thesis urban agriculture

THESIS REPORT

URBAN AGRICULTURE

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE

NETHERLANDS

Lobke Jansen Jimmy Wolf

URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 2

THESIS REPORT

URBAN AGRICULTURE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE

NETHERLANDS

June 2nd 2010, Zwolle/Amersfoort

AUTHORS

Jimmy Wolf, 2410137

Lobke Jansen, 2409555

STUDY

Urban and regional planning

COACH

Mr. H. Haccoû, Saxion University of Applied Sciences

ASSESOR

Mrs. G. Stegeman, Saxion University of Applied Sciences

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior

permission of the authors.


Management summary

This thesis report is about urban agriculture and is mainly divided into adaptation measures and the mitigation

effects of urban agriculture on global warming. We devoted the first chapter to form a good picture about

urban agriculture and the connection between the adaptation and mitigation effects. Both positive and

negative aspects will be mentioned and to get a visual idea how urban agriculture looks like there will be given

a few case studies where it is already implemented.

To compare these case studies for adaptation effects and mitigation effects on global warming we need a type

of rating system, which allows us to rate the different case studies subjectively. The mitigation effects on global

warming are divided in labels which contain the improvement in air quality, energy cut down for local

apartments and the ability to hold water. The adaptation effects are measured in the social effects, the

economic effects and the organization effects. By scoring different ratings on the different labels you already

get a good indication of which type of urban agriculture has got the most advantages, but this is not exact

enough to give a good prediction. Therefore we need a second rating system to get a good measure.

Because the labels are not all of the same importance to the success of urban agriculture so we divided these

labels in different weighting factors and composed a multicriteria-analyses. The difference in weighting factors

are indicated and explained in this multicriteria-analyses table.

From this point on we have 2 different indications how to get a good rating on the different case studies and

point out the best case studies for this thesis. By these 2 calculations (these can be found in chapter 2.3) we

composed our own final rating for these case studies which are shown on the lower left corner of every case

study.

After rating 5 different case studies, the most sufficient type of urban agriculture is rooftop gardening. The

greatest advantage of rooftop gardening is that it reduces energy usage and it has many social benefits in

comparison to other types of urban agriculture.

At this moment it is of importance to find a suited location to implement rooftop gardening. We chose a

representative city for the Netherlands and the most suitable city is Amersfoort, because of its size, inhabitants

and sustainability. The municipality of Amersfoort is also busy with the “Amersfoort vernieuwt” program,

which means they will rebuild and renew great parts of the city. An area called Schuilenburg is the most suited

because it has many flat rooftops and low income inhabitants. There will be done a research how rooftop

gardening will implement in this part of town.

Finally this thesis will result in an advice. Here we will reflect on our own findings and give advice about why

urban agriculture should be implemented, how it can be implemented and other points of interest.


Preface

After completing the theoretical part of our study in spatial planning, it was time to start thinking about an

educative, challenging, unique and most of all interesting project to research before we could receive our

degrees in spatial planning. While searching for such a suitable project we both discovered that we were

especially interested in climate change and the impacts it has on the Dutch society and landscape. Because of

this mutual interest we decided to work together but we still didn’t have an object to study and research.

During conversations and interviews with Huib Haccoû we found out that Dutch spatial planning has a huge

influence and responsibility in climate proofing the Netherlands. Huib Haccoû advised us to look at urban

agriculture/agriculture to learn if we liked a project in this direction. After watching some YouTube films and

reading a few articles we decided to take on this project and we plunged ourselves into the world of climate

change and urban agriculture/agriculture.

After a rough start defining and shaping the project we eventually took off with a clear goal and task division.

During the project we were part of the informative climate classes organized by Huib Haccoû. These classes

were always very informative and we could help others solving or helping out with their problems during the

researches which, of course, they did for us too.

Because we did not have a working environment but researched mostly at home, it was very challenging to

keep our minds focused. It’s easily to get distracted when there is nobody watching you. Luckily, we were able

to motivate each other so we managed to keep more or less to our time planning. Working together has turned

out well for us and it gave an extra dimension to the research. We were constantly able to discuss the project

and test each other.

The past five months have resulted in this report. We hope it is everything which is expected. Last but not least

we want to thank a few people who contributed to our research.

Prof. H. Haccoû Coach

Owner of Haccoû Consulting & Design

Saxion University of Applied Sciences

Dr. G. Stegeman Course Director International Master Program

Coordinator International Cooperation

Saxion University of Applied Sciences

Dr. M. Beguin External environmental advisor Municipality of Amersfoort

Mr. W. Oxener Landscape architect Municipality of Amersfoort

Mr. B. Blijleven Urban planner Municipality of Amersfoort

Dr. J. Klostermann Researcher governance of climate adaptation Wageningen UR

Dr. ir. A. Dieleman DLO-researcher Wageningen UR

Ir. L. Heutink Livestock researcher Wageningen UR

Ing. E. van Groningen Developer food strategy Amersfoort Stichting Eemstad Lab

Ing. W. Kuijper Conceptual planner

Owner of Zooow! Building formats

The climate class Students of Saxion University


Table of content

ABBREVIATIONS 9

INTRODUCTION 10

THE PROBLEM 10

CONSEQUENCES 10

POSSIBILITIES 11

RESEARCH APPROACH 11

READING INDICATOR 11

1 URBAN AGRICULTURE: THEORETICALLY 12

1.1 URBAN AGRICULTURE 12

1.1.1 THE BENEFITS AND NECESSITY OF URBAN AGRICULTURE 12

1.1.2 THE DISADVANTAGES/BOTTLENECKS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE 13

1.1.3 TYPES OF URBAN AGRICULTURE 13

1.2 MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 13

1.2.1 THE BENEFITS AND NECESSITY OF MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 14

1.2.2 LONG TERM MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 16

1.2.3 EU AND NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK 16

1.3 ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE 17

1.3.1 THE BENEFITS AND NECESSITY OF ADAPTATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 17

1.3.2 SHORT TERM ADAPTATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 18

1.3.3 EU AND NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK 18

1.4 MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE VS. ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE 19

1.4.1 COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES 19

1.4.2 INTERFERENCE IN PRACTICE 19

1.5 CONCLUSIONS 20

2 URBAN AGRICULTURE: METHODICALLY 21

2.1 MITIGATION 21

2.1.1 AIR LABEL 21

2.1.2 ENERGY LABEL 22

2.1.3 WATER LABEL 22

2.2 ADAPTATION 23

2.2.1 SOCIAL CAPITAL 23

2.2.2 ECONOMIC LABEL 24

2.2.3 ORGANIZATION LABEL 24

2.3 MULTICRITERIA-ANALYSES 25

2.3.1 LABELS 25

2.3.2 MULTICRITERIA-ANALYSES 25


2.3.4 FINAL SCORE 25

3 URBAN AGRICULTURE: PRACTICALLY 27

3.1 CASE STUDY 1: ROOFTOP GARDENING IN ST. PETERSBURG. 27

3.1.1 FACTSHEET 27

3.1.2 SUB CONCLUSION 28

3.2 CASE STUDY 2: ALLOTMENT AND COMMUNITY GARDENING IN LONDON 29

3.2.1 FACTSHEET 29


3.3 CASE STUDY 3: URBAN FARMS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 30

3.3.1 FACTSHEET 30


3.4 CASE STUDY 4: BACKYARD GARDENING AND GREENHOUSE ROOFTOPS IN THE GAZA-STRIP 31

3.4.1 FACTSHEET 31


3.5 CASE STUDY 5: COMMUNITY GARDENING IN HAVANA 32

3.5.1 FACT SHEET 32


3.6 CONCLUSION 33

4 URBAN AGRICULTURE ON ROOFTOPS: PRACTICALLY ADVANCED 34

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 34

4.1.1 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 34

4.1.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 34

4.1.3 WATER 34

4.2 SOCIAL BENEFITS 35

4.2.1 HEALTH 35

4.2.2 RECREATION 35

4.2.3 EDUCATION 35

4.2.4 PARTICIPATION 35

4.2.5 COHESION 35

4.2.6 SAFETY 35

4.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS 36

4.3.1 (SELF)EMPLOYMENT 36

4.3.2 FOOD SECURITY 36

4.3.3 DURABILITY 36

4.3.4 VALUE INCREASE 36

4.4 CHALLENGES 37

4.4.1 QUANTIFICATION BENEFITS 37

4.4.2 CONSTRUCTION 37

4.4.3 ACCESSIBILITY 37

4.4.4 COSTS 37


5 URBAN AGRICULTURE: APPLIED IN AMERSFOORT 39

5.1 PLACEMENT IN AMERSFOORT 39

5.1.1 AREA OF CHOICE 39

5.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF AREA 39

5.2 SPATIAL NEEDS AND EFFECTS 40

5.2.1 SPATIAL NEEDS 40

5.2.2 EFFECTS 40

5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 40

5.3.1 AIR QUALITY 41

5.3.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 41

5.3.3 WATER ABSORPTION 41

5.4 SOCIAL EFFECTS 41

5.4.1 HEALTH 41

5.4.2 EDUCATION 42

5.4.3 RECREATION 42

5.4.4 PARTICIPATION 42

5.4.5 COHESION 42

5.4.6 SAFETY 42

5.5 ECONOMICAL EFFECTS 42

5.5.1 (SELF)EMPLOYMENT 42

5.5.2 FOOD SECURITY 43

5.5.3 SHARE IN MARKETS 43

5.5.4 DURABILITY 43

5.5.5 VALUE INCREASE 43

5.5.6 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 43

5.6 LEGAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION 43

5.6.1 STAKEHOLDERS 43

5.6.2 BASIS 44

5.6.3 INVOLVEMENT GOVERNMENT 44

5.6.4 POLICIES 44

5.6.5 COMMUNICATION AND AWARENESS 44

6 URBAN AGRICULTURE: ADVISE AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45

6.1 WHY URBAN AGRICULTURE? 45

6.2 WHY ROOFTOP GARDENING? 45

6.3 WHERE TO IMPLEMENT URBAN AGRICULTURE? 46

6.4 HOW TO IMPLEMENT URBAN AGRICULTURE? 47

6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS 47

LIST OF DEFINITIONS 48

LIST OF FIGURES 50


LIST OF SOURCES 51

LITERATURE (BOOKS) 51

INTERNET 51

PUBLICATIONS (PDF, ARTICLES) 52

INTERVIEWS 56

APPENDIX 1 CASE STUDIES 57

APPENDIX 2 INTERVIEWS 71


Abbreviations

AR4 Assessment report 4

CO2 Carbon dioxide

EU European Union

FAO Food agriculture organization of the united nations

GHG’s Greenhouse gasses

IPCC Intergovernmental panel on climate change

KNMI Royal Dutch meteorological institute

MCA Multi-criteria analysis

ppm Parts per million

TAR Third assessment report

UA Urban agriculture

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WHO World health organization

WMO World Meteorological Organization

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


Introduction It is beyond doubt: the climate is changing globally. The inevitable effects of this change are visible, today and

in the future. Temperatures in the Netherlands have increased over the last decades more than the worldwide

average1. Therefore it’s necessary that mankind learns to live differently and make the world climate-proof.

This way the effects of climate change can be altered2.

The problem Since the last century the climate is changing. This time not only due to natural, predictable climate variability

3

which occurs constantly but also because of human influence. Over the 20th

century global economies have

industrialized and grown more than 40 times their original size. As an effect the need and use of energy began

to rise4. This resulted into a much higher concentration of greenhouse gas (GHG’s) emissions in the

atmosphere. For example the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by 80% between 1970 and 2004 and

GHG emissions grew by 70% between 1970 and 20045.

Due to these increased emissions mankind is the cause of a predicted temperature increase of 1,1 to 6,4

degrees Celsius this century1. This temperature increase has also consequences such as increased rainfall and a

sea level rise of 18-59 cm5. These consequences occur due to the build-up of GHG’s in the atmosphere. GHG’s

absorb some of the outgoing heat radiation and reradiate it back to the earth’s surface4. Therefore climate

change is also known as global warming.

Consequences The increasing temperature, the increasing rainfall and the rising sea level are the major changes in the climate.

The effects of climate change differ from region to region. Over a decade ago the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been introduced to consider possibilities on how to stabilize and

reduce global warming by reducing the emission of GHG’s and to cope with an inevitable temperature increase.

The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty joined by a majority of the countries. The treaty has been

extended by the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been developed from its origin in Japan in 1997 to

entering into force in 2005. Currently 187 countries have signed and ratified the Protocol.6 The objective is a

global GHG reduction of 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2012.

All members of the European Union (EU) have signed the protocol. Because the EU wants to decrease their

emission of GHG's by 8%, the contribution to this decrease has been determined per member. A large part,

70%, of these emissions occur in cities on the European continent. A great factor in the amount a member has

to decrease is found in economical status. The Netherlands have to decrease their emission by 6%.

The main climate consequences for the Netherlands will result in1:

• Frequently extremely warmer and dryer summers.

• More frequent and heavier rainfall.

• Increasing peak discharges of the rivers.

• Decreasing biodiversity because of adapting or migrating plants and animal species.

• Changes in agricultural and tourist sectors (positive and negative).

1 Source: Netherlands Environment Assesment Agency, 2005. The effects of climate change in the Netherlands.

2 Source: Minister of VROM Mrs. Cramer, 2009. Speech at International Urban Planning Congress Amsterdam.

3 Reference: Glossary page ….

4 Source: http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_global_warming.php

5 Source: IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report.

6 Source: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php


Possibilities Theoretically there are two fundamental response strategies on climate change; adaptation and mitigation.

Adaptation aims to alleviate impacts, such as an inevitable three degree Celsius temperature increase7, through

various actions. Mitigation on the other hand is a strategy to limit climate change by reducing greenhouse

gasses (GHG) and developing ‘sink’ opportunities8. The Dutch government uses both climate mitigation and

adaptation in order to prevent and adapt to the climate changes.

The biggest challenge in making the Netherlands climate-proof is to alter spatial planning. The living

environment has to be adjusted and/or changed in order to accommodate the effects of climate change and to

enable for measures to enhance the climate proofness of cities in the Netherlands. Though there are several

possibilities to adjust spatial planning in the Netherlands this research will focus on urban agriculture. Urban

agriculture is the use of space in the city for the production of a diversity of food and non-food products. This

lies in a range of vegetable gardens to greenhouses on rooftops9.

Fact:

50% of the world’s population lives in cities.10

Research approach The research aim is to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the relation between spatial planning

and climate change, by focusing on the contribution what urban agriculture can bring as an adaptation and

mitigation strategy, thus contributing to a climate neutral urban development strategy.

The main question of this research is:

‘To what degree can various types of urban agriculture contribute to climate neutralizing urban development in

a representative Dutch city regarding the improvement of environmental, social and economic aspects.'

The sub research questions are:

• What is urban agriculture, what are the benefits and difficulties?

• What is climate change and adaptation and mitigation of climate change?

• How are climate change and urban agriculture related?

• How can we define and analyze several case study on relevance and applicability?

• Which case study is best applicable and what are the benefits and difficulties of this case study?

• What is a representative Dutch city which can serve as a test case for urban agriculture?

• What are the consequences of the urban agriculture case on the representative city?

• How can it best be implemented?

Research intention This thesis is intended to be used within a municipal organization in order to establish knowledge concerning

urban agriculture and the possibilities it has. It is meant to raise awareness. This thesis is especially meant for

the department of urban development and management, section environmental services of the Amersfoort

municipality.

Reading indicator This research has been divided into five chapters. The first chapter is a theoretical chapter to further explain

urban agriculture, climate adaptation and climate mitigation to give a more complete picture how these

aspects will be used. The second chapter introduces a method to rate different types of urban agriculture

through the use of labels and a multicriteria-analyses. In the third chapter several case studies will be rated by

the method explained in chapter two and concludes in a final score. The fourth chapter gives advanced

information about the benefits of the best case study. Chapter five presents the best case study and how this

type of urban agriculture could be applied in the representative city. The sixth and final chapter results in

conclusions and recommendations.

7 Source: IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report.

8 Source: Fussel, H. R.J.T. Klein. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual

thinking. 9 Source: Interview Huib Haccoû, 2010

10 Source: Brook, R., J. Davila. 2000. The Peri-Urban Interface: A tale of two cities.


1 Urban agriculture: theoretically The term urban agriculture is for most people not hard to understand. The shortest explanation available is the

term itself, which indicates agriculture in an urban area. Therefore a lot of people think to have a clear picture

about what urban agriculture actually is, but do not think about other possibilities like different types of urban

agriculture, benefits and disadvantages. To make it even more complicated, these aspects can be separated in

mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Both different ways of closing in on urban agriculture have

benefits and disadvantages. This chapter provides necessary theory on urban agriculture, mitigation of and

adaptation to climate change.

1.1 Urban agriculture There have been many different definitions of urban agriculture offered in the growing literature of urban

agriculture. The current definition that is widely accepted by international organizations as the UNFCCC and

IPCC is created in 1999 and is still being used today. This definition is:

"Urban Agriculture is an industry located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, an urban

centre, a city or metropolis, which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food

products, reusing mainly human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban

area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area"11

.

This definition has been created by Luc Mougeot of the International Development Research Centre and used

in technical and training publications by UN-HABITAT’s Urban Management Program , FAO’ s Special Program

for Food Security and international agricultural research centers.

Fact:

800 million people are involved in urban agriculture world-wide and contribute to feeding urban residents.12

1.1.1 The benefits and necessity of urban agriculture

The benefits that urban agriculture brings along to cities that implement this practice are numerous. The

transformation of cities from only consumers of food to generators of agricultural products contributes to

social, economical and environmental benefits. A summary of benefits for urban agriculture:

• Urban agriculture raises the air quality.

• Urban agriculture saves energy.

• Urban agriculture has water absorbing abilities.

• Urban agriculture improves social engagement and awareness.

• Urban agriculture improves health conditions.

• Urban agriculture improves levels of food security and availability.

• Urban agriculture improves the quality of the urban environment through greening.

• Urban agriculture assists to close the open loop system in urban areas characterized by the

importation of food from rural zones and the exportation of waste to regions outside the city or town.

• Wastewater and organic solid waste can be transformed into resources for growing agriculture

products: the former can be used for irrigation, the latter as fertilizer.

• Vacant urban areas can be used for agriculture production.

• Other natural resources can be conserved. The use of wastewater for irrigation increases the

availability of freshwater for drinking and household consumption.

• Urban agriculture can help to preserve bioregional ecologies from being transformed into cropland.

• Local production of food also allows savings in transportation costs, storage, and in product loss, what

results in food cost reduction.

11

Source: Mougeot, L.J.A. 2005. Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban

Agriculture. 12

Source: FAO. 1999. Urban and peri-urban agriculture.


1.1.2 The disadvantages/bottlenecks of urban agriculture

Most disadvantages of urban agriculture originates due to the lifestyle of most inhabitants of the urban areas.

Growing your own vegetables requires dedication to look after the vegetables every day and knowledge how to

grow the vegetables. A summary of disadvantages/bottlenecks13

concerning urban agriculture:

• A lot of people which live in urban areas have limited knowledge how to grow vegetables properly.

• A lot of people don't have the time available to grow their own vegetables.

• As a basic rule: bigger projects equal more anonymity which degrades the social aspect of urban

agriculture. The difference between growing your own food and buying it in the supermarket does

not have great economical profit.

• Urban agriculture needs a lot of promotion and communication.

• There are seasons in which same kinds of vegetables can be yielded. The price for these vegetables is

low and cannot be traded because everyone yields them at the same time. It is possible to

deepfreeze or waking (short boil, put it in an airtight jar) the vegetables.

• Urban agriculture can be sensitive for vandalism.

• It is almost impossible to provide a city 100% by the use of urban agriculture.

1.1.3 Types of urban agriculture

Urban agriculture can be used for a great variety of purposes. Some types of urban agriculture are used on a

large, commercial scale and produce and maintain a variety of vegetables and livestock. On the other hand

there are small scale types of urban agriculture which are used as vegetable gardens and produce only a small

amount of vegetables. The research is limited to small scale (district or neighborhood) urban agriculture with

vegetable production. Due to the limited scale level the following types of urban agriculture are researched:

• Rooftop gardening • Allotment gardening

• City farms • Greenhouse gardening

• Community gardening

The types of urban agriculture which are excluded are types which are used commercially and those which

maintain livestock, produce trees and aquatic farming.

1.2 Mitigation of climate change According to the English dictionary mitigation means relief. In a climate context mitigation means relieving

pressure on nature by reducing or eliminating GHG’s such as CO2, in other words the environmental effects.

These aspects will be divided into air quality, energy efficiency and water absorption. The definition of climate

mitigation which will be used during this research is:

Any adjustment that permanently eliminates or reduces the human causes of long term risks of climate change

such as the emission of greenhouse gasses and enhancing sink opportunities14

. The long-term risks of climate changes are mostly unknown, but there are several predictions concerning the

consequences of rising GHG concentrations in the atmosphere such as a sea level rise and more extreme

weather conditions. A more extreme example is the planet Venus, where global warming is totally out of

control. This tells us that there is no natural limit to global warming. A more exact prediction of the raise in

temperature in combination with CO2 emissions is the table on page 14 about long term mitigation. There are a few primary GHG’s in the Earth’s atmosphere both anthropogenic as natural. These are:

• Water vapor (H2O) • Carbon dioxide (CO2)

• Nitrous oxide (N2O) • Methane (CH4)

• Ozone (O3)

This research will focus on the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). The definition also includes sink opportunities

which is any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a

greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere.

13

Source: Interview municipality of Amersfoort: Willem Oxener, landscape architect. Appendix 2 14

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


1.2.1 The benefits and necessity of mitigation of climate change

The necessity of mitigation of climate change is the rapid growth of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The

growth in many sectors are growing exponentially and will continue to do that if there are no actions taken.

Adaptation is part of the solution, but we need to eliminate or reduce the human caused greenhouse gasses for

a long term solution to live on this planet.

Fact:

By 2015 about 26 cities in the world are expected to have a population of 10 million or more. To feed a city of

this size – at least 6000 tons of food must be imported each day.15

The largest sector which is polluting the atmosphere are emissions caused by fuel combustions (79%)16

as can

be seen in figure 1. How much fossil fuels are used for transportation and how much could be saved by urban

agriculture is illustrated with the next example:

‘Fossil fuel use for transportation generates about a third of global carbon dioxide emissions, and global trade

alone accounts for 1/8 of world energy use. Much international and intra-national transportation is food-

related. In the industrial world a typical mouthful of food travels 2000 km from farm gate to consumer. Even in

relatively tiny Britain, food related transport accounts for 25% of all trips. Thus, local food production for local

consumption has considerable potential to reduce the need for transportation and thus the rate of atmospheric

CO2 accumulation and possible climate change’17

.

A big part of the pollution created by the combustion of fossil fuels could be eliminated by the use of urban

agriculture. Because the distance between farm gate and consumer is shortened and therefore less transport is

needed. When urban agriculture is used in combination with energy saving and energy delivering options the

CO2 emissions will be reduced even further. An option could be rooftop gardening or greenhouse gardening.

Chapter four will continue on the possibilities of several types of urban agriculture.

Figure 1: GHG emission in CO2 equivalents.

The beauty of the mitigation effects of urban agriculture is that it works both ways. As shown above, urban

agriculture reduces energy usage and therefore fuel combustion, which are the most polluting aspects , but

also by the use of photosynthesis urban agriculture eliminates the damage that already has been done to our

environment.

Fact:

CO2 absorption by the vegetable depends on the light intensity and CO2 concentration in the air. At a light

radiation between 150 and 750 W/m2 the CO2 absorption is between 2 and 8 g/m

2/hour.

18

15

Source: Drescher A.W., P. Jacobi, J. Amend. 2000. Urban Food Security: Urban agriculture, a response to crisis? 16

Source: European Environment Agency. 2010. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990 – 2008

and inventory report 2010 17

Source: DEFRA. 2005. The validity of food miles as an indicator for sustainable development. 18

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


The Dutch climate zone

The Dutch climate zone has got a so called Cfb-climate, a mild sea climate with mild winters and cool

summers. The climate is influenced by the North Sea, which moderates the temperature throughout the

whole year. The last decades the temperature is fluctuating, but there is a noticeable rise in temperature. It

has not yet been proven that the cause of these fluctuations are the increase of greenhouse gasses.

Köppen climate classification

The Köppen climate classification is one of the most widely used climate classification systems. It was first

published by German climatologist Wladimir Köppen in 1884, with several later modifications by Köppen

himself notably in 1918 and 1936. Later, German climatologist Rudolf Geiger collaborated with Köppen on

changes to the classification system, which is thus sometimes referred to as the Köppen–Geiger climate

classification system.

The system is based on the concept that native vegetation is the best expression of climate. Thus, climate

zone boundaries have been selected with vegetation distribution in mind. It combines average annual and

monthly temperatures and precipitation, and the seasonality of precipitation.

For a good overview of the Dutch climate zone and comparable zones see the picture below. Countries with a

comparable climate zone in Europe are: Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, West Germany and a few

areas in East Germany, a great percentage of France, the Northern regions of Spain and the Southern regions

of Denmark. There are also a few other places around the world with a comparable climate zone like the

Netherlands. These climate zones are located in New Zealand, parts of Southern Australia, a part of

Argentina, a small part of Brazil, a part of Colombia, a small part of Venezuela and a small part of Ecuador.

The rest of the comparable climate zones around the world are very small and insignificant for this research.

For a detailed world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification see appendix 2.


1.2.2 Long term mitigation of climate change

IPCC also has made a prediction about long term mitigation of climate change. Shown in figure 2, this

prediction assumes six different stability levels of CO2 emissions varying from 445 to 1130 ppm CO2. To explain

this table the most beneficial and the least beneficial situation will be explained.

The most beneficial situation is a stabilization of 445 and 490 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and assumes that

there will be taken action on a short notice and that these actions are drastic. This means there is still a global

temperature increase of 2.0 to 2.4 degrees Celsius. In this situation the highest amount of concentration CO2

occurs between the year 2000 and 2015. Since its already 2010 this scenario is almost unachievable, but it

would result in a decrease of 50 to 85 ppm CO2 in the year 2050 compared to the year 2000.

The least beneficial situation in this table is at a stabilization level of 855 to 1130 ppm CO2. This means there

will be global temperature rise of 2.9 to 6.1 degrees Celsius. The highest amount of CO2 concentration levels

will occur between the year 2060 and 2090. This results in an increase of 90 to 140 ppm CO2 concentration

levels in the year 2050 compared to the year 2000.

Stab level

(ppm CO2-eq)

Global mean

temperature increase at

equilibrium (Celsius)

Peak year co2 Reduction in 2050 co2

emissions compared to

2000

445 – 490 2.0 – 2.4 2000 – 2015 -85 to -50

490 – 535 2.4 – 2.8 2000 – 2020 -60 to -30

535 – 590 2.8 – 3.2 2010 – 2030 -30 to +5

590 – 710 3.2 – 4.0 2020 – 2060 +10 to +60

710 – 855 4.0 – 4.9 2050 – 2080 +25 to +85

855 – 1130 4.9 – 6.1 2060 – 2090 +90 to +140

Figure 2: Mitigation of climate change stabilization levels

It can be concluded that mitigation of climate change works over a long period of time. A rise in temperature is

inevitable, but we can reduce it how sooner we take actions.

1.2.3 EU and national policy framework

Ever since scientists have recognized and acknowledged climate change and its effects the goal has been to

decrease or stop and therefore mitigate climate change. The IPCC has global sectors in which mitigation is of

great use, which are energy supply, transport, buildings, industry, agriculture, forests and waste.19

Policies were made to provide guidelines and measures on how to reduce the emission of GHG’s, municipalities

are trying their best and are competing of being the most climate-proof municipality in the Netherlands. The

Dutch government has set a measurable goal being a 30% reduction of CO2 in 2020. These measures are taken

for the future, the build environment which already exists is not taken into account.

In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol to prevent climate changes and global warming runs out. To keep the process on

the line there is an urgent need for a renewed climate protocol. At the conference in Copenhagen 2009 the

parties of the UNFCCC met for the last time on government level before the climate agreement needed to be

renewed. The Copenhagen Accord asked countries to submit emissions targets by the end of January 2010, and

paves the way for further discussions to occur at the 2010 UN climate change conference in Mexico and the

mid-year session in Bonn. By early February, 67 countries had registered their targets.20

Despite widely held expectations that the Copenhagen summit would produce a legally binding treaty, the

conference was plagued by negotiating deadlock and the "Copenhagen Accord" is not legally enforceable.21

19

Source: IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. 20

Source: http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php 21

Source: BBC. 2010. Harrabin’s notes: After Copenhagen.


1.3 Adaptation to climate change

Adaptation is a word that although it seems self explainable, remains vague and undefined. It means adjusting

the current situation so it will fit for future situations. Concerning climate change the concept of adaptation is

not very different. Countless definitions of adaptation have been invented over the years. The definition of

adaptation which will be used in this research originated in assessment report 4 (AS4) by the IPCC. This

definition is:

Initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected

climate change effects22

.

Initiatives and measures are technologies, processes, and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or

effects below anticipated future levels. These should decrease the vulnerability which is the degree to which a

natural or human system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change. A

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

system22

. The definition states that not only expected climate change effects should be reduced by adaptation

but also actual (current) climate change effects. Actual effects of climate change are also called climate

variability.

1.3.1 The benefits and necessity of adaptation of climate change

Only recently the necessity of an adaptation strategy is recognized. Though the UNFCCC had as a priority in

1994 to establish adaptation as a priority the focus was eventually solely placed on mitigation23

. Therefore

adaptation policies are scarce and haven’t been developed as far as mitigation policies have over the years24

.

The issue of adaptation has become particularly important when the IPCC published their third assessment

report (TAR). Since this report adaptation became a more urgent policy priority for climate change.

The European Commission Green Paper

on adaptation explained and stressed

that without proper adaptation

measures damages and associated

economic costs will rise sharply until

2080. Figure 3 25

shows the costs with

and without adaptation measures. The

figure explains that damage costs

without adaptation measures are much

higher than when adaptation measures

have been taken.

Despite the need and success of

mitigation based strategies, see

paragraph 1.2, to reduce long term

emission of GHG’s, an unavoidable

degree of climate change will occur.

Climate change is inevitable even if

GHG’s were reduced to zero as of

now22

. This is due to historical GHG

emissions and climate variability.

22

Source: IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report. 23

Source: European Environment Agency, 2009. Report on good practice measures for climate change adaptation

in management plans. 24

Source: Groot, M.I., L.M.L. Wielders, G.J. van de Vreede. 2008. Relatie tussen mitigatie en adaptatie

op gebouwniveau: inventarisatie van tegenstrijdigheden en synergismen. 25

Source: European Commission. 2007. Green paper: adapting to climate change in Europe: options for EU action.

Figure 3: Impact of adaptation measures on damage due to low and high

sea level rise. Costs with and without adaptation measures.


Climate variability is an important factor when looking at adaptation strategies.26

Climate variability refers to

variations in the mean state and other statistics of the climate on all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of

individual weather events. This may occur due to natural internal processes within the climate system or to

variations in natural or anthropogenic external circumstances. An example of climate variability is El Niño. An

inevitable natural event which takes place every three to seven years. Coping with both historical emissions as

climate variability means adapting to the circumstances so natural and human systems are less vulnerable to

climate change.

Adaptation of climate change is also a necessity because of the benefits it creates for current generations who

bear the costs of climate change to also profit from them. The introduction of these measures are therefore

more likely to achieve a basis with inhabitants because adaptation measures are on a local or regional level.

Urban agriculture is especially a good example of an adaptation strategy because it creates a focus on social

and economical aspects by preparing and improving the surroundings of inhabitants in a city to climate change,

see paragraph 1.1.1.

The major characteristics of an urban agriculture adaptation strategy are behavioral and spatial adjustments.

Behavioral and spatial adjustment have an effect on the economic and social wellbeing of a community. Figure

4 summarizes the social and economical characteristics which benefit a community by using urban agriculture.

Socially Economically

Health (Self)Employment

Education Food security

Recreation Share in markets

Participation Durability

Cohesion Value increase of buildings/surroundings

Safety Financial feasibility

Figure 4: Social and economical benefits of urban agriculture

1.3.2 Short term adaptation on climate change

Adaptation strategies aim at short term solutions and adjustments. This is mainly because adaptation is for a

great part a reactive strategy. The actions taken are mostly a reaction on changes or expected changes in the

climate. Short term adaptation is for example the changing of crop mixes or planting and harvesting dates.

Adaptation concerns also long term measures but the effect of these measures can be seen and profited of by

inhabitants. For example transforming agricultural production by introducing integrated farming. Long-term

solutions also include building resilience into the physical infrastructure of the built environment. Urban

agriculture is on both sides of adaptation. By changing places, crops and growing cycles but at the same time

integrating another method of agricultural produce, both long and short term adaptation are in order.

1.3.3 EU and national policy framework

In 1.3.1 the necessity and need for policies concerning adaptation of climate change is explained. Next to this

Green Paper the European Commission also produced a White Paper about adapting to climate change called

towards a European framework for action. The European Commission aims at a comprehensive adaptation

strategy in 2013. The conversion of the Green Paper from science to policy has resulted in 2007 in the National

Adaptation Strategy for the Netherlands. The policy describes the main adjustments that have to be made to

Dutch spatial planning. This concerns mainly spatial adjustments per area type, a social and governmental task,

an intersectoral and integral approach and a first attempt of an agenda. The agenda on adaptation will be

presented in the course of 2010.

26

Source: Smit, B. I. Burton, R.J.T. Klein, J. Wandel. 2008. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and

variability. 27

Source: IDRC/UN-Habitat. 2003. Guidelines for municipal policymaking on urban agriculture.

Fact:

Low income urban dwellers spend between 40% and 60% of their income on food each year.27


1.4 Mitigation of climate change vs. adaptation to climate change The IPCC mentions both climate mitigation as adaptation strategies as separate but what are the

commonalities and differences between these strategies and is it possible to use them in addition or

complementary to each other concerning urban agriculture?

1.4.1 Commonalities and differences

The two strategies have a different history as described above. But in order to make a fair comparison between

the two methods their commonalities and differences are shown in figure 5 28

below.

Mitigation Adaptation

Common target Sustainable development Sustainable development

Distinct characters Proactive action, long term

reduction of climate change

impacts

Reactive action, iterative

depending on the real impacts of

climate change. Proactive based

on projected impacts

Temporal effect Benefits to later generations Benefits can more or less be

appropriated by those bearing

costs

Geographic effect Global benefits, varying per region Primarily local benefits

Co-operation degree required Global National, regional

Sectoral effect Focus on emissions from fossil

fuels

Very heterogeneous with some

stress on agriculture

Relation to uncertainty Setting of emission targets has to

be adjusted regularly to take into

account new projections

Reactive adaptation can wait until

more concrete evidence of climate

impacts is available.

Equity Free-riding problem, especially

motivated with countries less

vulnerable to climate change

Unfair, the victims are not always

responsible for causing climate

change

Secondary benefit Some options have high local

secondary benefits.

Technology transfer.

Some options are beneficial in the

absence of climate change ‘win-

win’ option.

Technology transfer.

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

1.4.2 Interference in practice

Though both strategies aim to avoid damages of climate change and seek ways of developing present and

future generations in a sustainable manner29

, it is of importance to know whether they interfere, positively or

negatively, with each other when used together. Agentschap NL, a Dutch governmental organization

specializing in spatial planning, environment and sustainability, issued for a research regarding this interference

and whether synergy is a possibility. The research describes adaptation and mitigation measures concerning

drought, water storage, heat stress, energy, efficiency and sustainable energy. By confronting them it shows

whether they have a neutral effect, a positive effect or a negative effect on each other29

.

The research concluded that only a few mitigation measures have a negative effect on adaptation. For

example passive sun-energy and increasing daylight causes warmer houses which is unwanted in summertime

due to the higher demand for cooling. Adaptation measures also don’t have a lot of negative effects on

mitigation. The measure which is most harmful to mitigation is the use of air-conditioning30

.

28

Source: Hanh, H.D., A. Michaelowa, D. D. Tuan. 2007. Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the

context of sustainable development. 29

Source: Groot, M.I., L.M.L. Wielders, G.J. van de Vreede. 2008. Relatie tussen mitigatie en adaptatie op

gebouwniveau: inventarisatie van tegenstrijdigheden en synergismen.


1.5 Conclusions Urban agriculture has many benefits like improving the air quality, reduce energy usage, social benefits and

economic benefits. These advantages are very important for future generations and for the habitability of this

planet. The most important bottlenecks are mostly originated by the lack of knowledge, lack of time and lack of

making much money by producing vegetables. The bottlenecks of urban farming do not compensate the

advantages, because many bottlenecks could be resolved fairly easily.

Not all types of urban agriculture will be used on the continuance of this research. This research will continue

with the following types of urban agriculture because they are most relevant when looked at size,

commerciality and most important social aspects:


• Rooftop gardening

• Greenhouse gardening

• City farms

• Allotment gardening

Mitigation and adaptation are important aspects to build a better and more sustainable future. Both strategies

have totally different results, but the main goal is the same. Based on this chapter it is possible to use

adaptation and mitigation in the same strategy. Though the strategies are in very different development

phases there are a lot of commonalities between adaptation and mitigation strategies. They both aim for

sustainable development and they deal with climate change. The strategies are complementary to each other

as can be seen in figure 5. While mitigation seeks to reduce and prevent the emissions of GHG’s in the long run,

adaptation can be the solution for short-term climate change measures.

This research divides several subjects over mitigation and adaptation. This division can be seen in figure 6.

Mitigation Adaptation

Air quality Social (health, education, awareness etc.)

Energy efficiency Economic (employment, food security, feasibility)

Water absorption Organization (policy, basis, stakeholders)

Figure 6: Division subject mitigation and adaptation

The current generation will also benefit from these measures which can result in a larger basis with the people.

It is important to know where the bottlenecks are but also where the measures of both strategies can

strengthen each other. Therefore climate adaptation and mitigation will be used complementary to each other

to create one strong strategy for present and future generations.

The next chapter is about a method to analyze case studies on the five types of urban agriculture mentioned

above. This method is used for both mitigation and adaptation.


2 Urban agriculture: methodically

In the previous chapter urban agriculture is defined and the strategies of mitigation of and adaptation to

climate change are explained. In this chapter we are going to make a translation how these aspects of both

strategies, mentioned in figure 6, can be analyzed and rated in a logical and grounded manner. This chapter

introduces labels on all aspects of mitigation and adaptation strategies. These labels enable us to research the

case study in a qualitative way. All labels are connected to weighing factors which allow us to rank some

aspects higher than others because of their importance in relation to urban agriculture. The ratings form the

basis of a multicriteria-analyses. This rating strategy will be further explained in this chapter.

2.1 Mitigation As shown in chapter 1 there are a lot of aspects that can contribute to the solution of global warming

considering urban agriculture. This paragraph explains the method how different types of urban agriculture

considering mitigation are rated. This will be done by three types of labels. The first label regards the ability of

the vegetation to improve air quality, the second label regards the ability of the vegetation to insulate and

therefore how energy efficient it is and the third label regards the ability of the vegetation to hold water.30

2.1.1 Air Label

The importance of the quality of the surrounding air is obvious. The most important question is how to remove

the poisoning gasses and particulates. It is well known that plants and trees absorb gasses (CO2) and maybe less

known that they also absorb particulates and reduce the urban heat island effect. Absorbing particulates and

reducing CO2 from the air has almost got the same buildup as shown on the label below, but this label only

indicates the absorption of particulates, but it effects both

aspects. The effects of inhaling particulate matter have been

widely studied in humans and animals and include asthma, lung

cancer, cardiovascular issues, and premature death. The size of

the particle is a main determinant of where in the respiratory

tract the particle will come to rest when inhaled. Because of the

size of the particle, they can penetrate the deepest part of the

lungs.31

The air label indicates the absorption of particulates by different

types of vegetation. The coniferous species absorbs the most

particulates as shown in label 1 on the bottom of this page. This is

a good indication of what types of vegetation should be used in

combination with urban agriculture. The plants used for urban

agriculture are in this label "permanent plants", but in

combination with glass houses, vegetables could be grown and

these fall in the category "bushes & hedges".

The permanent plants growing in the Dutch Climate zone only

grow specific vegetables. This moderate sea climate is able to

grow leek, radish, lettuce, peas, French beans, carrots, unions,

paprika, cucumber and tomatoes32

.

Permanent plants have a grade D and bushes & hedges have a grade C. Both are not bad for the air quality, but

in many cases the vegetation used for urban agriculture could easily be used in combination with coniferous

species or hardwood. These additions are also beneficial to the social aspects of urban agriculture which you

can read more about in paragraph 2.2.

30

Source: Vlaskamp, W., L. Heutinck. 2008. Thesis: Er was een een stad bedekt met groene daken. 31

Source: Region four: Laboratory and Field operations. 2008. PM 2.5 Objectives and History: environmental

protection agency. 32

Source: http://www.boerenbond-welkoop.nl/pagina/advice.html?ID=63089


2.1.2 Energy Label

In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474

exajoules (474×1018 J) with 80 to 90 percent derived from the

combustion of fossil fuels.33

This is equivalent to an average

power consumption rate of 15 terawatts (1.504×1013 W). Not

all of the world's economies track their energy consumption

with the same rigor, and the exact energy content of a barrel of

oil or a ton of coal will vary with quality. There are many

solutions needed to lower this energy consumption to really

take effect worldwide, but a good start is the use of urban

agriculture. Urban agriculture has many benefits, but in this

paragraph there will be referred to the energy label used in "Er

was eens een stad Bedekt met groene daken" to find out how

energy efficient urban agriculture is and compare them with

comparable case studies in chapter 4.

The label indicates the energy efficiency of the substrate used

on rooftops. Substrates used for urban agriculture are

commonly rather thick, because the vegetation needs good

rooting for optional growth. Therefore most urban agriculture

would rate an A or an B label in this label. Urban agriculture is

also suited to combine with glass houses (on rooftops and also

on ground locations) to save even more energy, which u can

read more about in chapter 4. Urban agriculture is very energy

efficient and is suited for many locations.

2.1.3 Water label

Urban agriculture has many benefits and one of them is the

ability to absorb water. On normal rooftops without a substrate,

100% of the rainfall will wash into the sewers. This is a total

waste of this fresh water resource and it could lead to

overflowing the sewage system. Urban agriculture will make use

of this fresh water resource and will grow a great verity of

vegetation.

The comparison in the label is based on the thickness of the

substrate. This will be measured per 100 m2, because the water

absorption varies on larger scales. An A label will be rated if the

substrate is thicker than 50 cm. The slope of the roof is not

included in the calculations of this label, because there is no

good data available about the subject yet. This could be an idea

for future research for improving urban agriculture.

In this label urban agriculture would in most cases rate an A or an

B label because of the rather thick substrate needed on rooftops

as said in the previous paragraph. Some good examples can be

found in chapter 3 "Case studies". Ready more about this in

chapter 3.

33

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


2.2 Adaptation

2.2.1 Social capital

One of the main pillars of urban agriculture is social capital also referred to as the invisible wealth of a

community. Urban agriculture aims at supporting, maintaining and improving social bonds and wellbeing. The

definition of social capital we utilize is the following:

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

benefit34

.

Valuing and measuring social capital is debatable because of the lack of generally accepted definitions and

measuring tools. Though social is one of the important issues concerning urban agriculture we gave values and

composed a label. We assumed that the following subjects are most important concerning social urban

agriculture. Each item will be explained and is equally important. A case study gets rated A when all subjects

have taken part positively, B when only four subjects etcetera, etcetera.

Health

Gardening and small size agriculture is a physical activity in

which all people can take part. It does not strain the body to

much. Being outside and surrounded by green/plants has a

positive effect on stress and other mental diseases or difficulties.

Next to this gardeners are able to consume healthier food.

Health improvement is also measured by label air; the reduction

of CO2.

Education

Learning about the way our food grows and where it comes

from. A lot of children but also adults do not know the origin of

their food or how it is grown and where it travels. Climate

change is also a learning factor.

Recreation

Recreation is not often found near residential areas. Urban

agriculture functions as a nearby green relaxation source.

Participation

Means the accessibility of Urban Agriculture. Participation exists in three forms:

- Private: for example on rooftops or in backyards. Solely accessible for the residents of the house or

apartment building.

- Semi-public: for example allotments, community gardens, office garden. Limited access only for

members and employees. Anyone can become a member.

- Public: for example open community gardens and allotments. Free access for everyone.

Cohesion

Urban agriculture is able to increase a sense of neighborhood and community. Residents learn to know each

other faster and meet each other more often.

Safety

In urban areas there is an increased chance on vandalism and therefore it could occur you have to fence off

urban agriculture sites from the public. This is mostly the case in ground bound urban agricultural projects. If

there is no need for fencing of the site from the public this label increases one step.

34

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


2.2.2 Economic label

Another important pillar of urban agriculture are economics. The following shortlist represents the economic

label. The assumption has been made in accordance of the RUAF Magazine which describes the following

shortlist as key for urban agriculture35

. The rating is based on whether it has taken part in the case study.

(Self)Employment

Urban agriculture creates self-employment and income,

especially for the urban poor lacking access to other jobs and as a complementary source of income to low and middle income

households.

Food security

By farming inhabitants contribute to their own food requirements

and if it is possible requirements for others.

Share in markets

Excess food production can be sold in a local shop.

Durability

Are the materials which are used concerning urban agriculture

sustainable and is there organic produce.

Value increase

Green areas near residential areas add value to property.

Financial feasibility

The possibility of grants to maintain urban agriculture and can the project maintain itself.

2.2.3 Organization label

An important influence in succeeding or failing urban agriculture

is the organization. The organization consist out of the subjects

displayed below. Are all these subjects represented in the case

study and to what degree?

Stakeholders

The involvement of stakeholders not only inhabitants or residents

but also contributing companies and governments.

Basis

Is there a basis founded for the project? Not only with inhabitants

but also companies and government.

Involvement government

On which level is the government involved. Are they only

facilitating or are they guiding? The participation ladder is of

importance.

Policies

Urban agriculture is anchored in policies. The project is also anchored in the process. Within an organization

there is a specific person who you can address to with questions about urban agriculture.

Communication and awareness

To succeed with urban agriculture there has to be communication between the residents to improve the

quality of the products and cooperation.

35

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


2.3 Multicriteria-analyses

To rate the case studies on mitigation and adaptation aspects you need a uniform method to rate every type of

urban agriculture represented in the case studies. To realize this we combined the labels used in the previous

paragraph with a multicriteria-analyses. This chapter explains the values given to the labels, the multicriteria-

analyses and how the calculations are used to rate the different case studies in chapter 3.

2.3.1 Labels

The labels vary from A to G. As seen in the first two paragraphs label A is the best rating given to a specific

subject and G is the worst. A high rating results into a higher score. On what aspects the different labels are

rated can be found in paragraph 2.1 and 2.2. The value of each rating is displayed in figure 7.

Figure 7: Label ratings and values

2.3.2 Multicriteria-analyses

The case studies are rated by different labels. These labels differ in importance and therefore we added a

weighing factor for every label. For example, the air label is much more important than the water label because

it is key in the research of climate change. The water label is only a convenient advantage, but is no part of the

solution to the global warming. For this reason the air label gets a weighting factor of 10 and the water label a

weighting factor of 4. The descriptions of every label and weighting factor is given on the next page.

2.3.3 Calculating multicriteria-analyses

To calculate the final score for a given case study the following steps need to be taken. First the case study is

rated according to the labels presented in paragraph 2.1 and 2.2. For example the air label rates an A, the

energy label a C and so on. Here you determine the rating for every label. As said in paragraph 2.3.1. every

rating receives a specific value. There is no difference in value ratings yet. So every A rating gets 6 points, every

B rating 5 points etcetera. When this is determined, multiply the label rating with the correct weighting factor

as shown on the next page. For example, multiply the air label rating by 10, multiply the energy label rating by

9 and so on. Add up all these scores to calculate the final score to determine how efficient that example of

urban agriculture is on every level. An example is displayed in figure

Method Label rating Weighting factor Final score

Air label A (6) 10 60 (6 x 10)

Energy label B (5) 9 45 (5 x 9)

Water label A (6) 4 24 (6 x 4)

Social capital label B (5) 8 40 (5 x 8)

Economic label C (4) 7 28 (4 x 7)

Organization label D (3) 6 18 (3 x 6)

215

Figure 8: Example multicriteria analyses

2.3.4 Final score

The final score can vary from 0 to 264. If a case study reaches a final

score of 264 it means that it scores a label rating of all A's and a final

value of 0 means it scores a label rating of all G's. Of caurse there are a

lot of varieties in between. The different scores are divided into rating

stars as shown here to the right.

This final rating is done for every case study and is rated according to this

research. The rating will be shown in the conclusion of every case study.

Label rating A B C D E F G

Value 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


2.3.5 Multicriteria-analyses table

Method Weighting

factor

Description

Air label 10 The fact that our planet is getting polluted is undeniable. The usage

of 474 exajoules (474×1018

J) with 80 to 90 percent derived from

the combustion of fossil fuels is polluting our planet at a very high

rate. Therefore there have to be taken actions to prevent it as

soon as possible. Realistic long term mitigation strategies

predictions can be found on page 12. For this reason the air label

for urban agriculture scores a value of 10 in this table.

Energy label 9 As said in chapter 3, urban agriculture is very energy sufficient,

because of the thick substrate needed to support urban

agriculture. Energy usage has to go down to take effect on the air

quality. Energy usage is closely linked to the air quality at this

moment, because of the high percentage of fossil fuels

combustion. Shown in the previous description the energy usage

worldwide is enormous and therefore it needs to go down. The use

of urban agriculture could provide a discrete portion of that.

The energy label has gotten a value of 9 in this analyses. The

reason for this is that the energy usage is subordinate to the air

quality but is still an important part of the solution.

Water label 4 The most important part of this label is the potential to use free

and fresh rainwater to grow vegetation and not overflowing the

sewers. Besides advantages of urban agriculture, this label does

not provide a solution for problems like air quality or huge energy

usage. Therefore this label got a value of 4 in this analyses.

Social capital label 8 The social aspects of urban agriculture are the backbone for its

success or failure. There are situations thinkable that urban

agriculture could work without the social aspects, but in that case

the government has to intervene or another major party. The

main purpose of urban agriculture is the raising of air quality and

the energy label is the main solution, but of its importance to

succeed the social capital label will be given a value of 8.

Economic label 6 Urban agriculture is not mainly for creating jobs, but it creates the

opportunity to feed mostly people with less income and therefore

saving money to spend on other expenses. Urban agriculture could

easily replace food banks. In other cases urban agriculture will have

the purpose of recreation. For this reason this label will receive a

value of 6.

Organization label 5 The organization label is important for the progress of building

urban agriculture in the city, but the first step is to integrate urban

agriculture in policies of the government so organizations like

building cooperation's will also benefit by building this. The main

reason to grade this label a value of 5 is because urban agriculture

will not come into existence by only privately owned urban

agriculture, but it has to integrate on a larger scale and on every

new building.

Figure 9: Weighing factors multicriteria-analysis


3 Urban agriculture: practically

Testing a method is essential in order to prove it works. The method described in the previous chapter will be

tested and used in this chapter. Because of our need to indentify and analyze case studies on urban agriculture

the method is used on five case studies. These five case studies represent five forms of urban agriculture which

are within our research limitation described in the introduction. These are:

• Rooftop gardening

• Allotment gardening

• City farms.

• Greenhouse gardening


The five case studies have been analyzed extensively by using the method. The full description of the case

studies can be found in appendix 1. The summarized description is displayed in a fact sheet. This fact sheet has

been invented to reproduce the information gathered in the analysis of the case studies per label. Per label a

short description is given, how it s mentioned in the case studies, how it is rated, what the weighing factor is

and what the final value is. This final value displays the suitability of a case study.

3.1 Case study 1: Rooftop gardening in St. Petersburg. The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study

concerns St. Petersburg, Russia. The project was initiated by the St. Petersburg Urban Gardening Club (UGC), a

non-profit foundation on a local scale level.

The potential for rooftop gardening in St. Petersburg is huge. The UGC has done research, conducted tests and

now has excellent information for interested Russian city farmers. For example, in just one district it is possible

to grow 2000 tons of vegetables per season from 500 roof tops. An important factor is that all agriculture is

placed on existing rooftops. The projects within the case study are:

• Horticultural therapy project

• Growing chicory salad

• Gardens in city prison

• Secondary school No. 42

3.1.1 Factsheet

Label Description Case study Rating Weighing

factor

Final

value

Air D 10 30

Type of vegetation

Permanent vegetable plants

Energy B 9 45

Substrate isolation thickness Substrate of 25 – 50cm.

Water A 4 24

Absorption High water absorption through substrate

and water reuse system

Social capital A 8 48

Health Therapy garden

Vitamin rich food growth

Education On rooftops school

Live biology class

Gardening lessons

Recreation Creative outlet for inmates

Hospital recreational goal

Participation Semi-public

Cohesion Group formation

More interaction

Safety No unwanted access

No vandalism

Economic B 6 30

Employment Volunteers

Food security Contributes to urban food supply

100% of prison food supply


3.1.2 Sub conclusion

Rooftop gardening has a score of 207 points. This means that this case study used urban agriculture on

rooftops in a responsible way concerning the labels described in the factsheet. It scores very high on social and

environmental labels. Mostly because everyone is able to participate. Because of this the rooftop gardening

case study receives the following rating:

Markets Local Exchange and Trading Schemes

Durability Lightweight products

Organic produces

No land lease

Value increase Yes beautification.

Funding No grants.

Organization A 5 30

Stakeholders UGC’s network

Not inventoried

Basis Historical basis

Some resistance unusual idea

Involvement government Facilitating role.

Policies Possible though difficulties

Communication and awareness A lot of effort

Television

Radio

Newspapers

Awareness increased greatly.

207


3.2 Case study 2: Allotment and community gardening in London The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study

concerns London, Great Britain. The case study does not have clear initiators because of the historical bounds

London has to urban agriculture. The main goal of this case study was to feed families, the urban poor.

Nowadays it is still for feeding working class families and more and more for middle class recreationists. The

case study contains several methods of urban farming such as allotments, community gardening and

greenhouse farming. The projects within the case study are:

• Lea valley: sea of glass

• Allotment: a potted history

• City farms and community gardens

• School gardens

3.2.1 Factsheet


Allotment and community gardening in London scores 146 points in the fact sheet. This is mainly due to the

fact that energy efficiency is not a factor in this case study. The rating of this case study is:


factor

Final

value

Air C 10 40

Type of vegetation

Bushes and hedges

Vegetable plants

Energy G 9 0

Substrate isolation thickness No layer of substrate

Water A 4 24

Absorption Ground absorbs all water

Social capital B 8 40

Health Sense of purpose

Reduced mental illnesses

Education Teaching packs

School nutritional education

Recreation All UA is recreational

Participation Private and semi-public

Cohesion Work together

Teach each other

Trade with each other

Safety A lot of vandalism

Tipping

Economic E 6 12

Employment Paid employees

Volunteers

Food security N/A

Markets Not permitted

Local Exchange and Trading Schemes

Durability Non

Value increase Locations near industrialized areas. No

effect on value.

Funding No grants for allotments etc.

Glasshouse doe receive grant

Organization A 5 30

Stakeholders Large group of stakeholders

Non-profit organization

Municipality

Department of health.

Basis Historical basis

Four fifths of Britains garden

Involvement government Facilitating

Policies Complex

Policy provides possibilities for

environmental productive approach

Communication and awareness Awareness very high

TV shows on prime time

146


3.3 Case study 3: Urban farms in the United States of America The department of Urban and Regional planning of the University of California conducted a research to

describe and analyze urban farms throughout the United States of America. The urban farms described in this

study contribute in a significant way to the health, education, environment and economy of their local

communities. The projects are initiated and demanded by local communities. Urban farms are located inside or

on the fringe of a city. The following six projects are mentioned in the research:

• Zenger Farm: Portland,.

• Somerton Tanks Farm: Philadelphia.

• Troy Gardens Community Farm: Madison.

• Wood Street Urban Farm: Chicago.

• Red Hook Community Farm: Brooklyn.

• Alemany Farm: San Francisco, California

3.3.1 Factsheet


Urban farms in the United States of America scores 150 points in the fact sheet. The case study scores high on

water absorption and very low on energy efficiency. Therefore this case study rates:


factor

Final

value

Air C 10 40

Type of vegetation

Bushes and hedges


Energy G 9 0

Substrate isolation thickness No substrate layer is used

Water A 4 24

Absorption Ground absorbs all water

Social capital C 8 32

Health Diet-related

Nearby healthy food supply

Education Programs in gardening, cooking and

composting

Weekly school classes

Field trips

Summer programs

Recreation N/A

Participation Public

Cohesion Several groups participate

No mix of groups

Safety Liable to vandalism

Fences and surveillance needed

Economic C 6 24

Employment Paid jobs local community

At-risk youth

Volunteers

Food security 50% sold on markets.

Nothing goes directly to household

Markets 50% of yield to local outdoor farmer food

markets

Durability N/A

Value increase N/A

Funding Not financial feasible

Grants needed

Support NGO’s

Organization A 5 30

Stakeholders Local groups

NGO’s

Basis Demanded and initiated by community.

Involvement government Facilitating

Policies Policies enable UA

Communication and awareness Mout-to-Mouth promotion

Awareness of food increased.

150


3.4 Case study 4: Backyard gardening and greenhouse rooftops in the

Gaza-strip The department of projects and external relations of Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee-Gaza and the

Consulat General De France A Jerusalem implemented and researched urban agriculture in refugee camps. The

project tries to develop different urban agriculture activities in several Refugees Camps in the Gaza Strip. The

implementation concerned growing crops in backyards and in 20m2 or 40m2 greenhouses on rooftops. The

crops and greenhouses have been provided totally equipped by the department. The objective of the project is

to improve health, food security, environmental and social situation of the 81 families which participated in the

project.

3.4.1 Factsheet


The case study backyard gardening and greenhouse rooftops in the Gaza-strip scores 180 points. This case

study scores very good on the energy, water and organization label. The weakest label is air quality due to the

fact that only permanent vegetable plants are cultivated on the roof. This case study rates:


factor

Final

value

Air D 10 30

Type of vegetation


Energy B 9 45

Substrate isolation thickness A substrate of 25 – 50 cm

Water A 4 24

Absorption High water absorption due to the

substrate

Social capital C 8 32

Health Direct easy access healthy food

Recover severed connection agriculture

Higher food quality

Education Intensive technical training

Children are taught by parents

Recreation N/A

Participation Semi-public. Only the 81 selected

families could participate.

Cohesion Enhanced relationship neighbors

Safety Backyards victim of plundering

Greenhouses very safe

Economic C 6 24

Employment 81 families were employed

Food security Income generated 20 – 30%

30 % of needed food

Markets N/A

Durability Sustainable lightweight greenhouses.

Sustainability of houses increased due

to substrate

Value increase N/A

Funding Not profitable.

Fixed costs are paid by government

Running costs by owners

Organization B 5 25

Stakeholders Department of external relations GAZA

External greenhouse organization

Participating families

Basis Large basis.

Participants originally agriculturists

Involvement government Open authoritarian style.

Policies Policies altered to provide for UA

Communication and awareness N/A

180


3.5 Case study 5: Community gardening in Havana Havana, Cuba is described as a continuous productive urban landscape. This means that they are able to use

urban agriculture throughout the year. Urban agriculture was promoted in Cuba after the crisis when Cuba lost

more than 75% of its import and export capacity. Urban agriculture in Cuba is focused on community gardens

on the city fringe or in the city centre adjacent to major roads. the case study defines various kinds of

community gardens being:

• Plots (less then 1000m2)

• Intensive cultivation gardens ( between 1000m2 and 2000m2)

• Urban gardens ( between 2000m2 and 5000m2)

• High yield urban garden (over 10.000 m2)

Though these areas seem large pathways take up a lot of the available space. It is not unusual that a 1000m2

growing area requires a 3000m2 site.

3.5.1 Fact sheet


The case study on community gardening in Havana scores 159 points in the factsheet. The best points of this

case study are the water label, social capital, economic and organization labels. This case study scores worst on

energy efficiency. This case study is rated:


factor

Final

value

Air C 10 40

Type of vegetation


Bushes and hedges

Energy G 9 0

Substrate isolation thickness The substrate is used but it does not have

an energy saving factor

Water A 4 24

Absorption Ground absorbs all water and water is

reused

Social capital B 8 40

Health Fresh supply of food in institutions

Education Students and schoolchildren are taught

how to grow food

Recreation Only small part of people

Participation Public or semi-public sites

Cohesion Cultivation occurs in groups rather than

alone

Safety Fences are needed

Trespassing is common

Economic B 6 30

Employment Volunteers

Residents

Food security Contributes to the household needs and

to urban food supply

Markets A small part is sold on local markets.

Durability N/A

Value increase Due to beautification of common areas.

Funding Grants

Organization B 5 25

Stakeholders Not inventoried.

Basis Due to the crisis very large

Involvement government Open authoritarian style

Policies Top down organized all policies provided

Communication and awareness Government communication is optimal.

The awareness in UA is great.

159


3.6 Conclusion As is shown in the table below, case study 1 rooftop gardening and case study 4 greenhouses on rooftops score

the most points in the fact sheet. This is mainly because they have benefits considering energy efficiency. They

do score less in the air label than the other case studies mainly because these case studies concerned just

permanent vegetable plants. As two of the important parts of urban farming are social capital en economics,

the first case study scores very high on both points. This is why the method of urban farming we will use on a

representative city will be rooftop farming in combination with rooftop greenhouse gardening.

Figure 10: Label rating: the best case study

Label Rooftop gardening Allotment &

community

gardening

Urban farms Backyard gardening

& greenhouse

gardening

Community

gardening

Air 30 40 40 30 40

Energy 45 0 0 45 0

Water 24 24 24 24 24

Social capital 48 40 32 32 40

Economic 30 12 24 24 30

Organization 30 30 30 25 25

207 146 150 180 159


4 Urban agriculture on rooftops: Practically advanced

Using the method on several urban agriculture case studies in the previous chapter, resulted in the best case

study being rooftop gardening. Though the previous chapter explained the basics for each case study, this

chapter will describe advanced information about the benefits and bottlenecks of rooftop gardening in

particular. The information in this chapter is of importance to be able to apply rooftop gardening on the city of

Amersfoort. The term green roofs is interchangeably used for urban agriculture on rooftops.

4.1 Environmental benefits 4.1.1 Air quality improvement

Urban agriculture improves the particulates intake and CO2 reduction, but this quality is not linked to building

on rooftops. The same effect would occur by using the other types of urban agriculture, but building urban

agriculture on rooftops will generate more available space to use this practice.

Urban agriculture on rooftops enhances cooler indoor and outdoor temperatures, because it improves the

urban heat island effect. Areas within a city are often significantly warmer than the surrounding rural areas.

There are several causes but one is linked to vegetation. Due to the removal of vegetation and their

replacement by roads and other constructions. These surfaces absorb solar radiation and re-radiate it as heat37

.

Rooftop gardens work to reduce the urban heat island effect because they decrease the hot and radiating areas

and replace them by vegetation that absorbs solar radiation which produces less heat. Although calculating the

precise temperature decrease due to green roofs is very difficult, but green roofs are considered to be a

powerful way to battle the urban heat island effect35

.

4.1.2 Energy efficiency

The greatest benefit for using urban agriculture on rooftops is the energy efficiency. The substrate used for

growing vegetation will act as an insulator and this will result in less heat loss. This will result in less energy

consumption for the inhabitants and therefore it will indirectly improve the air quality.

A Canadian study found that, with 6% (6.5 million m2) green roof coverage, the annual GHG emission was

reduced by 1.56 Mega tons direct from buildings36

. Air quality is also improved due to the diminishing presence

of air pollutants as chemicals and allergens like pollen37

. This filtration can happen with any type of garden or

vegetation. Figure 11 38

describes the reduction of particulates of green roofs.

1m2 grass roof Removes 0,2 kg of airborne CO2 particulates annually

1,5m2 uncut grass Produces oxygen to supply 1 person annually.

Figure 11: air pollutants reduction

4.1.3 Water

Water that runs off surfaces such as rooftops are called urban stormwater. It represents water that could be

absorbed into the soil if the area was not paved or build upon. Green roofs have a big impact on stormwater

quantity because they retain a portion of the rainfall. This has been recognized by several studies36

. Though the

impact of green roofs has been recognized the information about how much a green roof can retain is not

consistent. The amount of rainfall that can be retained depends on thickness of substrate, vegetation depth,

temperature, wind, sun and duration of rain. Figure 1236

shows the inconsistencies.

Sholz-Barth, 2001 Average of 75% can be retained

Peck, 1999 In summer 70 – 100% can be retained

In winter 40 – 50% can be retained

Figure 12: Amount of rainfall retained by green roofs

36

Source: Peck, S. 2003. Towards an Integrated Green Roof Infrastructure Evaluation for Toronto. The Green Roof

Infrastructure Monitor. 37

Source: Sutic, N. 2003. How Green Roofs Can Improve the Urban Environment in Uptown Waterloo

(Undergraduate Thesis). 38

Source: Cardinal Group. 2002. Public Benefits of Green Roofs.


4.2 Social benefits

4.2.1 Health

In a society where obesity is an issue of concern, urban gardens create an opportunity for residents to increase

their physical activity through gardening. Gardening is also a form of physical activity in which many people can

take part, despite mobility restrictions. Gardening is also enjoyed by people of all ages. The link between

increased physical activity and community gardens has been well documented in the literature.39

Gardening and rooftop gardening have a positive effect on psychological and physical well-being of a

community. Psychological studies have shown that the green areas in the city relieve stress effects thereby

improving health40

. A research showed that people living in high-density developments are known to be less

susceptible to illnesses if they have a balcony or terrace garden37

.

4.2.2 Recreation

Urban agriculture initiatives can improve aesthetic value of a community and provide more outdoor space for

residents and visitors. Rooftop gardens provide a pleasing and convenient space for residents.

Widespread implementation of rooftop gardens and community gardens could potentially provide more

recreational and leisure space for urban residents. Hotels, restaurants and other businesses are able to use

their rooftops to crop their own food like restaurant ‘De Kas’ in Amsterdam. For hotels it provides functional

and effective outside space for customers.

4.2.3 Education

Education about agriculture combined with environmental awareness can occur close to schools. Children and

older students do not have to leave the schools terrain. Because of the central position of schools and other

community buildings in a district or neighborhood makes that these locations are explicitly convenient to

educate the community. The education can be given to people of all ages.

4.2.4 Participation

Rooftop gardens are mostly private. They exist on rooftops of for example apartment buildings. These are

solely accessible by residents of the building. These residents, which are sometimes not familiair with each

other, have free access to the gardens. There are also semi-public rooftop gardens for example on community

buildings and schools were a limited amount of people (mostly member) can sign up to maintain and harvest

the gardens.

4.2.5 Cohesion

Urban agriculture is able to provide residents with a higher sense of community. Residents and therefore also

participants experience a sense of belonging as a member in a community. Growing food, whether on a rooftop

or in a community garden, provides benefits to people from diverse backgrounds, languages, and cultures.

Community empowerment, attachment to locality, and the sense of ownership that can be generated from

food projects can stimulate more involvement in local issues which can lead to effective action to defend and

improve community amenities.39

Social isolation is also reduced when people have a community rooftop

garden in which to participate. The gardens are also a source of pride and a social center which provide social

cohesion with the gardeners. Gardening is an international activity that crosses cultural gaps. Food growing can

serve as a way of breaking down barriers between people through a focus on the common interest of food41

.

4.2.6 Safety

Reduced crime has been associated with communities that have gardens41

. The presence of people spending

time outside in gardens may discourage crime. Residents who invest in their gardens are very keen on the

safekeeping of these gardens. They are present in it and therefore protect it from vandalism. Rooftop

gardening has an extra advantage of being on a roof. The location is less accessible hen common community

gardens. Therefore rooftop gardening is overall much safer and there is no need for fences, surveillance

camera’s etc.

39

Source: Twiss, J., J. Dickinson, S. Duma, T. Kleinman, H. Paulsen, L. Rilveria. 2003. Community gardens:

Lessons learned from California healthy cities and communities. 40

Source: Mazereeuw, B. 2005. Urban agriculture: feasibility of rooftop community gardens. 41

Source: Schmelzkopf, K. (1995). Urban community gardens as contested space. Geographical

Review, 85, 364-381.


4.3 Economic benefits

4.3.1 (Self)Employment

Urban agriculture can also create local employment and generate income. For volunteers this income is mostly

in the form of food which does not have to be bought in stores. By integrating rooftop gardening paid jobs are

also created. A project in Toronto created 1.350 jobs by implementing rooftop gardening. Though these

rooftops counted 6.5 million m2. Jobs are created in:

• manufacturing and selling materials designed specifically for green roof construction and maintenance

• selling specialized plants for green roofs (e.g. garden nurseries)

• designing and engineering of green roofs

• contracting and landscaping37

4.3.2 Food security

Initiatives such as rooftop gardens contribute to urban food self-sufficiency and food security by helping to

provide all citizens with increased access to nutritious foods. The food produced in community gardens or

rooftop gardens are local sources of food that require minimal travel distance to reach consumers. In

terms of volume of food, one study estimated that if 6% of rooftops in Toronto were ‘greened’ and only 10% of

these rooftops grew food, a yield of 4.7 million kilograms of produce per year would be generated42

.

Gardens can produce 10% of the total need of food in a city.

4.3.3 Durability

Ultraviolet rays and fluctuating temperatures can damage rooftops over time. Green roofs are covered soil and

vegetation, and thus protect rooftops from ultraviolet rays as well as the stress caused by expansion and

contraction. In this way, green roof reduce cracking and aging of roofs and enhance roof durability43

. This

enhanced durability results in rooftop life extension which contributes to cost savings and sustainability by

reducing resource use. Green roofs insulate buildings by preventing heat from moving through the roof.

Shading the external surface of the building envelope has been shown to be more effective than internal

insulation37

.

4.3.4 Value increase

More green space is a good addition to any building or home. The addition of private amenity space resulting

from an addition of a rooftop garden could allow for increased financial benefit to building owners through

increased rental income and increased condominium fees36

.

42

Source: Peck, S. 2003. Towards an Integrated Green Roof Infrastructure Evaluation for Toronto. The

Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor. 43

Source: Peck, S., C. Callaghan, M. Khun, B. Bass. 1999. Greenbacks for Green Roofs: Forging a New

Industry in Canada.


4.4 Challenges While there are many benefits associated with urban agriculture, there are also several challenges and

difficulties. These need to be taken into account in the next chapter.

4.4.1 Quantification benefits

The main challenge is that some of the benefits described above are difficult to quantify because of their social

nature. Social is an important factor in urban agriculture and rooftop gardening. An effective cost-benefit

analysis Is therefore hard to outline44

.

4.4.2 Construction

Integrating rooftop gardening on new buildings is rather simple. When the qualifications and specification of

rooftop gardening are defined the construction can be worked into a planning process. Existing buildings,

which have to be retrofitted, are an entirely different story. There needs to be determined whether the

building can sustain the additional weight.44

4.4.3 Accessibility

The accessibility of rooftops could provide rooftop gardening with a problem. Not all buildings are prepared for

frequent rooftop access. Interior aspects of the building such as stair and elevator access could have to be

altered. The roof also has to be fenced off for safety44

.

4.4.4 Costs

One of the greater bottlenecks of rooftop gardening and especially the installation of one are the costs. Though

costs of installation are offset by savings incurred later on, the payment can be deterrent to installing a green

roof. Insurance on rooftops may also cause a problem.44

44

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


Representative Dutch city

The chosen (parts of) case studies which will become a full climate adaptation and mitigation strategy

concerning urban farming needs to be tested. In order to do this we choose a representative Dutch city. In this

chapter assumptions have been made. These assumptions will be explained but it is our opinion while others

may think otherwise.

Duurzaamheidsmeter

The local sustainability measurement tool (duurzaamheidsmeter) exists since 1999 and is developed by COS

Nederland. COS Nederland is the association of centres for international cooperation. Every four years, in a year

of municipal elections, COS Nederland lobbies to convince as many municipalities as possible to take part in the

Duurzaamheidsmeter. The last results are of November 2009.

Method

The Duurzaamheidsmeter consists of three lists of questions divided into the people, planet, profit principle.

The following scheme explains the general content of each question list. All questions lists could be filled out on

the website of COS Nederland. The responsibility of correctly filling out the questions lies with the municipality.

Because of the public's right of access of the document social control should make municipalities handle

carefully and truthfully.

People Planet Profit

Participation inhabitants Climate & energy Sustainable government

Social policies Sustainable water management Sustainable mobility

International cooperation Nature and environment Sustainable business/industry

Results

In 2009 167 Dutch municipalities participated in the Duurzaamheidsmeter. These municipalities represent 49%

of the Dutch population. As is shown in the following table there are six municipalities which scored 90% or

over.

City People Planet Profit Percentage

Breda 94%

Alkmaar 94%

Nijmegen 92%

Groningen 92%

Tilburg 92%

Amersfoort 92%

Apeldoorn 89%

Average city size and choosing a city

When accumulating the population of these cities and dividing them by the number of cities (seven)

represented in the shortlist the average city size is 158.000. Because this shortlist only contains fairly big cities

we choose between Apeldoorn, 155.108 inhabitants and Amersfoort, 141.211 inhabitants.

Though Apeldoorn has a population which is closer to the average mentioned above there are more smaller

municipalities. Next to this the city of Amersfoort has equal grades in all categories. The score of this city is very

even which means they spend as much attention to people as to planet and profit. The total percentage is also

higher than Apeldoorns. This why we assume that Amersfoort Is a representative city for the Netherlands and

we will apply the case studies on this city.


5 Urban agriculture: applied in Amersfoort

As concluded in the previous chapter rooftop gardening is the case study we intend to use on the

representative city of Amersfoort. This chapter does not only explain the benefits of rooftop gardening but will

show what the consequences of this method of urban agriculture is on the city.

5.1 Placement in Amersfoort Amersfoort is a city with many different districts and neighborhoods. To be able to make adequate suggestions

on what the benefits of rooftop gardening for Amersfoort are, we have chosen a district. The choice of a

certain district has been suggested by Edward van Groningen, researcher at Eemstad Lab. He suggested to

apply urban agriculture and therefore rooftop gardening on an ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ district.

The program ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt is a joined initiative by the municipality of Amersfoort and the housing

cooperation’s Alliantie Eemvallei and Portaal. The aim of this program is to improve the quality of several

districts. Vital, varied and safe districts for a good life with opportunities is of importance. This has to be done

in good consultation with residents and other stakeholders in the district. The six themes on which the program

is set are:

Living together Living

Work Education

Livability Service provisions

The choice of an ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ district is based on the fact that these existing districts are undergoing

a transformation due to reconstruction. By considering an even implementing urban agriculture on rooftops,

these districts are more viable to achieve. They already are in transition and urban agriculture can be take into

account in plan and policy making.

5.1.1 Area of choice

The chosen area is the district of Schuilenburg. Out of the areas that are represented in the ‘Amersfoort

Vernieuwt’ program this area has most potential due to the presence of several flat rooftops..

5.1.2 Description of area

Schuilenburg lies southeast of the centre of Amersfoort and next to the A28. The district was built in the sixties.

The northern part of Schuilenburg is characterized by many stair case entrance flats and gallery entrance flats.

These flats make up the 44,2% social rent housing in the district. The southern part is known for expensive

private housing, 27,7% and private rental apartments. 28,1%. In figure 13 Amersfoort is displayed as a total

and with a cut out of the Schuilenburg district.

Figure 13: Amersfoort and Schuilenburg


5.2 Spatial needs and effects

Important to know is the amount and size of available rooftops for gardening. This information is not available

by the municipality of Amersfoort or the housing cooperation’s. Therefore we estimated the amount by

calculating the average roof size in Schuilenburg. This proves that the average available roof is approximately

48 meters long and 10,5 meters wide which makes 504m2 rooftop per building. In Schuilenburg are 26

apartment buildings with the average amount of rooftop space. 20 of these apartment buildings are in

ownership of housing cooperation’s. The total amount of space available for rooftop gardening in Schuilenburg

is therefore set on 13.104m2. This amount will be leading in the following paragraphs.

5.2.1 Spatial needs

When a city is growing, the available ground is getting more rare and expensive. The available ground is often

claimed by several functions in a zoning plan. A strategy to create more space is to build on top of each other

and create flats or apartment buildings. The prime advantage is this strategy is that developers only pay for a

patch of ground, but if they build higher, they only have to pay for the construction costs. This more economic

use of space only focuses on earning money and therefore they only build space where people can live or work,

but did not focus on other needs like urban agriculture.

In most cases the space is created and the rooftops function as heat absorbers. The need for more

multifunctional use of every patch of available space is growing and urban agriculture is developing to use

these rooftops as functional as possible. In previous chapters you can read about all the other advantages of

urban agriculture to, but the fact that urban agriculture is very functional is undeniable and therefore it should

be implemented in as much available locations as possible.

In Schuilenburg alone there is 13.104m2 available space on rooftops, assuming that these rooftops are able to

support urban agriculture, to implement urban agriculture. An average person needs 418m2 of space to provide

itself with vegetables yearly45

. So the available space in Schuilenburg could provide vegetables for about 32

people every year. Recon the food miles for these vegetables and the saved energy is building up, which also

indirectly improves the quality of the air.

5.2.2 Effects

The spatial need for a city to be completely self-sufficient in terms of food production on rooftops is not

realistic. If the city of Amersfoort would want to do this, it needs a rural area the size of Amersfoort itself.

Urban agriculture on rooftops would at this moment provide about 10% of the city's need for food. In

combination with all the other benefits for environmental, social and economical aspects it could have a big

impact worldwide if enough cities would implement urban agriculture.

The most important thing people have to realize is that 1 rooftop implemented with urban agriculture will not

have an effect on global warming, but people should not forget that every little tree, every little plant and

everything that lives on the reaction of photosynthesis provides a little part of the solution for the bigger

problem. The biggest problem is the awareness and the creation of possibilities for people to contribute their

little part. Every little contribution used on a worldwide scale could have a great impact on the bigger problems

like global warming and food security.

5.3 Environmental effects The difficult part about the environmental effects is that the improvements are mostly long term and therefore

it is for some people difficult to comprehend that these changes have an impact at all. The good part is that

most people are aware that global warming is already taking effect and that we should do something about it

as soon as possible. The biggest impact for this awareness towards most people around the world was the

documentary "An inconvenient truth" made by Al Gore. This was one of the stepping stones which had to be

taken to make the broad public aware of our uncertain future and the fact we have to act as soon as possible.

45

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


5.3.1 Air quality

By using urban agriculture the air quality will improve undeniably, but the effects are not as noticeable as the

social effects. The biggest advantage of urban agriculture is the removal of particulates from the air. These

particulates cause asthma and lung cancer and there have the greatest impact on the environment of any city

and therefore also on Amersfoort. The reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere is very important to reduce global

warming, but this aspect does not have a noticeable effect on the citizens of the city of Amersfoort. The reason

for this is that at sea level CO2 concentration is 0.038% and for humans to notice the effects of CO2

concentration it has to be more than 1%. At this concentration humans have to be exposed to this

concentration for a rather long period and the only effect we would feel is dullness. This means that CO2

concentrations outside have to be more than 26 times as high to give a noticeable effect, but the effects

globally are well known.

Different type of vegetation will have more or less effect on the air quality. The main difference for this effect is

the difference in photosynthesis. This difference is determined by the surface of the leafs. So it is quite obvious

that trees will have more effect then small plants. In chapter 2.1.1 "Air label" the buildup in absorbing

particulates per type of vegetation is shown.

The best results in air quality for any city and therefore also for the city of Amersfoort is to plant more

vegetation throughout the city. A good way for getting this result is to create possibilities for people to

participate in urban agriculture. The best result to improve the air quality is to combine urban agriculture with

coniferous species or hardwood.

5.3.2 Energy efficiency

For improving the energy efficiency of the buildings in the city of Amersfoort with urban agriculture it is

essential to use the rooftops. this way the substrate used for urban agriculture is used as an insulator and this

way the buildings don't lose as much heat as with normal rooftops and therefore use less energy. The most

efficient way to reduce energy consumption is to combine urban agriculture on rooftops with glasshouses. This

way the excess heat could be captured and stored in underground reservoirs and could be used in the winter.

The exact figures how much energy could be saved is determined by many factors like size, type of plants, type

of ventilation etc. Therefore it is very difficult to give exact numbers, but at the university of Wageningen they

are doing research by using very precise instruments. Some information gathered at this university is used for

this research.

To cut down the energy usage is indirect an air quality improvement, because most energy is gathered by

burning fossil fuels. Therefore the noticeable changes are air quality improvement and a little step closer

towards a climate neutral city.

5.3.3 Water absorption

On normal rooftops water absorption is 0%. This fresh water resource is all wasted and flushed down the

sewers. The advantage of urban agriculture is that this fresh water is absorbed and used to grow vegetables.

The water absorption depends on the thickness of the substrate, slopes of the rooftops, time of the yeah etc.

The main improvement for the city of Amersfoort is that less water is flushed down the sewer, which will result

in less sewer blockage.

5.4 Social effects There are many social benefits concerning urban agriculture on rooftops. These social benefits of urban

agriculture have been explained in chapter 4.

5.4.1 Health

Implementing urban food security means an increase in physical activities. Gardens need to be maintained

throughout the week and year and there is always something to do. Because of the green surroundings and the

quiet semi public space on the roof stress can be relieved. Growing your own food also helps to eat the right

kinds of fresh food. This can reduce the risk of major diseases These facts count for all cities where urban

agriculture is implemented and therefore are also applicable on Amersfoort.


5.4.2 Education

In Schuilenburg are several schools especially primary schools. The following schools are present in the area:

• Prins Willem Alexander

• Anne Annemaschool

• Koningin Emmaschool

• Vrije School Amersfoort

• De Caecilliaschool

• ‘t Spectrum

Educating children about food, how it grows, how it can be consumed and learning them about climate change

the reduction of CO2 can be done at each one of the primary schools. Children can be taught on the roofs of

their own school or at neighboring apartment buildings. Because some of the schools are sometimes also used

for gatherings, older participants can be taught about urban agriculture too. It helps adapting people to climate

change, they can act within their own terrain and are able to see results by growing food. Due to education

they can also learn about the amount of CO2 they clear from the air.

5.4.3 Recreation

Recreation is of great importance in urban agriculture. Next to the food security reasons which are mentioned

in paragraph 5.5.2, recreation a reason why residents could participate in urban agriculture. During the usage

of urban agriculture people can enjoy being outside. Because of this the aesthetic value of the roofs are

increased and people are more willingly to spend their time in their gardens. This is a general effect urban

agriculture has.

5.4.4 Participation

In Amersfoort is participation limited to private and semi private accessibility. This is due to the apartment

buildings which are not accessible for everyone. It is not possible and maybe not even favorable to create a

public urban agriculture domain. Public agricultural domains can be found in community gardens.

5.4.5 Cohesion

As described in chapter four cohesion is one of the more important social parts of urban agriculture. Especially

the higher sense of community and the feeling that they belong to a community is of vital importance. Though

there are a number of social organizations in the district, people of different ethnicities who live in the same

apartment building do not mix. As is shown in the forum part of the website randebroek-schuilenburg.nl,

people think that their neighborhood was safer and more livable in the ‘70’s. the feeling that residents know

each other and help each other is not present anymore. Urban agriculture can provide an environment to be

together and people can stimulate each other and learn about incentives of their neighbors.

5.4.6 Safety

Rooftop gardening is very safe because it is not accessible for trespassers. This is not a concern of rooftop

gardening. Another form of safety being the security on the rooftops. Hereby is meant that fences need to be

placed to prevent anyone from falling down.

5.5 Economical effects 5.5.1 (Self)Employment

Due to the scale level on which we are working at this time, no real direct job creation is in order. Indirect job

creation is in order because of the build and maintenance companies of the substrate on the roofs, the

education needed for residents to start working urban agriculture and municipal workers who take care of the

communication and ensure the rightful use of rooftop gardening. Self employment is a reasonably big factor in

urban agriculture. Most work is done on a voluntary basis which the volunteers get paid for by the production

of food which does not have to be bought in a supermarket. At this time income levels in Schuilenburg are not

high. The current income of households in Schuilenburg is €28.000 per year, the average income is €33.500 per

year.


5.5.2 Food security

Food security is of more importance the last years. So called ‘voedselbanken’ exist to assist people in need for

basics as food and sometimes clothing. The ‘voedselbank’ in Amersfoort called food focus tries to obtain as

much food as possible so it can be distributed to the needy. By implementing rooftop gardening in

Schuilenburg, where income levels are not that high see paragraph 5.6.1, people can start taking care of their

own fresh vegetable production. They are self accountable for their yield and what is planted on the roof,

though it is wisely to use the plants described in paragraph 5.3.

5.5.3 Share in markets

In Amersfoort exists already 18 hectares of community gardens. Because of this a Local Exchange and Trading

Scheme can be set out. Local private food growers can trade food with each other so they have a greater

variety of food and do not have to hold on to food for a long time. A location for such a trade off does not have

to be fixed. It is arrange able that the market is on different community gardens or around the rooftop gardens.

Another options is to commercially sell the products. Though this is a possibility it depends heavily on the price

that can be obtained for the produce. If this is to low it is easier and more profitable to keep your own grown

food.

5.5.4 Durability

As explained in chapter four the durability of roofs is elongated by the implementation of green rooftops. This

is caused by the substrate and vegetation layer which protects the roof. An important factor is how much the

roofs can carry.

5.5.5 Value increase

The Schuilenburg area is already very green. In the district are many green spots and the ‘Valleikanaal’ runs

through the district. This makes that the district is beautifully green. Rooftop gardening will not add a lot of

value to the houses because of the fact that green is already in place. The small amount of value that can be

gained is through the extra private or semi-public space on the roof which is a part of your personal living

environment.

5.5.6 Financial feasibility

Financial feasibility is almost impossible to calculate due to the varied factors of urban agriculture which have a

social impact and cannot be linked to a hard number of profits. This is a point that needs to be sorted out.

5.6 Legal and organizational implementation 5.6.1 Stakeholders

Successfully implementing an urban agriculture strategy requires participation of various stakeholders. These

are municipal authorities, housing cooperation’s, food producers/consumers, neighborhood groups,

environmental groups and schools. It is very hard to describe all stakeholder because this field is not clear yet.

Though this is not clear we are able to describe the primary working relationships and the initiating

stakeholder.

Urban agriculture should be initiated by the local authorities being the municipality of Amersfoort. They have

to create awareness that rooftop gardening is a possibility. This awareness has to be created with employees of

the municipality as well as residents of target areas. People have to want rooftop gardening and see the

possibilities. Otherwise they will not start working it. Due to this awareness and promotion of rooftop

gardening several organizations in the neighborhood, such as the schools, community centre, church and social

gathering groups, can join forces to speak about implementation and to make each other curious about the

possibilities. The municipality is then able to start communications with the housing cooperation’s Alliantie

Eemvallei and Portaal because they are all involved in the Amersfoort Vernieuwt project. They can co-produce

a plan in which rooftop gardening is implemented. The residents and organizations in the neighborhood are

involved in the process due to a participation course that needs to be set out by the municipality and the

housing cooperation’s.

Figure 14: Stakeholders analysis


5.6.2 Basis

Rooftop gardening can have a great basis in the municipality of Amersfoort. The municipality has always

maintained community gardens and included community gardens in every spatial project. Only the last two city

extensions, districts Nieuwland and Vathorst, have not got community gardens. This was due to the fact that a

pps-construction was used and there was no room in the budget to include community gardens. In the previous

chapter a target group is formulated. This target group consist out of allochthonous residents and people in the

age category of 50+ as the biggest factors. In Schuilenburg are the following demographic standards in

ethnicity (figure 15) and age structure (figure 16)

Ethnicities in

%

Netherlands Western Non-

western

Turkey Morocco Surinam Antilles Remain

Schuilenburg 57,5 8,2 34,3 12 9,6 0,8 2,7 9,2

Figure 15: Ethnicities in Schuilenburg

Age

structure %

0 – 3 4 – 11 12 – 17 18 – 24 25 – 54 55 – 64 65 – 74 75+

Schuilenburg 4,2 8,9 7,1 9,3 34,5 10,9 11,1 14,0

Figure 16: Age structure in Schuilenburg

Concluding can be said that inhabitants of Amersfoort are willing to use rooftop gardening.

5.6.3 Involvement government

The government’s involvement in urban agriculture should be facilitating. A facilitating government style allows

all parties to join in on communication. Though the plans of rooftop gardening should be made by parties such

as the housing corporations, the municipality and other relevant stakeholders it’s important to involve

residents and organization on a residential level in the process. Therefore the municipality should co-produce

the plans, policies and spend much time on communication and awareness for rooftop gardening.

5.6.4 Policies

For urban agriculture to work and make a difference for the problems around global warming it needs to be

used on a large scale. For this to happen urban agriculture needs to be implemented into the policies of

municipalities. This way urban agriculture is implemented into all new buildings or at least these building have

the capability to support urban agriculture so residents can decide themselves to participate or not instead not

having this choice at all. Municipalities have many ways to contribute to establish urban agriculture like

offering grants or doing more research on urban agriculture. The municipality of Amersfoort was negative

towards the idea to offer grants for the implementation of urban agriculture, because there is simply no money

available. They are able to provide communication towards civilians to create awareness. For financing, a

cooperation with the housing cooperation can be of great value. Especially in the Amersfoort Vernieuwt

districts which are already under construction. The costs are therefore not very much higher.

5.6.5 Communication and awareness

When implementing urban agriculture communication is of great importance. Not only inside the organizations

but also towards residents and other stakeholders. As mentioned in paragraph 5.6.1 the municipality of

Amersfoort should be the initiator. They should take responsibility in making people aware that there is an

initiative rooftop gardening. By constantly communicating with residents their awareness and possibly also

their enthusiasm in urban agriculture rises. The following communication measures can be taken:

• Informative folder spread throughout the area.

• Informal meetings with residents in the area.

• Introducing a pilot project where only 1 or 2 flats participate to see if it works and implementation can

continue.


6 Urban agriculture: advise and recommendations This last but not least chapter of our thesis on urban agriculture is the advisory. The important facts of the

previous chapters will be highlighted and recommendations are given to make sure the right path in urban

agriculture is chosen and the next steps are clear.

6.1 Why urban agriculture? The main goal of urban agriculture in combination with rooftop gardening is improving the available space

usage in the urban area and advancing environmental, social and economical effects. These mitigation effects

to reduce global warming in combination with the adaptation effects to adjust to future changes is an

important combination to create a better world for future generations. Urban agriculture on itself could not

resolve all the problems around global warming and providing the inhabitants with food, but could provide a

good portion of it. To provide a city like Amersfoort with food, it should have an rural area the size of

Amersfoort itself. The use of flat rooftops for urban agriculture, which are used nowadays, could provide a city

like Amersfoort for about 10% of its need for food and also absorbs particulates and CO2 emissions. In

combination with the social and economic effects it sums up to have a rather big impact on the community.

A summary of beneficial aspects of urban agriculture:

• Urban agriculture raises the air quality.

• Urban agriculture saves energy.

• Urban agriculture has water absorbing abilities.

• Urban agriculture improves social engagement and awareness.

• Urban agriculture improves health conditions.

• Urban agriculture improves levels of food security and availability.

• Urban agriculture improves the quality of the urban environment through greening.

• Urban agriculture assists to close the open loop system in urban areas characterized by the

importation of food from rural zones and the exportation of waste to regions outside the city or town.

• Wastewater and organic solid waste can be transformed into resources for growing agriculture

products: the former can be used for irrigation, the latter as fertilizer.

• Vacant urban areas can be used for agriculture production.

• Other natural resources can be conserved. The use of wastewater for irrigation increases the

availability of freshwater for drinking and household consumption.

• Urban agriculture can help to preserve bioregional ecologies from being transformed into cropland.

• Local production of food also allows savings in transportation costs, storage, and in product loss, what

results in food cost reduction.

The biggest advantage of urban agriculture is that everyone can participate and contribute to a better future in

an easy and effective way. For people to participate in urban agriculture, there only has to be created a

possibility. Most people cannot participate in this possibility, because the spatial development till now did not

anticipate on this development. Most rooftops are high angled and this lost space could easily be used for

urban agriculture and for people who are willing to participate in this possibility. It is very difficult to adapt the

existing building to support urban agriculture, because there are a few but crucial requirements. The building

has to support additional weight on the roof, the roof cannot be highly sloped and the roof has got to have an

roof access. To start this process providing these possibilities, urban agriculture has got to be implemented

into governmental policies.

6.2 Why rooftop gardening? The main goal of an urban area is to accommodate and transport its residents and locate everything in short

distances of each other to make it more efficient. This creates a compact city centre, where space is very

expensive and limited. Nowadays the urban areas are fully packed with roads and buildings, which results in

consequences like the urban heat island, an increase of CO2 and an increase of particulates. Most people are

aware that an increase of particulates, CO2 and the urban heat island are bad for our environment and will

result in an increase of global warming.


Since the available space in the city centers is becoming rare, we need to look for alternative locations to

implement urban agriculture. Using the rating method on several urban agriculture case studies in chapter

three, we concluded that rooftop gardening is the most efficient type of urban agriculture. The biggest

advantage of rooftop gardening is the decrease of energy usage due to the substrate used for growing plants.

This substrate acts as an insulator and prevents heat loss. The results of the rated case studies are shown

below to give an indication what advantages and disadvantages the different types of urban agriculture have:

As shown in this table, the biggest advantage of rooftop gardening are the energy efficiency, social and

economic aspects. Also the use of glasshouses improves the energy efficiency, but has less social advantages.

Therefore we advice rooftop gardening as the best type of urban agriculture.

6.3 Where to implement urban agriculture? Amersfoort is a city with many different districts and neighborhoods. To be able to make adequate suggestions

on what the benefits of rooftop gardening for Amersfoort are, we have chosen a district. The choice of a

certain district has been suggested by Edward van Groningen, researcher at Eemstad Lab. He suggested

applying urban agriculture and therefore rooftop gardening on an ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ district. The chosen

area is the district of Schuilenburg. Out of the areas that are represented in the ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’

program this area has most potential due to the presence of several flat rooftops which is crucial to rooftop

gardening. Schuilenburg lies southeast of the centre of Amersfoort and next to the A28. The district was built in

the sixties. The northern part of Schuilenburg is characterized by many stair case entrance flats and gallery

entrance flats. These flats make up the 44,2% social rent housing in the district. The southern part is known for

expensive private housing, 27,7% and private rental apartments. 28,1%. On the following figures Amersfoort is

displayed as a total and with a cut out of the Schuilenburg district. . In Schuilenburg alone there is 13.104m2

available rooftops, assuming that these rooftops are able to support urban agriculture, to implement urban

agriculture. An average person needs 418 m2 to provide itself with vegetables. So the available space in

Schuilenburg could provide vegetables for about 32 people every year. This does not seem much, but recon the

food miles for these vegetables and the saved energy is enormous, which also indirectly improves the quality of

the air.

The most important reasons for choosing this district are:

• There are many flat rooftops on which rooftop gardening can be implemented.

• Schuilenburg is a part of Amersfoort Vernieuwt program for renovation.

• Many low income households which can supplement their income by using urban agriculture.

• Ethnic minorities often have ties to urban agriculture in their home countries and wish to maintain

them here.

• People in the age of 55+. They have more affection with agriculture.

Label Rooftop gardening Allotment &

community

gardening

Urban farms Backyard gardening

& greenhouse

gardening

Community gardening

Air 30 40 40 30 40

Energy 45 0 0 45 0

Water 24 24 24 24 24

Social capital 48 40 32 32 40

Economic 30 12 24 24 30

Organization 30 30 30 25 25

207 146 150 180 159


6.4 How to implement urban agriculture? Rooftop gardening should be initiated by the municipality of Amersfoort. By initiating we do not mean building

and planning it totally on your own but starting to create awareness. This awareness is of key importance when

urban agriculture needs a firm basis. At first awareness and knowledge about urban agriculture needs to be

raised in the municipal organization itself. When project leaders have a project in which urban agriculture could

be an opportunity they should have to know the basics and be able to convince other parties of the

advantages.

When the municipal organization is aware they have to reach out to their partner in the Amersfoort Vernieuwt

program; the housing cooperation’s. Within their organization the seed of urban agriculture should be planted

to so a working relationship is established.

When both of these leading organizations in Amersfoort Vernieuwt are aware the residents of, in this case, the

Schuilenburg district should be informed. This has to be done gradually because it can be a lot of information to

cope with. Informative folders need to be created to gives people information about urban agriculture, rooftop

gardening, what they can grow and later on how it can be maintained. The information provided in these

folders should be operational, no long talks about technical issues but in short this is urban agriculture, this is

how it can be used and what your ‘income’ is.

When a good basis is set with the residents a pilot project should be the next step. Several advisory bureaus,

such as urban.nl, are willingly to start up a pilot project to research the effectivity and efficiency of urban

agriculture on rooftops. A pilot project can be started on a very small scale of only two apartment buildings.

People in those buildings are invited to join rooftop gardening. They need to receive information and lessons

about how to grow food and to maintain the garden. During this pilot a constant conversation should be taking

place between the residents and the municipality and housing cooperation’s. Residents have to be able to ask

their questions to a fixed person within the organization. When questions stay unanswered the enthusiasm

fades away quickly. The organization should also be able to be in touch with the residents at all times. They

need to ask information about how the food grows and what the yield was.

This pilot is of crucial value to the feasibility of rooftop gardening. Only during such a project it is possible to

see the direct and indirect effects on the residents and their environment.

6.5 Recommendations • Implement rooftop gardening

• Use Amersfoort Vernieuwt district Schuilenburg.

• Fix internal communication before starting external communications with residents.

• Use a small pilot project to research the advantages and disadvantages.

‘THINK GLOBAL, EAT LOCAL’


List of definitions

Allotments A series of garden plots rented out to individuals.

Often they are offered for the purpose of food

production and may be developed to support food

security. In allotment gardens, the parcels are

cultivated individually, and the common areas

(pathways) are often managed through volunteer

activities of the garden group.

Case study

An in-depth study which concerns nearly every aspect

of the subject to seek patterns and causes for

behavior.

Climate The "average weather," or more rigorously, as the

statistical description in terms of the mean and

variability of relevant quantities over a period of

30 years.

Climate adaptation

Initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of

natural and human systems against actual or

expected climate change effects.

Climate variability

Actual effects of climate change. Not avoidable.

Community gardens A piece of land gardened by a group of people (10

persons minimum) for the purpose of producing food

or flowers. Community gardens are free.

Economy Careful, thrifty management of resources, such as

money, materials, or labor.

Food miles The distance that food is transported as it travels

from producer to consumer.

Global warming/greenhouse effect

The process of natural and anthropogenic gasses,

that absorb and emit radiation at specific

wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared

radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the

atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property

causes the greenhouse effect what warms up earth.

Greenhouse gasses Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous

oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) are the

primary greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s

atmosphere.

Horticulture

Cultivating fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental

plants.

Human system A human system is any system in which human

organizations play a major role for example the

agricultural system.

Hydrophonic

Cultivation of plants in nutrient solution rather than

in soil.


LETS

An arrangement between a group of people, whereby

they agree to exchange goods and services, not as

one-to-one bartering but with a pooled system of

credits and debits.

Mitigation

Any adjustment that permanently eliminates or

reduces the human causes of long term risks of

climate change such as the emission of greenhouse

gasses and enhancing sink opportunities.

Natural system Fixed or determined by nature. No human influences.

Scale level

The level in which the project takes place.

International, continental, national, provincial

regional, municipal, districts, neighborhood, building.

Sink Any process, activity or mechanism which removes a

greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a

greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere.

Social capital Social capital are the processes and conditions among

people that lead to accomplishing a mutual social

benefit.

Substrate A surface on which an organism grows or is attached.

Triple bottom line People, planet, profit.

Urban agriculture


List of figures

Figure 1: GHG emission in CO2 equivalents. ____________________________________________ 14

Figure 2: Mitigation of climate change stabilization levels _________________________________ 16

Figure 3: Impact of adaptation measures on damage due to low and high sea level rise. Costs with

and without adaptation measures. ___________________________________________________ 17

Figure 4: Social and economical benefits of urban agriculture ______________________________ 18

Figure 5: Commonalities and differences between adaptation and mitigation of climate change __ 19

Figure 6: Division subject mitigation and adaptation _____________________________________ 20

Figure 7: Label ratings and values ____________________________________________________ 25

Figure 8: Example multicriteria analyses _______________________________________________ 25

Figure 9: Weighing factors multicriteria-analysis ________________________________________ 26

Figure 10: Label rating: the best case study ____________________________________________ 33

Figure 11: air pollutants reduction ___________________________________________________ 34

Figure 12: Amount of rainfall retained by green roofs ____________________________________ 34

Figure 13: Amersfoort and Schuilenburg ______________________________________________ 39

Figure 14: Stakeholders analysis _____________________________________________________ 43

Figure 15: Ethnicities in Schuilenburg _________________________________________________ 44

Figure 16: Age structure in Schuilenburg ______________________________________________ 44


List of sources

Literature (Books) • Bekkering, T., J. Walter. 2009. Management van processen: het realiseren van complexe initiatieven.

Spectrum Houten.

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

Utrecht.

• Cronie, R. Team ROP. 2009. Handleiding afstuderen: voor studenten en opdrachtgevrrs van de

opleiding Ruimtelijke Ordening en Planologie.

• Pijnenburg, B., G. Remmers, 2009. Een welvarend platteland begint in de stad: naar een nieuwe

generatie stad – land relaties.

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

• Viljoen, A., K. Bohn, J. Howe, 2005. Continuous productive urban landscapes: designing urban

agriculture for sustainable cities. Elsevier Ltd.

Internet • Earth System Research Laboratory. For understanding atmospheric mechanisms that drive the earth's

climate.

Retrieved: March 8th

.

URL: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/

• Gemeente Amersfoort. Used chat service to gain information about contact persons and scanned the

website for sustainability projects.

Retrieved: May 10th

2010.

URL: http://www.amersfoort.nl and especially http://www.amersfoort.nl/smartsite.

shtml?id=172271&ch=TER

• RUAF. Distance learning course on urban agriculture.

Retrieved: March and april 2010.

URL: http://moodle.ruaf.org/

• Transition Towns. Essential explanation about the way Transition Towns work.

Retrieved: April 30th

2010.

URL: http://www.transitiontowns.nl/

• Transition Town Amersfoort. Background information and contact persons.


2010.

URL: http://www.transistiontownamersfoort.ning.com/

• UNFCCC, essential background information climate convention and Kyoto Protocol.


2010.

URL: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php

• UNFCCC, Information provided by Parties to the Convention relating to the Copenhagen Accord.

Retrieved: April 8th 2010

URL: http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php

• WMO, causes of global warming.


2010.

URL:: http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_global_warming.php


Publications (PDF, articles) • Adaptatie voor ruimte en klimaat. 2007. Maak ruimte voor klimaat! Nationale adaptatiestrategie: de

beleidnotitie.

Retrieved: March 23rd

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.maakruimtevoorklimaat.nl/ark-programma/nationale-

adaptatiestrategie.html

• BBC. 2010. Harrabin’s notes: After Copenhagen.


2010.

Downloaded: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8423822.stm

• Brook, R., J. Davila. 2000. The Peri-Urban Interface: A tale of two cities.

Retrieved: March 22nd

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.nrsp.org/database/documents/2026.pdf

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

Retrieved: april 14th

2010.

Downloaded:

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/

statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_

energy_full_report_2009.xls#'Primary

• Cardinal Group. 2002. Public Benefits of Green Roofs.

Retrieved: June 3rd

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php?page=publicbenefits

• Change magazine. 2007. Special aanpassen aan klimaatverandering: De weg naar een

klimaatbestendig Nederland.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.changemagazine.nl/

• COS Nederland. 2009. Lokale duurzaamheidsmeter: stand van zaken.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.duurzaamheidsmeter.nl/LDM

• Deelstra, T., D. Boyd, M. van den Biggelaar. 2001. Multifunctional land use: a opportunity for

promoting urban agriculture in Europe.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.library.wur.nl/WebQuery/artik/lang/1689601

• Deelstra, T., H. Girardet. 2009. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20003032306

• DEFRA. 2005. The validity of food miles as an indicator for sustainable development.

Retrieved: May 30th

2010.

Downloaded: www.wfa.org.au/entwine_website/files/.../Validity_of_food_miles.pdf

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


Downloaded: http://www.library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/lang/378662

• Drescher A.W., P. Jacobi, J. Amend. 2000. Urban Food Security: Urban agriculture, a response to crisis?

Retrieved: May 15th

2010


Downloaded: http://www.ruaf.org/index.php?q=system/files/files/Urban+food+security+-

+UA+response+to+crisis.pdf

• European Commission. 2007. Green paper: adapting to climate change in Europe: options for EU

action.


2010

Downloaded: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0354:EN:NOT

• European Commission. 2008. EU action against climate change: adaptation to climate change.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/brochures/adapting_en.pdf

• European Environment Agency, 2009. Report on good practice measures for climate change

adaptation in management plans.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.water.eionet.europa.eu/ETC_Reports/Good_practice_report_final

_ETC.pdf

• European Environment Agency. 2010. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990 – 2008

and inventory report 2010: submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat.

Retrieved: May 28th

2010

Downloaded: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-

2010

• FAO. 1999. Urban and peri-urban agriculture.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/COag/cOAG15/X0076e.htm

• FAO. 2009. The state of food and agriculture 2009.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.fao.org/publications/en/

• Fussel, H. R.J.T. Klein. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual

thinking.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~fuessel/download/cc02_published.pdf

• Groot, M.I., L.M.L. Wielders, G.J. van de Vreede. 2008. Relatie tussen mitigatie en adaptatie op

gebouwniveau: inventarisatie van tegenstrijdigheden en synergismen.


2010.

Downloaded: www.ce.nl/.../relatie_tussen_adaptatie...mitigatie...gebouwniveau/898

• Hanh, H.D., A. Michaelowa, D. D. Tuan. 2007. Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the

context of sustainable development.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1469306203001086

• IDRC/UN-Habitat. 2003. Guidelines for municipal policymaking on urban agriculture.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10530054240E1.pdf

• IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spm.html

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



2010.

Downloaded: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spm.html

• IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html

• Jansma, J.E., A.J.G. Dekking, G. Mighels, A.J. de Buck, M.N.A. Ruijs, P.J. Galama, A. J. Visser, 2009.

Urban agriculture in Almere, from future scenario towards design.

Retrieved: May 13th

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.agromere.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/9B133549-63C7-483C-A07D-

8326410CC74E/104470/Agromererapportdef.pdf

• Klauw van der, M. 2009. Thesis: Handreikingen voor duurzaam bouwen aan gemeenten –

succesfactoren en praktijkvoorbeelden voor interne samenwerking en projectmanagement.

Retrieved: May 17th

2010.

Downloaded: www.w-

e.nl/.../Handreikingen%20voor%20duurzaam%20bouwen%20aan%20gemeenten...

• Klein, R.J.T., E.L.F. Schipper, S. Dessai. 2005. Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and

development policy.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901105001073

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

Retrieved: May 17th

2010.

Downloaded: www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/health.nsf/.../$file/UA_Feasibility.pdf?...

• Minister of VROM Mrs. Cramer. 2009. Speech at International Urban Planning Congress Amsterdam.


2010.

Downloaded: http://international.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=44445

• Mougeot, L.J.A. (International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) 2005. Agropolis: The Social,

Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture.

Retrieved: May 15th

2010

Downloaded: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-84289-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

• Mulder, S., A. Ettema, M. Schalkwijk. 2009. Burgerpeiling Klimaatadaptatie: beleid met burgers.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.maakruimtevoorklimaat.nl/.../090604_uitgelicht_Burgerpeiling_

2009.pdf

• Myers, A. 2008. Vitalizing the vacant: the logistics and benefits of middle- to large-scale agricultural

production on urban land.

Retrieved: May 18th

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.thoughtsonthetable.wordpress.com/.../vitalizing-the-vacant/

• Netherlands Environment Assesment Agency, 2005. The effects of climate change in the Netherlands.


2010.

Downloaded: http:/www.library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/344588

• Nowak, M. 2009. Senior honors thesis: Urban Agriculture on the Rooftop.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.cityfarmer.org/rooftopthesis.html

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



2010.

Downloaded: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/climate_adaptation.pdf

• Peck, S., C. Callaghan, M. Khun, B. Bass. 1999. Greenbacks for Green Roofs: Forging a New Industry in

Canada.

Retrieved: June 4th

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.greenroofs.org/pdf/Greenbacks.pdf

• Peck, S. 2003. Towards an Integrated Green Roof Infrastructure Evaluation for Toronto. The Green Roof

Infrastructure Monitor.

Retrieved: June 1st

2010

Downloaded: http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php?page=greenroofinfrastructuremonitor

• Pelegrin Asencio, A. 2005. Urban agriculture initiative in Gaza refugee camps: Rooftops.

Retrieved: May 18th

2010

Downloaded: http://www.homepage.mac.com/cityfarmer/FINALgazaUAJune05.pdf

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


2010.

Downloaded:

• Persson, M. 2010. De stad moet radicaal anders. Article Volkskrant quire 2 page 8.


2010.

Downloaded: www.rijnland-weblog.nl/.../1142-VOK-20100424_section2_page008_article5-

Duurzame-steden.pdf

• Pets, J. 2001. WHO series on food security case study 2: Urban Agriculture in London.

Retrieved: May 13th

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e72421.pdf

• Raemaker, J. 2007. Greenportkas Venlo: een duurzaam glastuinbouwconcept


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.agf.nl/nieuwsbericht_detail.asp?id=26444

• Reid, H. J. S. Huq. 2007. International Institute for Environment and Development: Adaptation to

climate change..

Retrieved: March 1st

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19097498/Adapting-to-Climate-Change-IIED

• Region four: Laboratory and Field operations. 2008. PM 2.5 Objectives and History: environmental

protection agency.

Retrieved: June 6th 2010.

Downloaded: http://www.ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/147130.pdf

• Smit, B. I. Burton, R.J.T. Klein, J. Wandel. 2008. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and

variability.


2010.

Downloaded: www.uoguelph.ca/.../Smit%20et%20al.%20(2000)_Climatic%20Change.pdf

• Stichting Innovatie Glastuinbouw Nederland and InnovatieNetwerk. 2007. Een kas voor elke woonwijk:

duurzame energie voor de gebouwde omgeving uit de glastuinbouw.

Retrieved: May 18th

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,3387931&_

dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=16959

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



2010.

Downloaded: http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=22278

• Sutic, N. 2003. How Green Roofs Can Improve the Urban Environment in Uptown Waterloo

(Undergraduate Thesis).

Retrieved: June 1st

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/ers/undergraduate/90sForWeb/NSutic-

GreenRoofs.pdf

• Teri. 2008. Background paper: adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainability.


2010.

Downloaded: www.teriin.org/events/docs/adapt.pdf

• Twiss, J., J. Dickinson, S. Duma, T. Kleinman, H. Paulsen, L. Rilveria. 2003. Community gardens: Lessons

learned from California healthy cities and communities.

Retrieved: June 2nd

2010.

Downloaded: American Journal of Public Health, 93(9) 1435-1438.

• Urban Agriculture Magazine nr. 22. 2009. Building Resilient Cities.


2010.

Downloaded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/.../UA22-Building-Resilient-Cities

• Urban Gardening Club, 2000. WHO series on food security case study 1: Urban agriculture in St.

Petersburg.

Retrieved: May 13th

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e70095.pdf

• Vlaskamp, W., L. Heutinck. 2008. Thesis: Er was een een stad bedekt met groene daken.

Retrieved: May 1st

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.hbo-kennisbank.nl/nl/page/hborecord.view/show?uploadId=

vanhall_larenstein thesis%3Aoai%3Alibrary.wur.nl%3Ascriptiesvhl%2F1896850

• Wageningen University, 2009. Stadslandbouw.

Retrieved: May 18th

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.syscope.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/26C58BDE-F4C6-43E2-9BD7-

25B987FA893F/19744/Stadslandbouw7LR1.pdf

• Wieditz, I. 2003. Urban Biodiversity – An Oxymoron? The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor.

Retrieved: June 3rd

2010.

Downloaded: http://www.greenroofs.org/pdf/GRIM-Spring2003.pdf

Interviews • Marit Beguin. External environmental advisor municipality of Amersfoort.

Retrieved: May 11th

2010.

• Willem Oxener, landscape architect and Bert Blijleven, urban designer.

Retrieved: May 28th

2010.

• Edgar van Groningen, Eemstad Lab and Transition Town Amersfoort.

Retrieved: May 28th

2010.


Appendix 1 Case studies

Chapters one and two explained the context of urban agriculture and the method we intend to use in this

chapter. Urban agriculture practically contains ^& case studies varying in size and way of urban agriculture. By

analyzing these case studies using the multi criteria analysis (MCA) described in chapter two, this chapter

concludes in the best case study. The case study which scores highest in our multicriteria analysis is projected

onto our test case, also called reference, city in the Netherlands.

3.1 Case study 1: Rooftop and institutional gardening The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study

concerns St. Petersburg, Russia. The project was initiated by the St. Petersburg Urban Gardening Club (UGC), a

non-profit foundation on a local scale level.

The potential for rooftop gardening in St. Petersburg is huge. The UGC has done research, conducted tests and

now has excellent information for interested Russian city farmers. For example, in just one district it is possible

to grow 2000 tons of vegetables per season from 500 roof tops. An important factor is that all agriculture is

placed on existing rooftops. The projects within the case study are:

• Horticultural therapy project

• Growing chicory salad

• Gardens in city prison

• Secondary school No. 42

3.1.1 Air label

The case study does not include a direct link to the diminishing of air pollution by using rooftop gardens.

Though it is not mentioned the permanent vegetable plants (tomatoes, chicory, peppers, dill, lettuce and

flowers) do absorb particulates.

3.1.2 Energy label

Though it is not explicitly mentioned in the case study the energy label is applicable. Because urban agriculture

is used, the substrate on the roof has to be between 25 - 50 cm thick to have enough growing room for

vegetable plants.

3.1.3 Water label

The horticultural project included a water system for reuse of water. Because of the thick substrate described

in the energy label, water gets more absorbed. A substrate of 25 – 50 cm equals a water absorption with a

maximum of 70%.

3.1.4 Social capital label

Health

The horticultural therapy project aims at transforming the courtyard of the Prosthesis Institute into a therapy

garden especially equipped for handicapped, mostly limb amputations. It relieves the sense of despair and

inactivity and provides new opportunities for over 400 clients per year. The project concerning growing chicory

was mainly targeting at making healthy vitamin rich food available for poor families in the area.

Education

With the project secondary school no. 42 rooftop gardens where started for producing vegetables and greens

with the purpose to teach ‘live’ biology classes. They planted dill, parsley, tomatoes, lettuce, peppers and

annual flowers. Seeds are collected and used next year. Other schools are implementing rooftop gardens too.

The horticulture project teaches gardening skills to people possessing a reduced ability to work.

Recreation

The project gardens in the city prison implemented rooftop gardens for food production for the inmates and

provide the inmates with a creative outlet for their energy. The horticultural therapy project has next to a

health goal also recreation goal for clients.


Participation

Rooftop gardens are exploited by city farmers and are semi-public. For all four projects inhabitants have to be

either a client at the Prosthesis Institute or in prison or in school or a house owner.

Cohesion

Groups of people tend to the projects. These groups are already formed due to social circumstances (school,

therapy, prison). The groups interact more with each other and learn to cooperate. Because these projects are

semi-public the ‘supply’ of new participants is limited.

Safety

Because the urban agriculture is occurring on rooftops vandalism is avoided. Unwanted excess is not possible.

3.1.5 Economics label

(Self)Employment

There is no paid employment in this case study. All participants are volunteers or are socially bound to practice

urban farming for reasons mentioned in social capital label. Though they are not paid, a lot of people spend

their time in the gardens and voluntary employ.

Food security

All projects contribute to the urban food supply. They all sell or trade their vegetables and flowers on markets.

The exception is the prison which uses it for feeding inmates.

Share in markets

Excess food production is sold on markets and in LETS. LETS are Local Exchange and Trading Schemes. Food

cannot only be bought here but also traded for other foods.

Durability

The used materials where lightweight. Rooftops where not equipped with lightweight substrates. An important

note is that urban rooftop gardening is a much cheaper method of urban agriculture than using land. The lease

of land or the purchase of land increases the financial costs. In contrast rooftops are always available and free

from vandalism. Organic produces.

Value increase

Due to beautification around the school, hospital and prison the sight has improved. Participants in the project

plant seedlings from flowers around their buildings. Though beautification is in order the buildings will not

increase in value due to the fact that they will not be sold except when the functions of these buildings (school,

prison, hospital) is altered.


Not applicable.


Stakeholders

The stakeholders in the project are the initiator UGC, the participating institutions being school no. 42, the city

prison and the Prosthesis institute. Volunteers concern an important and growing group in rooftop gardening.

The stakeholders where not initially contacted and informed but during the process.

Basis

Urban agriculture is used by the urban poor for centuries in Russia. Therefore a historical basis is available.

Agriculture on rooftops engaged in much enthusiasm but also resistance because of the unusual idea. The first

rooftop gardening began without any basis. It grew trough media attention and promotion.



The government is not involved and had only a facilitating role in urban agriculture. The government is not

approached to be a partner in rooftop gardening. At first no facilitation, mainly in policies was made, nowadays

the government does implement it in strategies because of the basis among inhabitants of St. Petersburg.

Policies

As described above policies are implemented making rooftop gardening a possibility. Still there exist a lot of

difficulties permission must be obtained for rooftop gardening.


The UGC has been actively promoting rooftop gardening. TV-Channels 5 and 36 of St. Petersburg, Moscow TV

paid attention to the project. Local and regional newspapers as ‘Smena’ and Novosti Sankt-Peterburga’ and

magazines as Ecochronicle have published articles on the experience in St. Petersburg. This resulted in a

noticeable though not measurable increase in rooftop gardeners. The awareness in environmental and food

growing has increased greatly.

3.2 Case study 2: allotments and community gardens The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study

concerns London, Great Britain. The case study does not have clear initiators because of the historical bounds

London has to urban agriculture. The main goal of this case study was to feed families, the urban poor.

Nowadays it is still for feeding working class families and more and more for middle class recreationists. The

case study contains several methods of urban farming such as allotments, community gardening and

greenhouse farming. The projects within the case study are:

• Lea valley: sea of glass

• Allotment: a potted history

• City farms and community gardens

• School gardens

3.2.1 Air label

The permanent plants, bushes and hedged placed in the gardens improve the air quality.

3.2.2 Energy label

Gardening is not energy efficient because it doesn’t insulate the building.

3.2.3 Water label

The ground on which the urban agriculture takes place absorbs all water.


Health

Studies have proven that gardening in England creates a sense of purpose among participants. The incidence of

serious and expensive illnesses are reduced. Though this is not measurable only promotable.

Education

City farms serve an educational role. Some have developed teaching packs which link the farm’s activities with

school curriculum requirements. Visiting a city farm is for various inhabitants a first encounter with agricultural

animals and food-growing in the ground. The school gardens only have a educational purpose due to their

small sizes which makes the nutritional gain small.

Recreation

Gardening is in the United Kingdom mainly focused on recreation. Not intentionally provided but self

conducted.

Participation

Lee valley is a private project. Therefore only employees are allowed to enter the property. The allotments can

be rented and are semi public. Similar are the school gardens. City farms and community gardens are free of

admission and it is possible to join a group at any time.


Cohesion

Because of the historical nature of gardening in the United Kingdom, social cohesion can be found on every

allotment and in every city farm or school garden. Inhabitants who do or do not know each other get together

to cultivate land and maintain their vegetables. Often they make trading schemes and vacation schemes.

Safety

Agricultural enterprises face additional problems such as vandalism and tipping. This is sometimes so severe

that farming becomes unprofitable and agricultural land is left to deteriorate. These obstacles need to be

addressed and, where necessary, removed because urban agriculture could potentially yield a far greater range

of benefits than many of the other uses of such land.


(Self)Employment

Only within the project Lea Valley: sea of glass there are paid employees because of the commercial nature of

the greenhouse companies. The other projects are counting solely on self employed volunteers. The National

Health Services of Great Britain stated that for every Pound invested into volunteers, 2-8 Pounds worth of work

are returned.

Food security

The main reason in the projects allotments and community gardens is to produce food for a household or close

relations. Food from these allotments or community gardens cannot be sold on markets due to British law

which states that sale for commercial purposes of allotment-grown food is not permitted unless it benefits the

community. Lea valley contributes to household food through deliveries to supermarkets.

Share in markets

As stated above allotment-grown food cannot be sold for commercial purposes. It is possible to use LETS. Lea

valley delivers food to supermarkets in the city.

Durability

No durable materials where used because no organization funded these. When gardeners have to pay it

themselves it is too expensive.

Value increase

The projects are closed in by industrialized areas and have a beautifying effect on the surroundings. Because of

the functions which rest on the surrounding areas (industry, office, transport)these buildings will not increase

in value.


Because commercial farms are protected in the Great Britain no grants are given to allotments gardeners or

commercial gardeners. The commercial greenhouse in Lea Valley does receive a grant.


Stakeholders

The field of stakeholders is well developed and inventoried. It was not necessarily inventoried before all

projects started but only during the process and the development of projects stakeholders became clear and

new organizations within the playing field erected themselves. The Food Futures organization brings

stakeholders together to develop a strategy for a local food economy. The most important stakeholders in

urban agriculture are:

• London Planning Advisory Committee

• Chartered Institute of Environmental

Health

• Permaculture Association of Britain

• Common Ground

• National Society of Allotment and

Leisure Gardeners

• Federation of City Farms and Community

Gardens

• Food Futures

Basis

The basis for gardening, and therefore urban agriculture, in the United Kingdom is great. Four fifths of British

adults claim to garden no matter what and 39% describe themselves as keen. 14% grow at least their own fruit

and vegetables. The basis among older people (50+ years old) is higher 21% than for younger people (20-24

years old) 5%.


The government acknowledges the need and use of urban agriculture. The London Planning and Advisory

Committee states: ‘the value of agricultural land in contributing to sustainability is clear’ and recommends that

‘agricultural land within and adjacent to London needs to be maintained in productive use, particularly the land

of highest quality’. The government promotes and facilitates urban agriculture.

Policies

Due to mixed landownership a coherent policy framework is very complex to set in place. Policies do exist on

national and regional levels. These policies support a more environmental productive approach to the area

surrounding London. Sustainable food production is providing for or contributing to the lists introduced by the

Planning Policy Guidance.


Urban agriculture is promoted through various organizations. These are the National Society of Allotment and

Leisure Gardeners, Common Ground, the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens and the Soil

Association. These organization run several campaign such as ‘grow your own organic fruit and vegetables’ and

‘food futures’.

Because of the popularity of gardening, there are TV gardening programs at prime viewing hours every night.

URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 62

3.2 Case study 3: Urban farms

The department of Urban and Regional planning of the University of California conducted a research to

describe and analyze urban farms throughout the United States of America. The urban farms described in this

study contribute in a significant way to the health, education, environment and economy of their local

communities. The projects are initiated and demanded by local communities. Urban farms are located inside or

on the fringe of a city. The following six projects are mentioned in the research:

• Zenger Farm: Portland, Oregon

• Somerton Tanks Farm: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

• Troy Gardens Community Farm: Madison, Wisconsin

• Wood Street Urban Farm: Chicago, Illinois

• Red Hook Community Farm: Brooklyn, New York

• Alemany Farm: San Francisco, California

3.2.1 Air label

The permanent plants, bushes and hedged placed in the gardens improve the air quality.

3.2.2 Energy label

No substrate is used. Therefore no energy saving measures are taken.

3.2.3 Water label

The ground on which the farms are build absorb all water.


Health

The most important health factor urban agriculture contributes to is diet-related. They especially contribute to

the food deserts. These are areas with no or distant grocery stores and many nearby fast food convenience

stores. Studies prove that communities living in these areas have higher rates of obesity, diabetes and heart

disease. Though a new good-food introduction is needed urban farms are not big enough to produce sufficient

food for the entire community.

Education

Several programs in gardening, composting, cooking, and farm stand or market management. Everyone, from

students to pre-school age members can participate in weekly classes, field trips and summer programs. They

learn not only how to grow healthy food but also how to cook, and consume the foods that contribute to their

health. To close the cycle they also learn about waste management, recycling and composting.

Recreation

The urban farms described do not provide recreational benefits. They aim at education, health and

employment.

Participation

The urban farms described are all public. Though not everyone can work in one of them they are accessible for

everyone to take course or to give a hand.

Cohesion

The urban farms aim at several groups inside the communities. These are for example students, preschool

members but also high risk youth population, homeless and low income individuals. Though these groups

participate they usually do not mix.

Safety

Urban farms are liable to vandalism because they are mostly easy accessed. Reports show that farms do need

gates and fences sometimes even video surveillance.

3.2.5 Economics label:

(Self)Employment


Urban farms provide employment opportunities to the local community. The farms employ mostly at-risk

youth, homeless and low-income individuals. A big chunk of the work is done by volunteers. In every case

described, however, the current income generated through farm sales is not enough to provide sufficient

wages for the farm employees. Non-profit organizations, grants, and other forms of outside funding usually

provide additional support.

Food security

The city farms are used to educate people about the way food grows and healthy food. Only 50% is consumed

on the farm the other part is sold on markets. No food is directly used in households.

Share in markets

Urban farms contribute 50% of their yield to local outdoor farmer food markets.

Durability

No sustainable materials have been used because of the low cost build. There was no room in the budget to

use sustainable materials.

Value increase

N/A.


Grant funding is in order. See (self) Employment.


Stakeholders

The farms where initiated by local groups or non-profit organizations. they were reasonably good organized

from the beginning. Publicity was a big problem, people did not know about the farms and the reason why they

should visit a farm.

Basis

Four of these six farms owe their existence to community demand and initiative. This community demand, for

access to clean, healthy foods, educational open space, and environmentally friendly employment, is growing

throughout cities in the United States.


The government facilitated in the needs such as grants, up to date legislation and cheap building grounds. They

do not interfere with the farm itself.

Policies

Policies which enable the build of urban farms have been approved in all cities. It is not always very easy

because of the land that is acquired relatively cheap.


The urban farms promote themselves using mostly mouth-to-mouth communication. They get recommended

often and that way they create a larger basis with the community. The way the local community experiences

food has improved.


Case study 4: Backyard gardening and greenhouse rooftops

The department of projects and external relations of Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee-Gaza and the

Consulat General De France A Jerusalem implemented and researched urban agriculture in refugee camps. The

project tries to develop different urban agriculture activities in several Refugees Camps in the Gaza Strip. The

implementation concerned growing crops in backyards and in 20m2 or 40m2 greenhouses on rooftops. The

crops and greenhouses have been provided totally equipped by the department. The objective of the project is

to improve health, food security, environmental and social situation of the 81 families which participated in the

project.

3.2.1 Air label

Due to the fact that permanent vegetable plants were used particulates are filtered out of the air.

3.2.2 Energy label

N/A because of the lack of substrates.

3.2.3 Water label

Because of the thick substrate described in the energy label, water gets more absorbed. A substrate of 25 – 50

cm equals a water absorption with a maximum of 70%. The project also makes use of collecting and using

rainwater. The greenhouses have drainage systems to avoid filtration and to reuse water.


Health

The greenhouses and backyards provide to the family direct and easy access to different fresh vegetables along

the year, depending on the kind of crop. The practice of urban agriculture also gives refugees an opportunity to

recover the severed connection with their agricultural backgrounds. Because of this the feeling of inactivity and

frustration decreases. The food grown inside the green houses and backyards is of a higher production quality

than the available vegetable quality in the market since the farmers use organic farming and therefore no

pesticides or other dangerous chemical products.

Education

The beneficiary 81 families, have received intensive technical training in different aspects of urban agriculture.

This way they are able to cultivate their own crops. Moreover, they have received continuous technical advice

during the entire project. Children are taught in the backyards and greenhouses about the function green

spaces, to know the plants and their requirements and to have their role in the agricultural project.

Recreation

Recreation was not a particular part of this case study due to the great demand for (healthy) food. But, as

described above, refugees felt more useful and back in touch with their farming backgrounds.

Participation

It is not possible for everyone to join in. Though it was possible to apply. The project was semi-public. The

beneficiary families have been selected on the following criteria:

• Living in a Refugee Camp.

• Poor households with low income.

• Family member above seven.

• Basic skills and experience in agriculture.

Cohesion

enhancement of relationships between neighbors. It is not estrange to receive visitors for seeing the

greenhouse, asking for some vegetable which he needs or simply for drinking a tea on the roof.

Safety

The backyards tended to be plundered every once in a while. The rooftops greenhouses on the other hand

where very safe and free of vandalism.



(Self)Employment

The 81 families were employed during the projects. They were supplied with all materials and could keep the

food they grew.

Food security

The amount of food that was grown in the gardens and greenhouses was enough to feed the families for on

average 30% of their needs. The income generated (in other words the food they did not have to buy which

saves money) lies between 20 and 30%.

Share in markets

The food was not sold nor traded because every family needed the amount of food they grew.

Durability

The greenhouses were made of sustainable glass. Due to the substrate on the rooftops the sustainability of the

houses were increased. Because of this substrate the cooling effect inside the houses was increased.

Value increase

N/A.


Estimations show that greenhouses are not profitable for the families if they have to cover all the costs (fixed

and running). Therefore the project was totally funded by the Israelian and Palestinian governments.


Stakeholders

The project was initiated by the department of projects and external relations of PARC-Gaza. An external

organization covers the initial greenhouse fixed costs in such a way that the families only have to cover running

costs. No other stakeholders where involved because of the top down structure of the project.

Basis

There was a large basis for the implementation of urban agriculture. It is mentioned above that the refugees

left their original mostly agricultural villages. They are very pleased to see more green inside the camps.


The government used an open authoritarian style. The communication was single sided and the participants

functioned as recipient.

Policies

The government took care of the policies. Building regulations were altered.


Families were picked without a widely spread campaign. The governments are trying to create communication

due to case study reports but mostly to show other countries their interests. Awareness is not taken into

account.


Case study 5: Community gardening

Havana, Cuba is described as a continuous productive urban landscape. This means that they are able to use

urban agriculture throughout the year. Urban agriculture was promoted in Cuba after the crisis when Cuba lost

more than 75% of its import and export capacity. Urban agriculture in Cuba is focused on community gardens

on the city fringe or in the city centre adjacent to major roads. the case study defines various kinds of

community gardens being:

• Plots (less then 1000m2)

• Intensive cultivation gardens ( between 1000m2 and 2000m2)

• Urban gardens ( between 2000m2 and 5000m2)

• High yield urban garden (over 10.000 m2)

Though these areas seem large pathways take up a lot of the available space. It is not unusual that a 1000m2

growing area requires a 3000m2 site.

3.2.1 Air label

Air contamination is deducted because of the placement of permanent plants, bushes and hedges. These

permanent vegetable plants take up a mentionable amount of particulates.

3.2.2 Energy label

The substrate is used. This is done by raising vegetable beds. This does not have an energy saving effect.

3.2.3 Water label

The ground absorbs the water. Water is reused on the site.


Health

Crops are cultivated on raised beds so they can come in contact with contaminated soil. Schools and

restaurants are supplied with fresh organic produce on a daily basis.

Education

Fields of urban agriculture are placed adjacent to schools which provides an opportunity for children of the

schools to educate themselves about the growth of food.

Recreation

The recreational aspect of urban agriculture has been recognized in the last years. Before it was all about food

security. Nowadays people also do it to recreate.

Participation

The sites for urban agriculture are public or semi public. Most sites have been fenced of. Inhabitants of Cuba

are always able to participate.

Cohesion

Many users of urban agriculture started by using derelict urban spaces in the city. It was available for all groups

but mainly for low-income households which had a greater need for food security. The large vegetable patches

between apartment buildings are cultivated with (a part of) the residents sometimes under leadership of a

professional. Social cohesion increased.

Safety

Security is of great importance at agricultural sited in Cuba. Although fences provide a physical barrier along

boundaries, trespassing is common.

3.2.5 Economics label:

(Self)Employment

Urban agriculture is a voluntary business.


Food security

Urban agriculture provides food to each household and contributes to the urban food supply.

Share in markets

The food produced in the community gardens is mostly used by the residents or volunteers working the

patches. Also small markets are set up to sell food.

Durability

The materials used are not specifically durable. Vegetables are produced in an organic way without non-organic

pesticides and fertilizers. This mainly due to the fact that there is a lack of hard currency (initially).

Value increase

The city of Havana had a major beautification benefit of urban agriculture. Sites are also placed between

apartment buildings which makes the public space more attractive.


The Cuban government supported urban agriculture throughout Cuba.


Stakeholders

Stakeholders where not inventoried before the project started.

Basis

Due to the crisis that hit Cuba the basis for urban agriculture was reasonable. People needed to provide food

for their families.


The inhabitants of Cuba started with urban agriculture as a response to the crisis the country was in. the

government stimulated this by introducing the NAAM model (see policies). This was all handled top down in an

open authoritarian style.

Policies

Urban agriculture was fitted into policies as NAAM; national alternative agricultural model. This model aimed at

the development of less mechanized, more labor intensive operations involving local communities to produce

sustainable food production enterprises.

Communication and awareness raising awareness

The crisis generated an awareness among people to become vegetable producers in urban and peri-urban

areas. Next to this there is a growing awareness that conventional techniques are causing environmental

damage.


Case study 6


Case study 7


3.3 Case study 8


Appendix 2 Interviews

Interview 1

Location City hall Amersfoort. Hallestraat 24 room 1.035

Date/Time May 11th 2010, 15.00.

Interviewed Marit Béguin. External environmental advisor.

Subject

GPR Building

The sustainability tool GPR Building is used by public authorities and building professionals to design

sustainable buildings. GPR is a software tool, which quantifies the environmental impact and the design quality

for new buildings as well as for the refurbishment of existing buildings. It is suitable as a decision making tool as

it helps to find an optimum between the reduction of environmental load along with improvement of the

quality of the building. Marit Béguin is working in the implementation of this instrument in the routine of the

municipality of Amersfoort. Adjustments on building level:

• Low temperature heating

• Heat pumps

• Ventilation

GPR building takes the direct environment into account and test the flexibility of a building. It has also potential

of calculating the CO2 emission of the building and the build materials. A pilot is available on the internet. Marit

Béguin explains that it is possible that she uses the license of the municipality to run some calculations for our

project. If we assemble the information we can contact her for the calculations.

Possibilities of UA

Amersfoort has a lot of allotments inside the municipalities boundaries. Projects could be situated in:

• Schools � for education and energy saving.

• Social housing.

In the area ‘Soesterkwartier’ a association of sustainable Soesterkwartier has been erected. They are

concerned with the placement of solar panels, windmills and awareness.

Role municipality of Amersfoort

The municipality cannot be an initiator or finance the project on her own. The municipality is mainly interested

in the stimulation and communication of the Urban Agriculture possibilities in the city. Raising awareness is

important. Marit Béguin suggests interviewing housing corporations in Amersfoort. There are two: Portaal and

Alliantie Eemvallei. In new apartment buildings associations of owners (vereniging van eigenaren) can be

approached. It is not unusual that they work together on energy saving programs.

At this point the policies concerning sustainability are inventoried in the municipality. It is possible for urban

agriculture to join this course. Information will be spread towards project managers and it could be taken into

account as an opportunity for sustainability in new projects.

Sources

The following sources have been pointed out by Marit Béguin.

• Vereniging Duurzaam Soesterkwartier: [email protected]

• VROM database on lifecycle analysis of transport of building materials.

• Thesis: succesfactors implementing sustainable strategies.

• Urban designer: [email protected]

• Landscape architect: [email protected]

• When needed an address for legal advise.

When the report is finished please send it to: [email protected] – jm.piessens-

[email protected].


Interview 2

Location City hall Amersfoort. Stadhuisplein 1 room 3.55

Date/Time May 28th 2010, 10.00.

Interviewed Willem Oxener, landscape architect

Subject

Projects in Amersfoort:

• Medieval gardens in city park Schothorst, specifically for education.

• In the old days children were taught how food grew and how to grow it. These gardens where called

‘kindwerktuinen’.

• Allotment gardens/vegetable gardens are still in use in Amersfoort. Though the need of these gardens

is decreasing the municipality maintained space in the city for the development of allotment gardens.

Only on the districts Nieuwland and Vathorst this was not applied due to a PPS construction and high

land values.

Examples

• Detroit: since car industry collapsed urban agriculture arose in the voids in the urban landscape.

Initiated by inhabitants of Detroit in an economical aspect.

• East Berlin: the courtyards inside the large apartment buildings are transformed to collective gardens.

• Victorian gardens: engeland has a tradition in gardening. Mostly uppermiddle clad. People compete

with each other over the biggest paprika or leek.

Scale level and placement

The scale on which urban agriculture is introduced cannot be too great. As a basic rule: bigger projects equal

more anonymity which degrades the social aspect of urban agriculture. Cooperation and collective

maintenance decreases.

Willem Oxener explains preference being the use of private space for urban agriculture. For example to use

front gardens as a vegetable patch. Every cooperating household can eat from the garden and has an obligation

to maintain it. A private organization could work best but it is asking for a huge change of behavior. Using the

public domain is not useful because of the functions that are already placed on this stressed public space.

Show how much space is needed for Amersfoort to be self sufficient. 416m2 x 150.000 = 62.400.000.

Points of consideration urban agriculture

• Knowledge of food production. When people are beginning to grow their own food they need a great

amount of help. They need guidance on where to plant it, when to plant it, to water it, to yield it and

what to do when sickness sets in. when people fail several times they will not continue gardening.

• The difference between growing your own food and buying it in the supermarket does not have great

economical profit.

• Labor-intensive. Growing your own food is highly labor-intensive. People have to make time to

maintain their vegetables. In other countries (Spain, Portugal etc.) women are mostly the party which

takes care of food.

• There are seasons in which same kinds of vegetables can be yielded. The price for these vegetables is

low and cannot be traded because everyone yield them at the same time. It is possible to deepfreeze

them or ‘wekken’ (short boil, put it in an airtight jar).

• Chemical insecticides and herbicides cannot be used. The food should be grown biological.

• UA needs a lot of promotion and communication.

• Closed-loop systems are not infallible. Due to lack of enough nutrients in soil which isn’t fallowed.

• Fast growing plants are important for CO2 reduction because of they produce more leafs.

• Natural insecticides such as ladybug and bumblebees.

Sources

• Sicco mantholt: wat moet een land doe nom een status zelfvoorzienend te bereiken.


Interview 3

Location Central station Amersfoort

Date/Time May 28th 2010, 13.00

Interviewed Edgar van Groningen. Eemstad Lab. Transition Towns

Subject

Urban agriculture

Two tracks are possible in UA. The first is producing food around the city the second is producing food inside

the city. In the Netherlands food produced inside the city is coming from vegetable gardens, eatable public

gardens and schoolgardens. Education and awareness key factors in urban agriculture. In Amersfoort the

amount of vegetable gardens has decreased from 31 HA in 2000 to 18 HA nowadays. Only on the last two city

expansion projects Nieuwland and Vathorst vegetable gardens where not created. This was due to the fact that

it was a public-private cooperation. The ground was too expensive to plan vegetable gardens.

Projects in Amersfoort

• CSA: community supported agriculture.

They provide the possibility to adopt a horticulturist or farmer. The adopter and adopted decide

together how much the yield is worth and set a price. It depends on the yield whether you get a high

reward or a lower one.

• Eetbaar Amersfoort (eatable Amersfoort)

Other projects

• Rijksbouwmeester: using backyards for greenhouses.

• Cuba case study. Using public ground between buildings. Yield of 120 tons per HA.

Food production

Food can be produced two thirds of the year from April till December. The peak is between June until

September. Each individual has an ecological footprint of 4,5 HA in the Netherlands. This concerns all subjects

not only food. The 416m2 explained in a research paper is only for growing vegetables. Meat is not included.

Students of the WUR researched how much a city needs to produce to become self sufficient and how much

can be produced. A general conclusion was that cities can produce 10% of their vegetables and fruit in their

own cities.

Economy is not a great factor. A household in the Netherlands does not have financial gain by producing their

own food. Food in supermarkets is to cheap and the time spend growing food is much larger and relatively

more expensive.

Course: method

• BBB

A good useable method for the last chapter can be the triple B. In Dutch: Beeld, beheer and belang.

• VVV

Certain environmental factors in UA are in Dutch voedsel, volkshuisvesting and vervoer.

Course: location

Edgar van Groningen suggests to focus our research on the Amersfoort Vernieuwt (renewes) areas. These are

for example Soesterkwartier and Kruiskamp. These areas are already in development and cultures inside the

area have a need for urban agriculture for they are foreign or poor.

Sources

• Schoolgardens and vegetable gardens in Amsterdam. Housing corporation Ymere, Marjan Kootwijk

(groenmedewerker).

• VROM-raad: publieke ruimte: naar een nieuwe balans tussen beeld, beheer en belang.

• Continuous productive urban landscapes.

• A possibility to make a presentation on a gathering on June 17th

in front of members of the council of

the municipality of Amersfoort. Make Huib Haccoû aware.

thesis urban agriculture

Documents