this study is part of a continuous

search for improvements in the living environments, which brings several benefits for the so-

called “urban dwellers”. It has the aim to contribute to the improvement on aspects of quality of

living environment of the residents of the Dichterhof and direct surroundings, using urban

agriculture as approach, from the spatial planning and design point of view. By explaining the

techniques with its benefits and disadvantages, and performing an analysis of the space and the

population, it was found that urban agriculture can be a tool not only to tackle issues of lack of

social cohesion, but also to make the building more compatible with the environment it is

inserted into. The suggestions were given in the way of two scenarios, one with a bottom up and

another with a top down approach, giving alternative solutions to the ones willing to realize it.

Keywords: urban agriculture; residents; sustainability; quality of the living environment.

III. Table of contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology: ....................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Conceptual framework ....................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 - Presenting the area ...................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 - Opportunities for green spaces in the area .................................................................................. 9

3.3 - Defining Urban Agriculture ...................................................................................................... 11

3.4 - Defining the techniques .................................................................................................................. 14

3.4.1. - Composting ............................................................................................................................. 14

3.4.2 - Livestock shelters ..................................................................................................................... 15

3.4.3. - Hydroponic and aquaponic systems ....................................................................................... 15

3.4.4. - Greenhouse technologies ........................................................................................................ 17

3.4.5. - Raised beds ............................................................................................................................. 18

3.4.6. - Soft planters ............................................................................................................................ 19

3.4.7. - Rigid containers ...................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.8. - Hanging planters .................................................................................................................... 21

4. Analysis and results .......................................................................................................................... 24

4.1 - Results from the questionnaire ................................................................................................. 25

4.1.1 - About the sample and the questionnaire .................................................................................. 25

4.1.2 - Results ...................................................................................................................................... 26

4.2 – SWOT analysis ........................................................................................................................ 31

5. Conclusion and recommendations ................................................................................................... 32

5.1 – Discussion and general considerations .......................................................................................... 32

5.2 – Top down vs Bottom up ................................................................................................................. 34

5.3 – Possibilities for intervention .......................................................................................................... 36

5.3.1. - Scenario 01 ............................................................................................................................. 36

5.3.2. - Scenario 02 ............................................................................................................................. 38

5.4 – Final remarks ................................................................................................................................. 40

5.5 – Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 41

5.5.1. - To the residents ....................................................................................................................... 41

5.5.2. - To the investors ....................................................................................................................... 41

5.5.3. - To who wishes to continue this study ...................................................................................... 41

6. Bibliographic references ................................................................................................................... 42

7. Annexes .............................................................................................................................................. 44

Annex 1 – Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................ 44

1

1. Introduction

In the past decades, it was raised an awareness of how people perceived their own living

environment, and the capability of this environment to offer a good way of living. In addition,

the emergence of movements that aims for the shift for a slower pace of living, avoiding a

stressful and too busy way of life, together with the sustainability as an objective pursued by

many places, gave way to a continuous search for improvements in the living environment.

These aspects helped emphasizing the importance of the quality of life a place can offer. A place

doesn‟t necessarily have to mean a building, being allowed to take bigger proportions, like a

district. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines „place‟ like “a specific area or region of

the world: a particular city, a country; a building or area that is used for a particular purpose; a

building, part of a building, or area that is used for shelter”.

In this study, the chosen place is located in the city of Almere, the newest city of The

Netherlands, in the province of Flevoland. Existing officially from 1976, and having now

approximately 193,000 inhabitants, Almere is a fast growing city, with plans to double its size

and population, creating new jobs, homes and opportunities by 2030. What is important to notice

about this city is that it has a sustainable, green character, basing its development on it, always

including nature in the living environment, like stated by one of the Almere Principles, a set of

principles for sustainable urban development.

More specifically, this study will focus on the housing building Dichterhof, located on the central

region of Almere. Being a resident of the area, I could state some issues, like the lack of social

cohesion between the residents, which I believe can be attributed to the absence of a common

space and/or a common activity. In addition, this part of the city and its direct surroundings can

be considered gray – or can give this impression, which can bring some discomfort, in terms of

climate or aesthetics, and can also contradict one principle to the development of Almere, to

combine city and nature. This is part of a set of principles that can serve as guidance to those

who wish to perform interventions in the city, known as the Almere Principles.

Having in mind the presented context, two aspects can be highlighted:

the lack of social cohesion, probably because of the deficiency in providing a common

space to the residents of the Dichterhof;

2

the will to match the characteristics of this area with the characteristic (green and

sustainable) development of the city;

Accordingly with the cited above, one tool that can help tackle those issues, or at least minimize,

is urban agriculture. The benefits of practicing urban agriculture can go beyond the ecological

realm, influencing on matters of health, social and economic issues, like recreational space,

economic diversity and community cohesion and well-being.

Thus, this study has the aim to discover in what ways the use of this tool can bring an improved

level of quality of life in the selected area. In the cited scenario of search for sustainability, in

addition to the disconnection of the urban dweller with production activities and nature in

general, this study is relevant to a continuous search for improvements in the living

environments, which brings several benefits for the so-called “urban dwellers”. For that purpose,

the main research question was defined as follows:

In what ways urban agriculture can be a tool to the improvement on quality of life of the

residents of Dichterhof and its direct surroundings?

o What opportunities this specific area offers to the performing of urban

agriculture?

o Which types of urban agriculture practice are appropriate to the needs of the area?

o How can these initiatives be implemented?

The outcome of this study consists in recommendations towards improvement. This approach

was treated from a spatial planning perspective, by evaluating the potential benefits of urban

agriculture as a tool, having a plan in the format of indications of how it should work in the

chosen scale, where are the propitious points and specific typologies of practice. No specificity

regarding plant species, and building and covering materials, were dealt with, just design ideas

and where it fits in the chosen location. Therefore, the primary target group to whom the final

recommendations are going to be addressed to is composed by the residents of the housing

building Dichterhof, because they can also enjoy the benefits. Secondary target groups can be

both the municipality and the company that manages the building, Ymere.

Though there are two main bibliographic references being used as basis (PHILIPS, 2013)

(Gorgolewski, 2011) for study cases and best practices of urban agriculture and its related

3

techniques, no evidence was found of an individual application in this building, and the

information regarding its residents was obtained by a publication called Sociale Atlas van

Almere, and from questionnaire applied among the residents.

In the next chapter, it can be found the methodology used to perform this study, described in

steps.

Chapter number 3 presents the area and its features, and some concepts, such as urban

agriculture, not so known or not entirely understood, with a general idea of the techniques.

Hence, in this chapter is presented a conceptual framework.

The forthcoming chapter starts with a presentation of the target group and its characteristics,

narrowing down from the information obtained from the Sociale Atlas van Almere to the results

from the questionnaire applied. Moreover, it presents the SWOT (identification of strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis performed on the data found.

Once the data was analyzed, it was possible to elaborate suggestions and recommendations in the

format of a plan, showing what would be the propitious places and practices for this area, which

will be commented in the conclusion about its positive and negative aspects. Therefore, the

outcome can be techniques and a design that corresponds to the target group‟s needs.

4

2. Methodology:

This study consists in a qualitative research, with an open-ended question, given it has the

possibility of a number of statements and answers at the end. All of the steps are related and

dependent on each other.

The first step consisted in determining the area of intervention, having in mind the purpose of

this study, and the approach chosen. Hence, the area chosen is demarked by the building limits,

towards the best interest of the residents.

To do that, awareness of the particularities of the area is needed, such as what are the

characteristics of the residents and some characteristics of the area, like land use and use of the

plot. The survey for the characteristics of the residents was made through the use of data like the

Sociale Atlas of Almere – which can give an idea of the target group and what can be the role of

the resident in the intended improvements. Still, since this publication deals with a whole area

(area number 201, like shown in the image 2), in which the building is inserted, there was an

urge to narrow down the needs of those specific residents of the housing building Dichterhof.

Hence, a questionnaire was made among the residents (it can be found in annex 1), and the

outcome was essential to the performing of this study. The questions were related to the

following issues:

Personal characteristics, such as gender, age range, number of residents at the apartment:

these would have an idea of the characteristics of the residents that are going to use that

space. A lot of kids in the building require a different space than a building with only

college students;

Classification of acquaintance and measurement of level of knowledge regarding the

neighbors: these questions are asked to have awareness on the level of social cohesion of

the residents. One of the questions is regarding block, and other, regarding the whole

building, so it can help locating the shared spaces in the final design, so there is one

common point between the blocks, for example.

Personal opinion on the importance of green spaces, recreational and interaction spaces:

to raise awareness of how likely that population is to care for a space and make use of it,

if it is necessary;

5

Suggestions on green spaces: to involve the residents in the process of making their own

living environment;

Once acquired, the data was organized in a way it makes possible to understand clearly what are

the population needs and the deficiencies of the area. To that, adds the research for techniques of

urban agriculture, to understand the characteristics of those techniques and how they relate to the

potential green space to be suggested to the area in study. How can it be adapted to the reality

and needs of the residents of the area? For example, a hypothesis is that urban farming in a large

scale wouldn‟t be a possibility, because of the lack of space, but maybe the use of roofs for

climbing plants may be.

Finally, through the making of a SWOT analysis, the data acquired so far could be matched and

adapted. This step is about recognizing the best opportunities that the area can offer to the

activity of urban agriculture, and suggest activities based on the previous step and the technical

knowledge regarding types of this practice. The final result should be organized in a plan view to

show also the relation between the recommendations and the existing use of the area.

The conclusion should contain statements about how the suggested activities are meeting the

main objective set, which is to improve the quality of life of the area and to bring it closer to the

conceptual urban development of the city of Almere, green and sustainable.

6

3. Conceptual framework

3.1 - Presenting the area

This study will focus on the housing building Dichterhof, located on the central region of

Almere. The latter is the newest city of The Netherlands, in the province of Flevoland.

Image 1 - Map of the Netherlands, with the province of Flevoland in evidence

Source: http://www.amsterdam.info/netherlands/provinces/flevoland/

Existing officially from 1976, and having now approximately 193,000 inhabitants, Almere is a

fast growing city, with plans to double its size and population, creating new jobs, homes and

opportunities by 2030. Its green character generated a will to take the city to become an icon for

sustainable development, being encouraged by the managers of this city. Hence, the municipality

encourages ecological, social and economical sustainable growth through the Almere Principles,

a set of guidelines. Those are important to guide and served as basis to the planned intervention,

and are defined as follows:

Cultivate diversity;

Connect place and context;

Combine city and nature;

Anticipate change;

Continue innovation;

Design healthy system;

Empower people to make the city.

7

The city is divided in six main districts, with the development of in and further areas in process

of planning, like Oosterwold, now predominantly rural area with intended organic and self-

sufficient development. The map below shows the six districts, with administrative divisions,

according to the Sociale Atlas van Almere.

Image 2 - Map of the city of Almere, with administrative division of districts

Source: Sociale Atlas van Almere, 2012

The building in study is located in Almere Stad, the city center that is seen as “city‟s retail and

leisure hub”, according to website of the municipality. In the map above, it can be found in the

area 201, where is also the Central Station, and the shopping street.

When looking at the map below, it is possible to see that this area is not completely in

accordance with the principles of the city. Though the surroundings areas present green

infrastructure integrated with the built environment, this area seems to show grayer, concrete

parts. One might wonder why there is a need for green spaces in the urban environment. Because

of the challenge to adopt an adequate sustainable development, many cities are raising awareness

of the need of urban green spaces, defined as “public and private open spaces in urban areas,

primarily covered by vegetation […]”, and that offer the possibility not only to offer ecosystem

8

services, but also social, health and even economic benefits like to increase property value (Haq,

2011).

Image 3 - Map of the area, showing the difference between this and the surrouding areas

Source: ArcGIS

Zooming in, the image below presents an aerial view of the territory delimited by the building,

which is composted by the blocks and a parking lot at the center. The blocks in which the

questionnaires were applied are the two at the bottom part of the image. Besides from the

function of parking lot, the central part of this building has the trash bin, which has to be

removed once or twice a week, therefore requires access to the waste truck.

Image 4 - Aerial view of the Dichterhof

Source: Google Earth

9

Image 5 - General view of one of the blocks of the building Dichterhof

3.2 - Opportunities for green spaces in the area

By making a preliminary analysis of the area, some spaces can be pointed as opportunity to the

insertion of the “green” in the infra-structure. This can help answer the first sub-question of this

study, defined as “what opportunities this specific area offer to the performing of urban

agriculture?”

Image 7 - Picture from the

facade with balconies

Image 6 - Picture from facade with entrance

10

Image 8 - Aerial view of the building, showing areas 01 (central) and 02 (roof)

Source: Adapted image from Google Earth

One of the opportunities seen in this space relies on the attribution of the central area as a shared

outdoor space. According to Marcus (2003), this kind of space is different than public and

private, because it is neither open to the general public nor owned by a single individual.

Therefore, the author classifies it as “shared outdoor space”, a communal space “bounded by

dwellings”, and finds in the use of these unexplored spaces the opportunity to create a sense of

community, feeling of security, sense of responsibility and ownership, what would help to tackle

some of the cited issues regarding this building and its residents. Though this space is now used

as parking lot, it was observed that it is rarely completely fulfilled. Moreover, it is important to

highlight that the collect of waste is made using the same space. The idea, however, is not to use

this entire space, and is rather adapt to use part of it to the insertion of green, and still maintain

the functions it has now, which will be further explained in the upcoming chapters.

Another suggestion would be to use the roof of the building, and to do that, there are many ways.

It can be green with sod or grass planted, without access to the entire population, for matters of

climate comfort (image 09). Another option is to have vegetables, flowers, climbing plants, and

it can either be planted directly in a prepared layer of soil (image 10) or in pots and containers

(image 11). These approaches will be further explained in the following sections.

11

From the left to the right: Image 9 - Simple green roof; Image 10 - Green roof with soil and plants;

Image 11 - Green roof with containers filled with soil.

Source image 9: http://www.inspirationgreen.com/green-roofs-in-the-country.html

Source image 10: http://thinking-in-practice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/NYRoofFarming.jpg

Source image 11: http://www.inspirationgreen.com/green-roofs-in-the-country.html

Moreover, each apartment has its own balcony, which also represents a good space to the

insertion of the green, but in a more private environment. In addition, the building has external

circulation that gives access to the front door of each apartment, which has great potential to

integrate the green into the building and have aesthetical impact in the façade of the building.

Image 12 - Picture from the balconies in the Dichterhof Image 13 - Circulation corridors in the building

Finally, the façades of the building offer some potential to the insertion of initiatives as vertical garden,

for example. “Some potential” was said because most of the walls have windows, not representing a blind

façade, a clean surface where a complete green wall can be built upon.

3.3 - Defining Urban Agriculture

One very complete definition of urban agriculture was given by Smit (1996) in the book Food,

Jobs and Sustainable Cities, which is given as follows:

12

“…an industry that produces, processes, and markets food, fuel and other outputs, largely in response

to the daily demand of consumer within a town, city, or metropolis, on many types a privately and

publicly held land and water bodies found throughout intra-urban and peri-urban areas. Typically

urban agriculture applies intensive production methods, frequently using and reusing natural

resources and urban wastes, to yield a diverse array of land-, water-, and air-based fauna and flora,

contributing to the food security, health, livelihood, and environment of the individual, household, and

community.”

From this definition, it is possible to see that the practice of urban agriculture goes beyond one

planting vegetables in its own garden, and have several ways of being done, though Smit‟s

definition makes reference to a large and intense production.

Gorgolewski (2011) shows that changing a place through the use of urban agriculture can be

done in several scales, and even through simple actions. The image on the left shows a planning

in a bigger scale, comprehending a bigger territory with several functions. It is the Parc

Downsview Park, consisting of a former industrial property in Canada, intended now to be a

place for exploration, innovation and development of mixed-use sustainable neighborhoods. The

image on the right side shows the Agro-housing, a building in China that is more building

integrated, in a smaller scale, but that also has urban agriculture as focus.

From the left to the right: Image 14 - Plan for Parc Downsview Park, in Canada;

Image 15 - Elevation of Agro-housing, in China

Source image 14: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/03/downsview-park-station-connect-spadina-subway-go

Source image 15: http://www.ecofriend.com/agro-housing-time-for-us-to-go-grazing-the-fields.html

Thus, it is not necessary to adopt an intensive approach, especially in a building with limited

space, like the current case. Regarding that, Hough (2003) recommends for residential property,

(the category that matches the most with the current case) the smallest personal scale for food

growing in terms of human-labor intensive processes. It means that it would require effort from

the citizens, which can only be discovered through the questionnaire that will have its results

13

explained in the further topics. Some of the benefits of the practice of urban agriculture,

presented by the same author, can be seen in the image 16. From this image, it is possible to

identify the elements that could help tackle the issues cited for this building: community

cohesion and well-being, recreational. Not to mention all the other benefits urban agriculture can

produce, that would be certainly be good for the community, like personal psychological

benefits, air quality, hydrologic functions, among others.

Image 16 - Benefits of Urban agriculture

Source: HOUGH, 1995.

De Graaf adopted an approach to categorize some types of urban agriculture, emphasizing what

are its needs from the urban environment, building a demand and supply matrix, and a matrix for

promising types of urban agriculture, to be presented further. He performs also a mapping in the

city of Rotterdam, indicating where are the most propitious places to the realization of each type

of techniques presented, making comments about each technique and its particularity. This study

will adopt a similar approach, but in a different scale, limited to the building boundary.

According to Gorgolewski (2011), the traditional production methods were dependent on vast

rural land and heavy machine, not compatible with the city built environment. Therefore, some

14

techniques of urban agriculture that are more adapted to the built environment are described,

based on the definitions presented by the same author.

3.4 - Defining the techniques

“Cultivation and the rearing of livestock within urban areas – in and around buildings and on small,

scattered sites – requires a very different set of processes, tools, components and systems. Urban food

production is usually small in scale […] and makes use of urban waste spaces such as vacant lots,

roofs, walls, and balconies. It must incorporate readily available resources.”

3.4.1. - Composting

According to the Ministry of Environment of Brazil,

composting is a technique for recycling organic residues,

transforming it in fertilizer. It is a biological process that

speeds up the decomposition of organic waste, and it‟s a form

of recovering the nutrients from organic residue and takes it

back to the natural cycle, enriching the soil.

Yet, the making of compost in outlying landfill is not so

adequate to the built and dense environment, considered

sometimes malodorous and inconvenient. To solve that issue,

equipment with more compact shape is arising, fitting better

scope in the urban scenario (image 17).

Positive aspects

Cycle closing and new destination for

organic waste;

Equipment doesn‟t require a lot of space,

unlike landfill;

Resulting fertilizer can be used to grow

green, because compost is rich in nutrients.

Negative aspects

Requires big effort and time;

It doesn‟t work in cold and dry weather;

Can be malodorous.

Image 17 - Equipment for composting

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

15

3.4.2 - Livestock shelters

To fit in the urban setting, livestock creation

is more adaptable to the raising of small

animals, like chicken, rabbits, or beekeeping.

Chickens can be raised to give eggs and/or to

be consumed.

In some places, this practice is not allowed in

the urban environment. However, the policy

controlling this kind of activity changes with

time, and beekeeping is more accepted

currently. To that, adds the innovation of

livestock shelters, which makes this practice

easier (image 18).

Positive aspects

Can be used for consumption of the own

animal or its products;

Provide access to fresh food: eggs,

chicken meat;

Negative aspects

May not be allowed by land policy in the

area;

Requires some effort;

Animals may not adapt to a busy area like

the city center;

Requires space.

3.4.3. - Hydroponic and aquaponic systems

Hydroponics refers to the cultivation without soil as nutrient source. A solution shallow enough

provides nutrients to the roots still allowing it the access to oxygen. Though it is less human

labor intensive, some solutions require technology and electricity to keep working. Some

solutions like the one shown in the picture below (19) are simpler, coming from recycled

materials, but still require energy to work.

Aquaponics as technique seems to be a more complex technique, that requires the formation of a

system between crops, and animals, like shrimps and fish, which would also be yield for

consume.

Image 18 - Livestock shelter

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

16

“Aquaponics is an extension of hydroponics but with animals, usually fish, added into the

cycle of food production.[…]aquaponics is based on age-old knowledge about the waste

of domesticated animals containing many of the nutrients required to grow plants. In

aquaponic systems, an artificial symbiosis is maintained between fish – grown for

consumption - and crops.

Image 19 - Scheme of hydroponics technique

Source: Carrot City

Image 20 - Scheme for aquaponics technique

Source: http://www.aquaponicssystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Aquaponics-System.jpg

17

Positive aspects

Can be less human-labor intensive;

Hydroponics can form an independent,

compact system and can be easily built;

Aesthetically pleasing;

Negative aspects

Requires electricity to work;

Aquaponics can be a complex system and

require space;

Initial cost and maintenance;

3.4.4. - Greenhouse technologies

Greenhouses are glass houses that have its own micro-climate inside, used to grow vegetables

inside, in a propitious environment. It can be inserted either into or on top of buildings, and

advances in technology are opening the way to innovation, creating light weighted structures.

Image 21 - A greenhouse, from the outside Image 22 - View from the inside of a greenhouse

Source image 21:http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/images/greenhouse.jpg

Source image 22: http://www.homejelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/easy_start_greenhouse.jpg

Positive aspects

No limitations to grow green during the

seasons;

Controlled environment that increases

productivity and ensures plant health;

Provide access to fresh food

Aesthetically pleasing and attractive;

Negative aspects

Requires space and infra-structure;

Requires energy;

High initial cost and maintenance costs;

18

3.4.5. - Raised beds

Raised beds can be manually made from simple materials and are commonly used when there is

no intention to plant in the ground, normally when it is a “brownfield”.

Advantages: can be handmade, meaning that the population itself can build it; don‟t require soil

in the ground, but movable containers filled with it, therefore can be inserted everywhere; can

have a lot of shapes, designs, colors, making the garden fun and joyful;

“Raised beds can be used to create gardens with greater accessibility by bringing the plants closer to

people. […] The reuse of materials, accessibility, modularity, and aesthetics they can offer, are being

fully explored. The raised bed illustrates well how many traditional components of urban agriculture

are being adapted to enhance their role in urban contexts.”

Image 23 - Scheme for raised beds construction

Source: http://images.taunton.com/enewsletters/vg/kg08-raised-beds-09.jpg

19

Positive aspects

Contained, accessible, portable and

movable production;

New soil on contaminated or non-existing

soil areas;

Can be manually made;

Aesthetically pleasing and attractive.

Negative aspects

No controlled environment, like green

house: not all seasons are growing

seasons;

Needs lots of soil fill, especially if it is

deep;

3.4.6. - Soft planters

When a permanent approach is not possible, a temporary one can be the answer. Soft planters are

low cost alternatives to the practice of urban agriculture. It consists in the use of low cost

material, like bags, to compose the containers for the soil and plants, like an initiative in London

that used removable polypropylene bags filled with soil to cultivate plants and vegetables. As a

temporary initiative, this can be a good start to a space that doesn‟t contain green spaces yet. The

images below show how it would look like.

Image 24 - Soft planters Image 25 - Scheme for soft planters

Source images 24 and 25: Gorgolewski, 2011

20

Positive aspects

Temporary intervention, can be used as a

test;

Doesn‟t require costly initial investment;

Movable and adaptable.

Negative aspects

Degradable material for the containers, has

to be replaced with time;

Needs fill of soil for the containers;

Weather dependent for production.

3.4.7. - Rigid containers

Different from the soft planters, rigid containers have a solid structure, yet are still movable. Can

be pots, jars, containers made from recycled material (as shown in images 26 and 27), as long as

it is profound enough to contain the necessary layer of soil and have a drain mechanism. The

image 28 shows planters for olive trees and herbs, in Lisbon, Portugal, and exemplify that these

containers can be colorful and the differentiated design can be special and bring people closer to

nature, because it also offers sitting places.

From the left to the right: Image 26 - Jars as rigid containers

Image 27 - Wooden structure as rigid container

21

Image 28 - Rigid containers with multiple uses

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

Positive aspects

Can have several different types of design;

Non dependent on soil;

Can be integrated to other functions (image

28)

Negative aspects

Needs soil fill;

Needs initial investment for infra-structure,

though it can be made from recycled

material, like wooden boxes;

3.4.8. - Hanging planters

“Vertical surfaces can be exploited to combine food production with other benefits such as shade, air

purification, and aesthetics. The climbing grapevine is perhaps the ultimate example of vertical

cultivation that also provides shade and greenery.”

Vertical gardening can acquire several shapes, but the difference is that it can save a lot of space from the

area of intervention. The systems can be composed by modules to create a complete wall, for example, or

individual, smaller scale interventions. The modules can be found for sale in ready models, just needs

installation, like the MEWU (show in the image 29).

An alternative approach is to make use of modules made from soft fabric, which can be breathable,

recyclable and/or made from recycled material. The design is variable, but the result can be seen in

images 30 and 31, representing respectively, the BacSac system, produced in France, and Wooly Pockets,

handmade in Phoenix and Los Angeles.

22

“Edible walls are essentially a subset of the green wall

concept. Hanging containers detach the growing medium from

the ground, and they reinvent the wall as a productive surface.

The placement of hanging containers in relation to the sun […]

help to make formerly unused spaces productive and bolster

health. […] Hanging containers are a key instrument for

making all three dimensions of a building – floor, roof, and

wall – productive.

Image 30 - Left side: scheme for Woolly Pockets; Right side: BacSacs

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

Image 29 - Mobile Edible Wall Unit

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

23

Image 31 - Woolly Pockets installed in a schoolyard

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

Positive aspects

Saves space by making vertical gardening;

Access to fresh production;

Aesthetically pleasant and attractive;

Negative aspects

Needs initial investment, though it can be

manually made from recycled materials;

Production of smaller crops;

24

4. Analysis and results

According to the Sociale Atlas van Almere, the area 201 has 4.046 residents. The average

resident has between 25-34 years and more than half of the citizens of this area has “single” as

marital status, differing from the mean of Almere, which has a better distribution for “family

with kids” also.

From the 2.185 houses, just a small percentage presents a detached tipology, because the

majority (95%) is formed by multi-story buildings, for residential, commercial use, or mixed use.

The area presents a population density of 137 residents per ha.

This area is characterized for having a lot of retail and business services. At the date of the

publication, it had 865 companies, almost half of it established for more than 6 years.

Generally speaking, it has good access to basic services and facilities, given the Central Station

is located in this area, and there is a hospital nearby, not to mention all the stores that

characterizes this area as commercial and can attend a lot of needs, like the supermarkets and

retails, gyms, among others. Like shown in the image 32, taken from the Sociale Atlas van

Almere, the distances to facilities are rarely longer than 500m (translating to English, the

categories, respectively, are: community center, healthcare center, childcare, recreational

options, and convenience store).

Image 32 - Distance to facilities

Source: Sociale Atlas of Almere

The map below shows the location of the bigger green public spaces in relation to the building

Dichterhof. The area number 01 is the Koningin Beatrixpark, and it is 1,4km away from the

building, marked in red in the image. From the same location, area number 02 distances 850

25

meters and the area number 03, the Lumièrepark, also 1,4km. The central station, Almere

Centrum, was marked in pink for matters of orientation.

4.1 - Results from the questionnaire

4.1.1 - About the sample and the questionnaire

The data that was just presented was narrowed down to the residents of the Dichterhof only,

through the making of a questionnaire. The objective of the questionnaire applied was not only to

know more about specific characteristics of the residents of the building Dichterhof, but also to

know their opinion and suggestions to a greener environment. Hence, it was important to have a

response considering the whole population, estimated in approximately 170 persons for the two

blocks indicated in the image 33.

26

Image 33 - Indication from the blocks where the questionnaire was applied

However, for limitations of time and availability, the possibility was to work with a small sample

of 30 persons, meaning that the respondents represent approximately 18% of the total population.

As much as it seems little quantity, to apply this questionnaire among the residents initiated a

social process already, and can – and it‟s encouraged – to be continued through other studies. In

addition, their insight was very useful for this research. Hence, some notes were taken about the

application.

Generally, the residents were receptive, and showed availability to answer the questionnaire,

though most of them showed preference to keep the questions and deliver the questions at a later

time.

New data helped emphasize the importance of this research: a mother that recently moved into

the building compared her former place of living - full of green spaces and recreational spaces

for her children to play – with the building in study, which has no recreational space. During the

conversation, she was willing to know more about her neighbors and about the people living in

the building.

4.1.2 - Results

From the 30 respondents, 18 are female, and 12 are male. Only the first options of age ranges

were marked among the respondents, with the majority of the respondent sample (70%) between

18 and 24 years old. Since the sample is small and the questionnaires were applied more or less

in a random way, this information is probably not dominant, and doesn‟t represent the

characteristic of age and sex for all the other residents in the building. Hence, it was not

considered an essential factor of decision to the design to be further presented.

27

For a matter of information about the social cohesion in the building, two questions asked

referred to how acquainted the person is with the other residents of the person‟s own block, and

after, with the other residents of the whole building. The results are given in the images 34 and

35, below.

From the left to the right: Image 34 - Graph of acquaintance with block neighbors

Image 35 - Graph of acquaintance with building neighbors

As expected, there were few respondents that claimed to have high level of acquaintance with the

neighbors, confirming the need for a shared space. When asked about the importance of spaces

for recreation and interaction, the results presents a positive outlook, with more than 75% of the

answerers giving some to high importance, as can be seen in the table 01.

Importance of shared spaces

Frequency Percent

Valid Not important at all 3 10,0

Not much important 4 13,3

Somewhat

important

12 40,0

Very important 11 36,7

Total 30 100,0

Table 1 - Importance of shared spaces, according to the respondents

When asking about the importance of green spaces, there was an attempt to create options of

answer in scale, to know approximately the level of interest of the residents in using and caring

for the possible spaces as well. A positive aspect is that there were four possible answers, and the

first one was “I would not like to have green spaces in the building”, and any respondent chose

this alternative, showing some level of receptivity to the introduction of the green.

28

Image 36 - Importance of green spaces, according to the respondents

The last two questions were related in two different ways. First, it was possible to find a

classification based on the combined answers: the bigger the score in the graph presented in

image 37, more interested and open the residents show themselves to initiatives of greening the

building. High scores means that the person responded positive answers, for example, an score 8

means that the respondent chose alternatives considering shared spaces for recreation and

interaction as very important and that the person would really wish to have green spaces at the

building, and would be willing to use and care for it actively.

Image 37 - Combination of two variables, generating a third one, "green shared spaces"

Secondly, the image 38 shows the relation between the choices on the two last cited questions. It

can be seen in this image that the ones that considered shared spaces very important had more

attitude towards having and maintaining a green space, what could be expected. On the other

hand, there is an amount of people that probably do not see a green space as opportunity to

29

recreation and interaction, given not much importance was given at the same time there is

willingness to have and maintain a green space.

Image 38 - Importance of shared spaces vs importance of green spaces

One of the most important contributions of the residents to this study relies on the suggestions,

on the expression of which types of green they would like to have in the space, because after all,

it is their living environment. The result is a product of a multiple choice question, meaning the

answerers could choose more than one of the existing options suggested, chose to give no

suggestion at all or to tip one that was not in the list. The result was balanced, varied, and

positive, because it shows acceptance to variety of techniques. The other suggestions given were

to have green spaces with seats, a green roof, plants and tree ways, to stimulate green balconies,

scented plants, and lawn. There were considered in the final design in this study, in a possible

extent.

30

Suggestions

Responses

Percent of

Cases N Percent

Suggestions more trees 17 21,8% 56,7%

flower jars 18 23,1% 60,0%

fruits and veggies 16 20,5% 53,3%

climbing plants 19 24,4% 63,3%

no suggestions 4 5,1% 13,3%

other suggestions 4 5,1% 13,3%

Total 78 100,0% 260,0%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Table 2 - Suggestions for greening the building

Moreover, the last question involved the will to have feedback on the results of this study, and

the responses showed interest from the part of the residents, 70% had a positive answer.

31

4.2 – SWOT analysis

According to Berry (2013), the letters on S.W.O.T means Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities

and Threats, and making an analysis this type can make possible to have insight on its own

potential. It can be applied to a business, to an area, to a society, among others. The first two are

internal aspects, and can be changed and/or influenced. Opportunities and Threats are external

factors, and non-changeable.

Strengths

Located in a new city that aims for

sustainable development;

Area offers basic services: good place

to live;

Location in the center of the city, well

active and full of movement;

Building with big surface for

intervention: roof, walls, ground (the

space available is more vertical and

aerial than the ground itself);

Building accessible to people with

physical disabilities;

Companies are part of the social scope

(established for more than 6 years);

Weaknesses

Green spaces in the area lack: shelter

for cold seasons and indoor activities;

Area doesn‟t offer variety of leisure

activities;

“Gray” area in the middle of the “icon”

city for sustainability;

Multi-story building, like the majority

in the area, which means less space for

gardening;

Building doesn‟t offer shared space for

interaction and/or recreation;

Area within building limits offers

almost no soil on the ground;

Opportunities

Serve as inspiration to the rest of the

city;

Produce to sell, for profit;

The municipality of Almere search for

and encourages green attitudes;

Include companies in the initiative, and

ask for support;

Threats

Area is too busy, activities would have

to be isolated or protected;

Climate variations and shortage of

sunlight;

Policy definitions for specific types of

urban agriculture;

Table 3 - SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis was made in a multi-level way, from the bigger scale (city and area), to the

building, then to societal aspects.

32

5 Conclusion and recommendations

5.1 – Discussion and general considerations

Based on what has been presented so far, which types of urban agriculture practice are

appropriate to the needs of the area?

De Graaf presents two important matrixes. The first one (image 39) consists in matching the

urban needs to the agricultural supply and vice versa, emphasizing the choice for this tool to

tackle the issues presented in this area. By looking what one environment needs, and what the

other environment has to offer, one might see urban agriculture as solution or softening to

several problems.

Image 39 - Matrix of supply and demand of agriculture and the city, by De Graaf Source: De Graaf, 2012

33

In matters of space, like stated in the SWOT analysis, there is enough surface for greening the

building, but most of it is not directly in the ground, for example the roof and the facades. Hence,

techniques that require a lot of space are not the ideal for this location, such as greenhouse, the

aquaponics system, livestock shelter, and the traditional and simple way of composting, in

outlying landfill. The two latter techniques can also generate problems because those are not

attractive to the urban environment and sometimes can generate olfactory discomfort.

Another issue to be considered is the consumption of electric energy. Greenhouse, aquaponics

and hydroponics generally needs energy, and though it is not always excessive use of energy, it

would require investment in the infra-structure of the building. The second matrix presented by

De Graaf presents two of the techniques discussed here (hydroponics and aquaponics),

classifying it like more building integrated, capital and energy intensive, in relation to two other

categories that require more space and are more soil bound.

Image 40 - Classification of four types of urban agriculture techniques, according to De Graaf

Source: De Graaf, 2012

It is important to highlight also the importance of having a shelter. Though some might consider

the existence of a shelter or a garden house to be privatization of public (or in this case,

common) space, this kind of structure provides storage and community gathering, not to mention

refuge in bad weather. (Mees et al., 2012) To this particular case, it adds up the need to raise

34

social cohesion and a space like that would offer the possibility of bringing people together in a

shared covered space.

Moreover, is seen as opportunity to involve the companies, since more than half of the existing

ones are established for an extensive time, and are part of the social ambit and are familiar to the

residents. Hence, to ask for support in this kind of initiative, in the form of capital investment of

material for construction of the infra-structure is possible and would integrate the initiative with

its context.

5.2 – Top down vs Bottom up

“Because of its opportunistic character urban agriculture is resistant to top down planning.

However planning can play a role in identifying opportunities for individual practices and,

secondly, assessing their role in the functioning of the city as a whole […]. The mapping of

opportunities is a way of investigating to what extent urban agriculture can benefit the city,

what its scale and impact could amount to. By making the benefits apparent and tangible it

can create a context in which the urban agriculture that is most beneficial to the city is

recognized as such and can be stimulated.”

De Graaf, 2012

Having the above statement in mind, it is possible to confirm the benefits of taking the first step

for the community, by planning and suggesting solutions and improvements for a location. To

combine this part of the city with a sustainable development and to make it serve as inspiration

and is here reaffirmed as a future goal. But who‟s to make the first step towards realization? How

these initiatives are supposed to be implemented?

In one side, there is the will to adopt a bottom-up approach, in accordance with another of the

Almere Principles, “to empower people to make the city”. On the other hand, the space has some

potential, but requires financial investment to improve this potential that can only be required

from the managers or from public bodies like the municipality, from their participation and

interest in greening the city.

Therefore, to have alternative solutions, two scenarios were created. These are not two opposite

situations, and are rather to be seen as steps towards a greener future. One can start investing

35

money and expecting intensive production and regular use of this new space, or can see how it

works in scenario one, and plan further expansion and/or intensification of activities.

Note: For the next pages (about the scenarios), to create a cohesive panel, the subtitles and

sources of the images were placed in this page.

Images of scenario 01:

Image 41 - Zoning map of the building with no structural modifications

Image 42 – Soft planters to grow tomatoes

Source: http://haxnicks.blogspot.nl/2010/04/more-tips-on-tomato-growing-in-patio.html

Image 43 – Rigid containers that can be used in the circulation

Source: http://plant-zone.blogspot.nl/2012/06/balcony-garden.html

Image 44 – More option on soft planters that can be used

Source: http://www.gardenbeet.com/76-261-home/vegetable-patio-planter-soft-green-sage.jpg

Image 45 – Picture of an existing initiative in the Dichterhof

Image 46 – Examples of plants in the balcony

Source: http://insideurbangreen.typepad.com/.a/6a00e39824809288330120a5c36a91970c-500pi

Images of scenario 02:

Image 47 – Zoning map of the building, with some modifications in the area

Image 48 – Example of how an arbor can be in this location

Source: http://www.cipavinil.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/caramanch%C3%A3o-decorado.jpg

Image 49 – Green wall modules that can be used outside of the stairwell

Source: http://inhabitat.com/elt-easy-green-living-wall-systems/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/eltezgreen5.jpg

Image 50 – Compact equipment for composting

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

Image 51 – Containers in the green roof

Source: http://www.nycgovparks.org/greening/sustainable-parks/green-roofs

Image 52 – Compact model of hydroponics technique

Source: http://hubpages.com/hub/Getting-Started-Hydroponics-Gardening-Basics

36

5.3 – Possibilities for intervention

5.3.1. - Scenario 01 Keywords: Flexible, temporary, experiment

“[…] a community garden has to be and remain flexible in its layouts in order to

provide a privately usable public open space for diverse groups of residents over

time, i.e. for gardeners of various cultural backgrounds and preferences as well as

for different social and economic requirements.”

Mees et al., 2012

This scenario considers the gradual insertion of green initiatives in the building, adopting

techniques that are temporary and adaptable to the structure that the building has now. It is made

for the residents, and can be implemented by the residents. To maintain a flexible layout and to

enable the residents to make the space reflect their own identity is wanted in this case, point of

view supported by Mees et al., in the quotation above.

The following techniques were chosen to be more adapted to the characteristic of this scenario:

Soft planters;

Rigid containers;

Hanging planters.

In addition, in substitution to the traditional greenhouses, that were already commented to be

energy intensive, with high initial and maintenance cost, there are simpler versions with more or

less the same objective, called cold frames. Those are defined as smaller boxes, with the

objective of keeping the heat and extending the growing season. It is possible, hence, to have this

kind of technique in this scenario, because it can be made by the residents, with recycled

materials.

Image 41shows a zoning of how the area of the building is divided now. It can be seen the

remaining area that is not used for one of the functions in the zoning is not extensive, and most

of it includes walking paths that can‟t be occupied. Hence, with no modification in the structure

of the building area, the opportunities for intervention are less bound to the ground. That is to say

that the areas in this scenario that are most likely to be used are the balconies (not common area),

37

the circulation (one existing initiative is shown in image 45), in addition to the area marked on

the map.

38

5.3.2. - Scenario 02

Keywords: fixed, intensive, shift

The approach chosen for this scenario is more recommended to higher investments. The choices

are more fixed than temporary, and some modifications in the structure of the building are

necessary.

One of the adaptations is to have access and check the loading capacity of the roof, to make it

green. This was one of the suggestions of the residents as well, and can bring benefits for thermal

comfort, not to mention it can be used as recreational space.

Moreover, this scenario must create an intensive green environment, not only to be used by the

residents, but to have its benefits enjoyed by the viewers and passers in the center of the city. It

may serve as inspiration to adopt green initiatives in their own living environment.

The following techniques were chosen to be more adapted to the characteristic of this scenario:

Composters, by the use of equipment;

Hydroponics system;

Green roof;

Hanging planters, by vertical garden modules;

Those were chosen because of its cost of acquisition and need for maintenance, that with support

from the proper institutions (public or private) can ensure a more intensive use of the space,

enhancing the benefits of having green initiatives in the building, like the use of composters to

have a natural treatment of organic waste.

The image shows a plan of the Dichterhof, if some interventions in the structure of the building

were realized, such as the use of the roof for greening, intensively or extensively. Moreover, the

images give an idea of some of the solutions suggested.

The plan already contains explanations on which areas to intervene, like the roof, and to take part

of the parking lot (rarely completely filled), and there is also the suggestion to built an arbor to

serve as shelter.

39

40

5.4 – Final remarks

In this study, there was an attempt to make an analysis to make greening the building more

feasible, through analyzing the available space and literature, and by having as guidance the

following research question and sub-questions:

In what ways urban agriculture can be a tool to the improvement on quality of life of the

residents of Dichterhof and its direct surroundings?

o What opportunities this specific area offers to the performing of urban

agriculture?

o Which types of urban agriculture practice are appropriate to the needs of the area?

o How can these initiatives be implemented?

By answering the sub-questions gradually, it could be found the answer to the main research

question. It was emphasized, during the course of this study, the various benefits that the practice

of urban agriculture can bring to a community. However, literature alone would not form an

applicable and realistic solution to a specific place, like is the case here. Together with the

analysis of the space and the research for the interests and needs of the residents, it could be

found that the space has potential to improve the quality of the living environment of this

building by the use of urban agriculture. This can be done by offering the possibility to the

residents to really use this space, by creating infra-structure, or allowing them to create for

themselves, which was emphasized during the recommendations with the creation of two

scenarios as alternative solutions to the demarcated problem. The result reached is that this tool

can be used not only to the goal of raising social cohesion among the residents, but also to:

provide wellness to the residents through the making of a green space;

connect the building with the surroundings through the involvement of companies and

other residents of the area in this initiative;

green the building and offer the possibility of cycle closing, match the building with the

sustainable development of the city;

provide contact with biodiversity and education about techniques of urban agriculture;

make the building serve as inspiration to further initiatives.

41

5.5 – Recommendations

5.5.1. - To the residents

Through this study, it was seen that the building offers potential to modification, and to have a

green initiatives is not only a matter of high investments, it can also be bottom-up, make it

yourself initiatives. To be able to execute it, it is recommended to perform further research,

especially to what it comes to types of plants that can be raised in every season, how to make

containers from recycled or low cost material, how to make your environment more and more

sustainable. Information like that is easily reachable and available on the internet. If one puts

one jar next to the front door, and/or in the balcony, the façade will look different already.

5.5.2. - To the investors

It was exposed here also the benefits of investing in the building, whether the investment comes

from the public or private sphere, because it is probable that the benefits are for everyone. It is

recommended to support this kind of initiatives, after knowing who is performing it, and

knowing the interest of the residents in using and making the space.

5.5.3. - To who wishes to continue this study

It is recommended firstly to attempt to have the opinion on the whole population of residents, to

have insight on their opinion, if possible through the realization of a brainstorm. By bringing the

residents together can raise more interest on this kind of initiative.

Moreover, another really important move would be to make an event that would perform a

temporary use of the space, like in scenario 01, to show the residents that this is possible.

42

6 Bibliographic references

Almere Principles. Municipality of Almere. Cited in: <http://www.almere.nl/bestuur/almere-

principles/>. Accessed in: 18 Oct. 2013.

Berry, T. SWOT analysis. Available in: <http://articles.bplans.com/business/how-to-perform-

swot-analysis/116>. Cited in: 31 dec. 2013.

Building green. Image on the cover. Available in: <http://www.jjduffy.com/chicago-green-

sustainable-construction>. Cited in: 06 jan. 2013.

Cold Frames. Available in: <http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/coldframes>.

Cited in: 4 jan. 2013.

Composting. Available in: <http://www.livestrong.com/article/193315-pros-cons-of-

composting/>. Cited in: 3 jan. 2013.

Data about Almere. Available in: <http://english.almere.nl/the-city-of-almere/>. Cited in: 16 dec.

2013.

Definition of composting. Available in: <http://www.mma.gov.br/responsabilidade-

socioambiental/producao-e-consumo-sustentavel/saco-e-um-saco/item/7594>. Cited in: 03 jan.

2013.

De Graaf, P.A. Room for urban agriculture in Rotterdam: defining the spatial opportunities for

urban agriculture within the industrialised city. In: Viljoen, A.; Wiskerke, J. 2012: Sustainable

Food Planning: Evolving Theory And Practice.

Gorgolewski, M.; Komisar, J.; Nasr, J. 2011: Carrot City: creating places for urban agriculture.

New York: Monacelli Press.

Greenhouse benefits. Available in: <http://www.ehow.com/about_5105789_benefits-

greenhouse.html>. Cited in: 3 jan. 2013.

Green Roofs. Available in: <http://www.inspirationgreen.com/green-roofs-in-the-country.html>.

Cited in: 02 jan. 2013.

Haq, S.M.A. 2011: Urban Green Spaces and an Integrative Approach to Sustainable

Environment. Hong Kong: Journal of Environmental Protection.

Hough, M. 1995: Urban Farming. In: Watson, D.; Plattus, A.; Shibley, R. Time-saver Standards

for Urban Design. Minnesota: McGraw-Hill, 2003. p.5.3-1 – 5.3-10

Hydroponic systems. Available in: <http://www.homehydrosystems.com/hydroponic-

systems/systems.html>. Cited in: 3 jan. 2013.

43

Marcus, C.C. 2003: Shared Outdoor Space. In: Watson, D.; Plattus, A.; Shibley, R. Time-saver

Standards for Urban Design. Minnesota: McGraw-Hill, 2003. p.6.9-1 – 6.9-12.

Mees, C.; Stone, E. Food, homes and gardens: public community gardens potential for

contributing to a more sustainable city. In: Viljoen, A.; Wiskerke, J. 2012: Sustainable Food

Planning: Evolving Theory and Practice.

Municipality of Almere. Sociale Atlas of Almere 2012.

Philips, A. 2013: Designing Urban Agriculture: a complete guide to the planning, design,

construction, maintenance, and management of edible landscapes. Hoboken: Wiley.

Raised beds. Available in: <http://www.vegetablegardener.com/item/9079/the-benefits-of-raised-

garden-beds>. Cited in: 3 jan. 2013.

Smit, J. (2001) Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable cities. Available in:

<http://jacsmit.com/book.html>. Cited in: 23 dec. 2013.

Timmer, V.; Seymoar, N. 2006: The Livable city. Vancouver: International Centre for

Sustainable Cities.

44

7 Annexes

Annex 1 – Questionnaire

This survey is being carried out by a student at CAH Vilentum University of Applied Sciences, and also resident of the

Dichterhof. The answers provided will help develop the final graduation assignment, which has as subject the search for

possibilities of improvements on quality of life of the residents of the Dichterhof and its immediate surroundings, with the use of

green.

Questionnaire:

1. Sex:

□ Male □ Female

2. Age range:

□ Less than 11 □ 12-17 □ 18-24 □ 25-34 □ 35-44 □ 45-54 □ 55-64

□ 65-74 □ more than 75

3. How many residents there are at your apartment?

□ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 or more

4. How acquainted do you consider yourself with the people living in the same block as you?

□ not acquainted at all □ not much □ somewhat acquainted □ very well acquainted

5. How acquainted do you consider yourself with the people living at the Dichterhof?

□ not acquainted at all □ not much □ somewhat acquainted □ very well acquainted

6. How important do you consider the existence of shared spaces in the building for recreation and interaction?

□ not important at all □ not much important □ somewhat important □ very important

7. How would you like to have the presence of green spaces at the Dichterhof?

□ I would not like to have green spaces in the building

□ I would not mind having green spaces in the building, but I would not make use of it

□ I would like to have green spaces at the building

□ I would really wish there were green spaces at the building, and I would be willing to use and care for it actively

8. What are your suggestions to a potential green space in the Dichterhof? (More than one option can be chosen)

□ More trees

□ Flower jars

□ I would like to cultivate fruits and/or vegetables

□ Climbing plants

□ I would not like to give any suggestions

□ Other: .………………………………………………………………………………………………..

9. Would you like to know the outcome of this research?

□ Yes

□ No

10. If so, would you allow me to write down the number of the apartment where this research was carried?

□ Yes, number ……….

□ No