designing urban agriculture

CONTINUOUS PRODUCTIVE URBANLANDSCAPES

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page i

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page ii

CONTINUOUS PRODUCTIVE URBANLANDSCAPES:

DESIGNING URBAN AGRICULTURE FORSUSTAINABLE CITIES

André ViljoenKatrin BohnJoe Howe

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD

PARIS • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO

Architectural Press is an imprint of Elsevier

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page iii

Architectural PressAn imprint of ElsevierLinacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803

First published 2005

Copyright © 2005, André Viljoen. All rights reserved.

The right of André Viljoen to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium byelectronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the writtenpermission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, EnglandW1T 4LP. Applications for the copyright holder’swritten permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher.

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science and TechnologyRights Department in Oxford, UK; phone: �44-0-1865-843830;fax: �44-0-1865-853333; e-mail: [email protected] may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier homepage(http://www.elsevier.com), by selecting ‘Customer Support’ and then‘Obtaining Permissions’.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 0 7506 55437

For information on all Architectural Presspublications visit our website at architecturalpress.com

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, IndiaPrinted and bound in Great Britain

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page iv

v

CONTENTS

Foreword ix

Preface xi

Acknowledgements xii

Illustrations: credits and permissions xiii

Contributors xv

An introductory glossary xviiiAndré Viljoen and Katrin Bohn

Part One Carrot and City:The Concept of CPULs 1

1 New space for old space: An urban vision 3Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen

Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: London in 2045 4Ecological Intensification 7London in 2045: Postscript 8

2 More space with less space: An urban design strategy 10Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen

What are CPULs? 11Why CPULs? 12Where will CPULs be? 15

Part Two Planning for CPULs: Urban Agriculture 17

3 More food with less space: Why bother? 19André Viljoen, Katrin Bohn and Joe Howe

Food and urban design 21Why urban food? 21The environmental case for urban agriculture 22Organic urban agriculture 25Seasonal consumption 26Local growing and trading of crops 29

4 Urban agriculture and sustainable urban development 32Herbert Giradet

Taking stock 33Energy and land-use 33Nutrient flows 34Relearning Urban Agriculture 35Cities as sustainable systems 38

5 Food Miles 40Angela Paxton

Introduction 41The food miles food chain 41Implications of the food miles chain 44Forces behind the food miles 45Solutions 46

6 Sandwell: A rich country and food for the poor 48André Viljoen

7 Plan it: An inclusive approach to environmentally sustainable planning 52Dr Susannah Hagan

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page v

8 New cities with more life: Benefits and obstacles 56Joe Howe, André Viljoen and Katrin Bohn

Socio-cultural benefits 57Economic benefits 57Health benefits 59Obstacles to urban agriculture 60

9 The economics of urban and peri-urban agriculture 65James Petts

Introduction 66Micro-economic aspects 68Motives for UPA 68Supply 69Market entry, demand, and prices 71Macro-economic aspects 72Policy conclusions 73

10 Changing consumer behaviour: The role of farmers’ markets 78Nina Planck

11 The social role of community farms and gardens in the city 82Jeremy Iles

What is a community garden or a city farm? 83The benefits of a community garden or city farm project 83Policy on food production and sustainability 85Encouraging an existing or new project 86A vision for the future 87The Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens 87Notes 88

12 Recycling systems at the urban scale 89Dr Margi Lennartsson

Part Three Planning for CPULs: Open Urban Space 93

13 Food in time: The history of English open urban space as a European example 95Joe Howe, Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen

Where we live is where we grow 97Industrial revolution and suburban utopias: the divorce of cities and food production 98Urban food and conflict 101Urban rebuilding and urban food decline 104Revival and diversification of urban food growing 105Urban agriculture and sustainability 106

14 Food in space: CPULs amongst contemporary open urban space 108Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen

CPULs for European cities 109The open urban space atlas 109

15 Designs on the plot: The future for allotments in urban landscapes 124Professor David Crouch and Richard Wiltshire

Allotments as (open) green space 125Allotments as urban landscape 127Allotments as negotiated communities 129The plot for designers 130

Part Four Planning for CPULs: International Experience 133

16 Urban agriculture in Havana: Opportunities for the future 135Jorge Peña Díaz and Professor Phil Harris

The challenge 136People’s and government’s response 137

CONTENTS

vi

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page vi

Rural agriculture and urban horticulture in Cuba 138Urban and peri-urban agriculture in Havana 140Havana: antecedents and current development 140The experience of the 1990s 142Conclusions 143References 145

17 Cuba: Laboratory for urban agriculture 146André Viljoen and Joe Howe

The spatial characteristics of Cuban urban agriculture 147Urban agriculture at the city scale 149The urban agriculture site 153Infrastructure and urban agriculture 188Urban agriculture in residential areas 189Organic urban agriculture 190

18 Urban and peri-urban agriculture in East and Southern Africa: Economic, planning and social dimensions 192Dr Beacon Mbiba

Research Patterns since the 1970s: regional and subject focus 193Summary of the context of urban and peri-urban agriculture in africa in critical research areas 195Actors and institutions 197Conclusion 198

19 Moulsecoomb: Discovering a Micro-PUL 200André Viljoen and Katrin Bohn

20 Allotments, plots and crops in Britain 206H.F. Cook, H.C. Lee and A. Perez-Vazquez

The organisation of allotments 207Practical production issues 210The economic implications of UPA 214Conclusions 215

21 Urban food growing: New landscapes, new thinking 217Simon Michaels

Food growing in urban areas 218The landscape character of urban food growing projects 218Conclusion 220

22 Permaculture and productive urban landscapes 221Graeme Sherriff

Permaculture 222

23 Utilitarian dreams: Examples from other countries 229André Viljoen

Delft, The Netherlands 230Kathmandu Valley, Nepal 230Gaborone, Botswana 231Another model 233

Part Five Carrot and City: Practical Visioning 237

24 New space for old cities: Vision for landscape 239Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen

Size 240Sense of openness 242Local interactions 244Urban nature 245Persistent visual stimulation 249

CONTENTS

vii

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page vii

CONTENTS

viii

25 More city with less space: Vision for lifestyle 251Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen

Variety of occupation and occupants 252Economic return from land-use 253Inner-city movement 260Environmental delight 262

26 More or less: Food for thought 265André Viljoen and Katrin Bohn

Contacts 270

Index 272

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page viii

FOREWORD

With a vision and a strategy the 21st century city will be green, a healthy place for all and will generate zeronet pollution. This book offers a vision and a strategy.

Productive urban landscapes have two huge challenges to address: CO2 emissions are projected to increaseby two-thirds in the next 20 years, and as the global food production increases so does the number of peoplegoing hungry, with the number of urban hungry soaring.

The symbiotic relationship between a productive landscape and the human settlement system is as old ascivilization. During the past 200 years that millennium-old positive relationship deteriorated into a further andfurther separation of town and landscape. The good news is that during the past quarter-century the agricul-ture industry has turned a corner towards greater integration with our modern cities.

One of the earliest archeological evidences of CPULs (4,000 years ago) are the semi-desert towns of Persia.Underground aqueducts brought mountain water to oases where intensive food production was conducted,substantially based on the use of urban waste within the settlement.

A marvellous example in history is Machu Picchu in Peru. The Spaniards did not discover this nutritionallyself-reliant city for 100 years. Scarce water was reused time and again, step-by-step down the mountain.Biointensive vegetable beds were designed to catch the afternoon sun and stretch the season. Water andland crops were brought together to resist the frequent mountain frost. There are many such stories from allcorners of the earth.

The industrial revolution brought the railroads, chemical fertilizers, petroleum fuel, tinned food and refrigera-tion and a separation of the food system from where we live. Socially this converted to the creation of the ‘cityslicker’ and of the ‘country bumpkin’. Ecologically it brought many dreadful patterns of sickness, worst todayin the Himalayan city of Katmandu.

Our current industrial and agricultural systems transport by ship, rail, truck and plane over 80 percent of allextracted natural resources to four percent of the Earth’s land and on that urban four percent convert over 80percent of it to waste and pollution. The interpretation ‘waste is food ’ enables us to conceive of operating sys-tems that utilize waste (heat, sewage, waste-water runoff, organic solids, construction debris, etc.) to greenthe city and feed the urban population of the globe by closing now-open nutrient cycles.

In the later 1970s there emerged reports of a resurgence of agriculture in the city from (alphabetically)Bogota, Dubai, Lusaka, Madrid, Manila, Moscow, New York, Vancouver and from many corners of the globe.A United Nations survey of 20 countries around-the-world and library research conducted in 1991-1993 con-cluded that there was the beginning of a new urban-based food system evolving worldwide.

This book is a 21st century breakthrough in defining an urban design/planning conceptual approach to re-incorporating a productive landscape, including agriculture, into the human settlement (CPULs). As reportedin the chapter ‘Food in Time’ in the previous hundred years there were several such models created includingfamously: Le Courbusier, Paul & Percival Goodman, Ian McHarg, Louis Mumford, and Frank Lloyd Wright.We have both history and great creative minds to guide our hands to this gigantic task.

Agriculture, reaching from fish farming to ornamental shrubs, is moving to the mostly urban market andbecoming less centralized in a few corporations. The potential for CPULs it seems to me is eminently work-able based on two characteristics of 21st century cities: constant renewal and constant de-densification.

Cities today are constantly renewing themselves. Yesterday’s factory sites, shopping malls, and housingestates are collapsing and standing idle for a decade or two or three. These sites, which are idle on an interimbasis, are a foundational element in the locally-based food system and the ecologically sustainable (green)city.

ix

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page ix

FOREWORD

x

The emerging 21st century city can be identified as ‘the Edgeless City’. The concepts of city boundary, green-belt, and suburb are all obsolete. The city that was focussed on the river, the seaport, the railyard, and thelimited access highway intersection are all obsolete. Cities are becoming formless, edgeless and seeminglyendless. In Africa the city extends from Abidjan to Lagos, in Asia from Kobe-Osaka to Tokyo-Chiba, in NorthAmerica from Portland Maine to Norfolk Virginia, and in Europe from Barcelona to Genoa.

Once enlightened by the CPUL concept our eyes can see possibilities everywhere: the waste heat fromsupermarket refrigeration is a source of energy for food production, flood plains are productive if producingcrops and costly if used for housing, fruit and vegetable production on rooftops saves heating and coolingcosts, reduces air pollution and enables fresh cuisine, a security fence is a potential for productive and orna-mental vines.

Greening the 21st century city will improve our health, stabilize our economy and bring us all closer togetheras we meet in the garden.

Jac Smit, AICP

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page x

PREFACE

This book is intended to contribute to the ongoing debate about the future shape of cities.

Supported by emerging international research, it presents a vision for integrating Continuous ProductiveUrban Landscapes (CPULs) into existing and future cities. CPULs are urban spaces combining agriculturaland other landscape elements within a strategy of continuous, open space linkages.

The book focuses on design and planning questions raised by CPULs and examines the various qualitiesCPULs can bring to the urban fabric. Chapters by Katrin Bohn, André Viljoen and Joe Howe present the casefor CPULs, exploring the situation today, the historical context and proposals for CPUL design strategies.A series of underpinning chapters, written by specialists, develop and expand upon these issues.

Urban agriculture within CPULs, integrated into individual cities, can contribute to more sustainable food pro-duction and open space management. If the design potential of CPULs is to be realised, it is necessary tounderstand the arguments supporting urban agriculture.

CPULs will form part of an urban infrastructure and as such, their adoption implies embarking on a long-termdevelopment strategy which is equally applicable to established and emerging cities. The book explores diff-erent ways of implementing CPULs, using both visionary proposals and practical experience to support theargument for their adoption.

André Viljoen, Katrin Bohn and Joe Howe

xi

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xi

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Three of us have worked on the main text for this book, and a number of individuals and institutions havesupported us along the way. Particular thanks go to those who have contributed specialist chapters, alwaysefficiently and on time. Their input has been critical in underpinning the concept of CPULs.

Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen would like to thank Guisi Alcamo and Martina Oppel, who assisted with initialresearch. Eva Benito, Katja Schäfer, Lucy Taussig and Kabage Karanja who have helped to develop draw-ings and illustrations.We especially appreciate the insightful comments Kim Sorvig and Jac Smit made aboutearlier drafts. The Faculty of Arts and Architecture at the University of Brighton has supported this projectfrom its inception with the Centre for Research and Development and the School of Architecture and Designfunding research. In particular, we would like to thank Anne Boddington, Prof. Bruce Brown, Prof. JonathanWoodham and Sean Tonkin. At the Architectural Press, Alison Yates, Liz Whiting and Catharine Steers fortheir help and patience. And �, Alma and Bertolt for, amongst many things, visiting the Peckham FarmersMarket every Sunday.

Moreover, André would like to thank Jorge Pena Diaz, from the School of Architecture at City University JoséAntonio Echeverría (CUJAE) in Havana for facilitating the initial field trip to Cuba, and our ongoing work inCuba and the UK. In Cienfuegos, Prof Padron Padron and Prof. Socorro Castro who made our visit so fruitful.Tom Phillips for joining in with the urban agriculture adventure and our ongoing research at the PeckhamExperiment. Eddie Edmundson and Yania Lucas from the British Council in Havana for their ongoing assis-tance. In particular I would like to acknowledge support for my second field trip to Cuba with Tom Phillips, andfor arranging Yuneikys Villalonga’s assistance in Havana. And a special word of thanks to all the urban farm-ers, administrators and planners in Cuba who answered our questions and let us photograph, draw and learnabout their organoponicos, which have now been running successfully for over 10 years. Rene VanVeenhuizen, from RUAF (Resource for Urban Agriculture and Forestry) for assistance and support. AngelaBlair from the Rowley, Regis and Tipton primary care trust for introducing us to the Sandwell food mappingproject. Warren Carter from the Moulsecoomb Forest Garden and Wildlife Project in Brighton, for providingaccess to the project. The Royal Institute of British Architects, Modern Architecture and Town Planning Trust,for supporting the project initially with a research award. Robert Mull and Prof. Mike Wilson at LondonMetropolitan University’s School of and Architecture Spatial Design, and the Low Energy ArchitectureResearch Unit, where the project originated.

Katrin would like to thank Hans Gebauer, Janet Rudge, Abby Taubin, Jens Weber and Harry and Inge Bohnfor reading, discussing, photographing and encouraging our work. And the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar,Germany, where the project somehow originated as well.

Joe Howe wishes to acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) forfunding research undertaken during 2000–2001, which was concerned with urban agriculture and land-useregulation in metropolitan areas of the UK. This research has fed into the book.

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xii

xiii

ILLUSTRATIONS: CREDITS AND PERMISSIONS

All images, unless otherwise noted, are copyright Bohn & Viljoen Architects.

Fig. 1.1 Image created by Andre Viljoen, with extracts from the Geographers’ A-Z M25 main road LondonMap as an underlay with permission from Geographers A-Z Map Company Ltd.

Fig. 3.1 redrawn by Bohn & Viljoen Architects, from Fuel’s Paradise: Energy options for Britain by PeterChapman (Penguin Books 1975) © Copyright Peter Chapman, permission from Penguin Books.

Fig. 3.2 assembled by Bohn & Viljoen Architects from Building a sustainable future: Homes for anautonomous Community, General Information Report 53, B.Vale and R.Vale © Crown Copyright Reproducedwith permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland. And from Energy Policy,Vol 27, Klaas Jan Kramer, Henri C. Moll, Sanderine Nonhebel, Harry C. Wilting, ‘Greenhouse gas emissionsrelated to Dutch Food consumption’, Pages 203–216, 1999 with permission from Elsevier Science.

Fig. 3.3 assembled by Bohn & Viljoen Architects from, Bohn & Viljoen research. And from Energy Policy,Vol 27, Klaas Jan Kramer, Henri C. Moll, Sanderine Nonhebel, Harry C. Wilting, ‘Greenhouse gas emissionsrelated to Dutch Food consumption’, Pages 203–216, 1999 with permission from Elsevier Science. And fromDETR HMSO (2000) English House Condition Survey 1996. Table 8.7 pg 103, Production of CO2 by tenure,figures extracted for use in chart. © Crown Copyright Reproduced with permission of the Controller of HMSOand the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.

Fig. 3.4 This was originally published in ‘The fires of culture’ Steinhart, C. and Steinhart, J. 1974, BelmontCalifornia: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Fig. 3.5 created by Bohn & Viljoen Architects based on material in Leach, G. (1976) Energy and foodproduction, Institute for Environment and Development., IPC Science and Technology Press.

Fig. 3.6 created by Bohn & Viljoen Architects based on material in Leach, G. (1976) Energy and foodproduction, Institute for Environment and Development., IPC Science and Technology Press.

Fig. 3.7 produced by Bohn & Viljoen Architects based on material in Lampkin, N.H. and Padel, S. (1994)The Economics of Organic Farming, CABI publishing, based on the original source, Murphy, M.C. (1992)organic farming as a Business in Great Britain. Agricultural Economics Unit, University of Cambridge,Cambridge.

Fig. 3.8 based on material in Kol, R., Bieiot, W. and Wilting, H.C. (1993) Energie-intensiteiten vanvoedingsmiddelen, Energy and Environmental Sciences Department (IVEM) State University of Groningen,Netherlands.

Fig. 5.1 and 5.2 © Crown Copyright Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and theQueen’s Printer for Scotland.

Fig. 6.1 published with permission from Rowley Regis and Tipton primary care trust and maps. Reproducedby permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, © CrownCopyright 100040510.

Figs 9.1 and 9.2 by permission of Sustain.

Fig. 9.3 by permission of S. Gertstle.

Figs 13.1–13.7 are all Crown Copyright, Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’sStationary Office, and produced with the permission of the trustees of the Imperial War Museum, London.

Fig. 17.2 drawn by Bohn & Viljoen Architects, based on site surveys and a report prepared by the Universityof Cienfuegos.

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xiii

Fig. 17.3 drawn by Bohn & Viljoen Architects, based on site surveys and a report prepared by the Universityof Cienfuegos.

Figs 18.1–18.3 are all by permission of Dr. B. Mbiba.

Fig 19.5 by permission of Antonia Faust.

Figs 20.1–20.3, 20.5 and 20.6 by permission of A Perez-Vazques.

Figs 22.1–22.3 by permission of G. Burnett.

Fig. 22.4 by permission of G. Sherriff.

Fig. 22.5 by permission of G. Burnett.

Figs 22.6–22.8 by permission of G. Sherriff.

Fig. 23.1 by Jan Hiensch for the Urban Agriculture Magazine. Urban Agriculture Magazine Number 4, July2001. Based on the original illustrations by D. Boyd, IIUE.

Fig. 23.2 by Jan Hiensch for the Urban Agriculture Magazine. Urban Agriculture Magazine Number 4, July2001. Based on the original illustrations by I. Boyd and K. Weise, PAHAR.

Fig. 23.3 by Jan Hiensch for the Urban Agriculture Magazine. Urban Agriculture Magazine Number 4,July 2001. Based on the original illustrations by Prof. A C Mosha and B. Cavric.

Fig. 23.5 by Jan Hiensch for the Urban Agriculture Magazine. Urban Agriculture Magazine Number 4, July2001. Based on the original illustrations by M.D. Kitilla, and A. Mlambo.

Fig. 23.6 by Jan Hiensch for the Urban Agriculture Magazine. Urban Agriculture Magazine Number 4, July2001. Based on the original illustrations by P. Mishev and A.Yoveva, SWF, Sofia, Bulgaria, Architect.

Fig. 24.1 created by Bohn & Viljoen Architects, using a photograph produced by Simmons Aero FilmsLimited, as an underlay.

Plate 1 by permission of Tom Phillips.

Plate 6 created by Bohn & Viljoen Architects, using an extract from the Phillips Maps, London and M25 nav-igator map as a underlay.

Plate 7 LeisurESCAPE London Southwark detail map, original image created by Bohn & Viljoen Architects,using an extract from the an ordnance survey map as underlay, reproduced by permission of OrdnanceSurvey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, © Crown Copyright 100040510.

Plate 8 LeisurESCAPE London Southwark detail aerial view collage, original image created by Bohn &Viljoen Architects, using an extract from ‘London: the photographic atlas’ permission requested from HarperCollins Illustrated.

ILLUSTRATIONS

xiv

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xiv

xv

CONTRIBUTORS

Katrin Bohn is an architect and senior lecturer at the School of Architecture and Design at the University of Brighton, where she runs a design studio with Andre Viljoen. Within her urban design research, she has developed several architectural and landscape proposals, mostly centred around CPULs. Recent liveprojects relating to landscape and ecological building include the CUE Eco House in London (with the Low Energy Architecture Research Unit at London Metropolitan University) and proposals for communitylandscapes in Southwark, London.

Dr Hadrian F. Cook is a member of the Agroecology Research Group, at Wye Campus, Imperial College.Main Environmental Research Interests are: soil amendment using organic wastes; hydrology of grazingmarshes and watermeadows; protection of surface and groundwaters from agrochemical pollution; protectionpolicy development for soil and water and environmental history.

David Crouch is Professor of Cultural Geography, Tourism and Leisure at the University of Derby, VisitingProfessor Geography and Tourism, University of Karlstad Sweden; author of several publications related toAllotments including (with Colin Ward) The Allotment: its landscape and culture (Faber and Faber/Five leavesPress 1988, 1994, 1997, 2001). He has contributed to a number of reports for NGO’s and government, aswell as producing for BBC2 TV, ‘The Plot’ in 1994.

Herbert Giradet is a social anthropologist and cultural ecologist now working as a writer, consultant and filmmaker. His main focus in recent years has been the sustainable development of cities and contemporarylifestyles. He is widely published, a prolific documentary maker and has been invited to work on sustainabilityin many countries around the world. Herbert is the recipient of the UN Global 500 Award for OutstandingEnvironmental Achievement, an honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects and Chair of theUK Sustainability Alliance and Schumacher Society.

Dr Susannah Hagan trained as an architect at Columbia University and the Architectural Association. She isReader in Architecture and head of the MA Architecture: Sustainability, at the University of East London andalso teaches on the AA’s Environment and Energy Graduate Programme. Her book, Taking Shape, exploresthe relationships between the built and natural environments.

Phil Harris is Professor of Plant Science at Coventry University and International Research Consultant forthe Henry Doubleday Research Association. Current research interests include tropical crop development,‘organic’ or sustainable agriculture, forestry, and relevant techniques of plant biotechnology, often related tooverseas development. Research and consultancy activities in sustainable agriculture and forestry haveinvolved work in Bangladesh, Brazil, Cape Verde, China, Cuba, Ghana, India, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Oman,Sierra Leone, South Africa and Spain.

Dr Joe M. Howe is a senior lecturer at the University of Manchester’s School of Planning and Landscape. Hisresearch focuses on the relationship between sustainability and planning. This has encompassed work onurban food growing and recently on the relationship between water management and land use planning andmanagement. He has advised numerous Government bodies (including DEFRA, ODPM, DTI and theTreasury) and NGOs on water and land use management issues.

Jeremy Iles’s career in the environmental sector has included roles at Friends of the Earth (TransportCampaigner), the London Wildlife Trust (Director), overseas work in Bangladesh and Eritrea as Field Directorfor VSO, and as a Regional Manager on the National Cycle Network Project at Sustrans. He took up the roleas Director of the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens in autumn 2000.

Dr Howard Lee’s interest is in sustainable agriculture. His contribution to this book stems from his work at theAgroecology Research Group, Wye Campus, Imperial College. His main research areas are: managing thewater resource base in agroecological water catchment zones; nitrogen dynamics in farming systems andenvironmental impact; the environmental impact of organic waste management on farms and in the commu-nity and the use of geographical information systems to predict the environmental impact of farming.

Dr Margi Lennartsson is Head of the International Research Department at HDRA responsible for scientificresearch activities of the Association. HDRA is a registered charity involved in research, advisory work and

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xv

CONTRIBUTORS

xvi

promotion of organic food, farming and gardening. The aim of HDRA’s research programme is to develop thetechniques used in organic agriculture and to advance the knowledge of organic production systems, focus-ing on commercial organic horticulture and domestic gardening in temperate areas and on small scale,resource poor systems in developing countries.

Dr Beacon Mbiba is the Co-ordinator of the Urban and Peri-Urban Research Network Peri-NET, South BankUniversity, London. Research interests include local level development planning, land transformations andsustainable human settlements. He has published a number of articles on urban and peri-urban agricultureand has taught at the University of Zimbabwe and the University of Sheffield.

Simon Michaels is a landscape architect, urban designer and environmental planner. He works as an inde-pendent consultant, and is a director of f3, the UK’s Foundation for Local Food Initiatives. He also runsEnvironment Go, an internet information service for environment professionals, and advises on internetstrategies for environment sector organisations.

Angela Paxton works at the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales and is currently setting up a commu-nity scheme with community composting, organic nursery and demonstration gardens. She is author of TheFood Miles Report, The Food Miles Action Pack and A Feast Too Far, all available from Sustain.

Jorge Peña Diaz is an architect, lecturer and researcher at the Centre for Urban Studies, School ofArchitecture, City University José Antonio Echeverría (CUJAE) in Havana. His research has focused on theintegration of urban agriculture in Havana. He has been a visiting academic at the University of Brighton andhas collaborated with a number of international research and academic partners.

James Petts has a background in economics and the food industry. He is currently working for theCountryside Agency in England and has previously worked for Sustain (where his chapter was written) as apolicy officer, co-ordinating the East London Food Futures project which aimed to initiate local food projectsand develop a network of projects in East London, as well as working on a number of other projects todevelop a more sustainable and just food economy.

Nina Planck opened London’s first farmers-market in 1999.Today London Farmers Markets operates a num-ber of weekly farmers-markets, which provide home-grown food to city dwellers and crucial income for familyfarms in the Southeast. Her goals for the farmers-markets are more food produced within the M25 (London’sringroad), and more organic food. She is the author of the Farmers-Market Cookbook and was an advisor tothe Prince of Wale’s Rural Task Force.

Graeme Sherriff graduated from Keele University with an MA in Environmental Law and Policy. His MA dis-sertation, based on an extensive survey of food growing projects in the UK, looked at permaculture and itsrelevance to sustainable agriculture. After graduating, Graeme worked on practical environmental improve-ment and community building projects as part of Groundwork and then became involved with research onrelated subjects at the University of Manchester.

Jac Smit, between the ages of 12 and 22, held jobs in a diverse range of peri-urban agriculture fields includ-ing production, processing and sales of: poultry, vegetable, livestock [goat, cow and horse], orcharding[apple, cherry and maple], and ornamental horticulture. He acquired a first degree in agriculture and a mas-ter’s degree from Harvard University in city and regional planning. As project manager, technical director andprincipal planner he incorporated agriculture into the regional plans for Baghdad, Calcutta, Chicago, Karachi,and the Suez Canal Zone. In the early 1990s he carried out a worldwide study for UNDP to define the currentand potential role of urban agriculture, which was launched at the Global City Summit in 1996. Since 1992 hehas been the president of the Urban Agriculture Network and is a founding member of the global ResourcesCenter for Urban Agriculture that has eight information centers on the five continents. He is a frequent confer-ence presenter and is frequently published in a wide diversity of media.

André Viljoen is an architect and senior lecturer at the School of Architecture and Design at the University ofBrighton, where he is undergraduate architecture course leader and runs a design studio with Katrin Bohn.Previously he was Deputy Director of the Low Energy Architecture Research Unit, based in the School ofArchitecture and Spatial Design at London Metropolitan University. He has participated in a number ofEuropean research studies for low energy buildings and his work in urban agriculture and urban design stemsfrom an interest in architecture and environmental issues. Recent research and practice has concentrated onthe design implications of the integration of urban agriculture into urban landscape strategies.

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xvi

Arturo Perez Vazquez is completing a PhD in the Department of Agricultural Sciences Wye Campus,Imperial College. Its subject is the future role of allotments in England as a component of urban agriculture.He has received an Agropolis Award from the Cities Feeding People Program run by Canada’s InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC).

Richard Wiltshire is a senior lecturer in Geography at King’s College London and Research Officer for QEDAllotments Group, a Local Agenda 21 Initiative in Dartford. His recent research focuses on the developmentof allotments and community gardens in Japan, and he is the co-author (with David Crouch and Joe Sempik)of Growing in the Community (Local Government Association, 2001) and Sustaining the Plot (Town andCountry Planning Association, 2001) with David Crouch. He is a Steering Group member for the AllotmentsRegeneration Initiative.

CONTRIBUTORS

xvii

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xvii

AN INTRODUCTORY GLOSSARY

LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS

Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPULs, pronounced See Pulls) are

● the theme of this book, and do not yet exist in cities.● a coherently planned and designed combination of Continuous Landscape and Productive Urban Landscape.● open urban landscape.● productive in economical and socio-cultural and environmental terms.● placed within an urban-scale landscape strategy.● constructed to incorporate living and natural elements.● designed to encourage and allow urban dwellers to observe activities and processes traditionally associated

with the countryside, thereby re-establishing a relationship between life and the processes required to support it.

Continuous landscape is

● a current idea in urban and architectural theory, short sections of which have been established in various cities.● a network of planted open spaces in a city which are literally spatially continuous, such as linear parks or

inter-connected open patches, sometimes referred to as an ecostructure or green infrastructure.● virtually car-free, allowing for non-vehicular movement and encounters in open urban space.● an alternative use of open urban space if compared to existing spatial qualities of roads and dispersed

patches of used and unused open urban space.● an enormous walking landscape running through the whole city.

Productive urban landscape is

● open urban space planted and managed in such a way as to be environmentally and economically produc-tive, for example, providing food from urban agriculture, pollution absorption, the cooling effect of trees orincreased biodiversity from wildlife corridors.

Urban agriculture is

● agriculture which occurs within the city.● in most cases high yield market gardens for fruit and vegetable growing.● found on the ground, on roofs, facades fences and boundaries.● if economic conditions are difficult, likely to include small animals.● developing to include aquaculture (fish production).

Peri-urban agriculture is

● agriculture occurring on the urban-rural fringe, or within peripheral low-density suburban areas.● similar to urban agriculture, although the size of sites is often larger.● UPA refers to a mix of urban and peri-urban agriculture.

Ecological footprint is

● the theoretical land and sea area required to supply the resources needed to sustain an entity (city, person,organism, building, etc.)

● partially reinstated in urban areas if CPULs are successfully implemented

Ecological intensification is

● an increase in local urban biodiversity.● a compensation for an existing loss of biodiversity found in many urban areas.● one of the benefits of CPULs.

xviii

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xviii


xix

Vertical and Horizontal intensification is

● increasing the number of activities or uses of a particular piece of land by overlaying one above the other.● for Vertical intensification: usually achieved by constructing a building or series of platforms on the site,

some or all of which may be used for vegetation or agriculture.● for Horizontal intensification: applied directly on the ground by increasing the number of uses for a particular

piece of land at different times and by providing access and spaces for a variety of activities and uses.● also found in market and home gardens, layers consisting of tall to small trees, shrubs and bushes, field

crops, root crops, water crops, plus fish, poultry and rabbits.● possible, by planting on fences and walls of all types.● multicropping, season extension, rooftop use, basement mushroom growing and floating islands (Kashmir

and Burma).● an important feature of CPULs.

TYPES OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

Sprawl is

● the expansion of cities outwards, generally at suburban densities and reliant on the car for access to work,culture and recreation.

Brownfield sites are

● plots of land which were previously occupied by industry, e.g. factory sites.● often contaminated by chemical waste products from their previous industrial use.● generally considered to be a primary source of new land for development in existing, and especially post

industrial cities.● currently being used as sites for new urban buildings.● suitable for CPULs, if appropriate soil conditions exist, or if contaminated soil is treated or renewed in areas

where edible crops will be grown.

The CPUL model challenges the notion that all brownfield sites should be built upon, but does not challengethe principle that all land should be used to maximise its sustainable return.

Greenfield sites are

● pieces of land which have never been built on before, e.g. farmland, forests, parks and wilderness.● often the preferred sites for new suburban development (sprawl).

Allotments are

● found in the United Kingdom.● for the non-commercial growing of food and flowers, rented to individuals by local authorities.● typically 250 m2 in area.● clustered together in groups, a small allotment site having about 20 plots and a very large site containing

several hundred plots.● avilable from local authorities to individuals who request them.

Schrebergärten are

● found in Germany.● similar to allotments, but not only for food growing.● also used as weekend leisure gardens, often with a small summer house.● with different names, spread all over Europe, further east used more for food growing.● generally bigger than allotments but with similar situation and organisation.

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xix

xx

Parcelas and Huerto intensivos are

● found in Cuba ● similar to allotments, though an individual plot may be larger and may be farmed by a family or group of indi-

viduals.

Organiponicos (popular and de alto rendimiento) are

● high-yield urban commercial market gardens, found in Cuba.● based on the Chinese bio-intensive model.● producing food for sale to the public, using raised beds and intensive organic farming methods.

Autoconsumos are

● similar to Organiponicos, but located within state enterprises with the main purpose of supplying food foremployees; their yield is less than for an Organoponico.

Community gardens are

● managed and used by local communities or neighbourhoods for recreation and education.● sometimes found on unused or abandoned urban sites, or in grounds of public buildings, e.g. public hous-

ing, hospitals, retirement homes.● often have a small building for use by the community, in particular children and disadvantaged groups.

City farms and urban farms are

● similar to a community garden, but with animals, usually horses, goats, sheep, pigs, ducks and chickens.Their significance is educational rather than productive, although a limited quantity of produce may begenerated.

Home gardens/back gardens are

● plots found behind detached or semi-detached houses, traditionally used for leisure and/or vegetable growing.

FOOD

Food security

● is defined as giving populations both economic and physical access to a supply of food, sufficient in both qual-ity and quantity, at all times, regardless of climate and harvest, social level and income (WHO Europe, 2000).

Seasonal and local food

● is basic or core, backed up or supplemented by the globally based food system.● is dependant on local climate and conditions for growing period, and uses the minimum of artificial stimu-

lants, i.e. a greenhouse might be used to extend the growing season, but heating and manufactured growthpromoters are avoided.

● can contribute to a reduction in imported food.● is not going to replace all imports of fruit and vegetables.● is an alternative to a multitude of semi-ripe imported crops currently available in developed countries.

Organic food

● is grown without the use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides.● can contribute to reducing urban waste creating a circular urban metabolism by using compost produced

from organic, domestic and farmyard waste.● is a feature of CPULs.


Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xx

Supermarket food

● relies on the importation of crops from around the world to provide the maximum choice for consumers.● cities provide different environmental, social and economic contexts for CPULs.

Box schemes are

● a commercial service delivering a selection of organic fruit, vegetables and sometimes other products toindividual homes or to a neighbourhood depot for collection.

Food miles are

● the distance food has been transported between primary production and consumption.

ECONOMIC TERMS

Factors of production

● the entities required to produce a good or service, often thought of as land, labour, and capital, but morerecently widened to include human capital, social capital, physical capital, environmental capital, and financialcapital.

Household

● a group of people who live in the same dwelling and share common housekeeping and eating arrangements.

Opportunity cost

● the nearest alternative cost of a factor or activity.

Fungible income

● the indirect income gained from the substitution of market-bought produce.

Formal/informal

● distinction between recorded commercial activities (formal) and unrecorded semi- or non-commercial activ-ities (informal).

Shoe leather costs

● the incidental costs associated with travelling to and from locations of work or activity.

Barriers to entry

● the obstacles preventing new businesses entering a market.

Usufruct

● the use of land not owned by the users themselves.

Utility

● the usefulness of a product or service, the satisfaction which a consumer gets from a good or service he orshe has bought, or the way in which a good or service contributes to a consumer’s welfare (Collin, 2003).


xxi

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xxi

Elasticity

● the responsiveness of either demand or supply to changes in price or quantity.

Externalities

● the external economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of an activity.

Food access

● both geographical and monetary degree of access to food, determined by income, supply, transport, publicprovision, storage, and other factors.

Acronyms

CAP – The Common Agricultural Policy (EU)

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

GNP – Gross National Product

PPG – Planning Policy Guidance (UK)

UA – Urban Agriculture

UNDP – United Nation’s Development Programme

UPA – Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture

WHO – World Health Organisation of the United Nations

REFERENCES

Collin, P. H. (2003). Dictionary of Economics. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, London.

WHO Europe (2000). WHO food and nutrition action plan. WHO Europe.


xxii

Cpul-FM.qxd 02/01/2005 9:07 PM Page xxii

ONE

CARROT AND CITY: THE CONCEPT OF CPULs

PART

Cpul-ch01.qxd 02/01/2005 7:19 AM Page 1

NEW SPACE FOR OLD SPACE:AN URBAN VISION

Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen

1Cpul-ch01.qxd 02/01/2005 7:19 AM Page 3

Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes(CPULs) started to develop in London around2005. Forty years later they were everywhere,having reached a maturity that enables us to studytheir success in relation to the very initial designintention.

When first mentioned around the year 2000, therewas no precedent for CPULs anywhere inthe world, though various attempts had been suc-cessfully started to integrate both continuouslandscapes and urban agriculture into cities. As astrategy based on the genius loci of place, itwas clear early on, that CPULs would have to bedeveloped individually for each country and foreach city, and that any manifesto would only pro-vide a general framework and vision . . .

CONTINUOUS PRODUCTIVE URBANLANDSCAPES: LONDON IN 2045

On a sunny summer Sunday morning, a CPUL inLondon resembles Brighton beach or Hyde Park.People have left their homes to enjoy fresh air, spa-ciousness and various activities of the adjacentCPUL. In the park-like areas, they do morningexercises, sit on large blankets having breakfast,sunbathe, repair their bikes or read their papersand palm top news. Children are running and play-ing with their friends on the grassy land betweenthe agricultural fields or in the small canals built towater or drain the fields. Although there may bemore apartment dwellers around, the CPUL is fairlyevenly used by people from every housing type.One has to note, that the popularity of high-rise anddense buildings around CPULs has increasedenormously since the building facades becamegardens, the garden’s landscapes and the viewsfrom the towers offer a visual feast.

The three local farmers’ markets situated at theCPUL edge start selling fresh food, being busiertoday than during weekdays, when only two of themare open at any one time. (London-wide, there arenow about 150 farmers’ markets.) Ice cream andfresh fruit juice vendors are setting up their stallsaround the main CPUL routes. The cafés andrestaurants bordering the CPUL put their chairs andtables out, the smell of coffee and fresh bread blowsover the fields. Tennis players exchange first ballson the nearby tennis court. Close to it, the bowlsand boules groups are getting together.The variouscanopied outside offices, situated in the quieterareas of the CPUL, are less busy today. With theirfixed-seating laptop plug-ins or their workbenches,they are now used by kids playing computer gamesor making aeroplane models. (During weekdays,children use computer playgrounds or youth work-shops, often located closely to CPULs so as toallow safe access and the use of outside space.)

Most of the commercial farmers celebrate theweekend and the low gates to their fields are nowshut, but instead other fields are busy with allot-ment growers and communal farm projects. Thereare numerous allotments within this CPUL, butthey do not threaten to take over the larger, moregenerous urban agricultural fields: the number ofallotments in London quickly stabilised, once every-body wanting to grow their own food was suppliedwith one. Often, the produce from the land is soldstraight off the fields via one of the various smallkiosks that are situated within the CPUL allowingfarmers to weigh, price and record produce appro-priately. For the past 20 years, since about 2025, airpollution has no longer been an issue and groundcontamination is being cleared through systematicsoil treatment and continuous planting. The organicproduce on offer is therefore in high demand, mak-ing the markets and kiosks a bustling counterpointto the tranquillity of this Sunday morning.


4


NEW SPACE FOR OLD SPACE: AN URBAN VISION

5

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.1 London, population 7 million, exploded toaccommodate mini- and SUPER-market gardens. An earlystudy from 1998, demonstrating the area required to supplyall of London’s fruit and vegetable requirements from urbanagriculture. Yields from mini and SUPER-market gardensare based on 100m2 of urban agriculture per person.


Around midday, people pack their stuff and leave,provided they are not staying for lunch in one of therestaurants or going for a swim in the local open-airpool, or starting work in the work areas. Later, theymight walk or cycle to Tate Modern or CoventGarden, out into the countryside or to the RiverThames. With a quarter of roads converted toaccommodate CPULs since 2005, one can nowreach virtually any point in London by walking orcycling in less than an hour or two. Most Londonboroughs pride themselves on having designedtheir open space so as to allow people to access aCPUL after no more than a 15-minute walk.

If people don’t feel like walking back from where they are now, they can take one of the regular (every10 minutes) buses or trains, pick up a taxi or hire oneof the cars or bicycles which they can later leaveclose to their home to be used by the next person.

Meanwhile, the CPUL is heaving with children andyoungsters engaging in all sorts of sports and fun,with people (and dogs) going for walks, sunbathingor enjoying tea, games and books.

Families gather in the various state-of-the-art activ-ity grounds, which during the week are mostlybooked by schools and clubs. The small open-airswimming pool has its busiest time.

In the early evening, the CPUL fills with peoplecoming home or going out for dinner and/or intotown. Teenagers meet their friends in the more hid-den areas between the fields, musicians start play-ing and people start to dance. Children do their lastraces around the lanes and lawns. People have pic-nics and barbecues, do sports or hire a deck chairto relax. At the same time, others cycle or walkback from work, enjoying the evening air and sunand some quiet activity which will change intourban bustle and business the closer one gets tothe city centre or the borough sub-centres.

This evening, the CPUL hosts a film event: a bigscreen is temporarily hang over its main space,people sit and lie around watching, the restaurantsare busy, the pubs and cafes . . .

On a rainy winter weekday, though, things look dif-ferent. Cyclists pass in rain clothes, people hastento work, train or car sharing stations. Farmers, whoat that time of year prepare soil, seeds and tools forthe next spring, work in the CPUL sheds and prod-uct stores.The poly tunnels that are now occupyingmost of the fields open up automatically to soft rainallowing the seasonal vegetables to catch it. A fewchildren play in a playground and explore thedemonstration rain water mills – differently sizedsculptures that collect rain. Apart from the afore-mentioned, and some dogs or lovers who enjoyrunning around in that weather, the CPULs lieempty, sucking in the rain. It is a busy time for deliv-ery services, the CPUL is full of delivery cyclesracing to bring food and other shopping to theirclients. A man is moaning that his car sharing sta-tion has run out of cars, but cheers up when thegas-driven bus, with a five minute frequency,arrives. The weather forecaster celebrates the rainand tries to predict the benefit it will bring to theproductivity of particular urban areas. Today, it isalso windy but it blows too hard for kite flying or kitesailing, which people would otherwise do. TheCPUL is really deserted. The staff on the farmers’market hide under retractable canopies, unless thewhole market has already retreated to the smallcovered or heated market hall, of which there isat least one close to every CPUL. At this time of year,the business booms for imported fruit and vegetables.

Then the rain stops. Now, the refreshed oxygen-richair, that the wind brought in from the sea via themany open urban corridors, stands clear above theCPUL and its adjacent buildings. Some farmerswalk along checking the huge underground rain-water tanks for how well they have filled. Sun will


6


later operate the PV driven pumps that distributethe rainwater to particular fields and houses for pro-ductive and private use. The numerous small over-ground water canals are busy and bustling; childrenwith wellies (and no bellies) sail boats and sticks.

This winter day, indoor activities, both at home and inleisure centres, offer endless possibilities to play,learn, do sports, get involved in the arts, meet up,etc., at any time after work or during the day.The localleisure centres, situated at the CPUL edge, can nowalways boast outside parts such as swimming pools,racing tracks or sauna seating areas where sitting inthe rain is ever so exciting. And for the evening, thecity centre is still only a quick train ride away . . .

ECOLOGICAL INTENSIFICATION

The urban strategy that enabled CPULs to happenand to grow to what they are now, in 2045, was calledEcological Intensification (named ‘Carrot City’ byLondon architects a few years later). In London (as inmost European cities), this incremental strategy hasbeen applied since about the year 2005.

Ecological Intensification worked by prioritising envi-ronmental urban layers, which were either connectedto open space use, or to implementing sustainabletechnology and activity patterns. Usually, theseenvironmental layers were then superimposed withother locally appropriate layers, such as economic,social, cultural, historical, etc.

As a result of this process, London has become(and is still becoming) a real ‘Carrot City’: sustain-able, integral, working out of itself, but within itscapacities, allowing and needing the participation ofits citizens as well as offering real lifestyle choices.

The London boroughs, for example, appliedindividual development strategies centred around

innovative ways of connecting and reconnectingurban work, trade and leisure activities.These werethought of as the basis for an exchange of productsand services, and succeeded in supporting localproductivity patterns and thereby an economicprosperity all over London.

Over the last 40 years, since about 2005, Londonhas developed into a city where national and interna-tional exchange brought mainly those goods andservices into the city which it was not possible to pro-vide from within. Through concentration on its localexpertise and workforce, London (and GreaterLondon) has grown to strong economic identitythrough its excellent and eccentric products. At thesame time, it regained a national and internationalmarket lost for decades because of the closure ortakeover of most of its unique factories, farms, foodsand fashions. Employment figures in London (and allover Britain) have rocketed over the past twentyyears. London was also able to share in tackling theinternational problems originating from export-basedproduction in developing and poorer countries, suchas exploitation, cheap/child labour, mono-cultures or -industries, and uncontrolled environmental damage.Most of those problems had long been recognised asreasons for the large population influx into twentiethcentury cities in the first place.

All this development has highlighted the exoticin international products, i.e. food products suchas – example for this book – fruit and vegetables.Contrary to food trading methods in the early twenty-first century, exotic fruit and vegetables were nowonly sold when ripe and tasty. Suddenly, these ‘spe-cial foods’ could promote their true flavour, colour ortexture, celebrating their geographical and culturaldifference at London tables. As people nowfavoured, for various reasons, a majority of locallyproduced foods, the exotic compliment becameagain exotic, leaving room to explore the local. Food


7


and eating – an informed choice between staple andhealthy, fresh and exotic, local and organic – grew toreal importance in people’s daily routines. In London(and anywhere else), this did not only result in peo-ple’s improved general health. Economically, it led tohigher payment for better quality farming and retail,higher employment rates due to more careful han-dling of food, i.e. in smaller retail units, and less foodand therefore energy waste, both on a national andinternational level. Altogether, the changes to thefood sector resulted in decreasing environmentalproblems as over-production, mono-cultures andmass-transportation became issues of the past . . .

Such shifts in urban lifestyle were crucial for anyshifts in urban landscape. In London, as well asother ‘Carrot Cities’, Ecological Intensification gen-erated not only employment, capital and liveliness,but also a different relationship to open urbanspace. The new lifestyle options on offer in combi-nation with the multitude of efforts to improve theurban fabric, restored positive attitudes towards thecity, discouraging, for example, people from movingout of cities into suburbia, one of the major urbanproblems of the turn of the century.

LONDON IN 2045: POSTSCRIPT

It is now widely acknowledged that CPULs havegrown alongside three main urban prerequisites:population stability, successful public transport andborough balance.

London’s population had stabilised since about2040 at nearly 9 million and both the city’s skylineand the city’s outline had ceased expanding.

This was mainly due to the reduced influx of peopleinto London. Worldwide, there are now consider-ably fewer social, economic and political inequali-ties between countries so that moving for better life

conditions has been replaced by moving for richerlife experience which happens fairly evenly all overthe globe. As stability does not mean zero-motion,London’s changing demographics are a constantsource for cultural cross-fertilisation that is mostvisible in London’s vibrant diversity.

Another contribution to London’s stable populationwas that the trend to live single lives in single flats,as observed at the end of the twentieth century andpredicted to increase during the twenty-first, hadstopped around 20 years ago. Of the many reasonsfor this change, the most influential one has been arediscovery of particular lifestyles, with increasednumbers of people enjoying, for example, partner(s)or family. The accompanying new work and leisureactivities have led to massive pilgrimages to urbanamenities, revitalising London’s public spaces andits economic prosperity beyond expectations.

Thirdly, London also ceased expanding as a resultof better use and management of space within thecity. During the past 40 years, this allowed anincrease in urban density of 20 per cent with asimultaneous increase in the amount of open urbanspace. Compared to the year 2001, London’s cityboundaries now enclose 10 per cent more openspace while holding two million more people.

This last measure was at the same time extremelyimportant for the solution of London’s two othermajor problems at the turn of the last century – trafficcongestion and borough imbalance – which havesince then been constantly reduced.

Apart from the previously described changes topeoples’ opportunities for moving through the city,road traffic had been targeted with various mea-sures to reduce the use of private transport.This ledmainly to the establishment of state-of-the-artaffordable public transport and the rediscovery ofthe city of short ways, i.e. integration of work/tradespace within living spaces. The introduction of


8


CPULs played an important role as it enabled peo-ple to choose from and effectively use individualoptions ranging from walking via cycling, cycle taxisand delivery services to car sharing systems andnetwork buses. Consequently, traffic congestionwith its former huge impact on air and noise pollu-tion, low road quality, high road accident numbers,stress, natural resource depletion, etc., has notbeen considered problematic since about 2030.

Borough imbalance, with its resultant modernslums, suburban sprawl, unequal provision/loss ofopen space, congestion, crime, quality differences

in built developments, etc., has lost its grimness,though it is still an issue.

Over the last 40 years, the equitable development ofLondon boroughs was supported by most public andprivate bodies through targeted networking in andbetween the boroughs. A beneficial borough balan-cing plan in spatial terms was the ‘green lung project’, which soon became part of the CPULmovement. It invited every borough to participatein the creation of quality local open spaces thatwere then connected to a regional-urban landscapeconcept.


9


MORE SPACE WITH LESS SPACE: AN URBAN DESIGN STRATEGY


2Cpul-ch02.qxd 02/01/2005 6:27 PM Page 10


11

WHAT ARE CPULs?

Overlaying the sustainable concept of ProductiveUrban Landscapes with the spatial concept ofContinuous Landscapes proposes a new urbandesign strategy which would change the appea-rance of contemporary cities towards an unpre-cedented naturalism. Continuous Productive UrbanLandscapes (CPULs) will be open landscapesproductive in economical and sociological andenvironmental terms. They will be placed within anurban-scale landscape concept offering the hostcity a variety of lifestyle advantages and few, if any,unsustainable drawbacks.

CPULs will be city-traversing open spaces runningcontinuously through the built urban environment,thereby connecting all kinds of existing inner-cityopen spaces and relating, finally, to the surroundingrural area. Vegetation, air, the horizon, as well aspeople, will be able to flow into the city and out of it.Partially, the city will become open and wild.

CPULs will be green, natural and topographical(except when they happen on buildings), low, slowand socially active, tactile, seasonal and healthy.They will be well-connected walking landscapes.Depending on their individual settings and theurban fragment used, CPULs will read as parks orurban forests, green lungs or wilderness, axes ofmovement and journey, or places for reflection,cultural gathering and social play. They will be con-tainers for an assembly of various activities that donot happen in buildings.

CPULs will not be about knocking cities downor erasing urban tissue; they do not seek atabula rasa from which to grow. Instead, theywill build on and over characteristics inherent tothe city by overlaying and interweaving a multi-user landscape strategy to present and newlyreclaimed open space. Very importantly, they will

exist alongside a wide range of open urban spacetypes, complimenting their designation and designand adding a new sustainable component to thecity (see Chapter 14). CPULs will adapt to thevarious ways in which individual cities develop bytailoring their type and layout to specific urbanconditions and fulfilling their own requirements in aloose and inventive manner. Every CPUL andevery fragment within it will build up their ownindividual, constantly changing character.

CPULs will be productive in various ways, offeringspace for leisure and recreational activities, accessroutes, urban green lungs, etc. But most uniquely,they will be productive by providing open space forurban agriculture, for the inner-urban and peri-urbangrowing of food. The urban land itself, as well as theactivity happening on it, will become productive:occupants will act and produce on the ground andwith the ground.Vegetation will appear ever new andexciting: it will get harvested, grow back, get har-vested again, grow again, grow differently, grow lessor more, grow earlier, later, it will seasonally changesize, colour, texture and smell . . . Whilst there arevarious examples in contemporary urban design ofestablishing green links or open space similar to con-tinuous landscapes, the aspect of agricultural pro-duction, of the rural, will add not only an importantnew spatial quality to the city, but also socio-economicand environmental qualities (see Chapter 3).

CPULs will be designed primarily for pedestrians,bicycles, engine-less and emergency vehicles, soas to allow healthy vegetation and varied occupa-tion. The resulting near absence of noise, air andground pollution, and of the dangers from traffic,i.e. accidents, would make CPULs not only mostappropriate for agricultural production, but also aperfect leisure destination for the local population.Distances and dimensions within the city willchange dramatically. With regard to the presentcondition of European cities, to their congestion,

Cpul-ch02.qxd 02/01/2005 6:27 PM Page 11


12

commuter lifestyles and environmental damage,CPULs will be as revolutionary for any of them asthe introduction of the underground was for London.

CPULs do not exist yet. However, several types ofurban agriculture do already, and will always, exist:city farms, market gardens, allotments, back gar-dens, community gardens, etc., play already estab-lished roles in urban life all over Europe (seeChapter 11). Such structures would form individualcomponents of the new CPULs, with the advantageof open islands now being connected to a widelyaccessible regional landscape, making themurbanistically more meaningful.

Apart from this connectivity, the main design impli-cation of CPULs will be the introduction of agricul-tural fields into the contemporary city. As theground – the earth – air and vegetation becomevitally important for the productive success ofCPULs, the effort to maintain their well-beingensures that natural conditions will be mostsignificant features within the new urban land-scape. Other characteristics of CPULs will evolve inaccordance with the landscape’s ecological aims.This is a feature of the rural land.

Depending on their size and location, the spatialtypes of productive urban landscapes will rangefrom small uni-crop to large multi-crop fields beingplaced within (and occasionally outside) a CPUL(see Chapter 24).

Generally, any open urban space, communal orprivate, inner-city or sub-urban, small or big, wouldbenefit from integration into a CPUL. Even fully laidout open urban spaces, i.e. parks, could allocateparts of their land for productive use, gaining in returnaccess and connection to a continuous landscapedesign, thereby becoming wider, wilder and healthier.

The new design strategy will allow high diversity, asit will benefit from difference and a new identity toenrich the occupation and appearance of its

various productive and connective landscapeelements. Whilst existing quality open spacesmight want to keep their identities and be largelyused as before, recycled open spaces will adoptindividual design strategies with reference to theplanned co-existence of food production, currentuses and history of the place.

WHY CPULs?

Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes are abouturban food growing and local consumption. They willinclude livestock, but consist largely of vegetationwhich is locally managed: mainly organic vegetables,fruit and trees, planted in rows, planted in groups,fields, patches, etc. Vegetation will be chosen for itsinherent extractable energy (i.e. it can be eaten) or itsmaterial quality (i.e. it can be worn), then grown, har-vested, traded and consumed. The main productionwill be carried out by local occupants who rent theland and work it commercially within an individuallydefined local framework (see Chapters 17 and 25).Cities that decide to support this concept of organiclocal farming, trading and seasonal consumption willnever be fully self-sufficient in food production. Theywill still be required to bring food into the city from thehinterland, but less of it and in a more focused, need-oriented way.

Producing food where one wants to eat it, or con-suming food where it has just grown, establishes ahealthy and sustainable balance of production andconsumption. It is an effective and practical, but atthe same time self-beneficial way of reducing theenergy embodied in contemporary Western foodproduction.

This reduction of embodied energy is crucialfor several reasons. The energy – mainly non-renewable – currently used for conventional food



13

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2 Identifying continuous landscapes.

Figure 2.2

Figure 2.3

Figure 2.1 An established city with no CPULs.

detail

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.3 Inserting productive urban landscapes.

Figure 2.4 Feeding the city.



14

green footpath

Productive Urban Landscapewith multi-coloured urban agriculture fields

individual urban agriculture fields

continuous landscape connectingcity and countryside

local marketor shop

local farmstore withwholesale market

foodflow

individual consumer

contin

uouspro

ductive urban landscapedetail

Figure 2.5



15

production, for example in Europe, exceeds by farthe energy received in return from consuming theproduced food. The unlimited, daily usage of non-renewable energy contributes significantly to globalresource depletion and, through greenhouse gasemissions, to global warming (see Chapter 3).

One might argue that concentrating on the energyconsumed by current remote food production doesnot allow for the future development of environ-mentally clean energy technologies. But, firstly,such a position fails to recognise that the inequitabledistribution and consumption of resources extendsbeyond energy usage, i.e. to raw materials, desi-rable land, water and food. Reducing the energyrequirements of goods and processes shrinks thedivide between those who have access to abundantenergy supplies and those who do not, withoutlimiting the availability of final products.

Secondly, CPULs will not solely concentrate onaddressing embodied energy in the first place.Theywill be environmentally productive dealing not onlywith local food, but also with issues such as green-house gas (CO2) reduction, improving air qualityand air humidity, noise filtering and biodiversity.They will also be sociologically productive: theirurban concept will involve, amongst others, cul-tural, educational and leisure activities, shoppinghabits or diet and health concerns. Last but notleast, they will be economically productive, provo-king new strategic socio-economic thinking andchanging local employment and product–cashflow patterns (see Chapter 8). CPULs will providea completely different concept for the use of the city.

WHERE WILL CPULs BE?

CPULs require land, but in return they will enrichcities by reducing their environmental impact and

bringing in spatial qualities until then only associatedwith rural or natural conditions.

The implementation of CPULs will be a slowprocess varying with the city under consideration.Each city will have to determine the scale and ambi-tion for CPUL infrastructures. A long-establishedlarge city, like London for example, provides lessscope for integrating CPULs and/or tracts of pro-ductive urban landscape close to its historic centrethan it does close to its fringes (see Chapter 24).

Above all, the new open urban space will need . . .space. Land will have to be allocated, reclaimed,recycled or imaginatively found. Open urban spaceis precious: it is rare, and it can be converted intosomething else. Usually, it is converted into housingor other building development and thereby intomoney. CPULs will have to compete with commercialland-use activities, as well as with all other contem-porary ways of designing or redesigning openurban space (see Chapter 14).

Urban agriculture, the proposed productive ele-ment of CPULs, could take on any shape andoccupy virtually any space in the city – big, small,horizontal, sloped, vertical, rectangular, triangular,irregular, on brownfield sites, on greenfield sites, inparks, on reclaimed roads, on spacious planes orsqueezed in corners . . . CPULs will appear in evervarying site-specific shapes and dimensions andat any urban scale. They could happen anywherewithin the urban context, leading to many citiesboosting the multiple use of their build space andkeeping valuable inner-city space clear of con-struction at the same time.

Starting to implement CPULs will be most advanta-geous in those areas of the contemporary citywhich, at the moment, are given over to activitiesrestricting space to mono- or non-use: car parks,roads, parking bays, shopping malls, warehouses,multi-storey car parks (at least the flat roofs and



16

plane facades), railway embankments, industrialwasteland, brownfield sites, etc. These inner-urbanspaces are available in abundance with occupantsand users being mostly positive about qualitativespatial and environmental improvement. Moreover,these spaces’ diversity in size and shape, and theirlocation anywhere in urban networks make themideal components of the continuous landscapestrategy.

The emphasis of CPULs on connection and move-ment, on uninterrupted routes between local urbancentres, will influence their layout and positioning(see Chapter 25). Whilst they will hold areas suffi-ciently sized for many activities, there will be otherparts which will mainly provide continuous anddirect urban connections. Both of these CPULtypes will draw from well-established, existing ornewly reclaimed open urban space. An extensivenetwork of CPULs could be imagined as a contem-porary city with every other road given over tofarming, leisure, and pedestrian and cycle routes

(plus occasional and emergency vehicular traffic),thereby connecting larger existing and new openspaces of any size and designation. It could looklike Venice with the canals transformed to becomefields.

However, reclaiming and recycling those areasposes two problems: the proposed sites could betoxic and their current mono-use activities wouldhave to be accommodated somewhere else, eitherby redesign or relocation. Successful attempts todo this have taken place in various countries,mainly in connection with the necessary repair ofexisting urban tissue.

As costly and time-intensive as such solutionsmight be, and as much focused urban and architec-tural planning or communal support they mightneed, they will always have the advantage of beingenvironmentally sensible in addition to providingthe urban and socio-cultural benefits describedabove (see Chapters 3 and 17).


TWO

PLANNING FOR CPULs: URBAN AGRICULTURE

PART


MORE FOOD WITH LESS SPACE: WHY BOTHER?

André Viljoen, Katrin Bohn and Joe Howe


By agriculture only can commerce beperpetuated; and by Agriculture alone canwe live in plenty without intercourse with othernations. This therefore is the great art, whichevery Government ought to protect, everyproprietor to practice, and every inquirer intonature improve.

Dr Samuel Johnson 1709–1784 (Johnson,1756)

By the year 2025, 83 per cent of the expectedglobal population will be living in developingcountries. . . . Agriculture has to meet thischallenge. . . . Major adjustments are neededin agriculture, environmental and macro-economic policy, at both national and inter-national levels, in developed as well asdeveloping countries, to create conditions forsustainable agriculture and rural development.

Agenda 21 (United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development, 1992)

It is self-evident that food production is fundamen-tal to life and that it underpins all other activities.The Earth summit of 1992 recognised this and theneed for adjustments in the current means of agri-cultural production.

Dr Johnson, writing in eighteenth century England,notes the role agriculture can play in supportingcommerce, in this instance by making a nationself-sufficient. While we do not advocate a world‘without intercourse’ between nations, a strongcase can be made for modifying current practice inglobalised food production and distribution byincreasing local self-sufficiency in food production.An example of the impact globalised food marketscan have on local economies is provided by a pressrelease from the international anti poverty charity

ActionAid:

More than 75 per cent of Kenya’s populationdepends on agriculture, but subsidisedimports are destroying the country’s market.

ActionAid Kenya subsidies expert GichingaNdirangu says farmers cannot competeagainst low-priced, subsidised products, suchas wheat, which are flooding into the country.‘Because farming in Kenya is no longer sub-sidised, the cost of production is much higher,’he says. ‘Kenyan farmers can not compete.’

During recent years they have been forced toreduce their production of wheat becausethey can no longer break even. They’ve lookedfor alternative crops, but with the entire agri-cultural sector facing similar challenges, it hasbeen difficult to find viable substitutes. ‘Kenyais one of the countries that, in the mid-80s,was compelled to cut support to their domes-tic sector and open up their markets to cheapforeign imports as conditions of loans fromthe World Bank,’ explains Gichinga. ‘The Bankargued these measures would allow peopleaccess to cheaper products and alleviatepoverty – of course it has had the oppositeeffect. All Kenyan farmers want is to be able tomake a living from agriculture. And the onlyway to do this is by protecting them fromcheap subsidised imports.’

The second reform was to focus on growingcommercial crops for export and then rely onforeign exchange earnings to pay for import-ing the food it needed.

Today Kenya is no longer a self-sufficient pro-ducer of basic foodstuffs. The country hasbecome increasingly vulnerable to the vagariesof the world market. Kenya must now pay for


20


vital food imports with the money it earns fromexports.

Unfortunately, the prices of two of its majorcrops – tea and coffee – are currently fallingbecause of a glut on the world market.

(ActionAid, 2002)

FOOD AND URBAN DESIGN

Let’s start by considering how we have reached thisstate of affairs and why architects, urbanists and plan-ners have a role to play in improving the situation.

In the English speaking world, the publication ofCarson’s Silent Spring in 1962 triggered concern overthe ecological side effects and health risks posed byindustrial agriculture and agribusiness, resulting inchemically dependent farming techniques. Today,many rural areas have been reduced to biologicallyimpoverished wastelands and in Britain, for example,the domination of industrial agriculture is creating anincreasingly depopulated landscape.

The increased disconnection between consumersand producers of food means that urban popula-tions have little connection with food productionand thus have a limited knowledge of the issuesassociated with it.

This process makes the world less comprehensibleand reduces the ability of populations to criticisethe status quo, due to a lack of direct experienceand knowledge. Nevertheless in Europe there ismuch public concern about industrial agriculture,for example the application of genetic engineeringto food production. Research by the EuropeanCommission has indicated that the majority ofconsumers in Europe would be prepared to pay apremium for non-genetically modified food (EuropeanCommission, 1998).

A number of recent food scandals in Europe, suchas Mad Cow disease in the UK, the contaminationof Austrian wine, and dioxins found in Belgian eggsand meat, have resulted in health concerns aboutindustrial agriculture. Some argue that the public isconcerned that regulations are not enforced rigor-ously enough (Aerni, 2000), but we think theseconcerns indicate a wider scepticism regarding theoverall benefits of highly competitive and marketdriven agriculture managed by a very small groupof businesses. In support of this counter argument,Aerni refers to reports noting that Japanese con-sumers are ready to pay high subsidies to maintainfamily-based multifunctional farming and that theyuse protectionist policies to ensure this (Hayamiand Godo, 1995).

WHY URBAN FOOD?

Urban agriculture can result in environmental, socialand economic benefits. There are three primaryenvironmental benefits from organic urban agricul-ture – preserving biodiversity, tackling waste andreducing the amount of energy used to produce anddistribute food.

Modern industrial farming techniques in thecountryside have had a devastating effect on bio-diversity. The combination of fertiliser and pesticideuse with habitat destruction means that urban envi-ronments are now often more species-rich in faunaand flora than their rural counterparts (Nicholson-Lord, 1987).

Added to this has been the effect of a few largesupermarket chains dominating food retailing. Forexample the United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganisation cite Belgium, France and the UnitedKingdom as ‘extreme examples’ where only 10 percent of retail units account for more than 80 per cent


21


of food distribution (Food and AgricultureOrganisation, 2002). Supermarkets’ reliance oneconomies of scale and repeatable quality standardsinevitably favours larger suppliers and the use ofchemicals in preference to environmentally benignagricultural methods. In contrast, urban food pro-duction, particularly current forms such as urbanfarms and community gardens, tends to be charac-terised by the use of organic methods and the localsale of produce.

Urban agriculture also offers the potential to useorganic waste for composting, thereby reducing theneed for land-fill (see Chapter 12).

Food is being transported further than ever before,often by air between countries on opposite sides ofthe world, whilst local crop varieties are replaced bya few commercial types popular with supermarkets(Cook and Rodgers, 1996). This pattern of growing‘food miles’ is far from sustainable, its by-productbeing increasing air pollution, notably of majorgreenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, increas-ing road congestion and noise, and increasingstress. Urban food production supplying local outletsoffers an alternative to this pattern (see Chapter 5).

The consequences of this are evident in the reducednumbers of varieties of particular fruit and vegeta-bles available in most supermarkets; reactionsagainst this include the Italian ‘Slow food movement’which promotes the use of fresh local produce andthe associated culture of convivial eating.

At the same time, many people in poorer urban partsof European cities are living in areas that are effec-tively becoming retail deserts (see Chapter 6). Suchfactors underline the unsustainability of currenttrends in food retailing and production. Despite this,the whole issue of food security and food supply withits attendant environmental, social, economic andhealth knock-on effects is one which very few munici-pal or national authorities have addressed.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CASE FORURBAN AGRICULTURE

One of the most effective ways of assessing the envi-ronmental impact of a particular process or productis to find out how much non-renewable energy isrequired to produce it; this quantity of energy isreferred to as embodied energy. The consumption ofembodied energy results in the emission of green-house gases, which contribute to global warmingand climate change. So embodied energy can bethought of as a shorthand for assessing the climatechange potential of a process.

Another important reason for finding out how muchenergy different processes and products use isto judge how equitably the world’s resourcesare distributed. In 1985 the per capita carbon diox-ide emissions for someone living in Africa was0.79 tonnes per annum while the correspondingfigure for someone living in the USA or Canada was19.21 tonnes per annum (Shorrock and Henderson,1989).The challenge lies in reconciling the need forreducing emissions of greenhouse gases and theimbalance in access to energy between developedand developing regions. Most people would preferthis imbalance to be evened out by a generalimprovement in the living standards of those withthe least access to resources. A variety of mecha-nisms can achieve this end, all requiring access toenergy, and if you think, as we do, that conventionalnuclear power is not an attractive and safe long-term solution, then the only option is to use renew-able energy and reduce the amount of energyrequired for processing goods and activities. Theneed to reduce embodied energy applies as muchto food production as to the energy efficient opera-tion of buildings and other activities.

Figure 3.1 was published by Peter Chapman in1975 and illustrates the embodied energy for a loaf


22


of bread (Chapman, 1975).This is typical of a numberof studies conducted in the 1970s, undertaken inresponse to the rapid increase in the price ofoil, and fear over the impact this and possible oilshortages, would have on the economies of devel-oped countries. Between then and the Rio EarthSummit in 1992, very little attention was paid toembodied energy.

In Britain, the first widely published attempt toassess the embodied energy of food was made bythe architects Brenda and Robert Vale (Vale andVale, 2000).They tried to estimate the non-renewableenergy use resulting from food consumption for afamily of four, living in England. This was comparedto the family’s energy usage in their house and forthe typical usage of a family car. This study took asa starting point the recommendations for daily calo-rie intake by the Food and Agriculture Organisation

of the United Nations. The energy content of foodwas estimated using United Kingdom data from1968 published by G. Leach (Leach, 1976). It isclear that the figures used in this calculation are outof date and that the embodied energy of food mayhave altered. For example, packaging and trans-portation have almost certainly increased, whileproduction and processing may have become moreenergy efficient. Notwithstanding these uncertain-ties, the Vales’ findings are sufficiently surprising tocause concern.

They estimated that the embodied energy contentof food consumed by the family of four was265 kWh/m2, while the delivered energy used by atypical house in the United Kingdom was estimatedat 257 kWh/m2. In both cases, to allow for compari-son between houses of different sizes, the totalenergy used per year was divided by the floor areaof the house.

Figure 3.2 shows the results of extending this cal-culation to take account of the associated carbondioxide emissions. Here, the Vales have estimatedthat the carbon dioxide emissions related to foodproduction may well equal the amount of carbondioxide emitted from the combined use of a private


23

Retail Bakery Mill Farm

The detailed breakdown of the fuel cost of astandard white loaf.

The total cost is 5.6 kWh/loaf

Embodied energy of bread, primary energy equals using an electricheater for circa 2.5 hours (After Chapman,1975)

Fertilisers and transport account for 37.6% of embodied energy

8.6%

sh

op h

eat a

nd li

ght

12.2

%

tran

spor

t

9.4%

ot

her

ingr

edie

nts

23.6

%

baki

ng fu

el

8.3%

pa

ckag

ing

5.0%

tr

ansp

ort

2.2%

pa

ckag

ing

2.0%

ot

her

7.4%

m

illin

g fu

el1.

4%

tran

spor

t

11.6

%

fert

ilise

r7.

3%

trac

tor

fuel

0.4%

ot

her

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.1 The embodied energy of a loaf of bread.

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.2 Carbon dioxide emissions for a typical familyin the UK.

Tonn

es C

O2

per

year

0

2

4

6

8

Food(Kramer et al., 1999)

Food(DETR, 1998)

Private car(DETR, 1998)

Household(DETR, 1998)

4.2 4.4

8

2.8


car and a standard house built in England in 1995.Figure 3.2 also includes estimates from a Dutchstudy for household greenhouse gas emissionsresulting from food consumption (Kramer K.J. et al.,1999).

The study by Kramer et al. was detailed and usedcontemporary figures to estimate emissions result-ing from the lifecycle for food production andconsumption. Kramer et al. estimates that the foodconsumed per year by an average householdresulted in 1875 kg of carbon dioxide emissions.When other non carbon dioxide greenhouse gasemissions resulting from food production areallowed for, then annual household food consump-tion emits the equivalent of 2800 kg of carbondioxide. A carbon dioxide equivalent refers to theamount of carbon dioxide that would have to beemitted to equal the global warming potential ofanother greenhouse gas. In the case of food thisrefers to the greenhouse gases methane andnitrous oxide.

Kramer et al.’s study indicates that the globalwarming potential resulting from the consumptionof industrialised food production in the Netherlandsis about equal to the emissions for all energy use ina typical modern home. For comparison, circa2600 kg of carbon dioxide emissions result fromspace heating, domestic hot water use, cookingand the use of pumps and fans in a typical four per-son house built in the UK to thermal standardsapplicable between 1995 and 2002 (DETR, 1998).

The Dutch study suggests that carbon dioxideequivalent emissions are about 40 per cent ofthose estimated by the Vales. Given the number ofvariations between the two calculations it is difficultto make a direct comparison.The Vales’ calculationis based on a household of four persons which isprobably larger than the national average house-hold in the Netherlands, and the Vales’ embodiedenergy data is much older.

Another way of assessing the relative importanceof greenhouse gas emissions from food productionis to compare them to emissions from the embod-ied energy of buildings. Figure 3.3 assumes ahouse with a floor area of 100 m2 for four persons.From Figure 3.3, using Kramer et al.’s figures forcarbon dioxide emissions due to food consump-tion, it can be seen that the embodied energy offood is significantly greater than the embodiedenergy of dwellings. (The embodied energy ofdwellings has been calculated as an annual equiv-alent figure, by dividing the embodied energy ofbuilding materials by their lifetime.)

Overall these estimates for the embodied energyand associated greenhouse gas emissions of foodare startling, particularly since the energy usageassociated with agriculture is usually considered tobe relatively small. Europe provides a useful illus-tration since its per capita energy use falls betweenthat of the highest consumers, the USA andCanada, and the lowest, Africa (Shorrock andHenderson, 1989). The United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change states thatbetween 1990 and 1997 agriculture contributedless than 1 per cent to total carbon dioxide emis-sions, rising in 1998 to 1 per cent (EuropeanEnvironment Agency, 2002).


24

0

20

40

60

80

Food CO2Embodied CO2Operational CO2

28

11.6 7.5

63.7

27

1.26

UK building regs. (Viljoen, 1997)

Dutch study (Kramer et al., 1999)

Low energy design (Viljoen, 1997)

Average English (DETR, 2000)

kg C

O2/

m2 p

er y

ear

Low

ener

gyde

sign

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.3 Embodied and operational carbon dioxideemissions for a typical household in the UK compared toembodied carbon dioxide emissions from food consumedby a household. The embodied emissions for food are basedon a Dutch study.


How is it that estimates by some researches claimsuch a high environmental impact for food produc-tion when the carbon dioxide emissions from agri-culture appear to be so low?

One reason is that the energy usage on a farm is butone part of the food production cycle. Agriculturalenergy usage will not take account of the transportrequired to shift crops from farm to point of sale, andfrom point of sale to point of consumption. In addition,food in Europe and other developed countries isundergoing a considerable amount of pre sale pro-cessing and packaging. Even uncooked fruit andvegetables are frequently sold pre-cut and ready toeat, not to mention the energy used to keep semi-ripe fruit and vegetables refrigerated.

Another significant contributor to greenhouse gasemissions from industrialised agriculture arises fromthe use of fertilisers. It has been estimated that theenergy used in the industrial production of fertilisersand pesticides accounts for 1.5 per cent of theUnited Kingdom’s carbon dioxide emissions. Oncefertilisers have been applied to crops further emis-sions of nitrous oxide occur, a greenhouse gas 310times as powerful as carbon dioxide. The same esti-mates suggest these emissions are more than twiceas significant as the carbon dioxide arising from theproduction of fertilisers (Stanley, 2002). One mustassume that these significant greenhouse gas emis-sions are excluded from the agricultural category,and included under emissions from industry.

Using statistics from a range of national institutions,Stanley has suggested that if food in the UnitedKingdom were produced organically, consumedlocally and eaten when in season, greenhouse gasreductions in excess of 40 million tonnes of carbon,per annum, could be achieved.This would representa reduction of 22 per cent of current carbon dioxideemissions from the United Kingdom. This is put intoperspective when it is realised that this reduction isin excess of twice the commitments made by the

United Kingdom under the Kyoto Protocol (Stanley,2002). Similar reductions in greenhouse gas emis-sions can reasonably be assumed for other nationsusing industrial agricultural production.

The above study shows how important it is to takeaccount of the entire lifecycle of any product or activ-ity.The principles of organic agriculture, local tradingand seasonal consumption of food form one of thecentral underpinning arguments in support of urbanagriculture and productive landscapes. Stanley’stimely estimates provide a powerful environmentalargument in favour of urban agriculture.

Given the significance of these assertions it is nec-essary to further investigate the environmentalconsequences of adopting urban agriculture. Ourdefinition of urban agriculture within continuousproductive landscapes assumes the following:

● Organic agriculture● Seasonal consumption● Local growing and trading of crops.

ORGANIC URBAN AGRICULTURE

Figure 3.4 indicates how between 1910 and 1970the energy inputs to food produced in the USA


25

Fue

l cal

orie

s, in

put p

er fo

od c

alor

ie o

utpu

t 10

5

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

(Steinhart & Steinhart, 1971)

Figure 3.4

Figure 3.4 Energy input to food production from farmer toconsumer in the USA: the number of calories put into thesystem to obtain one calorie of food. Probable values usedfor 1910 to 1937.



26

Figure 3.5 shows how the calculations were doneand Figure 3.6 presents results for a range of crops.

These calculations take account of the possiblereduction in yield due to the conversion fromconventional agro-chemical-based production toorganic farming. In this assessment we have used aworst case assumption – that organic farming yieldsare two thirds of those from conventional farming(Wright, 1994). This assumption leads to a relativereduction in benefits of organic production. However,some more recent estimates for yields from organicproduction are less pessimistic. Stanley refers to theRoyal Agricultural Society for England, who state that,‘Organic vegetables (yields) are comparable (withconventionally farmed) and potatoes 50 per centless.’ (Stanley, 2002).

Figure 3.7 illustrates the situation usually presentedfor organic farmers.Yields per hectare may be lowerthan those for conventional farming, but the pricepaid per unit output is higher. The relationshipbetween yield and price varies between one cropand another, and so in some instances organicproduction is more profitable than conventional pro-duction and in other cases less profitable (Lampkinand Padel, 1994). If organic yields for fruit andvegetables are similar to those from conventionalproduction, as Stanley notes, then the economics oforganic farming become far more attractive. In allof the above cases no allowance has been made forthe added value provided by organic farming, forexample, the promotion of biodiversity, reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions and less leaching of fer-tilisers into groundwater.

Seasonal consumption

Earlier in the text, the consumption of localseasonal crops was referred to as an importantelement of urban agriculture. Not only do seasonal

increased. Up to about 1920, the amount of energyused to produce and supply food to the consumerroughly equalled the amount of energy releasedwhen the food was eaten. By 1970 the amount ofenergy used to produce food had increased onaverage by eight times. So for every one unit ofenergy supplied to a person when eating food,eight times as much energy had gone into produc-ing that food. This is a significant increase in theenergy required for food production.

Ratios between the energy content of food wheneaten and the energy used to produce the food arereferred to as energy ratios. In the United Kingdomdetailed energy ratios have been calculated for anumber of agricultural products. These tookaccount of all the associated energy inputs up tothe point where crops left the farm. In 1968 theaverage energy ratio for all foods in the UnitedKingdom was 0.2, which means that for every jouleof energy provided by eating food, five joules wereused to produce that food (Leach, 1976). Althoughless than the ratio of eight to one for food in theUSA at that time, the trend of increasing energyinputs to food was similar.

When thinking about urban agriculture, we areassuming that during the initial stages of itsintegration into cities, fruit and vegetables will formthe principal produce.This is on the basis that thesecrops provide the highest yields and value per areacultivated. In order to estimate what impact organicproduction might have on the embodied energy ofcrops we undertook a study of Leach’s figures forthe embodied energy of farm crops (Leach 1976).Although the actual figures used by Leach relate toyears between 1968 and 1972, the study gives anindication of potential energy savings. It should benoted that Leach’s figures include energy inputs upto the point at which a crop leaves the farm. Theytake no account of processing, packaging and dis-tribution to point of sale.



27

Figure 3.5

Organic food production: energy expenditure in terms of energy ratios (after Leach, 1976)

An energy ratio is defined as the edible energy output of food divided by the energy input necessary to produce it.

INPUTS CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION ORGANIC PRODUCTION

Fertiliser N, 175 kg.............................................................................................14.00 .............................................Fertiliser P, 175 kg............................................................................................... 2.45 .............................................Fertiliser K, 250 kg...............................................................................................2.25 .............................................Field Work, fuels for tractors (to harvest).............................................................2.85 .....................................2.85 fuels for harvester, transport.............................................................3.38 .....................................3.38Field Work, tractors depreciation and repair........................................................1.14 .....................................1.14 harvesters depreciation and repairs..................................................6.70 .....................................6.70Sprays, 13kg.........................................................................................................1.24............................................Seed shed fuels (620 MJ/t seed)..........................................................................1.57.....................................1.57Storage (1,65 kWh/net t)......................................................................................0.57 .....................................0.57 TOTAL 36.15 TOTAL 16.21

OUTPUTSGross yield t.....................................................26.3 ............................................Net yield (less 2.5t seeds) t.....................................................23.8 ............................................Edible yield t.....................................................17.9 at 66% of conventional 11.9Energy output (17.9t x 3.18 MJ/kg) GJ/ha........................................TOTAL 56.9 ..................... TOTAL 37.95Protein output (17.9t x 2.1% protein) kgP/ha.....................................................376 ............................................

RATIOSEnergy out/in 1.57 2.34

Figure 3.5 Comparison of energy ratios for conventionaland organic potato production of UK. Energy input andoutputs measured in GJ per hectare per year.

Figure 3.6 Comparison of energy ratios for conventionaland organic production of UK crops. An energy ratio isdefined as the edible energy output of food divided by theenergy input necessary to produce it.

Figure 3.6

Average potatoes

Sugar beet

Sugar (from beet)

Fresh peas

Field beans (Spring)

Brussels sprouts

Carrots

Winter lettuce(heated glasshouses)

Allotment garden

84 620

Energy ratio (GJ/ha–yr)

Organic vegetable productionNon organic vegetable production

(After Leach, 1976)


In developed countries, marketing has effectivelyreduced seasonality to a folk memory.The argumentgoes that access to all varieties of fruit and veget-ables, all year round, provides unlimited choice,and thus the best of all worlds. There are of coursemerits to this argument, but it does not provide theonly answer to a fulfilling culinary life. The obviousdrawbacks are those related to international foodtransport. Within the issue of food transport,environmental matters only worsen as attempts aremade to solve inherent problems with the system.We can illustrate this with the situation in England.Currently, many fruits are available in supermarketsthat would not be available if grown outside locally.These fruits, when bought, tend to be unripe,because they have been picked early, refrigeratedand transported to the supermarket. Experienceshows that these fruit never achieve a naturalripeness and rot before they are ready to be eaten.On the other hand they look perfect and by nowmany consumers cannot compare the quality ofthese cheap fruits, to quality fresh produce.

One solution to the above problem generated withinthe food industry is to transport fruit and vegetables


28

Figure 3.8

MJ/

kg

0

10

20

30

40

Locally producedin open fields

Importedfrom 2000 km

Locally producedin greenhouse

(After Kol et al., 1993)37.15

5.8

1.55

Figure 3.8 Comparative embodied energy for vegetablesproduced in open fields or in heated greenhouses, based ona Dutch study.

crops reduce the need for the transnational ship-ment of foods, and hence reduce embodied energydue to transport, but also they have implications forhow crops are grown locally.

One way of extending the season of crops is byusing greenhouses. These provide a means ofgrowing crops earlier and longer than would bepossible in the open. Greenhouses using the sun’senergy to warm them provide an effective lowenergy solution to extending the growing season.But in Europe, for example, the pressures of agri-business demand ever-earlier crops and conse-quently many greenhouses are heated, so thatyields are increased and the growing season isextended. A study undertaken in the Netherlandshas indicated that on average vegetables producedin greenhouses require over 57 times as muchnon-renewable energy to produce compared to thesame vegetables grown in open fields, seeFigure 3.8 (Kol, Bieiot and Wilting, 1993).

The desire to consume the same fruit and veget-ables all the year round is one of the more importantcauses of large-scale greenhouse gas emissionsassociated with food production, resulting as it doesin transport requirements and greenhouse heating.

Figure 3.7

0

50

260

179

19

100

150

200

250

price (£/t)Yield (t/ha)

OrganicConventional

(Lampkin & Padel, 1994)

51

Figure 3.7 Comparative yields and sale price for conven-tional and organic crops in the UK, as reported in 1994.


by air, so reducing the time between harvesting andconsumption. As Angela Paxton points out in herchapter on food miles (see Chapter 5), this onlyworsens the environmental impact of the goods.

Local growing and trading of crops

There is no particular reason why fresh, local,seasonal food could not be promoted as powerfullyas the limited number of international foods whichare available throughout the year. It is understoodthat urban agriculture will not supply all food needsand that a degree of imported staple and ‘special’food will always top up basic food or enliven thepleasure of eating. However, with a well-establishedlocal food market, these imports could be kept to areasonable minimum.

One of the arguments raised against this principleis that developing countries rely on food exports forforeign currency. But as made clear earlier, the pre-vailing models of trade are not the only optionsavailable. The Fair Trade movement demonstratesa viable alternative trading pattern, which supportslocal production by providing local growers withrelatively higher incomes by eliminating a numberof unnecessary intermediate traders, etc. Supportinglocal self-sufficiency internationally would alsoalleviate problems caused by the unsustainableuse of farmland for export crops. As Dr SamuelJohnson noted in 1756 (Johnson, 1756) this wouldprovide a sound base from which nations coulddevelop their economies.

A question arises as to how locally grown foodshould be distributed within the city. Urban agricul-ture sites, on the scale of those found in Cuba,circa 1000 to 2000 m2 in area, can rely on farmgate sales and local distribution by small vehiclesor bicycles with trailers. A radical shift in marketingstrategies could result in the use of existing

distribution networks of supermarkets. Doing thiswould integrate urban agriculture into the complexfood distribution network of pan national food sup-pliers. These distribution networks rely on movinggoods from the place of production, to processingand packaging plants, to distribution centres fromwhich they are then redelivered to supermarketsfor sale. A well publicised study by Stefanie Bögeshowed that the components for a 150 g pot ofstrawberry yoghurt will have travelled a total dis-tance of 1005 km before reaching a supermarketshelf in Southern Germany (Böge, 1993). Suchcomplex distribution and production networks relyon integrated large-scale distribution networks.

Local farmers’ markets provide an alternative distri-bution model. At these markets farmers bring theirown produce into the city for selling. In order tojudge the environmental impact of local farmers’markets in London we undertook a small survey ofa newly established farmers’ market located inPeckham, about five kilometres from the city cen-tre. This market is one of those set up by NinaPlanck (see Chapter 10). We were interested inassessing the transport requirements of small localmarkets in a large city. Three differences had beennoted in the transport associated with localmarkets, when compared to a supermarket.Supermarkets use large road vehicles to delivergoods from their central storage depots to theirretail outlets. This is in addition to the transportassociated with collection of goods from farms andany pre sales processing which may occur. Weestimated that 90 per cent of supermarket cus-tomers drove by car to and from the supermarket.

By contrast, at a local farmers’ market each stallholder will drive between their farm and the market.For the fruit and vegetables sold at these marketsminimal pre-processing and packaging occurs. Itwas also noted that nearly all of the marketcustomers walked or cycled to the farmers’ market.


29


Six market holders were surveyed during March2001. They were asked the round trip distance trav-elled to attend the market, their fuel consumption, thevolume of goods brought to the market, thepercentage of stock unsold, the percentage of goodsdamaged in transit, and the number of marketsattended per week. Figure 3.9 presents the results.

We then considered how many people the marketcould serve. It was estimated that the volume of fruitand vegetables purchased by a family of four wouldequal about one third of a supermarket trolley perweek, which we equated to one tenth of a cubicmetre. The average round trip distance travelled by asupplier to the market was 160 km, and allowing forgoods unsold and damaged in transit, on averageeach supplier sold 4.5 cubic metres of goods.Thus onaverage suppliers travel about 3.6 km per family fed.

As we had observed that most supermarket usersdrove there by car, and that farmers’ market usersdid not, we concluded that the distance driven byfarmers to urban markets would probably be nomore than the distance driven by supermarketusers. Supermarkets would in addition require thedelivery of goods to the store, which as noted

involves significant distances. Although this studyis small and does not provide conclusive evidence,these results are interesting because they arebased on peri urban agriculture. Once urban agri-culture is introduced to cities, the distance travelledby farmers will be further reduced.

REFERENCES

ActionAid (2002). ActionAid supplement. Metro newspaper,9 September 2002, p.24.

Aerni, P. (2000). Public Policy Responses toBiotechnology. STI/CID Policy Discussion Paper No. 4.Harvard University MA. Accessed 19 August 2003 athttp://www2.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/dp/discussion9.pdf

Böge, S. (1993). Road transport of goods and the effectson the spatial environment-condensed version. WuppertalInstitute.

Chapman, P. (1975). Fuel’s Paradise: Energy Options forBritain. Penguin Books.

Cook, H. and Rogers, A. (1996). Community food security.Pesticide Campaigner, 6 (3), 7–11.

DETR (1998). Building a Sustainable Future: Homes for anAutonomous Community, General Information Report 53.Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions/BRECSU, HMSO, Vale, R. and Vale, B.

European Commission Directorate General XII (1998).Biotechnology: Opinions of Europeans on ModernBiotechnology. Eurobarometer 46.1 European CommissionBrussels/Luxembourg.

European Environment Agency (2002). Carbon DioxideEmissions Factsheet. Published at www.eea.eu.int/all-indicators-box (accessed 21 August 2002).

Food and Agriculture Organisation (2002). PR 96/47 FastGrowing Cities present enormous challenges. Publishedat www.foa.org/WAICENT/OIS/PRESS-NE/PRESSENG/H41F.HTM (accessed 18 August 2002).


30

Ave

rage

figu

res

0

20

40

60

80

100

% rotten Marketsper week

% takenback

Cubic mproduct

Litresdiesel

Milesreturn

100

22

6.5

30

41.5

(Peckham Farmers; Market, London 2001)

Figure 3.9

Figure 3.9 Results from a survey of farmers selling theirown produce at a local farmers’ market in Peckham, London.The distance farmers travel and their fuel consumption iscompared to the volume of produce they sell.


Hayami, Y. and Godo, Y. (1995). Economics and Politics ofRice Policy in Japan. A perspective on the Uruguay round.NBER Working Paper No.W5341.

Johnson, S. (1756). Further thoughts on Agriculture,Universal Visitor. In Johnson’s Works (D. J. Green, ed.)vol X, Political Writings.Yale (1977).

Kol, R., Bieiot, W. and Wilting, H. C. (1993). Energie-intensiteiten van voedingsmiddelen. Energy andEnvironmental Sciences Department (IVEM), StateUniversity of Groningen, Netherlands.

Kramer, K. J., Moll, H. C., Nonhebel, S. and Wilting, H. C.(1999). Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch foodconsumption. Energy Policy, 27, 203–206.

Lampkin, N. H. and Padel, S. (1994). The Economics ofOrganic Farming. CABI Publishing.

Leach, G. (1976). Energy and food production. Institute forEnvironment and Development.

Nicholson-Lord, D. (1987). The Greening of Cities. Routledge,London.

Shorrock, L. D. and Henderson, L. D. (1989). Energy use inbuildings and carbon dioxide emissions. HMSO.

Stanley, D. (2002). Sustainability in practice. Achieving theUK’s climate change commitments and the efficiency ofthe food cycle. e3 consulting.

United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (1992). Earth Summit ‘92. Regency PressCorporation.

Vale, B. and Vale, R. (2000). The new autonomous house.Thames and Hudson.

Wright, S. (1994). The handbook of organic food processingand production. Blackwell Science.


31


URBAN AGRICULTURE ANDSUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Herbert Giradet

4cpul-ch04.qxd 02/01/2005 7:24 AM Page 32

URBAN AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT

33

TAKING STOCK

At the start of the new millennium we live in a world ofunprecedented human numbers.There are currentlyabout 6.3 billion people, and this figure is expected toincrease to some nine billion by 2050. About half ofthe world’s population live in cities, a figure which islikely to grow to two thirds by 2030. Most cities arebeing built on farmland, a factor that will certainlyreduce the world’s food production capacity unlesscity people produce significant proportions of theirown food. So some important questions need to beanswered: can the global environment cope with this‘age of the city’? Will there be any untouched naturalsystems left? How can the world’s growing numbersof city people be fed?

A very useful methodology in this context is tomeasure the ‘ecological footprint’ of cities, drawingon the work of Canadian ecologist William Reesand his Swiss colleague Mathis Wackernagel. Asthey see it, we need to quantify the land areasrequired to supply cities with essential resourceservices – the footprints of cities. These consistsof three main components – the surface areasrequired:

1. to feed cities;2. to supply them with forest products; and3. to reabsorb their waste, and particularly their

carbon dioxide output.

Using this method, I have tried to assess the eco-logical footprint of the city where I live, London,which has a population of just over seven million.I found that it extends to around 125 times its ownsurface area of 160 000 ha, a total of 20 million ha.This breaks down as follows: London requires about1.2 hectares of farmland per person, a total of 8.4million hectares, or around 40 times its surfacearea.The forest area needed to supply it timber andpaper is about 768 000 ha. The area that would be

required to sequester its annual output of about 60million tonnes of CO2 is by far the largest – aboutten million ha, or half the total footprint.

A key issue here is how worldwide urbanisation andgrowth in affluence will increase human demandsfor land surfaces. It has been estimated that if devel-oping countries copy our Western urban lifestyles –in terms of demands for food, forest products andenergy – we will need three planets, rather than theone that we actually have. It is of crucial importance,therefore, for cities in developed countries tobecome much more efficient in the way they useresources, and that certainly includes their foodsupply. Urban agriculture can make a crucial contri-bution here.

But here we are primarily concerned with the landarea required to feed large cities such as London,and the fact that food now tends to come from fur-ther and further afield.

London, of course, was the world’s pioneeringmega-city. It grew from just under a million peoplein 1800 to about 8.5 million in 1939, a city of anunprecedented size. At first London drew on alargely local food supply. But new transport tech-nologies made it possible to bring its food in fromfurther and further away. Steam ships suppliedgrain from Canada and the USA, lamb from NewZealand, wine from France and Italy, oranges fromSpain and Brazil, bananas from the West Indiesand South America. Today food is brought to usfrom just about anywhere – no longer just infreighters and trucks, but also in aeroplanes flyingin from half way across the world.

ENERGY AND LAND-USE

The site of Heathrow airport used to be London’smarket garden. Its sandy soil is very suitable for

cpul-ch04.qxd 02/01/2005 7:24 AM Page 33


34

vegetable growing. Today, even though it is largelyconcreted over, Heathrow is still London’s majorfood supplier, but in a rather different way: food isflown in from across the globe. Such a global har-vest offers us great culinary variety, but it requiresthe availability of vast quantities of fossil fuels. Bythe time food that has been air freighted for thou-sands of miles reaches a London dining room table,it will have used hundreds of times as much energyas the calories it actually contains. But it is not onlyair freighted food that is tremendously energy inten-sive. Frozen fish from the Atlantic contain some 100times more energy than their calorific value, meatfrom UK farms 50 times more. These are astonish-ing figures. It seems unlikely that we can sustainsuch a high-energy food urban system for long.

But it is not only the energy input into our foodsystem that should concern us, but also its impacton global land use. Increased demand for meat, inparticular, has become a primary cause of defor-estation in virgin forests in the Amazon, Thailand,Malaysia and Indonesia. Animal feeds such as soy-beans and manioc produced in these places havebeen used extensively in Europe and Japan formany years. Now, economic and urban growth inlarge developing countries such as China is caus-ing a rapid increase in meat consumption there,and so increasing demand for soybeans from rain-forest and savannah regions elsewhere. In Brazil,this process started in Mato Grosso on thesouthern edge of the Amazon. Massive new roadbuilding programmes are now under way in theAmazon itself, which will result in the conversion ofever-larger areas of virgin forest into soybean fieldsto supply the growing demand for soybean fromChina’s cities.

Over the last 50 years, agriculture in developedcountries across the world has been transformedinto an ever more capital intensive, machine depend-ent system. In the UK, only one and a half per cent of

the population is still producing food. Rural land-scapes here no longer exists in their own right but forthe sole purpose of supplying urban demands.

NUTRIENT FLOWS

Another important issue to be addressed is that,worldwide, we are seeing uni-directional food andtherefore nutrient flows, from the country to the city,never to be returned to the land. This unsustainablesystem was pioneered in Rome 2000 years agowith the construction of the ‘cloaca maxima’ throughwhich much of the city’s sewage was flushed intothe Mediterranean. More recently, in the 1850s,London, faced with major outbreaks of typhoid andcholera due to sewage pollution of the Thames,decided to separate its people from their sewageoutput. After much deliberation, London’s authori-ties took the decision not to recycle the sewage, butto dump it in the sea instead. From 1858 – the yearof the ‘great stink’ – onwards a huge investment in asewage disposal system was made. But becausemost of the sewage was now flushed away ratherthan used as fertiliser, it became necessary to keepthe farmland feeding London productive by artificialmeans. The age of artificial fertilisers and chemicalfarming had begun.

A few years ago, flying from Rio de Janeiro to SaoPaulo I observed Rio’s vast, brown sewage ‘plume’oozing out into the sea. Similar images can beseen at coastal cities all over the world. This one-way traffic of nutrients – from farmland, via citiesinto the sea – is causing havoc to coastal watersacross the planet. These plumes contain the nitro-gen, potash and phosphate that should be used forgrowing the crops we eat. In addition, a substantialproportion of the artificial fertilisers now used onthe world’s farms also ends up polluting rivers and



35

coastal waters. If we are to create sustainablecities, we need to look at the nutrient flows betweencities and the countryside, and at the ‘metabolism’of our cities.

RELEARNING URBAN AGRICULTURE

Urbanisation, and the shift from rural to urban livingby billions of people, has not only resulted in majorenvironmental problems, but also in urban poverty,food insecurity, and malnutrition, particularly indeveloping countries. But, almost unnoticed, it hasresulted in the growth of a remarkable phenomenon:urban agriculture. According to UNDP, in 1996 some800 million people were engaged in urban agricul-ture worldwide, with the majority in and aroundAsian cities. Of these, 200 million were thought to bemarket producers, with 150 million people employedfull-time. Urban agriculture now occupies largeminorities in many cities around the world. Citiessuch as Havana, Accra, Dar-es-Salaam andShanghai have been studied extensively. But inthousands of other cities around the worldpeople are also quietly getting on with their own foodproduction.

Over the last several years I had the opportunity towitness urban agriculture in many different parts ofthe world. I was interested in this because, amongother things, urban agriculture can help cities makethe best possible use of organic waste materials.

Urban agriculture is conducted within or on thefringe of cities. It is concerned with growing plantsand herbs and the raising of animals for food andother uses. The production of tree seedlings, orna-mental plants and flowers is also part of the picture.It is becoming apparent that in order to survive in aglobalising food system, urban farmers must behighly innovative and adaptable.They must be able

to cope with city constraints and tap as effectivelyas possible onto urban assets and resource flows.For instance, an important component is the useof compost and manures available in the urbanenvironment.

Despite globalising tendencies, local urban foodproduction is being practised in many places. Inrecent years its importance has been increasinglyacknowledged by researchers, politicians andurban planners – transforming it from a largelyneglected activity, to a major force for creating sus-tainable livelihoods for urban people.

In the developing world in particular, urban agricul-ture can greatly contribute to urban food security,improved nutrition, poverty alleviation and localeconomic development. In developed countries it isrecognised as contributing to the reduction of ‘foodmiles’, involving city people in food growing anddistribution via farmers’ markets.

Urban agriculture often builds on ancient traditions.Historically, most cities grew out of their own hinter-land, and some contemporary cities are still deeply‘embedded’ in their local landscapes, even inEurope. For instance, Florence is still surroundedby orange and olive groves, vineyards and wheatfields on which a large proportion of its foodrequirements are grown. Many cities in Italy, andalso in France, still have very strong relationshipsto their immediate hinterland, with ‘peri-urban’ agri-culture still much in evidence.

I found the same in China. China has an age-oldtradition of settlements permeated with food grow-ing areas. Today, at a time of very rapid urban-industrial growth, urban agriculture is still a veryimportant issue for the Chinese. Even mega-citiessuch as Shanghai, one of the fastest growing citieson the planet with about 15 per cent growth peryear, maintains its urban farming as an importantpart of its economic system. A major shift has taken



36

place, however, from ‘intra-urban’ to ‘peri-urban’agriculture. As housing and office developmentsgrew within the city, farmland there has been lostand food growing has shifted increasingly to thecity’s periphery.

The Shanghai city authorities administer an area ofabout 600 000 hectares of land: 300 000 hectaresof this are built up areas within the city itself. But asa deliberate policy, some 300 hectares of land onthe edge of Shanghai are now deliberately main-tained as farmland for feeding the city. Most of thisland is used to supply rice and wheat, though, aswe saw above, production of animal feeds suchas soybeans, particularly for beef produced inUS-style feedlots, now takes place increasingly infar-flung places such as the southern Amazon.

Tens of thousands of hectares on the outskirts ofShanghai are intensely cultivated with a great vari-ety of vegetables. The Chinese like to cook fresh,locally grown vegetables. Stir-frying wilted vegeta-bles is not regarded favourably. Glass and poly-thene greenhouses are now much in evidence,producing three to four successive crops a year inShanghai’s warm climate.

On the outskirts of Beijing, too, vegetable cultivationis much in evidence. But farmers have had todevelop ingenious systems to cope with the muchcolder climate. Greenhouses, too, are much in evi-dence. During frosty conditions in January andFebruary, they cover their polythene tunnels withseveral layers of bamboo mats in the evening tokeep the heat in at night. Few growers in and aroundBeijing use coal fired heating systems in their green-houses to cope with the icy conditions outside.

In Chinese cities ‘closed-loop’ systems, using nightsoil as fertilisers for urban vegetable growing, arestill widely maintained. The night soil is diluted,perhaps ten to one, and then ladled onto vegeta-bles beds. I was told that people prefer vegetables

grown with night soil fertiliser because they tastebetter. But most new apartment and office buildings,which are in evidence everywhere, have water clos-ets, and it remains to be seen whether appropriateways of using wastewater in urban farming can bedeveloped.

In Russia, too, peri-urban food growing is an age-old tradition, with many people retreating to theirdachas at weekends to cultivate crops in highlyproductive gardens. In St Petersburg most peopleare involved in urban farming: there are some560 000 plots being cultivated on the periphery ofthe city. Even in remote places such as Irkutsk inSiberia with its very short growing season, I haveseen people cultivate an amazing variety of veg-etables, including cucumbers and tomatoes, inwell-insulated greenhouses, both for home supplyas well as for sale in markets.

In South Africa, of course, during the apartheiddays it was forbidden for the black majority to farmland within and around cities, because that meantpeople were there to stay. But now a dramaticgrowth of urban agriculture is under way as peopleget a permanent foothold in their towns and cities.And throughout Africa, in Ghana, Kenya, Tanzaniaand elsewhere, much food growing takes placeswithin cities, because they are often still very lowdensity and there is room for food growing. Womentend to be the cultivators in urban areas.

Havana in Cuba is a particularly remarkable exam-ple of urban agriculture development. As a result ofthe collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba lost a largeproportion of its sugar export earnings. So a fewyears ago the authorities decided to practise foodimport substitution and to encourage urban agricul-ture within the city. Composted bagasse from thesugar cane fields is often used as fertiliser. Sugarcane, ironically, is grown with artificial fertilisers, butthe bagasse that is composted effectively becomes



37

an organic fertiliser and this is used on raisedvegetable beds called ‘organiponicos’, which areirrigated with pumped underground water. InHavana, some 20 000 people now grow fruit andvegetables, mainly on plots adjoining their apart-ment blocks.

Whilst urban farming is being recognised more andmore as an important source of food and incomegeneration in cities around the world, adequate insti-tutional frameworks at national, municipal and locallevels are still often lacking. It is becoming importantto find ways to overcome this obstacle. Rather thancompeting with rural agriculture, urban and ruralagriculture should be seen as complementing eachother since urban agriculture tends to focus on prod-ucts that require closeness to the urban marketssuch as vegetables, flowers, poultry and eggs.

Opposition to urban agriculture has tended tocome mainly from public health and urban planningcircles because of concern about water pollutionand soils contaminated by heavy metals. However,research has shown that concerns about adverseeffects on public health have been exaggerated.There is broad consensus now that urban agricul-ture is an important area for government support atnational as well as municipal level.

Developed countries

But, anybody who thinks that urban farming is onlya phenomenon primarily of poorer countries,should have a look around parts of New York City. Inthe Bronx, for instance, an astonishing range ofvegetable gardens sprang up in the 1980s, prima-rily in areas where drug-related gang warfareresulted in houses being burned down and gar-dens left abandoned. With the help of people fromthe New York Botanical Gardens, local peopleturned dozens of vacant lots into thriving vegetable

gardens. Many also grew crops for the sake of theirchildren who they wanted to teach about growingvegetables and keeping chicken and rabbits.

In California, too, urban farming is widely practised.In the university town of Davis, some enlighteneddevelopers some years ago decided to build a ‘per-maculture’ suburb. They surrounded new eco-houses with vegetable plots and orchards. Evengood quality wine is now produced right in themiddle of Davis.

In the USA, the growth of farmers’ markets hasbeen a remarkable phenomenon in recent years.Despite the enormous dominance of supermar-kets, farmers’ markets have been an extraordinarysuccess, not only in California, where the growingconditions are best, but also in New York.There arenow over 3000 farmers’ markets. In the UK, too,there has also been a resurgence of farmers’ mar-kets, from nothing about ten years ago to about300 in 2002. And allotment growing has maintainedits popularity within cities, though today it is lessand less done by retired men, but increasingly bywomen who want to grow some of the vegetablesfor their families.

In the UK there is also urban food production. Forinstance, in Nazeing in Essex, just outside London,one can see how farming has come under pres-sure. Like Heathrow, Nazeing used to be a majorcentre for vegetable growing, in a landscape full ofgreenhouses. But few growers could compete withcheap, imported vegetables and many had toabandon their plots. The few that are left now growonly one crop: cucumbers. These are grown hydro-ponically in greenhouses that look as clean asoperating theatres. The growers are mainly secondgeneration Italians.That is because the people whoused to own these greenhouses couldn’t makethem pay any more. The Italian prisoners of warwho had been their labourers during and after the



38

war, took over the last remaining greenhouses,partly because they could draw on additional sup-plies from Italy. When it isn’t cost-effective to growcucumbers in the winter in England, they truckthem in from Italy instead.

On the outskirts of Bristol, attempts have recentlybeen made to set up new organic market gardenschemes. For instance, at Leigh Court outside thecity, an organic vegetable box scheme was set upin the 1990s. But it is difficult to compete withcheap, imported crops – three quarters of theorganic vegetables consumed in Britain are actu-ally trucked and flown in from elsewhere, at greatenergy cost. But some initial steps to revive peri-urban agriculture are now being taken.

CITIES AS SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS

Urban agriculture is an important aspect of the widerissue of urban sustainability, both by being able tosupply food from close-by and by offering livelihoodsfor city people. Another important issue, as alreadydiscussed, is the efficient use of nutrients from theurban metabolism that would otherwise end up aspollutants in rivers and coastal waters.

In many cities attempts are being made to usewastewater in urban food production. This appliesparticularly to cities in hot and dry places. Forinstance, in Adelaide, Australia, tens of thousandsof hectares of land on the edge of the city are culti-vated using wastewater from the city for irrigation,growing vegetables as well as grapes and fruit.There is some concern about trace quantities ofheavy metals that could accumulate in the soil, butit would take decades to cause any problems.Adelaide’s wastewater crop irrigation system isregarded as one of the great success stories ofurban agriculture.

In Bristol, Wessex Water has developed its ownsystem for turning sewage into a soil conditionerand fertiliser. It dries the city’s entire sewage outputand turns it into small pellets called Biogran,which are then sold to farmers and land reclama-tion companies. Again, trace amounts of heavymetals have been quoted as problematic. But thisis becoming less of a problem because cars nolonger run on leaded fuels in the UK, and in Bristolde-industrialisation has led to a great improvementin the quality of Bristol’s sewage sludge.

Another important aspect of sustainable urbandevelopment is the creation of new kinds ofeco-efficient housing estates. This concept is nowflourishing across Europe. In South London, apioneering project was completed in 2002 – theBeddington Zero Energy Development. This is ahousing and workshop project for some 200people, created by the Peabody Trust and theBioregional Development Group. All buildings havesouth-facing facades and 30 centimetres of insula-tion in walls, floor and ceilings. The apartmentsrequire only 10 per cent of conventional heatingenergy and this is provided by a small, wood-chipfired combined heat and power plant. There aresolar electric panels installed on all the south-facingfacades and these will supply electricity to a smallfleet of electric cars. All apartments have their ownsmall roof gardens that can be used for recreationand/or vegetable growing. The estate’s wastewateris treated in a ‘living machine’ which uses plantsand zooplankton for extracting surplus nutrients.The water from the treatment plant is used forirrigating gardens.

The Beddington project shows how ideas for makingcities eco-efficient can be turned into practical reality.We need to turn the linear throughput of resourcesthrough our city into circular systems, where minimalinputs into the city result also in minimal waste


We are certainly seeing a lot of interest in theseideas now in cities all over the world. But a majorpush is still needed to reduce the wasteful resourceconsumption and the vast, sprawling ecologicalfootprints of cities that we have at present.We needto move towards much more localised, efficient, cir-cular urban systems, and this scenario certainlyincludes the use of land within and on the edge ofcities for food production. Ideas for creating sus-tainable cities have been around for some time, butimplementation on an adequate scale has hardlybegun.


39

outputs. Energy efficiency, resource productivity –these are the key themes in this context.

Good urban design in the twenty-first centuryshould start by mimicking natural eco-systems.Above all else, we would be well served to learnfrom the metabolism of natural, closed-loop sys-tems in which all wastes are recycled into resourcesfor future growth. This is an issue for policymakers,but also for the general public which needs to exertpressure on local and central governments, and ondevelopers, to adopt forward looking practises.


FOOD MILES

Angela Paxton


FOOD MILES

41

INTRODUCTION

Consumers in rich industrialised countries areaccustomed to being able to choose from theglobal breadbasket whenever they go to the localsupermarket. A UK shopper can buy grapesfrom Chile, green beans from Kenya and bottledwater from Canada. However these food choicesdo not come cheaply: there is a whole range ofenvironmental, social and economic costs whichresult from the increasing long distance trade infoods.

The distance food travels, as well as being environ-mentally damaging directly through transportemissions, adversely affects the way food is grownand treated on its journey along the various links inthe food chain. There are also impacts for foodproducers, particularly small farmers and growerstrying to compete in a global marketplace, and forconsumers, who are eating more long distance,treated food and products rather than fresher, localfoods.

The separation of consumption from productionresults in the psychological distancing of food pro-ducers from consumers, with shoppers having littleidea about the many implications of their foodbuying habits. This consumer ignorance allows yetmore abuses of the environment, people andanimals, which might not be tolerated if they werehappening closer to home.

This chapter will highlight the impacts of ourtransport-dependent food system, look at the forcesbehind the food miles and explore what can bedone to reduce and alleviate the impacts of longdistance food distribution.

THE FOOD MILES FOOD CHAIN

Agriculture

Long distance trade in foods leads to speciali-sation in farming and the use of local resourcesfor export to other regions or countries rather thanfor local consumption. Thus crops will be grownover large areas in industrialised conditions toachieve economies of scale and cut costs in orderto compete with growers elsewhere. Producers willconcentrate on growing a small number of crops,using varieties specified by food manufacturers orretailers for particular qualities, such as their abilityto withstand long periods in transit and storage, ortheir suitability for processing. Crops grown inmonocultures are easy prey to pests and diseases,which quickly become resistant to agro-chemicals,and farmers find themselves on a ‘chemical treadmill’,having to apply increasing amounts of pesticides andherbicides.

Transport

Essentially, food miles can take two forms: transportwithin a country as a result of the centraliseddistribution systems of large retailers and foodmanufacturers, and transport between countriesas nations import and export fresh and processedfood products. Within the UK, food, drink andtobacco were responsible for a third of the growthin road freight between 1978 and 1993. Meanwhilethe transport of food and drink products around theUK increased by 50 per cent in the past 15 years,while the amount of food being transported increasedby only 16 per cent, see Figure 5.1.



42

Internationally too, food transport is on the increase.UK farmers rely on exports while British consumersbuy increasing amounts of imported food. The UKtrade gap in food and drink increased from £3.5billion in 1980 to £8.3 billion in 1999. The UK nowimports a variety of foods, such as apples, carrotsand onions that can be grown here, even when theyare in season. Countries often import and exportsubstantial quantities of the same food products: in1997 the UK imported 126 million litres of milk andexported 270 million litres, see Figure 5.2.

Air freight

Air freight of fresh foods has doubled in the pasttwenty years, a trend which is set to continue.Air transport is particularly damaging to theenvironment as it results in 37 times more carbondioxide emissions than sea freight, and becausepollutants are emitted at high altitudes where more

damage is done in terms of ozone depletion andglobal warming.

Driven to shop

Shopper miles are also an issue as more peopleare driving to out- and edge-of-town supermarketsto do their food buying. One shopping trip by carcan use more fuel than freight transport up tothe point of sale, even if the produce is imported(athough not by plane).

The 3 ‘P’s: processing, packaging,pesticides

Food is perishable and needs to be preservedfor long distance transport, to prevent spoilageand contamination. Common methods of preservingfood include processing, packaging and pesticidespraying.

ProcessingThe manufacture of processed foods from raw ingre-dients is an energy intensive procedure using up toten times the energy needed to grow the crop in thefirst place. Processed foods are likely to haveincurred greater food miles than fresh producebecause ingredients and packaging materials willbe sourced from other parts of the country andabroad. Food manufacturers are increasingly cen-tralising production, some having just one factoryto serve the whole EU, in order to cut costs.

A study by the Wuppertal Institute found that tobring one truckload of 150 g strawberry yoghurts tosouth Germany, strawberries came from Poland,yoghurt from north Germany, corn and wheatflourfrom the Netherlands, jam from west Germany andsugar beet from the east of the country, while thealuminium cover for the strawberry jar came from

Tonn

age

and

dist

ance

trav

elle

dby

food

in U

K

(DETR, 1999)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

19991993198819831978

Average distance (km)Quantity (mill. of tonnes)

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 Comparison of the average distance and totalquantity of food transported in the UK between 1978 and1999.


FOOD MILES

43

300 km away. Only the milk and glass jar wereproduced locally.

The basic components of many processed foods,such as cakes or biscuits, are the same, so theapparent choice and variety in supermarkets is exag-gerated. Consumers are persuaded to pay more via‘added value’ for cheap ingredients which are madeto seem appealing through the use of additives,glamorous packaging and aggressive marketing.

PesticidesAs well as the increasing need to apply agro-chemicals when crops are grown in industrial scale

monocultures, pesticides are applied to freshproduce to preserve it during long distance transit.For example, 85 per cent of Cox apples in the UKare treated with post-harvest chemical dip or drenchprior to storage. Unlike pesticides applied in the field,these chemicals are designed to stay on theproduce. The Department of Health recommendspeeling orchard fruit to avoid eating pesticideresidues.

PackagingPackaging enables foods to withstand long periodsin transit and glamorises the contents of processedfood and drink products. Food distribution requires

(100

0 m

etric

tonn

es)

UK imports of foodstuffs, 1961–1998 (DETR, 1999)

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Impo

rts

1998

Impo

rts

1988

Impo

rts

1978

Impo

rts

1968

Impo

rts

1961

Impo

rts

1998

Impo

rts

1988

Impo

rts

1978

Impo

rts

1968

Impo

rts

1961

Impo

rts

1998

Impo

rts

1988

Impo

rts

1978

Impo

rts

1968

Impo

rts

1961

5382

4041

2743

2830

2498

2915

2041

978

1137

918

1115

903

616

565

383

Impo

rts

1998

Impo

rts

1988

Impo

rts

1978

Impo

rts

1968

Impo

rts

1961

1566

1381

1406

1022

567

Starchy roots FruitVegetableVegetable oils

Figure 5.2

Figure 5.2 Comparison of food imports into the UK between 1961 and 1998.



44

at least four types of packaging, including primarypackaging on the food product, secondary packag-ing, such as cases or boxes, transit packaging suchas crates, and carrier bags or boxes to carry food-stuffs from shops to the home.

1.5 billion dustbins of packaging waste are pro-duced in the UK each year, most of this ending upin landfill sites. Up to a third of this waste is usedto protect food and drink products. Long dis-tances between producers and consumers makereducing and reusing packaging much more diffi-cult, whereas local food systems can reduce theneed for packaging and makes the reuse of con-tainers much more viable. Returnable bottles,best suited for local distribution systems, typicallyuse one quarter of the energy of any single trippackage.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE FOOD MILES CHAIN

Environment

Air pollutants and climate change gases arereleased as fossil fuels are used for production,transport and packaging of food and drink prod-ucts. The CO2 emissions created by producing,processing, packaging and distributing the foodconsumed by a family of four come to about eighttonnes a year. Road freight alone is responsible fora high proportion of toxic emissions, such as nitrogenoxides and volatile organic compounds, which areimplicated in a number of public health problems,such as asthma and other respiratory diseases.Meanwhile, industrial agriculture supplying interna-tional markets involves overuse of pesticides whichleach into groundwater and threaten wildlife, landerosion, loss of wildlife sites and reduced biodiver-sity in wild and cultivated species.

Biodiversity

Growing food for sale in distant markets requires ahigh level of specialisation to compete with pro-ducers in other countries around the globe. Onlythose varieties will be grown which can withstandlong distance transport and storage and look goodon the supermarket shelf, rather than the local,tasty or nutritious varieties. For instance, 75 percent of strawberries produced in the UK are a sin-gle variety, Elsanta, which doesn’t taste particu-larly good, but has a long shelf life and goodtravelling characteristics. However, it is susceptibleto diseases such as powdery mildew, whichnecessitates the use of chemicals such as methylbromide, a toxic chemical which destroys theozone layer. Official testing found pesticideresidues on 88 per cent of both imported and UKstrawberries.

Pressure for specialisation and modern farmingmethods mean that many crop varieties are disap-pearing: there were 287 varieties of carrot in 1903,but now only 21.This poses a threat to food securityas the genetic base of our crops is now narrowerthan it has ever been, increasing the likelihood ofwidespread crop failure.

Small producers

Industrial, specialised agriculture favours the largeover the small. Small producers in the UK anddeveloping countries are squeezed out of themarketplace as they are unable to produce cropscheap enough and in sufficient quantity for supermar-kets, food processors, and transnational corpora-tions, who prefer to deal in large quantities. Thesecompanies add considerable mark-ups to foods,while continuing to pay farmers low prices. One UKfarmer traced his three year bullock to find out theprofit margins when he lost £32 on a sale in 1998. He


FOOD MILES

45

found that between the abattoir and final sale a profitof £800 was made on the animal.

Developing countries

Up to 1970, food security was seen as an importantobjective in food production in developing coun-tries. More recently, food and agricultural productshave come to be seen as commodities for trading,to pay off debts and earn foreign exchange.However, producing for distant markets promotesinsecurity for growers, and the lowering of environ-mental and social standards to cut costs and com-pete in international markets. For example, manypesticides are used in developing countries oncrops destined for industrialised countries, whichare banned in the latter because of environmentalor health effects. According to the United NationsEnvironment Programme, at least 40 000 peopleare killed each year and up to one million peopleare made ill or permanently damaged by misuse ofpesticides, mostly in developing countries. Even inthe UK, thousands of farmers and farmworkersbelieve they have been poisoned by organophos-phorous sheep dip, a close pesticide cousin ofnerve gas.

Public health

Over-processed, over-preserved and over-packagedfoods mean that consumers are buying foods oflow nutritional value. Diet related diseases such asheart disease, diabetes and appendicitis increase associeties move towards the Western diet, low in fruitand vegetables, and high in refined starches, fatsand sugars. Pesticide residues pose additional healthrisks, although it is the farmworkers who are mostlikely to suffer immediate health effects rather thanthe final consumers.

Local economies

When consumers buy food from supermarkets,almost all the money is lost to the local economy. Itmay be lost to the national economy if the food isimported, or the product of food companies basedabroad. Only a small amount of the money spentwill stay in the area, in the form of wages to localpeople working in the retail outlet. However, every£10 spent on local food through small initiatives isworth £25 to the local food economy, because ofthe ‘multiplier’ effect, where money is spent onother local goods and services.

FORCES BEHIND THE FOOD MILES

Cheap fuel and transport

The forces behind food miles are complex. A keyarea is the low costs of transport and fuel which donot reflect the full environmental and social costs oftheir use. Transport is responsible for not only localand global air pollution, but for contributing to healthproblems, climate change and destruction of theozone layer. It also creates noise pollution, vibration,fumes and dirt, accidents, wear and tear on trans-port infrastructure and the destruction of wildlifehabitats. These costs are borne by society and theenvironment.

Middlemen

The ‘middlemen’ in the food chain, such as freightoperators, processors, packaging companies andretailers, benefit most from increasing food tradeand transport. On a national level, the major retail-ers in the UK control over 80 per cent of food soldin the UK. Supermarkets have shelf space to fill all


year round and import foods to fill seasonal gaps,even when those foods are in season in this coun-try. The centralised distribution systems and ‘just-in-time’ ordering systems of supermarkets result inincreased freight transport, as journeys are madewhen goods are ordered, not when lorries are full.This results in more journeys being made than nec-essary to transport a given amount of goods.

Internationally, transnational corporations (TNCs)exploit land, labour and resources in developingcountries for the production of cheap export crops.Considerable mark-ups are added to these productsbefore being sold to rich consumers in the north,the profits being reaped by the TNCs. Increasingly,added value food and drink products, such as softdrinks, are sold back to consumers in developingcountries.

International policies

In order to earn export earnings, IMF and WorldBank policies have encouraged, through structuraladjustment programmes (SAPs), more and morefarmers in developing countries to move away fromthe production of food for local consumption to pro-ducing similar ‘cash crops’ such as coffee, tea, andhorticultural products for export. The result hasbeen over-supply of these products, causing thevalue of food commodities to plummet, bankruptingmany producers. There is still intense pressure tofurther liberalise trade in foodstuffs. In World TradeOrganisation (WTO) negotiations, the Cairns Groupis seeking to remove barriers to international tradein food and agricultural subsidies.

Consumer ignorance

Food corporations argue that consumers drive thefood industry. Indeed, consumers have become

used to being able to buy all foods at all times of theyear, regardless of seasonality, and at cheapprices. Consumers are buying food produced bypeople who they do not know, and probably willnever meet, making them less concerned abouttheir welfare. This lack of consumer loyalty adds tothe fickleness of westerners’ food choices, render-ing them easy prey to the marketing strategies ofmultinational corporations, and making farmers’livelihoods increasingly insecure.

The geographical separation of consumers fromfood production renders shoppers ignorant of themany abuses of the environment, farm workers andfarm animals, which might not be tolerated if theywere going on in a neighbouring field. However,demand for fair trade and organic foods is now asignificant force in the UK food market – organicsales in this country are increasing by 40 per centper year – reflecting that many consumers do careabout how their food is produced.

SOLUTIONS

To address the multiple issues around food miles,change needs to happen on many different levels,from new consumption habits to government policy.On an individual level, consumers can choose to buylocal, seasonal or fairly traded foods and ask shopsand supermarkets to stock these products. Anotheroption is to grow food in gardens or allotments.

Groups of individuals can set up local food schemes,such as community growing initiatives, vegetable boxschemes and farmers’ markets. Buying direct also re-establishes the links between producer and con-sumer and can mark the beginning of a constructivedialogue towards more diverse and organic produc-tion. In particular, consumers can ask their localfarmer to use more sustainable production methods


46


FOOD MILES

47

and to grow a greater range of crops to satisfy localdemand for diversity. Local authorities can supportsuch initiatives through funding, advice and makingland available for community food schemes.

National government can introduce policies tointernalise the environmental and social costs oftransport, such as introducing a weight distancetax for air and road freight. Compulsory food mileslabelling for products should be introduced andadvice and financial assistance given to direct mar-keting schemes. Food From Britain, the dti andindustry sponsored body which promotes exports offoods, should be transformed so that its emphasisis on import substitution. Aid and debt relief fordeveloping countries should be linked to sustainabledevelopment initiatives such as diversification andsustainable agricultural production. Pressure needsto be exerted for the multilateral adoption of minimumstandards for working conditions, environmental

protection and animal welfare in the production ofgoods and services, at regional and internationallevels.

REFERENCES

DETR (1999). Energy and Environment TransportStatistics. HMSO.

SAFE Alliance (now Sustain) (1994). The Food MilesReport: the dangers of long distance food transport.

Sustain (2001). Food miles: still on the road to ruin.

Sustain (2001). Eating Oil: Food supply in a changingclimate.

Plugging the Leaks project. New Economics Foundation,London. (accessed November 2004 http://www.pluggingtheleaks.org/)


SANDWELL: A RICH COUNTRY AND FOOD FOR

THE POOR

André Viljoen

6cpul-ch06.qxd 02/01/2005 6:29 PM Page 48

Architects and urbanists are used to viewing thecity through plans. Periodically, new means of view-ing the city become available which help us tounderstand the spatial consequences of socialphenomena. In the early part of the twentieth cen-tury aerial photography became available andmade clear the effects of rapid industrialisation onthe urban fabric.

Today we have a new way of reading the city withplans. No longer figure and ground plans, but plansgenerated using geographical information systems(GIS). GIS allows data to be mapped spatially, pre-senting layers of information, which by correlationcan map, for example, access to resources. Interms of sustainability, this begins to let us judgethe equality, or otherwise, of resource availability.

An example of the use of GIS mapping to recordaccess to healthy food is provided by a study enti-tled, ‘Measuring Access to Healthy Food inSandwell’, undertaken in the year 2000 (TheUniversity of Warwick and Sandwell Health ActionZone, 2001). Sandwell is located in the Midlandsregion of England.

Figure 6.1 presents results from the Sandwellstudy; these maps graphically illustrate the lack ofaccess to affordable healthy food in an area suffer-ing from poverty. Mappings like these provide newreadings of the city. They deal with a reality ofoccupation that goes beyond the physicality oftraditional maps.They present the designer and cit-izen with an objective view of contemporaryinequalities.

The Sandwell study makes startling reading. Theproject had three aims, to produce indices ofaccess to food in the deprived area of Sandwell, toexamine how such maps could help in the develop-ment of strategies to promote healthy eatingamong low income households and to work withlocal retailers to improve access to healthy food.

The area in which the study took place hadpreviously been identified as one of high socio-economic deprivation and poor health outcomes,and had been targeted for Department of Health pro-motional initiatives. The Sandwell study found thatlarge networks of streets and estates had no shopsselling fresh fruit and vegetables. In areas wherefresh fruit and vegetables were available it was oftenof poor quality and expensive. As the maps inFigure 6.1 show, inexpensive good quality fresh fruitand vegetables are sold in small concentrated areas,but these areas require the use of public or privatetransport for the majority of the population to reachthem. Competition from supermarkets has reducedthe supply of local fresh fruit and vegetables.

The implications of this study, as recorded by itsauthors, are quoted in full, as they provide a power-ful argument in favour of a shift in policy towardsthe introduction of productive urban landscapessupporting local food production.

Implications from the study, ‘MeasuringAccess to Healthy Food in Sandwell’:1. Poor health, deprivation and unhealthy eat-

ing patterns in Sandwell are strongly inter-linked.

2. Eating patterns in Sandwell may be deter-mined by socio-economic and geographicalfactors rather than real choice or knowl-edge.

3. Tackling food access through the use of vol-unteer labour is not the solution.

4. Good public transport can reduce but notremove the problem of food access.

5. There are economic, social and environ-mental reasons to develop a highly locali-sed food economy that is more sensitive tothe needs of Sandwell’s people.

Figure 6.1 requires further examination. The mapsshow roads that are within 500 m of a postcode

SANDWELL: A RICH COUNTRY AND FOOD FOR THE POOR

49

cpul-ch06.qxd 02/01/2005 6:29 PM Page 49


50

containing shops selling food. 500 m is consideredthe distance a fit person can walk in ten to fifteenminutes, someone with children and shopping bagswould take longer.This distance has been used in asimilar study located in London (Donkin et al., 1999)and is considered a reasonable maximum distancefor people to walk to shops. Postcodes are used tolocate shops accurately using a GIS mapping sys-tem. In England a post code usually contains about

12–14 dwellings or addresses, which correspondto a small area.

The part of Sandwell studied has many householdson low incomes, with limited shopping and transportnetworks.The local shops which do exist in the area,cannot sell fresh healthy food as cheaply as largeretailers or markets, as they have low levels of salesbecause their customers are poor. Large retailers do not locate in these areas because of the poor

Roads within 500 m of a postcode containing one or moreshop selling some food.

Roads within 500 m of a postcode containing one or moreshops where food is reasonably priced and which sell at least eight kinds of fresh fruit and vegetables.

SANDWELL MAPS measuring access to healthy food

LEGEND

Roads within 500 m

Roads further than 500 m

Railways

Canals and streams

Shops

Road Data Ordnance Survey© Crown Copyright all rights

reserved

Figure 6.1


SANDWELL: A RICH COUNTRY AND FOOD FOR THE POOR

51

transport facilities and a poor population. TheSandwell study found that food, which is readily avail-able in the area, tends to be less healthy; ‘high fat,high salt, cheap easily storable foods.’ (ibid, p.11).Thus a vicious circle is created, which results in lim-ited access to affordable fresh fruit and vegetables.

When comparing the maps in Figure 6.1, the extentof pedestrian exclusion to areas selling affordablefresh fruit and vegetables is obvious. It could beargued that this exclusion is only relevant withinareas of poverty, as in wealthier locations the popu-lation has access to better transport facilities, inparticular private vehicles. This argument loses itsvalidity if one accepts that a goal of sustainabledevelopment is to reduce reliance on unnecessarytransport. Thus the lessons from the Sandwellstudy are generally applicable if one wishes toprogress towards environments which supportequitable, sustainable development.

The introduction of productive landscapes to an arealike Sandwell would answer many of the problemsobserved. Food would be produced locally, season-ally, it would be fresh and the creation of market gar-dens within Sandwell would provide employment. Bycreating corridors of continuous landscape, withinwhich the urban agriculture fields are located, trans-port by foot and bike could be improved, as well asproviding residents with access to urban nature.These are radical proposals that go to the very heartof governance. The authors of the Sandwell reportrecognise this when they state that ‘food access hasto be part of the mainstream national and regionallevel policy agenda for area regeneration, and fortackling poverty and social exclusion and reducinginequalities in health’ (ibid, p. 8).

If this inclusive approach is to work it will be neces-sary to reconsider the role of local government as

an agent actively planning for productive urbanlandscapes. Such notions go against the currenthands-off policy of local government, whichappears to view any specific planning objectives, ifassociated with an approach that limits the opera-tion of the ‘free market’ as fundamentally flawed. Asthe Sandwell report indicates, the market has notbeen able to deal with poverty.This is a good exam-ple of where top-down management is required tofacilitate a locally driven process of regeneration,which responds to local conditions and has anagenda of improvement rather than aiming to man-age the status quo. The role and importance oflocal government in promoting sustainable devel-opment must be strengthened. If fundamentalissues such as sustainable food production are tobe explored and achieved, then it is clear that the‘market’ left to its own devices cannot addressinequality.

The spatial design and social implications of intro-ducing local food production within productive land-scapes are enormous. Designers must realise thatthe necessity and justification for new visions liebeyond our own disciplines, and within the new ter-ritories being identified by a critical observation offailings within the status quo.

REFERENCES

The University of Warwick and Sandwell Health Action Zone(2001). Measuring Access to Healthy Food in Sandwell.Sandwell Health Action Zone.

Donkin, A. J. M., Dowler, E., Stevenson, S. and Turner, S.(1999). Mapping access to food at a local level. BritishFood Journal, 101(7), 554–564.


PLAN IT:AN INCLUSIVE APPROACH TO

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLEPLANNING

Dr Susannah Hagan


PLAN IT

53

Increasingly, the environmental case for urbancompaction is taken as given. It is even rolled out todefend the perfectly straightforward commercialexploitation of valuable inner city sites, for example,at London Bridge. Suddenly this intensification isbeneficial, not only financially, but environmentally,and the injection of thousands more people througha hypodermic high rise into an already overstretchedinfrastructure is left unexamined – at least by thosestanding to benefit from such development.

Others, however, are questioning compaction asnecessarily beneficial environmentally.The conceptsof ‘productive landscape’ and, more specifically,‘urban agriculture’ are indicative of such question-ing, and can be part of a very different way ofconceiving of city and non-city. It requires thinkingabout the unbuilt as potentially an event of equalintensity to the built, where the built is indicativeof cultural intensity, and the unbuilt of ecologicalintensity. The unbuilt, the uncompacted, can beviewed, not as a ‘waste of space’, but as productivespace, space that is ‘used’ in different but equallyvaluable ways from building on it.

Since the Second World War, northern Europe andthe USA have consistently lost urban population tothe suburbs and beyond. Though this trend is nowstabilising, and in some cases reversing, it is stilldifficult to keep families in cities in these parts of theworld. It may one day be equally difficult in the devel-oping world, as its urban populations mature andbecome more prosperous, able to choose wherethey want to live.The drift away from cities in areas ofthe West is only in part to do with cost, crime andinadequate schools. It also has to do with space, par-ticularly space for children. In pushing for higher den-sities in existing cities, two things happen: more ofthe very thing people seek is lost – space – andattention and resources are concentrated on the cityat the expense of the suburbs and the countryside,which are also problematic environmentally.

Urban compaction requires higher densities, buthigher than what, and when is higher too high?This is impossible to quantify. What is desirable forone culture is intolerable for another, and what ischosen by one economic class might be another’slack of choice, because the desirability of increaseddensities relies heavily on how they are designedand maintained. Few Londoners would find thedensity of Kowloon acceptable, but then given achoice, a resident of Kowloon may very well notfind it so either. In part this is because as densitiesincrease, so too does the need for decompressionspace. Which returns us to the idea of unbuiltspace and its relation to urban compaction, since itappears, even after a cursory discussion like thisone, that compact-is-good is only good if it canat the same time incorporate space as well –space as parks, sports fields, squares, gardens,allotments or whatever.

Environmentally active urban space needs trees toclean and oxygenate the air.This in itself is produc-tive – of air quality and the lowering of fossil energydemand to counter adverse environmental condi-tions. A virtuous circle. Does environmentally activeurban space also require urban agriculture? Likemost things environmental, it depends – I’d suggestmore on the culture than the economic system.A city full of people who have recently migratedfrom farms, as in China, will find it easier to culti-vate urban land than a population that has beenurbanised for generations and doesn’t know oneend of a carrot from the other. So, too, a populationaccustomed to communal ownership, and/or com-munal activity, might find the idea easier, as urbanland would often have to be shared and developedby groups of cultivators.

The ‘who’ and the ‘where’ of urban agriculture aretherefore crucial. I don’t think anyone is seriouslysuggesting that individuals start planting cabbagesin Manhattan. I hope not, as trees would be much



54

more environmentally ‘productive’ in such a context.But once you begin looking elsewhere than at verydense nodes with very high land values, urbanagriculture begins to look more viable. It could alsobegin to include peripheral and suburban agricultureas well, and vitally so. As a term, ‘urban agriculture’is a vivid description of what it aims to do, but it isalso a limiting one. For an ostensibly radical idea, itcontinues the western tendency to create meaningand make decisions through the establishingof binary opposites. ‘Urban agriculture’ is innovativeas it stands in contrast to ‘rural agriculture’.Consequently, the interstices are left out of thisopposition – the often slack and inchoate outerrings of cities and the suburbs beyond, with under-used parks that produce a sense of unease whichguarantees further underuse, and rubbish tips, andlow rent industrial parks and warehousing, andderelict lots. In the case of London, there is also thegreen belt, a vast divide between city and country-side, but an empty divide, like a ditch or a moat, anabsence rather than a presence.

If we were able to think of this and the other spacesI’ve described being potentially as intense, if notmore intense, than the areas of settlement withwhich they are interlaced, then urban agriculturebecomes one of several strategies for intensifying,without necessarily compacting, one among manylandscape interventions. For instance, more wood-land for biofuel, dumps turned into all-weather skislopes, reed beds for filtration, fishing and naturecentres, plant nurseries, weekend camping sites,walking trails, and model farms, so that peoplefrom the city and the suburbs and the countrysideare as likely to mix and participate here as they areat an event in the city centre or some country town.This productive land, some of it more productiveenvironmentally than socially, some the reverse,would be woven in and out of the city, the suburbsand the countryside, with urban agriculture an

important thread in this; important because in thiscountry, at least, the demand for organic produceoutstrips its local supply. Urban agriculture, as I’veextended its catchment area, would be well placedto contribute to this local supply – organic marketgardens that would be part of a larger system of cir-cular production and consumption – and it wouldbe well placed to knit up types of settlement typi-cally viewed as mutually contradictory, through itsappearance in all of them.

The acquisition of appropriate sites, and the culti-vation of those sites, would require considerableorganisation, perhaps on the basis of some kind ofcharitable trust, or as a local or regional govern-ment initiative. But then, so would any interventionseeking to turn unused or underused land towardsenvironmentally productive uses, like biofuel orwildlife habitat. The essential prerequisite of anyattempt at change in this direction is that we beginto conceive of city, periphery, suburb and country-side, not as discrete, and for the most part, hostilecategories, but as parts of a continuum that stretchesfrom the most densely inhabited areas that areleast active ecologically, to the least densely inhab-ited areas that are most active ecologically. I meanby ‘ecologically’ inclusive of all conditions and scales.For urban agriculture to work, it is vital that wethink of

. . . simple regulations which ensure that soci-ety protects the values of natural processesand is itself protected. Conceivably [landswhere these processes occur] would provide asource of open space for metropolitanareas . . . Urbanisation proceeds by increasingthe density within and extending the periphery,always at the expense of open space . . . Thisgrowth is totally unresponsive to naturalprocesses and their values. Optimally, onewould wish for two systems within the metro-politan region – one . . . natural processes


PLAN IT

55

preserved in open space, the other . . . urbandevelopment. If these were interfused, onecould satisfy the provision of open space forthe population.

Ian McHarg, Design with Nature, 1969

Ian McHarg, and his predecessor, Patrick Geddes,were prophets in an enduring wilderness. Enduringbecause we have yet to acquire governments withenough political will to think about social andecological processes inclusively. To bring them tothe point of doing so will require, in democracies,bottom-up pressure from the electorate.To bring theelectorate to the point of exerting such pressure willrequire the communication of what’s in it for them.

Urban agriculture tends to define itself as a bottom-up, grass roots movement with no time forthe top-down elitism of designers. This is mis-guided. Environmentalism, in whatever guise,demands both top-down and bottom-up initiatives.Freeing up or reclassifying land for urban agriculturerequires more than a desire to hold hands and plantvegetables. It requires top-down intervention byplanners and local authorities. If urban agriculture isviewed as one of many ways of achieving environ-mentally productive landscape within, around and

outside cities, then those whose business it is tocontribute to the design of those cities, their openspaces as well as their built fabric, are vital allies inthis project. Urban agriculture in a highly urbanisedWestern Europe cannot be reproduced in the ways itis being pursued in countries like China, with a muchmore widespread and direct connection to its tradi-tional farming roots, or even the USA, with its newerimmigrant populations from agrarian economies. Forurban agriculture in Western Europe to get past thecultivating of one’s own city garden, a wider coalitionof interest groups needs to be not only tolerated, butwelcomed. Anyone with an interest in promoting themore complex, inclusive models of development putforward by Geddes and McHarg, in whatever way,should be able to find a place within discussions ofurban agriculture. The environment needs all thehelp it can get, from as many quarters as it can find.

REFERENCES

Geddes, P. (1968). Cities in Evolution. Ernest Benn Ltd,London.

McHarg, I. (1969). Design with Nature. Natural HistoryPress, New York.


NEW CITIES WITH MORE LIFE: BENEFITS AND OBSTACLES

Joe Howe, André Viljoen and Katrin Bohn


SOCIO-CULTURAL BENEFITS

The literature on urban food growing emphasisesits importance in terms of community developmentand as an agent for urban regeneration, reducingdiscrimination, tackling crime and generating eco-nomic benefit.

The brief overview to follow can be supplementedby making reference to the seminal text by JacSmit, ‘Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and SustainableCities’ published by the UNDP in 1996 and theweb sites of the Resource Centre on UrbanAgriculture and Forestry (www.ruaf.org) and CityFarmer (www.cityfarmer.org).

Urban regeneration

One of the strengths of urban food production, thathas been identified in both European and NorthAmerican literature, is its capacity to make a practi-cal and highly visible difference to people’s qualityof life (Garnett, 1996, Howe and Wheeler, 1999;Hynes, 1996).

‘food growing projects can act as a focus forthe community to come together, generate asense of ‘can-do’, and also help create asense of local distinctiveness – a sense thateach particular place, however ordinary, isunique and has value.’

(Garnett, 1996)

Tackling crime

Hynes (1996) sees tackling crime as one of theprime achievements of the community gardenmovement in the USA. Often situated in urbanareas with very high crime levels, community gar-dens have been active in rehabilitation work by

offering alternatives to drug use, selling drugs andby preventing other criminal activities.

In the UK the authors are aware of schemes inDoncaster where vandalism reportedly stoppedonce local land was used for orchards and othercommunity activities.

Reducing discrimination

Garnett (1996a) suggests that urban food produc-tion provides an excellent means of involvinggroups who are often discriminated against, suchas women, ethnic minorities and the elderly, insociable, productive activity. Urban food growinghas also often provided a valuable means ofexpression of local or ethnic identity, for examplethrough growing culturally significant produce.A well-known example of this in the UK is theAshram Acres community garden in Birminghamused by its local, mainly Asian residents.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

The economic value of urban agriculture cannot besimply compared to the type of finance flow causedby the exchange of money for radishes or apples insupermarkets. Being of small or medium produc-tion, preferably organic and of seasonal assort-ment and aimed at a local market, urban agricultureis a different approach to life and food, competingwith or supplementing the growing organic producein supermarkets.

In the UK there are numerous examples wherefood growing projects are associated with NationalVocational Qualification (NVQ) training courses(Howe and Wheeler, 1999). These range frombasic numeracy and literacy courses through totraining in subjects like commercial horticulture.


57


The skills and qualifications gained from this canthen be used in seeking employment elsewhere inthe horticultural and other sectors.

Urban food growing activities are also valuableeducational resources within schools with potentialfor use in relation to traditional subjects such asscience, geography and newer cross-curricularsubjects like environmental studies. The ‘GrowingFood in Cities’ report cites a number of case stud-ies where both primary and secondary schools aregrowing food within their school grounds for pre-cisely these purposes. Education is also a veryimportant part of the activities of most urban farms.

This practical approach to training, if set within thecontext of a strategy for continuous landscapeswithin cities, would enhance education and thequality of life for students and citizens by providinga change of environment and heightened sensualexperience which is not reliant upon the trap-pings of consumerism. The observation of outdooractivity and its experience can go a long way tore-establishing a connection with nature. It canintroduce a sense of dynamic seasonal changeand our part in this temporal environment. Or asJackson states: ‘I believe we attach too muchimportance to art and architecture in producing anawareness of our belonging to a city or a countywhen what we actually share is a sense of time’(Jackson, 1994, p. 162).

Producing goods and services

Urban agriculture provides an economic lifeline inmany developing countries. In Britain, the commercialaspects of urban food growing have traditionallybeen inhibited by the general prohibition on sellingfood from allotments. However, no such restrictionsexist in the case of urban farms and some commu-nity gardens. Urban farms in particular sometimesderive a significant income from sales of fruit,

vegetables and meat through shops, restaurantsand direct selling through vegetable box schemes.In addition, urban farms often sell non-food prod-ucts through outlets such as craft shops and offerservices such as horse riding (Howe and Wheeler,1999).

Supporting local economies

The rise of the food retailing giants and the recenttrend towards out-of-town supermarkets in Britain inthe last few decades has been spectacular. Thedecline of the small-scale, local food shop hasbeen equally dramatic. Garnett (1996a) notes thatbetween 1976 and 1987, over 44 000 food retailersclosed (31.2 per cent of the overall total) and that by1988, 90 per cent of all food sales came from just2 per cent of the stores. The closure of local foodstores has left some areas, particularly those inpoor urban neighbourhoods, without ready accessto food outlets other than high-priced corner shopproduce.

This process has led to some startling results; inthe USA, a law has had to be passed in order tohelp feed its poor. Cook and Rodgers (1996) viewthe combined effects of food industry consolidationand ‘red lining’, i.e. the practice of supermarketspulling out of areas where they see insufficientreturn and an unacceptably high crime risk, as partof a broad pattern in the USA. One in which lowincome consumers and small farmers have simplybeen by-passed by the existing network of agri-businesses, supermarkets and food manufacturingconglomerates. This problem prompted the devel-opment of a Community Food Security Coalition –linking 125 anti-poverty and sustainable agriculturegroups, food banks, small farmers and other organi-sations. This coalition is dedicated to building alter-native systems of food production and distributionthat are environmentally sound, socially equitable,


58



59

health conscious and which provide securitythrough local control. This group has alreadyachieved a notable success in the passing by aconservative congress of the 1996 CommunityFood Security Act. The act provided funding worthapproximately $2 million annually, to qualifyingcoalition partnerships.This amount might not seemmuch when compared to a military expenditureamounting to $259.9 billion for 1999 (StockholmInternational Peace Research Institute Year Book,2000), but may none the less be an important firststep towards high level recognition of the foodsecurity issue.

In Britain, there is nothing yet comparable to theCommunity Food Security Coalition or Act (seeChapter 6). However the Soil Association, Britain’sleading organic charity, has been promoting theclosely related concept of ‘Local Food Links’. Thisaims at strengthening local relationships betweenenvironmentally friendly food producers and con-sumers through a variety of mechanisms and out-lets. These include local retailers, farm shops,consumer co-operative schemes and vegetable boxschemes. Following pilot research in the Bristolarea, the Soil Association (subsequently re-namedSustain) engaged in a three-year project aimed atensuring that local food link schemes exist in everytown and city throughout the UK. Sustain aims tolobby local authorities and health authorities, con-duct local feasibility studies, launch an advisoryservice and produce a comprehensive directory ofschemes nationwide. There is obvious potential forurban food producers to join local food networkseither as part of this formal scheme or informally.Potential players include urban farms, larger com-munity gardens and local authority farms found onthe urban fringe. Local authority farms were set upafter the First World War to encourage new entrantsinto agriculture. These farms could supply produceon a significant scale and act as a springboard fornew entrants into full-scale sustainable agriculture.

Urban food producers have some obvious comme-rcial advantages over more distantly located pro-ducers. Examples include ready access to marketsfor perishable produce that responds poorly tofreezing and conventional storage techniques, andproximity to urban waste products such as wasteheat. Imaginative schemes tapping this particularenergy source include a tower block in Salfordgrowing food on the building roof and a Sheffieldproject which plans to use excess heat from a steelworks to supply an on-site market garden. This willspecialise in higher value exotic vegetables for thelocal market (see Chapter 9).

HEALTH BENEFITS

Diet

Nutritionists and other health professionals havelong recognised deficiencies in diet, particularlyamongst the poor. The issue of obesity has risenup the ladder of concern in many developed coun-tries. One in four people in the USA are now classi-fied as obese. In these developed countries dietsgenerally contain excessive amounts of fat andsugar and insufficient vitamin and mineral-richfresh fruit and vegetables or carbohydrate-rich sta-ples such as bread and potatoes. The effects ofthis are widely acknowledged, and evident in theexcessive rates of coronary heart disease (CHD),obesity, blood pressure and strokes. In response,the UK Government’s Health of the Nation reporthas set dietary targets to reduce the levels of allthese problems. The reasons for unhealthy dietsamongst the poor may have more to do with alack of access to retailers selling a good rangeof affordable fresh produce, than simply to dowith pure ignorance. However, food growing incities can and does help improve people’s dietsby providing them with access to fresh fruit and



60

vegetables, particularly to those on low incomes,as several cities in the UK now recognise (Howe,2001). Adherence to organic methods also meansthat food is usually guaranteed to be free from her-bicides and pesticides, although justifiable fearsmay arise over contaminated land in some innercity locations.

Access to fresh locally grown fruit and vegetablesmeans that people can see where, how and whencrops are grown. This is likely to raise awarenessabout food production techniques and provideknowledge which facilitates a questioning of theadvantages of non seasonal imported or processedfood. The promotion of CPULs and urban agricul-ture, in conjunction with healthy eating campaigns,is one way by which diets may be shifted away fromexcessive fat and sugar consumption in developedcountries and one way by which access to foodin general is improved in countries suffering fromeconomic hardship.

Exercise

In addition to diet, food growing can provide a usefuloutlet for increasing the amount of gentle, regularexercise that health professionals argue is necessaryto stave off health problems like obesity and CHD.

Mental health

Finally, involvement in gardening or horticulture hasalso long been recognised for its powers in treatingthe mentally ill, and recently the Mental HealthFoundation in the UK has formally recognised thisin their report ‘Strategies for Living’ (Mental HealthFoundation, 2000). A recent study undertaken bythe University of Florida (Spence, 1999) is particu-larly interesting in relation to productive, and contin-uous landscape which include pedestrian and cycleroutes. Its findings suggest that ‘just walking around

a botanical garden reduces stress levels’.The impli-cation of this is that gardeners and people cominginto contact with urban agriculture sites (the public)will all benefit from these health benefits. Financialbenefits resulting from this reduced stress cancontribute to reductions in public health costs.

As one of the report’s authors Professor JenniferBradley states,

the implications for health and well-being areobvious. And for public gardens and the horti-cultural industry, the implications are good,too. Funding for public gardens is gettingharder and harder to come by, so this kind ofinformation gives botanical gardens andarboreta a way to market themselves andmore ammunition in seeking funding.

OBSTACLES TO URBAN AGRICULTURE

Having set out its many virtues, what are some ofthe barriers to urban food production? These fallinto three broad categories: regulatory, economicand technical.

Local obstacles include vandalism and theft and alack of resources, often money and information(see Chapter 9).

Urban agriculture and land-use policy

Urban agriculture is central to the existence ofmany poorer cities across the globe (Bakker et al.,2000; Ellis and Sunberg, 1998; Smit, 1996). It isonly recently, however, that the richer industrialnations of the world and their policy makers havebegun to consider the potential benefits of urbanagriculture (Garnett, 1996a; Howe and Wheeler,1999; Hynes, 1996).



61

With food so high on the political agenda, it ishardly surprising that there has been a worldwideincrease in attention given to urban agriculture(Mbiba, 2001). This carries with it implications forland-use policy and regulation. Yet, despite thisincreased interest in food production and con-sumption, few studies have examined the nature ofrecognition and integration of agriculture into regu-lative frameworks for urban land-use. Within theemerging body of literature on urban agriculture,however, the relationship between urban foodgrowing and land-use regulation has received lim-ited attention, highlighting the relatively unchartednature of the topic (Howe, 2001; Howe and Wheeler,1999; Martin and Marsden, 1999; Pothukuchi andKaufman, 2000).

A recent attempt to review the strategies employed inurban policy to regulate urban food production in dif-ferent cities around the world demonstrates that theintegration of agriculture into land-use policy and citydevelopment has remained consistently low (Mbibaand Van Veenhuizen, 2001). In the USA, for example,Pothukuchi and Kaufman (2000) demonstrate a lowawareness in land-use planners of increasing urbanagriculture activities. Recent studies in Russia andCanada reinforce this bleak picture by demonstratingthat many land-use officials do recognise the poten-tial of urban agriculture but find themselves con-strained by insufficient budgets (Wekerle, 2001).

The contention here is that land-use implications ofurban agriculture deserve further investigation thanhas hitherto been the case. Now that urban agricul-ture is considered to be a valid land-use functionthroughout the world, there is a pressing need tostudy land-use regulative policy practices of differ-ent places to enable lessons of good practice to bedebated and considered.

A UK Government Economic and Social ResearchCouncil (ESRC) funded survey, led by Joe Howeduring 2000–2001, examined the role played by

land-use policy in regulating urban agriculture onallotments, community gardens and city farms. Allthe metropolitan planning authorities in the UKwere surveyed, resulting in 32 usable replies,which represents a response rate of 46 per cent.One finding was that 37 per cent of respondentsstated that they had experienced conflicts of inter-est between demands for, and potential changesto, land-use at urban food producing sites. Ofthese, nine related to development pressure onallotment sites, particularly where these were con-sidered underused. Eighteen authorities had notencountered conflict between urban food and otherforms of land-use, suggesting that in the majority ofcases urban food production can function harmo-niously within an urban area.

The survey indicated that, despite the widespreadoccurrence of urban food growing activity in theUK, the direct role of land-use regulation policy inrelation to urban agriculture is relatively limited.One way in which this issue could be addressed isthrough the education and training of land-use offi-cials, so that future policy formation will not beundermined by a lack of knowledge.

A number of respondents raised issues as to thelevel of demand for urban food sites, notably allot-ment sites, and considered what might be a suitableresponse on the part of the local authority and itsland-use regulation function. Where demand onurban food sites is low, some respondents did iden-tify other potential land-uses that could be adoptedfor those sites. For example, one authority statedthat sites might be used mainly for residential devel-opment, since they were primarily located in areasdenoted in the development plan as ‘primarily resi-dential use’. This answer denotes the potential forconflict which may arise between the need forauthorities to utilise brownfield sites in the nationalquest for protection of greenfield areas, and theneed to provide open space and urban food sites.


Financial returns and land

In virtually all European cities, urban food productionfaces stiff competition from other land-uses suchas housing, commerce and industry, which oftenhave a far higher profile and financial return.Overcoming this particular hurdle will significantlyinfluence the development of urban food growing.There is no point in wishing economic obstaclesaway, but there is good reason to face them objec-tively. The biggest problem is the prevailing eco-nomic system, which only measures direct profitsfrom the development of land. If the prevailing viewregarding the comparative value of different activitieschanged, then planning regulations would follow,and development.

Brownfield versus greenfield

Brownfield sites, those that have had a previousindustrial or commercial use, are one of the mainsources of development land in existing cities. ForCPULs and urban agriculture to become estab-lished in existing cities, some brownfield sites willneed to be used. For this to happen, the benefitsand drawbacks of their use as ‘landscape’ ratherthan ‘building site’ will have to be assessed. Itmay well be that environmental auditing of differ-ent forms of land-use can be used to assess thecredits and debits associated with different activ-ities, and so define environmental costs whichneed to be covered by development. There arenow a few tentative moves in this direction inEngland, for example, the congestion charge incentral London (making a charge for private carsentering the city centre) and policies which allowlocal authorities to take account of the environ-mental benefits of development and accept alower price for selling land.

As long as development is concentrated in a fewcities, these will almost inevitably need to expand

onto greenfield sites, even if their density isincreased. If the case for urban agriculture is, as webelieve, convincing, then it has a place on brown-field and greenfield sites.

The first step in promoting urban agriculture isto increase the perceived value of developmentresulting in ‘Ecological Intensification’ and we hopethat making a rational case for the varied benefitsof urban agriculture will help to do this.

Technical obstacles

While a great deal of information describing thedesign of low energy buildings is available, includingexamples taking account of lifecycle impact due toembodied and operational energy (Viljoen, 1997),little literature is commonly available supporting thecase for urban agriculture. Not surprisingly, there-fore, built environment professions have tradition-ally had little to do with food issues. If planning is tobe concerned with co-ordinating the use and devel-opment of land in the public interest, then the valueof urban food growing will need to be publicised farmore widely.

Examples of technical obstacles include land con-tamination, a particular feature of many inner citybrownfield sites with long industrial histories. Theintroduction of organic urban agriculture requiresthat soils used for growing crops is tested for con-tamination, to establish if remedial measures needto be taken. Furthermore, hydrological investiga-tions would be required to check that contaminantsfrom adjacent non-organic or polluted sites are notcarried by groundwater into organic fields.

Raised beds are often used as a means of limitingthe amount of soil which has to be imported into foodgrowing sites, on contaminated soil.The quantities ofsoil required for extensive urban agriculture sites canbe large, and require transport for importation from


62


adjacent areas. Clearly this is a significant factor,which will need careful consideration when determin-ing the viability of new urban agriculture sites. Similarissues exist if roads are to be converted into sites formarket gardens; for example, the soil below roadswill be heavily compacted by vehicular use, as wellas being constructed from gravel and subsoil with allorganic soils deliberately removed. Creating fieldsfrom roads also usually requires removal of largevolumes of asphalt or concrete, but this material canfind use as aggregate in general construction. Thedirect use of road materials to construct raised bedsfor food growing is not recommended, as leaching oftoxic chemicals may occur from the aggregate.

These are some of the technical and environmentaldifficulties which will have to be addressed by arange of practitioners and professionals to achievesustainable urban food production. Experiments areunderway to ‘manufacture’ soil from recycled mate-rials, for example, ground glass.The experiments ofPhil Craul and much additional detailed informationon repairing contaminated soil can be found inJ. William Thompson and Kim Sorvig’s book,Sustainable Landscape Construction (Thompsonand Sorvig, 2000). These issues will in certaininstances act as limiting factors in the location ofurban agriculture fields. A distinction should bedrawn between the effect contaminated soil canhave on the location of urban agriculture plots andthe siting of CPULs.The spaces where CPULs con-tain circulation routes, parkland and playing fieldsmay be suitable for soils which cannot supportedible crops.

The argument that it may be expensive to purchaseand prepare urban land for food growing is notsufficient to abandon the case for urban agriculture.After all, just think how expensive it must be forthe Netherlands to make the very land on whichthey then construct towns. Certainly a proactiveplanning system will be required, allied with a clear


63

presentation of the benefits associated withproductive urban landscapes.

REFERENCES

Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Guendel, S., Sabel-Koshchella, U.and de Zeeuw, H. (eds) (2000). Growing Cities, GrowingFood: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, Die Stifungfür Internationale Entwicklung, Feldading.

Cook, H. and Rodgers, A. (1996). Community food secu-rity. Pesticide Campaigner, 6 (3) 7–11.

Ellis, F. and Sunberg, J. (1998). Food production, urbanareas and policy responses. World Development, 26,213–225.

Garnett, T. (1996). Growing Food in Cities. National FoodAlliance, London.

Garnett, T. (1996a). Harvesting the cities. Town andCountry Planning, 65 (9), 264–265.

Howe, J. (2001). Nourishing the city. Town and CountryPlanning, 70 (1), 29–31.

Howe, J. and Wheeler, P. (1999). Urban food growing: theexperience of two UK cities. Sustainable Development,7 (1), 13–25.

Hynes, P. (1996). A pinch of eden. Chelsea Green, WhiteRiver Junction.

Jackson, J. B. (1994). A sense of place, a sense of time.Yale University Press.

Martin, R. and Marsden, T. (1999). Food for Urban Spaces:The Development of Urban Food. International PlanningStudies, 4, 389–412.

Mental Health Foundation (2000). Strategies for living.Research Report.

Mbiba, B. and Van Veenhuizen, R. (2001). The Integrationof Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture into Planning. UrbanAgriculture Magazine, 4, 1–4.



64

Pothukuchi, K. and Kaufman, J. L. (2000).The Food System:A Stranger to the Planning Field. American PlanningAssociation Journal, Spring 2000, Vol. 66, 2, pp. 113–124.

Spence, C. (1999). Botanic Gardens Relieve Stress, UFresearchers find. University of Florida News. Publishedat www.napa.ufl.edu/99news/greenspa.htm (accessed26 August 2003).

Smit, J. (1996). Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs andSustainable Cities. UNDP, Habitat II Series, Vol. 1, Brussels.

Stockholm International Peace Research InstituteYearbook, 2000, accessed via UK Ministry of Defence web

site at: http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/factfiles/budget.htm on26 August 2003.

Thompson, J. and Sorvig, K. (2000). SustainableLandscape Construction. Island Press, Washington DC.

Viljoen, A. (1997). Low-Energy Dwellings and theirEnvironmental Impact. European Directory of Sustainableand Energy Efficient Building. James and James (SciencePublishers) Ltd, 47–52.

Wekerle, G. (2001). Planning for Urban Agriculture inSuburban Development in Canada. Urban AgricultureMagazine, 4, 36–37.


THE ECONOMICS OF URBAN AND PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE

James Petts


INTRODUCTION

Urban agriculture is as old as towns and citiesthemselves, although it has only relatively recentlybeen recognised by national and internationalbodies for its importance for the sustainability ofcities and urban societies. It is an economic activity,engaged in for commercial reasons by an esti-mated 200 million people, and informally by an addi-tional 600 million people worldwide. The UnitedNations Development Programmes’ (UNDP) ground-breaking book, Urban Agriculture; food, jobs andsustainable cities (Smit, 1996), identifies three eco-nomic benefits of urban agriculture: employment,income generation and enterprise development;national agriculture sector and urban food supply;and land-use economics.

‘Urban agriculture’ (UA), for the purposes ofthis chapter is narrower than the definition used inthe rest of this book. In this chapter it refers tosmall areas, such as verges, allotments, privateand community gardens, and balconies withinthe city, for growing crops and raising poultry andlivestock for eggs, meat, milk, etc., for homeconsumption or sale in neighbourhood markets.‘Peri-urban agriculture’ refers to farm units close totown which operate semi or entirely commercialfarms and market gardens to grow crops and raisepoultry and livestock. The term urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is used to refer to bothphenomena.

There are some studies of the economics of urbanagriculture, although these are limited, and focuson developing countries or the ‘South’. This is notsurprising given the number of development agen-cies and NGOs involved with research, develop-ment and facilitation of UPA in the South. UPA is,however, recognised as a global phenomenon andis participated in, studied, and described the world

over. UPA in the North (excluding well-knownexamples such as Russia since the break-up of theSoviet Union) is generally no longer percieved as aresponse to national crises affecting the entire popu-lation, or a ‘coping strategy’ as it once was duringthe First and Second World Wars and in previouscenturies. In the North it is generally seen as aresponse to reducing long term environmentaldegradation or particular local conditions, oftenrelated to specific areas of social depravation. Inthe South it is relied upon by many households fortheir very existence.

Studies of UPA on a macroeconomic scale, showthat the contribution to national economies is notinsignificant (See Table 9.1). However, survey datarelating to the income earned from urban farmingcannot be generalised given the diversity of condi-tions between seasons, cities, and within cities(Nugent, 2000). Studies calculating UPA’s incomecontribution are unlikely to accurately estimate thequantities of food produced because informal agri-cultural activity is not usually included. One esti-mate, however, did calculate that the 30 000 or soallotment holders in London produce nearly asmuch fruit and vegetables by weight as commercialhorticultural enterprises (Garnett, 1999). And onestudy in the United States (US) of informal garden-ers found that the net economic value of 151 plotswas between $160 and $178 per year, with a rangebetween $2 to $1134 (The Philadelphia UrbanGardening Project, 1991).

UPA’s contribution to employment is also likely tobe underestimated because it is not generallyrecorded in labour statistics of economies, partlybecause farmers may not count self-employment inUPA as a ‘job’. When attempting to calculate thesize of the urban agriculture market, difficulties alsoarise because urban and rural produce is mixed atmarkets and cannot be determined if the origin isnot specified (Petts, 2001). Prices are also difficult


66



67

Table 9.1 Food provided by urban and peri-urban agriculture.

City/country Local needs met by UPA (%) Amount produced annually (tons or litres/day)

Bamako 100 (horticultural)

Dakar, 1994/1995 70 (vegetables) 65–70 (poultry)

Harare small

Havana, 1998 541 000 (vegetables)

Dar es Salaam, 1999 60 (milk), 90 (vegetables)

Jakarta, 1999 10 (vegetables), 16 (fruit), 2 (rice)

Kampala 70 (poultry and eggs)

Kathmandu for urban gardeners; 37 (plant foods),11 (animal)

La Paz, 1999 30 (vegetables)

Hubli-Dharwad, 1999 small 40 000 litres/day

London, 1999 8400 (vegetables – commercial)7460 (vegetables – allotments)27 (honey)

Lusaka for squatter population; 33 (total)

Ho Chi Minh City, 1999 high 217 000 (rice), 214 000(vegetables), 8700 (poultry),241 000 (sugar), 27 900 (milk),4500 (beef)

Hong Kong 45 (vegetables)

Singapore 80 (poultry), 25 (vegetables)

Sofia, 1999 48 (milk), 53 (potatoes), 50 (other vegetables)

Accra, 1999 1 (total)

Shanghai, 1999 60 (vegetables), 100 (milk), 90 (eggs), 50 (pork, poultry)

Sources: Smit (1996) and Nugent, R. (2000). Sustain, City Harvest; the feasibility of growing more food in London.

to measure due to fluctuations and variations overtime and between different markets.

Although urban agriculture currently makes a sig-nificant contribution to the food needs of many

urban populations, the United Nation’s Food andAgriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that, inthe future, the 12 ‘mega-cities’ (10 million plus popu-lation) will experience increasing difficulty in feed-ing themselves (FAO, 1998).


MICRO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Models vs reality

In economic utility theory, one model suggestshouseholds face choices as to how to allocate theirlabour and spending in order to maximise their wel-fare or ‘utility’ with given resources. It predicts familymembers will jointly choose how to allocate theirlabour to maximise income (or spending substitu-tion) over a given period. However, other factorsmake this analysis more complex when we con-sider that urban farmers are both suppliers oflabour to UPA and consumers of food. Other factorsinclude imperfect labour and land markets, unreli-able market information, unclear markets for someinputs, such as credit, gender factors, risk percep-tions, and social expectations. The decision to get,or stay, involved with UPA activities leads tochanges in how households allocate their time andspending. From a labour supply view, householdswill produce food themselves if the UPA activityprovides a higher return compared with other activ-ities. From a food consumers view, a household willproduce its own food when it is less costly (in termsof time and money) than purchasing food (Nugent,2000).

Within utility theory there are a number of differentmodels determined by the variables used in thefunction. These can include the income maximisa-tion model where utility is a function of income, therisk aversion model which recognises uncertaintyas an important factor, the drudgery aversionmodel where no labour markets exist, the share-tenancy model where access to land as a produc-tive resource is through non-market mechanisms,and lastly, the farm household model where utilityis determined by production and time constraints.All have some validity when considering the differ-ent aspects of UPA in reality, but as ever, the reality

of UPA turns out to be far more complex than thetheory. (Readers are referred to the extensive litera-ture on farm households for further examination ofutility models.)

MOTIVES FOR UPA

Surveys of urban farmers’ motives for engaging inUPA in the South have been ranked according totheir perceived importance (Nugent, 2000). Eco-nomic motives of production for home consumption,income enhancement (or expenditure substitution),response to economic crisis, and high prices ofmarket produce are ranked at the top of the list.Theranking is expected to differ compared to farmers inthe North, although a number of motives will beshared.

UPA can ensure food security during times of crisisand food scarcity, whether from national emergen-cies, such as war, or household crises such as sud-den unemployment. (Readers are referred to theexample of Cuba.) UPA can also enhance foodsecurity due to chronic factors. Even in a relativelywealthy country such as the UK, the dramatic rise inthe number of ‘out-of-town’ supermarkets in the1980s and 1990s has hastened the decline ofsmall, local shops. This decline has left many, par-ticularly the poor and vulnerable, without access toadequate supplies of fresh, nutritious food whoinstead have to rely more on overpriced, processedfoods high in salt, sugar, and saturated fats(Caraher et al., 1998).

Poor families in the South can spend between50–80 per cent of their income on food and stillsuffer from food insecurity. Structural adjustmentpolicies of the 1980s and 1990s, leading tothe removal of subsidies and price controls, haveresulted in rapidly increasing prices of some food


68


commodities (Nugent, 2000). Even with a return toa more stable macroeconomic environment, house-holds may continue to be engaged in UPA, perhapsreflecting an aversion to the risk of food insecurity.

UPA can be carried out by up to two-thirds of urbanand peri-urban households, very often informallyby women, who combine UPA activities with otheractivities such as childcare. Urban farmers are notalways the poorest residents in the city but aresometimes among those who have lived longenough in an area to secure the means of produc-tion, especially land, and have become familiar withthe markets for selling surpluses.

Studies in several African countries have found thatincome from UPA activities makes a significant con-tribution to the total household income. Drescher(1999) found that home gardens in Lusaka pro-duced an average of three months’ income at theaverage worker’s level in 1992, although this wasextremely seasonal. In Russia, a survey found thaturban farmers in three cities earned an average of12 per cent of their income from food production in1995 (Seeth et al., 1998). Nugent (2000) describesa number of factors which will determine the netflow of income of households engaged in UPA activ-ities. These are: farming effort; availability and costof basic inputs; yields; market access; ability tostore; transport; process and preserve; and prices.The fungible income of households derived fromthe substitution of market-bought produce withhome grown is a major factor in UPA, as much activ-ity takes place informally.

Employment in UPA provides additional opportu-nities to the underemployed, temporarily unem-ployed, or long-term unemployed, where formalemployment opportunities are limited. UPA is thesecond largest employer in Dar es Salaam (UNCentre for Human Settlements, 1992), but relativelyfew paid jobs exist in UPA beyond the intensive,

commercial sector found mainly on the urban fringe(Nugent, 2000a).

Farmers may be engaged in UPA activities becauseof religious and cultural factors. For example, inCairo, Muslims will raise small livestock for religiousrituals surrounding holidays and funerals.

Even for relatively better off households in theSouth, the perception of the risk of food insecuritywill influence their efforts because of the insurancevalue of activities. Residents of Hubli-Dharwadkeep buffalo as a ‘nest egg’ to be sold at times ofhardship or crisis. At the same time, the buffalo pro-vides the households with a fresh supply of milk,and fuel and fertilizer in the form of dung (Nugent,2000a).

Food growing can be motivated by factors such astherapy and enjoyment. Recreational gardeningand community growing activities are not finan-cially profitable in the North especially when theopportunity costs of alternative labour activities areconsidered. However, as noted earlier, profit is notusually a motive for the informal food grower. In theNorth, informal participants cite therapy, recre-ation, exercise, and a household supply of freshproduce as their primary reasons for urban foodgrowing (Petts, 2001).

SUPPLY

Most inputs or factors of production for UPA in theSouth are outside the formal market economy. UPAis an economical use of land for a number of rea-sons: activities generate income from temporarilyavailable land; techniques need comparatively littlespace; and some generate a number of jobs.Perhaps the greatest barrier to urban farmers isaccess to land.


69


The area of land which is required to make UPAactivities commercially viable will depend on a num-ber of factors including: the quality of the land; theuse of natural and artificial micro-climates includinggreenhouses and polytunnels; the type of cropsgrown; the mix of plants and animals; the price ofproduce at markets, including produce from ruralareas and overseas; levels of other inputs includinglabour and fertiliser; and the distance of the site tourban markets. One estimate of the land areaneeded to make an organic box scheme commer-cially viable in the UK ranges from 1–4 hectaresdepending upon whether crops are grown in inten-sive beds or on a field scale (Soil Association,2001).

Very often land is leased on a temporary basis orobtained informally, known as ‘usufruct’. Land usedfor urban farming generally has a low opportunitycost, which makes it appear to have a low contribu-tion in monetary terms. When the opportunity costof the land rises sufficiently, the land becomesmore desirable for alternative purposes to UPA.This fact can inhibit investment in the agriculturaluse of land or the use of it altogether, implying thatappropriate policies are needed to improve bothaccess to land and security of tenure.

Usufruct increases the total rent that is availablefrom land, providing public and private institutionswith an additional source of income. UPA activitiesmay also reduce the maintenance costs for publicand private facilities (Smit, 1996).

Critical to UPA and city food enterprises in the Northis the scarcity of unskilled labour, shortage of skilledlabour, or high wage costs. In some instances thishas led to capital-intensive modes of production andmechanisation. In the South, UPA uses relativelylittle wage labour apart from during seasonal plant-ing and harvesting times. Exceptions to this includeJakarta, Havana, and Shanghai where there is

strong institutional support and well-developedcommercial sectors (Nugent, 2000a).

Urban farming enterprises on a larger scale mayhave lower average costs of production comparedwith smaller enterprises.These economies of scalewill give the enterprise a cost, and therefore aprice/profit advantage within the market place.However, this does not always apply in the urbansituation where larger enterprises may face disec-onomies of scale such as unsellable, large sur-pluses at some points in the year. Smaller producers,as we note elsewhere, can respond better tochanges in consumers’ taste, specialise in highvalue products, and have less need for wagelabour, and expensive capital and infrastructure.

Farmer co-operatives can benefit from organisa-tional economies of scale and conduct activitieswhich the individual would find hard to achieve inisolation. Marketing, financing, and technical assis-tance can be provided through this co-operation. Itcan also ensure the farmer or enterprise has analmost guaranteed market for the produce withincertain quality standards.

The internal economic costs of UPA enterprisesinclude items such as wage labour, plants andseeds, and transport. New UPA enterprises in theNorth may incur very high initial start-up costs ifthey are to compete effectively with existing urbanand rural enterprises. Cost savings of UPA accru-ing to other sectors are not generally ‘internalised’and may also occur over a number of years, andhence, are likely to be heavily discounted.

Comparative advantage

A comparative advantage exists when either thesupply or demand conditions allow UPA to servethe market better by supplying produce other-wise unavailable or prohibitively expensive.


70


Urban producers can achieve greater efficienciesby using under-utilised resources in the city, suchas vacant land, city compost, and unemployedlabour. Productivity of UPA can be as much as 15times greater than that of rural agriculture althoughyields may suffer from insufficient inputs, skills, andmunicipal support (FAO, 1998).

As most food is a basic commodity, it has a relativelystable and dependable demand which reduces theassociated risks in its production and sale. Urbanfarmers often have a comparative advantage in spe-ciality produce and markets (e.g. high value andorganic) and these specialist UPA activities oftenbecome the sole, or a major source of, income.

Farmers close to markets can respond promptly tochanges in consumer tastes and demand. Greaterresponsiveness and availability may often lead toimproved quality and nutrient content of produce(Jones, 2001). The close proximity of producers tomarkets means there is less need for transport,storage and refrigeration equipment and infrastruc-ture. It is also likely to mean better communication,control of supply and quality of produce. For bothcommercial and home gardeners, the close prox-imity to market or home saves time and effort andreduces shoe leather costs. However, in the North,some urban farmers in a city, located there perhapsfor historical reasons, may supply wholesalers andretailers with national distribution systems, so anycost and environmental advantage will be lost.

MARKET ENTRY, DEMAND, AND PRICES

UPA on an informal or small-scale basis, is rela-tively easy to enter for participants. Farmers canstart with a few and inexpensive inputs and limited

technical knowledge, probably on land with little orno rent. Productivity is low at this stage but canimprove over time with small investments. In theNorth, market entry on a commercial scale may behard to achieve due to the cost of land, machinery,labour, and other inputs, which can be significantbarriers to entry.

Other barriers to entry to UPA found either in theNorth or South, or familiar to both, include access toand security of land, relative labour scarcity andundeveloped labour skills, underdevelopment ofdownstream activities (processing, storage, markets,etc.), and competition from food imports. The cost oftransportation of produce to markets can also be amajor factor in determining economic viability.

The demand for food is unlikely to change verymuch with changes in price and other aspects –that is, it has a fairly inelastic demand. This wouldsuggest that, even with a downturn in the cityeconomy, urban farmers can still find markets fortheir goods. However, there may be a high degreeof substitutability between foods producing an elas-tic demand for specific products. Hence, with adownturn in the economy, this would suggest thecheaper, perhaps bulkier produce such as pota-toes and cereals from more rural districts, will seean increase in demand, whilst the demand forhigher value crops grown in urban and peri-urbanregions, such as salad vegetables and fresh herbsmay be static or fall.

In the South, markets for both urban and rural pro-ducers are often well established, although theirsize and variety of produce vary tremendously withthe seasons and they are generally sensitive tomany other factors. In the UK, the growth of ‘out-of-town’ supermarkets has led to a decline in the num-ber of urban markets for city producers. Exceptionsto this are the markets which still exist in traditionalmarkets towns, the 500 or so Women’s Institute


71


markets which sell home produced goods, and nowfarmers’ markets which have seen a dramatic rise intheir number and size in the last few years.This per-haps reflects consumers’ desire to support localeconomies and farmers, and is a reaction to foodscares and the globalisation of the food economy.

Prices of produce in urban markets will be deter-mined by the usual interaction of the supply anddemand for produce. During the year, there are oftenfluctuations in price due to the seasonality of supplyto markets. Other supply factors affecting priceinclude the relative yields from year to year, theurban infrastructure, and level of agricultural devel-opment and support. The determinants of demandinfluencing price will include the relative price ofrural and imported produce, household incomes,and consumer tastes.

MACRO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

The contribution of a sector to the aggregate ormacro-economy is calculated by multiplying thequantity of goods with the market value or price ofgoods. However, as noted in the introduction, in thecase of urban agriculture, official statistics areunlikely to be very accurate because much ofthe produce is not sold at markets and prices cannotbe easily determined. Studies have either estimatedtotal value, the volume of output, or the share ofurban food needs produced by UPA. (See Table 9.1.)Although indicative, these estimates are not strictlycomparable because they have been produced indifferent years, using different methodology, and lookat different commodities (Nugent, 2000).

One calculation in urban areas of lower incomecountries found 40–70 per cent of the householdbudget is spent on food and fuel, with the poorestresidents spending between 60–90 per cent of

their budgets in this way (Nugent, 2000). This indi-cates that UPA will often make a significant contri-bution to a city’s aggregate demand or domesticproduct. There will also be a multiplier effect onurban economies generating output and income,both in related industries, such as tool manufac-ture, storage and processing, and in completelyunrelated industries.

Where UPA and urban rural links are well devel-oped, food prices are likely to be lower because ofa reduction in inefficiencies and cost in the supplysystem, and because of a lower demand due tohouseholds substituting market-bought producewith home produced produce. A large number ofsmaller producers operating on a regional scalewill also be expected to have lower food pricescompared with a global oligopolies or monopolies.

Well-developed urban–rural links and UPA can beeffective buffers to both domestic and external eco-nomic ‘shocks’as illustrated in the examples of Cubaand Russia in the 1990s. These buffers improve thepopulation’s food security and contribute to theresilience and sustainability of the city.

External economic benefits of UPA include costsavings to various sectors including waste man-agement. The ability of UPA to recycle organicwaste reduces the municipal authorities’ potentialcosts associated with waste disposal and landfill.Cost savings may accrue to municipal authoritiesand the private sector through the reduced need forstorm water infrastructure and management. Soilswill retain water for longer periods, especially whenhigh in organic matter, whilst hard surfaces oftenresult in a rapid run-off of rainwater into drains andcatchment channels leading to a greater potentialrisk of flooding and flood damage. Improvements inair quality brought about by sustainable UPA activi-ties may lead to improvements in the health of thepopulation and to improved labour productivity,


72


resulting in cost savings accruing to individuals,Government health departments and companies.

The external economic costs of some UPA activ-ities can include factors such as pollution abate-ment and remediation where chemical inputs areused. The cost to the water utilities of cleaningwater contaminated with pesticides and other bio-cides can be substantial. External costs of UPA canalso include the costs associated with transportrelated activities (vehicle emissions/pollution)although these will be significantly lower than thoseassociated with imported produce and air freightedfood (Jones, 2001). The internalisation in the mar-ket of the external costs and benefits associatedwith UPA would give sustainable urban and peri-urban produce an additional comparative advan-tage in markets over similar produce from furtherafield or from unsustainable production systems.

POLICY CONCLUSIONS

The macro-economic effects of UPA are improvedfood security and lower food prices, some employ-ment, and contributions to related industries.Although the empirical evidence for these effects ispatchy, there is strong anecdotal evidence to sup-port them.

There are demand-led opportunities for urban agri-culture and horticulture specialising in niche andother products, such as highly perishable produce,specialised livestock and fish, in cities where UPA isunderdeveloped (Garnett, 1999). The demand-ledopportunities need to be matched, however, bysupply-led growth in more deprived areas, to encour-age equity of access and affordability betweendifferent social groups.

Local food purchasing policies in the statutory sec-tor (hospitals, prisons, schools, etc.) could provide a

major impetus to the development of UPA given thata large proportion of all food consumed is throughthis sector. Price and/or quality advantages wouldbe needed to enable justification by the relevantauthorities.

The provision and reasonable pricing of land andwater resources is essential to develop UPA in thecity. Within a supportive framework, policies areneeded to protect and improve the security of landtenure for urban farmers. In the UK, this could takethe form of amending planning policy guidance(PPG) relating to allotments, fringe farms, andother urban spaces used for food production.

Planning regulations and guidance should take intoaccount the needs of urban farmers to invest inrefurbishing facilities, or in new ones, to developprocessing, storage, and packaging facilities, thusenabling them to ‘add value’ to their products andimprove their turnover and incomes.

As with other industries, UPA is dependent uponthe city’s infrastructure including the transport sys-tem, public utilities such as water managementsystems, and other services including labour andproduce markets. Such infrastructure, if it does notexist, may be expensive to provide and maintain.Policies should be developed to encourage small-scale, inexpensive systems designed to addressthe most critical weaknesses in a city’s capital.Withrelatively little investment, such systems cangreatly increase urban farmers’ productivity andviability.

Regional, national, and international policy changesare needed to overcome structural barriers and dis-torted markets in the urban food supply system.Potential new entrants operating sustainable modesof production would be encouraged by the internali-sation of the external economic costs and benefits.Appropriate standards, incentives, subsidy, taxes,and regulations could be used to internalise external


73


costs and benefits and shift profitability in favour ofsustainable practices and encourage a thriving localfood industry within and around towns and cities. Forexample, a tax on aviation fuel would help reflect itsreal economic cost to society and give produce


74

Sustain, an alliance of a number of public interestorganisations in the UK, initiated the City Harvest pro-ject in 1998 to examine the nature of UPA in London,and to encourage its residents to grow food.The projectfollowed from the Growing Food in Cities project whichlooked at the benefits of urban agriculture in the UK.City Harvest organised a local food festival to celebratethe range, quality, and diversity of food grown in or nearLondon and researched the existing aspects of urbanagriculture, and its potential to contribute to the foodsecurity and sustainability of London in the future.

The study found that London’s ‘ecological footprint’ isestimated to be 125 times the capital’s surface areawith food accounting for around 40 per cent of this.London’s residents, visitors and workers, consume 2.4million tonnes of food and produce 883 000 tonnes oforganic waste per year.The food industry makes a sig-nificant contribution to London’s GDP (about $122 bil-lion) with around 11 per cent of all jobs found in thefood sector, although most of the food consumedcomes from rural districts and other countries.

Almost 10 per cent of Greater London’s area is farmland, of which 500 hectares are under fruit andvegetable cultivation, and there are around 30 000active allotment holders and an estimated 1000beekeepers. Overall, the area under commercialcultivation is continuing to decline due to developmentpressures, labour scarcity/high wage costs, a skewedsystem of Common Agricultural Policy subsidies,competition from imports, and planning restrictions.The main area for commercial cultivation is the LeaValley region in North East London.

Case Study 9.1 City Harvest project in London, UK

Figure 9.1

Figure 9.1 An allotment alongside a railway viaduct inLondon. Land adjacent to railways often provides a con-tinous network of open space, which could be connectedinto CPULs.

grown closer to home an advantage, whilst a sub-sidy for organic production would reduce the exter-nal economic costs incurred by water companiesand their customers, caused by having to cleansewater of pesticides and artificial fertilisers.



75

Figure 9.2

The Lea Valley region typifies a declining industri-alised horticulture. This once thriving area for foodproduction has shrunk since the war and the industrynow only covers an area of 120 hectares under glass.It has a high productivity, with 200 or so horticulturalenterprises ranging in size from less than an acre to20 acres, with production often automated andhydroponic. The enterprises sell produce nationally towholesalers and supermarkets.

The remnants of commercial urban agriculturein London, such as the Lea Valley example, providean opportunity to redevelop, modify, and diversify theindustry towards a more sustainable system.

Figure 9.2 A typical allotment site in England.

Conversion to organic, development of sustainable,social enterprises, and production for local Londonmarkets, such as farmer’s markets, restaurants, andco-ops, would utilise the existing infrastructure andchange the mode of production. Barriers would haveto be overcome to enable this, such as encouragingorganic horticultural production through the CAP andgovernment programmes, changing planning policyto discourage inappropriate developments on theurban fringe whilst allowing fragmentation of farms tocreate smaller, more diverse holdings, and internalis-ing the external costs so food prices reflect their truecost and make the sale of produce at local marketspreferable.



76

Sibylle Gerstle of Basel University, Switzerland,studied the economic costs and the effects of homegardening in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Completedin May 2001, Gerstle looked at both a whole popula-tion group and, as samples, home gardeners on threesites with differing social and economic structures.Within this, Gerstle also considered the possible linksbetween the economic dimension of home gardeningand the health status of home gardeners.

Burkina Faso is one of the poorest nations in the worldwith a Gross National Product per capita of only $240and with an infant mortality rate of 210 per 1000 for theunder fives. Burkina Faso’s capital, Ouagadougou, hasa population of 750 000 and an average growth rate of6.8 per cent. It has 48 home gardening sites varying insize and from season to season.

One result from Gerstle’s study was that in both thedry and rainy seasons, home gardeners had a loweraverage monthly income than their counterparts prac-ticing any activity other than home gardening. Thisfinding is unusual because other studies in Africa(Zalle 1999 (Bamako), Sawio 1993 (Dar es Salaam),Egziabher 1994 (Addis Ababa), and Mougeot 1999(Lome)) have found that urban farmers have a higherthan average income. However, an indirect estimatefor income calculated on the basis of prices obtainedfor vegetables, was higher than the directly estimatedone for all three sites. Additionally, in all three sites, theaverage monthly income of households was higher inthe dry season than the rainy season, and income var-ied considerably between sites due to factors includingthe quality of irrigation water and the crop patterns.

In the whole population group, more than half of thepredictable expenditure was on food. In the rainy sea-son home gardening households had considerablylower expenditure on food than non-home gardeninghouseholds, whilst in the dry season, home gardeninghouseholds spent an equivalent amount on food asnon-home gardening households. Hence, thecontribution of home gardening to household foodsecurity and ‘fungible’ incomes was mainly confined to the rainy season, reflecting the importance of the

Case Study 9.2 Phd thesis on the economic costs and impact of home gardening in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

seasons and climatic factors to urban gardeners inOuagadougou.

With respect to the health status of the population, themost common aliments were malaria, gastro-intestinaldiseases and respiratory diseases.The study found thatthe average number of days of illness was equivalent inboth home gardening and non-home gardening house-holds, and, surprisingly, there was no correlationbetween the health status of the population and theirsocio-economic status. Hence, the expected health riskrelated to home gardening was not found and the lowermonthly expenditure, lower income, and a lower expen-diture coverage rate were not directly related to thehealth status of home gardeners.

Figure 9.3

Figure 9.3 A vegetable market in Burkina Faso.


REFERENCES

Blair, D., Giesecke, C. and Sherman, S. (1991). ThePhiladelphia Urban Gardening Project, Journal ofNutrition Education, 23, 161–167.

Caraher, M., Dixon, P., Lang, T. and Carr-Hill, R. (1998).Barriers to accessing healthy foods: differentials by gen-der, social class, income and mode of transport. HealthEducation Journal, 57(3), 191–201.

Drescher (1999). Urban agriculture in Lusaka: case study.IDRC.

FAO (1998). Feeding the cities, Sofa report. FAO.

Garnett, T. (1999). City Harvest the feasibility of growingmore food in London. Sustain.

Jones, A. (2001). Eating oil: food supply in a changingclimate. Sustain.

Nugent, R. (2000). The impact of urban agriculture on thehousehold and local economies. In Growing Cities,

Growing Food, Deutsche Stiftung für internationaleEntwicklung (DSE).

Nugent, R. (2000a). Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture,Household Food Security and Nutrition. Discussion paperfor FAO-ETC/RUAF electronic conference ‘Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda’.

Petts, J. (2001). Economic costs and benefits of UA in EastLondon, Sustain.

Seeth, H., Chachnov, S., Surinov, A. and Von Braun, J.(1998). Russian poverty; muddling through economic tran-sition with garden plots. World Development No. 26.

Smit, J. (1996). Urban Agriculture; Food, Jobs, andSustainable Cities. UNDP.

Soil Association (2001). A Share in the Harvest, SoilAssociation.

UN Centre for Human Settlements (1992). SustainableCities Programme, Dar es Salaam: Environmental Profile.


77


CHANGING CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR: THE ROLE OF FARMERS’ MARKETS

Nina Planck


First, a bit of background about London Farmers’Markets. I grew up on a farm in Virginia and I’vesold at farmers’ markets all my life. My parents stillmake a living exclusively from farmers’ markets.They grow fruit and vegetables and sell them in andaround Washington, DC.

The lesson for us when we first started farming in1979 – and weren’t doing very well standing by theside of the road in little town near our farm – was thatwe had to go into Washington, meet with other farm-ers, and sell at farmers’ markets. You have to gowhere the people are. Now this is the beauty ofurban agriculture – the people are already there. Butmy background is working with farmers to get themto travel into town, to benefit from the presence ofother farmers, and also from the large number ofpeople in a small space. In four hours, many morepeople walk by the farmers’ market than by the farmgate. So my interest is in increasing income to farm-ers, getting fresh food to people in cities, and havingthat work commercially for farmers.

The rules at LFM markets are: every producer hasto come from within a hundred miles of the M25 –or rather all the food is produced within a hundredmiles; you have to grow or produce it yourself; andyou have to be at the market to sell it. Many farm-ers’ markets in the UK have a smaller catchmentarea than we at LFM have. They require that all thefarmers come from 20 or 30, or sometimes as faras 50 miles away from the market. We didn’t thinkthat made sense for the regional farmland that isrequired to feed a population the size of London’s.Nor did it make sense to go looking for farms whichdidn’t exist in the suburbs of London.

In 2002, we ran twelve weekly markets. We’d like todo more with these markets, and one goal is tohave more local foods. I mean local in two senses:first, that we include more farmers who are closerto the market. At the moment the vast majority of

our farmers grow their food less than 50 miles awayfrom the market, so we’re pretty close to the catch-ment area of a lot of the rural farmers’ markets inthis country. Secondly, more local foods would alsomean tightening up LFM’s few exceptions to thelocal-ingredients rule for processed foods. Forexample, we allow bakers – and probably alwayswill – to buy flour. Bakers are the only producers notrequired to use ingredients grown within 100 miles.However, there are lots of arable farms strugglingin the commodities market in this country. We’regood at growing cereals. The EU export market forcereals is essentially phoney, because it is heavilysubsidised. Therefore, if we want arable farmers tobe producing something economically viable,rather than just paying them to plant hedgerows,they ought to be looking at different markets. I thinkthere’s a big market out there for muesli from localingredients, and for baked goods made from localor regional flour.

More organic food is another goal. About threeyears ago, when I first started talking about farm-ers’ markets with people here, there was strongsupport from two sectors in particular: local foodactivists and the organic world. That was a wel-come thing, because it meant there was lots ofpolitical support for farmers’ markets. However, Ididn’t think that we should sacrifice certain farmerson the cross of ideological purity on organic food orlocal food miles. That is partly why I set the LFMcatchment quite wide, and also why I don’t believefarmers’ markets should be for organic farmersexclusively. All farmers should have a chance tomeet the public, so that they can learn what the pub-lic want, and also so they have chance to earn theretail price. A third reason we shouldn’t exclude con-ventional farmers is this: if they do anything tochange methods of production when they sell direct,it will be in the direction of greener agriculture, notthe other way round. You don’t meet consumers


79


who say, ‘I quite like your carrots, but I wish you’duse more organophosphates.’

A fourth reason for including non-organic farmers isthat there are many green practices in agriculturethat fall short of legal definitions of organic. I wouldlike farmers to find outlets for those products, andfarmers’ markets are a good example. My ownfamily started out using scarcely any, but a few,chemicals. Then we stopped using chemicalsentirely, but we’ve never chosen to certify our farmbecause we use a seawater-based fertiliser thatVirginia certification standards – and now US certi-fication standards – don’t allow. We prefer to keepit. We think it gives us healthy plants and tasty veg-etables, and that it’s good for us as farmers andconsumers. We didn’t think certification was rightfor us.Yet we get premium prices at all our marketsbecause our relationship with the consumer isdirect, and they are satisfied that we grow our foodthe way we say we grow it.

I think there is room to let a thousand green flowersbloom. I’m happy to say that a lot of LFM’s farmersare moving in a greener direction. ‘NO INSECTI-CIDES ON OUR FRUIT’ is a much more commonsign than before. Remember, farmers have lots ofreasons to go green. Some are concerned abouttheir own health and spraying. Some are concernedabout getting better prices. Some are concernedabout the environment, others about consumerhealth. In the farmers’ market all these motivationscome into play in different quantities with differentfarmers and different consumers.

We would also like to see more viable city farms.There are lots of city farms, and they own valuableland. But too often, in my view, they’re just educa-tional. I’d love to see those farms have a product tosell to local people. I do know that Dean City Farmin Merton, near our market in Wimbledon Park, hasfive acres of arable land, and not a thing growing on


80

it. That’s pretty valuable real estate. I understandthat this city farm has to raise £5000 a month, but ithasn’t any product to sell to raise that money. I alsoknow that on a plot this big, if you’re growing com-mercially, you could be making – assuming just twomarkets a week – £1000 a week. That’s a modestestimate.

Let me show you how little land you need. A friendof ours bought a farm in Athens, Georgia. The firstyear he planted half an acre, set up one boxscheme, and attended one weekly farmers’ market.He employed one person, part-time. His seasonwas March to November, much shorter than in theUK. His gross sales in the first summer, on one halfan acre, were $20 000, all of which he reinvested inthe farm. (He worked as a carpenter in the winter.)In the second season – which was two monthsshorter, for non-farm reasons – he grew on oneacre and grossed $30 000, with a profit of $10 000.The crops Andrew grew – cut flowers, basil, rocket,French beans, sweet peppers, and other vegeta-bles – are low-volume but high-value. We’d like cityfarms to grow these things.

Another goal is to include more ethnic consumers,producers, and foods at LFM markets. All the foodswould be seasonal and regional, of course. This iswell developed in the USA, in most cases naturally.There wasn’t a central government policy to getHmong and Laotian producers in Massachusetts orWisconsin to grow stuff for the customers comingto city farmers’ markets. It just happened – first,because ‘ethnic minority’ consumers came to farm-ers’ markets, many of which are in cities, andstarted to ask for certain things, and then the ‘ethnicmajority’ farmers started growing what they wantedthem to grow, and then new ethnic minority produc-ers said: ‘Why don’t we grow these things?’ Therehave been more sophisticated efforts to encour-age this. But mostly it just happened because it’s a



81

market place, and the market has a magic quality ofgetting two people together to trade.

It’s happening at farmers’ markets all over theUSA: there are Mexican growers and consumers inCalifornia and Texas, Asians in the Northeast,black Americans in Washington DC. At one of ourDC markets, where the customers were mostlyblack, we learned what they liked to eat, and how.We learned about collard greens and other leafybrassicas like mustard, which are traditionalSouthern foods, and we learned that many peoplepreferred to eat them after one frost had madethem sweet.

In London, there’s a Bengali women’s co-op in theEast End. At the moment they grow, like most inter-esting women’s projects, not even as much as theycan eat themselves. So I say: just grow a little more,because we’re going to have a farmers’ market inTower Hamlets (opened in April 2002), and theneighbourhood is some 70 per cent Bengali.

Finally, we’d like to see more use of derelict landand buildings. I’ve alluded to this on city farms –empty, disused space drives me nuts. In pictures ofthe Havana growing projects, you see tiny spacesfilled with vegetables. In London there is a lot ofspace. It’s the least dense city in Europe. Our tradi-tion has everyone with his own little green patchbehind his house. But it’s not only gardens I have inmind. It’s public space in corners and places likethat. It would be fun to use the Barcelona modelfor city parks. I haven’t been there, but I understand

that instead of big green spaces, they built tinyones; little urban oases, where people could sitdown. It was a new model for open urban spaces.I’d like to see the same approach for growingspaces.

All these goals have one thing in common. InLondon, the string linking these goals and theadvantage for each of them is that there is alreadya known system of selling local foods. It’s not onlyour markets; LFM organises ten weekly markets,but there are others, for example, the high-qualityfood market at Borough, in Southwark. The forumsfor selling local food already exist. I’ve often seenlocal growing projects founder on having nowherefor the produce to go. They’re either growing justfor home consumption, and have too little to sell,or they’ve got no funding to carry on, that is, noincome. Selling retail is the answer.

We would be very pleased to allow allotmentgardeners to form co-ops and sell at LFM’s.Furthermore, an allotment stall at the market wouldbe a great way for local authorities to meet thestatutory Policy and Planning Guidance 17 require-ment that local authorities publicise and encouragethe use of allotments.

Demand for local food is high. Demand is every-where. We can’t meet it. We don’t have the farmers.We spend about a third of our time recruiting farmers.We’re working on that.What we don’t need to work onis finding customers. The customers are there. Anylocal growing project seeking an outlet has one.


THE SOCIAL ROLE OF COMMUNITY FARMSAND GARDENS IN THE CITY

Jeremy Iles


Do we have a form of Urban Agriculture in the UK?If compared to the examples from Cuba or someAfrican countries the answer must be no. But we dohave a thriving network of community gardens, cityfarms, school farms, allotments and community rungrowing projects, all of which constitute urban foodgrowing initiatives which, in total, engage some-thing approaching 10 per cent of the population insome way1.

That the urban area could be used for productivefood growing was demonstrated in the SecondWorld War, when large areas of urban parks, gar-dens and recreational areas were turned over tofood growing. However, since the 1950s ‘homegrown’ food has declined in importance as thepower of supermarkets and the global transporta-tion of food has increased.

WHAT IS A COMMUNITY GARDEN OR A CITY FARM?

To start with we will define a community gardenand a city farm. These are local projects managedfor, and by, local community groups. They aresometimes run as partnerships with local authori-ties, but the essential feature is strong local involve-ment. They exist mostly in built-up areas, wheretheir creation has been a response to the localcommunity’s lack of access to open, informal,community-run green space.

City farms are also known as urban farms, chil-dren’s farms, or community farms. Allotments arenot generally community-managed, but there is agrowing movement for allotment groups to take ondevolved management from the Local Authoritywhich will move them from the ‘statutory’ sector(albeit with legal protection), and more towards the

THE SOCIAL ROLE OF COMMUNITY FARMS AND GARDENS IN THE CITY

83

community-led sector. And within the allotmentmovement there is also a growing number ofgroups that are consciously setting up communitymanaged working with innovative schemes to bringin more community support.

There is no ‘typical’ project, as each developsaccording to the local area and in response to thedeveloping needs of the local community.These proj-ects deliver a wide range of community-managedservices in response to local needs.

All community garden and city farm projects arerun by a local management group and all havestrong volunteer involvement. They are placeswhere people of all ages and from all sections ofthe community are welcome.

Most projects provide food-growing activities, train-ing courses, school visits, community allotmentsand community businesses. In addition, some pro-vide play facilities and sports facilities, and afterschool and holiday schemes.

THE BENEFITS OF A COMMUNITYGARDEN OR CITY FARM PROJECT

Community gardens and city farms are extremelyflexible and adapt to the changing demands of thelocal community. What they have in common isencouragement of social participation and thecreation of sustainable communities, through:

● the creation and management of community-managed green space.

● individual development – by giving people oppor-tunities to take part in many situations, fromlearning to grow their own food and meeting peo-ple, to undertaking a management role.

● social inclusion and cohesion – by being accessibleto people from many different backgrounds and


‘The driving force here,’ says David Gray ofHeeley City Farm, ‘is our commitment to sup-porting those most in need in our community.We offer day care and training for people withlearning disabilities, and NVQs in horticulture,agriculture, basic skills and English as anotherlanguage. And each year we provide environ-mental, food and health-related education to5000 school children.’

‘I think our greatest achievement is employ-ment of local people. 83 per cent of our staffwere formerly unemployed and 60 per cent ofthem live within one mile of the farm.’

The project is also a founder member of HeeleyDevelopment Trust and Sheffield EnvironmentalTraining, which together employ 60 people.Thisled on to their involvement in the creation of thenew Heeley Millennium Park.

New projects in the pipeline include devoting20 hectares to growing food for the local econ-omy, and a partnership with Sheffield BlackCommunity Forum, working with groups onlocal issues and involving ethnic minoritygroups in environmental projects.

Projects contribute directly to community develop-ment by generating social participation, and pro-moting urban regeneration through providing:

● additional green space in the urban environment● a ‘gateway’ into both informal and formal educa-

tional opportunities● local education about food growing and caring for

animals● adult education in a wide range of subjects,

e.g. gardening, horticulture, animal husbandry,English as a second language, computer skills

● school visits and educational activities● pre school activities


84

offering people who are isolated ways to extendtheir networks.

● strengthening and regenerating urban and othercommunities – by enabling people to get involvedin community activities. Such involvement fosterspride and identification within a local community,which encourages people to participate in publicaffairs.

Through social participation, community gardensand city farms can help people learn new skills andgain self-confidence. Access is free which rein-forces their integrative potential.

Bradford City Farm

A project working with young people, espe-cially from the Asian community, showing thebenefits of farming and growing.

‘You don’t have to be sitting behind a desk,’says Manager, Rob Dark, ‘to learn somethingthat’ll prove useful in later life! We do a lot ofwork with young people, including thoseexcluded from school, and have developeda successful “work-readiness” programme forfinal year students. There are many linksbetween farming and growing and theNational Curriculum, and local schools areregular visitors.’

The project also provides placements for long-term unemployed people and adults with spe-cial needs; helps with community planting andgarden design; and sells produce at the localfarmers’ market.

Heeley City Farm, Sheffield

A project in a deprived inner city area employ-ing 34 staff, supporting up to 100 volunteers,and welcoming around 100 000 adult visitorsa year.



85

● play facilities and sports facilities● after school and holiday play schemes● placements for people with learning difficulties

and other special needs● community allotments and community orchards● community enterprise development and training,

e.g. cafes, horse riding lessons, garden centreactivities, community businesses.

They appeal to a wide range of people and can cre-ate opportunities for disadvantaged and minoritygroups. They can also generate local economicactivity and community businesses.

Community activity is the hallmark of city farmingand community gardening projects, and it is fun-damental to promoting well functioning and sus-tainable communities. This in turn will lead to thedevelopment of a greater confidence and skillsbase within a local community – social participationleads directly to the growth of social capital, that is,the ability of a community to take an interest in andto shape its own future.

Welbeck Road Allotments Association Trust,Derbyshire

Derelict allotments have become a showcasefor urban regeneration.

‘It all started with a hedge!’ says Manager,Mike Gosnell. ‘Plotholders were demoralisedby the activities of thieves and petty vandals,and decided that a hedge might keep trouble-makers out. We applied for Local Agenda 21funding, employed a hedge-layer, and enlistedlocal children to help. The Council was veryimpressed with the results.’

Now they have a hazel coppice, a clubhouse,and a wildlife pond where a tip used to be.Theyare planting an orchard, setting up a communitypolytunnel and planning many other projects.

They have won local awards, and have receivedmuch publicity.

‘From feeling powerless and dependent on thecouncil, we’ve become proactive. We initiateideas and get funding from a number of sources.We’ve transformed the threat of vandalism intothe regeneration of the site.’

POLICY ON FOOD PRODUCTIONAND SUSTAINABILITY

If social participation in community-based garden-ing and farming activities can lead to a greaterunderstanding by the urban majority about the foodproduced, largely in rural areas, then this may con-tribute to a greater common understanding, andthus social cohesion. In turn, the rural farming pop-ulation needs to acknowledge that efforts to createeducational opportunities around food growing andenvironmental issues will bring new demands formore responsible agricultural practices and envi-ronmental stewardship.

The government has recognised this, and throughwork at the Department for Education and Skills,has piloted a new ‘Growing Schools’ initiative, topromote active learning opportunities throughgrowing and farming. City farms and communitygardens, allotments and school growing areas willall have a role to play. By laying the seeds of a bet-ter understanding of food production at schools,the hope is that a new generation will grow up witha better understanding of the true value of food,and with the knowledge to make informed deci-sions about future food policy.

In addition, the Home Office is keen to promote amore socially inclusive society, and the Departmentfor Transport and Local Government has recognised


the value of promoting increased social participationthrough a growth in the number of community-ledgardening and farming projects. At a policy level wecan expect to see policies being introduced which inturn might lead to a growth in the number andgeographical spread of community gardens and cityfarms, as well as school growing projects andcommunity-led allotments groups. The provision ofresources will, needless to say, be another matter.

ENCOURAGING AN EXISTING ORNEW PROJECT

Whilst local authorities might be tempted to set upa ‘community project’ from top down, it is better tofacilitate and encourage genuine grassroots socialparticipation and community activity. Awareness,and promotion, of the benefits through the localcommunity will reveal community or school groupswho have, or would like to, set up new projects.

Local authority officers and councillors will need todevelop supportive relationships with these groupsto examine ways of making the projects stronger,well managed and financially stable.

Culpeper Community Garden, London

An organic inner city community garden,worked by individuals and by groups.

‘We hear a lot about community involvementand empowerment: in practice it can be themost uplifting thing,’ says Clare Sutton, ProjectWorker at Culpeper, and Chair of the Federationof City Farms and Community Gardens.

The 48 plots on the community garden are areal local resource: used by a playgroup, aschool, a mental health day service, and anorganisation for people with learning difficulties.


86

The garden is open to the public and is popularwith local workers at lunchtime. Garden workersand volunteers help with maintenance. Eventssuch as a children’s summer art project,pensioners’ strawberry teas and plant salesare organised to bring local people into thegarden.

How are projects like this funded?

Projects are funded from a variety of sourcesdepending on their stage of development andsophistication.

Local authorities often provide core funds forsalaries, and there are several streams of Lotteryfunds, which might be available for feasibility stud-ies and project development. In addition, projectscan sometimes access regional development funds,single regeneration funds and European funds.When applying for funds, help in kind and volunteertime should be valued as match funding.

Once established, many projects become more self-sufficient by charging fees for training courses andplacements, and developing income generatingactivities such as cafes, horse riding, sports facilities,after school and holiday clubs. This kind of serviceprovision is also often grant-aided by the localauthority. However, when successful, such socialenterprise becomes not only an income generator,but also another kind of social participation, leadingto further strengthening fo the local community.Projects also fundraise from corporate and charit-able sources, as well as from the local community.

What resources are needed to run asuccessful community-led project?

The greatest need that projects have, especiallywhen they are starting out, is local political support



87

through committee and officer time: a clear signthat the project is valued and welcomed. Projectsneed clear support mechanisms through the coun-cil to develop a genuine partnership. This will helpgreatly with forward planning, credibility, and identi-fying funding needs.

Local authorities can also help by identifying landand making it available for a new project at a lowrent. Needless to say, projects may also needfinancial assistance, particularly to help in thelonger-term stability of a project.

Although difficult to quantify, local authorities shouldrecognise the social participation and ‘communitybenefits’ that these projects bring: it is not simply aquestion of profit and loss, and subsidies may beseen to bring benefits far in excess of the financialgrant.

Wellgate Community Farm, Romford

A small suburban project, this is a resource foreveryone in the local community.

‘It’s all about including people,’ says Manager,Rob Gayler, ‘providing a “growing space” forgroups and individuals. People come to thefarm because they want to work with animals,but they stay because of the people. Visitorsare welcome but the emphasis is on involve-ment, and we have volunteers of all ages.’

The project offers training for adults with spe-cial needs and has a horticultural therapy teamfor people recovering from mental illness.Theywork with youngsters who are non-attendersor excluded from school, and many of them goon to further training and employment.

Schools are encouraged to visit the farm, andthe farm visits local schools! ‘Sometimes it’seasier to move the animals than the children,’

says Rob, ‘so we take them in the horseboxand meet the children on the school field!’

A VISION FOR THE FUTURE

The value of social participation through city farms,community gardens and other related community-led growing projects has never been better under-stood by policy makers. We can therefore lookforward to a gradual growth in their provision, andhopefully in a recognition that they provide a valu-able local service which needs proper capital andrevenue funding. If every school child could beintroduced to the concepts of sustainable foodgrowing, and every town has access to a city farmor community garden, we would be getting some-where. That vision may be some way off, but it is avision we will work towards.

THE FEDERATION OF CITY FARMSAND COMMUNITY GARDENS

The Federation of City Farms and CommunityGardens (FCFCG) is a UK-wide charity representingcity farms, community gardens, a network of schoolfarms, some community-led allotment groups, andcommunity groups involved in projects in parks. Intotal, we represent 65 city farms, more than 1000community gardens, 75 school farms and around20 allotment groups. In addition, we have records ofsome 200 potential farm or garden projects.

Between them, our member projects employ 550staff and engage and empower thousands of vol-unteers, with two thirds of projects run entirely byvolunteers. Projects attract over three million visitorsand regular users each year and have a combinedturnover of around £6 million.



88

The Federation of City Farms and CommunityGardens provides:

● advice and information packs on developingcommunity gardens and city farms

● animal welfare, health and safety, and child pro-tection guidelines

● model documentation for establishing a newgroup or charity

● case studies on good practice● individual advice to new projects with project vis-

its from experienced practitioners● advice on sources of funds and how to apply.

In addition, FCFCG may be contracted to undertakefeasibility studies and to work with local groups todevelop funding bids.

NOTE

1. Number of visitors per year is based upon thefollowing estimate:

350 000 allotment plots � 2 people average700 000

65 city farms @ 50 000 visitors per year3 250 000

75 school farms @ 1000 pupils

75 000

1000� community gardens @ 100 people peryear 1 000 000

Total estimate 5 025 000


RECYCLING SYSTEMS AT THE URBANSCALE

Dr Margi Lennartsson


The Henry Doubleday Research Association(HDRA) is an organisation that deals with organichorticulture in its widest sense – from domestic gar-dening to allotments, landscaping, and commercialorganic production. One of our key concerns is thecomposting of organic waste for use in urban horti-culture. Over the past decade we’ve seen the dawnof a new era for waste management. Gone are thedays when we would think it acceptable to collectour waste and then just dump it in a big landfill site,or even pump it into the sea. Instead, we’ve seenrecycling plants, including composting facilities,established all over the country.

The first big step towards a greater emphasis oncomposting came in 1990 with the publication ofthe government White Paper ‘This Common Inherit-ance,’ which set very clear targets for recycling.Over the years these targets have been updatedand expanded. A second milestone came in 1999,with the introduction of the EU Landfill Directive,which sets clear limits on how much material canbe sent to landfill, with targets based on landfill vol-umes in 1995. Thus, by 2010 the UK must landfillno more than 75 per cent of the volume of wastedisposed of through that route in 1995, 50 per centby 2030, and 35 per cent by 2020. This representsa dramatic shift in our reliance upon landfill. TheEU Landfill Directive also refers specifically tobiodegradable waste, with the implication for theUK that by 2010 we will have to divert three and ahalf million tons of biodegradable waste per annumfrom landfill. At the moment we divert about onemillion tons, so although we already have seventybig composting sites across the country, this isreally is just the beginning: we still have a long wayto go before we can be confident of achieving thetargets.

There are various ways of disposing of biodegrad-able waste which avoid one of the drawbacks oflandfill – the consequent free emissions of methane,

a very potent greenhouse gas. One option isanaerobic digestion, which can generate someusable energy, but this method still leaves a residuewhich has to be disposed of somehow. Incinerationis another well-supported option, but an imperfectone, since wet biodegradable waste is not particu-larly fitted to incineration, as it reduces the calorificvalue of the waste. Thus, the third option, compost-ing, looks to many (including HDRA) as the mostcost-effective way of moving forward.

Actually, there are a number of different compost-ing options from which to choose.There are on-siteoptions, including home composting, (i.e. compost-ing material in our own domestic gardens), com-munity composting, and on-farm composting. Andthen there are centralised composting units, eitheropen-air systems, which are the most common atpresent, or the in-vessel systems that are begin-ning to emerge. Let’s examine these options indetail.

Many people, and especially urban horticulturalists,are very familiar with domestic on-site compostingin the garden, in which biodegradable waste is col-lected from the garden and placed on a compostheap along with selected kitchen vegetable waste.Most local authorities are involved in active initia-tives to promote this sort of composting, becauseit’s obviously one of the best ways of divertingbiodegradable waste. No transport at all is involved,since the waste stays at home, and households cre-ate their own compost, which can then replacesome of the inputs that would otherwise be used inthe garden. Local authorities are also getting a lot ofhelp in encouraging more domestic composting, forexample through the efforts of HDRA and otherorganisations in promoting composting educationprogrammes: how to set them up, how to get peopleinvolved, and how to present the message. Thereis also the Master Composting Manual, a guidefor local authorities on successful implementation


90


of home composting schemes. There are goodfunctioning examples of campaigns to emulate,such as Rugby Borough Council’s ‘Rugby Rotter’and the Coventry Composter Newsletter. And thereare large amounts of practical information availableto the public on home composting, such as thatproduced at HDRA.

An alternative centralised option is open-air windrowcomposting. Not everyone can compost their owndomestic waste at home. There are always going tobe some wastes that have to be collected at thecurbside and brought to central sites for composting.At present these facilities are usually located outsidethe city boundaries, or even in the rural areas. Thematerial is fed through a large shredder in which it ismacerated to make it uniform and more accessiblefor micro-organisms. These facilities do not have tobe large-scale, although many are. Smaller-scaleequipment is available for use in parks and by gar-den landscapers, with the shredder simply mountedon the back of a tractor.

After shredding, the material is placed in what arecalled windrows – long heaps, usually around2 metres high and 3 metres wide.The material staysin the windrows for about twelve to sixteen weeks,and it is during this time that the composting takesplace. The material has to be turned regularly,because composting is an aerobic process andrequires air. When the material is macerated, themicro-organisms within it start to break it down,generating heat – composting is basically decom-position under elevated temperatures. If the mate-rial were just left undisturbed the temperature couldeasily climb to 70 or even 80 degrees centigradevery quickly. But the most effective temperature forthe composting process is around 45 degrees, soto maintain that temperature the material is turnedregularly, around once a week, sometimes by dedi-cated equipment that straddles the compost heap,turning it as it moves down the row.

After the composting process has been completed,the material is normally moved into an even biggerpile, where it remains for another month or two, orperhaps even longer, as it goes through its matura-tion phase. After that, it is passed through a largesieve or screen, which sorts it into different sizefractions, with the big material taken out, and thewoody stuff going back for further composting. Andthus, almost by magic, at the end of this processyou have wonderful, humus-rich compost.

Within urban settings, the in-vessel system may bemore appropriate. Here, the composting processtakes place indoors, mainly to control the emissions.With a well-run outdoor system you can controlodours quite well, but there are times when any col-lection of waste will give off odours, and that’s obvi-ously unacceptable within an urban area. Hence inHolland, for example, with its very high populationdensity, in-vessel systems have been developedand deployed much more extensively.

When you compost indoors, instead of turning thematerial, you normally force or suck air through it,to keep it aerated. Any air leaving the unit is filteredand cleaned before it leaves, so in environmentalterms it is a very clean system. But it is also a verycomplex system, which makes the handling of thewaste much more expensive.

No matter how it is made, it is the finished compostthat provides the connection with urban agriculture,and indeed agriculture as a whole, for compost isreally one of the most useful resources upon whichagriculture can draw – especially organic production.Compost can be put to many uses, and distributedthrough a variety of market channels.

Most of the compost produced by centralised units,and of course all the compost produced in domes-tic units, is used by the domestic sector. Thiscompost is suitable for use as a soil improver with-out any further treatment: it can be dug in before

RECYCLING SYSTEMS AT THE URBAN SCALE

91


vegetables are sown or incorporated into the soilaround the roots of newly planted trees. It can alsobe mixed according to balanced formulae withthings like bark, or other wood fibre, to make agrowing medium for container-grown plants: theunblended compost is rarely suitable for direct useas a potting compost. Compost can also be formu-lated with fibrous materials, such as bark, for useas a peat replacement.

If we consider the statistics on compost usage andlikely supply, however, it is clear that once the targetsare reached, very large volumes of compost will begenerated that will very soon satisfy these domesticsector markets. Although every householder shouldbe encouraged to use compost, we know that thismarket is not big enough to absorb all the compostthat will become available. Indeed, it has been esti-mated that if all biodegradable waste were to becomposted then the domestic sector market wouldbe able to absorb only 2 per cent of the material pro-duced. There must be further expansion, therefore,in the use of compost by the landscaping industry inurban parks and gardens. And, more importantly,some of this material will eventually go to agricul-ture. Agriculture is the secure, large-volume marketfor compost, and HDRA is working hard to promoteits use on farms.

The horticultural benefits of compost can be sum-marised as follows. Compost is decomposed humicmaterial with nutrients, and it is most widely used toimprove the structure of soils. Heavy clay soil can belightened with it, improving water infiltration and thecrumb structure of the soil. In sandy soil compostbinds the sand with other particles and increaseswater retention. All plant production – food produc-tion – is dependent on having a well-structuredsoil, and it is here, in the promotion of food produc-tion, that one of the important benefits of compostlies. Compost can also supply plant nutrients, both short-term and long-term, and therefore act as

an effective replacement, or at least a partialreplacement, for artificial fertilisers, and one that ismore sustainable, given that artificial fertilisers veryenergy demanding.

But perhaps the biggest benefit of all lies in themicrobiological activity which compost supports.Compost is full of microbes – a great diversity oforganisms – and adding these microbes is good forthe soil. But these microbes are in the compost inthe first place because it contains energy, thesources upon which these organism rely to beactive. Adding this energy source – the organicmatter – to the soil therefore helps to increase thebiological activity within the soil itself, with conse-quent improvements resulting to the structure of thesoil, because active microbes secrete substancesthat help glue soil particles together. Furthermore,a microbially active soil can actually control somepests and diseases.

Nevertheless, some barriers remain to the greateruse of compost in food production. As regards itsuse in agriculture, while this is potentially thelargest market, there are problems related to thecosts associated with using compost. Compost is alow-value product, and the main value associatedwith it is the saving in environmental costs derivedby not sending its source material to landfill. Butmoving compost long distances away from thepoints of production will mean incurring new trans-port costs. We should therefore encourage the useof compost for food production within urban andperi-urban areas, as well as in the traditional urbanmarkets detailed above, in order to keep thesecosts to a minimum.

Note: this chapter is a transcript of a lecture deliv-ered by Dr Margi Lennartsson, Director ofInternational Research at the Henry DoubledayResearch Association. It has been edited byRichard Wiltshire.


92


THREE

PLANNING FOR CPULS: OPEN URBAN SPACE

PART


FOOD IN TIME: THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

OPEN URBAN SPACE AS A EUROPEAN EXAMPLE

Joe Howe, Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen



96

Figure 13.1

Figure 13.1 1942 Albert Memorial, London.


FOOD IN TIME

97

In Britain, as in much of the developed world, thevery idea of growing food in the city, to many, soundsnaive or even perverse. By contrast, urban food pro-duction in other parts of the world is a central featureof everyday life. For many poorer developing coun-tries, urban agriculture is more a matter of economicvalue than of recreational or aesthetic preference(Lewcock, 1996).The scale of urban agriculture else-where is often staggering by Western standards.Across Chinese cities as a whole, 85 per cent of veg-etables consumed by residents are produced withinthose cities and Shanghai and Beijing are fully self-sufficient in vegetables (Hough, 1995). This informa-tion may seem irrelevant to rich European countries.However, the degree to which attitudes towardsurban food production are based on culture ratherthan wealth is demonstrated by the case of affluentHong Kong. Here, vegetables to meet 45 per cent of

local demand are grown on 5–6% of the total landarea (Garnett, 1996).

In this chapter we will examine European cites tosee why and when they have accommodated urbanagriculture. We will do this by considering, in themain, the history of urban food growing in Britain.While this situation will not exactly match that foundin other countries, it broadly follows a similar patternand so the lessons learnt can be applied elsewhere.

WHERE WE LIVE IS WHERE WE GROW

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the absence ofsophisticated, high capacity transport systems and

Figure 13.2

Figure 13.2 Sheep being herded down a north London Street, November 1940.


settlements. Nearly all European towns and citiesdid not exceed 30 000 inhabitants living on an aver-age 5 hectare urbanised area. Even London, as lateas the seventeenth century, was contained almostentirely within a mile and a half radius, ensuring thatvirtually all of its inhabitants lived close to the coun-tryside and to their source of food production.

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ANDSUBURBAN UTOPIAS: THE DIVORCEOF CITIES AND FOOD PRODUCTION

The close relationship between urban populationsand food production largely fell apart during theVictorian Industrial Revolution. At first, despite dra-matic population growth, poor transportation meantthat the physical expansion of cities was limited.Thischanged from the mid-nineteenth century onwardswith the building of the railways allowing people tolive much further away from their work places. By thelate nineteenth century, the sheer scale of the greatindustrial cities with their dense urban developmentand lack of green space separated millions of peoplefrom any immediate contact with food production.

The desperately unhealthy living conditions enduredby urban factory workers and alienation from naturewere causes of mounting concern. One importantattempt to reintroduce open urban space was thedevelopment of the municipal park, adopted forexample in the UK, in the second half of thenineteenth century (Nicholson-Lord, 1987) (seeChapter 14). The other was the spread of urbanallotments during the same time.

Most large parks in European cities date from thenineteenth century. Their often picturesque land-scapes, modelled on the open countryside, forests or

of preservation techniques such as refrigeration,inevitably meant that people had to grow food close towhere they lived. Consequently, for thousands ofyears, built and cultivated environments co-existed:homes, markets, public buildings, and sacred placeswere interspersed with kitchen gardens, farms andcommon grazing land delivering food for the settle-ment’s population. Towns and cities had distinctedges, often defined by city walls or by geographicalfeatures such as rivers or marshland. Open spacedevoted to food within the city’s boundary mighthave been small and patchy, but urban settlementswould supplement this by using a distinct rural areaaround their boundaries for food production.

Food that was grown outside built settlement bound-aries presented few supply and transport problemsgiven the small size of pre-Industrial Revolution


98

Figure 13.3

Figure 13.3 A wartime roof garden in London.


feudal property, attracted the city dweller for leisureactivities. Leisure was free, with outdoor pursuits likewalking, sitting, reading, picnicking, ball games, iceskating, etc., all with a choice of minor commercialinvolvement in the form of small entrance fees or icecream. The park’s significance as leisure space hasremained unchanged since and is still associatedwith similar activities, though leisure activity nowtakes more diverse forms (see Part Five).

Smaller urban settlements often faced fewer spatialproblems during industrialisation and, in conse-quence, did not develop inner-city urban parks ofsignificant scale. In these towns and cities it wasthe urban periphery that provided open urbanspace for city dwellers, both in the form of openpark landscape (often agricultural/farmland) adja-cent to the settlement and house gardens andallotments in the developing suburbia.

Allotments were originally established in the earlyeighteenth century to compensate the landless ruralpoor for the enclosure of common land by wealthylandowners (Crouch and Ward, 1988).Their functionwas to provide a nutritional and economic safety netagainst unemployment or to supplement meagreincomes. The need for urban allotments arose soonafter this and became acute during the nineteenthcentury as the trickle of landless poor migrating tothe great cities became a flood. Allotment provisionat this point was largely private and ad hoc.

But by the late nineteenth century the growingpower and responsibilities of local governmentwere reflected in the first allotments legislation.Acts of 1887 and 1892 required local authorities forthe first time to provide allotments for the labouringpoor where need was shown. These Acts wereconsolidated and the requirement for municipalprovision strengthened in the 1908 Small Holdingsand Allotments Act. This Act remains the principal

piece of legislation governing allotments (Crouchand Ward, 1988). Comparable developments wereoccurring in other parts of Europe, for example, theintroduction of Schrebergärten in Germany.

Urban food growing in general, and allotments in par-ticular, featured prominently in Ebenezer Howard’sGarden Cities of Tomorrow first published in 1898.Howard’s ideas drew on an earlier ‘back to the landtradition’ embodied in examples such as Bournvillemodel village built by enlightened industrialist GeorgeCadbury for his workers near Birmingham in 1895(Marsh, 1982).

Howard’s garden city envisaged the planned dis-persal of the population from the overcrowdedslums of the great industrial cities of Britain to newtowns. These were to be located beyond a greenbelt, separating them and their ‘parent’ city. Eachwas to have a population of approximately 30 000and be grouped around a larger central city in poly-nuclear fashion – the whole creating a ‘social city.’

Food production within or around Howard’s gardencities was a key element. In each city, five-sixthsof the area was devoted to food production.Residential space was to be divided into generousplots of 20 by 130 feet, which Howard envisagedwould be sufficient to feed a family of at least fivepeople. In addition, allotments ringed the settlementperipheries. Twentieth century garden city deriva-tives like Welwyn and Letchworth never quite devel-oped into the self-sufficient, food-producing entitiesoriginally conceived. Notwithstanding this, 33 newtowns were built (Ward, 1993), with at least anambition to integrate landscape and living space.

While Howard’s theories had far reaching effectson town planning across Europe, it is probablytrue to say that the town planning theories of LeCorbusier, expounded in ‘The City of Tomorrow

FOOD IN TIME

99


and its Planning ’ (Le Corbusier, 1971) and firstpublished in 1924, had the greatest internationalinfluence on the architecture and urban planning ofthe twentieth century.

Le Corbusier’s attitude to Howard’s theories arewell summarised by Maurice Besset:

Le Corbusier’s debt to the theorists of the gardencity is equally certain and no less ambiguous.Of course, he spoke out against the danger of‘de-urbanisation’ which the garden cities repre-sented, for they proposed a false solution to thecity and could only lead to ‘a sterile isolation ofthe individual,’ whom they would maintain in ‘aslavery organised by capitalist society.’ As hefought against the ‘corridor-street’ and the slumsit gives rise to, so he fought against the ‘greatillusion’ of the individual home, taking up spaceand generating circulation.To the horizontal gar-den city he opposed as early as 1922 his large,regenerated apartment building, his verticalgarden city. This apartment block, consisting inessence of superimposed villas, this immeuble-villa as he called it, reduced distances and facil-itated social contacts and integration of thedifferent urban functions. But whether thedwellings were grouped vertically or horizon-tally, it was still a garden city and the sameessential joys promised by Howard and hisfriends towards which sails, above the trees ofthe green belt, the great concrete ship of theapartment block which he called the Unité deHabitation, the housing unit.

(Besset, 1987)

Although not named as such, Urban and Peri-UrbanAgriculture play a central role in Le Corbusier’surban thinking. In Chapter 13 of ‘The City ofTomorrow’, under the heading ‘Concerning GardenCities’ he describes precisely how urban agriculturecould be accommodated without reducing the

overall density of suburbs. Analysing a typical suburban housing plot of 400 m2 he proposes allo-cating 150 m2 to a communal market garden. ‘Therewould be a farmer in charge of every 100 such plotsand intensive cultivation would be employed . . .Orchards lie between the houses and the cultivatedland’ (Le Corbusier, 1971).

Later, Le Corbusier wrote about what would todaybe called Peri-Urban Agriculture. By 1945, he haddefined ‘three human establishments’: The FarmUnit, The Linear Industrial City, and the Radio-Concentric Change-Over City. What we find inter-esting today, about these proposals, is the way theypresent a series of overlaid networks. Within thisconception of the city, agricultural land provides akind of underlying carpet across which linear citiesbetween 50 and 200 kilometres long form strands ina network, the nodes of which become radio-concentric change-over cities.The clear boundariesbetween farm units and cities are symptomatic of aprevailing interest in zoning (Besset, 1987). If wereview these proposals today, Le Corbusier’s FarmUnit would be considered peri-urban agriculture.The triangulated network of linear cities hesketched would result in food growing for citieswithin the limits currently set by the manages ofLondon’s farmers’ markets (see Chapter 10).

Taking a different position to Le Corbusier’s, theNorth American architect Frank Lloyd Wrightpublished during the middle of the twentieth centuryand towards the end of his life a series of essays,eventually brought together in his book, ‘The LivingCity .’ Wright’s vision of the living city could best besummarised as integrating agriculture into dispersedsuburban settlements.The living city may be read asa tirade against what Wright saw as dehumanisingaspects of ‘purism,’ the architecture emerging fromEurope in response to the machine age. Much ofthe tone of the volume appears to despair at the con-sequences of conflict and a non-human-centred


100


economy: ‘ . . . instead of practising democracy, wenow defend only what we call our interests. So we gofrom war to war.’ (Lloyd Wright, 1970).

In common with Le Corbusier’s vision, Wright’sliving city celebrates personal transport, although ina somewhat eccentric manner. But within LloydWright’s proposition, we find a vision that resonateswith current architectural thinking about theessence and generative power of the concept oflandscape: ‘Architecture and acreage (agriculturalland) will be seen together as landscape, as wasthe best in antique architecture, and will becomemore essential to each other.’ (Lloyd Wright, 1970).

This notion of ‘Architecture and acreage, seentogether as landscape,’ is perhaps Wright’s great-est gift to contemporary architects and urbanists.As an idea, it frees us from distinctions betweenurban and suburban, and also helps to articulatea vision of a city driven by Ecological Intensification,where productive landscapes can stand equalto traditional development in the built environment.While architects have started to deal with land-scape and building, informing each other at anarchitectural scale, variously referred to as earthbuildings, groundscrapers, landscrapers or sub-scrapers (Brayer and Simonot, 2003; Betsky, 2002;Richards, 2002) at the scale of a city, these issuesare only beginning to be addressed.

URBAN FOOD AND CONFLICT

But it was not the ideas of architects that had themost dramatic effect on urban agriculture in Britainand Europe between 1900 and 1945 – the biggeststimulant to urban food production in Europe wasundoubtedly war.

In both World Wars, the real threat of starvationposed by blockades prompted campaigns to

increase indigenous food output, much of it fromurban agriculture. In the First World War, seriousUK government campaigning to boost food pro-duction did not start until 1917 for fear, as withrationing, of damaging civilian morale. Despite this,campaign results were dramatic. The number ofallotments, each typically 250 m2 in area, roughlytripled from between 450 000 to 600 000 in 1913 tobetween 1 300 000 and 1 500 000 by late 1917,which together produced 2 000 000 tons of veget-ables (Crouch and Ward, 1988).

Between the wars, interest in allotments and otherforms of urban food growing declined throughoutEurope, although it never fell back to pre-1914levels. Mass unemployment from the late 1920sonwards sparked a revival in allotment interest as avaluable means of self-help. Philanthropic groups ofvarious kinds, in Britain notably the Society ofFriends, ran schemes providing fertiliser, seeds andtools. Currently, similar support mechanisms havebeen introduced in Cuba, to support its nationalprogramme of urban agriculture (see Chapter 17).

At the outbreak of the Second World War, the UKgovernment was determined not to repeat themistake of the previous conflict in leaving prepara-tions for boosting home food production too late.Accordingly, the famous ‘Dig for Victory’ campaignwas launched by the Minister of Agriculture in October1939. As in 1917–18, the results of the campaignwere impressive. By the middle of the war, a surveyshowed over half of all manual workers were produc-ing food from either an allotment plot or garden, andby the war’s end there were approximately 1 500 000allotments. In 1944 these, together with gardens andother plots of land, including parks turned into fields,were meeting fully ten per cent of national food needsand around half the nation’s fruit and vegetablerequirements (Crouch and Ward, 1988). In additionto fruit and vegetables, livestock clubs also sprangup in abundance.

FOOD IN TIME

101



102

Figure 13.4

Figure 13.4 1939–1945, The Tower of London.


FOOD IN TIME

103

Figure 13.5

Figure 13.5 1939–1945, Sunday Morning, Clapham Common, London.


URBAN REBUILDING AND URBANFOOD DECLINE

In Britain, the end of the ‘Dig for Victory’ campaignwas followed by a sharp decline in urban food pro-duction. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a greatdeal of food growing land was returned to its origi-nal pre-war use or lost to new development. Thecombined effect of the new welfare state, effec-tively full employment and increasing prosperitymeant that people no longer saw a need to growtheir own food. Furthermore, allotments sufferedfrom an image problem: they were associated withwartime austerity and ‘make do’ and certainly didnot chime with the spirit of an age dedicated to sci-entific progress and youth culture.

To address the issues surrounding the decline inallotment use, the incoming Wilson Government setup an inquiry chaired by Professor Harry Thorpe in


104

Figure 13.6

Figure 13.7

Figure 13.6 Children digging in their school’s vegetable garden.

Figure 13.7 Girton college students during the Second World War.


1964. Thorpe appreciated the value of allotments,but was deeply critical of the allotment movement asa whole. He believed that the best hope of allotmentsurvival in the affluent new age lay in re-creatingthem as ‘leisure-gardens,’ which avoided the charit-able associations of the term ‘allotment.’Thorpe alsoobserved that the legislation surrounding allotmentswas highly confusing. Amongst his 44 recommenda-tions, he called for a new allotment Act to rationalisethe law. However, to date, none of Thorpe’s recom-mendations have been taken up by government.Thorpe’s proposals are by no means universallyadmired (see Chapter 15), critics arguing that one ofthe consequences of adopting them would havebeen to deny the informal and self-directed use ofallotments, which is essential to their character andfunction in the city. But to deny the positive aspects ofThorpe’s recommendations is equally short-sighted.Indeed, the observations made by the authors, oflayers of occupation at the Moulsecoombe allotmentnear Brighton (see Chapter 19) show how allotmentsare already being used for leisure. If we think ofallotments as one component of productive urbanlandscape, set within continuous landscape, thenThorpe’s leisure concepts may be seen as promptsfor a new understanding of leisure landscapes.

REVIVAL AND DIVERSIFICATION OFURBAN FOOD GROWING

Since the 1970s, environmental awareness groupsbacked by local authorities, public developers andcommunity enthusiasts have also been battling tosafeguard, promote or improve open urban space.Whilst this might have been less important for theestablished urban parkscape, it encouraged a dif-ferent approach to the design of new types of openspace, often benefiting smaller, underused orformerly industrial (brownfield) inner-urban sites.

The early 1970s marked a change in fortune forallotments and brought new forms of urban foodgrowing activity in Britain. The main reason seems tohave been a growing environmental ethic, developedinitially during the 1960s, as alternative lifestyles, andnotions of self-sufficiency supported by the use ofalternative (renewable) energy led to a renewedappreciation of urban food production. The effect ofthis culture shift was to greatly reduce the rate of allot-ment loss in Britain (down by 84 per cent from 1970to 1977) and sharply increase the demand for allot-ments in many places. This burgeoning environmen-tal awareness also gave rise to the development ofnew forms of urban food growing activity – notably theurban farm and community garden movements.

In Britain, the first urban farm was started in KentishTown, North London, in 1971, and by the 1990s thereexisted more than 60 such farms all over the coun-try (Hough, 1995). Urban farms are about more thansimply bringing the countryside into the city. Theyare invariably located in poorer districts and the mostsuccessful have tended to act as a focus for environ-mentally conscious urban regeneration. Within thisbroad framework, most farms are multi-purposeentities, although environmental education is alwaysa strong theme. Farms generally keep livestock forfood, for educational purposes and for their otherproducts, as well as running garden or allotmentplots. Many have a commercial aspect with craftworkshops, shops and restaurants selling farm pro-duce and offering activities such as horse riding.They also provide venues for public meetings andfrequently run training courses.

The closely related concept of community gardensoriginated in the USA in the early 1970s. Like urbanfarms, what characterises community gardens anddistinguishes them from traditional allotments, is theemphasis on group activity and their role as a focusfor community regeneration. They tend to differ fromurban farms in being generally smaller and in not

FOOD IN TIME

105


having livestock, although exceptions exist. Themovement has often been strongest in deprivedurban districts, in places like The Bronx and Harlemin New York, where women, particularly black women,are especially prominent as activists and participants(Hynes, 1996). In 1978, the American CommunityGardening Association (ACGA) was formed and themovement has since grown dramatically. Between1990 and 1992, the ACGA reported the setting up of523 new community gardens in 24 cities across theUSA (Hynes, 1996). In New York alone, the GreenThumb Community Gardening Programme hasdeveloped from its inception in 1978 to encompass700 community groups across the city by the mid-1990s (Garnett, 1996).The community gardens con-cept has now become established in Britain, and isrepresented by the Association of City Farms andCommunity Gardens (see Chapter 11).

URBAN AGRICULTURE ANDSUSTAINABILITY

The emergence of the idea of sustainability, whichwas a defining feature of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit,was instrumental in raising environmental awarenessand provided a powerful rationale for reassessingcontemporary design and development strategies.

Within architecture, the major impact was on findingways of reducing the energy consumption of buildingsand thereby reducing their greenhouse gas emis-sions. As a result of investment in marketing, publica-tions, competitions and demonstration projects, by, forexample, the European Union, Professional Bodies,National Institutions and Investors, most architectshave become aware of the factors contributing tosustainable building design. At a national level, build-ing codes have been amended to improve the energyefficiency of new development.

By contrast, the environmental benefits of sustainablelandscape design have received less extensive pub-licity, although by now concepts such as ecologicalcorridors are well established. Publications in thisfield are becoming more common as the impor-tance of an integrated view of urban development isappreciated (Santamouris, 2001; Thompson andSorvig, 2000).

The significance of urban agriculture within contem-porary open urban space is highly variable accord-ing to the city examined.The environmental benefitsof urban agriculture are only now beginning to beidentified and acknowledged, and currently its signif-icance is very different in developed and developingcountries. In developing countries, urban agricul-ture is largely driven by ecomic need, while in devel-oped countries it is more likely to have arisen inresponse to social or recreational needs and desires(see Part Four – Planning for CPULs: InternationalExperience). In Europe, interest in allotment holding,urban farming or community gardening has con-stantly increased in recent years, with a resultingresurgence of urban food growing.

Taking Britain as an example, it is true to say thatthere has been nothing like the investment in urbanlandscapes which took place in the nineteenth cen-tury with the development of large municipal parks(see Chapter 13). In Britain, there has been little cel-ebration of contemporary urban landscape until veryrecently. Some new interventions, i.e. those in theeast of London (Mile End Park and Thames BarrierPark, see Chapter 14 – Open Urban Space Atlas)have now received positive publicity. On the otherhand, significant work is currently being carried outwithin Milton Keynes, one of the new towns whichwas built during the twentieth century as a conse-quence of Howard’s garden city theories.

Milton Keynes retains and is developing a legacy ofpublic parkland, using innovative management, in


106


support of the public interest. This supports one ofHoward’s ambitions, which was to avoid inflatedland prices and thus retain open urban space. Hisnotion was that new town companies would pur-chase land for development, rent houses to resi-dents and, once the land was paid for, invest rentsin the improvement of the public realm. WithinMilton Keynes farsighted plans integrating parklandinto the town, and a contemporary financial andmanagement strategy are supporting open urbanspace and gaining recognition:

. . . The single statistic that it has planted twentymillion trees, and the fact that it has inside itsboundaries the largest, most diverse park sys-tem of any city in the UK, should be enough tochange perceptions . . . The parks are not themonotonous, scrubby, flat playing fields withmoth eaten flowerbeds that are all many under-funded municipalities seem to be able toafford . . . . This is because Milton Keynes’sparks are run not by the cash-strapped council,but by a charitable trust. The trust is endowedwith property assets worth 50 million pounds,originally including 14 city pubs and an indus-trial estate from which it derived an income of3.1 million pounds last year to fund its activities.

(Brown, 2003)

The dedicated non-profit-making charity estab-lished by Milton Keynes in 1992 to manage its largelandscape interventions has fared better than thecouncil in maintaining open urban space (Brown,2003). Milton Keynes provides a financial model forthe support of CPULs.

REFERENCES

Besset, M. (1987). Le Corbusier: to live with light.Architectural Press.

Betsky, A. (2002). Landscrapers: Building with the land.Thames and Hudson.

Brayer, M. and Simonot, B. (eds). (2003). Archilabs earthbuildings: radical experiments in land architecture. Thamesand Hudson.

Brown, P. (2003). Parkland. The Guardian: GuardianSociety, 23 April, p. 8.

Crouch, D. and Ward, C. (1988). The Allotment. Faber andFaber, London.

Garnett, T. (1996). Harvesting the cities. Town and CountryPlanning, 65(9), 264–265.

Hough, M. (1995). Cities and natural process. Routledge,London.

Hynes, P. (1996). A pinch of eden. Chelsea Green, WhiteRiver Junction.

Le Corbusier. (1971). The city of tomorrow and its plan-ning, 3rd Edn. Architectural Press.

Lewcock, C. (1996). Agricultural issues for developingcountry city management. Town and Country Planning,65(9), 267–268.

Lloyd Wright, F. (1970). The living city. Meridian Books.

Marsh, J. (1982). Back to the land. Quartet, London.

Nicholson-Lord, D. (1987). The Greening of Cities.Routledge, London.

Richards, I. (2002). Groundscrapers � subscrapers. JohnWiley & Son.

Santamouris, A. B. (2001). On the built environment – theurban influence. In Energy and Climate in the BuiltEnvironment (A. Santamouris, ed.) pp. 3–18, James andJames.

Thompson, J. and Sorvig, K. (2000). Sustainable LandscapeConstruction. Island Press, Washington DC.

Ward, C. (1993). New Town, New Home, The lessons ofexperience. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

FOOD IN TIME

107


FOOD IN SPACE: CPULs AMONGST CONTEMPORARY

OPEN URBAN SPACE



FOOD IN SPACE

109

CPULs FOR EUROPEAN CITIES

In most European cities, movements towards therevitalisation of city centres have pushed theimportance of open urban space to the front of publicawareness. The resulting open urban spaces satisfyan immense variety of desires and programmes.Their themes are as different as their clients, occu-pants or locations, culminating in a multitude ofapproaches and solutions. Cities and towns are nowfull of fantastic new and old urban squares, urbanparks, urban riverfronts, urban stages, urban forestsand urban beaches. There are no urban fields yet.

CPULs will embed fields, thereby enriching urban tis-sue and lifestyle and contributing actively to solvingenvironmental problems. Whether differing from orresembling, these productive landscapes will existalongside other open urban space designs (seeOpen Urban Space Atlas, Figures 14.1–14.11).CPULs as urban design strategy could act asmoderator between local user desires and strategicurban planning, between social and economic viabil-ity, sustainable ideas and urban productivity, betweenshort-term advantage and long-term benefit.

CPULs could formally be very similar tourban parks in that both are mainly natural anddesigned to certain spatial or functional criteria.They will also be similar to urban forests, whichagain are natural, though of physically denser orhigher vegetation. Urban parks and forests will beagriculturally less productive, but can thereforeallow a freer use of space as there will be nomovement restrictions which need to be designedin CPULs to protect crops. In that respect, CPULscould be similar to urban gardens as both will followparticular planting sequences and patterns. CPULswill mostly be larger than urban gardens and not ascontained by user-specific or ornamental design.

Urban squares will be most dissimilar to CPULs.Compared to their free use as social and event

spaces, CPULs will need to guide people andevents to allow for undisturbed working and growingon the fields.

Urban river fronts (urban beaches) are seen asopen urban spaces along a natural boundary.Being also about movement, they are however, inlayout and function more similar to urban parks orsquares than to CPULs. Urban beaches, as well asurban squares or parks, can turn into urbanstages, flexible-use open spaces reflecting newattitudes to leisure. As those might be of any layout,they could become temporarily similar to CPULs.

Urban routes facilitate movement in the city andcan also be of any form, layout, size and often ofingenious construction. They will resemble CPULsin their emphasis on movement.

THE OPEN URBAN SPACE ATLAS

For comparison with other types of open urbanspace, we drew on three criteria which embrace, inour eyes, the most important qualities of a CPUL:

Spaciousness – as its inheritance, Occupation – asits present, and Ecology – as its gift to the future.

Spaciousness

Spaciousness describes the space itself, its extent,its width and breath. It means more than size, butsize is its basic element, its starting point.There is noqualitative judgement connected to size: small openspace is not bad open space, neither is big openspace. Size is considered as influencing the space’sdesignation and its ability to accommodate certainprogrammes and occupants. Size is very manipu-lable by design, involving topography, view axis, walkaxis, change in vegetation, building, etc. Sense ofopenness, though connected to size, reflects this


PLANNING FOR CPULs: OPEN URBAN SPACE

110

manipulation by providing a more sensual, qualitativemeasure for the spatial success of open urbanspace. It relates to the occupation and function of thespace as well as to its position in the urban grid andits connectivity. Integration into inter-connectingurban routes enhances the significance of individualopen space within any urban network. To be able towalk continuously onwards from an open urbanspace extends the space beyond itself and into avery fine and slow layer of inner-city movement. Thepotential for such movement encourages occupationand occupants as well as shaping the form and lay-out of open urban space. It also introduces changeand renewal to the space, therewith offering a partic-ular persistent visual stimulation. Stimuli can bedrawn from a variety of sources, such as occupancy(events, activities, movement, etc.), but they aremostly strongly linked to the natural environment: tovegetation undergoing seasonal change, growth,changing planting pattern, to water, wind, sun, rain,etc. Visual stimulation refers back to spaciousness,as a visually stimulating space is more likely to bejudged as appropriately sized.

Occupation

Occupation is one of the prime concerns whenplanning contemporary open urban space.‘Occupation’ thereby is often rather tightly measur-ing the success of new designs by quantifiable crite-ria such as the number of people flocking in duringevent time or sunshine (i.e. communal parks, funparks, theme parks including traditional themeparks, such as zoos), or by the financial turnover ofon-site facilities (i.e. leisure centres, shops, eater-ies, eating for leisure, leisure to reinstate health,beauty or body shape).

A more holistic view of current occupation of openspace could include qualitative and longer-lastingcriteria, such as education, health, potential for

communication/integration or personal enrichment,i.e. the satisfaction about own individual action andits importance for a broader urban community.Open urban spaces focusing that way will developstrong local interactions enabling the space toattract and retain local people.

Depending on its programme and tolerance tochange, an open space providing for local interac-tions will very likely accommodate a large varietyof occupants. If asked, occupants appear lessinterested in a space’s size or location and more inits potential to let them integrate and participate(see Chapter 15). We judge attracting large vari-eties of occupants to be as important as attractinglarge numbers of them.The latter suggests specificsizes/layouts of open urban space as well as spe-cific programmes to enable the entertainment ofmany occupants. It is useful to look at the variety ofoccupation on offer, not only to measure the suc-cess of open urban space to continuously attractpeople, but also to establish how the logistics oflarge user numbers are managed and whether anyincome can be generated from that.

Apart from income generation through on-site faci-lities, the economic return from ground-use is con-sidered a major factor in judging the long-lastingsuccess of open urban space. As its ground is thevery starting point of any open urban space and asthis ground is rare, it becomes important to mea-sure how it is treated.

Ecology

In our context, ‘ecology’ gives weight to open urbanspace by connecting present design and pro-gramme to a widely desired and sustainable future.It also proposes a strategy to manage that process.

Ecology in open urban space is great where peo-ples’ exposure to urban nature is great. Commonly,


FOOD IN SPACE

111

European open urban spaces selected for comparison to CPULs

Botanical Gardens Barcelona

Place Bellecour Lyon

Ronda del Mig Barcelona

Old Plant Park Caen

Emscher Park Duisburg

country FranceDominic Perrault architects/planners1996 competitionsize 150 halocation edge of citytype urban park/urban gardenhistory converted industrial site

country SpainCarlos Ferrater architects/planners1989-1999 constructionsize 15 halocation city edgetype urban parkhistory converted open hill side

country GermanyPeter Latz & Partners architects/planners1991-1999 constructionsize 210 halocation edge of citytype urban landscapehistory converted industrial site

country GermanyGustav Lange architects/planners1994 constructionsize 11 halocation inner-urbantype urban parkhistory converted brownfield site

country Great BritainGroupe Signes & Patel Taylor architects/planners2000 constructionsize 13.4 halocation inner-urbantype urban parkhistory converted brownfield site

country SpainTarraso & Henrich architects/planners1996-97 constructionsize 150 halocation inner-urbantype urban routehistory redesigned urban route

country FranceDominic Perrault architects/planners1996 constructionsize 4.7 halocation inner-urbantype urban squarehistory redesigned urban square

Mauerpark Berlin

Thames Barrier Park London

comparable urban agricultu ralspacecom

parableurban

agriculturalspacecomparable

urb

anag

ricul

tura

l spa

ce

community gardencomparable urban agriculturalspace

comparable

urban

agriculturalspacecomparable

urba

nag

ricul

tura

l spa

ce

allotment site

Schouwburgplein Rotterdam

Zoo London

Cemetery Kortrijk

Five Squares Gibellinacountry ItalyFranco Purini & Laura Thermes architects/planners1988 constructionsize 9 halocation inner-urbantype urban square/urban routehistory redesigned urban square/route

country BelgiumBernardo Secchi & Paola Vigano architects/planners1995 constructionsize 3.3 halocation edge of citytype urban park/urban gardenhistory converted farmland

country Great BritainDecimus Burton architects/planners1828 constructionsize 10 halocation inner-urbantype urban parkhistory converted urban park

country NetherlandsWest 8 architects/planners1996 constructionsize 1.5 halocation inner-urbantype urban squarehistory redesigned urban square

country SpainEduardo Arroyo architects/planners2001 constructionsize 2 halocation inner-urbantype urban square/urban gardenhistory converted industrial & housing site

country FranceBernard Tschumi architects/planners1991 constructionsize 55 halocation inner-urbantype urban park/urban stagehistory converted industrial site

country Great BritainTibbalds TM2 & CZWG architects/planners1995-2000 constructionsize 36 halocation inner-urbantype urban park/urban routehistory converted brown & greenfield sites

CPULs do not yet exist.In size, they will be as diverse as any other open urbanspace designs, ranging from 1 to more than 100 hectares.They will be located on inner-urban sites and on city edges,connecting both to continuous landscapes. They willhappen on all sorts of open urban space, preferably on brownfield sites to regenerate urban quality.In type, they will be new, they will be productive.

Mile End Park London

Plaza del Desierto Baracaldo

Parque de la Villette Paris

CPULproductive urban landscapeproductive

urbanlandscapeproductiveurbanlandscapep

rodu

ctiv

eur

ban

land

scap

e

Figure 14.1



112

Most qualities of open urban space which occupants value are not quantifiable. Size is, but in an

ambiguous way: to look at size in quantifiable terms is at the same time necessary and completely

superfluous. The diagrams depict absolute size, which is crucial, f.e., for comparison of the site's

dominance in the urban grid, esp. when looking at open space that superficially seems to be similar (ie CPUL-urban agriculture, allotment site) or seems to have potential site yields (see financial return from ground-

use) (ie CPUL-urban agriculture, Zoo).The difference between the two possibly most

popular open urban leisure spaces in Europe - the urban square and the urban park - is not only

vegetation or ground cover but size. Dissimilar typologies lead here to diverse user expectations of size: squares are imagined and accepted as much

smaller then parks (ie Schouwburgplein, Mauerpark).

Through design, the sensed size of open urban space can become very different from its physical

size: topography and proportion can visually enlarge open space, high and/or dense boundaries reduce it

(ie Mile End Park, Plaza del Desierto,Schouwburgplein). The size of the surrounding city

also manipulates the open urban space size, in that big cities absorb their open spaces whereas small

cities expose them (ie Mauerpark, Caen).

Memory is what keeps space alive. Space that creates memories is space of encounters. Whilst these do not necessarily need to be encounters between people, they mostly are. Spaces allowing encounters will both attract occupants and keep them coming back.Every designed open urban space is designated to a certain theme. If the designation incurs separation from parts of the public, the space will allow interactions only between very specific user groups (ie Zoo, allotment site). Even if not separated, open space can be confined to specific user groups only, if located in particular areas or designed in particular ways (ie Old Plant Park). Whilst these spaces often work well in themselves, they do not reflect the idea of open urban space.As soon as open urban space allows a certain indetermination, it will be used by varieties of people, engaging in varieties of interactions. When usable as meeting place, the space becomes a source of even more diverse actions, as people are setting out from it and into it. Most of these interactions are independent of the space's size, layout or finish (ie Schouwburgplein, Mauerpark, Plaza del Desierto).New quality will be reached when interactions between working, trading and shopping people will happen alongside the leisure and service activities (ie CPUL, Mile End Park).

size local interactions

legend

urban square

urban garden

urban park

10ha x 10ha = 100ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

scales

Comparative size study . CPUL near Victoria Park, London, Bohn & Viljoen 2001, see --> Practical Visioning

Figure 14.2


FOOD IN SPACE

113

Schouwburgplein Rotterdam1.5 ha. regular-size, flaturban square in medium-city contextallotment site1.5 ha. regular-size, flat or undulatingurban garden in any city contextPlaza del Desierto Baracaldo2 ha. regular-size, steppedurban garden/urban square in small-city contextZoo London10 ha. large-size, flaturban park in big-city contextCPUL10 ha. large-size , flat or undulatingurban park in big-city context. can also be much smaller, i.e. 1.5 ha, Schouwburgplein-sizeMauerpark Berlin11 ha. large-size, undulatingurban park in big-city contextMile End Park London36 ha. very large-size, flaturban park/urban route in big-city contextOld Plant Park Caen150 ha. enormous-size, flaturban park/garden holding incremental out-of-town housing

Zoo Londonone-off encounters between tourist visitors and/or

local visitors and/or workers/tradersallotment site

repeated encounters between members of 2 specific user group (allotment holders, passers-by/through)

Old Plant Park Caenrepeated encounters between members of several

specific user groups (residents, visitors, passers-by)Plaza del Desierto Baracaldo

repeated and one-off encounters between members of various user groups (residents, tourist/local

visitors, passers-by/through). meeting placeSchouwburgplein Rotterdam

repeated and one-off encounters between members of various user groups (residents, tourist/local

visitors, passers-by, traders). meeting placeMauerpark Berlin

repeated and one-off encounters between members of various user groups. meeting place

CPULrepeated encounters between members of various

user groups (residents, tourist/local visitors, passers-by) and/or workers/traders. meeting place

Mile End Park Londonrepeated and one-off encounters between members

of various user groups (residents, tourist/local visitors, passers-by) and/or traders. meeting place

sizelocal interactions

size

loca

l int

erac

tions

smaller

less

larger

mor

e

comparable urban agricultu ralspace

comparable

urbanagriculturalspacecomparable

urba

nag

ricul

tura

l spa

ce

allotment site

productive urban landscapeproductive

urbanlandscape

productiveurbanlandscapeprod

uctiv

eur

ban

land

scap

e

CPUL

Mauerpark Berlin


Plaza D Baracaldo

Zoo London

Old Plant Park Caen

Schouwburgplein Rotterdam

Figure 14.3



114

Sense of openness is desirable. It is one of the qualities people look for when travelling to the sea, climbing mountains or towers, cherishing a garden

or balcony. Sense of openness means both, physical openness to the wandering/moving through space and sensed openness to people's wandering eyes

(view) and ears (sound). The physical openness of an urban space is

determined by its physical boundaries: buildings, fencing, roads, canals, dense vegetation etc. How users sense openness depends on their personal

experiences as well as on the design of the space: boundaries, ground, topography, internal objects, axes... manipulating the space's absolute size to

appear bigger or smaller than it physically is. Buildings, f.e., often appear as the most restricting

boundaries, both to eye and movement (ie Place Bellecour, community garden, Schouwburgplein,

Zoo). The sheer size or topography of open urban space can outweigh a boundary, ie an adjacent

motorway, which for a small open urban space would pose a major border to both, movement and senses

(ie Plaza del Desierto, Emscher Park). Sensed openness also includes cultural references: two

identical spaces, one enclosed by metal fencing, the other by dense fruit bushes will attract different occupants and/or usage (ie Botanical Gardens,

Place Bellecour, CPUL).

Diversity of occupation, of activities is a measure for the success of open urban space in that it will create and maintain local interest, identity and satisfaction. Occupation of open urban space can be every-thing from fast and short, ie moving through (ie Place Bellecour), to slow and extended, or mental, ie occupying territory by sitting there and/or listening to / looking at it (ie Emscher Park, Botanical Gardens).Spaces which attract a wide range of users mostly register a large variety of occupation (ie Emscher Park). Occupation through a typical user / user group can happen once (ie Zoo) or repeatedly (ie community garden). Indetermined design and/or the availability of open-minded space will encourage users to engage in unforeseen individual activities (ie Schouwburgplein, Plaza del Desierto).Contemporary open urban space invites mainly leisure (ie Plaza del Desierto, community garden), using-service (ie Schouwburgplein) or educative activities (ie Botanical Gardens). All of those activities can also be related to particular historic urban spaces (ie Zoo, Place Bellecour). Open urban space achieves a non-precedented occupational quality when including working activity, whereby "working" means working with the actual space, ie earning a living by using elements inherent to the space: ground, vegetation, buildings (ie CPUL-urban agriculture, Emscher Park).

variety of occupationsense of openness

100m x 100m = 1ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

scales

legend

solid edgeie building

see-through edgeie fence, vegetation,

main traffic, water

unobstructed /semi-obstructed

openness

Increasing openness . CPUL near East Street Market, London, Bohn & Viljoen 2002, see --> Practical Visioning

Figure 14.4


FOOD IN SPACE

115

variety of occupation sense of openness

Zoo Londonreducing sense of openness: internal buildings, internal fencing, fenced border, external roads, external dense treesincreasing sense of openness: large sizecommunity gardenreducing: fenced border, external buildings and roadsincreasing: open accessSchouwburgplein Rotterdamreducing: external buildings and roads, road noiseincreasing: no fencing/border, flatness, sky viewsPlaza del Desierto Baracaldoreducing: external buildings, roads and trainincreasing: topography, one side open to viewsCPULreducing: external buildings and trafficincreasing: topography, two sides open to views and movesPlace Bellecour Lyonreducing: external buildings and roadsincreasing: sky view, tree border, sizeBotanical Gardens Barcelonareducing: fenced borderincreasing: views, topography, tree borders, sizeEmscher Park Duisburgreducing: motorway, motorway noiseincreasing: long views, topography, sheer size

Botanical Gardens Barcelonawalk, talk, see, sit, observe, listen, learn

Zoo Londonwalk, talk, see, sit, observe, listen, learn

see shows/exhibitions, eat, playPlaza del Desierto Baracaldo

walk, talk, see, sit, eat, playshort cut, meet, party

Place Bellecour Lyonwalk, short cut, talk, see, sit, meet, eat, play, party

cyclecommunity garden

walk, talk, see, sit, meet, eat, play, partyengage, work

Schouwburgplein Rotterdamwalk, cycle, short cut, talk, see, sit, learn

see shows/exhibitions, meet, eat, play, partyCPUL

walk, cycle, short cut, talk, see, sit, observe, learnmeet, eat, play, party, engage, work

produce, earnEmscher Park Duisburg

walk, cycle, short cut, talk, see, sit, observe, listenlearn, see shows/exhibitions, meet, eat, play, party

engage, work

listed are groups of activities, i.e. there are various activities that can be done sitting

varie

ty o

f occ

upat

ion

sense of openness

less

mor

e

less more

comparable urban agricult uralspacecom

parableurb anagriculturalspacecompa

rabl

eur

ban

agric

ultu

ral s

community garden

productive urban landsca pep

roductiveurban

landsc apeproductiveurbanlandscap

epr

oduc

t ive

u rba

nla

n

CPUL


SB-plein Rotterdam



Zoo London

Plaza del Desierto Baracaldo

Figure 14.5



116

The quality of Europe's open urban spaces is measured at the scale of pedestrians. Spaces that

are easily accessible, easy to cross and/or inviting to sit, rest, wander are bursting with visitors, shoppers,

traders and local residents (see variety of occupants/

occupation). Spaces not providing those characteristics don't burst.

Quality inner-city movement is strongly linked to pedestrians'/cyclists' access to individual pieces of

land. As closer to the city centre an open urban space is, as more significant is its contribution to

inner-city movement (ie Place Bellecour, Old Plant

Park).A variety of access/exit points increases the potential

for movement which still only happens if the open urban space allows safe, uninterrupted crossing (ie

Ronda del Mig, Mile End Park). Due to location or occupation constraints (ie Thames Barrier Park, Old

Plant Park), not all spaces have or require a large number of access points. Open urban spaces of

particular function and therefore removed from urban routes (ie Cemetry, allotment site), can even not at

all contribute to inner-city movement.Open urban space achieves a new unprecedented

quality, when easily accessible pieces of land are inter-linked, thereby providing a continuous route

through the city into the countryside (ie CPUL).

People's ability to generate income to live off is necessary and deeply satisfying. Using the ground, the earth itself, is one of the most archaic ways of generating that income, mainly in form of food production. It also allows the widely desired working in/with natural conditions.Not using the ground itself can be related to the space's designation and its consequent layout and finish (ie Place Bellecour, Ronda del Mig).Drawing financial return from using the ground in a ritual way, happens on relatively large pieces of ground, but is an exception in Europe (ie Cemetry).Open urban space that has designed areas for agricultural production has gained extra occupational and spatial quality. Mostly, these open spaces contain allotment areas and generate that small income and huge satisfaction integral to allotment growing (ie Old Plant Park, Mile End Park, allotment

site).Such partial usage of ground for actual production is imaginable in most garden- or parklike open spaces of some size without diminishing their spatial/visual character (ie Thames Barrier Park).A new, non-existing, landscape arises when the ground is worked to field-scale and commercialism. Then, significant economic return exists alongside the sustainable development and better protection of open urban space (ie CPUL-urban agriculture).

economic return from ground-useinner-city movement

100m x 100m = 1ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

scales

legend

main entrance/exit

major/minorfeeding roads

main movementof which...

... newroutes/connections

improvinginner-city movement

Movement and housing . urban agriculture fields for Newark, Bohn & Viljoen 1999, see --> Practical Visioning

Figure 14.6


FOOD IN SPACE

117

economic return from ground-use inner-city movement

Cemetry Kortrijksingle entrance/exit, no connectionsallotment sitefew entrances/exits, non-permanent site accessThames Barrier Park Londonfew entrances/exits, new connections between existing footpaths (S) and road (N), improved site accessOld Plant Park Caensome entrances/exits, new connections between existing roads/paths, new residential routes, improved site accessCPULsome entrances/exits, new connections between existing roads/paths and between different inner-city areas, improved site accessPlace Bellecour Lyonlots of entrances/exits, new connections between existing roads/routes and between different inner-city areasMile End Park Londonlots of entrances/exits, new connections between existing and new roads/routes and between different inner-city areas, new pedestrian road bridgeRonda del Mig Barcelonalots of entrances/exits, new connections between existing routes and between different inner-city areas, new ways of moving for pedestrians and traffic

Place Bellecour Lyonindirect financial return from ground-use through

events, visitors, traders, maintenanceRonda del Mig Barcelona

indirect financial return from ground-use throughvisitors, traders, maintenance

Thames Barrier Park Londonindirect financial return from ground-use through

visitors, maintenanceCemetry Kortrijk

fees from renting-out the ground/earth for ritual useemployer

Mile End Park Londonfinancial return from selling/trading grown produce

(ecology park). employerOld Plant Park Caen

financial return from selling/trading grown producefinancial benefit from composting, self-usage of

grown produceallotment site

financial return from selling/trading grown producefinancial benefit from composting, retaining seeds

self-usage of grown produce, lifestyleCPUL

financial return from selling/trading grown producefinancial benefit from composting, retaining seeds

self-usage of grown produce, lifestyle and short-distance economy. local employer

mor

ele

ss

less more

econ

omic

ret

urn

from

gro

und-

use

inner-city movement



rabl

eur

ban

agric

ultu

ral s

allotment siteproductive urban landscape

productive

urbanlandsca

peproductiveurbanlandscape

prod

uctiv

eur

ban

land

s

CPUL

Ronda Mig Barcelona



Old Plant Park Caen


Cemetery Kortrijk

Figure 14.7



118

To be in "nature" is desirable, and there is agree-ment that "nature" means living wilderness or

countryside or forests etc., brief: non-urbanity. Urban nature is an attempt to measure the presence of

such "natural" features in the urban environment. It describes an open space's potential for sensual

experience involving, f.e., vision, touch, smell, taste, sound to create pleasure, friction or comfort.

Abundance of vegetation, both for visual and tactile experience, embodies most directly the presence of

urban nature (ie Botanical Gardens).Water is also a strong visual and acoustic natural

element of open urban space (ie Parque de la Villette) as are wide flat surfaces, both natural and

sealed (ie Place Bellecour, Emscher Park).Agricultural vegetation will give open spaces an extra

dimension by adding a greater variety of plants and forms of planting (ie CPUL-urban agriculture).

Ecological planting exposes the occupants best to ecological cycles, the basis of all "nature" (ie

Emscher Park).Open spaces that offer habitat to small wild animals

are mostly either of larger size or committed to the protection of wildlife, which both encourages the

flourish of nature (ie community garden).Lack of any of the above or dominance of built

structures diminishes the feeling of exposure to nature (ie Ronda del Mig, Five Squares).

Vision is the sense most used and therefore most addressed in contemporary European life.Visual stimulation is crucial to maintain peoples interest, to challenge visitors. If a space does not satisfy people's vision, it will only be revisited for necessity rather than choice. To guarantee visual stimulation, movement, change are needed. Static is not stimulating, but even very little change is. As all spaces discussed here are open urban space, lighting and weather will continuously influence their optics.The movement of people, cars, the flow of urban life is for many as stimulating as vegetation, esp. trees and flowers, changing over the seasons for others, though both are very different (ie Ronda del Mig, Five Squares, community garden).Staging various events in open urban space does not only persistently attracts different people, but reinvents the space's appearance again and again (ie Place Bellecour, Parque de la Villette).A combination of both, the inserted event and the every-day activity might be the most successful: seasons, traffic, leisure events etc. cater for a large variety of users and avoid mono-stimulation (ie CPUL, Emscher Park).Exhibitions held within open spaces add another layer of stimulation by making the space a second time visible (ie Botanical Gardens, Parque de la Villette).

urban nature persistent visual stimulation

100m x 100m = 1ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

scales

legend

any planting ofspatial importance

significantindividual trees

water

Horizontal and vertical fields . urban agriculture in Shoreditch, London, Bohn & Viljoen 2000, see --> Practical Visioning

Figure 14.8


FOOD IN SPACE

119

urban naturepersistent visual stimulation

Five Squares Gibellinayoung individual treesRonda del Mig Barcelonayoung individual trees. shrub and flower containersPlace Bellecour Lyonmature individual trees. gravel. waterParque de la Villette Parisyoung individual trees. extensive lawn. flower containers. watercommunity gardenyoung (and/or mature) individual (fruit) trees. shrubs flower beds. lawn. (water). small wild animalsBotanical Gardens Barcelonayoung individual trees. all varieties of shrubs, flowers, herbs, mosses etc. suitable to the existing climate. waterCPUL (urban agriculture)young individual fruit trees and bushes. vegetable, herb, fruit, flower, grain beds or fields. lawn surfaces (water). gravel Emscher Park Duisburgyoung and mature individual trees. ecological planting. allotments. lawn surfaces. water. non-cultivated plants. gravel. small wild animals

+ sun, wind, rain, hot air, warm air, cold air...+ insects for all open urban spaces

Five Squares Gibellinatree seasons. passing pedestrians and cyclists

visitors. local eventsPlace Bellecour Lyon

tree seasons. passing pedestrians and cyclistsvisitors. local eventscommunity garden

tree seasons. seasonal and changing vegetation passing pedestrians. visitors. workers. local events

Botanical Gardens Barcelonatree seasons. seasonal and changing vegetation

visitors. workers. local events. exhibitionsRonda del Mig Barcelona

tree seasons. seasonal vegetation. passingpedestrians, cyclists and traffic. visitors. workers

Parque de la Villette Paristree seasons. seasonal vegetation. visitors. local

and regional events. exhibitionsCPUL (urban agriculture)

tree seasons. seasonal and changing vegetationpassing pedestrians and cyclists. visitors. workers

Emscher Park Duisburgtree seasons. seasonal vegetation. passing

pedestrians, cyclists and traffic. visitors. local andregional events

+ continuous change in lighting (day, night, sun...)+ continuous change in weather (wind, rain, air...)

mor

ele

ss

less moreurban nature

pers

iste

nt v

isua

l stim

ulat

ion



rabl

eur

ban

agr ic

ultu

ral s

community garden

productive urban landsca pep

roductiveurban

landsc apeproductiveurbanlandscap

epr

oduc

tive

urba

nla

n

CPUL

Ronda Mig Barcelona


Five Squares Gibellina




Figure 14.9



120

The desire for satisfying space, space to be content in, leads most people to open space of often very

similar qualities. These qualities are grouped here as environmental delight. Apart from the existence of

vegetation, water, weather and/or animals (see urban

nature), people, in an environmental sense, seem to search calm, clean-aired, biodiverse and rich open

spaces. Open urban spaces provide both, acoustic and

visual calm by distance from noise/traffic sources, mainly through the urban positioning of the space (ie

Five Squares, Mauerpark) or through its sheer size (ie Parque de la Villette). Vegetation, water surfaces

and openness/horizon enhance visual calm (see sense

of openness), both for people using a space tempora-rily (ie Thames Barrier Park, Zoo) and those living/

working around it (ie allotment site). The co-relation between rich, healthy soil and bio-

diversity is expressed by combining them in one icon. Biodiverse, rich-soil open urban spaces are

those holding abundant vegetation achieved either through spatially diverse planting (ie allotment site) or time-wise consecutive planting (ie CPUL-urban

agriculture). Provided there is distance from polluting sources, clean air is most likely found in open urban

spaces encouraging wind (see size) and vegetation (ie Cemetry, CPUL, Mauerpark).

Inviting a variety of occupants is a quality of open urban space seeked by city councils as well as by users themselves for its potential to overcome socie-tal boundaries, such as age, race, social status, gender, nationality, religion, culture etc.Variety of occupants does not primarily register the numbers of users (though larger numbers often comprise more diverse users), but maps the differences between user groups. These are largely dependent on designation and, after that, design of the open urban space. Independent from the space's designation, members of any user group occupying a space with the same intention, will still belong to different backgrounds.By offering single or multiple activities (see variety of

occupation), the designation of a particular space en-courages or restricts the diversity of its user groups for obvious reasons (Parque de la Villette, Mauer-park, Cemetry).Defining access to a particular designated space (see

inner-city movement) by finance, therefore boundary, regulates the variety of occupants considerably (ie Zoo, allotment site, Parque de la Villette).The subtle, open, transgressing design of a space's non-financial boundary and its functional arrangement will determine its lasting attraction to a diverse usership (ie CPUL, Five Squares, Thames Barrier Park).

variety of occupantsenvironmental delight

100m x 100m = 1ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

100m x 100m = 1ha

scales

legend

low/medium/highbiodiversity and

soil quality

sources of major/minor noise pollution

sources of calm

Living, working and harvesting . CPUL in Sheffield, Bohn & Viljoen 1998, see --> Practical Visioning

Figure 14.10


FOOD IN SPACE

121

variety of occupants environmental delight

Five Squares Gibellinareducing the delight: lack of major vegetationincreasing the delight: quietnessParque de la Villette Parisreducing: noise/traffic connected to events, amount of building on siteincreasing: openness. water surfaceZoo Londonreducing: major road traffic/noise, amount of building on site. increasing: strong presence of nature, both in vegetation and occupation (animals)Thames Barrier Park Londonreducing: road traffic/noise. increasing: quietness. seasonally changing vegetation. water surfaceMauerpark Berlinincreasing: quietness. openness. abundance of seasonally changing vegetationCemetery Kortrijkincreasing: quietness. openness. strong presence of nature, both in vegetation and occupation (death)CPULreducing: possible road traffic. increasing: openness abundance of seasonally changing vegetation. rich soil. visible ecological cyclesallotment siteincreasing: quietness. abundance of seasonally changing vegetation. rich soil. visible ecological cycles

Cemetery Kortrijkmourners, workers. visitors

all ages, social & ethnic backgrounds. mainly localsallotment site

allotment holders, passers-by. visitors/all social and ethnic backgrounds. mainly locals

all ages, but mainly from 35 years onZoo London

private residents, workers. visitorsall social & ethnic backgrounds. local to international

all ages, but mainly children and parents/carersThames Barrier Park London

private & professional residents, passers-by. visitorsall ages, social & ethnic backgrounds. mainly locals

CPULprivate & professional residents, passers-by workers. visitors. all social & ethnic backgrounds mainly locals.

all ages, but mainly adultsFive Squares Gibellina

private & professional residents, passers-by. visitorsall ages, social & ethnic backgrounds. mainly locals

Mauerpark Berlinprivate & professional residents, passers-by. visitorsall ages, social & ethnic backgrounds. mainly locals

Parque de la Villette Parisprivate & professional residents, passers-by

workers. visitors. all social & ethnic backgrounds local to international. all ages, but mainly adults

mor

ele

ss

less more

varie

ty o

f occ

upan

ts

environmental delight

comparable urban agricultu ralspace

comparable

urbanagriculturalspacecomparable

urba

na g

ricul

tura

l spa

ce

allotment site


urbanlandscape


uctiv

eur

ban

l and

scap

e


urbanlandscape


uctiv

eur

ban

l an d

s cap

e

CPUL

Zoo London

Mauerpark Berlin


Cemetery Kortrijk

Five Squares Gibellina


Figure 14.11


‘nature’ refers to the abundant presence of mostlyuncultivated vegetation, of rain, sun, water, animallife, etc. perceived to happen mainly outside cities –in rural areas or the countryside. Seeming a contra-diction, urban nature describes the presence of anyof those characteristics in urban settings. Urbannature is used here to measure the potential ofopen urban space to satisfy, by design ordesignation, a human desire to be in ‘nature’.

Whilst most contemporary spaces are concernedwith similar urban issues, their main differences liein the varied use of land, of the ground they sit on,of the local climate, vegetation or water, resulting invery different interfaces with the ‘natural’. There isno qualitative judgement connected to those diffe-rences: open urban spaces withdraw for many rea-sons, mostly determined by their designation, fromthe ‘natural’.

Nevertheless, the presence of urban nature as aquality is part of environmental delight whichattempts to measure open spaces’ success inenvironmental terms. It looks at qualities of vegeta-tion, ground, air or sound and includes most peo-ple’s desire for having sufficient access to theexternal, to being in the open (see Chapter 15).Quietness, both acoustic and visual, is an impor-tant measure of environmental delight, as thedesire for quietness is one of the reasons for peo-ple to leave cities, whether on a holiday or weekendtrip or to live outside them. Noise, its opposite, isbecoming a more and more recognised environ-mental pollutant. Whilst there is different opinionabout what noise is in detail, there is surprisingconsent about what it is in general. For open urbanspace, noise pollution is mostly traffic-, rather thanindustry-related, which might simply indicatestrategies when positioning open space in the firstplace. Air quality (not mapped in the Open UrbanSpace Atlas) refers to fresh, clear, pollutant-free air


122

registering little CO2 and other gas emissions.Generally, good quality air is likely to be found awayfrom polluting sources such as roads or industry.Open urban spaces have the potential to offer thiscondition, being often especially positioned orshaped so as to allow distance from such sources.As wind and the presence of vegetation help clean-ing and/or dispersing polluted air, open urbanspaces encouraging air movement and plantgrowth are also more likely to be clean. The qualityof vegetation and soil is studied in the correlation ofhealthy soil (i.e. rich soil, free of pollutants andchemical fertiliser) and biodiversity. Assuming simi-lar richness, soil free of chemical additives housesa greater diversity of plants and insects making itthe basis for any long-lasting natural life in the firstplace.

About the open urban space atlas

The aim of the atlas diagrams is to explorethe position of future CPULs amongst othercontemporary open space designs and to extracttheir unique qualities. The comparison is based onour three criteria spaciousness, occupation andecology with themes chosen to highlight the posi-tive differences and qualities of CPULs comparedto other open urban space.

The judgement of individual open spaces in such aformat is rough, with the choice of criteria being‘sustainably subjective’, but nevertheless the resultindicates where the benefits of integrating CPULsinto cities would lie.

Each diagram compares 6 (out of 14) contempo-rary European open urban spaces to a futureCPUL and to either a community garden or allot-ment site as examples of open space types thathold urban agriculture already.


REFERENCES

Charbonneau, J. (1995). Three squares in Lyon. Bauwelt,25, 1428–1447. (Place Bellecour, Lyon)

Cheviakof, S. (2000). Barcelona Botanical Gardens. InEcological Architecture pp. 56–59, Loft Publications.(Botanical Garden, Barcelona)

Engler, M. (2000). The garden in the machine: theDuisburg-Nord Landscape Park, Germany. Land Forum, 5,78–85. (Landschaftspark, Duisburg)

Ferrater, C. (2000). Jardin Botanico de Barcelona. In CarlosFerrater pp. 250–263, Editorial Munilla-Leria. (BotanicalGarden, Barcelona)

Gili, M. (ed.) (1997). Platform over the Ronda del Mig,Barcelona. 2G-Landscape Architecture, 3, 60–67. (Rondadel Mig, Barcelona)

Groupe Signes & Patel Taylor (2001). Thames Barrier,London, (United Kingdom). A&V MONOGRAFIAS, 91,90–93. (Thames Barrier Park, London)

Holden, R. (1996). Shaping open space. Planning, 147,8–11. (Parque de la Villette, Paris)

Holden, R. (2001). Greening the Docklands. LandscapeArchitecture, 10, 82–87. (Thames Barrier Park, London)

London – The Photographic Atlas (2000). pp. 19–20,128–9, HarperCollinsIllustrated. (Mile End Park and Zoo,London)

FOOD IN SPACE

123

Lootsma, B. (1997). Redesign of the Schouwburgplein andPathé multicinema, Rotterdam. Domus, 797, 46–57.(Schouwburgplein square, Rotterdam)

Lubbers, P. and Wortmann, A. (2000). Hoog Kortrijk ceme-tery by Bernardo Secchi and Paola Vigano. ARCHIS, 10,30–33. (Cemetery, Hoog-Kortrijk)

Marquez, F. and Levene, R. (2002). Eduardo Arroyo: Plazadel Desierto, Baracaldo. In In Progress 1999–2002pp.154–169, El Croquis SL. (Plaza del Desierto, Baracaldo)

Perrault, D. (2001). Park in an Old Siderurgical Plant, Caen(France). A&V MONOGRAFIAS, 91, 76–81. (Old PlantPark, Caen)

Pisani, M. (1994). Five Squares in Gibellina. Industria DelleConstruzione, 273/274, 4–15. (Five Squares, Gibellina)

Purini, F. and Thermes, L. (1992). New squares for Gibellina.Deutsche Bauzeitschrift, 7, 1017–1022. (Five Squares,Gibellina)

Rossmann, A. (1996). Landschaftpark Duisburg-Nord –symbol of change in the Ruhrgebiet. Bauwelt, 37,2128–2135. (Landschaftspark, Duisburg)

Rousseau, S. (2000). Schouwburgplein: Mehr Bild als Platz?Topos, 33, 18–24. (Schouwburgplein square, Rotterdam)

Uhrig, N. (1997). Mauerpark. In Freiräume BERLINpp. 56–57, Callwey. (Mauerpark, Berlin)

Young, E. (2002). No walk in the park. RIBA Journal, 2,58–60. (Mile End Park, London)


DESIGNS ON THE PLOT: THE FUTURE FOR ALLOTMENTS IN

URBAN LANDSCAPES

Professor David Crouch and Richard Wiltshire


The allotment garden is uniquely privileged as aform of urban agriculture and open space land usein Britain, in as much as local authorities have astatutory duty to provide land for present and futurecultivators to grow their own fruit and vegetables.Moreover, the majority of allotment sites cannot bedisposed of without explicit consent from centralgovernment, the granting of which depends on cri-teria relating to the supply and demand position forallotment land within the locality, not on the alterna-tive designs authorities – or developers – mighthave on the land. This protection helps account forthe continuing existence of these productive, peo-pled green spaces in urban landscapes throughoutthe country, despite the obvious commercial pres-sures to convert the land to other uses and realiseits underlying monetary value. The original logic forproviding and protecting this land was rooted in thepoverty of manual workers over a century ago,however, and while allotments still provide for sub-sistence needs in many deprived communities,here as elsewhere the availability of cheap super-market foods and the claims of work time andalternative leisure pursuits have undermined therevealed demand for allotments, which has declinedmarkedly since the high point of the wartime ‘Digfor Victory’ campaigns. Not only is the land underpressure from commercial developers, but alsofrom other green space users, jostling for room toaccommodate those alternative recreations. Thefuture for allotments depends on the creation ofmodern logics to justify their retention and on com-promises between allotment cultures and alterna-tive claimants on the land – as property but also aslandscape and leisure resource. In this chapter, weexplore the role that design might play in securingthat new future – within rationales for protectingallotments and in mediating change.

Most of the key arguments in redefining allotmentsfor the twenty-first century were aired in the 1998

Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry into ‘TheFuture for Allotments’ (House of Commons, 1998),which discussed arguments about wholesome foodin an era of deep concern over the quality and safetyof diets, about healthy exercise and relaxation in theopen air for the elderly, the discarded and the dis-turbed, about biodiversity and the support for urbannature which allotments provide, and about inclusivecommunities with a shared interest in a direct rela-tionship with the land. It is notable, however, thatdesign considerations received very little attentioneither in the Inquiry’s report, or in the subsequentgood practice guide Growing in the Community,which the present writers co-authored (Crouch,Sempik and Wiltshire, 2001), and which has a clearadvocacy tone. The low profile afforded to design indiscourses on allotments is a consequence in part ofa chequered history of past encounters, as well asthe difficulty of reconciling design concepts with thelegitimate needs of allotment holders and the cul-tures they have spawned.

The design challenges that allotments present canbest be understood by focusing on three distinctivecontributions which allotments make to the urbanscene: their role as part of green space (open orotherwise) in urban landscapes; their distinctivecontribution to urban landscapes as sites of overtautonomous and creative activity; and their role assites of negotiation – between land uses at themicro scale, but also between people from diversebackgrounds finding ways to reconnect as commu-nities of propinquity and interest.

ALLOTMENTS AS (OPEN) GREEN SPACE

The few references that are made to design issuesin Growing in the Community (Crouch et al., 2001)

DESIGNS ON THE PLOT

125


focus on the conflicting aesthetics of the publicgaze and the spontaneous vernacular landscapeof the allotment. Far from appealing to the onlookeras an open green space, allotments sometimespresent a closed, ramshackle face to the world, anissue which underlies the citation as good practicein Kennet District Council’s planning requirementfor sites ‘to avoid detrimental impact on landscapecharacter and landscape features’ and the need forself-built sheds to be subject to ‘some degree ofsympathetic regulation . . . to prevent the site fromappearing too untidy . . .’.

The roots of the vernacular tradition in allotmentstructures, in making do with recycled and refash-ioned materials rather than splashing out on theornate pinewood cabins so readily available ingarden centres these days, lie in the origins of allot-ment gardening as a subsistence activity ratherthan a leisure pursuit, and in an inherent insecurityof tenure which is often compounded by planningblight, be it real or imagined. In rewriting thepurpose of allotment gardens, Growing in theCommunity (Crouch et al., 2001) heaps praise onthe use of recycled materials on allotments asa practical contribution to local sustainable devel-opment and the achievement of Agenda 21objectives, a clear illustration of how aesthetic con-siderations can jar with other logics deployed tosustain the plot. At a deeper level however, theopportunity to self-build can be counted as part ofthe value of allotments to plotholders, a mode ofself-expression beyond the reach of consumeristvalues and the instant TV designer garden, and apath to realising identity on an intimate, privatescale, without reference to publicly authorisednorms. For some observers this vernacular land-scape has an enormous appeal of its own: ‘It’s thetumble-down bricolage that is utterly seductive’(Midgley, 2000). While this neatly captures the aes-thetic sense required to appreciate the allotment

vista, the fact that it is an aesthetic not alwaysshared in the cultural mainstream helps explain thesubsequent appearance of the quotation in PrivateEye magazine’s ‘Pseud’s Corner’.

The contested aesthetics of the allotment asviewed open space intersect with design considera-tions in the arena of planning policy guidance,and specifically in the current reformulation ofPPG17 (Sport, Open Space and Recreation). Thedraft PPG17 calls for the creation of ‘good quality’open space, and emphasises the need to ‘applydesign criteria in order to maintain or enhance thequality of the public realm’ (Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions, 2001,p. 22). There is scope for anxiety here, about thecriteria to be employed to define ‘well-designed’spaces (and their aesthetic assumptions), aboutwho controls these criteria, and the sensitivity withwhich they may be applied.

A related and significant issue is the extent to whichallotment sites, however visually seductive theymight become, can actually be made into ‘open’spaces, in as much as access conflicts with both thesecurity of private property and the sense of owner-ship that are part of the value of the allotment to theplotholder. Although allotment land is often publiclyowned, the crops and gardening paraphernaliarequired to cultivate them belong to the gardener,and are vulnerable to theft and vandalism.Complaints about inadequate fencing and unlockedgates are frequently heard, and throw the contradic-tion between openness and security into sharp relief.

Access isn’t just a matter of interrupted views andfreedom to gaze, however. Allotment tenanciesestablish rights of exclusive occupation, which canin practice last for decades, restricting the right ofaccess to the gardening land itself to a fortunateband of early comers, particularly when individualplots are large. Through this process, allotments


126


DESIGNS ON THE PLOT

127

are transformed into semi-closed, semi-privatisedpublic open spaces. Cultural expressions of thelocal ‘ownership’ that results can promote furtherexclusion, when young women, children, minorities,permaculturalists are made to feel unwelcome onthe plots. Implicit in Growing in the Community(Crouch et al., 2001) is the need for good design atthe site level to help overcome this unhelpful formof exclusivity, and realise latent demand for allot-ments, through simple measures like making plotssmaller and sites safer for people of all ages andabilities. Fortunately, Growing in the Community(Crouch et al., 2001) does identify instances ofgood practice around the country of both localauthorities and allotment associations workinghard and in diverse ways to promote social inclu-sion on and around the allotment site – good prac-tice which careful design could reinforce.

The role of design, in site layout and exposure tothe public gaze, is to maximise the numbers whofeel they have a positive stake in the survival of theallotments, as gardeners, observers or passers-by.Where exclusion persists, however, it is legitimateto inquire whether many of the benefits that arecommon to allotments and other forms of openspace – such as healthy exercise in the open air,might not be more effectively delivered to largernumbers by assigning allotment land to other recrea-tions:a threat to the plot from alternative green spaceuses. This is a strong rationale for the plotholders totake site design issues very seriously.

ALLOTMENTS AS URBAN LANDSCAPE

It can certainly be argued that allotments makea unique contribution to urban landscapes, acontribution which challenges conventional notionsof both the urban and design. Urban allotments are a

paradoxical echo of the countryside as it once was –a peopled landscape, yet accessible in the heart ofthe city, a space to construct the illusion of being inthe ‘countryside,’ more friendly and accessible topeople who wish to work with the land than the gen-uine contemporary countryside of agri-business, thesocial exclusivity of range-rover culture and the ‘ruralway of life’ out in the green belt, the green lung thatconstricts the city’s breathing. A peopled landscape,but one with a settled and quiet feel, a shared spacewith a hint of gathered silence. And, in common withother urban agricultures, allotments challenge con-ventional notions of town and country as productiveurban growing spaces. This conflation of urban andrural has been a consistent source of difficulty forurban designers, because it contradicts imposedcategories of what urban landscape is – or shouldbe, expressed in particular notions of order and con-trol, purity of form and clean edges.Yet it is just thiscontradiction of norms that people who are not pro-fessional designers appear to value (Crouch andWard, 2002). Surrounded by urban Handsworth inthe west of Birmingham, a plotholder named Junecaptures a value in going to the allotment that feedsoff its distinctive landscape: ‘We come here forpeace and quiet . . . It’s like being in the country inthe city. To come here on a nice summer’s day youfeel you’re in the country’ (Crouch, 2002).The regardfelt by many people living, working, walking andcycling by allotments is testimony not only to theiraesthetic value but also to the need to engage awider population in discussion of the future of sites.Well-kept but chaotically landscaped sites provide alandscape otherwise unavailable, a diversity ofhuman and biological culture that unsurprisinglymeans that they are valued amongst both ecologicaland cultural circles.

The allotment also provides an escape that the townpark and other open spaces cannot deliver. Howeverdesigned for informality, the park remains for



128

recreation and is not a producing the landscapewhere people can grow, create and adapt their ownground, producing the landscape themselves. Theorganic growth and the feckless dynamism of theseasons and human attention provide relief and vari-ety to the regularity even of row cultivation. And ofcourse, the allotment space is both public and private(Crouch, 1998): individual plot holders invest in theownership of their plot, but people who pass by orvisit for a chat are part of its public display. Here isa landscape marrying regulation with disorder, ananarchic invention, a never-ending work in progress.

How at odds these values seem with Lord Rogers’brave new world of the (inedible) urban renaissance(Wiltshire, 1999). The report of the Urban Task Force(1999) reverts to the professionally self-servingmodel of an architecturally-led better city. Its diag-noses for obtaining good quality, high density urbanliving seek to revive a fifties style modernism thatworks from built form rather than human lives, com-munities and their actions and interactions. Such anapproach would seem to fly in the face of the excel-lent work of community architects over threedecades. High density living is assumed to be achiev-able through well-designed structures that respond tothe built-form lessons of the middle of the last century.Where open space (including allotments) is acknowl-edged, it is afforded only a supporting role.Advocatesfor allotments must contest this reading of the city,and argue the evidence of value to human life andcommunity identity that can emerge from the ways inwhich open, as well as interior space is used by indi-viduals and groups. Exterior open spaces, like interiorones, offer the potential of shared and individual self-expression, involvement and commitment. Of course,the opposite can happen too, creating moments inwhich facilitators, including professional designersand community architects, can play an importantmediating role.The lesson of the allotment landscapeis that spaces can be enlivened through humanactivity; their use can engender feelings of ownership

through investments of time and energy, as well ascommitment. This approach to ownership both devi-ates from and complicates notions of ownership thatrefer only to legal or financial investment. Allotmentlandscapes offer one means of making high densityurban living both humanely tolerable and compatiblewith the achievement of sustainable cities, environ-mentally, culturally and socially.

The contemporary friction between allotment land-scapes and the new urban modernism echoes anearlier, failed attempt to give allotments a designermakeover, instigated by the Thorpe Report of theearly 1970s and its advocacy of the ‘leisure garden’concept (Thorpe, 1975), a designer-imposed solu-tion to allotments in Britain. Borrowing ideas fromsome very successful models of allotment (leisure)garden design in other European countries, Thorpe’sdesigner advisors were persuaded that these mod-els would work in the UK. The report proposed spi-ral paths and ‘fans’ of plots and concrete blocksrather than the familiar individual sheds. In thisrespect these designs went further than those inother European countries, where the main formatremains one of rectilinear plots in the familiar Britishstyle. The key characteristic of many sites acrossEurope is the presence of a large shed or chalet inwhich the law allows individual plotters to sleep.Wide trackways are provided on these sites in orderto assist access and to become part of a more opendesign, although the landscape is softened byencroaching trees and plants that holders plantalong the plot perimeter (Crouch and Ward, 2002).

Of course, the cost of redesigning sites on Thorpe’sbasis proved prohibitive, save for a few showcaseprojects. But there was another key reason whyallotments à la Thorpe were never realised in Britain.Their culture was alien to the ways in which the cul-ture of British allotments had developed. This is notto deny change, and the last three decades haveshown that there is increasing diversity in the waysindividuals want their allotments to look and the


DESIGNS ON THE PLOT

129

ways they want to use them. Moreover, there is littlesupport anywhere for allotment spaces that areneglected. However, it is a mistake to confuse theloose-fit character of allotment landscapes withneglect. Redesign of allotments had been a persis-tent feature of manuals and government-inspiredadvice since the 1930s, and even before that gar-den city design included neatly arranged allotmentplots, although on the traditional layout. But the gar-deners persist in softening the edges, disrupting thelines, etching their culture into the landscape.

The lesson of these unhappy marriages betweenallotments and imposed design is that it would seememinently sensible and practical to work from wherepeople actually are in terms of using allotments. Theapplication of design principles to allotments requiresan acknowledgement of the way individuals worktheir plots and an understanding of the meaningallotment-holding bears for people within these gar-dening communities; in short, a respect for the land-scape of allotments as an autonomous expression ofculture alive in the city.

ALLOTMENTS AS NEGOTIATEDCOMMUNITIES

The landscape of allotments also plays a muchvalued role in the relationship between cultivationand identity building amongst plotholders. Allotment-holding is about much more than growing food:

Working outdoors feels much better for yourbody somehow. . . more vigorous than day today housework, more variety and stimulus. . . .Unexpected scents brought by breezes. . . .The air is always different and alerts the skin.Only when on your hands and knees do younotice insects and other small wonders. Myallotment is of central importance in my life . . .I feel strongly that everyone should have

access to land, to establish a close relationshipwith the earth. Essential as our surroundingsbecome more artificial . . . .

(Carol, Co. Durham, quoted in Crouch, 2002)

Working an allotment can engender communityidentity, through simple practices:

If you give somebody anything, they say –where did you get it from – I say I grew it myself.You feel proud in yourself that you grows it.

(Sylvester, Birmingham, ibid.)

The interchanges may be slight, but meaningful, andpart of a process of confidence building too:

We learn things from each other. You are verysocial and very kind. You make me feel good,you don’t come and call at me . . . things in yourgarden, little fruits . . . which I have appreciatedever so much.

John, who is in his seventies, is talking with Allene, awoman in her fifties. She says:

And I’ve learnt a lot from him. I’ve learnt ways ofplanting, I’ve learnt real skills about planting.I’ve learnt Jamaican ways of growing and cook-ing . . . always said you could tell an Afro-Carribean allotment, an Asian allotment, anEnglish allotment. And I’ve learnt about patienceand goodness and religion too, it all links in.

They hardly ever speak together; they work quietlyon adjacent plots, sometimes being there at thesame time, but that does not matter. These kinds ofexpressions and exchanges describe the landscapeof the allotment. It is a matter of understanding thelandscape through human experience, relations andpractices. Alone and together, plotters produce alandscape that is their expression of their culture.

However, this is not to say that allotment holders doexactly as they wish, although some do. Instead,working an allotment is composed of numerous



130

negotiations. There are of course the rules thatshape what can be done on a site; there are thenegotiations between individuals who may not alwaysbe as agreeable as John and Allene, and whichinvolve politics at a small scale.There is also a nego-tiation of the individual herself, working out, likeCarol, her values and attitudes. In a very interestingexpression of negotiated values and practices, theplotholders of Margery Lane site in the heart of thecity of Durham found they had to negotiate very tacti-cally between each other when their site was threat-ened (by its Diocesan owners) with closure and salea decade ago.Some plotholders wanted to hold on totheir dilapidated sheds. Others wanted to respond tothe increasing public attention the site was given dur-ing the very public campaign for its retention(Crouch, 1994). Over a period of many months theplotholders held discussions and sometimes arguedand eventually a few sheds were dismantled, butmost were repaired and face-lifted. In consequencethe site was saved, with the helpful support of theDurham Civic Society and the City Council.

THE PLOT FOR DESIGNERS

What then are the legitimate roles for designers frombeyond the plotholding community? Our critique ofthe new modernism suggests a need for caution inexposing allotments to the ministrations of the archi-tectural profession. There is a great deal of positivecharacter inherited in the allotment landscape thatdeserves to be conserved, but this is a living her-itage, best tended by its practitioners. Of course, itmust be acknowledged that some sites have poten-tial for recovery from neglect brought about throughplotholder inaction, or landowner inattention, or evenintended oversight (Crouch, 1998). There is a rolehere for the designer/architect, but it is a compli-cated one, requiring distinctive and discerning skills:

listening rather than telling; catalysing rather thandirecting. Crucially, this requires an empathy with theculture that produces allotment landscapes; the cul-ture that the design expresses is largely given ratherthan imposed. Learning from the experience of goodcommunity architecture, designers can translateideas using knowledge of, for example, efficiency ofspace use, tolerance, and the potential of particularmaterials. Plotholders may even have a grasp of thepossibilities for articulating allotments with otheropen space and built uses, but where they do not, thedesigner’s knowledge of how to realise the potentialis of value. However, it is crucial to recognise that theknowledge that allotment holders use is lay knowl-edge, something that cannot readily be acquired byan unfamiliar designer, and which therefore providesa valuable resource with which to work, and which isspurned at the peril of repeating Thorpe’s folly. Thedesigner has to work with the landscape producers,the plotholders themselves.

We would argue that the proper role for the designeris in mediating change, in finding ways to accommo-date the living landscape and culture of the allot-ment within the newer logics that Growing in theCommunity (Crouch et al., 2001) identifies as essen-tial for their future; mediating access, for example, torealise the allotment as a more open and more widelyvalued green space, through designs which encour-age and enhance the gaze, stimulating the viewer toponder the merits of buying a fork and joining in, whileprotecting crops and property from misadventure withsoftened but appropriate security – the thorn behindthe lowered wire.Within the site, design criteria mightbe integrated into new tenancy agreements, creatingseparate rules for gazed plots, or reduced rents linkedto the retention of trees that add ornament at blossomtime and opportunities in autumn for sharing thefruits. There are opportunities to exploit the sub-division of plots to accommodate busy people ininnovative ways, mixing productive microspaces with


DESIGNS ON THE PLOT

131

shared facilities like benches and public art – thingsthat reinforce the opportunities for social intimacywithin the allotment and across its boundaries.

At a higher scale, the designer as urban planner canhelp integrate allotments in creative ways into theurban scene to achieve valuable synergistic effects.Crouch et al. (2001, p. 25) cite adjacent locations forplots and playgrounds as good practice – so thatparents can cultivate in peace when the children getbored with worms and mud, while others withoutplots provide passive security when the gardenersare away. Co-location also creates opportunities forvirement between the allotment and other greenspace uses, in accordance with changing demands,while other locational considerations can help bringallotments into the centre of a style of living, in har-mony with the principles of sustainable develop-ment. Thus Hall and Ward (1998, pp. 206–7) call forthe incorporation into new residential developmentsof: ‘. . . an allotment garden, which ideally would beprovided in the communal open space in the middleof a superblock, entirely surrounded by houses andtheir own small private gardens. It would answer theinsistent call for organic food from an increasinglysophisticated and worried public.’

What is essential, however, is that there be inclusionof the gardeners themselves in the design process,for both new and inherited allotment spaces, so thatthe outcome is compatible with the sense of owner-ship of the design, and of site and plots. There is aneed, in other words, to work with the grain of allot-ment culture and the knowledge it embodies, toachieve better design through empowerment ratherthan imposition – design made sustainable throughcommunity pride, and where the details are leftopen, as opportunities for people to express theircreativity informally at the microscale, where the artsof cultivation and the everyday accommodations ofallotment life are played out.

REFERENCES

Crouch, D. (1994). Introduction to Crouch, D. and Ward, C.,The Allotment: Its Landscape and Culture. 2nd Edn.Nottingham: Five Leaves.

Crouch, D. (1998). The street in popular geographicalknowledge. In Images of the Street (N. Fyfe, ed.) London:Routledge.

Crouch, D. (2002). The Art of Allotments. Nottingham: FiveLeaves.

Crouch, D., Sempik, J. and Wiltshire, R. (2001). Growing inthe Community: A Good Practice Guide for theManagement of Allotments. London: Local GovernmentAssociation.

Crouch, D. and Ward, C. (2002). The Allotment: ItsLandscape and Culture. Nottingham: Five Leaves.

Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions(2001). Revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG)17 Sport, Open Space and Recreation: Consultation Paper.London: Department of the Environment Transport and theRegions.

Hall, P. and Ward, C. (1998). Sociable Cities:The Legacy ofEbenezer Howard. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

House of Commons, Environment Transport and RegionalAffairs Committee (1998). The Future for Allotments: FifthReport of the House of Commons Environment, Transportand Regional Affairs Committee. Volume I. HC560-I.London: The Stationery Office.

Midgley, S. (2000). Finding the plot. The Guardian, HigherEducation, 4 April, p. 12.

Thorpe, H. (1975).The homely allotment: from rural dole tourban amenity: a neglected aspect of urban land use.Geography, 268, 169–183.

Urban Task Force. (1999). Towards an Urban Renaissance.London: E&FN Spon.

Wiltshire, R. (1999). Towards an Inedible Urban Renais-sance. Allotment and Leisure Gardener, 3, 16.


FOUR

PLANNING FOR CPULS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

PART


URBAN AGRICULTURE IN HAVANA:OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE

Jorge Peña Díaz and Professor Phil Harris


This chapter focuses on the outstanding experienceof urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) takingplace in Cuba today. It has developed an innovativeand comprehensive model supporting food produc-tion within the boundaries of its cities using a combi-nation of top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Cuba, the largest island of the Antilles and the onlyremaining Western socialist society, has experi-enced two absolutely extreme situations in the lastdecades. On the one hand, the 1990s saw the mostintense economical crisis of its history, producedafter the collapse of the socialist block; on the other,it suffered the severe strengthening of the US block-ade. The crisis generated a group of innovativeresponses; among them the first individual, sponta-neous and later government-led support of UPA.The last few years have seen the success-ful, though partial, recovery of its main economicindicators and the maintenance of its social achieve-ments.These improvements came accompanied bythe introduction of market-oriented components intothe socialist-planned Cuban economy. The over-whelming crisis that elicited the appearance of UPAhas disappeared and new economic forces are nowin operation. Meanwhile, the UPA implementationprocess itself has evolved towards more complexlevels of organisation.

In this chapter the authors present the main char-acteristics of the urban agriculture currently presentin Cuba, the causes of its origin, antecedents, peo-ple’s and government’s roles and other key factorsemphasising the peculiarities of the Havana casestudy. They offer an overview of the main types ofUPA production and producer partnerships to befound in Cuba, and of the integration of UPA intothe planning policy of Havana, and comment onsome of the conflicts that have appeared during itsevolution. Finally, they discuss the most importantlessons to be learnt from this experience and thefactors affecting its replication.

THE CHALLENGE

Cuba, with a surface of 110 860 km2, has a populationof 11.22 million inhabitants and an increasing rateof urbanisation. More than 75 per cent of the popu-lation lives in cities. The collapse of the EasternEurope block in the early 1990s, with which Cubaconducted over 80 per cent of its trade, resulted inmassive economic dislocation and severe socialimpacts. In the same period, Cuba suffered thestrengthening of the US 40-year-long economic,financial and political sanctions – the blockade. Asa result of this combination, one of the mostseverely affected areas has been food supply: it isestimated that there was a 67 per cent reduction offood availability in 1994. A longstanding and sys-tematic focus on social issues has resulted in par-ticular achievements. For instance, the highestquality (and free) education and healthcare in LatinAmerica are provided to all Cuban citizens. Theseactions have been reflected in other areas such asscience, sports and culture. For example, despitehaving only 2 per cent of Latin America’s popula-tion, Cuba has 11 per cent of its scientists and hasdeveloped an advanced network of world classresearch institutes. Female participation in societyis outstanding and Cuba is ranked 58 in the UNDPHuman Development Index 2000.

Since the 1820s Cuban agriculture has beendominated by sugar production and in the 1860sCuba became the world’s largest sugar exporter.After the revolution in 1959, and its agrarian reforms,sugar continued to play a dominant role and mostagriculture involved extensive mechanised cultiva-tion of ‘exotic’ species and other export crops. Muchwork was done to develop the National Agriculturalsector into a highly mechanised one, with intensiveuse of agro-chemical products. Non-sugar agricul-ture had also largely been based upon large statefarms and co-operatives. Cuba’s agriculture and food


136


industries were heavily dependent on imports, includ-ing 100 per cent of wheat, 90 per cent of beans and57 per cent of all calories consumed.The agriculturalsector imported 48 per cent of fertilisers and 82 percent of pesticides (Rosset and Benjamin, 1994).Balanced animal feeds were largely based on maizeand other cereals, of which 97 per cent were imported(Deere, 1992, Rosset and Benjamin, 1994). From1989 these imports were drastically reduced andagriculture faced an immediate crisis: imports ofwheat and other grains for human consumptiondropped by more than 50 per cent (Deere, 1992)while other foodstuffs, with the exception of powderedmilk, declined even more, with a drop of more than 80per cent in the availability of fertilisers and pesticides(Rosset and Benjamin, 1994). Electricity generationwas drastically reduced, affecting food storagecapacities; fuel and parts for maintaining transportvehicles, oil and other inputs became scarce com-modities, driving the traditional agricultural systeminto critical disruption, with a subsequent impact onthe availability of nationally produced food, addition-ally affected by the reduction of food imports.

Together with achieving general economic recov-ery, the challenge was then established to gener-ate effective mechanisms to meet people’s foodneeds and to fulfil the government’s commitmenton this social issue. Taking into consideration thescale and coverage of the crisis what strategywould serve to meet the food demands of a pre-dominantly urban population heavily dependent onthe produce of a depressed countryside?

PEOPLE’S AND GOVERNMENT’SRESPONSE

After the crisis, Cuba lost more than 75 per cent of itsimport and export capacity. In response, a nationwide

package of emergency measures was establishedwithin a process known as Período Especial enTiempo de Paz (Special Period). To confront theproblems, which included reduced food suppliesand agricultural inputs, the government instigated aprogramme of reforms which included the redirec-tion of its trade towards the world market and theintroduction of some market style reforms in thedomestic economy. Additionally, the processincluded the adoption of innovative approachesdirected towards the downsizing of the centralgovernment and many industries; decentralisationand reorganisation strategies; import substitutionand alternative approaches in many areas amongother measures.

As part of these reforms a national alternative agri-cultural model (NAAM) has been developed since1990. One important aspect of this model is thereplacement of high levels of imported agriculturalinputs with alternative, indigenously developedmethods for pest and disease controls, soil fertilityand other innovative issues. Other aspects haveincluded the restructuring of the land property pat-tern of the large state-owned farms into smallerunits with co-operative property, and the permittingof a free market1 for foodstuffs. The crisis had gen-erated the immediate individual response of manycitizens and groups and in parallel encouragementwas given to individuals and/or co-operatives inurban and peri-urban areas to become vegetableproducers. Several forms of exploitation of the openspaces within the urban frame but also of availableareas within productive and services, educational,recreational, and healthcare facilities were estab-lished. In the period 1990–1994 it was estimatedthat more than 25 000 people were linked to about1800 hectares of so-called popular orchards.Thesewere set up spontaneously by individuals on openland in response to the food crisis. The presentexperience of urban food production has evolved

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN HAVANA

137

1 Similar experiences were carried out during the 1980sallowing the selling of agricultural produces. Several factorscontributed to the termination of these experiments. In thissense the free market is rather a saga of previous attempts.


towards an organised and co-ordinated programmewithin this process. UPA should be seen as a com-ponent of a wider strategic process rather than asan isolated one.

RURAL AGRICULTURE AND URBANHORTICULTURE IN CUBA

The ultimate goal of NAAM is to develop less mecha-nised, more labour intensive operations whichinvolve local populations in low external input sus-tainable food production enterprises. An importantfeature of Cuba’s ability to respond rapidly with analternative model has been its success in mobilisingscience and technology and the social investmentin education. Cuba had much earlier made a deci-sion to promote scientific knowledge-based devel-opment, for example, in agricultural biotechnologyand biological control. Many of the ‘new’ technol-ogies had been actively researched, specifically forthe Cuban environment, for a decade or so beforecircumstances made their implementation impera-tive. This made it much easier for the implementa-tion of the alternative model, avoiding problems oftechnology transfer or reception that might be experi-enced elsewhere. At the research level there is sup-port for the principles of organic production. Thereare very good links between the research andextension organisations and consequently a veryshort time lag between research innovation andfield application of research results.

The use of bio fertilisers, for instance, is advancedby any standards. Sufficient Rhizobium inoculantsfor leguminous crops for the whole country areproduced, and free living nitrogen fixing organismssuch as Azotobacter, and phosphorus solubil-ising microorganisms such as Bacillus, are beingmass produced in government-run, low technology

production units. Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizalinoculants, fungi which colonise the roots of plantsand help them obtain nutrients from the soil, are alsobeing mass produced and distributed. Maintenanceof soil fertility on even large farms now dependssignificantly on a range of management practices,including reduced tillage, the adoption of croprotations with the incorporation of green manuresuch as Sesbania, intercropping, and low input rota-tional grazing systems to build soil fertility on dairyfarms. Organic inputs include livestock manure,other agricultural wastes and compost produced inindustrial-scale worm composting operations. Forinstance, Cuba in 1992 produced 93 000 tonnes ofworm compost.

Within this alternative model urban and peri-urbanagriculture was quickly identified as a viable large-scale response aimed first and foremostly at thepartial recovery of the threatened food security.Since 1989 hundreds of state-owned hectares ofland were authorised to be used by citizens willingto cultivate them. The Ministry of Agriculture struc-tured itself to provide citizens with advice, materialsupport and encouragement in the management ofagricultural activities. The movement was of such amagnitude that in 1993 the Ministry of Agriculturetogether with city’s government, in response, organ-ised an official structure to pay attention to the phe-nomenon covering the provincial, the municipal andthe local levels (Cruz, 2001). Several national NGO’swith varied platforms were also integrated andsome International ones and other organisationssupported the movements as well.

As a recent phenomena in the Cuban context (atleast in its newer experience), several definitions forUPA have been offered by researchers and differentstake-holders. González Novo2 and Murphy (1999)define urban agriculture in Cuba as ‘an intensive,high input (organic pesticides and organic manure)and high output system favouring the production of a


138

2 Until 1998 Mario Gouzalez Novo was head of the HavanaMinistry of Agriculture, Urban Agriculture Department.


diversity of crops and animals during the year.’He describes the main idea of urban agriculture inHavana as ‘Production in the community, by thecommunity, for the community,’ adding that ‘urbanagriculture is very much seen as a way to bring pro-ducers and consumers closer together in order toachieve a steady supply of fresh, healthy, and variedproducts directly from the production site to the con-sumers.’ The latter catches the principle of connect-ing most of the stakeholders at the community levelas a key component to ensuring the success of agri-cultural production. Meanwhile Peña Díaz3 (2001)asserts ‘urban agriculture is the intensive productionof food by using organic means within the perimeterof the human settlements and its periphery, basedon the maximum use of the productive potential ofeach territory. It includes the use of the availableland, the high cultural level working force, the inter-relation of crop–animals and the advantages of theurban infrastructure. It encourages the diversifica-tion of crops and animals guaranteeing its steppedpermanence all year round.’ Other definitions pro-vide more elements, however a pragmatic conceptgenerally in use asserts that ‘in Cuba urban agricul-ture is that occurring 10 km around the provincialcapitals, 5 km around the municipal main towns, and2 km around the smaller towns’ (Guevara Núñez,2001). Average people, on the other hand, just iden-tify urban agriculture with the best known form ofproduction, the organopónicos (popular organicorchards). Most of these definitions fail to addresssome of the key issues relevant for an adequateunderstanding of the activity, such as location,stage, activities, destiny, etc. Most of them seem in away normative since they provide a vision of howUPA should be, i.e. an aspiration, or they are toopragmatic and too vague as to give a clear under-standing of the urban character of the processesand its implications. Issues such as differentiation ofintra-urban agriculture from peri-urban agriculture, orthe identification of rural agriculture within the urban

or peri-urban sectors of the city have been scarcely,if not at all, discussed in the Cuban context.

Beyond the different definitions the Cuban modelfor urban food production has been implementednationwide. This is a key difference to other coun-tries since the same techniques, organisation pat-tern, pest and diseases control products can befound all over the country. The elements character-ising the model are then the adoption of a set ofproduction forms and the assimilation of currentassociation forms belonging to the rural agricul-ture, the support of the scientific networks linked tothe Ministry of Agriculture, the commitment of theGovernment structures at all levels to support itand the adoption of a structure with strong influ-ence at the grass-root level. This National pro-gramme is presently co-ordinated by the NationalGroup for Urban Agriculture (GNAU) which is madeup of representatives of scientific institutions of theAgriculture Ministry and other stakeholders. It con-ducts the promotion, implementation and evalua-tion work of 26 so-called subprogrammes. Eachsubprogramme is dedicated to one specific type ofproduction or aspect of the industry. For example,there is a flowers subprogramme, a vegetableproduction sub-programme, a herbs and spicessubprogramme, an environmental issues sub-programme amongst others. The national groupevaluates the performance of each municipalityaccording to the implementation of the differentsubprogrammes and their achievements. Theresult of this evaluation is the selection of the mostoutstanding municipalities, and the identification ofbest practice cases. All of the country’s 169 munici-palities have developed urban agriculture withinthis programme.

There are several forms of production correspond-ing to the types of agricultural techniques used.Each of them has varied efficiency indicators(yields) ranging from 8 kg/m2.yr to 25 kg/m2.yr.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN HAVANA: OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE

139

3 Former Vice President of the National Group for UrbanAgriculture.


Other important components are the productionsupporting entities, which also belong to the sub-programmes though they do not directly producefood. They provide consultancy and advice ser-vices. Producers are grouped in different kinds ofpartnerships, which have been established withspecific payment, commercialisation and taxationregimes, ranging from self payment to salaries;in-situ commercialisation to tourist facilities supplyand usufruct to tax on land use respectively. Theseforms of association largely reproduce the struc-tures present in rural agriculture.

Main forms of production are the popular organicorchards (so-called organopónicos) and the highefficiency organic orchard (organopónico de altorendimiento, OAR), the popular and intensiveorchards, state owned self-production areas (auto-consumos estatales), popular orchards divided intoparcels and intensive orchards (huertos popularesparcelas y huertos intensivos), and coveredhouses (casas de cultivo). The production sup-porter entities are organic material production cen-tres (centros de producción de materia orgánica),agricultural clinics and shops (consultorios agríco-las, afterwards tiendas consultorio agropecuario),and nursery houses (casas de posturas). Farmersare associated in structures similar to those of therural agriculture, in different types of co-operativessuch as UBPC, CCS, and CPA4. The unplannedcreation of Farmers Clubs by urban dwellers wasnotable for the way it supported the wider idea ofUA policy.

URBAN AND PERI-URBANAGRICULTURE IN HAVANA

The capital city Havana covers an area of 727 km2, 0.67 per cent of the total area of Cuba. Its

population growth is 1.8 per cent per year and ithas about 2.2 million inhabitants, which make up20 per cent of the Cuban population and 27 percent of its urban population (DPPFA, 2000,González Novo and Murphy, 1999). The averagepopulation density is 3014 persons/km2. In spite ofthe decentralisation policy that took place duringthe previous 40 years in favour of the innerprovinces, Havana’s physical extension, its serv-ices and industrial infrastructure increased bythreefold (Palet, 1995, DPPFA, 2000). In the year2000 Havana still held 34 per cent of Nationalindustrial production, the main administrative andpolitical departments as well as most of the spe-cialised healthcare, educational, and cultural serv-ices. Additionally, Havana is the centre of scientificactivity and one of the most important foreigntourist attractions (DPPFA, 2000). The crises of the1990s affected the employment indicators, thoughthe recovery has brought new labour demands.There are also difficulties in Havana with the watersupply infrastructure.

Agriculture in Havana, for example, is backed by anextension service that would be the envy of most ofthe world. The Ministry of Agriculture’s UrbanAgriculture Department has a large number ofextension officers to provide free extension andtraining services to the organic farming sector, vis-iting regularly, and encouraging and advising onthe use of organic techniques.

HAVANA: ANTECEDENTS ANDCURRENT DEVELOPMENT

The presence of Chinese farmers in the outskirts ofHavana during the first decades of the twentiethcentury is still part of Cubans’ collective memory.This practice declined probably as a consequence


140

4 UBPC: Unidades Básicas de Producción Cooperativa –Basic Units for Co-Operative Production; CCS: Cooperativasde Créditos y Servicios – Services and Loans Co-operatives;CPA: Cooperativas de Producción Agropecuaria – Agricul-tural Production Co-operatives.


of the reduction of the Chinese community. It showshowever that any type of UPA in Havana has hadan alternate presence, especially during the last40 years. In this period it has always appeared as aresponse to extraordinary situations: in the 1960sin the inspiring atmosphere that the radical trans-formations of Cuban society brought to the capital.Havana’s green belt was proposed in the 1964Master Plan. It was envisaged as a way of over-coming the capital’s dependence on food provi-sions from the inner territories. After aneffervescent period of activity it decayed. Later, inthe nineties, in the face of major economic andfinancial shortcomings, UPA appeared againamid a group of innovative measures within the‘Período Especial.’ In the capital many had startedto grow vegetables in the backyards, a practicewith a long tradition, and even in the parterres infront of their houses. When the national and provin-cial governments encouraged people to occupyevery single free space with crops, vegetableswere planted even in front of the Ministry ofAgriculture and in the backyard of the state councilbuilding.

In the early 1960s the proposal of creating ElCordón de La Habana (Havana’s green belt) repre-sented a noticeable change in the infrastructure ofagriculture, in the improvement of the farmers’lifestyle, as well as an increase in the supply of foodto the population of the capital. An ideological con-ception envisaged the city as a parasite of thecountryside (Segre et al., 1997). The objective wasto provide the city with a productive surface thatwould empower the self-feeding capacity, but alsoprovide it with a number of recreational areas for the urban population of the largest city onthe island. The plan conceived of a Fruit trees belton the land closest to Havana, followed by amilk producer belt, providing it with additional environmental commodities, and health assur-

ances, achieving a more efficient use of lands(most of them were abandoned plots or werepreviously used with speculation purposes)through the integration of the public and theprivate sectors (Ponce de Leon, 1986). Around21 566 hectares of land were put on an exploitationregime, 5032 hectares of them for pasture and16 533 hectares for fruit trees, citric trees, coffee,gandul, and forestry. Forestry areas were con-ceived as micro-forests and parks, such as the(National) Botanical Garden, (National) Zoo,Metropolitan Park, (the so-called) Solidarity Park,and the Lenin Park. Several tree-nursery areaswere supposed to produce 100 million units neces-sary to plant the belt. It also included: ‘the construc-tion of 80 small-size dams and micro-dams forirrigation, more than 180 km of agricultural roadsand paths, around 1000 houses and 8 small vil-lages for the farmers and workers of the territory,the terracing of the hills for coffee plantations andthe planting of tree-curtains against the wind.’(Ponce de León 2000).

The plan was carried out, and between 1967 and1969 millions of nursery plants of different specieswere planted. 41 per cent of these plantationsremained 20 years later. In 1986 it representedaround 2416 hectares of fruit tree plantationslocated in the eastern part of the province,composed mainly of mango trees, 940 hectares ofcoffee to the south and southwest zones,268 hecaters of citric trees, 3019 hectares of pas-ture and more than 1721 hectares of forestry. 52micro-dams and the Ejército Rebelde dam with acapacity of 52 000 000 m3 to be used for irrigationand leisure purposes, were also built. 2850 houseswere built between 1967 and 1973, both individualones and ones in the 12 residential communities.Also, around 200 km of roads were built and thereare still remainders of the Tree-Curtains against thewind (Ponce de Leon, 1986).


141


THE EXPERIENCE OF THE 1990s

In 1991, through a strong information campaign,Havana’s city government encouraged the city’spopulation to use every single piece of open spacein order to produce food for direct consumption.Thisgenerated an immediate response and severalforms of exploitation of the open spaces within theurban frame but also of available areas within pro-ductive, service, educational, recreational, andhealthcare facilities were established. Most of themwere areas smaller than 1500 m2 which were givenfor a temporary but undefined period of time, to beexploited by one or various families, neighbours,students and docent personnel, workers of factor-ies, etc. Initially these areas were used to grow veg-etables and roots, and to keep poultry and smallercattle. A massive breeding of pigs in these areaswas illegally extended to central urban areas includ-ing houses and flats. This process has evolvedtowards better organised forms of productions.

The entire territory of the capital is considered urbanby the Physical Planning Office (PhP) and by exten-sion all agricultural production within Havana isconsidered Urban by the GNAU. The most recentlyapproved master plan for the city (Territorial OrderingScheme) considers, for the first time ever, UPA as apermanent urban function. It is a tacit recognition ofthe importance given to UPA, by the institution.However it contains some reactive position towardsUPA since, for example, it prohibits its occurrence inthe most central areas.

The Metropolitan Horticulture Enterprise Havana,established by the Ministry of Agriculture, runsmost of the production of vegetables and herbs inHavana. It controls and supplies most of the pro-duction and management of UPA in the province. Itadditionally facilitates tax payments for individualand co-operative producers.

There is one provincial delegation of the Ministry ofAgriculture in Havana. It has a three-level structureand is presided over by one delegate. 15 municipaldelegates preside on the equivalent structure in themunicipalities and there is one grass-root level del-egate known as ‘extensionista’ in the districts. Thedelegates at the provincial and the municipal levelsbelong to the respective government assemblies insuch a way that they can take part in the decisionmaking process. There are 13 urban farms in 13municipalities5 which belong to the entrepreneurialbranch but establish close co-operation with thelowest level of the delegation. Additionally, theyclosely co-operate with the government institutionat that level, the so-called Consejo Popular. This isa major opportunity to enhance the participatoryapproach they have selected for their work.

Main conflicts with UPA in Havana are related tothe usage of water, the maintenance of soil fertility,and its insertion into closed cycles. Water scarcityis not a major problem but problems with the age-ing infrastructure allow more than 50 per cent ofwater pumped for human consumption to leak.Several districts are permanently condemned towater shortages. In contrast, the main source ofwater for irrigation used by UPA is tap water, high-lighting a conflict that is far from being solved. Soilfertility due to the organic character of the activityis based on the importation of organic matter fromremote areas and the production of compost. Itis maintained with inputs of animal manure,mulching, and composting. Composting is eitherby static heaps or by worm composting. Soil fertil-ity can be maintained or enhanced by increasinginputs and continuing with intensive productionor by adopting less intensive production. Theprospect of reducing the intensity of production ina system designed to provide a valuable addi-tion to food supply at a time of economic crisis, isunattractive; increasing the organic input is the


142

5 The two most compact municipalities, Old Havana andCentro Habana do not have urban agriculture production.


favoured option. This results in difficulties sinceaccess to and availability of wastes is limited byscarcity of resources. Furthermore, UPA hasdeveloped without the restrictions of an estab-lished market in land speculation. Many popularorganic orchards (organopónicos) for instanceoccupy plots estimated to have a very high value ifsold on the open market. The development of sucha market could affect UPA development if addi-tional measures, e.g. integration into planningpolicy, are not further developed.

The capital has developed all of the so-called UPAsubprogrammes and Havana’s organic urban agri-culture is extraordinarily successful, such thatfresh produce offered at the farm gate is cheaperthan that brought from the countryside into thecity’s free markets. Actually, in contrast to other ter-ritories where the focus of the development of UPAhas been placed on the provision of jobs, inHavana it looks to counter the range of prices forfood related products. Havana is an extraordinarycase where organic vegetables are actually thecheapest option. The production of the UPA hasbeen linked to social institutions such as kinder-gartens, hospitals and schools whose restaurantsreceive fresh organic produce on a daily basis. It ispart of a strong information campaign promotingthe intake of vegetables as a positive nutrition prac-tice and attempts to counter traditional customswhich do not favour vegetables intake. The cam-paign includes TV-broadcast lessons on how toprepare vegetable-based meals and on their nutritional value, and programmes to advise farm-ers on techniques and methods for cultivation.Additionally, the Junior High Education system has implemented a new subject called urban agriculture. It shows young students what UPA is in theory and practice. Often students even culti-vate some crops in the school’s backyard and gardens.

CONCLUSIONS

In Cuba the urban agriculture model implementedmatches the crisis model described by Deelstra andother authors. The driving forces were the economi-cal difficulties derived from the drastic modification ofeconomic relationships. After the crisis an alternativemodel was pursued and within it urban agriculturewas identified early on as a means to ensure foodavailability for a large number of urban householdsand has recently been identified as an importantprovider of jobs. Support for food related issues hadprevailed as a prioritised issue in the Cuban politicalagenda since the early 1960s and this experienceseems to be inscribed also in UPA.

Presently, more than ten years since the initialimplementation of urban agriculture, the processhas evolved into one of highly complex struc-tures and relationships. A strong emphasis hasbeen placed on the socioeconomic dimension, forinstance, food production and its nutritional values;in second place, the potential of UPA as a jobprovider and its influence in the lowering of foodprices have been recognised. Environmentally, itsorganic character is its main asset but other aspectshave been overlooked or neglected. Largely (at leastinitially) due to the lack of hard currency to purchasefertilisers and pesticides, many producers individu-ally started to use derelict urban spaces and arenow using organic production methods, which hasbecome a requirement for most urban producers.There is also a growing awareness of environmentaldamage caused by intensive conventional tech-niques.These statements show that the governmentis eager to promote urban and organic food produc-tion firstly for both economic and social reason, butalso for environmental reasons.

In terms of its socio-economic situation and politicalsystem, Cuba is unique. Few developing countries


143


have invested so much in their human capital, norhave they achieved similar social indicators.Probably none has suffered such stress on its econ-omy as that generated in the early 1990s, nor theeffects of current economic and financial sanctions.In part, the problems Cuba now experiences are theresult of an economy pushed to be dependent until1990 on few trading partners, and of an agriculturalstrategy in which export cash crops dominated,food security was not a priority, and food self-suffi-ciency was poorly covered. Undoubtedly, part of thesuccess in adopting an alternative agriculturalmodel can be ascribed to the central influence onmarkets, and indeed on all aspects of the economyand society in general, of central government. Inspite of its uniqueness there are important lessonsto be learnt from the Cuban experience.

What makes it outstanding is firstly its comprehen-siveness. Secondly it is a matter of scale. In a veryshort period Cuba has observed a tremendousincrease in the volume of production, in the areasdedicated to urban production and likely a variationin the nutrition habits of some sectors of the popula-tion favouring an increase in their daily consumptionof fresh vegetables. González Novo and Murphy(2001) have described the Cuban experience asthe ‘world’s first nationwide co-ordinated urban agri-culture programme, integrating access to land,extension services, research and technology devel-opment, new supply stores for small farmers andnew marketing schemes and organisation of sellingpoints for urban producers.’

There has been a close, effective associationbetween the development of agriculture, local gov-ernment and local democracy. The participationdeveloped at the community level makes it a suc-cessful combination of top-down and bottom-upapproaches. The short period, and the scale, of itsimplementation are surprising. Earlier investment

in human capital and specifically in locally-orientedagricultural research and development skills andinfrastructure have paid dividends and the closelinks between research organisations and theexcellent extension services have delivered appro-priate and timely research outputs. A mixture ofinnovation and determination are today making theCuban experience a success story. Necessity haspersuaded Cuba to adopt a largely organicapproach to agriculture in which urban and peri-urban agriculture occupy a relevant role. Togetherwith this organic approach, the presence of asteady political will to ensure food availability for allseems to have had a strong influence. The exist-ence of political willingness seems to be a key fac-tor in ensuring the development of this kind ofexperience even though the realisation of alladvantages is limited. For instance, a strongemphasis initially on food production and lateron jobs generation, nutrition quality and educa-tion issues to the detriment of environmental con-siderations beyond UPA’s essentially organiccharacter.

Havana represents an interesting case study sinceit has experienced most of the contradictions asso-ciated with this kind of urban industry. The level ofintegration into Urban Planning Policy is distinctiveand has been achieved though a more flexible andproactive approach resulting from a better under-standing of the potential positive role and risksassociated with UPA and its potential contributionto comprehensive policies.

It remains to be seen to what extent Cuba’s organicexperiment will survive when the national economyrecovers, when the prospect of agricultural inputreturns, and when the full insertion of Cuba’s econ-omy into the world market becomes a reality, includ-ing the influence of the American agri-business.However, urban agriculture occupies a distinctive


144


position within this process and it seems to be morelikely to survive these influences even if the exten-sion of the alternative model is reduced to smallspots or even disappears. In the meantime lessonsare being learnt which could have major implica-tions worldwide.

REFERENCES

Cruz, M. C. (2001). Agricultura y Ciudad una clave para lasustentabilidad, Fundación de la Naturaleza y el Hombre,Havana.

Deere, C. D. (1992). Socialism on one island?: Cuba’sNational Food Program and its prospects for food security.Institute of Social Studies. The Hague.

DPPFA (2000). Esquema de OrdenamientoTerritorial 2001(Master Plan). Dirección Provincial de Planificación Física.La Habana.

Dresher, A., Jacobi, P. W. and Amend, J. (May 2000).Urban Agriculture: Justification and Planning guidelines.http://www.city farmer.org/uajustification.html

González Novo, M. and Murphy, C. (1999). UrbanAgriculture in the city of Havana a popular response to acrisis. In Growing Cities, Growing Food Urban Agriculture

on the Policy Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture.Deutsche Stiftung fuer internationale Entwicklung (DSE),329–348.

Guevara Núñez, O. (2001). Demostración de que si sepuede. In Granma, (official newspaper of the CubanCommunist Party) 1 February, 2001, p. 8.

Palet, M. (1995). Estructura de los asentamientos humanosen Cuba. Doctorate Thesis. Institute of Tropical Geography,Havana. (Not published)

Peña Díaz, J. (2001). The integration of urban and periurbanagriculture into the planning policy of Havana. Master ofScience Thesis, Department of Infrastructure and PlanningNR 01–169, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Ponce de Leon, E. (1986). El sistema de áreas verdes dela Habana. Primera Jornada Científica del Instituto dePlanificación Física. IPF. La Habana.

Ponce de Leon, E. (2000). Personal interview at the Grupopara el desarrollo Integral de la Capital. September 2000.Havana.

Rosset, P. and Benjamin, M. (1994). Two steps back, onestep forward: Cuba’s National Policy for AlternativeAgriculture, Gatekeeper series No. 46.

Segre R., Coyula, M. and Scarpaci, J. (1997). Havana: twofaces of the Antillean metropolis. World cities series.Chichester.


145


CUBA:LABORATORY FOR URBAN

AGRICULTURE

André Viljoen and Joe Howe

17cpul-ch17.qxd 02/01/2005 6:48 PM Page 146

CUBA: LABORATORY FOR URBAN AGRICULTURE

147

The extent, infrastructural support for, and relianceplaced upon urban agriculture in Cuba, means thatit provides a rich source of information for the studyof urban agriculture (Bourque and Canizares,2000), (Caridad Cruz and Sanchez Medina, 2003).As such it may be considered a laboratory in whichto observe and speculate upon the future shape ofproductive urban landscapes.

As Harris and Penna’s chapter makes clear, urbanagriculture was introduced into Cuba as a matter ofnecessity (see Chapter 16). What one sees inCuba is a system pragmatically placed with littletime to develop design strategies that can respondto urban agriculture. Detailed observations, whichcan be made in Cuba, help us to understand whata Continuous Productive Urban Landscape couldbe like. The following section draws on observa-tions made by the authors during field trips to Cubain 2002 and 2004, and focuses on describing thecharacteristics of urban agriculture.

Since the introduction of urban agriculture in Cubain the 1990s, a number of distinct categories havebeen defined, determined by size, location, usersand yield. Table 17.1 is based on the situation inHavana but is typical for the country as a whole.

Given that the environmental case for urban agri-culture relies on organic and local food production(see Chapter 3), we have concentrated on investi-gating high yield urban gardens, referred to as‘organpopnicos’ in this text.

Organopnicos provide the highest yield of all formsof urban agriculture, and as such contribute themost to the horizontal intensification of a site. Theirlocation within the urban fabric and the practice ofselling crops from the farm gate, adds to their con-venience for consumers and explains their pres-ence in small rural towns.

In order to build up a picture of the qualities ofurban agriculture, its spatial characteristics havebeen investigated at three different scales:

● the city● the urban agriculture site● the human.

To understand the implications for planning a city,which includes urban agriculture, we investigatedthe infrastructure required to support it. We alsowanted to find out if organic agriculture was prac-tised in Cuba.

Although the examples investigated in Cuba are influ-enced by local conditions, internationally relevant con-clusions can be made. Local climate, topography andsoil type all affect crop type, yield and the plot sizerequired for a given return. Land ownership, neigh-bourhood and municipal boundaries all determinelegal or social boundaries which may further impacton the size and location of urban agriculture sites, dis-placing sometimes ‘randomly’ the desired location ofurban agriculture fields or their boundaries. Theseparticular circumstances of location will interferewith general strategies for the design of ContinuousProductive Urban Landscapes. Rather than beingunderstood as negative realities, they are the factorswhich provide the local variations that lend interest toContinuous Productive Urban Landscapes.

THE SPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS OFCUBAN URBAN AGRICULTURE

At the scale of a city one can observe the relativedistribution of urban agriculture sites in relation toeach other and to other urban land use. At thescale of a single urban agriculture site, layout, formand materiality can be observed, and finally, at thehuman scale, the edges across which interactionsoccur, between citizen, cultivator and cultivatedlandscape, can be observed.

One of the issues we wanted to establish was howbig urban agriculture plots need to be to providefull-time employment and be economically viable.


PLANNING FOR CPULs: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

148

Table 17.1

Size Location Farmers Use of crops Yield

State farms for 1 hectare or Peri-urban Voluntary Feed state 1996:producers more cultivation by workers, 0.34 kg/consumption workers support day- m2.yr‘Autoconsumo care centres,s Estatales’ homes for 2000:

elderly, and 0.6 kg/facilities for m2.yrnew bornbabies, surplussold to workers

Community Less than Urban or peri- One person or To supply 1996:gardens 1000 m2 urban, vacant family cultivator or 1–2 kg/(plots) lots, family m2.yr‘Huertos unexploitedPopulares area within 2000:(Parcela)’ educational 8–12 kg/

or health m2.yrfacilities.State ownedor private

Community Typically Urban or peri- One person or Feed 1996:gardens between urban, state family, several producers and 1–2 kg/(intensive 1000 m2 and owned or families or co- for trade m2.yrcultivation 3000 m2 private land operativegarden) 2000:‘Huertos 8–12 kg/Populares m2.yr(HuertoIntensivo)’

Urban Typically Vacant urban Groups of Produce for 1996:community between sites, not individuals trade and 3 kg/m2.yrgarden 2000 m2 and suitable for formed into a small-scale‘Organopónic 5000 m2 direct collective. consumption 2000:os Populares’ agriculture Institutional by producers 20 kg/

use, require technical m2. yrimported soil support andand advicecontainers



149

Size Location Farmers Use of crops Yield

High yield Typically Government Commercially Produce for 1994:urban over allotted viable work sale to the 12 kg/m2.yrgardens 10 000 m2 vacant urban centres or population andOrganopónic sites, not co-operatives tourist sector 2000:os de Alto suitable for 25 kg/Rendimiento’ direct m2.yr

agricultureuse, soil andcontainersfor growingbrought in

Source: Caridad Cruz and Sanchez Medina (2003)

Table 17.1 continued

In addition to this we were interested in the preciselayouts adopted to facilitate efficient growing andthe patterns of crop rotation to judge how season-ality is reflected on the ground.

At a smaller scale we wanted to observe the interfacebetween the urban agriculture plots and the city’sinhabitants.We were interested in finding out how thecity and its population interact with these plots.

Our studies began in Havana, and we then moved toCienfuegos, a provincial city south of Havana, whichhas been referred to as the capital of urban agricul-ture in Cuba (Socorro Castro, 2001) and finally wevisited Rodas, a small rural town near Cienfuegos.

URBAN AGRICULTURE AT THE CITY SCALE

Urban agriculture sites tend to be found on theurban fringe and in the city centre adjacent to majorthrough roads, see Figure 17.1. Local conditionsalter the relative distribution of urban agriculture.As density of inhabitation increases, for example asfound in Havana, so city centre agriculture dimin-

ishes, while the relatively low density of Cienfuegosmeans that urban agriculture sites are availableclose to the centre of the city.

Havana has a European urban character with acompact core and a less dense, at times dispersed,edge. Its historic quarter is dense and most build-ings do not exceed four or five stories, squaresmark urban centres and the sea provides an edge.The pattern is typical for a city that has developedover time and a number of different planning strate-gies are evident in its layout. In common with many

OrganoponicosUrban areaRoad/pathway

Cuban cities can be characterised as having enfolded edges. Urban agriculture is found predominantly alongside main

thoroughfares and on the urban fringe

Figure 17.1



150

CIENFUEGOS MAP

Legend:

Existing organopónicos Proposed organopónicos Existing tree nurseries Proposed tree nurseries Rabbit farms Huerto intensivos

Figure 17.2

Figure 17.2 Urban Agriculture sites in Cienfuegos.



151

other cities, derelict plots of land in the city centre,often no larger than the footprint of a single building,have been converted into small-scale urban agricul-ture fields. These small plots are dispersed withinthe city’s historic fabric, and can be viewed as aform of agitprop advertising the city’s new means offood production, not unlike the programmes duringthe Second World War to convert public spaces inLondon to productive landscapes.

Moving out from Havana’s centre, as the cityde-compacts towards its edges, larger urban agricul-ture sites are found, as if enfolded into the city, oftenadjacent to industry or new residential developments.The largest urban agriculture fields, typical examplesof peri-urban agriculture, are located on the urbanperiphery adjacent to main access routes into the city.

Cienfuegos provides a contrast to Havana. WhereasHavana has grown incrementally, Cienfuegos is aplanned city, designed by French urbanists followinga strict, but generous, grid pattern. It is like a provin-cial version of nineteenth century Barcelona, lessdense, with one- or two-storey buildings, and com-plete with its own version of the Ramblas. Thearrangement of urban agriculture in Cienfuegosreflects its layout. Many of its plots remain undevel-oped and so the grid of streets lies over the land as amatrix into which urban agriculture sites can beinserted. Relatively low urban densities and the avail-ability of land result in an even distribution of the pop-ulation and urban agriculture sites.

Notwithstanding the availability of land inCienfuegos, strict criteria are applied before apiece of land can be designated as suitable forurban agriculture. During an interview with HéctorR. López Cabeza, a member of the ProvincialGroup for Urban Agriculture in Cienfuegos, thefollowing selection criteria were identified:

1. Sites must be empty.2. Sites must not have been used for any other

purpose.

3. Sites should fit into a long-term plan beingdeveloped by the municipality which integratesagriculture with physical, health and hydraulicresource (water) planning.

4. Water and electricity must be available on the siteand the requirements for cultivation must notadversely effect the rest of the city.

5. It is very important that sites are close to con-sumers so that transport requirements are min-imised.

6. If any of the above criteria are not met, thensites will not be designated for urban agricultureuse.

Planning guidance for urban agriculture is decidedlocally and in cities other than Cienfuegos it hasbeen located on sites which have had former uses.In Rodas, for example, the La Terminal urban agri-culture site is found on an old bus terminus. Inthese cases, where soil may be contaminated,raised beds are used and imported soil, supple-mented by compost, is used for growing foodcrops. The reason for requiring land with no previ-ous use, in Cienfuegos, is unclear. It may stemfrom a concern about contaminated land, or it mayhave been introduced as a way of avoiding theneed to clear land of buildings and other construc-tions prior to establishing agriculture. The impact ofthese criteria is significant – in Cienfuegos 1500hectares of open space were identified as potentialurban agriculture sites, but only 50 hectares met allof the selection criteria. This small proportion ofland, classified as suitable for urban agriculture, inpart reflects current difficulties in Cuba related to alack of resources; for example, difficulties extend-ing the existing water and electricity supply net-work, the cost of importing soil where there iscontaminated land, and difficulties transportinggoods over relatively short distances. Similar diffi-culties are likely to be found in many cities acrossthe world. Their impact and significance will varywith the resources available to deal with them and



152

RODAS MAP

Legend:

Existing organopónicos Proposed orchards

Figure 17.3

Figure 17.3 Urban Agriculture sites in Rodas.



153

the degree to which urban agriculture is being inte-grated into an existing city or into a planned urbanexpansion onto green field sites.

A major research programme investigating the prac-tice and development of urban agriculture in Havanatook place between 1995 and 1998 (Caridad Cruzand Sanchez Medina, 2003). Part of the researchprogramme investigated land management and cri-teria for inserting urban agriculture into Havana. Theemphasis of this research focused on articulating thebenefits of urban agriculture as a legitimate urbanland use. While not underplaying the technical andlegal constraints on selecting sites for urban agricul-ture, it emphasises the need to develop coherentdesign strategies for its integration into the city.

Rodas has been actively perusing urban agricul-ture since the start of the ‘special period’ in Cubaand, apart from producing fruit and vegetables, cutflowers are also grown within the town. In 2002, thetown was starting to plant communal orchardsflanking the main access road and a river, whichruns through Rodas. This is one of the first exam-ples we are aware of, where urban agriculture isconsciously being developed as a part a widerlandscape strategy. This can be compared to

Havana’s plans in the 1960s for a green belt, andoffers a micro version of a productive landscape,providing environmental and quality of life benefits.

THE URBAN AGRICULTURE SITE

The size of urban agriculture sites in Cuba relatesboth to their location in the city and the type ofurban agriculture practised (see Table 17.1 andChapter 16).

Organopónicos populares are the most visible typeof urban agriculture, although not the largest bytotal area or output. They are high yield urbanmarket gardens, run commercially by their opera-tors, selling vegetables from the ‘farm gate’. Inareas where vegetable production has been estab-lished, there are often floral organoponicos, pro-ducing cut flowers and garden plants. The size oforganoponicos vary depending upon site availabil-ity and the number of people farming them.Cultivation is entirely manual, often using self-made tools. The smallest organoponicos have acultivated area in the order of 500 m2, which corre-sponds to the maximum area one person can



154

Figure 17.4

work – for comparison, a standard allotment site inEngland has an area of 250 m2. The La Terminalorganoponico in Rodas is fairly typical, with threepeople cultivating 1200 m2 of raised beds.Significantly larger organoponicos do exist, forexample the 4 Caminos site, which has a plantedarea of 3400 m2 and a correspondingly largerworkforce.

In organoponicos raised beds are used to isolatecrops from soil which might be contaminated, andto contain the volume of soil to which compost isapplied. The raised beds also provide healthierworking conditions as the amount of bendingrequired is reduced. A surprising amount of spaceis required for access paths and ancillary buildings.It is not unusual for a growing area of about 1000 m2

to require a site of 3000 m2. Peripheral areas ofsites, initially unplanted, are often cultivated overtime, thus increasing the efficiency of plots.

‘Autoconsumos estatales’ are similar to organopon-icos, but are sited within the grounds of factories orother institutions and supply their local food needs.‘Huertos’ or ‘Parceleros’ form another category andare small-scale plots usually cultivated by a single

family; they are equivalent to allotments in England,although each cultivator’s plot is often larger.

In reality, the differences between these categoriesare blurred. Nevertheless they do provide someinsight in to the different forms of urban agriculture.

In 2000, in Havana alone there were more than22 000 producers involved in cultivating 8 778hectares of land. Table 17.1 shows the variation inyield between more traditional state farms and highyield urban gardens. Productivity for all types ofurban agriculture has increased dramatically duringCuba’s special period, for example, a doubling of pro-ductivity between 1994 and 2000, from 12 kg/m2kgto 25 kg/m2kg for high yield urban gardens.

Nursery houses, producing fruit trees and seedsare found either within organoponicos or on sepa-rate sites. Their output supplies the local populationwith plants for gardens and urban agriculture sites.

Main road to city centre

Productive urban landscapes as bridging elements

Figure 17.4 Organoponico La Calzada in Cienfuegos.



155

Riverbank and recreation



156

Urban agriculture fields provide an educational resource for adjacent schools.

Figure 17.5

Figure 17.5 Organoponico Gastronomica Playa in Havana.



157



158

Observations and speculations

In a few words we can tell you how to build anorganoponico.

Divide a site up into alternate strips, 65 cm wide forpaths, 120 cm wide for raised beds. Excavate thebeds to a depth of 30 cm below ground, fill withstones for drainage and build retaining walls to aheight of 20 cm above ground. Fill beds with soiland repeat until the site is full.

On the face of it, one organoponicos is much likeanother. But when one looks, it can be seen thatthis is not so. The particularities of each site inter-fere with and enrich the apparent monotony by dis-torting and varying it.

The urban agriculture atlas which follows, presentssurveys of ten sites measured by the author duringFebruary 2002. The text accompanying the surveydrawings describe conditions as found, and charac-teristics which could inform future design strategies.The site surveys are followed by a record of thematerials used to construct planting beds for

organoponicos. In the ten sites surveyed, a mix oftwenty-four materials was found, defining the edgesof planted beds. In all cases these were recycledmaterials, some placed loosely for easy reassem-bling, some placed permanently. This variety ofmaterials and the changing crop patterns over timecontribute to the visual dynamics of urban agricul-ture and its role as a register of seasonal change.

The edges of urban agriculture sites form bound-aries between the public realm of the street and theprivate realm of market gardens. They also offer thepotential to become occupied. Security is an impor-tant issue for cultivators and a fence of some sortalways surrounds urban agriculture sites in Cuba.Although these fences provide a physical barrieralong boundaries, they do not prevent passers-byfrom looking at and sensing the urban agriculturesites. Different sites and different boundariespresented different characteristics, often determinedby the ad hoc appropriation of edges for differentuses, for example, the use of a fence for dryingclothes. Observations in Cuba show how bound-aries can offer new places for occupation and newexperiences within the city.

Figure 17.6

Translucent enclosures suggesting the kinds of spaces which could be developed within CPULs.

Figure 17.6 Plant nursery in Cienfuegos.



159

A path or road often bound one or more sides of anurban agriculture site. Networks for circulation anddistribution are established, in some cases a veryparticular quality is generated by the simplest ofelements or activities. A wall can mark a routeand boundary, while its shadow creates a three-dimensional comfort zone, a space providingthermal delight, encouraging a different pace andmaking a space to talk while viewing an everchanging landscape.

By looking out over productive urban landscapesfrom a window or terrace, the observer gainsownership of their territory; it is claimed by seeing.Environments become comprehensible, an urbannature is defined, personal space is expanded,from your window, and from your neighbour’swindow as well!

Spaces capable of accommodating temporary occupation (a wedding) or transitory occupation (sport)



160

0 5 10 m

B

A

Figure 17.7



161

Figure 17.8

BA

CROPS

avocado pears,furrows for beans, pumpkins,

banana tree, aloe, peas,fennel, chillies, herbs

MATERIALS

stone, earth, gravel, car tyres, tiled path

HUERTO COMUNITARIO SAN MIGUEL,BELASCORIN Y GERVASIO. CENTRO HABANA

A community garden, established by agroup of local women. This is one of the few examples of a permaculture garden in Cuba.The geometry is non-linear, leading occupants from the entrance towards seating spaces.

CHARACTERISTICS

Micro voidEnclosure

GroundWalls

SkyA place to sit

The smell of earth



162

0 5 10 m

A

Figure 17.9



163

Figure 17.10

Roof terrace

Room

Borrowing a view from other inhabited space

A

HUERTOS INTENSIVO HABANA,MERCED Y PAULA. HABANA VIEJA

This site, in the historic quarter of Havana is managed by Alberto de la Paz. It provides food and functions as an educational facility for local schoolchildren, who visit and work on the crops. A tree shades an outdoor meeting space.

CROPS

tomatoes, cabbage,banana trees, onions

MATERIALS

pre-cast concrete floor beams, interlocking roof tiles, claySpanish roof tiles, timber, stone, earth.

CHARACTERISTICS

Linear micro gardenOutdoor class roomDebating chamber

Valley sectionMarking space with shade

A shared visual facilityTerracesWindows

Balconies



164

0 5 10 m

B

A

Figure 17.11



165

Figure 17.12

A B

ORGANOPONICO PUEBLO GRIFO VIEJOCIENFUEGOS

A site for home working, this small organoponicois located within the curtilage of a suburban plot.It is small enough for one person to be ableto cultivate it. At this scale it does not challenge,or react to the characteristic conditions of sprawl,found in adjoining plots.

CROPS

lettuce, tomatoes,onions, maize

MATERIALS

recycled precast concrete beams,40 cm by 40 cm by 5m long, earth

CHARACTERISTICS

Productive landscape patchSuburban plot as market garden

Alongside a main access roadThickened boundary

Layered edge



166

See

d nu

rser

y

0 5 10 m

A

Figure 17.13



167

Figure 17.14

A

ORGANOPONICO LA TERMINALRODAS

The terminal occupies the site of a previous busterminal. Located within a city block, close to theedge of a small rural town, called Rodas.Placed like a stepping stone in a steam, it willeventually form the first of a series of such fieldsleading to community orchards flanking tworivers that define Rodas. An enigmatic spaceis created by a translucent enclosurecontaining a seed nursery.

CROPS

lettuce, onions, radish,beans, tomatoes, carrots,medicinal crops, hibiscus

MATERIALS

stones, wood, concrete blocks,concrete posts, zeolite, earth, soil, slendersteel framework, railway tracks for columns,reinforcing rods supporting shadow mesh.

CHARACTERISTICS

Brown field siteUrbanised field

Cultivated city blockHorizontal

Corner shopHealth advice

Translucent enclosure



168

Junior school

High schoolA

0 5 10 m

A

Figure 17.15



169

Figure 17.16

A

ORGANOPONICO GASTRONOMICA PLAYAMUNICIPIO PLAYA. HAVANA

Playa organoponico serves a predominantlyresidential area. It is defined by being constructedon an artificial plateau sited on sloping ground.Pedestrians walking around its perimeterexperience a constantly changing relationshipwith the urban agriculture surface. Sited betweena single storey junior school and a multi-storeyhigh school, it is seen as a carpet from oneand an edge to the other.

CHARACTERISTICS

PlateauShared resourceA space between

Boundary and edgeUrban carpet

Educational resourceEmbankment to pavement

CROPS

tomatoes, lettuce, parsley,cabbage, chives, leeks, onions,

rocket, peppers, aubergines,beans, cauliflower, pumpkin

MATERIALS

stone, concrete test cores,concrete rubble, corrugated cement sheet, chain link fence, earth



170

0 5 10 m

B

C

A

Figure 17.17



171

Figure 17.18

Platform

Football ground

C

A

Horizon Horizon

B

AUTOCONSUMOUNIVERSIDAD DE CIENFUEGOS

This market garden supplements the fruitand vegetable requirements of the University ofCienfuegos. It suggests how productivelandscape can connect and create transitionsbetween different functional uses. Byencompassing non specific territories,occupation is invited. For example thereinforced concrete top to a water tankprovides circa 800 sq. m of performance space.

CROPS

peppers, okra beans, lettuce,tomatoes, chives, aubergines

MATERIALS

precast concrete slabs heldin place with metal hoops, some recycledstool legs, tar macadam, earth, chain-linkfence,precast concrete posts

CHARACTERISTICS

Platforms for sport, performance and cultivation.Play between horizontal and sloping ground.

Made ground and found groundWide horizons

Views across territoriesA visual invitation to occupy

Patchy landscapes



172

0 5 10 m

A

Figure 17.19



173

Figure 17.20

Same level view

Higher level view

different to

ORGANOPONICO LA CALZADACIENFUEGOS

An organoponico with potential forintroducing a coherent landscapestrategy, connecting major circulationroutes to a leisure landscape alongsidea river which runs through the city.The introduction of public routes throughor alongside urban agriculture fieldswould provide a new dimension to thecity and be an example of ecologicalintensification.

CROPS

lettuce, beans, onions, fallow land,seed beds, tomatoes, coriander.

MATERIALS

rendered concrete blocks,earth, soil.

CHARACTERISTICS

Landscape carpetIntensified view

Changing urban surfaceImproving accessibility

LinkingMarking a new urban axisMarket stall as threshold



174

B

A

0 5 10 m

Figure 17.21



175

Figure 17.22

B

ORGANOPONICO FLORALRODAS

This site, located before one enters Rodas,supplies the town with cut flowers and garden plants. It has characteristics similar to fruit and vegetable organoponicos. The importance given to the provision of cut flowers demonstrates how an attitude to living can be embodied in productive landscapes. A loosely structured arrangement of beds define an uncultivated central area which invites transitory occupation.

CROPS

irises, poppies, daisies,hibiscus, fruit trees

COLOURS

red, orange, green, pale red, purple,white, green and white variegated,

dark green, lime green, grey,grey green, reddish green

MATERIALS

stone, earth, timber posts, woven plastic sheeting, rushes

CHARACTERISTICS

Incremental occupationBounding a horizontal site

Colour and scentIndeterminate centre

FairgroundMarket

A place for wedding receptions

A



176

0 5 10 m

A

Figure 17.23



177

A

ORGANOPONICO CUATRO CAMINOSCIENFUEGOS

A main road bounds this extensive site to one sidewith pedestrian and cycle paths on its other sides. A wall three meters high separates the organoponico from the University of Cienfuegos campus and defines two territories representing, an urban condition and a rural condition. The wall shades a cycle path. The upper floors of adjacent buildings overlook the wall, thus making a visual connection between elevated interiors and the rural conditionrepresented by the urban agriculture. On the ground the wall isolates and defines the campus space.

CROPS

lettuce, tomatoes, beans,beetroot, potatoes, chives,

okra, radishes, aubergines,garlic, maize, onions

MATERIALS

stone, concrete wall, chain link fence, earth

CHARACTERISTICS

ExtensivePeri urban agriculture

Articulating the boundary between builtand cultivated environments

Marking pedestrian and cycle routesMaking space with shade

Market stall

Figure 17.24



178

A

B

0 5 10 m

Figure 17.25



179

Figure 17.26

BA

ORGANOPONICO PASTORITACIENFUEGOS

This site is discovered from above, from private apartments or from shared terraces of an adjoining school. Recycled five meter long precast concretebeams enclose planting beds and articulate topographical changes, thus defining territories and edges. This landscape, currently a visual resource, could become a physical resource if overlaid with publicly accessible paths and spaces, increasing the variety of occupation.

CROPS

aloes, mint, pumpkins, lettuce,spinach, parsley, beans,

beetroot, tomatoes, carrots,coriander, citrus trees

MATERIALS

precast concrete slabs,400mm by 400mm precast concretebeams, concrete blocks, concrete fence posts, wire fence

CHARACTERISTICS

UndulationMarking topography

Making a new surfaceViewing from above

Bridging territories



180

MATERIALS

Concrete test coresOrganoponico Gastronomia. Playa. Havana

1

Precast concrete slabs/steel reinforced barsPueblo Grifo Nuevo. Cienfuegos

2

Hollow concrete blocks/precast concrete slabsCuatro Caminos. Cienfuegos

3

4 Hollow terracota bricksUniversidad de Cienfuegos

5 Precast concrete slabs/terracota bricksUniversidad de Cienfuegos

6 Insitu concrete wallsLa Calzada. Cienfuegos

1 4

2 5

3 6

Figure 17.27



181

Figure 17.28

MATERIALS

Precast concrete slabs/concrete blocksPastonia. Cienfuegos 7

Precast concrete beams/insitu concrete cornerPueblo Grifo Viejo. Cienfuegos 8

Plastic 'grow' bagsFloral Organoponico. Rodas 9

10Rough cast concrete slabsPueblo Grifo Nuevo. Cienfuegos

11Precast concrete slabs/steel stool legsUniversidad de Cienfuegos

12Natural stonesFloral Organoponico. Rodas

7 10

8 11

9 12



182

MATERIALS

13 16

14 17

15 18

Interlocking terracota roof tilesHuertos intensivos. Havana

13

Stone and crushed concreteLa Terminal. Rodas

14

Precast concrete beam/concrete blocksHuertos intensivos. Havana

15

16 Rough cast concrete/insitu concreteLa Terminal. Rodas

17 Precast concrete/insitu concreteLa Terminal. Rodas

18 Terracota roof tilesHuertos intensivos. Havana

Figure 17.29



183

Figure 17.30

MATERIALS

22Crushed concreteHuerto Comunitario. Havana

23 Concrete test coresOrganoponico Gastronomica. Playa. Havana

24 Precast concrete columnsPastorita. Cienfuegos

19 22

20 23

21 24

Crushed concrete and brickOrganoponico Gastronomia. Playa. Havana

19

Rubber tyresHuerto Comunitario. Havana

20

Lime washed stonesCuatro Caminos. Cienfuegos

21



184

EDGE DEVELOPMENTTHICK EDGE

Transitory occupation changes the way in which an edgeis perceived. A fence hung with washing to drydemonstrates how the use of an edge changes the way apasser-by views the urban agriculture field beyond.Someone looking towards the field will focus alternatelyon the materials in the foreground and the background. Inthis situation one reads an adjacent surface, the fabrichung out to dry first and later the earth and crops beyond.As the fabrics change, so new visual relationships are setup between foreground and background, a constantlychanging dialogue between the vertically hung cloth andthe horizontal ground.

THICK EDGE

Imagine the effect of several rows of washing along theedge of an urban agriculture site; this is an example of athick edge. Thick edges accommodate different types of

inhabitation, separating private and public space and in sodoing add to the urban experience.

Thick edges may accommodate a variety of occupations,for example, a surface for play, a garden for leisure or plat-

forms for picnics.

EDGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN(STAGE ONE)

Figure 17.31

The fence of the Organoponico La Calzada, in Cienfuegos is used to dry laundry.



185

Figure 17.32

EDGE DEVELOPMENTDUAL NATURE EDGE

Windows in buildings on the edge of urban agriculturesites offer views with different characteristics. The viewtowards urban agriculture presents an image, which isrural in character. Windows facing other directionspresent an image urban in character. Thus, within a givenbuilding different conditions may be experienced, settingup different moods in different spaces.

Alternating views from a staircase, to one side views of the PuebloGrifo Nuevo organoponico in Cienfuegos and to the other side

views of adjacent buildings.

DUAL NATURE

This transition from a rural or natural condition to an urbancondition, which occurs in plan, is not unlike the articulation

of space made by the classical division of a buildingvertically into base, piano nobile and attic.

EDGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN(STAGE TWO)



186

EDGE DEVELOPMENTTHIN EDGE

Here a minor intervention, a wall 3 metres high,introduces a series of significant spatial divisions. Thelocation and dimension of the wall simultaneouslyseparates and links the organoponico to adjacentbuildings. At ground level, the space between the walland buildings is perceived as an urban area, like anurban square, or plaza, bounded and contained by wallsand buildings. This space has an urban quality andintensity. On the other side of the wall, a person isshielded from the adjoining buildings and their view isconcentrated towards the market garden. The wallintensifies the contrast between an urban and ruralcondition.Pedestrians moving from one side of the wall to the otherexperience this contrast.

THIN EDGE

The change in experience can be understood as amarker, recording the change between the working day

and domestic or relaxing time. The daily change betweenrural and urban condition is another example of urban

intensification, introduced by the location of productivelandscape. It can be compared to the weekly contrasting

environment experienced by people occupying countrycottages during weekends and town houses during the

week.

EDGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN(STAGE THREE)

Figure 17.33

A cycle path shaded by a wall runs alongside the Cuatro Caminos organoponico in Cienfuegos.



187

EDGE DEVELOPMENTTOPOGRAPHICAL EDGE

In several instances ground has been levelled to provide ahorizontal surface for cultivation. Horizontal planes accen-tuate undulations in the surrounding landscape andchange the way in which an observer sees the marketgarden. These changes between the level of ground onwhich a pedestrian walks and the adjacent market gardenmean that at times the field may be in view and at times itmay be hidden. A sense of expectation is provoked inpassers-by.

Embankments betweenpavements and market gardensat the Pastorita organoponico,Cienfuegos and theOrganoponico gastronomiaPlaya, Havana.

THIN LINE EDGE

Horizontal planes represent artificial topographies. Byaccentuating changes in the natural topography, a

pedestrian’s awareness of the specific character of theplace is enhanced and measure is given to the landscape.

EDGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN(STAGE FOUR)

Figure 17.34


INFRASTRUCTURE AND URBANAGRICULTURE

In this section three situations are examined. First,the infrastructure supporting urban agriculture at amunicipal level (Rodas), second the role and obser-vations of an independent foundation in Havana(Fundacion Antonio Núnez Jiménez De LaNatualeza Y El Hombre) and finally an overview ofthe practice of urban agriculture in a particular neigh-bourhood (Consejo Popular Camilo Cienfuegos).

Rodas provides an example of how a small townhas actively encouraged urban agriculture. The‘Programa Especial De Desarrollo de la AgriculturaUrbana’ supports a team of advisors helping farm-ers manage their sites and business. A meetingwith this team, held in Rodas on the 16 February2002, clarified the role of the municipality andurban agriculture advisors.

In 1994 urban agriculture was introduced to Rodas,the main town in Rodas municipality (population of33 600). Initially only vegetables were produced,but the goal was expanded to provide fresh fruitand vegetables for all of the population. Currentlyall twenty-nine settlements in the municipality haveproductive urban agriculture sites.

Vets provide advice to urban farmers on animalhusbandry and horticulturists advise on organicpest control, based on no use of chemicals.A programme also exists to supply urban farmerswith organic fertiliser from two sugar mills, and cat-tle raising and chicken farming opportunities.

The office for urban agriculture will supply familieswith ten chickens and one rooster for egg production.In addition to food growing sites, there are floralorganoponicos (for cut flowers), seed farms andnurseries. Communal orchards have previously beenestablished, and fruit trees are also supplied forplanting in private gardens and a small pineapplefarm has been established to supply the tourist trade.

Urban agriculture sites are partnered with schools,medical centres and old people’s homes and contribute to programmes promoting healthy eating.

School clubs have been set up, with programmesdeveloped in consultation with the pupils.

It is planned to concentrate vegetable production inorganoponicos rather than intensive farms, as theiryields are higher. Yields from intensive farms havebeen found to be 1 kg of vegetables per square metreper month, while organoponicos yield about 2.5 kg ofvegetables per square metre per month.These yieldswhich are high (see Chapter 20) are due to the inten-sive farming of the organoponicos and in part due toCuba’s climate which allows multi-cropping per year.

In 2001, the town of Rodas was self-sufficient in fruitand vegetable production. Output has increasedfrom 350 grams of fruit and vegetables per inhabi-tant per day in 1994 (127 kg per year) to 1600 gramsin 2000 (584 kg per year).The aim is to increase theoutput to 2000 grams per inhabitant per day (730 kgper year). This level of production compares with115 kg per inhabitant per year in 2000 for Havana(Caridad Cruz and Sanchez Medina, 2003).

In ten years’ time the province of Rodas aims to:

● be self-sufficient in fruit and vegetable production● be able to export organic crops● have trees in towns to help provide fresh air.

In Havana, state and municipal support for urbanagriculture is complimented by the work of theFundacion Antonio Núnez Jiménez De LaNatualeza Y El Hombre. The foundation was estab-lished by the founder of the Cuban Academy ofSciences, and believes that only through culture canthe relationship between humanity and nature beameliorated.Thus, promoting urban ecology within abroad context of environmental and socialsustainability, is one of its many activities and as partof this work, urban agriculture is supported (CaridadCruz and Sanchez Medina, 2003). Permacultureand organic urban agriculture are vigorously promoted by working with local communities andsupporting local initiatives by means of workshopsand networking (see Chapter 22). The Foundationprovides capacity building programmes for theurban agriculture community and since 1994 haspromoted permaculture, which was introduced toHavana in 1993 by practitioners from New Zealand


188


and Australia. Six or seven small-scale projectswere set up in Havana, followed by 43 permaculturefarms, although not all of these farms have provedsuccessful. In practice permaculture remains afringe activity, which is not integrated into wider,state supported programmes.

A meeting in Havana on the 18 February 2002, withRoberto Sánchez Medina, who manages theFundacion Antonio Núnez Jiménez DeLa Natualeza Y El Hombre’s sustainable citiesprogramme, provided insights into the role of urbanagriculture in Havana.

As yet Havana is not self-sufficient in fruit andvegetable production. A potential 28 000 hectaresare available for urban agriculture. Up to theyear 2000, excluding state enterprises, about8000 hectares were used for urban agriculture.Of this about 1500 hectares were located withinthe city of Havana, but most urban agricultureis located on the urban periphery or in the suburbs.

The Cuban government defines urban agriculture bythe distance of fields from the city.The limits are set at10 km for a typical city and 5 km for a small city.Havana is a special case and any food growing withinthe metropolitan area is considered urban agriculture.

There are four large parks within Havana but sincethe special period few resources have been availableto manage these spaces. The largest of these, theParque Metropolitano de la Habana, already containssome urban agriculture and there are plans for thefuture expansion of urban agriculture in these parks.

Since 1994, urban agriculture in Havana has hadsupport from the department of agriculture andthere are now 17 urban agriculture advice shops inthe city. These support individuals who wish toestablish urban agriculture sites.The state suppliesland to individuals, or groups of individuals whosign a contract to produce particular crops, whichmay be sold on the open market. A rental for theland is paid to central government.

The improving economic situation has provided lim-ited access to pesticides, but the law prohibits theuse of most chemicals. A few very specific chemi-cals are permitted for use in a controlled manner.

It was noticeable that the people we spoke to inHavana were more cautious about predicting thefuture for urban agriculture than those in Rodas.They observed that changes in the economic ordercould alter its status and perceived importance.One of the major issues to face in the future will bethe value and ownership of land. Currently this isnot a problem, as sufficient state owned land exists.

The feeling was that if the benefits are well under-stood, then urban agriculture has a good chance ofsucceeding.

URBAN AGRICULTURE INRESIDENTIAL AREAS

To better understand how urban agriculture is pro-moted in residential areas, the Fundacion AntonioNúnez Jiménez invited us to visit the ConsejoPopular Camilo Cienfuegos, a large residential set-tlement on the eastern edge of Havana, built afterthe revolution, housing some 11600 people. Thesettlement’s people’s council oversees the imple-mentation of urban agriculture.

In February 2002, a total of approximately eighthectares of land were under cultivation, consistingof the ‘El Pedregal Intensive Cultivation Garden’(2.5 hectares in which crops are sown directly inthe ground, rather than in raised beds) and the ElParaiso Farmers Group, a group of 45 parcelas(allotments). While produce from a parcela issometimes sold to the public, their primary purposeis to provide food for the individuals.

A further 4.3 hectares of land was cultivated by dis-persed farmers, operating as individuals and notattached to the people’s council.

The Consejo Popular Camilo Cienfuegos has an areaof about six square kilometres, which is subdividedinto nine sub areas, each of which elects a localrepresentative to the people’s council. Local repre-sentatives work directly with farmers and a singlerepresentative reports back to the agriculturaladministrators and planners at the provincial level.This system provides a robust mechanism allowing


189


feedback between policy makers and individualurban farmers.

Participation in urban agriculture is voluntary andrelies on individuals or groups making a request toarea representatives for land to grow food on.

If an inhabitant wants land for a parcela, or a groupwants land for an intensive farm, this is granted sub-ject to conditions requiring the growing of food andprohibiting the construction of buildings or the cuttingdown of trees. A clear distinction exists between com-mercially run projects like the El Pedregal IntensiveCultivation Garden and non-commercial parcelas.

Parcelas tend to be cultivated by retired people andthey are free (no rent); large ones may cover2500 m2 if a whole family uses it, but 200 m2 ismore typical.

In the case of Intensive Cultivation Gardens theGreater Havana Fresh Vegetable Companyco-ordinates the sale and distribution of crops froma number of producers and collects a sales tax thatthe farmers are liable for.

In 2002 land remained available for urban agriculture.The ground around the Consejo Popular CamiloCienfuegos is rocky and saline and crops requireirrigation as groundwater is not readily available.Drinking water is used for irrigation and this exacer-bates existing domestic water shortages experi-enced by inhabitants, but we could find no evidenceof friction between families who grew food and usedextra water for irrigation and those who did not.Farmers and their supporters have investigated anumber of water recycling and storage schemes,one of the most ambitious being the use of waterfrom the annual draining of the adjacentPanamerican Complex’s Olympic Pools. All of theseproposals require significant investment in infra-structure and have as yet not been implemented.

A composting scheme has been set up which usesdomestic organic waste from individual families foruse in urban agriculture. As elsewhere theseschemes are voluntary and in 2002 had limitedsuccess. A series of workshops was planned toencourage participation.

The Fundacion Antonio Núnez Jiménez has under-taken a detailed study of urban agriculture in theConsejo Popular Camilo Cienfuegos and this hasrevealed some concerns farmers have with the con-tractual arrangements they are tied into. For example,farmers have expressed concerns with the quality ofseeds supplied to them by the Greater HavanaVegetable Company, a matter over which they haveno control given the employment contracts they haveentered into. On the other hand these contracts pro-vide farmers with a pension and the Greater HavanaVegetable Company markets some of their produceas well as supplying farmers with additional varietiesof vegetable for sale from the farm gate.

Farmers managing the El Pedregal Intensive Culti-vation Garden have different attitudes to marketingthan those working non-commercial parcelas.The lat-ter have no interest in marketing their produce, whilethose farming the El Pedregal Intensive CultivationGarden are active in promoting their goods.

Despite these shortcomings, which can not be con-sidered exceptional, the majority of farmers whohad been farming for ten years had the intention ofcontinuing to do so for as long as possible.Furthermore the study found that notwithstandingthe less than ideal rocky and saline soil, the yieldfrom Consejo Popular Camilo Cienfuegos siteswas 91 per cent of the average yield for equivalenttypes of urban agriculture in Havana.

ORGANIC URBAN AGRICULTURE

We were interested to find out if organic productionwas seen as an integral feature of urban agriculture.

Our research revealed that many biological controlmethods were also proving to be effectivelyemployed on many of the agriculture sites. Forexample banana stems are grown on many of theurban agricultural plots. Once cut and baited withhoney they are extremely effective in attractinginsects that otherwise might be tempted by localcrops. Such a technique has proved particularlyuseful in the control of sweet potato weevil.


190


Another area of bio-development has been theemergence of vermi-compost centres (usingworms to promote composting). Whilst many urbanagriculture plots undertake their own composting,recently there has been the emergence of sitesspecifically dedicated to the composting of organicmaterial. Between 1995 and 2002 almost 200 ofthese units were established with the annual pro-duction of organic compost rising from under 3000to 100 000 tonnes during this period. Other organicfarming techniques have also emerged, such asextensive crop rotations, green manuring, inter-cropping and soil conservation.

A conference on urban agriculture hosted by theUniversity of Cienfuegos provided answers tosome questions. At the time of our visit, 2002, Cubadid not subscribe to any organic certificationscheme. However, by most definitions Cuba’surban agriculture can be considered organic. Since1989, due to the economic situation, artificial pesti-cides and fertilisers have been difficult to come byand when chemical treatments are available, theyare used in a targeted manner to control specificoutbreaks of disease or pests.

The use of organic or natural pest control, for urbanagriculture, is explicitly promoted.This has resultedin the accumulation of an extensive body of knowl-edge, and urban agriculture support workerswidely and actively disseminate this to growers.

The development of ecological pest control sys-tems is ongoing. In 2004 new methods for catchingsmall flying insects had been introduced toCienfuegos. Here the ends of 50 gallon drums andsimilar metal or plastic disks had been smearedwith grease and fixed onto poles. These deviceswere then ‘planted’ amongst beds to catch insects,which would otherwise attack crops. This con-structed vegetation introduced a layer of surrealpoetics to the otherwise utilitarian landscape ofurban agriculture – sites began to read like three-dimensional installations by Miro.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that,despite great progress, there remain many barriersand difficulties that still need to be overcome. Oursite visits revealed farmers who remained scepticalof organic methods. Likewise there are many in thescientific, policy making and government circles

that are concerned that new biotechnologies arenot developing fast enough. These officials oftenstated their concern about pests that may defyorganic controls.

Much material in this chapter is the result of interviews andconversations with the Cuban urban agriculturespecialists, met during field trips to Cuba in 2002 and2004. We would like to thank the following people for theirtime and contribution:

Jen Pukonen and Roberto Sanches Medina (FundaciónAntonio Núñez Jiménez la Natureza y el Hombre, Havana)

Professor Jorge Peña Diaz (Centre for Urban Studies,CUJAE, Havana)

Professor Socorro Castro and Professor Rene PadronPadron (University of Cienfuegos)

Hector Lopez (Jefe Agriculture Urbana, ProvinceCienfuegos)

Liliana Mederos Rodrigues (Provincial Delegation forAgriculture: Rodas)

Alena Fernandez and Arura Basques (Urban Agricultureadvisors, Rodas and Cienfuegos)

Huber Alfonso Garcia (Delegardo Municipal de la Agricultura)

Pedro Leon Artiz (Jefe Granga Urbana Rodas)

F Gande Iglesias (Jefe Producion Granga Urbana),

REFERENCES

Bourque, M. and Canizares, K. (2000). Urban Agriculturein Havana, Cuba. Urban Agriculture Magazine, Vol. 1,No. 1, 27–29.

Caridad Cruz, M. and Sanchez Medina, R. (2003).Agriculture in the City: A Key to Sustainability in Havana,Cuba. International Development Research Centre.

Pretty, J. (2002). Agriculture: Reconnecting People, Landand Nature. London: Earthscan.

Ponce, F. (1986). Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance:Transforming Food Production in Cuba. Oakland: Food First.

Socorro Castro, A. R. (2001). Cienfuegos, the Capital ofUrban Agriculture in Cuba. Urban Agriculture Notes,published by City Farmer, Canada’s office of urbanagriculture. www.cityfarmer.org/cubacastro.html accessedMay 2001.


191


URBAN AND PERI-URBAN AGRICULTUREIN EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA:

ECONOMIC, PLANNING AND SOCIALDIMENSIONS

Dr Beacon Mbiba


URBAN AND PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE IN EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA

193

This chapter seeks to identify key aspects of theresearch record on urban and peri-urban agriculturein Southern and East Africa using a bibliographycompiled by Obudho and Foeken (1999) as the start-ing point and main data base.The dominant status ofurban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) in East andSouthern Africa reflects a restructuring (and col-lapse) of urban economies in the region since the1970s. This has attracted increased scholarly atten-tion as well as interest from local NGOs and interna-tional development organisations that desire to useurban and peri-urban agriculture as an entry point forurban environment management poverty alleviationand food security. However, the success of theseinterventions will depend on how well we understandboth intra-urban agriculture dynamics as well as thecontext within which it takes place.The latter includesquestions of land access and control plus widerurban governance issues. Despite the prevalence ofUPA and support from NGOs and donor organisa-tions, local authorities and their planning institutionsappear not to consider it a priority.

RESEARCH PATTERNS SINCE THE1970s: REGIONAL AND SUBJECTFOCUS

Subject focus

Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) research inEast and Southern Africa (the region) exhibits sev-eral patterns, some of which have been noted before(Rogerson, 2001; Mbiba, 2001). Key among these isthe association of UPA with urban economic collapseand poverty. Taking a simple tally of publications bysubject and country, based on the bibliographic dataof Obudho and Foeken (1999), we note that theearliest studies were in the 1970s. These were in

Zambia (1972, 1978, 1979) and Kenya (1977). Butthey were very few (see Figures 18.1 and 18.2) andfocused on UPA as part of the informal sector debategenerated by ILO activities at the time.

These were followed in the early 1980s by furtherstudies that had an environmental focus, looking atland degradation, destruction of flora and deforesta-tion. Here, studies in Kenya (Mazingira Institute,1987) and Zimbabwe (Mazambani, 1982) werenotable.These showed that environmental degrada-tion in cities was not only a result of cultivation activ-ities but was also related to construction activitiesand to fuel and energy needs of the poor popula-tions. Up until the mid 1980s, UPA was not a popularsubject at all. In Zambia, where the bulk of thestudies was done, the driving force was foreignresearchers who looked at theoretical issues, suchas the link between UPA and malaria, economic andgender issues.

However, in the early 1990s research output on UPArose sharply. Economic dimensions and links withpoverty and food needs at the household level domi-nated the work. At the same time, the Swedish spon-sored GRUPHEL programme and the MazingiraInstitute promoted gender analysis within the UAsector. IDRC promoted a region wide ‘Cities FeedingPeople’ research and awareness programme. By1995, UA was no longer a subject of ridicule in mostuniversities in the region as it embraced otheraspects such as food security and nutrition, policy,governance and institutional responses. At the turnof the century, food security and poverty are the keysubjects of interest.

Country focus and regional patterns

In terms of countries, although Zambia had an earlystart, it was soon overtaken by Kenya (1980s) andsubsequently Tanzania (early 1990s) and Zimbabwe



194

(mid to late 1990s). As noted above, Zambia’sresearch was dominated by foreign researcherscompared to Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and SouthAfrica where a crop of local researchers competedfor research space. However, the more northerly onegoes, the higher this research has been donordependent in terms of research funds. Pure aca-demic research not linked to donor programmes ishard to find except probably in South Africa (seeStren, 1994; Mbiba and Huchzermeyer, 2002) . . .

By 2000, certain features were clear:

● Countries in the South dominate, especiallyZimbabwe and South Africa. South Africa is now

attracting funds from key donors that are scuttlingout of Zimbabwe. Attracting donor funds to Harare,even for a small academic workshop, is now closeto impossible.

● Other subjects areas, land, technology, skills train-ing and extension needs are coming to the fore.

● South Africa’s output is also on the increase andis likely to be more pronounced as a result ofincreasing poverty, current positive donor supportand a diverse research base in universities in thebig cities such as Durban, Cape Town, Pretoria,Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth. Research on tech-nologies, new theoretical interpretations andentry points are likely to emerge here.

Total publications

Exponential increase

1970–1979 1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–1999

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Pub

licat

ions

Period

Graph 1: total publications on urban agriculture, 1970–1998

Figure 18.1



195

● In the greater part of the region, research willremain donor driven in the long term.

● In the smaller countries research output hasremained low over the years (Lesotho, Malawi,Rwanda, Botswana, Namibia). In the DRC,Mozambique and Angola, language differencesand conflict situations have hindered the sharingof some materials from ongoing research in citiesof those countries (see Figure 18.3).

If the Obudho and Foeken (1999) bibliographywere to be updated today, certainly the number of publications would be found to be many timesmore the maximum recorded then. Much of this

remains as grey literature in the countries or officesof the donor organisations running programmes inthose places.

SUMMARY OF THE CONTEXT OFURBAN AND PERI-URBANAGRICULTURE IN AFRICA INCRITICAL RESEARCH AREAS

Although the scholarly work shows that urbanagriculture or the growing of food in urban and

1970–1979 1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–19990

5

10

15

20

25

30

App

roxi

mat

e nu

mbe

r of

pub

licat

ions

Period

EnvironmentPoverty and economyFood and nutritionLandGenderGovernance and policySkills and trainingTechnology and extensionMixed

Graph 2: urban agriculture publications by subject focus in East and Southern Africa, 1970–1998

Figure 18.2



196

peri-urban areas (UPA) is not new in Africa(Freeman, 1991; Mbiba, 1995; Grossman et al.,1999; Rogerson, 2001), the phenomenon is nowdifferent and requires our attention in severalrespects. Firstly, since the collapse of formal urbaneconomies in Africa and the debilitating impacts ofeconomic structural adjustment programmes sincethe late 1970s, both the rich and the poor in Africa’scities have had to seek alternative ways of survival.The new development is that the spatial scale ofUPA has grown tremendously and its contributionto household economies has risen to far greaterproportions than previously imagined (MDP, 2001).

Probably, the most critical new development arisingfrom the above scenario is the elevation of ‘urbanagriculture’ as a concept in African urban deve-lopment policy and planning. Never before havethere been calls for its inclusion into formal policy.This is associated with growing support from lead-ing international development organisations (suchas UNDP, FAO, GTZ, MDP, IDRC and DfID) forthe promotion of UA as an element of urbanpoverty alleviation and sustainable developmentprogrammes (see, for example, Bakker et al., 2000;Brook and Davila, 2000; www.ruaf.org; www.fao.org; www.cityfarmer.org).

Botsw

ana

DRC

Ethiop

ia

Kenya

Leso

tho

Mala

wi

Moz

ambiq

ue

Rwanda

South

Afri

ca

Ugand

a

Tanz

ania

Zambia

Zimba

bwe

Country

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Num

ber

of p

ublic

atio

ns

Graph 3: publications on urban agriculture in East and Southern Africa, 1970–1998

Figure 18.3



197

However, promotion and integration is underminedby a range of contextual, conceptual and institu-tional conflicts or capacity deficiencies that need tobe better understood and responded to. First, is theobservation that this new concept of UPA and theactivity itself are in practice confronted by an unen-thusiastic, restrictive and at times hostile local policyenvironment. Local settlement policies and institu-tions remain largely ambivalent to this phenomenonwith policy makers unconvinced as to the potentialbenefits that may arise from its integration intourban development. To an extent, UPA proponentswhose global project approach does not captureregional and local diversities, as well as the priorityissues and complex demands faced by local policymakers, reinforce the scepticism of policy makers.

Second is the fact that conflicting and contradictorypolicy/institutional responses are the norm, not onlyamong local authority departments, but alsobetween politicians and technical professionals andamong central government ministries. In particular,friction among ministries of local government, agri-culture and environment are the norm and reinforcethe policy dilemmas at local authority levels.

Third are conflicts related to UPA versus other landuses and users in urban and peri-urban areasespecially with respect to land resources. The pro-ponents of urban and peri-urban agriculture havefailed to recognise that the success of this activityand its formal acceptance depends on the contextand diversity of local dynamics, especially contestsfor control and access to land resources.

Presently, this access is characterised by conflictsthat manifest in inter alia, social tensions, destructionof property and the environment, administrativedisputes, physical confrontations and loss of eco-nomic productivity. Unfortunately, existing policies(mainly town and regional planning instruments) andinstitutions are ill-equipped to resolve these conflicts

in a manner that is sustainable and of benefit to localcommunities. In some cases, policies and institu-tions for urban and peri-urban development arenon-existent.

Fourth is the question of economic opportunitiesarising from UPA. Contrary to research evidence,integration of UPA is dominantly conceived of as adomain of the poor. This underplays the untappedand emerging role of entrepreneurial, or for themarket, UPA in which the ‘elite’ and private sectorparticipation has potential to create more jobs aswell as broaden the revenue base for urban localauthorities.

For most cities in Africa, UPA in the form of horticul-tural production is not part of the traditional farmingsystems. Yet if adopted on a wide scale, it wouldimprove unit productivity of land and probably dif-fuse some of the land conflicts that prevail. Lack ofappropriate policies leads to loss of economicpotential on one hand and failure to resolve con-flicts between small holders versus large interna-tional actors, as well as between land demands bythis sector versus those of other urban expansionneeds. Under a context of globalisation, these issuesneed clearer policy attention.

ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS

The rise of urban agriculture as a component ofdevelopment policy has been noted above. This isassociated with poverty alleviation projects and hasdrawn in all key international development agentsalthough few are at present clear as to how urbanagriculture can be turned into a viable developmentprogramme. In Tanzania, GTZ has supported theDar es Salaam Urban Vegetable Promotion Projectfor many years and has collaborated with otherdonors to host conferences and publicise urban


agriculture (see Bakker et al., 2000). In its attemptto find a role for urban agriculture, the FAO hasrecently supported a number of expert group semi-nars in Southern Africa. In collaboration with theMunicipal Development Programme, FAO SouthernAfrica has invested resources into a study of thelinkages between land tenure and urban agriculturein Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Probablythe most significant actor is the IDRC that has sup-ported research since the 1970s. This research hasbeen done in collaboration with local partners thatincluded university scientists, local NGOs such asENDA Zimbabwe, and more recently a combinationof different institutions. With the Harare basedMunicipal Development Programme for East andSouthern Africa, IDRC has launched a new initiativeon the political economy of urban agriculture in theregion. It also supports and works in collaborationwith the Consultative Group on International Agricul-ture Research (CGIAR) and the Nairobi basedInternational Potato Centre (CIP) to co-ordinateresearch on urban agriculture in Africa.

In every country there is a range of local groupsworking with urban agriculture practitioners. Withthe increased attention from international donors,local institutions compete for expected donorresources and time is invested in preparation ofproject plans to suit frameworks of the donors. Onthe research front, although there is increasedactivity, the bulk of the output is for the consumptionof the donors and not for publication in traditionalinternational journals. The incentives for the latteron the part of local researchers are diminishing.

CONCLUSION

This chapter reviewed the research record on urbanand peri-urban agriculture in East and Southern


198

Africa whose prevalence has increased withincreasing levels of economic hardship in everycountry. In the early years, it was driven by environ-mental concerns but more recently, economic andfood security concerns predominate. Urban agricul-ture is mainly a subsistence activity as ordinary res-idents use urban space to produce food underharsh economic conditions. This has raised com-plex and unresolved issues of legitimacy, landaccess, tenure and planning.

Therefore, there is a need to understand and elevatedevelopment debate on the concept of urban andperi-urban agriculture; on the nature of peri-urbanland conflicts and within this to identify innovative pol-icy intervention that benefits local communities andthe poor in terms of food security, nutrition and jobs.Clearly, the urban agriculture focus in Africa at themoment does not have an urban ecology, design andregeneration focus like that found in Europe.

There is also a need to understand the nature ofcurrent urban development policies with a view tolocate where and where not UPA could be inte-grated into urban development (both spatial andeconomic). This should include the structures thatmay be required to facilitate integration as well ascapacity building in local authorities, training andresearch centres, NGOs and communities. Someof the integration challenges were explored in theUrban Agriculture Magazine (notably Volume 4,July 2001).

As noted since the early 1980s, the subject ofpoverty in Africa has ‘pulverised research capacity’in general and that for urban policy and manage-ment is no exception. Thus, continuous attentionneeds to be paid to research and training needs soas to support and lead interventions for sustainableurban development. Our research network PeriNETseeks to address some of these problems (seehttp://www.pidces.sbu.ac.uk/BE/UES/perinet/).



199

REFERENCES

Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Gundel, S.and Sabel-Koschella, U.,de Zeeuw, H. (eds.) (2000). Growing Cities, Growing Food:Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. DESE/ZEL, Sida,CTA, GTZ, ACPA, BMZ, ETC.

Brook, R. and Davilla, J. (2000). The Peri-Urban Interface:A tale of two cities. School of Agricultural and ForestSciences, University of Wales and Development PlanningUnit, University College London.

Freeman, D. B. (1991). A City of Farmers: Informal UrbanAgriculture in the Open Spaces of Nairobi, Kenya. McGillUniversity Press: Montreal and Kingston.

Grossman, D., Van den Berg, L. and Ajaegpu, H. (eds.)(1999). Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Africa.Ashgate: Aldershot.

Mbiba, B. (1994) Institutional Responses to UncontrolledUrban Cultivation in Harare: Prohibitive or Accommodative?Environment and Urbanisation, 6, 188–202.

Mbiba, B. (1995). Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe:Implications for Urban Management and Poverty. Avebury:Aldershot.

Mbiba, B. (2001).The Political Economy of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in East and Southern Africa: Overviewand Research Settings. Paper presented at a RegionalWorkshop Organised by the Municipal DevelopmentProgramme (East and Southern Africa), Bronte Hotel,Harare, 27th February–3rd March 2001.

Mbiba, B. and Huchuzermeyer, M. (2002). Contentiousdevelopment: peri-urban studies in sub-Saharan Africa.Progress in Development Studies, 2 (2), 113–131.

Municipal Development Programme (2001). The PoliticalEconomy of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Eastern

and Southern Africa. Proceedings of the MDP/IDRC work-shop, Bronte Hotel, Harare, 28th February–2 March 2001.

Obudho, R. A. and Foeken, W. J. (1999). Urban Agriculture inAfrica: A Bibliographical Survey. Research Report 58/1999:Leiden African Studies Centre and Nairobi Centre for UrbanStudies.

Rogerson, C. M. (2001). Urban Agriculture: Defining theSouthern African Policy Debate. Paper Presented at anFAO Sub-regional Conference on ‘Simple Technologies forCrop Diversification by Small Scale Farmers in Urban andPeri-Urban Areas of Southern Africa’, StellenboschUniversity, South Africa, January 15–18.

Smith, D. W. and Tevera, D. S. (1997). Socio-EconomicContext for the Householder of Urban Agriculture in Harare,Zimbabwe. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe, 28, 25–28.

Urban Agriculture Magazine at www.ruaf.org

ABBREVIATIONS

DfID � Department for International Development,United Kingdom

FAO � Food and Agricultural Organisation, UnitedNations

GTZ � German Development Agency

IDRC � International Development Research Centre,Ottawa, Canada

ILO � International Labour Organisation

MDP � Municipal Development Programme

RUAF � Resource Centre for Urban Agriculture andForestry, ETC The Netherlands

UNDP � United Nations Development Programme


MOULSECOOMB:DISCOVERING A MICRO-PUL

André Viljoen and Katrin Bohn


MOULSECOOMB: DISCOVERING A MICRO-PUL

201

Figure 19.1 (photo of Moulsecoomb) shows anallotment site in Moulsecoomb, a suburb on the edgeof Brighton, on the south coast of England. The site,on a south facing slope is small, having nine stan-dard allotment plots, with an area of 250 m2 each, andan overall site area of about 3200 m2.

It is occupied by the Moulsecoomb Forest Gardenand Wildlife Project, which serves a number ofdifferent groups, including community garden vol-unteers, unemployed people and young children.The project is self-regulated and has financial sup-port from a number of local organisations (Carter,2001). This diverse group of users, with differentbackgrounds, desires and interests, has created a

usage pattern by which a network of public spaceshas been overlaid onto regular urban agricultureplots. This characteristic of ‘overlay’ is one of theprincipal features of Continuous Productive UrbanLandscapes and the small size of this site showsoverlay at its most intimate scale.

Figure 19.2 shows the original arrangement of allot-ments at Moulsecoomb, nine equal rectangular plotswith narrow footpaths inbetween. Figures 19.3 and19.4 demonstrate how occupation by people haschanged the original arrangement of plots, showinghow paths have been extended to encompass partsof the planting beds and provide areas for people touse in other ways. Contemplative, recreational, and

Figure 19.1

10 m

Figure 19.2

Figure 19.2 Moulsecoomb allotments Brighton 2002: plots as rented out to occupants.Figure 19.1 Moulsecoomb allotments, Brighton 2002.



202

private spaces can be found within these extensionsto the original footpaths.The whole arrangement canbe read as a network (see Figure 19.3) superim-posed onto the original layout (see Figure 19.2)resulting in the final mix of occupations, with spacesfor growing and living (see Figure 19.4).

Within the overlay of public space, occupants haveconstructed an enclosure for shelter, and lawnssloping towards the south and the sun, as placesfor sitting or lying, and a forest garden that offers aretreat. The space fosters social interaction withinthe local community and between cultivators andother occupants. It can be characterised as a

gregarious space, one where social and productivelandscapes coincide.

Moulsecoomb represents a micro model for a largerurban intention. It provides a number of clues forhow, at the urban scale, Continuous ProductiveUrban Landscapes may be structured. It demon-strates how a matrix of circulation and occupationalspaces can articulate and contain fields for growing.At an urban scale, paths in Moulsecoomb canbe imagined as primary pedestrian and cycle ways,planting beds can be thought of as market gardensites, fields in the city. By examing the Moulsecoombsite as found and simultaneously imagining the

10 m10 m

Figure 19.3Figure 19.4

Figure 19.3 Moulsecoomb allotments Brighton 2002: network of paths and shared space introduced by the occupants.Figure 19.4 Moulsecoomb allotments Brighton 2002: occupation, showing the overlay of paths, shared space and plots for

food growing.



203

dwellers with a connection to horticulture, to agri-culture and by extension to an understanding ofhuman interaction with nature. This connection,which is visual, answers a powerful human desirefor contact with the countryside, or at least a needfor contact with an idea of nature and countryside.The significance of this desire is demonstrated bythe popularity of suburban dwellings on the ruralfringe and the popularity, for those who can affordit, of a weekend cottage. For a city dweller, havingregular contact with urban agriculture is like havinga house in the countryside.

Imagine the qualities brought to a city if the con-ditions found in Moulsecoomb’s productive urbanlandscape were repeated across a city, to become aContinuous Productive Urban Landscape.

allotments as city blocks or large fields of urbanagriculture, a pattern of urban development can beimagined, in which the principle of overlay andContinuous Productive Urban Landscapes hasbeen applied at a number of different scales.

In addition to seeing how occupation modifies astrict municipal geometry by providing space forsocial life, the site shows productive urban land-scapes as a visual resource and marker of sea-sonal change.

From an adjacent commuter bridge at a railwaystation, the Moulsecoomb site offers a view topedestrians. This view is important to our under-standing of another aspect of urban agriculture. Itdemonstrates how agricultural fields provide urban



204

Characteristics of allotments, distinct edges and teritories, fine grain, direct use of materials, repetition and variation

Figure 19.5

Figure 19.5 Allotments in Rye, England.



205

REFERENCE

Carter, W. (2001). Seedy Business – tales from an allotmentshed. Moulsecoomb Forest Garden and Wildlife Project.

A network of paths, places for rest and work photo: Antonia Faust


ALLOTMENTS, PLOTS AND CROPS IN BRITAIN

H.F. Cook, H.C. Lee and A. Perez-Vazquez


In Britain, the allotment garden has long been a partof working-class culture, and the practice has sur-vived the widespread availability of cheap food, postSecond World War. Today, urban and peri-urbanagriculture (UPA) in Britain continues to be usefulas a means of supplying some food and financialincome to urban people (Garnett, 1996a, b; Reesand Wackernagel, 1996; Dunnett and Qasim, 2000),but it also has many other important benefits:

1. social (leisure, empowering local groups of peo-ple such as women, therapy for people with spe-cial needs, rehabilitation for young offenders).

2. environmental (renovation of derelict urban sites,diversifying urban land use, increasing biodiver-sity, reducing the ecological footprint).

3. human (encouraging personal qualities such asaltruism, improving quality of life by social con-tact, health benefits of exercise, better quality andmore diverse food intake).

4. economic – stimulating local economies.

This chapter will focus upon UPA in Britain and willconsider allotments and smaller, less-regulatedurban plots of land. Most information in the litera-ture refers to allotments and this will be the mainfocus. The key issues that will be addressed are:

1. the organisation of allotments and implicationsfor urban planners.

2. practical production issues, including implica-tions for soil contamination and water pollution.

3. the economic implications of allotment gardeningin Britain.

THE ORGANISATION OF ALLOTMENTS

In Britain, allotments are defined as pieces of land incities and towns provided either by local authorities


207

or landlords where plot holders grow their own food,mainly vegetables and soft-fruits for self-consump-tion and for their families (House of Commons,1998).The concept of ‘plots’ is more recent and usu-ally describes individual parcels of land close tohouses in urban areas. They are smaller than allot-ments, variable in size and utilised by people oppor-tunistically, on an ad hoc basis (Perez-Vazquez,2000). UPA has special relevance to the present day,as a means of reducing food’s ‘ecological footprint.’Therefore, allotments are increasingly seen inBritain as an integral and diverse component of theurban landscape in London and elsewhere.

Figure 20.1

Figure 20.1 Urban allotments in London, looking toward the Millennium Dome.



208

There are approximately 296 900 allotments inEngland across 7800 sites, covering a total of10 290 hectares. This equates to one allotmentfor every 65 households (NSALG, 2000). Primeexamples near London include the Lee Valley andthe ‘green finger’ area along the Hogsmill riversouth-west of London (NRA, 1994). Urban foodgrowing in London covers about 30 000 active allot-ment holders gardening a total of 831 hectares. InLondon there are also about 77 community gardensand 18 city farms, school gardening projects andcountless individuals who grow food in small plots –from a few herbs and a tomato plant upwards – in

their back gardens, see: http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ConfsVisitsEvsGrps/LocalFoodSystems/local-foodtg.htm

Allotment size

Allotment sites vary in terms of their size, servicesand facilities provided. The average size of the allot-ment is ten rods or 300 square yards (250 m2)(Crouch and Ward, 1988; Perez-Vazquez, 2000).This plot size was originally set by law, to meet theneeds of households and not for trade or other busi-nesses (Blackburn, 1998). However, demands forincreased housing and commercial capacity inurban areas has led to land scarcity for allotmentprovision (Perez-Vazquez, 2000). This has resultedin reduced allotment size (Radice, 1997) and somepeople in urban areas have had to try and utilisemuch smaller parcels of land (plots) in a less-controlled way than for allotments. Thus, space-demanding crops such as potato are not cultivatedin many urban plots (Perez-Vazquez, 2000). This isespecially true for early potato production, planted inFebruary and harvested in July, which would conflictwith other early season vegetable and salad crops.The traditional concept of self-sufficiency is thereforemuch less relevant for modern urban plots. Indeed,demand for allotments has increased during the1990s and more people have been accommodatedby reductions in average plot size. For example, inthe Borough of Haringey, London between1971–1987 the number of allotment users increasedby one-third and were accommodated by reducedplot sizes (Radice, 1997). At Imperial College atWye, a participatory research project was carriedout in three different locations in the southeast ofEngland (Perez-Vazquez, 2000). At each site, vary-ing numbers of allotment holders were interviewed(74 at greater London, 34 at Ashford and 19 atWye, both in Kent) in order to analyse allotment

Figure 20.2

Figure 20.2 Urban allotments in London, looking towards Canary Wharf.


management and use. Participatory methods wereused, including:

1. semi-structured interviews with allotment holdersand key informants

2. mapping allotments3. time lines – a description of major events in the

period of ownership of the allotment4. seasonal calendars with main activities high-

lighted.

Results indicated that most urban allotment usersrented their land and therefore had almost no con-trol over plot size allocated to them, though individ-uals sometimes rented more than one plot or evena fraction of a plot. The intended purpose of theallotment (growing food versus hobby or leisure)was also found to influence size: whether morethan one allotment, or a fraction of an allotmentwas utilised. The personal characteristics of theuser were also found to affect chosen allotmentsize, such as time available, level of fitness andstrength of commitment. It was concluded thatallotment size and their provision should considerthe local demand (waiting list) and also that about11–21 per cent of people who live close to allot-ment sites are normally interested in participating(Perez-Vazquez, 2000).

Allotment plot design

The design of an allotment plot needs to takeaccount of its intended purpose: therapeutical,hobby or recreational, commercial, self-consump-tion, or mixed purpose. Allotment gardening is oneof the most popular leisure or hobby pursuits inBritain (Crouch and Ward, 1988; Garnett, 1996a).Indeed, allotment management is considered bymany people as a leisure activity rather than as ameans of growing food (Thorpe, 1975). Thorpe hasmentioned that the word ‘allotment’ should be


209

replaced by the concept of ‘leisure gardens’because the former has an historical stigma of lowincome and relative poverty. Additionally, allotmentsite design should consider not only the individualplots but also communal compost areas, shed(s),recreational areas, and even some occasionalspace for orchard and woodland. In addition, allot-ment sites should be strategically located close todemand and as far away from known sources ofcontamination as possible, such as old railways,bomb sites and some industrial brownfield sites(Perez-Vazquez, 2000).

Gender

Information from the participatory studies and semistructured interviews described above (Perez-Vazquez, 2000) suggest that women grow moreflowers as decorative plants on allotments and arenot likely to follow classic rules of planting. Herbs,flowers, vegetables and potatoes are likely to beequally important for them. Many women tend toprefer an informally managed plot. Some femaleallotment holders are reluctant to kill even weedsand pests such as slugs. By contrast, most male

Figure 20.3

Figure 20.3 Floral allotment.


There is generally an increasing diversity of cropspecies and varieties within species seen on allot-ments in Britain, reflecting not only gender differ-ences but also an increase in the ethnodiversity ofparticipants (Garnett, 1996a; Perez-Vazquez andAnderson, 2000).The use of greenhouses or simplecloches means that people can grow food in allot-ments almost all year round, or at least start earliereach season, usually with salad crops (Perez-Vazquez, 2000). Generally there is a lack of practicalinformation on crop species and variety choice forallotments and how they are liable to perform inurban conditions, i.e. higher temperatures, moreshading, and variable soil factors such as fertility,compaction and the presence of some soil contami-nants. An example of the range of crop species andvarieties chosen is shown for one site in Table 20.1.

The yields of crops grown on allotments tend tovary and even more so for smaller plots of landclose to houses (Perez-Vazquez, 2000). This vari-ability is thought to be due to the lack of highyield as a priority, with many people growing suchcrops for recreational reasons (Gilber, 1989; Perez-Vazquez, 2000). Often, an allotment with a diversearray of small areas of vegetable and fruit specieswill tend to give lower yields per species than onewhere a smaller range of species are grown but ona larger scale. For example, potatoes are some-times grown as a major crop in well-organised rows(giving higher yields) or occasionally as a recre-ational crop in just one or two short rows (givinglower yields). Allotment holders also tend to choosea relatively wide range of crop varieties (Gilber,1989; Radice, 1997). Such diversity can be due tosocial factors such as family size, food preferences,and level of commitment (Perez-Vazquez, 2000).Thus, one urban allotment plot may show relativelylarge yield variation compared with a rural equiva-lent. One example for an urban allotment plot isshown in Table 20.1.


210

holders tend to give priority to potato, onion andsoft-fruit production. They tend to grow plants instraight lines and keep plots neat, and free ofweeds and pests (Perez-Vazquez, 2000).

PRACTICAL PRODUCTION ISSUES

The choice of crop species, varietiesand their likely performance

For both genders, the growth of vegetables onallotments is controlled by the desire to grow pota-toes. There is a key requirement to avoid repeatedgrowth of potatoes on the same ground each year,to avoid the build up of two major pest species ofpotato cyst nematode (Globodera rostochiensisand G. pallida) (Winfield, 1990). This necessitatesthe development of a crop rotation on most allot-ments (Perez-Vazquez and Anderson, 2000), suchas the example in Figure 20.4.

Figure 20.4

Flowers border (semi-permanent)

Strawberries (permanent)

Salads

SquashRotation

Herbs

Tomatoes andbrassicas

Fruits (raspberries,blackberries)

(permanent)

Figure 20.4 Crop rotation design as managed by a female allotment holder (Perez-Vazquez, 2000).



211

Water issues

The irrigation of UPA in Britain depends mainlyupon harvested rainwater (from the roofs of shedsinto containers) and also mains supplies. The appli-cation of irrigation water can range from the use ofhosepipes, to sprinklers, to hydroponic productionsystems. At almost every allotment site in Britainthere is a water supply and water tanks are eventu-ally provided.Whilst there is normally free access tothis water, only watering cans may be used: the useof hose pipes is restricted or even prohibited in mostallotments sites, though this does vary, seehttp://www.sags.org.uk/MerlinTrustReport.php4/index.php, or http://www.inthelimelight.co.uk/localgov/allotments/crops_water.html. Carpets, horse manureand mulches are used to retain soil water and sup-press weeds. Pots may be buried in the soil to allowwater to be retained more effectively in the vicinity ofplant roots. Watering is usually difficult in summertime, especially for the elderly and less fit, due to theprohibition on use of hose pipes.

UPA and water pollution

The possibility of UPA production presenting ahazard to natural waters depends upon the kind ofmanagement, and also the local ‘environmentalvulnerability,’ of natural waters. For example,significant areas where an economically majoraquifer is overlain by soils of high or intermediatepermeability occurs within both Greater London(NRA, 1994) and throughout north and east Kent(NRA, 1994). Allotment sites in the Ashford areaare over aquifers from which public water suppliesare drawn. Whilst the risk from heavy metals is dis-cussed below, major risks to waters (both ground-water and from surface runoff) could arise fromexcessive use of pesticides and from nitrogenfertilisers, both artificial and organic. The pollutingeffects of urban cultivated areas adjacent towatercourses and effects on the underlying hydro-geology are potentially important, but largelyignored.

Figure 20.5

Figure 20.5 Harvesting potatoes on an urban allotment.

Figure 20.6

Figure 20.6 An example of crops growth in sunken pots to make the best use of applied water.



212

Table 20.1. Species, varieties of vegetables and their yields obtained from allotment holders in Ashford and Wye, Kent(Perez-Vazquez, 2000)

Vegetables (varieties Ashford, Kent Wye, Kent Wye, Kent Averageitalicised in brackets) (1999) (1999) (2000) yield 250 m2

lbs (kgs) lbs (kgs) lbs (kgs) lbs (kgs)

PotatoesEarly (Maris bard; 65 (29.5) 40 (18.1) 60 (27.2) 57 (25.9)Pentland Javelin) 180 (81.7) 200 (90.8) 280 (127.1) 220 (99.8)Second early andmain (Wilja, Marispeer; Pentland crown;Nadine; Desiree)

Beans (Pots)Broad (The Sutton) — 25 (11.3) 80 (36.3) 52.5 (23.8)Runner (Enorma; 77 (34.9) 40 (18.1) 10 (4.5) 42 (19.2)Desire) 25 (11.3) 56 (25.4) 16 (7.3) 32 (14.5)French (Daisy)

OnionsWhite (Bedford 68.5 (31.1) 20 (9.1) 30 (13.7) 39.5 (17.9)champion; Dutch — — — —yellow; Ailsa Craig) 14 (6.4) 18 (8.2) — 16 (7.3)Spring (Paris; 9 (4.1) — 53 (24.0) 31 (14.1)Barletta)

Brussels sprouts 35 (15.8)* 20 (9.0) — 55 (12.4)(Cascade F1;Widgeon)

Cabbage 55 (25.0) 30 plants 10 plants 15 plants (24.9)(Celtic; Jupiter)

Carrots 92 (41.7) 30 (13.6) 5 (2.3) 42 (19.1)(St Valery; James Scarlet)

Swede 7.2 (3.3) 14 (6.4) 5.4 (2.5) 8.9 (4.0)(Marian;Purple top;Magnificent)

Beetroot 24 (10.9) 8 (3.6) 6.5 (3.0) 12.8 (5.8)(Detroit 2;Monodet )

Cauliflower 50 (22.7) 20 plants — 35 (15.9)(Canberra; Snowball)



213

Soil contamination

Contaminated land is usually defined as ‘land thatcontains substances which, when present in suffi-cient quantities or concentrations, are likely tocause harm, directly or indirectly, to people, to theenvironment, or, on occasion, to other targets’(Garnett, 1996c). If land is sufficiently contami-nated, handling soil, or breathing vapours emittedfrom such land, or eating contaminated food grownon such land can pose significant health risks. Thekey issue is that much urban land remains unsur-veyed and potential practitioners of UPA are there-fore unaware of risks, real or potential. In somesituations, concerns about land contamination maydissuade people from starting UPA. Some surveys

have already suggested that lead (Pb) concentra-tions in garden-grown crops can be higher than inrural areas in England (Davies et al., 1983), and inGermany (Alt et al., 1982). However, not all resultsare alarmist: a study in the Netherlands suggestedthat cadmium (Cd) and Pb levels in soils and cropsfrom allotments were more typical of national levels(van Lune, 1987). Moir (1985) found that seven outof eight allotment sites in Greater London werecontaminated with Pb, that the soil metal contentdecreased with distance from central London andthat spinach accumulated significantly higher Pb,zinc (Zn) and Cd levels than lettuce and radish. InBritain, legislation from 1 January 1986 to reducepermitted Pb concentrations in petrol from 0.40 to 0.15 g/l, has clearly led to a reduction in Pb

Table 20.1 (continued )

Vegetables (varieties Ashford, Kent Wye, Kent Wye, Kent Averageitalicised in brackets) (1999) (1999) (2000) yield 250 m2

lbs (kgs) lbs (kgs) lbs (kgs) lbs (kgs)

Lettuce — 80 plants 45 plants 62 plants(Little gem;Dolly; Salad bowl )

Leek 27 plants 17 plants 35 plants 26 plants(Argenta;Catalina)

Peas 24.5 (11.1) 18 (8.2) 3.5 (1.6) 15.3 (6.9)(RarlyOnwardand HurstGreen shaft)

Radish 6 bunches 20 bunches 6 (2.7) 11 bunches(Scarlet globe;Prinz rutin; Sparkler)

Tomato 32 (14.5) 24 (10.9) 27 (12.3) 27.6 (12.5)(Marmande;Alicante; GoldenSunrise)

1 lb � 0.45359 kg; * � estimated yield available only.


concentrations in air (Denton, 1988). However,there appears to have been limited assessment oflevels in urban soils and crops since then. A pro-gramme of urban land assessment therefore needsto be organised to quantify both the risk of landcontamination and that of drainage water.

THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF UPA

It has to be recognised that urban agriculturalproduction is undertaken in a different way from thaton farms (Smit et al., 1996), so that standard,accepted indicators of profitability are frequently notappropriate. Whilst British allotment production wastraditionally a means of providing food for families onminimal incomes (Crouch and Ward, 1988) it is todaymore of a leisure pursuit (Perez-Vazquez, 2000).However, this does not prevent allotment holders frombeing aware of profitability as an issue.For example, inBritain it has been shown that growing brassicas,tomatoes, leeks and onions gives better financialreturns for labour than potatoes and legumes, whichare usually cheap and plentiful in supermarkets andshops (Riley, 1979). This therefore means that allot-ment vegetable production is often more concernedwith high value crops rather than with dietary value.However, allotment holders are also motivated by aconcern for food quality, often preferring to grow theirown fruit and vegetables organically and thereforehaving more confidence in their freshness, flavour andnutritional value (Perez-Vazquez, 2000).

It is therefore proposed that a financial analysis ofallotment gardening should allow for the followingpoints:

1. Fixed costs such as labour may not be relevant,since leisure is such an important objective and,

in any case, the selling of produce from allotmentsis not allowed by law.The inclusion of labour costsin a financial analysis of allotments is thereforelikely to conclude that they are not profitable.

2. Age of the allotment enterprise is important,since newcomers always incur higher initial costsdue to investment in a shed, tools, timber andother items of infrastructure.

3. Proximity of the participant to his/her allotmentcan be important, affecting costs of transportation.

4. The type of allotment holder is significant (such asretired, disabled, elderly).For example, retired peo-ple are not obliged to pay rental in many Councilallotment sites for their plot (House of Commons,1998), yet they are known to be more likely to pur-chase and use chemicals (Perez-Vazquez, 2000).

5. The growing system, especially whether it isorganic or non-organic.

6. If growers value leisure and contribution to qualityof life, this may need to be incorporated in aneconomic assessment.

Actual studies on the profitability of urban plots arescarce. One potentially useful survey is now out ofdate (Best and Ward, 1956) and so not reportedhere in detail. A more recent case study, (Perez-Vazquez, 2000) monitored the estimated averageannual total market value of fruit and vegetablesper urban plot in Ashford, and Wye, in the UK, byconsidering the current retail value for conventionalfood from two local supermarkets (Sainsbury’s andASDA). The estimated average annual total marketvalue of the produce per plot was £462. To deter-mine the net average value, various costs neededto be determined and deducted. The internal eco-nomic costs included ‘fixed’ items such as landrental and ‘variable’ items such as costs of plants,seeds, tools, equipment, and petrol for transport.Determining such costs was complicated by theclear difference between more recent and moreestablished allotment holders: the former always


214


incurred high initial start up costs. Also, all allot-ment holders were able to demonstrate optionalcost savings, such as the use of saved seeds, andwalking or cycling to the allotment rather than usinga car. It was also considered whether the externaleconomic costs of allotment activities should beestimated. These could include factors such asremediation, to cover the environmental costs of: a)excessive fertiliser or agro-chemical use; b) air pol-lution due to use of cars for transport. However,such environmental costs are likely to be lowerthan those associated with imported produce andso were not estimated. For the two allotment sitesabove studied by Perez-Vazquez (2000), the aver-age net value of produce per plot of 120 m2 wastherefore estimated to be £325, or £677 for a stan-dard 250 m2 urban allotment. Under this type offinancial analysis (not including labour), allotmentgardening appears to be profitable, particularly forthose people who grow and produce organic food.The inclusion of labour is extremely difficult, sinceallotment holders invest a wide range of time whichdepends upon age, motivation and many othersocial factors discussed above. It seems likely that,if labour were to be built into such financial assess-ment, then allotment production would be deemedunprofitable. However, many allotment growersview their production as part of a leisure activityand not relevant to financial analysis (Perez-Vazquez, 2000).

CONCLUSIONS

1. Allotments as a component of UPA in Englandhave many roles for people including diet, pleas-ure, relaxation, healthy exercise, culture, friend-ship and the encouragement of a sense ofcommunity. Urban allotments and plots are

therefore much more about lifestyle than aboutself-sufficiency in food and/or saving money.

2. Technical aspects of the production of fruit andvegetables on allotments and plots are poorlyunderstood, including crop and variety choiceand rotation design. Britain’s culture is now muchmore diverse than previously and the implicationsof this for allotment planning and managementare poorly understood. We also know little aboutthe effects of former urban land use, and possiblesoil contamination, on the safety of UPA and like-wise the potential impact of allotments on localwater quality.

3. Allotment gardening does not seem profitable,particularly if time/labour are included in the finan-cial analysis. However, it is argued that profitabilityis not a good indicator of the value of urban plotsbecause economic assessment does not easilyincorporate the many important social factors.

4. It seems likely that urban allotments and plots willcontinue to be important within cities, towns andvillages, with the traditional ageing male allot-ment holder giving way to other groups. Whilstthe future role of allotments as agents for foodproduction may be nationally insignificant, theirvalue in contributing to human well-being, espe-cially in urban areas, will be much greater andshould be valued as such.

REFERENCES

Alt, D., Sacher, B. and Radicke, K. (1982). Ergebnis einerErhebungsuntersuchung zur Nährstoffversorgung undSchwermetallbelastung von gemüsebaulich genutztenParzellen in Kleingärten. Landwirtschaftliche Forschung,Sonderheft 38, 682–692.

Crouch, D. and Ward, C. (1988). The allotment, its land-scape and culture. Faber and Faber: London.


215


NSALG (2000). Joint Survey of Allotments in England.National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners Limited,O’Dell House, Hunters Road, Corby, Northants NN17 1JE.

Perez-Vazquez, A. (2000). The Future Role of Allotmentsin Food Production as a Component of Urban Agriculturein England. Final Report to Agropolis-IDRC. ImperialCollege at Wye, Ashford, United Kingdom.

Perez-Vazquez, A. and Anderson, S. (2000). Urban agri-culture in England, Perspectives and Potential. In CDProceedings of the International Symposium: UrbanAgriculture and Horticulture; the linkage with urban plan-ning (Hoffmann, H. and Mathey, K. eds.). HumboldtUniversity of Berlin and TRIALOG, Berlin, Germany.

Radice, D. E. (1997). Allotments: food, plant diversity orboth? MSc Thesis. Imperial College of Science Technologyand Medicine, Centre for Environmental Technology,London, UK, p. 116.

Rees, W. E. and Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecologicalfootprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable – and whythey are a key to sustainability. Environmental ImpactAssess Review, 16, 223–248.

Riley, P. (1979). The allotment campaign guide, Friends ofthe Earth, p. 63.

Smit, J., Ratta, A. and Nasr, J. (1996). Urban agriculture:food, jobs and sustainable cities. United Nations Develop-ment Programme (UNDP). Publication Series for Habitat II.Volume one. p. 302.

van Lune, P. (1987). Cadmium and lead in soils and cropsfrom allotment gardens in the Netherlands. NetherlandsJournal of Agricultural Science, 35, 207–210.

Winfield, A. L. (1990). Potato cyst nematodes. In CropProtection Handbook – Potatoes (J. S. Gunn, ed.) pp. 89–94,British Crop Protection Council: Farnham, UK.


216

Davies, B. E., Davies, W. L. and Houghton, N. J. (1983).Lead in urban soils and vegetables in Great Britain. InHeavy metals in the environment. Proceedings ofInternational Conference, Sept 1983, Heidelberg, Germany,Vol. II, pp. 1154–1157. CEP-Consultants: Edinburgh.

Denton, D. (1988). Lead in London soils and vegetables.London Environmental Supplement, No. 16, 1–11.

Dunnett, N. and Qasim, M. (2000). Perceived benefits tohuman well-being of urban gardens. HorTechnology,10 (1), 40–45.

Garnett, T. (1996a). Growing food in cities: A report to high-light and promote the benefits of urban agriculture in the UK.National Food Alliance and SAFE Alliance Publications.London, UK.

Garnett, T. (1996b). Farming the city: the potential of urbanagriculture. The Ecologist, 26 (6), 299–307.

Garnett, T. (1996c). Harvesting the cities. Town & CountryPlanning, 65 (10), 264–266.

Gilber, O. L. (1989). Allotments and Leisure gardens. InThe Ecology of Urban Habitats pp. 207–217, Chapmanand Hall: London–NY.

House of Commons (1998). Fifth Report: The future for allot-ments. Volume I. Report and Proceeding of the Committee.Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs CommitteeEnvironment Sub-Committee.Session 1997–98.London.p.61.

Moir, A. M. (1985). An investigation into contamination ofsoils and vegetables from gardens and allotments in GreaterLondon. MSc Thesis. Imperial College of Science andTechnology. Centre for Environmental Technology. p. 163.

National Rivers Authority (1994). The Wandle, BeverleyBrook, Hogsmill Catchment Management Plan ConsultationReport. National Rivers Authority, Thames Region:Frimley, UK.


URBAN FOOD GROWING: NEW LANDSCAPES, NEW THINKING

Simon Michaels


FOOD GROWING IN URBAN AREAS

Urban areas, especially in the UK, are typified bytheir organic growth which has resulted in a diversepatchwork of public and private open spaces. Thedesign and management of these spaces dependson many factors. Whilst many areas have beendesigned and continued to be managed in a posi-tive manner, other spaces are ‘left behind’ in termsof a clear sense of ownership and responsibility.Finding positive uses for these spaces has beenone of the challenges for urban planning in the latetwentieth century, with an increasing number ofprojects now including an element of food growing.

The benefits of these urban food growing projectscan be multifaceted. They include improvements tothe environment and landscape setting of developedareas, as well as significant socio-economic benefitsincluding health and community development.

Despite these proven benefits, the perceptions ofthe positive impact of urban food growing on thecharacter and quality of the urban landscape, donot appear to be shared by all.The landscapes cre-ated as a result of urban food growing projects tendto share some common characteristics, which sitoutside of the dominant approaches to the designof the urban environment by landscape and urbandesign professionals.

These characteristics include a fine grain, anintroverted and often unplanned character, andlandscapes which are often in a state of change.To some, they are perceived as detractors to thequality of urban landscape. But to others they aresome of the most well loved, democratic, and usefullandscapes.

Urban food growing projects tend to be an expres-sion of grass-roots activity, led by local people.They often provide an important source of fresh


218

food for families with poor access to affordablefresh produce, or may be developed in order tomeet other social needs.The driver for the develop-ment of these projects is, therefore, often not oneof environmental improvement, nor are such proj-ects necessarily developed with the assistance ofplanning or design professionals.

How can food growing be accommodated in urbanareas in a way which is acceptable to those respon-sible for planning and design considerations? Whatneeds to change? Is it in the way in which spacesdedicated to food growing are designed, or does itrequire a change in the mindset of design and plan-ning professionals?

THE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OFURBAN FOOD GROWING PROJECTS

Spaces which accommodate urban food growingprojects take on many different forms. They includethe allotments of middle England, the rooftop gar-dens in Russia, and the Cuban vegetable plots.They may be located on large tracts of open spacewhere, for example, one can find allotments andcommunity orchards, they may be one componentof a community garden, or they may include smallpatches of space in gardens or even window boxes.

The opportunity for food growing in urban areas rep-resents a huge untapped resource. It has beenshown that the amount of space available in urbanbackyards in Vancouver, for example, is equivalentto the amount of active farmland in the province.Whilst it is of course highly unlikely that all suchspaces would be used for food growing, thereremains a huge potential for food growing at the var-ious scales and using different models of ownershipand management.


Despite the diversity of urban food growing projects,there are some common threads which can beidentified, in terms of the planning, design andappearance, and impact of food growing on the char-acter of urban landscapes:

● an intensity of activity – food growing is generallya labour intensive activity; urban agriculture cre-ates a peopled and well-loved landscape.

● a changing character – the inter-weaving pat-terns of cultivation and cropping, linked to theseasons, create landscapes which always changeand evolve.

● introversion – the focus is on the business ofgrowing; not outward focused or integrated withinthe landscape context.

● an unplanned, make-do culture – food plots tendtowards the untidy with the use of recycled ele-ments to create temporary or semi-permanentstructures.

● greenness – the verdant and vibrant appearanceof a healthy plot contrasts strongly with manyother forms of municipal landscape.

● a fine grain – the patchwork of small-scale growingand the highly personal character of most urbanfood projects creates a fine grain or urban texture.

Another common theme relates to location: foodgrowing areas in the public realm are often in left-over spaces, or on land unmanageable by othermeans. Environmental improvement schemes inpublic sector housing estates, for example, oftenneed to identify new uses for large open areas,which are performing no useful function. Onesolution to these types of under-used spaces is tocreate community gardens, such as those devel-oped through the urban agriculture initiatives inthe Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell.These typesof project have shown the weaknesses in anapproach to urban planning which is based on adesigner focused, rather than the people focused,

URBAN FOOD GROWING

219

model of urban life. The post-war ideal of spaceflowing around high-rise buildings has been dis-credited for several decades, but is only slowlybeing replaced by an approach to urban planningwhich offers ownership and control to local peopleto manage their environments as they choose.

At the other end of the scale, food growing can fitinto any unused corner in the ground, containers,or on buildings. Back gardens already produce asignificant proportion of seasonal fruit and vegeta-bles for families in the UK. Food crops in back gar-dens in urban areas also create a significantcontribution to the biodiversity of towns and cities.

Approaches to the layout and management of foodgrowing in urban layers also shows great variation,from tidy rows and raised beds, permaculture plotsand orchards, and ornamental plots and portages.The inventiveness and opportunity for personalisa-tion in the design and management of food growingareas is one of the most endearing characteristics.No two allotments are quite the same, and no twogardeners can ever agree on the best way forward.Creating urban landscapes which can accommo-date this very personal and human interaction, isalmost impossible with traditional approaches tourban master-planning. Community gardens, veg-etable plots, and other models of urban agriculture,enable this people-centred approach to the man-agement of urban spaces in a remarkable way.

Where does this fit with current thinking on urban landscape?

Responsibility for the planning and management ofurban landscape falls under several different organ-isational remits.These include:

● local authority planning departments – a land-use remit.


● local authority or private sector landscapearchitects and urban designers – a design remit.

● local authority parks or landscape maintenancedepartments – a management remit.

● local authority Agenda 21 officers – a communityremit.

● activities of special interest groups and commu-nity organisations – focused or single issueremits.

● private areas – a management remit with diverseobjectives.

These remits overlap, yet rarely co-ordinatesmoothly, especially around issues of control andownership, and in consequence, funding. Still domi-nant in most urban areas is a top-down, conventionalapproach to land-use planning.

The successful models of urban food growing in theUK almost all rely on the energy of committed localgroups, with help from a public sector starved ofcash and time. Until local power sharing becomesembodied into land-use and open space strategies,and the aesthetic of food projects is more accepted,urban food growing will struggle to find anything buta marginal existence.

The key ingredient – people

Food growing projects have a huge power to bringpeople together and engender a lost sense of com-munity. They act as a resource for learning, anopportunity for minority and special needs groups,and can contribute to local economic development.They help people to connect with and care for theirlocal environment.

These projects help counter vandalism; increasethe surveillance of urban areas; create real healthbenefits; and offer a cost-effective way in which tomanage under-used spaces.


220

Resources are well spent where targeted to enablepeople to take control of their local environment.This may include educating people in food growingtechniques and related activities such as cookingskills; and facilitating the design and implementa-tion of landscape projects.

Local distinctiveness

The landscapes which urban food growing generatesare intrinsically embedded in their local context.Plants which are grown are those which will survivein the local microclimate; local varieties may still beused; seasonality is appreciated; plants grown mayreflect cultural preferences.

Biodiversity is enhanced through the diversity ofhabitat and the concentration of growing activity.

Community-led projects are often inventive in theirdesign and materials and work with recycled com-ponents from the local area.

The result can offer a new paradigm – a people-centred landscape contrasting with the blandnessof municipal landscaping and juxtaposed with‘designed’ urban landscape.

CONCLUSION

Urban agriculture initiatives take many forms. Mostare typified by their changing appearance and fine-grained, people-centred character. This character-istic challenges planning professionals to reviewtheir perceptions of what constitutes good urbandesign, so that they might encourage the develop-ment of food growing projects into the urban fabric.If this can be achieved, richer, more diverse town-scapes will emerge.


PERMACULTURE AND PRODUCTIVE URBANLANDSCAPES

Graeme Sherriff


Permaculture is all about solutions for sustainableliving. It is an approach and methodology with astrong scientific basis and ethical justification, andit is already strongly represented in local food,Agenda 21 and Green political circles. This chapterlooks at permaculture and its relevance to urbanagriculture. It hinges on two questions: what is per-maculture; and how can permaculture inform urbanagriculture? Or, to put it another way, should theurban agriculturist also be a permaculturist?

PERMACULTURE

Permaculture is about producing food in an envi-ronmentally-sound way. It’s about people grow-ing their own food on their own land and using itfor themselves, their immediate family and possi-bly the local community. This is a very crudedescription of what Bill Mollison, permaculture’sfounder, envisaged in the 1970s. The name itselfderives from his vision of permanent agriculture(Mollinson, 1992).

A definition provided by a contemporary perma-culture designer brings us more up to date:‘Permaculture has evolved into a system for the con-scious design of sustainable productive systemswhich integrate housing, people, plants, energyand water with sustainable financial and politicalstructures.’ (Hopkins, 2000, p.203)

Since its inception, permaculture has developedand diversified.The key words in Hopkins’ definitionare ‘design’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘productive systems’.The key characteristic is that it sets out to maximisethe beneficial relationships through the effectiveplacement of elements. Bill Mollison devised alist of key principles by which this is effected, whichare based on the example of nature. These are


222

espoused in his 1988 ‘Designer’s Manual’ (Pepper,1996):

1. Work with nature.2. All nature plays a part in working land, e.g. worms

aerate the soil.3. Use minimum effort for maximum effect.4. Increased yields, i.e. that it should be possible

to increase the yield of a permaculture systemthrough improving cultivation methods.

5. Outputs become inputs.6. Each function should be supported by many

elements.7. Each element performs several functions.8. Relative location, i.e. each element within the sys-

tem should be located in the place most beneficialfor the whole system.

Robert Hart’s forest garden in Shropshire is anoften used exemplar, taking as it does the intercon-nectedness of the forest and redesigning it to cre-ate an ‘edible ecosystem’. Whitefield describes theelements, chosen carefully to maximise their inter-connectedness: a canopy of fruit trees, a lower

Figure 22.1


PERMACULTURE AND PRODUCTIVE URBAN LANDSCAPES

223

layer of dwarf fruit trees and nut bushes, a shrublayer of soft fruit, a layer of perennial herbs andvegetables at ground level, plus root vegetablesand climbers (Whitefield, 1997).

As Whitefield observes, each layer comes into leafat different times of the year – the herb layer inearly spring, followed by the shrubs, and lastly thetrees – so that, through careful selection and place-ment of the elements, the greatest possible use ismade of the available natural resources. The samecan be said of the soil resource, since the plants’roots feed at different depths and each has a slightlydifferent nutrient requirement. The cyclic nature of

the ecosystem (principle 6, above) is also reflected,with some plants needing specific nutrients forgrowth, and some returning those same nutrients tothe soil (principle 5, above).The system is also rela-tively self-maintaining, as it uses perennial plants(principle 3, above).

Another often cited exemplar is the permaculturechicken. Whilst there may be some animal rightsissues here, it is worth noting that permaculture ani-mals are well looked after and (by definition) allowedto live out their natural desires where at all possible –certainly to a much greater degree than the conven-tional barn or battery methods of ‘husbandry’. In the

Figure 22.2 Figure 22.3

Figure 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3 Robert Hart’s permaculture garden, an ’edible ecosystem’.



224

case studies I have researched, chickens and hensfeatured prominently. They could lay eggs for fooduse; their droppings could be used as fertiliser (prin-ciple 5, above); and they could be useful for control-ling pests – they have been referred to as a ‘freerange slug patrol’ (Sherriff, 1999). If a chicken houseis connected to the side of a greenhouse then, asWhitefield (1997) enthuses: ‘the greenhouse is keptwarm by the heat of the chickens; the chickensare kept warm in the winter by the sun comingthrough to the greenhouse; and the carbon dioxideexhaled by the chickens fuels plant growth in thegreenhouse.’ – an excellent example of principles 5,7 and 8, above.

So permaculture is distinguished partly by its use ofnature as a model. Another characteristic is its ethicalrootedness in sustainability. Robert Hart saw his gar-dening in the context of a sustainable vegan lifestyle,

feeding himself almost entirely from the forest gardenand some other vegetable growing.

Whitefield (1997) describes the three ethical foun-dations of permaculture as: earth care, that wemust look after the earth in order to look after our-selves; people care, that sustainability should notbe achieved at the cost of our freedom and ourquality of life; and fair shares, which is about recog-nising the limits of the earth. These are clearly verysimilar to the definition of sustainability espousedat the 1980 Rio Conference, that developmentshould ‘meet the needs of the present, withoutcompromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs.’

Now we have arrived at a much more sophisticateddefinition:

‘permaculture is essentially an approach todesigning whole systems, through the maximi-sation of the interconnectedness of elements,which has an ethical foundation in sustainabil-ity and a scientific basis in ecology.’

One thing to note is that permaculture is differentfrom organic agriculture. By organic agriculture Irefer to produce such as that certified underEuropean Union standards and policed by organisa-tions such as the Soil Association. This is basicallyagriculture without pesticides and fertilisers, withoutgenetically modified crops, and with compassionateanimal husbandry.

Permaculture will often look like organics, and theend result of a permaculture design may qualify fororganic certification, but there a number of importantdifferences. Organics is a production method: per-maculture is an approach to design and production.

Permaculture places more emphasis on cyclingenergy and resources locally; it places greateremphasis on the maximisation of interconnect-edness; it is creative rather than regulatory; itFigure 22.4

Figure 22.4 Permaculture chickens.



225

emphasises the use of perennials; self-regulatorysystems are encouraged; and community tradingstructures take a clear priority over global trading.The latter is particularly striking. Whilst organisa-tions such as the Soil Association should be con-gratulated for campaigning for more farmers’markets and other local trading initiatives, you canstill buy cabbages classed as organic that havebeen flown hundreds of miles for each of the pro-cessing, distribution and sale stages. This is inmarked contrast to, for example, Hardy’s Field inLincolnshire, which has sold carrots through aLocal Exchange Trading Scheme (Sherriff, 1999).The ecological bill of the global food system has totake account of the transport networks needed tofacilitate the increasing transit of food and food-related products as well as the significant green-house gas emissions from the transport itself. Fruitand vegetables now form the largest category of airfreight by weight (Friends of the Earth, 2001), andmuch of this could be grown more locally.

Having described permaculture, how can it informurban agriculture? Using our definition of perma-culture, we can make this question more precise:why should a group or person involved in the grow-ing of food in urban areas equip themselves with amethodology that involves the conscious design ofsystems based on the principles espoused byMollison?

My first observation from my research, is that thisapproach has a track record of producing a largeamount and variety of food from a small area. If acity is trying to move towards self-sufficiency, mono-cultural cropping becomes less and less relevant.Permaculture provides an approach to making ourplots more and more diverse. One of the case stud-ies for my research, a London household, reportedthat it was able to get basic vegetables and greensall year round and potatoes from July until December,all from their permaculture garden. Additionally, they

made summer fruits into preserves for use duringthe winter (Sherriff, 1999). Robert Hart’s exampledescribed above is another case of the signifi-cant way that permaculture can contribute towardsself-sufficiency.

Where self-sufficiency is not the aim, permaculturaltrade systems extend the scope of the project from

Figure 22.5

Figure 22.6

Figure 22.5 Recycling plastic bottles as cold frames.

Figure 22.6 A typical small cold frame.


the individual to the community.The Local ExchangeTrading Scheme (LETS) does for the community,what the permaculture garden does for plants: itmaximises the interconnectedness between dis-parate elements, in this case, the needs and abilitiesof people in a community. Some members offer skillsor products that others require, and they in turn offeranother skill or product.

Vegetable box schemes are another way to distrib-ute produce. Customers receive a box of mixedvegetables and fruit, with contents depending onthe season, so the output of a permaculture plot orgarden is perfectly suited. Farmers’ markets areideal for trading permaculture produce: gone is theneed, experienced when dealing with supermar-kets, to grow a certain amount of a certain crop.One of the beauties of the simplicity of permacul-ture is that when its principles are applied to foodproduction and to trade, the two activities becomesymbiotic: the diversity of permaculture food suitslocal schemes, and the financial security of thetrading methods enables a greater variety of cropsto be grown and creative risks to be taken.

Permaculture food growing is never seen in isola-tion. Becon Tree Organic Growers, for example,develop the local economy through LETS, workwith a local university, and with colleges and con-servation groups (Sherriff, 1999). They are able tofulfill the criteria of Local Agenda 21 through:reusing and recycling resources, saving energy,cultivating local land, monitoring the local environ-ment, green building and planning, communitydevelopment and education, and developing thelocal economy.

Permaculture, by definition, seeks where possibleto utilise resources frugally. This is important inurban agriculture for two reasons: it enhances itssustainability; and it makes it inexpensive to prac-tice.The latter is particularly important where urban


226

agriculture is proposed as a way to regenerateddeprived areas. It is common for resources to berecycled. At Naturewise in London, old vehicle tyreswere used to form a ‘tyre garden’ and in anotherLondon example old glass bottles were ingeniouslyused as edging between the lawn and the bordersboth to stop weeds spreading and to use as minia-ture greenhouses in which to germinate seeds. AtBeacon Tree Organic Growers:

‘. . . the pathways are made from heavy-dutyrubber conveyor belts from a local gravel pitthat are wide and strong enough to take anelectric wheelchair and are covered with cock-leshells form Leigh-on-Sea.’ (Warwick, 2001)

From butts to collect rainwater, to composting toiletsthat turn human excrement into usable fertiliser, theefficient use and reuse of resources is central topermaculture’s scientific and ethical foundations.

Another important aspect of permaculture is itsavoidance of artificial fertilisers and pesticides, pre-ferring instead to maintain soil health through anumber of holistic techniques including polyculturalplanting and green mulching, and to deter peststhrough biodiverse planting and the encouragementof predators to frequent the ecosystem. Legumes,such as clover, can provide a crop with nitrogen,for example, and a biodiverse garden confusespests and is therefore less vulnerable than amonoculture.

Overuse of artificial chemicals in farming is a signif-icant environmental problem. The cost of removingagricultural pesticide residues from drinking waterhas been estimated at £119.60 million a year, andnitrous oxide from fertiliser use is a contributor toair pollution (Friends of the Earth, 2001). Whenthinking on the local and urban scale, water and airpollution becomes a more immediate threat to bothproducer and consumer than it does where food isproduced and traded globally.



227

There is a growing body of evidence in support ofconcerns about artificial chemical use on healthgrounds. 45 pesticides, for example, are known orsuspected hormone disruptors, potentially affect-ing the reproduction of both humans and wildlife.A recent study in Denmark found that women withhigher than average levels of pesticides, such asdieldrin, in their bloodstream have double the riskof breast cancer (Sustain, 2001).

Conversely, produce grown without pesticides andfertilisers and in an organic regime are higher innutritional value than those grown conventionally,due largely to the health of the soil. An Americanstudy found significantly higher levels of minerals inthe former. There was reportedly 63 per cent morecalcium, 73 per cent more iron, 125 per cent morepotassium and 60 per cent more zinc (Sustain,2001). Permaculturally produced food can beassumed to have similarly high standards since itsattitudes to chemical use and the maintenance ofsoil health are comparable. It follows that any urbanagriculture seeking to supply communities with ahealthy alternative to the conventional would do

well to follow the chemical-free and soil buildingprinciples of organic agriculture. As discussed above,permaculture provides an approach to creativelyapply these principles at the local level.

Permaculture, then, is valuable as an approach tourban food growing and provides a useful methodol-ogy for food growing and local trading. This chapterhas been able to give only a very brief description ofpermaculture. The references list contains manyexcellent sources of further information.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

FoE (2001). Get real about food and farming. Friends ofthe Earth.

Molllison, B. (1991). Introduction to Permaculture. Tagari.

Mollinson, B. (1992). Permaculture a designer’s manual.Tagari.

Pepper, D. (1996). Modern Environmentalism. Routledge.

Figure 22.7 Figure 22.8

Figure 22.7 The edge of a forest garden.

Figure 22.8 Grasses: permaculture and diversity.



228

Rob, H. (2000). The Food Producing Neighbourhood. InSustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods (H. Barton, ed) Earthscan.

Sherriff, G. (1998). Edible Ecosystems. In SustainableAgriculture: A Study of Permaculture in Britain, KeeleUniversity, Staffordshire, available at www.edibleecosys-tems.care4free.net

Sustain (2001). Organic food and farming: myth andreality. Sustain.

Warwick, H. (2001). Urban renaissance. In PermacultureMagazine Issue 30, Winter 2001.

Whitefield, P. (1997). Permaculture in a Nutshell.Permanent Publications.


UTILITARIAN DREAMS:EXAMPLES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

André Viljoen



230

If Cuba can be considered a laboratory for the widescale introduction of urban agriculture, it is notalone in planning for urban agriculture. Examplescan be found in Asia, Africa and Europe. Althoughthe conditions in each location are different, a num-ber of common benefits can be identified.

DELFT, THE NETHERLANDS

The city of Delft in the Netherlands provides aninteresting example of planning legislation beingadapted to accommodate peri-urban agriculture.(Deelstra et al., 2001)

The Upper Bieslandse Polder has an area ofthirty-five hectares and lies on the eastern edgeof Delft. The land had been rented to farmers onshort leases pending development. Collaborationbetween farmers, environmentalists and plannersresulted in the city authorities granting a twelve-year lease to a farmer committed to organic dairyfarming. This project demonstrates a number ofbenefits arising from urban agriculture.The organicfarm includes designated areas for wildlife habitat,which have been located on the perimeter of thefarm providing a transition between public and pri-vate land. Footpaths, cycle ways and bridal pathshave been included in the plan, further intensifyingthe farmland use by including recreational areas forDelft’s inhabitants. Water meadows, marshy wood-land and reed beds provide a degree of ecologicalwater management. We could call this kind of envi-ronmental development, horizontal intensification.It contrasts sharply with the notion of vertical inten-sification currently being explored by many Dutcharchitects. Vertical intensification proposes a stack-ing of different activities and ecological systemswithin a multi-storey structure. Vertical intensificationproposes highly engineered artificial landscapes.While horizontal intensification as found in the UpperBieslandse Polder is also artificial, in that the land ismanaged, the inputs in terms of energy and materi-als are far less, and the outputs are almost entirelyenvironmentally benign.

Although the proposal may be imperfect, in that itrelates to a single example of land developing hori-zontal intensification, and it is impermanent (twelveyears), it does indicate how policies are beginningto change in Europe.

KATHMANDU VALLEY, NEPAL

Some similarities can be identified between policiesin Delft and development guidelines introduced in

Urban agriculture in Upper Bieslandse Polder

Urban areas

Road

Highway

Railroad

Water

Figure 23.1

Figure 23.1 Upper Bieslandse Polder, Delft, Netherlands.


UTILITARIAN DREAMS

231

Nepal’s Kathmandu Valley. An extensive planningexercise undertaken for the Madhyapur ThimiMunicipality, located in the Kathmandu Valley, hasdefined a number of urban agricultural reservezones, which have been incorporated into themunicipality’s development plans (Weise and Boyd,2001). The reserves are not necessarily permanentas the municipal plan allows for the incrementalrelease of land for commercial development. In thisrespect proposals are similar to those in Delft,namely that planners have yet to be convinced thaturban agriculture can be considered as beneficialas conventional urban development. Agreement toincorporate the urban agriculture reserves into themunicipal plan was not without opposition, in themain from middle class individuals who had intendedto build detached houses on small plots. A portion ofland has been set aside for housing, but the urbanagriculture reserves in Madhyapur Thimi Municipality

are extensive. We would estimate that if a similarproportion of land was allocated in European cities,they would be close to self-sufficient in fruit and veg-etables. But one imagines the opposition to such pro-posals if powerful developers had plans for particularpieces of land. This highlights the need for planningfor urban agriculture at an early stage in the planningprocess, preferably before land has been sold to indi-viduals for the purpose of house building.

The Madhyapur Thimi Municipality has identifieda number of significant benefits resulting from theinclusion of urban agriculture reserves.

By defining urban agriculture reserves, financialresources can be targeted more efficiently, as areasof land are identified which do not require the instal-lation of complex supporting infrastructure. Thisallows the concentration of resources within areasidentified for urban development. Resources can beused to promote denser urbanisation and the efficientuse of land. Furthermore, potential problems, such asprocessing biodegradable waste and sewage, can beturned into solutions, i.e. if this waste is used as anagricultural resource, for example as compost. Byhaving a specific policy supporting urban agriculture,the release of any agricultural land for developmentcan be regulated and controlled.

GABORONE, BOTSWANA

In Gaborone, capital city of Botswana, a number ofintegrated urban agriculture projects have been insti-gated. In at least one case, innovative planning hasmade a connection between waste from sewageworks and urban agriculture (Cavric and Mosha,2001).

Gaborone has undergone dispersed suburbanexpansion since independence in 1966. The city

Urban agriculture reserve areas

Urban development areas

Buildings

Roads

Figure 23.2

Figure 23.2 Madhyapur Thimi Municipality, Kathmandu Valley, Nepal.



232

has always been reliant on food imported frombeyond its boundaries (Mosha and Cavric, 1999).In the Glenn Valley area of Gaborone severalparcels of land have been identified as sites forurban agriculture. It is estimated that these shouldmake the city self-sufficient in food production. Oneof these sites is of particular interest as it is adja-cent to a sewage works and bounded by theNotwane River. Wastewater from the works can beused to irrigate crops, though if industrial contami-nants are present wastewater should be reservedfor non-edible crops such as fiber or wood. In theGlenn Valley area individual farmer’s plots vary insize between one and a half and four hectares and

are laid out back to back in order to minimise thenumber of access roads required.

The plots adjacent to the sewage works are likelyto be used for cut flowers and ornamental plants,similar to the floral organoponics found in Cuba.We can use this example to imagine how such anarea, including the urban agriculture plots, couldbecome a new kind of urban park. As designed, theGlenn Valley urban agriculture site is laid out asa matrix of rectangular plots. If these plots are sep-arated to allow for continuous paths between them,a network of accessible public routes could over-lay the urban agriculture fields, creating what we

Urban agriculture

Built-up areas

Open space

Water features

Urban agriculture

Built-up area

Open space

Sewage water worksFigure 23.3

Figure 23.4

Figure 23.4 Glenn Valley (detail), Gaborone, Botswana.

Figure 23.3 Glenn Valley, Gaborone, Botswana.


term ‘LeisurEscapes’. This is another example ofhorizontal intensification, in this case intensifying aproductive landscape by making a connectionbetween the river and the city, while providing newspaces for play and relaxation.

ANOTHER MODEL

In the previous examples specific parcels of landhave been set aside for urban agriculture. An alter-native strategy has been developed in Tanzaniaand Bulgaria, where a less specific categorisationor zoning is applied. In each case it has been pro-posed that as one moves away from the urban cen-tre, the potential for including urban agricultureincreases, as more open space becomes available.Thus particular parcels of land are not zoned forfood growing, but the extent of urban agricultureacceptable in different areas is defined.

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the city’s StrategicUrban Development Plan now accepts urban agri-culture as a legitimate land use, where before itwas only tolerated as a transitional land use (Kitillaand Mlambo, 2001). Kitilla and Mlambo refer to therapid increase of informal urban agriculture in thecity, for example between 1985 and 1993 the citywitnessed a thirty-fold increase in the number ofgoats. So planning policy has had to react to a situ-ation which is occurring anyway. It is estimated that30 per cent of the food consumed in Dar es Salaamis grown within the city boundary.

As a consequence of supporting urban agriculture,the city authorities promote the vertical expansionof buildings, where this can free up urban land forfood growing. In Dar es Salaam, the availability of

UTILITARIAN DREAMS

233

low cost transport has been recognised as essen-tial for the transportation of locally grown food.Here again we can imagine how interconnectedparcels of productive landscape can generate hori-zontal intensification, and by providing routes forthe distribution of goods by, for example, bike, as inCuba, also provide an infrastructure for local com-muting and leisure.

Trojan, Bulgaria

The town of Trojan in Bulgaria provides an exampleof places where urban food growing occurs in

Highly available areas for city expansionModerately available for city expansionLess available for city expansionForest reserve, mangroves or swampy areas

Built-up area

Indian Ocean

Figure 23.5

Figure 23.5 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.



234

residential areas and is consumed by the growers,rather than being sold. Although urban agriculturehas not been considered in urban planning, thefact that it exists and makes a significant contribu-tion for a section of the population has resulted inthe development of ‘Experimental Rules’ for urbanagriculture (Yoveva and Mishev, 2001).

Planners instigated a participatory process, withlocal farmers and gardeners, to investigate thedevelopment of planning policy for urban agricul-ture. An action plan for the promotion of peri-urbanagriculture has been adopted, which commits the

municipality to co-ordinating support structures forthe implementation of agricultural projects.

In the initial stages most gardeners have expressedan interest in self-sufficiency, rather than developingcommercial market gardens, however the planningteam have identified the development of agro-tourism and landscape conservation as long-termgoals for their productive urban landscapes.

The example of Trojan raises significant questionsin relation to suburbia and sprawl. Yoveva andMishev observe that urban agriculture in Bulgaria,

Parks

Industrial zone

Central zone (no animals allowed)

Mixed residential (restricted animal breeding)

Peripheral villages (animal breeding allowed)

Prevailingly residential (restricted number ofdomestic animals)

River

Figure 23.6

Figure 23.6 Trojan, Bulgaria.


UTILITARIAN DREAMS

235

as practised by individuals for self-consumption,is largely provoked by financial hardship as thecountry undergoes a process of transition to anopen market. From this we can make a reasonablededuction that the majority of the population donot wish to grow their own food, and hence ourcontention that sustainable cities should makeprovision for productive landscapes which containcommercially viable mini or supermarket gardens(Viljoen and Tardiveau, 1998). But, by rejecting thenotion of individual self-sufficiency, we should notlose site of the opportunities within existing sub-urbs for extensive food growing. Studies fromAuckland in New Zealand have indicated the signif-icance of garden vegetable plots within suburbsand the trend for these to become under-utilised inrecent years (Ho, 2000). This extensive area ofunder-utilised land suggests ways in which por-tions of private gardens could be connected into anetwork of linear fields, farmed professionally bygardeners who would supply produce to homeowners.

Readers who would like more information aboutthese and other initiatives are directed to TheUrban Agriculture Magazine, Number 4 (2001) pub-lished by The Resource Centre for UrbanAgriculture and Forestry, RUAF. Copies may bedownloaded from their website at www.ruaf.org.

REFERENCES

Cavric, B. I. and Mosha, A. C. (2001). Incorporating UrbanAgriculture in Gaborone City Planning. Urban AgricultureMagazine, Number 4, 25–27.

Deelstra, T., Boyd, D. and van den Biggelaar, M. (2001).Multifunctional Land Use: An Opportunity for PromotingUrban Agriculture in Europe. Urban Agriculture Magazine,Number 4, 33–35.

Ho, S. (2000). Food production in Cities. Proceedings ofShaping the Sustainable Millennium, University of Brisbane.(available at www.sdrc.auckland.ac.nz/confpprs.htm)

Kitilla, M. D. and Mlambo, A. (2001). Integration of agriculturein city development in Dar es Salaam. Urban AgricultureMagazine, Number 4, 22–24.

Mosha, A. C. and Cavric, B. (1999). The practice of UA inGaborone. Department of Environmental Science, Universityof Botswana research project.

Weise, K. and Boyd, I. (2001). Urban Agriculture SupportProgramme for Madhyapur Thimi Municipality, Nepal. UrbanAgriculture Magazine, Number 4, 33–35.

Viljoen, A. and Tardiveau, A. (1998). Sustainable Cities andLandscape Patterns. Proceedings of PLEA 98 Conference,Lisbon, pp. 49–52.

Yoveva, A. and Mishev, P. (2001).The Case of Trojan UsingUrban Agriculture for Sustainable City Planning inBulgaria. Urban Agriculture Magazine, Number 4, 14–16.


FIVE

CARROT AND CITY: PRACTICAL VISIONING

PART


NEW SPACE FOR OLD CITIES:VISION FOR LANDSCAPE



SIZE

Figure 24.1 contrasts the size of a nineteenth century London park with proposals for a modestCPUL intervention. It is not the size of an individualurban agriculture site that determines its successas a Productive Urban Landscape. Size will be significant in determining the yield and hence theenvironmental impact of urban agriculture sites(see Chapter 3), but it is not critical in relation to thequalities brought to a city. We need to distinguishbetween individual plot size and the extensivenessand interconnectivity of productive urban land-scapes. It is interconnectivity that will lead to contin-uous landscapes, which can ultimately generate anew Ecological Infrastructure in urban environ-ments. Productive urban landscapes may consist ofmany small fields covering an extensive area, or ofisolated patches of horticulture set far apart, or oflarge individual fields. Fingers of productive land-scape may link, like bridges, associated but physi-cally isolated activities and areas of the city. Anyone piece of land supporting urban agriculture mayvary in size from several square metres in area toseveral hectares. Implementing productive urbanlandscapes may start at a small scale, but the goalis to develop CPULs. At its greatest extent, a net-work of green spaces would overlay and runthrough the urban fabric, with agricultural fieldsplaced within a continuous landscape.

The authors, have tested the idea of CPULs in anumber of design studies. LeisureESCAPE, is astudy for one of several strands of continuous land-scape, which could be introduced into London (see Plate 6). The study examines an area runningsouth of the Tate Modern art gallery, in the city cen-tre, and continuing for about twenty kilometres tothe edge of Greater London, where the continuous landscape disperse into the country-side. A detailed image of part of this scheme shows

the relatively modest number of roads required tobe given over to growing to create an extensive net-work of productive urban landscapes. (see: colourplate 8)

Productive landscapes and urban agriculture canexist at a much more modest scale, when locatedwithin the boundary of a particular site. Figure 24.2shows a modest proposal for such a small-scaleintervention, sited between two blocks of live workapartments. This landscape would be like a sharedsquare, like a small version of the crescents found inBath, or expanded versions of Berlin courtyardapartments. These micro fields would be used dailyby residents living in adjacent buildings and thusplanting would be somewhat more ornamental incharacter, soft fruits and berries, for breakfasts ofstrawberries and pears ripe from trees outside abedroom window.

It is probable that in many instances the court-yard or square will provide a model for ProductiveUrban Landscapes. In Figure 24.3 we can see plans for a riverside development, whichplaces a number of urban agriculture fieldsbetween a riverbank promenade and terraces ofapartments and houses. Here the situationclosely resembles examples found in Cuba, asseen in Plates 4 and 5.

Productive Urban Landscapes need not be hori-zontal. Certain places in a city may be appropriatefor vertical landscapes, where one or more layers ofvegetation are placed vertically against a building’sfacade. These second skins provide ecological andenvironmental benefits. They also provide connec-tions between ground-based fields and cultivatedaerial platforms, offering a further degree of ecolog-ical intensification, this time an expansion of groundarea. Vertical landscapes present a particular formof ecological intensification, by artificially increas-ing the carrying capacity of a piece of ground.


240


This intensification requires very specific designand maintenance once implemented. Dealing withthe difficulties associated with gardening in shallowsoils, at heights where exposure to drying, cold,

and overshadowing is frequently extreme, will limitthe application of vertical landscapes to particularsites and buildings. The expert managementrequired for vertical landscapes suggests that they

NEW SPACE FOR OLD CITIES: VISION FOR LANDSCAPE

241

Figure 24.1

Figure 24.1 Victoria Park CPUL: A modest CPUL adjacent to Victoria Park in North London. Interventions like these retain thecharacter of larger CPULs and may, in the future, be extended.


are best developed at a large scale on a singlebuilding or on a cluster of smaller buildings, thus facilitating maintenance by a team of dedi-cated farmer/gardeners. Plate 15 and Figure 24.14show one example of the integration of verticalfields within a dense development in the city ofLondon.

SENSE OF OPENNESS

It is reasonable to expect that during the firststages of implementation of CPULs, a series ofsmall interventions will, be made, eventually leadingto an extensive network of connected spaces. Such


242

Old Ford Road

Pam

ell R

oad

Figure 24.2

Figure 24.2 Victoria Park CPUL: Small pieces of land, such as this one between two live/work units, can accommodate microfields that are productive but domestic in character.


an approach will, over time, create a sense of open-ness within an otherwise uniformly built and occu-pied environment. Figure 24.4 shows the outcome of this kind of strategy, whereby over time disusedand abandoned sites become activated and used inan environmentally and socially productive manner.Here, productive landscapes occupy interstitialspaces found in the gaps between a predeterminedurban grid. Meaning and a sense of openness areintroduced to the site by delineating expansive viewsand long vistas, to what would otherwise remain aseries of isolated, disconnected and largely disusedpatches of land.

CPULs or patches of productive urban landscapescan provide space for wondering eyes, and recep-tive ears. Spaces to view fields overlooking a hori-zon can be created within modest developments.Figures 24.5 and 24.6 show urban agriculture fieldsin Newark, set between housing terraces. Windowsfrom within, and the paths alongside these houses,offer views across fields and sky. These proposals


243

Figure 24.3

Figure 24.4

Figure 24.3 Newark CPUL: Urban agriculture fields are situated like courtyards between housing and a river.

Figure 24.4 ElastiCity CPUL, Sheffield: In a strategy for developing CPULs over time, disused and abandoned sites becomeactivated and reused in an environmentally and socially productive manner, creating a comprehensible and useful environment.


embody characteristics described in the Edge Atlas(see Chapter 17-Edge atlas).

The scale at which these conditions are experi-enced can be varied according to the degree towhich occupation is in the private or public realm.In our proposals for Sheffield, (see Figure 24.7)the insertion of a courtyard into a dwelling allowseyes and occupants to move between interior andexterior within the domestic realm. Through this

courtyard, access is provided to a linear land-scape, accommodating a mix of small and largepatches of urban agriculture and recreationalspaces. The height and size of boundaries guideeye and body through and across the landscape.Plate 13 shows how the eye is drawn from within towithout, a condition that reoccurs at a variety ofscales.

LOCAL INTERACTIONS

Benefits occur no matter what the scale of interven-tion. Modest linear fields (Figure 24.1), can providespace for paths, which connect private and publicspaces. Making their adjacency visible encouragesmovement between the two.The paths and connect-ing landscape can be thought of as interventions


244

Figure 24.5

Figure 24.6

Figure 24.7

Figure 24.5 Newark CPUL: Houses, paths and fields.

Figure 24.6 Newark CPUL: Houses look out over fields, towards a river beyond.

Figure 24.7 ElastiCity CPUL, Sheffield: Garden/courtyards mediate between the private realm of the house and the publicrealm of a CPUL. A two-storey core home can be enlarged by building single-storey additions in thegarden/courtyard.


which mark and reveal. Routes to shops becomeadjacent to places where food is grown. Each walkamongst the crops heightens the experience ofseasonality, and speeds up time because of thecompact space within which nature is experienced.Time is intensified – more ‘nature’ for your time. Noneed to pack your bags to visit the countryside.

Figure 24.8 indicates improved access and interac-tion at its most elementary. Here houses are ele-vated above an urban agriculture field, their exactheight determined by a requirement to provideaccess, for cultivators, to fields and to maximisesolar access to the fields. At Newark ramps fromthe front door connect the houses to a river at oneside and the city centre at the other. Vistas are cre-ated over the urban agriculture fields and the river,and houses float in a pastoral landscape.

Space promoting and provoking local interactionscan be thought of as the space of encounters. (seeChapter 2). Imagine setting out into a continuouslandscape, such as that proposed for Sheffield(see Figures 24.4 and 24.7). An individual will passpeople engaged in different kinds of growing andcultivation. A pedestrian may come across farmers

using their land commercially, while also passingallotment holders engaged in activities that blendthe social and productive. These encounters occurwithin the boundaries of a continuous productiveurban landscape. But the site within which localinteractions occur, extends beyond the boundary ofindividual fields or landscapes. By setting up con-nections, continuous landscapes expand theirsphere of influence to include adjacent enterprises,recreational areas and institutions. The act of mak-ing and marking a connection promotes andengenders physical contact. In certain instances,fine bridges can span roads or rivers, breakingwhat are otherwise insurmountable barriers. Figure24.9 demonstrates the strength of such a land-scape bridge, proposed as a lightweight structure,providing spatial continuity across a road which,otherwise, destroys any sense of adjacency.

URBAN NATURE

Natural landscapes, those that are wild and unman-aged, exist in the city with a diminished significance,


245

Figure 24.8

Figure 24.8 Newark CPUL: Elevated terraced houses step down towards an adjacent riverbank. The broken-up terrace,slopingWestwards, minimizes overshadowing of urban agriculture fields and provides continuity of surface and accessbetween fields.


both in terms of the number of these places and therecognition of their significance as a valuable eco-logical resource. Places often understood as natu-ral, for example parks, are artificial, constructed toprovide an idea or image of outside-town, of therural, the pastoral. CPULs will be part of this con-structed idea of the natural. Urban agriculture inparticular, will represent a notion of the country-side, of rural life and, via this image, of ‘nature’.

This is not to deny the power of the natural tooccupy the urban, e.g. kestrels nesting in the city.But such urban nature is largely hidden, unseenand thus not registered. CPULs will trigger andsupport the possibilities for urban nature to estab-lish itself and/or to expand. The adjacency of archi-tecture, of urban life to agriculture and CPULs willreveal what is now hidden. Seasonality, asexpressed by changing crop types and their everchanging appearance from sowing to harvest, bythe exposure of the earth when it is laid fallow, byassociated smells, sounds and views, will make theenvironment once more comprehensible. CPULswill intensify the connection occupants have withthe living environment, without requiring the returnto a subsistence economy, but equally reducing ourdestructive impact on the planet.

Planning strategies for brownfield or greenfieldsites can include CPULs within architectural pro-posals. Figures 24.10, 24.11 and 24.12 show howfingers of dwellings run into urban fields, allowing


246

Figure 24.9

Figure 24.10

Figure 24.11

Figure 24.9 ElastiCity CPUL, Sheffield: A landscape bridge provides physical and visual connections between CPULs eitherside of a main road.

Figure 24.10 Newark CPUL: Routes for pedestrians and cyclists highlighted.

Figure 24.11 Newark CPUL: Rooftop solar collectors highlighted.


continuity within spaces by giving simultaneousaccess to dwellings and agricultural land. The fur-ther layering of infrastructures and energy systemsprovides another, more subtle exposure to urbannature, one embodied in the concept of ecologicalintensification.

When density of population increases, moreextreme measures are required, including verticallandscaping, mixed use occupancies and park-likepublic open space. Figures 24.13 and 24.14 showthe relationship between vertical and horizontalurban agriculture fields. An undulating public parkruns over perimeter accommodation, making anurban cliff edge overlooking horizontal fields of


247

Figure 24.12

Figure 24.13 Shoreditch CPUL: An undulating public park runs over perimeter accommodation and makes an urban cliffedge overlooking horizontal fields of urban agriculture. This park connects to existing open space whichincludes an adjacent city farm.

Figure 24.12 Newark CPUL: Surfaces for collecting rainwater for domestic use highlighted. Underground storage tanks indi-cated by dashed lines.

Figure 24.13


urban agriculture; the park, providing space for cir-culation and pleasure. People can picnic alongsidean urban cliff edge, viewing across fields of urbanagriculture.

In some buildings with a vertical landscape, a roomwill extend outwards from the building’s facade creating a balcony, which cuts through the land-scape curtain; here the occupant is placed in directcontact with a planted environment. In many casesthe intimacy would be greater than that achieved ina rural location. Here a landscape is created in thesky, the planting creating a buffer between interiorand exterior and framing a private space.

For the inhabitant of a building with a vertical land-scape, the proximity of planting adjacent to a facadewill provide opportunities for a direct experience of

vegetation, in a context which usually emphasisesdislocation from the ground and natural processes.A vertical landscape adjacent to a facade can bethought of as a thick green curtain hung in front ofthe building. Where windows occur, holes would bepunched through this green curtain. By controllingthe dimensions of the openings in the green facade,experiences of the planted landscape would bemodified. By separating the vertical skin from thefacade, it will provide solar shading to openings. Byconfiguring openings which will not provide exces-sive obstruction to daylight and using openings toshade elevations facing direct solar gain, a varietyof opening sizes will be generated, which will articu-late facades in relation to their orientation.Thus, thedeveloped landscape curtain will read like a fabriclaid over the facade, a temporally changing surface


248

Figure 24.14

Figure 24.14 Shoreditch CPUL: Productive fields in a dense development, including horizontal and vertical fields.


(see Plate 15). It will have openings across thefacade, Setting up spatial relationships between thebuilding as a static solid object and the veiling sec-ond skin created by the landscape curtain. With thepassing of seasons, the landscape curtain’s surfacewill change in colour, density and opacity. It will beheard, producing a rustle in the wind. And pedestri-ans, walking past such a building, will experiencethe facade as an animated surface.

PERSISTENT VISUAL STIMULATION

Rivers and fields contribute to persistent visualstimulation, a characteristic of productive urbanlandscapes. In some cases direct relationshipsexist between spaces with different temporalrhythms, for example a river, with its frequent sur-face undulations reflecting a dappled light, and agentle sound, seen against the slower rhythms ofcrop lifecycles.

The arrangement of furrows and beds for planting,which are found in typical urban agriculture sitesand market gardens the world over, echo ancientpatterns of spatial divisions, found in nature andagriculture (see Plate 16). The artist Tom Phillips,has speculated that primal marks found in the natu-ral landscape, for example line, point, and hatch, aswell as characteristics such as branching, forking,repetition, and variation, provide a basic visualgrammar and syntax, from which ornament hasbeen derived (Phillips, 2003). The same wordsused by Tom Phillips to describe the natural envi-ronment can be used to describe the conditionsfound in urban agriculture fields. Continuing thistrain of thought it can be argued that the appeal ofagricultural landscapes derives from an ancientunderstanding of the marks they make in the land-scape, which can be read as an elemental form ofornament. Thus, urban agriculture in particular canbe read as a deeply understood form of ornamentwithin the city.Through urban agriculture it is possi-ble to experience urban ornament.


249

Figure 24.15


REFERENCES:

Philips, T. (2003). The Nature of Ornament: A summaryTreatise. Architectural Review, Vol. CCXIII, No. 1274, 79–86.

Viljoen, A. (1997). The environmental impact of EnergyEfficient Dwellings taking into account embodied energy

and energy in use. In European Directory of Sustainableand Energy Efficient Building 1997. James and James(Science Publishers).

Viljoen, A., and Bohn, K. (2000). Urban Intensification andthe Integration of Productive Landscape. July 2000.Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress VI,Part 1, pp. 483–488, Pergamon.


250


MORE CITY WITH LESS SPACE:

VISION FOR LIFESTYLE




252

VARIETY OF OCCUPATION ANDOCCUPANTS

An important characteristic of CPULs is the way inwhich a variety of occupations occur, such as gar-dening, farming, commuting, playing sport, leisuretime activities like parties and picnics, which areundertaken by a variety of occupants, for example,schoolchildren, market gardeners, city dwellers,retired people. . . . This variety of occupants mayengage with one or more of the occupations foundwithin CPULs. The range of possible permutationsbetween an individual occupant of a CPUL andtheir single, or many, activities or occupations islarge and greater than in many public facilities, such

as leisure centres. CPULs combine the tranquil qual-ities of a park with physical activities. They are aslikely to be occupied by someone seeking a place torest and read, as by someone else wanting physicalexercise (Figure 25.1).

Continuous networks or local areas of productiveurban landscape will provide the space for a varietyof activities. Open-air sports areas can be imag-ined, not bounded by a fence, or enclosed by a roof,but rather a loose network of paths for running andfields for games, like an open-air gym. Schools,leisure centres and clubs overlooking ContinuousProductive Urban Landscapes gain access to ashared public realm, providing external space for anumber of activities and occupations.

Figure 25.1

Figure 25.1 LeisurESCAPE CPUL, London: Urban edge buildings overlook a productive landscape.


Proximity to ‘nature’, reducing commuting dis-tances and persistent visual stimulation, thesequalities, enriching to the experience of place, allsuggest the development of building types whichengage with a new overlap between green space,dwelling, and use. At a modest scale Figures 25.2and 25.3 show a proposal mixing spatial types,occupation, building and landscape. Double heightbalconies create space for landscaped ‘interiors’,and rooftops are crowned with bristling vegetation(see Plate 14). Paths and tracks on roofs reinventthe ideal of the Marseilles Unite.

ECONOMIC RETURN FROM LAND-USE

Economic return from ground-use can be meas-ured in two ways: one way is to measure direct economic benefits resulting from new employ-ment and enterprises; and the other, arguably more important in the long term, is to measure reductions in environmental degradation, due to pro-ductive urban landscapes. These benefits, accru-ing from reduced environmental impact, lessen thefuture costs associated with remedial environ-mental work.

We use the term ‘site yield’ to refer to quantifiableenvironmental benefits resulting from sustainabledevelopment, which utilises, for example, renew-able energy systems, rainwater harvesting orincludes urban agriculture. Site yield records the proportion of energy, and food requirementsthat can be harvested from within the boundary of a particular site. In order to get an idea of siteyield for developments built to high standards ofenergy efficiency, we have annualised our designproposals for actual sites in England (Sheffield,

Newark and Shoreditch).The density of occupationfor these three sites varies between 92 and 450 per-sons per hectare. Figure 25.4 indicates the arrange-ment of buildings and open space on particularsites: Newark consists exclusively of dwellings;Sheffield can accommodate living and working; andShoreditch provides accommodation for dwellingsand social functions, such as libraries, sports facul-ties and schools. Figures 25.5, 25.6 and 25.7 showthat fruit and vegetable production, within theboundary of a site, can be expected to account forabout a quarter of annual requirements for densitiesat or below circa 200 persons per hectare.With den-sities as high as 450 persons per hectares, if onlyhorizontal surfaces are used for food growing, thenfruit and vegetable yield drops to about 10 per cent.By introducing a system of vertical landscaping tohigh density schemes, fruit and vegetable yieldsmay be increased to circa 30 per cent of annualrequirements. In all cases, the proposals are forbuildings designed to high standards of energy effi-ciency, and insulated to levels which effectively elim-inate the need for space heating in the Englishclimate (Viljoen, 1997 and Viljoen & Bohn, 2000).Accommodation maximises benefits from naturalventilation and daylight. Buildings use roof space foraccommodating solar hot water panels, for the sup-ply of domestic hot water for washing, and photo-voltaic panels for the generation of electricity tooffset annual domestic requirements. Results fromthese studies show the significant contribution solarsystems can make to energy requirements.The results also suggest that density will limit thepotential for developments utilising solar power forall energy requirements when it approaches 450persons per hectare.

The potential for collecting rainwater from roofs, fordomestic consumption, is modest for all threeexamples. Organic urban agriculture has an indirect

MORE CITY WITH LESS SPACE

253



254

VOID

AboveHerb garden

VOID

AboveHerb garden

VOID

AboveHerb garden

VOID

AboveHerb garden

HOUSEGARDEN

LOBBY andSTORE

HOUSEGARDEN

WORKSHOPor OFFICE

Flat typeTERRACED HOUSEUpper Floor

Flat typeTOWN FLAT

Open plan

4 or 5 people,maximum 6 people

Cellular plan

120 m2

19 m2

14 m2

120 m2

120 m2



Open plan


VOID

AboveHerb garden

VOID

AboveHerb garden

VOID

AboveHerb garden

VOID

AboveHerb garden

HOUSEGARDEN

LOBBY and STORE

HOUSEGARDEN

WORKSHOPor OFFICE


Flat typeTOWN FLAT

Open plan


Cellular plan

120 m2

19 m2

14 m2

120 m2

120 m2



Open plan


Figure 25.2

Figure 25.2 Victoria Park CPUL: Apartment plans showing private ‘house garden’ balconies, workshop and office space adjacent to public and productive landscape.



255

benefit with respect to reducing water consumption.Enriching soil with composted organic matterimproves its water retaining potential, therebyrequiring less water for irrigation.

Figures 25.5, 25.6 and 25.7 represent ecologicalyields derived from particular sites, integrating anumber of environmental features in a coherentoverall design strategy. Significant additional contri-butions to the percentage of locally produced foodwould result from the development of peri-urbanagriculture.

Instigating a bounding ring, or wide network of mar-ket gardens adjacent to densely built urban centres,provides further opportunity to reduce dependenceupon remotely produced food. Considering thatallotments were providing 50 per cent of Britain’sfruit and vegetable requirements during the SecondWorld War (Crouch and Ward, 1988), it is not impossible to imagine a large city like

London aiming for self-sufficiency in fruit and vegetable production from CPULs and peri-urbanagriculture.

Further indirect economic advantages will be derivedfrom health and social benefits (see Chapter 3).

Direct Economic Benefits

One of the first questions asked about the viabilityof urban agriculture in existing cities is: where willthe land come from? The answer will depend onwhether the urban agriculture is to be locatedwithin the built-up area of an existing city or if it is tobe sited within a planned urban extension ongreenfield or brown-field sites (see Figure 25.8).

Greenfield and brownfield sites provide extensiveareas of land within which CPULs may be devel-oped. For urban agriculture, the availability of openland is not the only requirement – soil type and

Figure 25.3

Figure 25.3 Victoria Park CPUL: External view of apartments and landscape.



256

condition will have a significant bearing on wherecrops can be grown and the degree of soil repairthat may be required (see Chapter 8).

Integrating CPULs into existing cities will requirethe consideration of a number of different sourcesfor land: existing undeveloped land; land from siteswhich are due for redevelopment; land within pro-posed developments; and portions of existing openspace such as parks which may release pieces ofland for CPULs. All recycled land, that is land whichhas had a previous use, will require testing for contamination and may require the application of appropriate techniques to ‘repair’ the soil.

Within existing cities roads provide an importantsource of land for CPULs. Converting roads intoroutes for connections between patches of openurban space and urban agriculture is technicallyrelatively straightforward, converting them for useas urban agriculture sites is more challenging.

If roads are to be converted for crop growing, eitherraised beds or fields will have to be created. Both of these options will require the reintroduction orrecreation of viable topsoil, which will have beenremoved during the construction of the road. Theamount of road space given over to food growingwill need to be considered in each situation, andissues such as the viability of breaking up and

Sheffield site plan92 persons per hectare

Newark site model214 persons per hectare

Shoreditch site model450 persons per hectare

Figure 25.4

Figure 25.4 Comparative study of CPULs at different densities.



257

Figure 25.5

Figure 25.6

Per

cent

age

of a

nnua

l req

uire

men

t

0

20

40

60

80

100Sheffield 92 persons/ha

(Viljoen & Bohn, 2000)

Rainwatercollection

Photo-voltaics

Solar hot water

Fruit andvegetables

Per

cent

age

of a

nnua

l req

uire

men

t

0

20

40

60

80

100Newark 214 persons/ha


Rainwatercollection

Photo-voltaics

Solar hot water

Fruit andvegetables

Figure 25.6 Site yield for Newark CPUL.

Figure 25.5 Site yield for ElastiCity CPUL, Sheffield.



258

crushing materials judged against the manyreturns given by urban agriculture. In manyEuropean cities the complete demolition and onsitecrushing of buildings, paving and parking areas isnow common practice when a new use cannot befound for them. The crushed materials are thenreused as aggregate or fill in new developments. InLondon, extensive industrial areas to the east ofthe city have undergone such a transformationsince about 2000, and this process can equally beapplied to selected roads.

If roads are converted to CPULs, a city or devel-oper will not have to purchase new land, as it isalready there. Furthermore, the introduction ofurban agriculture, with its associated pastoral andornamental qualities, may increase the value ofadjacent land, commensurate with the quality of lifeimprovements for residents inhabiting develop-ments alongside the landscape. These economicbenefits are like the indirect benefits derived from

Amsterdam Plein, or Trafalgar Square, each havingtheir own costs, but with collateral benefits for adja-cent spaces.

Brownfield sites provide another source of land inexisting cities. Where these have previously hadan industrial use, the ground is likely to be contam-inated and require detoxification (see Chapter 8).The techniques required to detoxify contaminatedsoil are now well understood and frequentlyapplied. The costs are relatively high and for thisreason it is often confined to sites that have thepotential for high economic return once developed.Inspection of proposals for new residential devel-opment on land to the east of London, in the‘Thames Gateway’ shows that a significant propor-tion of the site area of land for residental develop-ment is not built on. This land, within the curtilageof brownfield sites, could be used for productiveuses in a manner similar to schemes described inthis and the previous chapter (see Figure 25.4).

Per

cent

age

of a

nnua

l req

uire

men

t

0

20

40

60

80

100

Horizontallandscape

only

Includingvertical

landscape

London 450 persons/ha


Rainwatercollection

Photo-voltaics

Solar hot water

Fruit andvegetables

Figure 25.7

Figure 25.7 Site yield for Shoreditch CPUL.



259

Figure 25.8

Figure 25.8 ElastiCity CPUL, Sheffield: Site model showing incremental development. Urban agriculture fields structure thesite and portions of these become plots for future buildings.

Figure 25.9

Figure 25.9 ElastiCity CPUL, Sheffield: External perspective showing the relationship between urban agriculture fields,garden/courtyards and dwellings.



260

CPULs and urban agriculture in particular can beutilised as part of a strategy for incremental devel-opment. Incremental development links economicand environmental strategies. It accepts that devel-opment will not always occur at one time, indeed asite may take many years to reach its final form, ormay even be conceived as a place that can contin-uously evolve and adapt. On the Manor Estate inSheffield, we have proposed such a development.Here, an impoverished estate of terraced housescould be transformed into a CPUL, parts of whichwould erode over time as house building occurs, asand when funds and necessity permit.This strategyallows a cheap initial intervention on the site, whichwould mark plots for urban agriculture fields, pathsand roads. Economics can determine when sup-porting infrastructures are installed. Figure 25.4(see Sheffield site plan) illustrates the final form thedevelopment would take, with fingers of housingalternating with fingers of urban agriculture, con-nected to a larger continuous landscape. Initially,fields and roads are marked on the site, and thefields are operated as commercial market gardens,wildlife gardens, play and sporting facilities, provid-ing an economic and environmental return from theland. As housing is built, some of the urban agricul-ture fields are given up and become plots forhouses. Although this process accommodatesunpredictable future scenarios, it provides a coher-ent framework in which development can occur.Building can progress quickly or slowly, but at anystage the place will read as a complete entity (seeFigure 25.9).

Urban agriculture can also be understood as ameans of supporting emerging enterprises, such asfarmers’ markets. Nina Planck describes how thesehave taken root in London (see Chapter 10).We arenow in a situation where a network of markets, thatis sales outlets, exist, but farmers are travelling onaverage a total of 100 miles (160 km) to and from

markets (see Chapter 3). Currently, an infrastruc-ture for the sale of locally grown food exists, but thesupporting infrastructure of adjacent market gar-dens does not. The environmental case for localfood production has been made and the economicdesire for fresh locally grown food is evident in citiesas disconnected from their productive hinterland, asis London.

Another economic return of CPULs will be that work-places and dwellings can be sited within an environ-ment of natural or rural characteristics, therebyanswering those human desires, which are so wellillustrated by the popularity of commuter beltdwellings located on the urban/rural fringe. CPULswill offer an inner-urban alternative to suburbansprawl, reducing drastically the commuting requiredbetween dormitory suburbs and urban centre (seeFigure 25.10).

INNER-CITY MOVEMENT

In London, this is achieved by identifying existingpatches of un- or under-developed land, of parks orplaying fields and then planning and designing theirinter-connection. Generally, roads provide the con-necting element. Careful consideration of accessrequirements and circulation patterns usually indi-cates a number of roads that may be closed tothrough-traffic (see Plates 6, 7 and 8).

In London, for example, a cycle path running allalong a particular CPUL would allow a person liv-ing in East Croydon (circa 20 km south of the citycentre) to reach the city centre by bicycle in aboutan hour.

The fields proposed for the Manor Estate inSheffield (see Figures 25.8, 25.9 and 25.10) pro-vide a landscape resource for the city of Sheffield,



261

Figure 25.10

Figure 25.10 ElastiCity CPUL, Sheffield: Plan showing the relationship between internal and external space. A play streetmediates between houses and productive landscape, urban agriculture forms a changing ‘sculpted ornament’.Visual and material connections are made between interior and exterior.



262

allowing people to wander through and betweenurban agriculture sites and activity fields. Ashouses are built, the productive urban landscapeprovides a context into which they are placed.Contrast this with much current development onthe edges of cities or on brownfield sites, wherenew houses are built adjacent to derelict waste-land. In this proposal for Sheffield a two-way part-nership is established. New residents are in closeproximity to a living landscape, like a large garden,or an emerging fragment of countryside. The citygains an evolving landscape, a place of intrigue forthe curious, a place, which because of its evolvingcharacter, can become a focus for discussionsabout future urban development. By being anactive place, it will provide a catalyst for a commu-nal debate about future development strategies.

Plate 7 shows the large number of existing parksand under-used patches of open space which, witha relatively modest number of road transforma-tions, could allow one to move unimpeded acrossLondon within a landscape with rural characteris-tics, a landscape of urban nature.

As a network of productive urban landscapesdevelops, and grows, so accessibility is enhancedin two directions. Paths are developed which canextend from the city centre outwards, towards fieldsof urban agriculture and in the opposite direction,paths develop, leading from suburban fringes intothe city centre. Figure 24.1 from the previous chap-ter shows an area of land adjacent to Victoria Park,which despite its proximity, was physically andvisually isolated from access to landscape. In theproposal, we see how landscaped fingers can cre-ate a physical connection between different-sizedfields of urban agriculture, a park and dwellings.Thus, boundaries become blurred and in this way

positive qualities of one condition are introduced tothe other condition. So the suburb gains access tothe theatre, and the central business district gainsaccess to the landscape. We can claim with somecertainty that these benefits will arise, as the short-comings of each are shortcomings of omission,rather than an inherent weakness in the qualitiesthat already exist in a particular location. For exam-ple, suburbs offer generous open spaces, views tothe horizon and access to sunlight, whereas city centres thrive due to a compact arrangement ofcultural and social venues. A productive urbanlandscape set in a network of continuous land-scape provides direct connections, supplementedby public transport, between these different areasand activities. Suburban dwellers gain a pleasantwalk to work. City dwellers get a walk into the coun-tryside, like a weekend escape.

ENVIRONMENTAL DELIGHT

With the introduction of CPULs, habitat for animalsand birds will increase and therefore so will bio-diversity, an example of Ecological Intensification.At the same time, the development of compostingsystems in support of organic urban agriculture willimprove soil condition. Sight and sounds within thecity will change. Composting will reduce the num-ber of refuse trucks and improved biodiversity willreintroduce the dawn chorus (see Figure 25.11)with the sound of birds, and insects.

In the earlier paragraph describing exposure tonature, we see how a number of natural phenomenaand practical requirements overlay a site; each con-dition animating the place in a different way, eachproviding inhabitants with a different meaning for



263

Figure 25.12

Figure 25.12 Newark CPUL: In this low energy apartment building, the roof collects solar energy for domestic hot water heat-ing and for electricity generation. Rainwater is collected for domestic use. Building and landscape are respon-sive to the environment.

Figure 25.11

Figure 25.11 Newark CPUL: An individual house designed to minimise non-renewable energy consumption. Its externalenvelope is super-insulated and natural energy systems are harnessed for domestic energy requirements.The roof collects solar energy and rainwater while also providing private external living space.



264

and experience of the place. This is like environmen-tal choreography, marking and mapping experiencein space and time.Water (rain) is collected, sunshinepenetrates, occupies and conditions space, gener-ates electricity and heats water (see Figures 25.11and 25.12).

Agricultural fields create changing patterns orpaintings in the landscape; this connection and celebration of the real generates delight in the environment.

Peri-urban agriculture

Urban agriculture

High density compacturban core

Decompacted urbanfabric

The degree of compaction in a city will influencethe appropriateness of locating productive

landscapes centrally or peripherally

Productive urban landscapes have the potentialto create new networks of horizontal andvertical green spaces within cities

Figure 25.13

Figure 25.13 Compaction, de-compaction and strategies for introducing CPULs.

REFERENCES:

Crouch, D. and Ward, C. (1988). The Allotment, Faber andFaber, London.

Viljoen, A. (1997). The environmental impact of EnergyEfficient Dwellings taking into account embodied energyand energy in use. In European Directory of Sustainableand Energy Efficient Building 1997. James and James(Science Publishers).

Viljoen, A. and Bohn, K. (2000). Urban Intensification and the Integration of Productive Landscape. July 2000.Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress VI,Part 1, pp. 483–488, Pergamon.


MORE OR LESS: FOOD FOR THOUGHT

André Viljoen and Katrin Bohn


The compact city model is currently favoured as thatmost likely to support sustainable development. Itsmajor benefit in relation to environmental sustain-ability is the reduction in travelling distances andhence transport, due to compaction and mixed-usedevelopment. We see Continuous Productive UrbanLandscapes (CPULs) complementing compaction,by including the major contribution urban food pro-duction can make towards environmental sustain-abilty. Furthermore, we think that this combinationwill create a new kind of city, one with a richness ofassociations and experiences, to date found eitherin the city or the countryside.The CPUL model chal-lenges the notion that all brownfield sites should bebuilt upon, but does not challenge the principle thatall land should be used to maximise its sustainablereturn.

The contemporary first world city is a facsimile forwhat and where it is not. Supermarkets, especially,manipulate people’s perception of the availabilityand cost of food: everyday, all year round, there areaubergines and Parma ham, bamboo sprouts andpineapples, oysters, oranges, kebabs and samosas,chocolate powder and kiwi . . . each a reproductionof somewhere else. Such separation from geo-graphical reality is fantastic – as a treat, but insteadit has come to characterise and epitomise the city.This unsustainable model is based upon the out-dated assumption that anything can be relocatedfrom one place to another at any time.

The CPUL vision of the city is one which celebratesthe material and the real, one which ‘makes visible’.Within the contemporary European city many peo-ple are no longer conscious of the relationshipbetween life and the natural processes required forits support. A CPUL city engages fully with elementssuch as a territory’s seasonality, climate, weather,topography and vegetation. It is based on the ecolog-ical principles of life and the space required to accom-modate all its actions, reactions and interactions. City

dwellers have become passive observers of sea-sons (which they still often miss) or weather (whichthey often fear). The collective loss of environmentalmemory makes the natural context and thesequence of its processes less and less compre-hensible. People are losing touch with the realitybeyond their city boundary.

CPULs do not require the complete rebuilding ordemolition of cities, rather they suggest reconfigur-ing the city so it can operate within the envelope ofits own environmental capacity and as far as pos-sible make its own ecological footprint equitable.

In this context, the vision of the city is one in which theresources required to support occupation becomevisible, imprinted on the urban tissue. A sustain-able urban ecology becomes a key indicator for thesuccessful city. It will be a city which, although com-plex, is comprehensible and flowing.

CPULs will be what other elements of urban infra-structure are now: they will be extensive and complex,demanding planning, management and mainte-nance. Like other elements of infrastructure, forexample the electricity supply network, they willbest be introduced incrementally.

At the same time, CPULs will be different to familiarurban infrastructures which mainly deal with distri-bution and circulation, like roads, railways, net-works for energy supply, water and waste disposal.Though CPULs will also provide a network for cir-culation, there will be productive elements embed-ded within them, which add directly to our positiveexperience of the city. They will be environmentallyand socio-culturally beneficial and economicallyviable. The range of experiences and lifestyles thata city can offer will be increased. CPULs will be net-works that expand to accommodate occupationand production. This is unique.

CPULs will only be implemented if their vision isattractive and seen to be viable. These cases can


266


be made, although the integration of CPULs will notbe without difficulties and these should not beunderestimated.

The English new town Milton Keynes provides oneexample of how CPULs might be funded, and theBritish Dig for Victory campaign during the SecondWorld War shows that up to 50 per cent of fruit andvegetable requirements could be supplied by urbanagriculture, although our own design research sug-gests that 25 per cent is a more realistic target fornew development. Most of the remaining require-ments could be provided by peri-urban agriculture.Urban agriculture will be a fundamental feature ofCPULs, essential if the latter’s environmental bene-fits are to be fully achieved.

The international examples of urban agriculture dis-cussed in this book, although each dealing with avery particular set of conditions, identify a range ofbenefits from urban agriculture within CPULs, suchas reductions in food miles, organic food produc-tion, creation of wildlife habitats, transport networks,educational resources, and an economic efficiencyby concentrating intensive infrastructures in desig-nated areas zoned for buildings.

Balancing benefits with a number of factors relatedto land and geography, such as size of the city,urban density, land ownership, soil type, climate orinfrastructure, will determine where urban agricul-ture is and is not appropriate. This balancing act isa common feature affecting the development of anylarge-scale infrastructural project.

If Cuba can manage to implement a procedure asradical as its urban agriculture programme andsustain it for twelve years in conditions of economicstress, should it not be possible for any country toinstigate programmes as comprehensive as thosefound in Cuba?

The Cuban programme for urban agriculture demon-strates how it can extend to the promotion of healthyeating, sustainable urban development or environ-mental education. Organic certification has not beenintroduced in Cuba, but the urban agriculture prac-tised in Cuba is, by any practical measure, organic.Cuba demonstrates the viability of organic agricul-ture allied with intensive maintenance by farmers.

While Cuba provides a working model for theextensive integration of urban agriculture, it doesnot necessarily provide the ideal model for the dis-tribution, location and connections between plotsaccommodating urban agriculture. The conditionsof stress under which Cuba introduced urban agri-culture mean that sites were chosen for entirelypragmatic reasons. The patchiness of urban agri-culture found in Cuban cities can be taken as typi-cal of the first stages of a programme to integrateurban agriculture. These isolated fields are compa-rable to exiting urban parks and gardens, whichcan be thought of as spaces with specific charac-teristics, with the potential of being bound into aCPUL. As yet there are no CPULs in Cuba.Introducing CPULs would provide a coherence andstructure to otherwise isolated urban agriculturesites and create a framework for articulating thespatial and urban qualities inherent in urban agriculture, and fully utilising their benefits asroutes for circulation, occupation and EcologicalIntensification. Beyond the environmental benefitsassociated with urban food growing, urban agricul-ture can act as a catalyst for revealing and intensi-fying the occupation of under-utilised urban areas.In so doing, cities would gain benefits arising fromthe provision of adjacent open space, communica-tion routes ideally suited to cycling and walking,moderation of the heat island effect and a land-scape which allows people to comprehend theirrelationship with the natural environment.

MORE OR LESS

267


A number of urban characteristics noted below canbe attributed to urban agriculture, and these are allsignificant within CPULs.

The informal, self-regulated use of sites for personalfood growing, such as huertos in Cuba or allot-ments in the UK, raise issues in relation to howthese interface with planned or formal networks.The opportunities for engagement across edges orboundaries may differ from those suggested bylarger commercially viable urban agriculture sites.Issues of privacy and seclusion may be more sig-nificant for small-scale private growing when dis-tinct communities may become established. Therelationship between informal use and formal net-works is important for CPULs.

Urban agriculture fields often act as bridging devicesbetween areas of different occupation. They do thisby making a visible and physical bridge between twoplaces. By doing so they often define disregarded orhidden places as space within the city.

The occupation of edges alongside urban agricul-ture fields is evident, for example, as a place to drylaundry, accommodate shops or provide climaticcomfort zones. Taking these examples seriously,and imagining the transformations and opportu-nities inherent in them, provides inspiration for archi-tectural interventions, which provide places forpublic or semi-public exchanges.The occupation ofedges encourages a connection with a pastoralenvironment.

Urban agriculture gives measure to a landscape.Theway in which ground for planting is often terraced,faceted and shaped to accommodate undulatingground, articulates and makes visible the underlyingtopography. The actual dimension of crops, and ofbeds, provides another gauge for measuring land-scape and allowing an individual to locate and posi-tion themselves within a particular territory.This abilityto read a landscape and locate oneself becomes crit-ical as contemporary globalisation makes environ-ments more uniform.

Urban agriculture sites exist as urban climate andseasonal registers, and due to their characteristicmarking of the ground read as urban ornament.

The open spaces of a city incorporating CPULswill alter the physical landscape and the landscapeof occupants and occupation. On the ground, culti-vators will sculpt a new urban infrastructure, everchanging, but ever familiar, as crops come and go.Adjacent to this, a landscape of circulation andmovement will appear, as the population traversestracts of an agrarian landscape, and others play onground adjacent to fields. Toilers and thinkers willbe placed in a rediscovered adjacency, one whichis not about destroying the city or conqueringnature, but one that enriches both by acknowledg-ing their interdependence.

More experience for less consumption!


268


MORE OR LESS

269

Figure 26.1

Figure 26.1 Organoponico Pastorita, Cienfuegos 2004.


CPUL CONTACTS COMPILED BY JAMES PETTS

Cpul-Contact.qxd 02/01/2005 7:08 PM Page 270

271

City Farmer website – the first stop on the web foranyone interested in UPA. http://www.cityfarmer.org/

ETC – an NGO based in the Netherlands which co-ordinates RUAF (see below). http://www.etcint.org/

RUAF (Resource on Urban Agriculture andForestry) – publishes the Urban AgricultureMagazine, runs various UPA programmes in theSouth, and operates an online source of informa-tion. http://www.ruaf.org/

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) – theUnited Nations organisation with a wide range ofUPA programmes. http://www.fao.org/

IDRC (International Development Research Centre)– runs its own UPA programme (Cities FeedingPeople) and acts as secretariat for the SGUA.http://www.idrc.ca/cfp

SGUA (Support Group on Urban Agriculture), agroup of NGOs, international governmental organi-sations, and academics providing a forum for dis-cussion and support of UPA including most ofthose listed here

Sustain – an alliance of over 100 different publicinterest organisations in the UK. Runs the CityHarvest project. http://www.sustainweb.org/

TUAN (The Urban Agriculture Network). USAbased Network, founded by Jac Smit, researchingand promoting urban agriculture internationally.

US Food Security Coalition – a coalition of vari-ous groups and agencies in the US concerned withfood security.http://www.foodsecurity.com/

Cpul-Contact.qxd 02/01/2005 7:08 PM Page 271

272

Accra (Ghana), 35ActionAid, 20–1added value, 26, 43Adelaide (Australia), 38affordable

food, 49, 59, 218fruit and vegetables, 51public transport, 8

Africa, 22, 24, 36, 69, 83, 194, 196, 197, 198, 230Agenda 20, 51, 85, 126, 220, 222, 226agrarian reforms, 136agribusiness, 21, 28, 58agricultural clinics and shops (consultorios

agrícolas/tiendas consultorio agropecuario), 140

agricultural fields, 4, 12, 203, 240, 264agro-chemicals, 41, 136, 215

see also chemicalsagrotourism, 234air freight, 42air quality, 15, 53, 72, 122allotment plot design, 209allotment size, 208–9allotments, 4, 12, 46, 53, 61, 66, 73, 75, 81, 83,

85–6, 101, 125, 154, 218, 219, 255Britain, 207–15community, 83, 85–6, 129–31open green space, 125–7urban, 98–9, 104–5as urban landscape, 127–9

Amazon, 34, 36American Community Gardening Association

(ACGA), 106Amsterdam Plein, 258Angola, 195animal feeds, 34, 36, 137animals, 35, 41, 46, 70, 84, 87, 139, 262appendicitis, 45area one person can work, 153–4artificial fertilisers, 34, 36, 74, 92, 191, 211,

226–7Ashram Acres community garden, 57Auckland (New Zealand), 235Australia, 38, 189autonomous and creative activity, 125

back gardens, 12, 208, 219bagasse, 36Barcelona (Spain), 81, 151Bath (UK), 240Becon Tree Organic Growers, 226

Beddington Zero Energy Development, 38Beijing (China), 36, 97Belgium, 21, 111benefits, 62, 63, 74, 127, 189, 207, 218, 230

community, 83–5, 86, 87economic, 57–9, 66, 72, 73, 253, 255–60environmental, 21, 62, 106, 153, 240, 253, 267health, 59–60, 220horticultural, 92socio-cultural, 57

Berlin (Germany), 111, 113, 121bicycles, 6, 11, 29biodegradable waste, 90, 92, 231biodiversity, 15, 21, 26, 44, 120, 122, 125, 207,

220, 262bio-fertilisers, 138biofuel, 54biological control, 138, 190Birmingham (UK), 57, 99, 127Borough (Southwark), 81botanical garden, 60, 114, 118, 141

Barcelona, 111, 115, 119New York, 37

Botswana, 231bottom-up approach

see top-down/bottom-up approachesBournville model village, 99box scheme, 38, 46, 58, 59, 70, 80Bradley, Jennifer, 60Brazil, 33, 34bridges, 240, 245bridging devices, 268Bristol (UK), 38, 59Bronx (New York), 37, 106brownfield, 15, 16, 61, 62, 111, 246, 255, 258, 266buildings, 4, 6, 11, 22, 24, 36, 38, 81, 98, 101,

106, 115, 149, 151, 154, 177, 185, 186,189,219, 233, 240, 241, 242, 248, 253, 258,263, 267

Bulgaria, 233–4Burkina Faso, 76

Cabeza, Héctor R. López, 151Cairns Group, 46Cairo (Egypt), 69California, 37, 81Canada, 22, 24, 33, 41, 61Cape Town (S. Africa), 194carbon dioxide (CO2), 22, 33, 224

emissions, 23–5, 42, 44, 122Carrot City, 7, 8

INDEX

Cpul-Index.qxd 02/01/2005 8:38 AM Page 272

INDEX

273

car(s), 6, 9, 23, 30, 38, 42, 62, 100, 118, 215certification, 80character, 11, 220, 262

landscape, 116, 126, 129, 130, 187, 218–19organic, 142, 143, 144urban, 139, 149, 185

cheap food, 207chemicals, 22, 43, 44, 63, 80, 188, 189, 214, 226

see also agro-chemicalschildren’s farms, 83China, 34, 35, 53, 55choice

allocation of labour, 68crops, 210–12, 215food, 7, 41, 43, 46fruit and vegetables, 28lifestyle, 7space, 118, 122urban space, 53

Cienfuegos (Cuba), 149–51, 158, 180, 181,183, 190

circulationroutes, 63, 173space, 100, 159, 202, 248, 260, 266–8

‘Cities Feeding People’ research and awarenessprogramme, 193

city centres, 109city farms, 12, 61, 80–1, 83–5, 86, 87–8, 208city harvest project, 74city of short ways, 8City of Tomorrow and its Planning, The, 99–100climate change, 22, 24, 44, 45comfort zone, 159, 268commercial crops, 20commercially viable, 70, 235, 268communal orchards, 153, 188communal ownership, 53community development, 57, 218, 226community food security coalition, 59community gardens, 22, 57, 58, 59, 61, 83–5,

86, 87–8, 105–6, 114–15, 118–19, 161,208,219

compact city, 266compaction, 53, 210, 264, 266composting, 22, 90–1, 138, 142, 190, 191,

226, 262composting toilets, 226comprehensible, 21, 159, 246, 266Consejo Popular Camilo Cienfuegos (Havana),

142, 188–90Consultative Group on International Agriculture

Research (CGIAR), 198consumer ignorance, 41, 46consumerism, 58

consumers, 21, 24, 28, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 58, 59, 68, 70, 72, 79, 80, 81, 139, 147, 151

consumptionenergy, 22, 106food, 12, 23–4, 41, 46, 61, 142fuel, 30grains, 137home, 66, 68, 81local, 41, 46meat, 34resource, 15, 39seasonal, 25, 26–30self, 207, 235sugar, 60vegetables, 144water, 142, 253, 255

contaminated soil, 62, 63contamination, 4, 21, 42, 62, 207, 256continuous landscapes, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 51, 58,

60, 105, 111, 240, 245, 260, 262conventional farming, 26Cook, 22, 58cooking, 24, 129, 220co-operatives, 70, 136, 137, 140countryside, 5, 21, 35, 53, 54, 98, 105, 122,

127, 137, 141, 143, 203, 240, 245, 246, 262, 266

Coventry Composter Newsletter, 91covered houses (casas de cultivo), 140Craul, Phil, 63crime, 9, 53, 57, 58crop rotations, 138, 191crops, 20–1, 25–30, 36, 37–8, 41, 43, 44–7, 62,

63, 66, 70, 71, 80, 109, 126, 130, 136, 138–9,141, 143, 144, 147, 148–9, 151, 154, 158,161, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 175, 177,179, 188, 189, 190, 208, 210, 213–14, 219,224, 226, 232, 245, 256, 268

crop species, 210crop varieties, 22, 44, 210Cuba, 29, 36, 68, 72, 83, 101, 136, 137, 138, 139,

140, 143, 144, 147–9, 151, 153, 154, 158,188, 189, 191, 230, 232, 233, 240, 267–8

Cuban Academy of Sciences, 188Culpeper community garden, 86culture, 22, 53, 97, 105, 129, 130, 131, 136, 207,

215, 219cycling, 6, 9, 127, 215, 224, 267

daily calorie intake, 23Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), 35, 69, 197, 233daylight, 248, 253Dean City Farm (Merton), 80


INDEX

274

deforestation, 34, 193Delft (Netherlands), 230–1demand, 4, 28, 34, 46, 47, 53, 54, 61, 70,

71–2, 81, 97, 105, 125, 127, 208, 209

democratic landscape, 218density, 8, 36, 53, 54, 62, 91, 128, 149, 247, 249,

253, 267Department of Health (UK), 43, 49derelict land and buildings, 81design professionals, 218Designer’s Manual, 222developed countries, 23, 25, 28, 33, 34, 35–7,

59, 60, 106diabetes, 45diet, 15, 45, 59–60, 215Dig for Victory, 101, 104, 125, 267discrimination, 57distribution, 15, 20, 26, 29, 35, 43, 44, 46,

58, 71, 149, 151, 159, 190, 225, 233, 266, 267

domestic hot water, 24, 253Doncaster (UK), 57Durban (S. Africa), 194Durham Civic Society, 130

Earth Summit (1992), 20, 23, 106East Croydon (London), 260eating patterns, 49eco-houses, 37–9ecological footprint, 33, 74, 207, 266ecological intensification, 6–8, 62, 101, 204, 207,

262, 267ecology, 109, 110, 122, 159, 198, 224, 266Economic and Social Research Council

(ESRC), 61economic benefit, 57economic conditions, 198economic development, 35, 220economies of scale, 22, 41, 70eco-systems, 39edges, 98, 127, 129, 147, 149, 151, 158, 179,

184, 204, 262, 268edible ecosystem, 222education, 58, 61, 84, 85, 90, 110, 136, 138, 143,

144, 226, 267Ejército Rebelde dam, 141elasticity, 243, 244, 246, 257, 259, 261El Paraiso Farmers Group, 189El Pedregal Intensive Cultivation Garden,

189, 190embodied energy, 12, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28employment, 7, 15, 51, 58, 66, 69, 73, 84, 87,

104, 140, 147, 190, 253

energy, 8, 12, 15, 24, 25, 33, 34, 38, 42, 90, 105,128, 193, 220, 222, 230, 247, 266

energy efficiency, 39, 106, 253energy ratios, 26, 27energy usage, 15, 23, 24, 25England, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 38, 49, 50, 62, 75,

154, 201, 208, 213, 215, 218, 253environmental awareness groups, 105environmental benefits, 21, 62, 106, 240,

253, 267environmental ethics, 105environmentalism, 55equitable development, 9Essex (UK), 37ethnic minority, 80, 84ethnodiversity, 210EU Landfill Directive, 90Europe, 12, 15, 21, 24, 25, 28, 34, 38, 53, 55, 99,

100, 101, 106, 109, 128, 136European cities, 98European Commission (EC), 21

see also European Union (EU)European funds, 86European Union (EU), 42, 79, 106, 224exclusion, 51, 127exercise, 60, 69, 125, 127, 207, 215, 231, 252exports, 21, 29, 42, 47extension organisations, 138external economic benefits, 72externalities, 115, 122, 253, 255

factors of production, 69Fair Trade movement, 29farm, 7, 12, 22, 29, 53, 54, 58, 59, 61, 66, 73, 75,

79, 80, 81, 83–4, 86, 87–8, 105, 136, 154,188, 208, 214

farmers’ markets, 225, 226, 260farmland, 29, 33, 34, 36, 79, 99, 218, 230farmworkers, 45, 46Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens

(FCFCG), 86, 87–8fences, 158fertiliser, 21, 23, 34, 36, 37, 38, 70, 80, 101, 122, 137,

138, 143, 188, 191, 211, 215, 224, 226, 227floral organopónicos, 153, 158

see also organopónicosFlorence (Italy), 35flowers, 35, 37, 80, 118, 139, 153, 232Foeken, 193, 195food access, 49, 51Food and Agriculture Organisation

see United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO)

food chain, 41–7


INDEX

275

food distribution, 22, 29, 41, 43food growing, 12, 35, 36, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,

63, 69, 83, 84, 85, 87, 97, 99, 100, 101, 104,105–6, 188, 208, 217–20, 227, 233, 235, 253,256, 267, 268

food imports, 21, 71, 137food insecurity, 35, 68, 69food miles, 22, 29, 35, 40–7, 79, 267food producers, 41, 59food production, 12, 15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 33,

35, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 49, 51, 57, 58, 60, 61,62, 63, 69, 73, 75, 85–6, 92, 97, 98–101, 104,105, 136, 137, 139, 143, 144, 147, 151

food retailing, 21, 22, 58food scarcity, 68food security, 22, 35, 44, 45, 59, 68, 72, 73, 76,

138, 144, 193, 198foreign exchange, 20, 45form, 22, 110, 127, 128, 147, 260formal/informal, 59, 60, 66, 69, 70, 71, 83, 84,

105, 109, 127, 131, 196, 197, 233, 268France, 21, 33, 35free range slug patrol, 224fresh produce, 28, 42, 43, 59, 69, 143, 218fruit and vegetables, 6, 7, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 37,

45, 49, 50, 51, 59, 60, 66, 79, 101, 125, 153,214, 219, 225, 231, 257, 258, 267

production, 188, 253, 255Fundacion Antonio Núnez Jiménez De La Natualeza

Y El Hombre (Havana), 188, 189fungible income, 69, 76

Gabrone (Botswana), 231–3garden, 33, 36, 37, 38, 46, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59,

60, 61, 63, 66, 69, 83, 84, 85Garden Cities of Tomorrow, 99, 100Garnett, 57, 58, 66, 97, 106, 207, 209, 210, 213Geddes, Patrick, 55genetic base, 44genetic engineering, 21genius loci, 4Geographical Information Systems (GIS), 49–50Georgia (US), 80Ghana, 36Glenn Valley (Gabarone, Botswana), 232global warming, 15, 22, 24, 42grass-roots activity, 218Greater Havana Fresh Vegetable Company, 190green belt, 54, 99, 100, 127, 141greenfield sites, 15, 62, 246greenhouse gases, 22, 24greenhouses, 28, 36, 37, 38, 70, 210, 226green infrastructure

see continuous landscape

green lungs, 9, 11green manure, 138gregarious space, 202groundscrapers, 101Growing Food in Cities Report, 58Growing in the Community, 125, 126, 127, 130growing schools, 85growing season, 28, 36GRUPHEL programme, 27, 36

habitat, 21, 54, 118, 220, 230, 262Harare (Zimbabwe), 194, 198Hart, Robert, 224Havana (Cuba), 35, 36, 37, 70, 81, 135–45, 147,

149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 163, 169, 180, 182,183, 187, 188, 189, 190

Havana’s Green Belt, 141health, 8, 15, 21, 22, 37, 43, 45, 49, 51, 59,

60, 72, 73, 76, 80, 84, 86, 88, 110, 141, 151, 207, 213, 218, 220, 226, 227, 255

healthcare facilities, 137, 142Health of the Nation Report, 59healthy food, 49, 50heart disease, 45, 59Heathrow Airport, 33Heeley City Farm (Sheffield), 84–5Heeley Development Trust, 84Henry Doubleday Research Association

(HDRA), 90high density urban living, 128high efficiency organic orchard (Organopónico de

Alto Rendimiento, OAR), 140see also organopónicos

home gardens, 69horizontal intensification, 147, 230, 233hormone disruptors, 227hospitals, 73, 143household budget, 72Howard, Ebenezer, 99Hubli-Dharwad (India), 67, 69human scale, 147Hynes, 57

imported food, 42imported soil, 151income, 37, 49, 58, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 79,

81, 86, 107, 110, 116, 207, 209indices of access to food, 49Indonesia, 34Industrial Revolution, 97, 98–101inequalities in health, 51infrastructure, 45, 53, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 139, 140,

141, 142, 144, 147, 188–9, 214, 231, 240,260, 266, 267, 268


INDEX

276

integration, 8, 12, 26, 61, 100, 110, 136, 141, 143, 144, 153, 197, 198, 242, 267

intensive farming, 188intensive orchards (huertos intensivos), 140,

163, 182interconnectedness, 222, 224, 226International Development Research Centre,

Ottawa, Canada (IDRC), 193, 198International Potato Centre (CIP), 198Irkutsk (Siberia), 36irrigation, 38, 141, 142, 190, 211, 255Italy, 33, 35, 38, 111

Jackson, 58Japan, 34Jakarta (Indonesia), 67, 70jobs, 57, 66, 69, 74, 143, 197, 198Johannesburg (S. Africa), 194Johnson, Samuel, 20

Kathmandu Valley (Nepal), 230–1Kenya, 20, 36, 41, 193, 196, 198kindergartens, 143kitchen gardens, 98Kitilla, 233Kowloon (Hong Kong), 53Kramer, K.J., 24Kyoto protocol, 25

land contamination, 62, 213landfill, 44, 72, 90, 92land property pattern, 137landscape bridge, 245, 246landscape strategy, 11, 16, 153, 173landscaping industry, 92landscrapers, 101land-use planners, 61land-use policy, 60–1larger suppliers, 22layout, 11, 16, 109, 110, 112, 116, 127, 129, 147,

149, 151, 202, 219Leach, G., 23, 26,Le Corbusier, 99, 100, 101Leigh Court, 38leisure-gardens, 105LeisurEscapes, 233Lenin Park (Havana), 141Lesotho, 195, 196Letchworth (UK), 99lifestyle, 7, 8, 11, 33, 105, 109, 141, 215,

224, 266Lincolnshire (UK), 225linear industrial city, 100

Living City, The, 100–1living landscape, 130, 262local authority, 59, 61, 83, 86, 197, 219, 220local demand, 47, 97, 209local distinctiveness, 57, 220local economies, 20, 45, 58–9, 72, 207local food, 7, 15, 29, 33, 41, 44, 45, 46, 51, 58, 73,

74, 81, 147, 154, 222, 260local food activists, 79Local Food Links, 59local growing and trading of crops, 25, 29–30local market, 14, 29, 57, 59, 75London, 4–9, 15, 29, 33, 37, 38, 50, 53, 54, 66,

74, 81, 103, 105, 106, 207, 208, 211, 225,226, 240, 242, 255, 258, 260, 262

London Farmers’ Markets, 100long-term benefit, 109low energy buildings, 62low incomes, 50, 60

McHarg, Ian, 55macro-economic aspects, 72–3Madhyapur Thimi Municipality (Nepal), 231Malawi, 196, 198Malaysia, 34Manor Estate (Sheffield), 260manual workers, 101, 125market entry, 71–2market gardens, 12, 51, 54, 63, 66, 153, 158, 187,

234, 249, 255, 260Massachusetts (US), 80materiality, 147Mazingira Institute (Kenya), 193measure, 8, 20, 33, 67, 110, 114, 118, 122, 253,

267, 268medical centres, 188Mediterranean, 34mega-cities, 35, 67mental health, 60Metropolitan Horticulture Enterprise

Havana, 142Metropolitan Park (Havana), 141Mexican growers, 81micro-economic aspects, 68micro-forests, 141middlemen, 45–6Mile End Park (London), 106, 111, 112, 113,

116, 117Milton Keynes (UK), 106, 107, 267mini market gardens, 5, 235Mishev, 234Mlambo, 235Mollison, Bill, 222, 225monocultures, 41, 43


INDEX

277

Moulsecoomb Forest Garden and Wildlife Project, 201

Mozambique, 195, 196multi-cropping, 188municipal park, 98, 106municipality, 139, 151, 188, 231, 234

Nairobi (Kenya), 198Namibia, 195national alternative agricultural model (NAAM),

137, 138National Group for Urban Agriculture (GNAU),

139, 142nature, 20, 54, 58, 61, 74, 98, 118, 122, 125, 159,

198, 203, 222, 223, 224, 245, 246, 249, 253,262, 268

Naturewise (London), 226Nazeing (UK), 37negotiated communities, 129–30Nepal, 230–1Netherlands, 24, 28, 42, 63, 213, 230, 271networks, 100, 159, 201, 252, 262

community, 83–4distribution, 29food, 59street, 49transport, 225

Newark (UK), 243–7, 253, 256, 257, 263new towns, 99, 106New York, 37, 106night soil, 36nitrous oxide, 24, 25, 226noise, 9, 11, 15, 22, 45, 122non-governmental organisations (NGOs), 66,

193, 198Novo, González M., 138, 144nursery houses (casas de posturas), 140, 154nutrient flows, 34–5nutrients, 34, 35, 38, 71, 92, 138, 223nutrition, 35, 45, 59, 143, 144, 193, 195, 198,

214, 227

obesity, 59, 60Obudho, 193, 195occupants, 11, 12, 16 109, 110, 112, 114, 116,

120, 121, 161, 201, 202, 244, 246, 252, 268occupation, 110, 114, 252–3oil shortages, 23old people’s homes, 188open urban space, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 81, 98, 99,

105, 106–7, 109–12, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 256

opportunity cost, 69, 70organic agriculture, 147, 224, 227, 267

organic farming, 26, 140, 191organic food, 27, 46, 79, 131, 143, 215, 267organic material production centres (centros de

producción de materia orgánica), 140organic urban agriculture, 21, 25–30, 62, 143,

188, 190–1organic waste, 22, 35, 72, 74, 90, 190organopónico(s) 139, 140, 153, 154, 156, 158,

188, 232ornament, 35, 109, 130, 219, 232, 240, 249,

258, 268Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), 76ownership, 53, 126–8, 131, 147, 159, 189, 209,

218, 219, 220, 267ozone depletion, 42

packaging, 23, 25, 26, 29, 42, 43–4, 45, 73parcelas, 140, 189parks, 11, 12, 15, 34, 53, 54, 81, 87, 91, 98, 106,

107, 110, 112, 141, 189, 220, 234, 246,256, 260

car, 15urban, 83, 92, 99, 105, 109, 267

Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry into “TheFuture for Allotments”, 125

patches, 12, 218, 240, 243paths, 117, 128, 141, 154, 158, 177, 179, 201, 202,

205, 230, 232, 243, 244, 252, 253, 260, 262peat replacement, 92Peckham (London), 29pedestrian and cycle routes, 16, 60, 177, 202pedestrians, 16, 51, 177people’s council, 189período especial en tiempo de paz (special

period), 137, 141peri-urban agriculture, 35, 36, 66–7, 100, 136,

138, 139, 151, 177, 193, 197, 198, 230, 234,255, 264, 267

East and Southern Africa, 193–8Havana, 140–5see also urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA)

permaculture, 37, 161, 188, 219, 221–7pest and disease controls, 137pesticides, 21, 25, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 60, 73,

74, 137, 138, 143, 189, 191, 211, 224,226, 227

Phillips, Tom, 249photovoltaic panels, 253planning, 16, 37, 51, 52–5, 61, 62, 63, 73, 74, 75,

85, 87, 99, 100, 109, 110, 126, 136, 143, 149,151, 196, 197, 198, 215, 216, 218, 219, 224,230, 231, 233, 234, 246, 260

planning guidance, 81, 151plot size, 147, 208, 209, 240


INDEX

278

plots, 36, 37, 63, 66, 99, 101, 105, 126, 128, 129,130, 131, 149, 151, 154, 165, 190, 201,207–10, 214, 215, 218, 219, 232, 235, 260, 267

policy, 36, 46, 49, 51, 60–2, 73–6, 80, 85–8, 126,136, 140, 143, 146, 144, 190, 193, 196, 197,198, 231, 233, 234

Policy and Planning Guidance, 81policymakers, 39politics at a small scale, 130pollution, 9, 11, 73

air, 4, 9, 22, 215, 226noise, 9, 45, 120, 122,sewage, 34water, 37, 207, 211, 226

pollution absorption, 33, 92polycultural planting (huertos populares parcelas),

140, 226popular organic orchards (organopónicos), 37,

140, 143Port Elizabeth (S. Africa), 194poultry, 37, 66, 142poverty, 20, 35, 49, 51, 58, 125, 193, 194, 197,

198, 209poverty alleviation, 35, 193, 196, 197PPG17 (Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Sport,

Open Space and Recreation), 126Pretoria (S. Africa), 194price, 4, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 44, 46, 62, 66, 69, 70,

71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 107, 143private car, 23, 62processing, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 41, 42–3, 44, 71,

72, 73, 225, 231production and producer partnerships, 136productive microspaces, 130productive potential, 139productive urban landscapes, 4, 12, 49, 51, 63,

147, 154, 156, 203, 222–7, 240, 243, 249,252, 262, 264, 266

profitable, 26, 69, 214, 215Programa Especial De Desarrollo de la

Agricultura Urbana, 188promotion, 26, 49, 60, 86, 92, 139, 196, 197,

234, 267protect crops, 109public health, 37, 44, 45, 60public realm, 107, 126, 158, 219, 244, 252public transport, 8, 49, 262

radio-concentric change-over city, 100railways, 50, 74, 98, 209, 266rainwater, 6, 72, 211, 226, 253, 257, 258raised beds, 62, 63, 151, 154, 158, 189,

219, 256

recreation, 11, 38, 69, 83, 97, 106, 125, 137, 141,142, 155, 201, 209, 210, 230, 244, 245, 256

Rees, William, 33renewable energy, 22, 23, 28, 105Resource Centre for Urban Agriculture and

Forestry (RUAF), 57, 235resources, 15, 22, 33, 38, 39, 41, 49, 53, 58, 60,

68, 71, 73, 86–7, 91, 143, 151, 189, 197, 198,220, 223, 224, 226, 231, 266, 267

retail deserts, 22Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 34road freight, 41, 44, 47roads, 6, 15, 49, 50, 63, 116, 122, 141, 149, 231,

232, 240, 245, 256, 258, 260, 266Rodas (Cuba), 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 167, 175,

181, 182, 188Rodgers, 22, 58Rome, 34roofs, 15, 211, 253Royal Agricultural Society for England, 26Rugby Borough Council, 91rural, 21, 34, 35, 85, 91, 122

agriculture, 37, 54, 71Cuba, 138–40

land, 12way of life, 127

rural poor, 99Russia, 36, 61, 66, 69, 72, 218Rwanda, 195, 196

St. Petersburg, 36Sandwell (UK), 49–51, 219schools, 6, 53, 58, 73, 84, 85, 87, 143, 156, 188,

252, 253Schrebergärten, 99scientific networks, 139seasonal consumption, 12, 25, 26–30seasonal food, 29, 46, 60, 219seasonal registers, 268seasonality, 28, 46, 72, 149, 220, 245,

246, 266second skins, 240security, 22, 35, 44, 45, 59, 68, 70–4, 76, 126,

130, 131, 138, 144, 155, 193, 198, 226selection criteria, 151self-build, 126self regulated, 201, 268self-sufficient, 12, 20, 99, 188, 189, 231, 232sewage, 34, 38, 231, 232Shanghai (China), 35, 36, 70, 97Sheffield (UK), 59, 84, 120, 243–4, 245, 246, 253,

256, 257, 259, 260, 261Sheffield Environmental Training, 84shelf life, 44


shoe leather costs, 71shopper miles, 42Shoreditch (UK), 247, 248, 253, 256, 258Shropshire (UK), 222Silent Spring, 21single regeneration funds, 86sites of negotiation, 125site yield, 253, 257, 258slow food movement, 22Small Holdings and Allotments Act (1908), 99social benefits, 255social enterprise, 86social inclusion, 83, 127socialist block, 136social participation, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87Society of Friends, 101Soil Association (UK), 59, 224, 225solar gain, 248solar hot water, 253, 257, 258Solidarity Park (Havana), 141Sorvig, Kim, 63, 106South Africa, 36, 194, 196space heating, 24, 253spatial characteristics, 147–9sports, 6, 7, 53, 83, 85, 86, 136, 253sprawl, 9, 165, 234, 260Stanley, 25, 26state owned self-production areas (autoconsumos

estatales), 140, 154structural adjustment policies, 68structural barriers, 73structure of soils, 92subscrapers, 101subsidised products, 20suburbia, 8, 99, 234suburbs, 53, 54, 79, 88, 235, 260, 262supermarket, 21, 22, 29, 30, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44,

45, 46, 49, 57, 58, 71, 75, 83, 125, 214, 226,235, 266

supermarket gardenssee mini market gardens

surveys, 68, 158, 213sustain, 59, 74Sustainable Landscape Construction, 63sustainable landscape design, 106

Tanzania, 36, 193, 194, 197, 198, 233temporal rhythms, 249tenure, 70, 73, 126, 198territorial ordering scheme, 142Texas (US), 81Thailand, 34Thames Barrier Park (London), 106, 111, 116,

117, 120, 121

This Common Inheritance, 80Thompson, J. William, 63Thorpe, Harry, 104, 105, 128, 209top-down/bottom-up approaches, 136, 144topsoil, 256Trafalgar Square (London), 258traffic, 8, 11, 16, 34, 114, 118, 120, 122, 260training, 57, 58, 61, 83, 85, 86, 87, 105 140, 194,

195, 198transnational corporations (TNCs), 46tree-curtains, 141trees, 12, 53, 92, 100, 107, 118, 128, 130, 141,

154, 188, 190, 222, 223, 240Trojan (Bulgaria), 233–5

Uganda, 196, 198under-utilised, 71, 235, 267unemployment, 68, 99, 101United Kingdom, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 37, 38,

41, 42–3, 44, 45, 46, 57, 59, 60, 61, 68, 70,71, 73, 74, 80, 87, 90, 98, 101, 107, 128, 214,218, 219, 220, 268

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 45

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO), 21, 67, 196, 198

United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange, 24

United States blockade, 136United States of America (USA), 22, 24, 25, 26,

33, 37, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 80, 81,105, 106

University of Cienfuegos, 171, 177, 191unplanned, 140, 219Upper Bieslandse Polder, 230urban agricultural reserve zones, 231urban agriculture, 4, 11–15, 21, 22–30, 33, 35–9,

51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60–3, 66, 67, 72, 74,75, 91, 97, 100, 101, 106, 112, 122, 125, 127, 136, 138, 139, 142, 144, 201, 203, 207, 219, 220, 225, 226, 230, 231, 232,233–5

Africa, 193–8Cuba, 147–9Havana, 140–5

urban agriculture advice shops, 189Urban Agriculture Magazine, 198, 235urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA), 66–7,

136, 193, 196, 207motives for, 68–9

urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA)subprograms, 143

urban beachessee urban river fronts

INDEX

279


Wackernagel, Mathis, 33walking, 6, 9, 11, 54, 60, 99, 127, 169, 215,

249, 267Washington, DC (US), 79, 81waste, 21, 22, 38, 44, 53, 72, 231, 266water, 4, 6, 15, 24, 36, 37, 38, 41, 72, 73, 74,

76, 92, 110, 114, 120, 122, 140, 141, 142, 151, 190, 207, 211, 214, 215, 222, 226, 230, 232, 253, 255, 257, 258, 263, 266

Welbeck Road Allotments Association Trust, 85

Wellgate Community Farm, 87Welwyn (UK), 99Wessex Water, 38western diet, 45Whitefield, 222, 223, 224wilderness, 11, 55, 118wildlife habitat, 54, 230Wimbledon Park, 80window boxes, 218Wisconsin (US), 80World Bank, 20, 46World Trade Organisation (WTO), 46World War, First, 59, 101World War, Second, 53, 101, 104, 151, 207Wright, Frank Lloyd, 100Wuppertal Institute, 42

yield, 5, 26, 27, 69, 71, 72, 112, 139, 147, 148–9, 153, 154, 188, 190, 210, 222, 253, 255, 257

Yoveva, A., 234

Zambia, 193, 196Zimbabwe, 193, 194, 196Zoo, 112, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 141

INDEX

280

urban connections, 16urban ecology, 188, 198, 266urban economies, 72, 193, 196urban farms, 22, 58, 59, 83, 105, 142urban fields, 109, 246urban food, 12, 21–2, 35, 36, 37, 38, 57–63urban forests, 11, 109urban fringe, 59, 69, 75, 149urban landscape, 8, 11, 111, 127–31, 218, 219–20

productive, 12, 14, 105, 113, 131, 147, 213,240, 245, 252, 260, 262

regional, 8urban metabolism, 38urban parks, 83, 92, 99, 109, 267urban regeneration, 57, 84, 85, 105urban river fronts, 109urban squares, 109urban stages, 109Urban Task Force, 128Urban Vegetable Promotion Project (Dar es

Salaam)197usufruct, 70, 140utility, 68utility theory, 68

Vale, Brenda, 23Vale, Robert, 23Vancouver (Canada), 218Venice (Italy), 16vermi-compost, 191vernacular tradition, 126vertical fields, 248vertical landscape, 240–1, 248vets, 188views, 4, 126, 171, 184, 185, 243, 246, 262Virginia (US), 79, 80volunteers, 84, 86, 87, 201


DRUMFLOWERS study by Tom Phillips

CIENFUEGOS

Plate 1

Cpul-Digital1.qxd 02/01/2005 10:37 AM Page 1

Plate 2


CUATRO CAMINOSCIENFUEGOS


Plate 3


PASTORITACIENFUEGOS


Plate 4


PUEBLO GRIFO NUEVOCIENFUEGOS


PUEBLO GRIFO NUEVOCIENFUEGOS

Plate 5


LeisurESCAPE London

YBOUN D

ARYG REA

TE

RL

O NDON

CO

UN

TYB

OU

ND

AR

Y

GREATERL

ONDON COUNTY

GR

EA

TERLONDO

NCOU N

TY

BOUNDARY GREATER

L ONDON

COU

N

TYB

OUN DARYG

REAT

ER LOND ON

COUNTY

BOU

NDA

R Y G

RE ATERLO

ND

O N COUNTY

MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY

GREATER LONDON COUNTY BOUNDARY

GREATE R

LO

NDON

COU

NT

YB

O UNDARYGREAT ER LONDON COUNTY BOUN DARYGREATER LO NDO

NC

OU

N TY

BO

UN

DA RYGREATER L ON

DO

NCO

UNTY

BOUNDAR

YG REATER LONDON C

MOTO

RW AY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTO RWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY M25 MOTORWAY

GREATER LONDON C

OU

NT

YB

OUNDA

RYG

R

TATE MODERNTATE MODERNTATE MODERNTATE MODERN

BURGESS PARKBURGESS PARKBURGESS PARKBURGESS PARK

park

park

park

park

continuous landscape discussed here

legend

junction points

Thames Paths - partly continuousexisting path to one or both sidesof the River Thames

continuous landscape dispersing intocountryside beyond the GreaterLondon Boundary

other continuous landscapes

LeisurESCAPE touchesan archaic desire - the desire to move in leisure through open space.

It juxtaposes human leisure desireswith proposals arising from the urge for an independent sustainable urban future.

LeisurESCAPE enablescity dwellers to escape into the countrysideand country dwellers to escape into the city.

LeisurESCAPE is applicable to any urban environment, but most needed in large cities

LeisurESCAPE forms a continuous landscaperunning from outside London to the Thames and to outside London again.

It works by inter-connecting existingparcels of open land:parks, playing fields, brownfield sites, underused green spaces, public gardens,large car parks....through a slim continuous landscape-LeisurESCAPE.

LeisurESCAPE is active and seasonal:walking, talking, cycling, pushing (pramsand wheelchairs) scating...scating...,sitting,laying, (sun-) (rain-) bathing,reading...jogging, hopping, sleeping...

This leisure landscape brings different leisure activity areas into proximitywith each other and open space.

Plate 6


legend

continuous landscape

existing parks

underused open space

semi-buried existing large car parks, coveredwith productive landscapes

existing playgrounds and playing fields

small specific leisure buildings

RIVER THAMES

ondon Bridge

SOUTHWARK STREET A3200 running from Blackfriars to L

&

CASTLEto

LONDON

BR

IDG

E2-

way

traf

fic

TATE MODERN

2-way traffic 2 lanes to each side

ng from E

NEW KENT ROAD A201 runni

HANT & CASTLE to BRICKLAYER'S ARMS heavyLE

WALWORTHR

OA

DA

215running

fromE

LEP

HA

NT

&C

AS

TLEtow

ardsthe

SO

UT

HE

AS

Tof London

BOR

OU

GH

HIG

HS

TREE

TA3

runn

ingfro

mELEP

P

CA

MB

ER

WE

LL

RO

AD

A215

towards

CA

MB

ER

WE

LLG

RE

EN

2-way

traffic

EAST STREET MARK

BURGES PARK only London park built in 20th century

S

y

ET

to

LeisurESCAPE London Southwark detail

LeisurESCAPE allows a multitude ofoccupation, both professional and leisure for all age groups, social levels, genders...

It caters especially for population groups which are often excluded from conventional leisure activities.

LeisurESCAPE is commercially and socially viable reinforcing the ecology and sustainabilityof the proposal.

The continuous landscape which accommodatesLeisurESCAPE is laid out mainly over existing roads based on the future vision ofreduced city car traffic.

Instead of the conventional usage of roads, LeisurESCAPE turns roads into a unique productive landscape growing fruit and vegetables for the city dwellers own consumption.

Agriculture fields in LeisurESCAPE are run bothcommercially and privately, thereby determiningeconomic and social value.

LeisurESCAPE can provide new employmentopportunities in its large areas of commercialagriculture or adjacent leisure facilities. Half of Southwark's population are pensioners. The number of lone parents is above the national average and rising.

LeisurESCAPE is adaptable and slow and creates opportunities for the growing number ofpensioners, lone parents with toddlers, the disabled or unemployed.

Successful precedents are, for example:Cuba (commercial - Organoponicpos)Austria (leisure - Selbsternte)or Germany (leisure - Schrebergarten).Nevertheless, none of those combines explicitlycommercial and leisure activities and not in a continuous landscape.

seedetail

Plate 7


LeisurESCAPE London Southwark detail

Plate 8


LeisurESCAPE London Orb Street Southwark

Continuous landscape and productive landscape, Orb Street Southwark, before and after.

The installation of LeisurESCAPE: horizontal, vertical and espaliered vegetation, playing fields and a covered car park

Plate 9 and Plate 10


LeisurESCAPE London Munton Road Southwark

CPUL infrastructure,Munton Road, Southwark, before and after.

The installation of LeisureEscape:footpaths, cycle networks, market gardens infrastructural intensification



CPULs edge buildings

Manor Estate, Sheffield:View from a dwelling into walled garden with windows opening onto a productive landscape beyond.

Victoria Park, London: Transitions between interior, exterior, private and public, in an elevated apartment set between a rooftop garden and a productive landscape on the ground.


Cpul-Digital2.qxd 02/01/2005 12:00 PM Page 14

Plate 15


CPULs architecture London Shoreditch

Urban Nature Towers:

A proposal for a high density CPUL accommodating 450 persons per hectare. Vertical landscaping, created

by attaching a framework to the building's façade, supports trained soft fruit plants and fruit trees. The

vertical landscape supplements horizontal urban agriculture fields.

CPULs architecture London Shoreditch

Ariel view of the Urban Nature Tower site. A linear public park (light green in the image) surrounds urban agriculture fields and is continuous with a larger urban green grid.

Plate 16


designing urban agriculture

Documents