3 6

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..

Marielle Dubbeling, Laura Bracalenti & Laura Lagorio

PARTICIPATORY DDESIGN OOF PPUBLIC SSPACES FFORURBAN AAGRICULTURE, RROSARIO, AARGENTINA

AAbss t rac tUrban agriculture is increasingly recognized for its potential contribution to more sustainable urban development.

Urban agriculture includes the cultivation and raising, processing and marketing of food and non-food crops, medi-cinal and aromatic herbs, fruit trees, as well as animal products within urban and periurban areas. Urban agriculturepositively impacts urban food security, local economic development, environmental management and communitybuilding. To reconcile the demands posed by urban growth with urban agriculture activities of high social and eco-nomic value, urban agriculture however should be included into land use planning and design, and regulated bymunicipalities, assuring its proper management and avoiding potential health and environmental risks. Open andgreen urban spaces could be designed for multifunctional urban agriculture and combine natural habitat, food pro-duction, educational, recreational and leisure activities. Such design processes would benefit from broad participationof urban planners and architects, urban farmers, citizens and slum inhabitants as to enhance ownership and engage-ment, more effectively use available local resources and give the process a higher credibility and wider outreach. Thisarticle shares the experience of Rosario, Argentina where the city planners and University staff collaborated with twolow-income communities in the design and implementation of a multifunctional neighborhood park, public square androad reserve. A step-by-step participatory design process was followed: starting from initial visioning, defining andrelating the various existing and multi-functional land uses desired, to elaborating the site plan, and agreeing on imple-mentation procedures. The article briefly contextualizes the site and its inhabitants, illustrates the design process andthe results achieved and highlights some of the problems encountered. Participatory design of open spaces for urbanagriculture in Rosario- though a complex process- proved to have contributed to improving socio-economic and envi-ronmental conditions in the city, while also serving as a source of inspiration to other cities in the region.

Keywordss : Urban Agriculture, Urban Planning, Neighborhood Upgrading, Participatory Design, MultifunctionalPublic Spaces.

Current view on the garden park(2007)

3 7

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..M

arie

lle D

ubbe

ling,

Lau

ra B

raca

lent

i & L

aura

Lag

orioUURRBBAANN AAGGRRIICCUULLTTUURREE AASS AA SSTTRRAATTEEGGYY

FFOORR MMOORREE SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBLLEE CCIITT IIEESS

GGrroowwiinngg uurrbbaanniizzaattiioonn aanndd uurrbbaann ppoovveerrttyyThe creation of "sustainable cities" and the identifi-cation of ways to provide food, shelter and basicservices to city residents is a challenge to many cityauthorities around the world. The 21st century willkeep witnessing massive and rapid urbanisation. By2015-2020, well over half of the world's popula-tion will be living in cities. If present trends hold, thevast majority of these people will be living in irreg-ular settlements, without access to decent food,shelter, water and sanitation. UN-Habitat calculat-ed in 2001 that at present over 30% of the poor livein the cities, but that this number will rise to 50% by2035. (UNCHS, 2001 and UN-HABITAT, 2004).

These global phenomena can also be wit-nessed in Rosario, Argentina. Information providedby the Public Housing Service of the Municipality,indicate the presence of 91 irregular settlements in2005 where more then 110.000 inhabitants (con-stituting 12.1 % of the total population) try to assurea living, compared to 10,4% of the population liv-ing in irregular settlements in 1992. Urban povertylevels mounted up to 42 % in 2004, of which 17%is considered to be living in extreme poverty (PAU-SPV Municipalidad de Rosario, CEAH, FAPyD UNRand CEPAR, 2006).

While more urban dwellers may show lowliving standards, cities are also centres of informa-tion, ingenuity, and collaboration, where newapproaches to housing, employment, service andfood provision are being introduced and, increas-ingly, mainstreamed in new forms of building, work-ing and living in the city. Urban populations are set-ting new standards and cities must re-invent them-selves with new references. Urban agriculture is onelivelihood strategy which the urban poor uses incombination with other strategies (Mougeot,2005). Urban land management should aim to puturban land resources into efficient and sustainableuse, which is not necessarily only the economic"highest and best use" as postulated by many gov-ernments. This requires, first of all, recognition ofthe prevailing problems and acceptance of urbanlivelihood strategies including urban agriculture,but also realization of benefits and opportunitiescreated through productive use of open and greenspaces in cities (Drescher, 2005).

BBeenneeffiittss aanndd rriisskkss ooff uurrbbaann aaggrriiccuullttuurreeUrban agriculture can be been defined as "Anindustry located within (intraurban)or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, a city or ametropolis, which grows and raises, processes anddistributes a diversity of food and non-food prod-ucts, (re-) using largely human and materialresources, products and services found in andaround that urban area, and in turn supplyinghuman and material resources, products and ser-vices largely to that urban area" (Mougeot, 2000).

Urban agriculture is a practice widely foundin Latin American, Asian and African cities, as wellas cities in Europe and North America.1 Apart fromcontributing to food security, nutrition and incomegeneration, urban agriculture may provide recre-ational or educational functions, while at the sametime preserving the cities' green spaces. Otheradvantages include: improved availability andaccess to fresh produce; local production andreduction of transport and storage; development ofrelated micro-enterprises for input provision, pro-cessing and marketing of produce; increased recy-cling of nutrients (turning urban organic waste andwastewater into a productive resource); improvedsocial inclusion of disadvantaged groups and com-munity development; urban greening and commu-nity involvement in maintenance of green spaces(van Veenhuizen, 2006).

No overall figures exist on the true scale ofurban agriculture, but some partial indications doexist. In Amman, Jordan 22% of urban householdsare engaged in some form of urban agriculture(Department of Statistics, 2002), while inAmsterdam-The Netherlands, over 7000 familiesare cultivating 300 ha of city land (Wilbers, 2005).In Accra, Ghana 90 % of the vegetables consumedin the city are produced in urban and peri-urbanareas (Armar-Klemesu, 2000). In Cienfuegos,Cuba, 17.000 urban agriculture jobs were gener-ated between 1995 and 2003 (Socorro, 2003.),while in Rosario, Argentina, 10.000 families areinvolved in food production and a large group ofthem is marketing their produce on farmers mar-kets, obtaining a monthly income from 40- 150US$ (Dubbeling, 2004).

Urban agriculture is not a panacea however.It may also have negative effects if certain associat-ed risks are not taken into account and proper pre-ventive and guiding measures have not been taken.These potential risks may include contamination of

1 See for such examples: www.ruaf.org

3 8

Mar

ielle

Dub

belin

g, L

aura

Bra

cale

nti &

Lau

ra L

agor

ioop

en h

ouse

inte

rnat

iona

l Vol

34

, N

o.2

, Ju

ne 2

00

9

Part

icip

ator

y de

sign

of

publ

ic s

pace

s...

crops with pathogenic organisms due to irrigationwith water from polluted streams or with insuffi-ciently treated waste water, vehicle exhausts affect-ing crops grown by the roadside, soils contaminat-ed by industries used as a production medium,agro-chemicals getting in the water supply or trans-mission of diseases from domestic animals to peo-ple (Birley and Lock, 1998). Urban agriculture mayalso contaminate local water sources if overly highinputs of chemical fertilisers and pesticides areused (Rabinovitch and Schmetzer, 1997).

PPOOLL IICCYY SSUUPPPPOORRTT TTOO UURRBBAANN AAGGRRIICCUULLTTUURREE

It is basically for these reasons that -until recently-urban agriculture was given little policy attention,other then restricting it or permitting it only as atemporal use of urban land until other urban func-tions (housing, industrial development etc.) tookover its use. However, urban agriculture is increas-ingly being recognized for its contribution to theMillennium Development Goals (reducing povertyand hunger), as a source of local food production,for its contribution to community food security andsustainable urban development.

In it is in this context that the nonprofitAmerican Planning Association adopted a policy inMay 2007 that encourages its members, to helpbuild "stronger, sustainable and more self-reliant"local food systems.2 A food system encompassesthe production, processing, distribution and con-sumption of food and the management of waste.The policy states that until recently, most plannerswere only peripherally concerned with food sys-tems. In justifying its new policy, the planning asso-ciation said a city that can supply and control itsfood needs will have more say in what it eats, anopportunity to eat fresher foods and insulation fromdisruptions in national food distribution. All that,plus the fact that dollars spent on locally producedfood have a greater chance of cycling back throughthe community, and that food grown nearby bearsa lesser liability for greenhouse gases released intransport (Rich, 2008).

In Argentina, policy support to urban agri-culture was a clear response to its 2001 economiccrisis, when gross domestic product was shrinking,the unemployment rate had reached 25 percent,the Argentine peso had lost 75 percent of its value,

and the rate of inflation was climbing to anunprecedented high. With their country's economyin shambles, the citizens of Rosario had to adapt tosurvive. Many began cultivating available plots ofland throughout the city to ensure a steady supplyof food for themselves and their families.Recognizing the value of this novel practice to alle-viate suffering and ensure food security, localauthorities started to make public lands availablefor farming. The city also provided many of theurban farmers with tools, seeds, and other essentialsupplies (Guenette, 2006).

NNEEEEDD FFOORR IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIINNGG UURRBBAANNAAGGRRIICCUULLTTUURREE IINNTTOO LLAANNDD UUSSEE PPLLAANNNNIINNGG AANNDD DDEESS IIGGNN

Political recognition of urban agricultural practices,however, is a necessary but insufficient condition forurban agriculture to maximize its contribution tomore sustainable, productive and inclusive cities.Urban agriculture is still not recognized as an inte-gral part of urban planning and design. It oftenremains a component temporarily "added to theurban fabric."

To reconcile the needs posed by urbangrowth with the need for activities of potentially higheconomic and social value, urban agricultureshould be included in urban development and landuse plans and be regulated by municipalities(Cabannes, 2002). Availability of and access toland are among the basic requirements for urbandwellers to enable food production. Basic questionsare: "What areas of (peri)urban land could best beused for urban agriculture and how to increaseaccess to those areas for the poor?". And howcould processes connected to urban agriculturework as an overall principle to design and organizeresilient, productive and food-secure "garden citiesor neighborhoods"?

Such idea of creating "garden neighbor-hoods" is not a new one. The urban designs ofEbenezer Howard and Raymon Unwin (England),Frederic Law Olmsted, Henry Wright and ClarenceS. Stein, (North America) already address manyaspects of the food system. More recent LocalAgenda 21 programmes aim to environmentalqualities (like green areas, water management,good quality air) with residential qualities (creatingconditions for a healthy and safe living environment

2 For further information, please find the APA's Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning atwww.planning.org/policyguides/food.htm

3 9

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..M

arie

lle D

ubbe

ling,

Lau

ra B

raca

lent

i & L

aura

Lag

oriowhere people can experience nature and food pro-

duction) (Adriaens et all, 2005).Additionally sustainable development

requires different approaches from the often "top-down" led approach ("designing behind the table"),to involve all relevant public and private actors asearly as possible in the process so that they candeliver input and feel committed (European Councilof Towns Planners, 2002). How could the role ofthe designer and planner may become less con-cerned with controlling the final design and moreaimed at providing the tools and methods for per-ceiving and tapping into the under-utilized land andhuman resources in-situ, and act as catalysts topromote participatory and citizen-driven models forthe creation of sustainable neighbourhoods, withagriculture fully integrated into the urban topogra-phy? Hence, an additional challenge lies in linkingarchitects, urban planners, local or national gov-ernments, social movements, slum inhabitants andthe homeless in participatory, grassroots, "bottom-up" processes of planning, design and manage-ment of spaces for urban agriculture (MinimumCost Housing Group, 2004).

TTHHEE NNOOTTIIOONN OOFF PPAARRTT IICCIIPPAATTOORRYYLLAANNDDSSCCAAPPEE DDEESS IIGGNN

Landscape design should not only take intoaccount the type and quality of natural resourcesavailable, but also modalities for appropriation andtransformation thereof as well as the attitudes ofpublic and private organizations and the local com-munity towards it. This notion allows -from an oper-ational point of view- to define concrete scenariosfor landscape design in which physical and biolog-ical processes are closely associated with social-economic dynamics. This requires on its turn thearticulation of political, institutional and social inter-ests, as well as the (re)definition of concepts of"urban landscape design" (Fernandez, 1999).

Landscape design thus implies a process ofsocial appropriation which generates feelings ofidentity and ownership between the land and thecommunity throughout time (European Council ofTowns Planners, 2002). Such social appropriationcan be best achieved through public participationin design.

The concept of participatory design differsfrom traditional approaches to landscape design(Romero et all, 2004). In a participatory designprocess, designs are made based on the inputs of

and consensus between the clients (the users), land-scape architects and other involved actors (forexample the Municipality). This with the objective ofmaking optimum use of and valorizing the contri-butions of each of these stakeholders in the design,management and financing of the project (Pesci,2000).

Participatory design, as other participatoryplanning processes, has in principle the followingbenefits:

It contributes to more participatory gover-nance, public-private partnerships and helpsbridge the gap/overcome distrust between citi-zen groups and the government;

It allows for better situation analysis and qual-ity decision making (through abetter understanding of priority issues and theneeds of different stakeholders involved and abetter linking of different sources of knowledge,information and expertise);

It improves the likelihood of success and sus-tainability of implementation (throughenhanced acceptance and ownership,improved mechanisms and processes for coor-dination, and mobilising and pooling of scarcehuman, technical and financial resources)

It gives the process (and its results) a highercredibility and wider outreach.

On the other hand, public participation indesign:

Needs a clear definition of who should beinvolved and how to overcome difficulties inpromoting participation of the poor;

Requires skilled human resources and addi-tional financial means.Technical-professional staff should not onlyhave a sound theoretical and practical knowl-edge, but also have the capacity to interactwith, relate to, appreciate and integrate thecontributions of the various stakeholders;

Needs reconciliation of different prioritiesexpressed by the different stakeholders;

May require more time than other approach-es to allow for required changes in institutionalcultures;

Needs a clear strategy on how to addressexisting power structures and may lead to anundue increase in the influence of some stake-holders (especially when there is a lack of trans-parency throughout the process) (Hemmati,2002; Partners and Propper, 2004).

4 0

Mar

ielle

Dub

belin

g, L

aura

Bra

cale

nti &

Lau

ra L

agor

ioop

en h

ouse

inte

rnat

iona

l Vol

34

, N

o.2

, Ju

ne 2

00

9

Part

icip

ator

y de

sign

of

publ

ic s

pace

s...

DDEESS IIGGNNIINNGG MMUULLTT IIFFUUNNCCTTIIOONNAALLOOPPEENN AANNDD GGRREEEENN SSPPAACCEESS

Politicians and planners are faced with many com-peting claims for the use of scarce land in andaround cities. High costs of green open space man-agement dominate the thinking of many plannersand authorities, even though a more "multifunc-tional - combining different functions within onearea" approach or public-private partnerships canhelp to reduce costs (Drescher, 2005). Many possi-ble win-win situations exist to meet urban and peri-urban challenges as urban planners seek to createattractive land-use combinations -including urbanagricultural. Urban producers may provide recre-ational and educational services to urban citizensor act as co-managers of parks. They may offerhealth services (on-farm care and remedial activi-ties for people with psychological or physical prob-lems) or nursery facilities that grow ornamentalplants and tree seedlings for urban home gardens,streets and parks. Aquaculture may be combinedwith water storage and recreation; production ofadded-value agricultural products such as cheese,jams and cosmetics, combined with recreation andtourism; and urban forestry, which offers health and

microclimate benefits, combined with energy cropsand recreation (van de Berg and van Veenhuizen,2005; Deelstra et all, 2006).

Focusing primarily on London, Viljoen, Bohnand Howe (2005) make the point that by combin-ing urban development planning with properdesigning of a "productive green grid" tens of thou-sands of people could be fed from local agricultur-al produce and benefit from a pleasant landscapeoffering opportunities for leisure and recreation atthe same time. In their attempt to design openspaces for multifunctional agriculture, landscapearchitects and planners in Rosario have defined thefollowing typologies to be part of such a productivegreen structure:GGaarrddeenn-PPaarrkkss:: Larger public green areas in whichrecreational, productive, educational and commer-cial activities are developed. Designs should inte-grate playgrounds and areas for leisure and sportswith areas set aside for vegetable and fruit produc-tion as well as the production of medicinal andornamental plants.EEdduuccaattiioonnaall-pprroodduuccttiivvee ssqquuaarreess:: These are neigh-borhood squares designed for recreational, pro-ductive, educational-cultural and possibly commer-cial uses. Their structure and functioning will

Figure 1. Vision of a garden-park and a productive street

4 1

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..M

arie

lle D

ubbe

ling,

Lau

ra B

raca

lent

i & L

aura

Lag

orio

respond to community needs for playgrounds,social meeting places, urban greening and produc-tion.TThhee pprroodduuccttiivvee ssttrreeeett:: A diverse and dynamic pub-lic space, designed to integrate small-scale pro-ductive activities, community meeting spaces, pro-cessing and marketing activities as well a produc-tive green structure (for example fruit trees). This willenhance the streets' potential as a space for socialinteraction, without obstructing the normal trafficand pedestrian flow.

PPRROOMMOOTTIINNGG PPAARRTT IICCIIPPAATTOORRYY DDEESS IIGGNNOOFF OOPPEENN SSPPAACCEESS FFOORR UURRBBAANN AAGGRRII -CCUULLTTUURREE

RRoossaarriioo:: aa ccaassee-ssttuuddyyFollowing their objective to design different openpublic spaces for urban agriculture, the RosarioMunicipal Urban Agriculture Programme, the pro-gramme "Rosario HABITAT", the Public HousingService, and the National University of Rosario

decided to implement the project "Designing sus-tainable neighborhoods (2004-2006)", part of alarger international project denominated "Makingthe Edible Landscape".3 The areas selected for theproject were the Molino Blanco Sur and LaLagunita settlements.

The La Lagunita settlement is located in thewestern part of the city. The area was first occupiedover 20 years ago by families coming from the inte-rior parts of the country. Its population of around1300 inhabitants (300 families) lives in precariousdwellings, is largely unemployed or alternativelycollects and separates urban wastes. Only 40% ofthe houses are constructed with bricks and over halfof the population lives below the poverty line. Aparticipatory upgrading programme was plannedalready, now offering the opportunity to integrateurban agriculture and provide households withfood-production and new income generatingopportunities.

La Lagunita's inhabitants had no prior expe-rience with urban agriculture, but were interested todevelop related activities on their own plots, on the

Figure 2. The areas of intervention

3 The project "Making the Edible Landscape (2004-2006)" was coordinated by the Minimum Cost Housing Group of McGillUniversity (Montreal, Canada) and supported by ETC Urban Agriculture-The Netherlands (field coordination) and IDRC-Canada (financial support). The project took place in the cities of Rosario (Argentina), Kampala (Uganda) and Colombo (SriLanka).

4 2

Mar

ielle

Dub

belin

g, L

aura

Bra

cale

nti &

Lau

ra L

agor

ioop

en h

ouse

inte

rnat

iona

l Vol

34

, N

o.2

, Ju

ne 2

00

9

Part

icip

ator

y de

sign

of

publ

ic s

pace

s...

public square and on land belonging to the com-munity centre. The area set aside for the creation ofan educational-productive square (15.232,73 m²)was characterized in 2005 by several dumpsites,marginal housing, small footpaths, some isolatedtrees/bushes, a work-shed and a soccer-field in badshape.

The Molino Blanco settlement is located inthe southern district of Rosario. It was createdaround 40 years ago on vacant land bordering theSaladillo stream. Molino Blanco can be character-ized as a high-density and marginal settlement with

regular flooding risks. Its population of 3500inhabitants (800 families) is in its majority unem-ployed or earns a minor income in waste collectionand community gardening. As part of an upgradingprogramme, almost 30% of the population wouldbe resettled to a new settlement as their houseswere built on the flood area. The settlement wouldalso be regularized and provided with basic munic-ipal services. The flood area (56.286,45 m2) char-acterized in 2005 by the presence of communitygardens, illegal and marginal housing, dumpsites,trees and bushes, a soccer field, would then be set

Figure 3. La Lagunita settlement (2005)

Figure 4. Molino Blanco Sur settlement (2005)

4 3

aside for a Garden-Park (PAU- SPV Municipalidadde Rosario, CEAH, FAPyD UNR and CEPAR, 2006).

TTHHEE PPAARRTT IICCIIPPAATTOORRYY DDEESS IIGGNNPPRROOCCEESSSS

The participatory design process in Rosario includ-ed the following activities:

1. Formation, preparation and capacitybuilding of an interdisciplinary design team, formedby planners, architects and urban agriculture.

2. Base-line studies, analysis of secondaryand collection or primary information (field work,meetings with interest groups and interviews withkey-informants) on current and previous character-istics and land uses.

3. Preparation of materials (maps, graphicaland visual materials and models to share informa-

tion on the site and facilitate a creative designprocess; videos and images on similar sites andpossible designs to broaden the vision of the par-ticipants, etcetera).

4. Implementation of a series of communitydesign workshops in order to:

Discuss with the users their needs, visionsand aspirations associated to the sites.

Broadening the vision of the participantsregarding the possible forms of multifunc-tional land use of the site.

Defining the various (land use) compo-nents, their relations and (physical) dimen-sions.

Collective construction of design plans andmodels. Discussing management aspects ofthe area.

Revision of draft proto-typical site plans.Programming of implementation activitiesand assigning responsibilities.

5. Elaborating the site plans and subcon-tracting the work.

6. Implementation of the project.7. Monitoring and evaluation for internal

learning, feedback and improvements.

DDEESS IIGGNN OOFF TTHHEE EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONNAALL-PPRROODDUUCCTTIIVVEE SSQQUUAARREE

In the first community design workshop, the visionsof each resident on the desired educational-pro-ductive square were registered. Their visions,expressed in drawings, use of journal clippings orwith words, formed the basis for the further design.Based on the individual visions, collective groupvisions were developed, presented and discussed.This first workshop helped to establish a coopera-

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..M

arie

lle D

ubbe

ling,

Lau

ra B

raca

lent

i & L

aura

Lag

orio

Figure 5. Constructing a common vision for theeducational-productive square

4 4

Mar

ielle

Dub

belin

g, L

aura

Bra

cale

nti &

Lau

ra L

agor

io

tive feeling among the participants and confidencein the fact that individual opinions were taken intoconsideration.

In a second workshop and with the objectiveto broaden their vision on possible forms of multi-functional land use for the site, participants wereshown examples of productive squares found inother cities around the world and were taken to visit

other squares as well as urban agriculture gardensin their city.

In a third and fourth workshop, the commonland uses desired for the educational-productivesquare were identified, including a meeting area, aplay ground and an area for growing. The variouscomponents were discussed, prioritized and theirpossible dimensions (surface areas) identified. The

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..

Figure 6. Defining the spatial relations betweenand location of the various components

Figure 7. Design of the educational-productive square

4 5

components were then clustered according to theiruses (recreational, productive, educational etc).Finally, relations between the clusters/componentsand their (spatial) relations to the environment (thesurrounding streets, houses and neighborhood)were discussed.

In a fifth workshop all land use components,with their proposed dimensions and locations, wereprojected on a map of the area, in order to arriveat consensus on there location and on how circula-tion at the site could be best assured. These pro-jections were later used by landscape architects to

prepare the architectonical site plans for the area.The educational-productive square in La Lagunitaintegrated in its final design various pay-grounds,sport fields, a meeting and BBQ area, a demon-strative garden and an educational footpath.

In a final workshop, agreements were madeon and responsibilities defined for implementationand management of the site. Construction costs ofthe productive square were financed by the RosarioHabitat programme. Community members andlocal school children took care of the creation ofthe demonstration garden, painting of the play-

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..M

arie

lle D

ubbe

ling,

Lau

ra B

raca

lent

i & L

aura

Lag

orio

Figure 8a&8b. Inauguration of the productive square(a) , The demonstration garden(b)

Figure 9. Design of the garden-park

4 6

Mar

ielle

Dub

belin

g, L

aura

Bra

cale

nti &

Lau

ra L

agor

io

grounds and the planting of trees and other vege-tation.

DDEESS IIGGNN OOFF TTHHEE GGAARRDDEENN-PPAARRKK AANNDDPPRROODDUUCCTTIIVVEE SSTTRREEEETT

Similarly to the process in La Lagunita, a series ofparticipatory community design workshops wereorganized in Molino Blanco Sur related to thedesign of a garden-park and productive street.Again the workshops served to identify the needsand aspirations of the community regarding futureland uses, analyze conflicts and potential solutions,decide on the components and spatial design ofthe areas and elaborate final site plans. The gar-den-park now integrates growing areas (communi-ty gardens), a soccer-field and a playground forchildren as well as a series of community footpaths.The design took into account criteria such arequirements for production (fencing, irrigation),public safety (lights and a small watch-house) anddevelopment of activities related to input supplyand commercialization (a small greenhouse and amarket-space).

The design of the productive street, border-ing the garden-park, maintains the traditional func-tions of a street, while adding productive elements(small areas for growing, use of fruit trees), as well

as complementary components to improve its safeuse (lightning, safety, streetlights).

PPRROOBBLLEEMMSS EENNCCOOUUNNTTEERREEDD AANNDDLLEESSSSOONNSS LLEEAARRNNEEDD

The participatory design process required anintense dynamic of training and community work-shops throughout the process. Landscape architectsand designers had to learn to trust and work withthe community and pay attention to communitydynamics in order to ensure equal participation ofvarious groups. This also meant that although ageneral methodology was followed in both settle-ments, the process had to be adapted to the spe-cific characteristics of each situation. In La Lagunitafor example, where community members had noprior experience to urban agriculture, much moretime had to be spend on explaining the conceptand visiting existing urban agriculture areas then inMolino Blanco Sur. Initial designs in La Lagunita didnot include urban agriculture activities, in contrastto those in Molino Blanco.

Also, in Molino Blanco a community gar-dening organization already existed that allowedthem to define common problems and seek solu-tions that bring improvements to all and to betterorganize themselves for participation in the design

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..

Figure 10. Design of the productive street

4 7

workshops. In La Lagunita no such communityorganization or platform existed and still had to beconstructed. Potential conflict situations on desireduses did occur, and new values of open and greenareas had to be promoted.

This required extensive information, commu-nication, consultation, reconciliation and motiva-tion.

It is also proved important throughout theprocess to come to early and clear agreements onthe financing, implementation and management ofthe areas. Responsibilities of the municipality, theprivate sector and the community were clarified andagreed upon. This also included for example thefollow up needed in form of training for urban agri-culturalists, specifically on the use of organic pro-duction technologies (thus minimizing health andenvironmental risks).

However, implementation of the works inMolino Blanco Sur has still not been completed dueto lack of financing, though partial financing by theNational Government of Argentina and theMunicipal Parks and Gardens Department hasallowed for planting of fruit trees and putting up offences.

Results of the participatory design processesinclude increased social acceptance and responsi-bility of the designed areas. In both cases, the com-munity is responsible for the installation and main-tenance of the gardens and other uses. This helpedstrengthening the relations of the community with

their own surroundings and providing it their ownidentity. On its turn it stimulates inhabitants to feelproud of their own environment.

The increased opportunities for growing andmarketing have contributed to community mem-bers' improved food security, nutrition and incomegeneration.

Former wastelands have been transformed inaesthetically pleasing landscapes.

The 2 experiences described above haveserved as examples and "laboratories" for the city ofRosario and other cities in the region. On 20hectares of public land bordering the ring-wayaround Rosario, garden-parks are being installed.Involving the Rosario architects and applying a sim-ilar participatory design process, a productivesquare is now also being designed in Villa Mariadel Triunfo-Lima, Peru, integrating productive andrecreational functions, but also a small wastewaterplant for treatment and irrigation. Another garden-park is being designed in Belo Horizonte-Brazil,inspired by the Rosario experience.

CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS

Neighborhood upgrading and housing develop-ment schemes are common measures taken by citycouncils and provide a good vehicle to incorporateurban agriculture into design and planning.

New visions on sustainable urban develop-

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..M

arie

lle D

ubbe

ling,

Lau

ra B

raca

lent

i & L

aura

Lag

orio

Figure 11. Current view on the garden-park (2007)

4 8

Mar

ielle

Dub

belin

g, L

aura

Bra

cale

nti &

Lau

ra L

agor

io ment and urban greening should promote the plan-ning and preservation of open spaces for naturalhabitats, active recreation and multifunctional agri-culture. Cities like Rosario illustrate the benefits ofintegrating food production in design and man-agement of urban open spaces to improve foodsecurity and reduce malnutrition in cities, reducepoverty by enabling income generation andimprove the urban environment by making citiesmore habitable, while also providing for cultural,educational and leisure activities.

Planning policy and guidance is increasinglyrecognizing the importance of putting local peopleat the centre of such design and development activ-ities. Such participation should go beyond consul-tation to embracing a participatory approach toplanning and design from the earliest stage of theprocess up to its implementation phase. Throughdrawing on the expertise and ideas of local com-munities and other stakeholders, planners andarchitects should seek to develop proposals whichrespond to the needs and aspirations of the endusers.

It is the authors' firm conviction that sustain-able design can only be achieved through theinvolvement and ownership of local communities.

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS

ADRIAENS F., DUBBELING M., FEDDES F., MARCELIS A.,VAN OVERVELD C., STRUBEN H., VAN DER VEEN D., DEVRIES J., WITBERG M. and ZINGER E. 2005, Sustainableurban design: perspectives and examples, BeurslogeProjects Foundation Amsterdam and Blauwdruk Publishers,Wageningen, The Netherlands.

ARMAR-KLEMESU M. 2000, “Urban agriculture and foodsecurity, nutrition and Health,” in: Bakker N. et all. (eds)2000, Growing cities, growing food : urban agriculture onthe policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture, DSE,Germany.

BIRLEY M.H. and LOCK K. 1998, “Health and peri-urbannatural resource Production,” Environment and Urbanisation10(1), IIED, London, United Kingdom: 89-106.

CABANNES Y. 2002, “Urban agriculture, land managementand physical Planning,” Guidelines for municipal policymaking on urban agriculture 3, IPES, UMP-LAC and IDRC,Quito, Ecuador.

DEELSTRA T., BOYD D. and VAN DEN BIGGELAAR M.2006, “Multifunctional land use, promoting urban agricul-ture in Europe,” in: VAN VEENHUIZEN R. (ed). 2006,Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green andproductive cities, ETC Urban Agriculture, Leusden, theNetherlands.

DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS OF JORDAN. 2002, UrbanAgriculture Survey in Amman: practice, problems, prospects,Amman, Jordan.

DRESCHER A. 2005, The integration of urban agricultureinto urban planning in the South, University of Freiburg,Germany.

DUBBELING M. 2004, “Optimizing use of vacant space forurban agriculture through participatory planning processes,”paper presented at the workshop IDRC-supported initiativeson urban agriculture and food security, RyersonUniversity, Toronto, Canada.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF TOWN PLANNERS. 2002, Try itthis way, sustainable development at local level, London,United Kingdom.

FERNANDEZ R. 1999, Territorio, Sociedad y DesarrolloSustentable. Estudios de Sustentabilidad Ambiental Urbana,CIAM, FAUD UNMdP. Edit. Espacio, Mar del Plata,Argentina

GUENETTE L. 2006, “A city hooked on urban farming,”Growing Better Cities, Case study No 6. InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

HMMATI M. 2002, Multi-Stakeholder Processes forGovernance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock andConflict, Earthscan, London, United Kingdom.

MINIMUM COST HOUSING GROUP (MCHG), McGillUNIVERSITY. 2004, Project proposal “Making the ediblelandscape,” MCHG-McGill,Montreal, Canada (unpbl.)

MOUGEOT L.J.A. 2000, “Urban agriculture: definition,presence, potentials and Risks,” in: BAKKER N. et all (eds).2000, Growing cities, growing food: urban agriculture onthe policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture, DSE,Germany.

MOUGEOT L.J.A. 2005, Agropolis, The social, political andenvironmental dimensions of urban agriculture, Earthscan,London, United Kingdom.

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..

4 9

PARTNERS AND PROPPER. 2004, Verslag Afronding “initi-atieffase” opstelling regeling burgerparticipatie gemeenteWestervoort, Westervoort, The Netherlands.

PAU- SPV Municipalidad de Rosario, CEAH, FAPyD UNR andCEPAR. 2006, Diagnóstico de situación inicial de las áreasde intervención. Proyecto: Construyendo barrios producti-vos, integrando la agricultura urbana en el diseñoy desarrollo de la ciudad, Rosario, Argentina.

PESCI R. 2000, Del Titanic al Velero, FLACAM, FundaciónCEPA, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

RABINOVITCH J. and SCHMETZER H. 1997, “Urban agri-culture: food, jobs and sustainable cities,” Agriculture andRural Development 4 (2): 44-45.

RICH D.K. 2008, “Farming the City: Planners start thinkingof how to feed us,” Special to The San Francisco Chronicle,Saturday, March 22, 2008.

ROMERO G. et all. 2004, La participación en el diseñourbano y arquitectónico en la producción social del hábitat,Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnología para elDesarrollo (CYTED), México DF, Mexico.

SOCORRO A. 2003, Mapas concertados de uso de suelos.Produced in the context of a regional programme on“Optimising the use of vacant land for urban agriculture,”IPES, UMP-LAC and IDRC, Quito, Ecuador.

VAN DE BERG L. and VAN VEENHUIZEN R. 2005, “Multiplefunctions of urban Agriculture,” Urban agriculture magazine14, RUAF, Leusden, The Netherlands.

VAN VEENHUIZEN R. (ed). 2006, Cities farming for thefuture, urban agriculture for green and productive cities. IIRRand ETC Urban Agriculture, Leusden, The Netherlands.

VILJOEN A., BOHN K. and HOWE J. 2005, Continuousproductive urban Landscapes CPULs: designing urban agri-culture for sustainable cities, Architectural Press, Oxford,United Kingdom.

UNCHS. 2001, State of the World’s Cities, Nairobi, Kenya.

UN HABITAT. 2004, “Dialogue on Urban Realities,”Working paper of the Committee of PermanentRepresentatives to UN-HABITAT for World Urban Forum2004 (HSP/WUF/2/5, draft 17/03/04).

WILBERS J. 2005, “Case Study: Bond Van Volkstuinders –BVV (Association of Gardeners),” Produced in the context of

Social organisations of urban and peri-urban producers:Management models and innovative alliances for policyinfluencing, IPES, IDRC and ETC Urban Agriculture,Leusden, The Netherlands.

Authors’ AAddress:Marielle DubbelingSenior adviserETC Urban Agriculture/RUAFThe Netherlandsm.dubbeling@etcnl.nl

Laura Bracalenti and Laura LagorioCentro de Estudios del Ambiente HumanoUniversidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentinabracalenti@yahoo.com, chiflonll@yahoo.com.ar

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

2,

June

20

09

Pa

rtic

ipat

ory

desi

gn o

f pu

blic

spa

ces.

..M

arie

lle D

ubbe

ling,

Lau

ra B

raca

lent

i & L

aura

Lag

orio