Upload
jimmy-wolf
View
244
Download
11
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Thesis Urban Agriculture
Citation preview
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 3
Management summary
This thesis report is about urban agriculture and is mainly divided into adaptation measures and the mitigation
effects of urban agriculture on global warming. We devoted the first chapter to form a good picture about
urban agriculture and the connection between the adaptation and mitigation effects. Both positive and
negative aspects will be mentioned and to get a visual idea how urban agriculture looks like there will be given
a few case studies where it is already implemented.
To compare these case studies for adaptation effects and mitigation effects on global warming we need a type
of rating system, which allows us to rate the different case studies subjectively. The mitigation effects on global
warming are divided in labels which contain the improvement in air quality, energy cut down for local
apartments and the ability to hold water. The adaptation effects are measured in the social effects, the
economic effects and the organization effects. By scoring different ratings on the different labels you already
get a good indication of which type of urban agriculture has got the most advantages, but this is not exact
enough to give a good prediction. Therefore we need a second rating system to get a good measure.
Because the labels are not all of the same importance to the success of urban agriculture so we divided these
labels in different weighting factors and composed a multicriteria-analyses. The difference in weighting factors
are indicated and explained in this multicriteria-analyses table.
From this point on we have 2 different indications how to get a good rating on the different case studies and
point out the best case studies for this thesis. By these 2 calculations (these can be found in chapter 2.3) we
composed our own final rating for these case studies which are shown on the lower left corner of every case
study.
After rating 5 different case studies, the most sufficient type of urban agriculture is rooftop gardening. The
greatest advantage of rooftop gardening is that it reduces energy usage and it has many social benefits in
comparison to other types of urban agriculture.
At this moment it is of importance to find a suited location to implement rooftop gardening. We chose a
representative city for the Netherlands and the most suitable city is Amersfoort, because of its size, inhabitants
and sustainability. The municipality of Amersfoort is also busy with the “Amersfoort vernieuwt” program,
which means they will rebuild and renew great parts of the city. An area called Schuilenburg is the most suited
because it has many flat rooftops and low income inhabitants. There will be done a research how rooftop
gardening will implement in this part of town.
Finally this thesis will result in an advice. Here we will reflect on our own findings and give advice about why
urban agriculture should be implemented, how it can be implemented and other points of interest.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 4
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 5
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 6
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
3.2.2 SUB CONCLUSION 29
3.3 CASE STUDY 3: URBAN FARMS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 30
3.3.1 FACTSHEET 30
3.3.2 SUB CONCLUSION 30
3.4 CASE STUDY 4: BACKYARD GARDENING AND GREENHOUSE ROOFTOPS IN THE GAZA-STRIP 31
3.4.1 FACTSHEET 31
3.4.2 SUB CONCLUSION 31
3.5 CASE STUDY 5: COMMUNITY GARDENING IN HAVANA 32
3.5.1 FACT SHEET 32
3.5.2 SUB CONCLUSION 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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 7
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 8
LIST OF SOURCES 51
LITERATURE (BOOKS) 51
INTERNET 51
PUBLICATIONS (PDF, ARTICLES) 52
INTERVIEWS 56
APPENDIX 1 CASE STUDIES 57
APPENDIX 2 INTERVIEWS 71
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 9
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 10
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 11
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 12
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 13
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 14
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 15
The Dutch climate zone
The Dutch climate zone has got a so called Cfb-climate, a mild sea climate with mild winters and cool
summers. The climate is influenced by the North Sea, which moderates the temperature throughout the
whole year. The last decades the temperature is fluctuating, but there is a noticeable rise in temperature. It
has not yet been proven that the cause of these fluctuations are the increase of greenhouse gasses.
Köppen climate classification
The Köppen climate classification is one of the most widely used climate classification systems. It was first
published by German climatologist Wladimir Köppen in 1884, with several later modifications by Köppen
himself notably in 1918 and 1936. Later, German climatologist Rudolf Geiger collaborated with Köppen on
changes to the classification system, which is thus sometimes referred to as the Köppen–Geiger climate
classification system.
The system is based on the concept that native vegetation is the best expression of climate. Thus, climate
zone boundaries have been selected with vegetation distribution in mind. It combines average annual and
monthly temperatures and precipitation, and the seasonality of precipitation.
For a good overview of the Dutch climate zone and comparable zones see the picture below. Countries with a
comparable climate zone in Europe are: Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, West Germany and a few
areas in East Germany, a great percentage of France, the Northern regions of Spain and the Southern regions
of Denmark. There are also a few other places around the world with a comparable climate zone like the
Netherlands. These climate zones are located in New Zealand, parts of Southern Australia, a part of
Argentina, a small part of Brazil, a part of Colombia, a small part of Venezuela and a small part of Ecuador.
The rest of the comparable climate zones around the world are very small and insignificant for this research.
For a detailed world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification see appendix 2.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 16
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 17
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 18
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 19
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 20
1.5 Conclusions Urban agriculture has many benefits like improving the air quality, reduce energy usage, social benefits and
economic benefits. These advantages are very important for future generations and for the habitability of this
planet. The most important bottlenecks are mostly originated by the lack of knowledge, lack of time and lack of
making much money by producing vegetables. The bottlenecks of urban farming do not compensate the
advantages, because many bottlenecks could be resolved fairly easily.
Not all types of urban agriculture will be used on the continuance of this research. This research will continue
with the following types of urban agriculture because they are most relevant when looked at size,
commerciality and most important social aspects:
• Community gardening
• Rooftop gardening
• Greenhouse gardening
• City farms
• Allotment gardening
Mitigation and adaptation are important aspects to build a better and more sustainable future. Both strategies
have totally different results, but the main goal is the same. Based on this chapter it is possible to use
adaptation and mitigation in the same strategy. Though the strategies are in very different development
phases there are a lot of commonalities between adaptation and mitigation strategies. They both aim for
sustainable development and they deal with climate change. The strategies are complementary to each other
as can be seen in figure 5. While mitigation seeks to reduce and prevent the emissions of GHG’s in the long run,
adaptation can be the solution for short-term climate change measures.
This research divides several subjects over mitigation and adaptation. This division can be seen in figure 6.
Mitigation Adaptation
Air quality 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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 21
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 22
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 23
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 24
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 25
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 26
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 27
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
• Community 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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 28
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 29
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
3.2.2 Sub conclusion
Allotment and community gardening in London scores 146 points in the fact sheet. This is mainly due to the
fact that energy efficiency is not a factor in this case study. The rating of this case study is:
Label Description Case study Rating Weighing
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 30
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
3.3.2 Sub conclusion
Urban farms in the United States of America scores 150 points in the fact sheet. The case study scores high on
water absorption and very low on energy efficiency. Therefore this case study rates:
Label Description Case study Rating Weighing
factor
Final
value
Air C 10 40
Type of vegetation
Bushes and hedges
Permanent vegetable plants
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 31
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
3.4.2 Sub conclusion
The case study backyard gardening and greenhouse rooftops in the Gaza-strip scores 180 points. This case
study scores very good on the energy, water and organization label. The weakest label is air quality due to the
fact that only permanent vegetable plants are cultivated on the roof. This case study rates:
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 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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 32
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
3.5.2 Sub conclusion
The case study on community gardening in Havana scores 159 points in the factsheet. The best points of this
case study are the water label, social capital, economic and organization labels. This case study scores worst on
energy efficiency. This case study is rated:
Label Description Case study Rating Weighing
factor
Final
value
Air C 10 40
Type of vegetation
Permanent vegetable plants
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 33
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 34
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 35
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 36
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 37
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 38
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 39
5 Urban agriculture: applied in Amersfoort
As concluded in the previous chapter rooftop gardening is the case study we intend to use on the
representative city of Amersfoort. This chapter does not only explain the benefits of rooftop gardening but will
show what the consequences of this method of urban agriculture is on the city.
5.1 Placement in Amersfoort Amersfoort is a city with many different districts and neighborhoods. To be able to make adequate suggestions
on what the benefits of rooftop gardening for Amersfoort are, we have chosen a district. The choice of a
certain district has been suggested by Edward van Groningen, researcher at Eemstad Lab. He suggested to
apply urban agriculture and therefore rooftop gardening on an ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ district.
The program ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt is a joined initiative by the municipality of Amersfoort and the housing
cooperation’s Alliantie Eemvallei and Portaal. The aim of this program is to improve the quality of several
districts. Vital, varied and safe districts for a good life with opportunities is of importance. This has to be done
in good consultation with residents and other stakeholders in the district. The six themes on which the program
is set are:
Living together Living
Work Education
Livability Service provisions
The choice of an ‘Amersfoort Vernieuwt’ district is based on the fact that these existing districts are undergoing
a transformation due to reconstruction. By considering an even implementing urban agriculture on rooftops,
these districts are more viable to achieve. They already are in transition and urban agriculture can be take into
account in plan and policy making.
5.1.1 Area of choice
The chosen area is the district of Schuilenburg. Out of the areas that are represented in the ‘Amersfoort
Vernieuwt’ program this area has most potential due to the presence of several flat rooftops..
5.1.2 Description of area
Schuilenburg lies southeast of the centre of Amersfoort and next to the A28. The district was built in the sixties.
The northern part of Schuilenburg is characterized by many stair case entrance flats and gallery entrance flats.
These flats make up the 44,2% social rent housing in the district. The southern part is known for expensive
private housing, 27,7% and private rental apartments. 28,1%. In figure 13 Amersfoort is displayed as a total
and with a cut out of the Schuilenburg district.
Figure 13: Amersfoort and Schuilenburg
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 40
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 41
5.3.1 Air quality
By using urban agriculture the air quality will improve undeniably, but the effects are not as noticeable as the
social effects. The biggest advantage of urban agriculture is the removal of particulates from the air. These
particulates cause asthma and lung cancer and there have the greatest impact on the environment of any city
and therefore also on Amersfoort. The reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere is very important to reduce global
warming, but this aspect does not have a noticeable effect on the citizens of the city of Amersfoort. The reason
for this is that at sea level CO2 concentration is 0.038% and for humans to notice the effects of CO2
concentration it has to be more than 1%. At this concentration humans have to be exposed to this
concentration for a rather long period and the only effect we would feel is dullness. This means that CO2
concentrations outside have to be more than 26 times as high to give a noticeable effect, but the effects
globally are well known.
Different type of vegetation will have more or less effect on the air quality. The main difference for this effect is
the difference in photosynthesis. This difference is determined by the surface of the leafs. So it is quite obvious
that trees will have more effect then small plants. In chapter 2.1.1 "Air label" the buildup in absorbing
particulates per type of vegetation is shown.
The best results in air quality for any city and therefore also for the city of Amersfoort is to plant more
vegetation throughout the city. A good way for getting this result is to create possibilities for people to
participate in urban agriculture. The best result to improve the air quality is to combine urban agriculture with
coniferous species or hardwood.
5.3.2 Energy efficiency
For improving the energy efficiency of the buildings in the city of Amersfoort with urban agriculture it is
essential to use the rooftops. this way the substrate used for urban agriculture is used as an insulator and this
way the buildings don't lose as much heat as with normal rooftops and therefore use less energy. The most
efficient way to reduce energy consumption is to combine urban agriculture on rooftops with glasshouses. This
way the excess heat could be captured and stored in underground reservoirs and could be used in the winter.
The exact figures how much energy could be saved is determined by many factors like size, type of plants, type
of ventilation etc. Therefore it is very difficult to give exact numbers, but at the university of Wageningen they
are doing research by using very precise instruments. Some information gathered at this university is used for
this research.
To cut down the energy usage is indirect an air quality improvement, because most energy is gathered by
burning fossil fuels. Therefore the noticeable changes are air quality improvement and a little step closer
towards a climate neutral city.
5.3.3 Water absorption
On normal rooftops water absorption is 0%. This fresh water resource is all wasted and flushed down the
sewers. The advantage of urban agriculture is that this fresh water is absorbed and used to grow vegetables.
The water absorption depends on the thickness of the substrate, slopes of the rooftops, time of the yeah etc.
The main improvement for the city of Amersfoort is that less water is flushed down the sewer, which will result
in less sewer blockage.
5.4 Social effects There are many social benefits concerning urban agriculture on rooftops. These social benefits of urban
agriculture have been explained in chapter 4.
5.4.1 Health
Implementing urban food security means an increase in physical activities. Gardens need to be maintained
throughout the week and year and there is always something to do. Because of the green surroundings and the
quiet semi public space on the roof stress can be relieved. Growing your own food also helps to eat the right
kinds of fresh food. This can reduce the risk of major diseases These facts count for all cities where urban
agriculture is implemented and therefore are also applicable on Amersfoort.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 42
5.4.2 Education
In Schuilenburg are several schools especially primary schools. The following schools are present in the area:
• Prins Willem Alexander
• Anne Annemaschool
• Koningin Emmaschool
• Vrije School Amersfoort
• De Caecilliaschool
• ‘t Spectrum
Educating children about food, how it grows, how it can be consumed and learning them about climate change
the reduction of CO2 can be done at each one of the primary schools. Children can be taught on the roofs of
their own school or at neighboring apartment buildings. Because some of the schools are sometimes also used
for gatherings, older participants can be taught about urban agriculture too. It helps adapting people to climate
change, they can act within their own terrain and are able to see results by growing food. Due to education
they can also learn about the amount of CO2 they clear from the air.
5.4.3 Recreation
Recreation is of great importance in urban agriculture. Next to the food security reasons which are mentioned
in paragraph 5.5.2, recreation a reason why residents could participate in urban agriculture. During the usage
of urban agriculture people can enjoy being outside. Because of this the aesthetic value of the roofs are
increased and people are more willingly to spend their time in their gardens. This is a general effect urban
agriculture has.
5.4.4 Participation
In Amersfoort is participation limited to private and semi private accessibility. This is due to the apartment
buildings which are not accessible for everyone. It is not possible and maybe not even favorable to create a
public urban agriculture domain. Public agricultural domains can be found in community gardens.
5.4.5 Cohesion
As described in chapter four cohesion is one of the more important social parts of urban agriculture. Especially
the higher sense of community and the feeling that they belong to a community is of vital importance. Though
there are a number of social organizations in the district, people of different ethnicities who live in the same
apartment building do not mix. As is shown in the forum part of the website randebroek-schuilenburg.nl,
people think that their neighborhood was safer and more livable in the ‘70’s. the feeling that residents know
each other and help each other is not present anymore. Urban agriculture can provide an environment to be
together and people can stimulate each other and learn about incentives of their neighbors.
5.4.6 Safety
Rooftop gardening is very safe because it is not accessible for trespassers. This is not a concern of rooftop
gardening. Another form of safety being the security on the rooftops. Hereby is meant that fences need to be
placed to prevent anyone from falling down.
5.5 Economical effects 5.5.1 (Self)Employment
Due to the scale level on which we are working at this time, no real direct job creation is in order. Indirect job
creation is in order because of the build and maintenance companies of the substrate on the roofs, the
education needed for residents to start working urban agriculture and municipal workers who take care of the
communication and ensure the rightful use of rooftop gardening. Self employment is a reasonably big factor in
urban agriculture. Most work is done on a voluntary basis which the volunteers get paid for by the production
of food which does not have to be bought in a supermarket. At this time income levels in Schuilenburg are not
high. The current income of households in Schuilenburg is €28.000 per year, the average income is €33.500 per
year.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 43
5.5.2 Food security
Food security is of more importance the last years. So called ‘voedselbanken’ exist to assist people in need for
basics as food and sometimes clothing. The ‘voedselbank’ in Amersfoort called food focus tries to obtain as
much food as possible so it can be distributed to the needy. By implementing rooftop gardening in
Schuilenburg, where income levels are not that high see paragraph 5.6.1, people can start taking care of their
own fresh vegetable production. They are self accountable for their yield and what is planted on the roof,
though it is wisely to use the plants described in paragraph 5.3.
5.5.3 Share in markets
In Amersfoort exists already 18 hectares of community gardens. Because of this a Local Exchange and Trading
Scheme can be set out. Local private food growers can trade food with each other so they have a greater
variety of food and do not have to hold on to food for a long time. A location for such a trade off does not have
to be fixed. It is arrange able that the market is on different community gardens or around the rooftop gardens.
Another options is to commercially sell the products. Though this is a possibility it depends heavily on the price
that can be obtained for the produce. If this is to low it is easier and more profitable to keep your own grown
food.
5.5.4 Durability
As explained in chapter four the durability of roofs is elongated by the implementation of green rooftops. This
is caused by the substrate and vegetation layer which protects the roof. An important factor is how much the
roofs can carry.
5.5.5 Value increase
The Schuilenburg area is already very green. In the district are many green spots and the ‘Valleikanaal’ runs
through the district. This makes that the district is beautifully green. Rooftop gardening will not add a lot of
value to the houses because of the fact that green is already in place. The small amount of value that can be
gained is through the extra private or semi-public space on the roof which is a part of your personal living
environment.
5.5.6 Financial feasibility
Financial feasibility is almost impossible to calculate due to the varied factors of urban agriculture which have a
social impact and cannot be linked to a hard number of profits. This is a point that needs to be sorted out.
5.6 Legal and organizational implementation 5.6.1 Stakeholders
Successfully implementing an urban agriculture strategy requires participation of various stakeholders. These
are municipal authorities, housing cooperation’s, food producers/consumers, neighborhood groups,
environmental groups and schools. It is very hard to describe all stakeholder because this field is not clear yet.
Though this is not clear we are able to describe the primary working relationships and the initiating
stakeholder.
Urban agriculture should be initiated by the local authorities being the municipality of Amersfoort. They have
to create awareness that rooftop gardening is a possibility. This awareness has to be created with employees of
the municipality as well as residents of target areas. People have to want rooftop gardening and see the
possibilities. Otherwise they will not start working it. Due to this awareness and promotion of rooftop
gardening several organizations in the neighborhood, such as the schools, community centre, church and social
gathering groups, can join forces to speak about implementation and to make each other curious about the
possibilities. The municipality is then able to start communications with the housing cooperation’s Alliantie
Eemvallei and Portaal because they are all involved in the Amersfoort Vernieuwt project. They can co-produce
a plan in which rooftop gardening is implemented. The residents and organizations in the neighborhood are
involved in the process due to a participation course that needs to be set out by the municipality and the
housing cooperation’s.
Figure 14: Stakeholders analysis
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 44
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 45
6 Urban agriculture: advise and recommendations This last but not least chapter of our thesis on urban agriculture is the advisory. The important facts of the
previous chapters will be highlighted and recommendations are given to make sure the right path in urban
agriculture is chosen and the next steps are clear.
6.1 Why urban agriculture? The main goal of urban agriculture in combination with rooftop gardening is improving the available space
usage in the urban area and advancing environmental, social and economical effects. These mitigation effects
to reduce global warming in combination with the adaptation effects to adjust to future changes is an
important combination to create a better world for future generations. Urban agriculture on itself could not
resolve all the problems around global warming and providing the inhabitants with food, but could provide a
good portion of it. To provide a city like Amersfoort with food, it should have an rural area the size of
Amersfoort itself. The use of flat rooftops for urban agriculture, which are used nowadays, could provide a city
like Amersfoort for about 10% of its need for food and also absorbs particulates and CO2 emissions. In
combination with the social and economic effects it sums up to have a rather big impact on the community.
A summary of beneficial aspects of urban agriculture:
• Urban agriculture raises the air quality.
• Urban agriculture saves energy.
• Urban agriculture has water absorbing abilities.
• Urban agriculture improves social engagement and awareness.
• Urban agriculture improves health conditions.
• Urban agriculture improves levels of food security and availability.
• Urban agriculture improves the quality of the urban environment through greening.
• Urban agriculture assists to close the open loop system in urban areas characterized by the
importation of food from rural zones and the exportation of waste to regions outside the city or town.
• Wastewater and organic solid waste can be transformed into resources for growing agriculture
products: the former can be used for irrigation, the latter as fertilizer.
• Vacant urban areas can be used for agriculture production.
• Other natural resources can be conserved. The use of wastewater for irrigation increases the
availability of freshwater for drinking and household consumption.
• Urban agriculture can help to preserve bioregional ecologies from being transformed into cropland.
• Local production of food also allows savings in transportation costs, storage, and in product loss, what
results in food cost reduction.
The biggest advantage of urban agriculture is that everyone can participate and contribute to a better future in
an easy and effective way. For people to participate in urban agriculture, there only has to be created a
possibility. Most people cannot participate in this possibility, because the spatial development till now did not
anticipate on this development. Most rooftops are high angled and this lost space could easily be used for
urban agriculture and for people who are willing to participate in this possibility. It is very difficult to adapt the
existing building to support urban agriculture, because there are a few but crucial requirements. The building
has to support additional weight on the roof, the roof cannot be highly sloped and the roof has got to have an
roof access. To start this process providing these possibilities, urban agriculture has got to be implemented
into governmental policies.
6.2 Why rooftop gardening? The main goal of an urban area is to accommodate and transport its residents and locate everything in short
distances of each other to make it more efficient. This creates a compact city centre, where space is very
expensive and limited. Nowadays the urban areas are fully packed with roads and buildings, which results in
consequences like the urban heat island, an increase of CO2 and an increase of particulates. Most people are
aware that an increase of particulates, CO2 and the urban heat island are bad for our environment and will
result in an increase of global warming.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 46
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 47
6.4 How to implement urban agriculture? Rooftop gardening should be initiated by the municipality of Amersfoort. By initiating we do not mean building
and planning it totally on your own but starting to create awareness. This awareness is of key importance when
urban agriculture needs a firm basis. At first awareness and knowledge about urban agriculture needs to be
raised in the municipal organization itself. When project leaders have a project in which urban agriculture could
be an opportunity they should have to know the basics and be able to convince other parties of the
advantages.
When the municipal organization is aware they have to reach out to their partner in the Amersfoort Vernieuwt
program; the housing cooperation’s. Within their organization the seed of urban agriculture should be planted
to so a working relationship is established.
When both of these leading organizations in Amersfoort Vernieuwt are aware the residents of, in this case, the
Schuilenburg district should be informed. This has to be done gradually because it can be a lot of information to
cope with. Informative folders need to be created to gives people information about urban agriculture, rooftop
gardening, what they can grow and later on how it can be maintained. The information provided in these
folders should be operational, no long talks about technical issues but in short this is urban agriculture, this is
how it can be used and what your ‘income’ is.
When a good basis is set with the residents a pilot project should be the next step. Several advisory bureaus,
such as urban.nl, are willingly to start up a pilot project to research the effectivity and efficiency of urban
agriculture on rooftops. A pilot project can be started on a very small scale of only two apartment buildings.
People in those buildings are invited to join rooftop gardening. They need to receive information and lessons
about how to grow food and to maintain the garden. During this pilot a constant conversation should be taking
place between the residents and the municipality and housing cooperation’s. Residents have to be able to ask
their questions to a fixed person within the organization. When questions stay unanswered the enthusiasm
fades away quickly. The organization should also be able to be in touch with the residents at all times. They
need to ask information about how the food grows and what the yield was.
This pilot is of crucial value to the feasibility of rooftop gardening. Only during such a project it is possible to
see the direct and indirect effects on the residents and their environment.
6.5 Recommendations • Implement rooftop gardening
• Use Amersfoort Vernieuwt district Schuilenburg.
• Fix internal communication before starting external communications with residents.
• Use a small pilot project to research the advantages and disadvantages.
‘THINK GLOBAL, EAT LOCAL’
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 48
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 49
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 50
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 51
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.
Retrieved: April 30th
2010.
URL: http://www.transistiontownamersfoort.ning.com/
• UNFCCC, essential background information climate convention and Kyoto Protocol.
Retrieved: March 10th
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.
Retrieved: March 10th
2010.
URL:: http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_global_warming.php
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 52
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.
Retrieved: April 8th
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.
Retrieved: March 22nd
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.changemagazine.nl/
• COS Nederland. 2009. Lokale duurzaamheidsmeter: stand van zaken.
Retrieved: March 22nd
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.
Retrieved: March 19th
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.library.wur.nl/WebQuery/artik/lang/1689601
• Deelstra, T., H. Girardet. 2009. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities.
Retrieved: April 5th
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.
Retrieved: March 20th
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
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 53
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.
Retrieved: March 12th
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.
Retrieved: March 17th
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.
Retrieved: March 15th
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.
Retrieved: April 12th
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/COag/cOAG15/X0076e.htm
• FAO. 2009. The state of food and agriculture 2009.
Retrieved: March 15th
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.fao.org/publications/en/
• Fussel, H. R.J.T. Klein. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual
thinking.
Retrieved: March 10th
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.
Retrieved: March 23rd
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.
Retrieved: March 22nd
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1469306203001086
• IDRC/UN-Habitat. 2003. Guidelines for municipal policymaking on urban agriculture.
Retrieved: March 9th
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10530054240E1.pdf
• IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Retrieved: March 10th
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spm.html
• IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 54
Retrieved: March 10th
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spm.html
• IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report.
Retrieved: March 10th
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.
Retrieved: March 12th
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.
Retrieved: March 10th
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.
Retrieved: March 23rd
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.
Retrieved: April 8th
2010.
Downloaded: http:/www.library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/344588
• Nowak, M. 2009. Senior honors thesis: Urban Agriculture on the Rooftop.
Retrieved: April 30th
2010.
Downloaded: http://www.cityfarmer.org/rooftopthesis.html
• Parry, J. A. Hammill, J. Drexhage. 2005. Climate change and adaptation.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 55
Retrieved: March 13th
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.
Retrieved: April 24th
2010.
Downloaded:
• Persson, M. 2010. De stad moet radicaal anders. Article Volkskrant quire 2 page 8.
Retrieved: April 24th
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
Retrieved: April 18th
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.
Retrieved: March 17th
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 56
Retrieved: March 18th
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.
Retrieved: March 1st
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.
Retrieved: March 1st
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 57
Appendix 1 Case studies
Chapters one and two explained the context of urban agriculture and the method we intend to use in this
chapter. Urban agriculture practically contains ^& case studies varying in size and way of urban agriculture. By
analyzing these case studies using the multi criteria analysis (MCA) described in chapter two, this chapter
concludes in the best case study. The case study which scores highest in our multicriteria analysis is projected
onto our test case, also called reference, city in the Netherlands.
3.1 Case study 1: Rooftop and institutional gardening The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study
concerns St. Petersburg, Russia. The project was initiated by the St. Petersburg Urban Gardening Club (UGC), a
non-profit foundation on a local scale level.
The potential for rooftop gardening in St. Petersburg is huge. The UGC has done research, conducted tests and
now has excellent information for interested Russian city farmers. For example, in just one district it is possible
to grow 2000 tons of vegetables per season from 500 roof tops. An important factor is that all agriculture is
placed on existing rooftops. The projects within the case study are:
• Horticultural therapy project
• Growing chicory salad
• Gardens in city prison
• Secondary school No. 42
3.1.1 Air label
The case study does not include a direct link to the diminishing of air pollution by using rooftop gardens.
Though it is not mentioned the permanent vegetable plants (tomatoes, chicory, peppers, dill, lettuce and
flowers) do absorb particulates.
3.1.2 Energy label
Though it is not explicitly mentioned in the case study the energy label is applicable. Because urban agriculture
is used, the substrate on the roof has to be between 25 - 50 cm thick to have enough growing room for
vegetable plants.
3.1.3 Water label
The horticultural project included a water system for reuse of water. Because of the thick substrate described
in the energy label, water gets more absorbed. A substrate of 25 – 50 cm equals a water absorption with a
maximum of 70%.
3.1.4 Social capital label
Health
The horticultural therapy project aims at transforming the courtyard of the Prosthesis Institute into a therapy
garden especially equipped for handicapped, mostly limb amputations. It relieves the sense of despair and
inactivity and provides new opportunities for over 400 clients per year. The project concerning growing chicory
was mainly targeting at making healthy vitamin rich food available for poor families in the area.
Education
With the project secondary school no. 42 rooftop gardens where started for producing vegetables and greens
with the purpose to teach ‘live’ biology classes. They planted dill, parsley, tomatoes, lettuce, peppers and
annual flowers. Seeds are collected and used next year. Other schools are implementing rooftop gardens too.
The horticulture project teaches gardening skills to people possessing a reduced ability to work.
Recreation
The project gardens in the city prison implemented rooftop gardens for food production for the inmates and
provide the inmates with a creative outlet for their energy. The horticultural therapy project has next to a
health goal also recreation goal for clients.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 58
Participation
Rooftop gardens are exploited by city farmers and are semi-public. For all four projects inhabitants have to be
either a client at the Prosthesis Institute or in prison or in school or a house owner.
Cohesion
Groups of people tend to the projects. These groups are already formed due to social circumstances (school,
therapy, prison). The groups interact more with each other and learn to cooperate. Because these projects are
semi-public the ‘supply’ of new participants is limited.
Safety
Because the urban agriculture is occurring on rooftops vandalism is avoided. Unwanted excess is not possible.
3.1.5 Economics label
(Self)Employment
There is no paid employment in this case study. All participants are volunteers or are socially bound to practice
urban farming for reasons mentioned in social capital label. Though they are not paid, a lot of people spend
their time in the gardens and voluntary employ.
Food security
All projects contribute to the urban food supply. They all sell or trade their vegetables and flowers on markets.
The exception is the prison which uses it for feeding inmates.
Share in markets
Excess food production is sold on markets and in LETS. LETS are Local Exchange and Trading Schemes. Food
cannot only be bought here but also traded for other foods.
Durability
The used materials where lightweight. Rooftops where not equipped with lightweight substrates. An important
note is that urban rooftop gardening is a much cheaper method of urban agriculture than using land. The lease
of land or the purchase of land increases the financial costs. In contrast rooftops are always available and free
from vandalism. Organic produces.
Value increase
Due to beautification around the school, hospital and prison the sight has improved. Participants in the project
plant seedlings from flowers around their buildings. Though beautification is in order the buildings will not
increase in value due to the fact that they will not be sold except when the functions of these buildings (school,
prison, hospital) is altered.
Financial feasibility
Not applicable.
3.1.6 Organization label
Stakeholders
The stakeholders in the project are the initiator UGC, the participating institutions being school no. 42, the city
prison and the Prosthesis institute. Volunteers concern an important and growing group in rooftop gardening.
The stakeholders where not initially contacted and informed but during the process.
Basis
Urban agriculture is used by the urban poor for centuries in Russia. Therefore a historical basis is available.
Agriculture on rooftops engaged in much enthusiasm but also resistance because of the unusual idea. The first
rooftop gardening began without any basis. It grew trough media attention and promotion.
Involvement government
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 59
The government is not involved and had only a facilitating role in urban agriculture. The government is not
approached to be a partner in rooftop gardening. At first no facilitation, mainly in policies was made, nowadays
the government does implement it in strategies because of the basis among inhabitants of St. Petersburg.
Policies
As described above policies are implemented making rooftop gardening a possibility. Still there exist a lot of
difficulties permission must be obtained for rooftop gardening.
Communication and awareness
The UGC has been actively promoting rooftop gardening. TV-Channels 5 and 36 of St. Petersburg, Moscow TV
paid attention to the project. Local and regional newspapers as ‘Smena’ and Novosti Sankt-Peterburga’ and
magazines as Ecochronicle have published articles on the experience in St. Petersburg. This resulted in a
noticeable though not measurable increase in rooftop gardeners. The awareness in environmental and food
growing has increased greatly.
3.2 Case study 2: allotments and community gardens The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a research concerning urban food security. This case study
concerns London, Great Britain. The case study does not have clear initiators because of the historical bounds
London has to urban agriculture. The main goal of this case study was to feed families, the urban poor.
Nowadays it is still for feeding working class families and more and more for middle class recreationists. The
case study contains several methods of urban farming such as allotments, community gardening and
greenhouse farming. The projects within the case study are:
• Lea valley: sea of glass
• Allotment: a potted history
• City farms and community gardens
• School gardens
3.2.1 Air label
The permanent plants, bushes and hedged placed in the gardens improve the air quality.
3.2.2 Energy label
Gardening is not energy efficient because it doesn’t insulate the building.
3.2.3 Water label
The ground on which the urban agriculture takes place absorbs all water.
3.2.4 Social capital label
Health
Studies have proven that gardening in England creates a sense of purpose among participants. The incidence of
serious and expensive illnesses are reduced. Though this is not measurable only promotable.
Education
City farms serve an educational role. Some have developed teaching packs which link the farm’s activities with
school curriculum requirements. Visiting a city farm is for various inhabitants a first encounter with agricultural
animals and food-growing in the ground. The school gardens only have a educational purpose due to their
small sizes which makes the nutritional gain small.
Recreation
Gardening is in the United Kingdom mainly focused on recreation. Not intentionally provided but self
conducted.
Participation
Lee valley is a private project. Therefore only employees are allowed to enter the property. The allotments can
be rented and are semi public. Similar are the school gardens. City farms and community gardens are free of
admission and it is possible to join a group at any time.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 60
Cohesion
Because of the historical nature of gardening in the United Kingdom, social cohesion can be found on every
allotment and in every city farm or school garden. Inhabitants who do or do not know each other get together
to cultivate land and maintain their vegetables. Often they make trading schemes and vacation schemes.
Safety
Agricultural enterprises face additional problems such as vandalism and tipping. This is sometimes so severe
that farming becomes unprofitable and agricultural land is left to deteriorate. These obstacles need to be
addressed and, where necessary, removed because urban agriculture could potentially yield a far greater range
of benefits than many of the other uses of such land.
3.2.5 Economics label
(Self)Employment
Only within the project Lea Valley: sea of glass there are paid employees because of the commercial nature of
the greenhouse companies. The other projects are counting solely on self employed volunteers. The National
Health Services of Great Britain stated that for every Pound invested into volunteers, 2-8 Pounds worth of work
are returned.
Food security
The main reason in the projects allotments and community gardens is to produce food for a household or close
relations. Food from these allotments or community gardens cannot be sold on markets due to British law
which states that sale for commercial purposes of allotment-grown food is not permitted unless it benefits the
community. Lea valley contributes to household food through deliveries to supermarkets.
Share in markets
As stated above allotment-grown food cannot be sold for commercial purposes. It is possible to use LETS. Lea
valley delivers food to supermarkets in the city.
Durability
No durable materials where used because no organization funded these. When gardeners have to pay it
themselves it is too expensive.
Value increase
The projects are closed in by industrialized areas and have a beautifying effect on the surroundings. Because of
the functions which rest on the surrounding areas (industry, office, transport)these buildings will not increase
in value.
Financial feasibility
Because commercial farms are protected in the Great Britain no grants are given to allotments gardeners or
commercial gardeners. The commercial greenhouse in Lea Valley does receive a grant.
3.2.6 Organization label
Stakeholders
The field of stakeholders is well developed and inventoried. It was not necessarily inventoried before all
projects started but only during the process and the development of projects stakeholders became clear and
new organizations within the playing field erected themselves. The Food Futures organization brings
stakeholders together to develop a strategy for a local food economy. The most important stakeholders in
urban agriculture are:
• London Planning Advisory Committee
• 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%.
Involvement government
The government acknowledges the need and use of urban agriculture. The London Planning and Advisory
Committee states: ‘the value of agricultural land in contributing to sustainability is clear’ and recommends that
‘agricultural land within and adjacent to London needs to be maintained in productive use, particularly the land
of highest quality’. The government promotes and facilitates urban agriculture.
Policies
Due to mixed landownership a coherent policy framework is very complex to set in place. Policies do exist on
national and regional levels. These policies support a more environmental productive approach to the area
surrounding London. Sustainable food production is providing for or contributing to the lists introduced by the
Planning Policy Guidance.
Communication and awareness
Urban agriculture is promoted through various organizations. These are the National Society of Allotment and
Leisure Gardeners, Common Ground, the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens and the Soil
Association. These organization run several campaign such as ‘grow your own organic fruit and vegetables’ and
‘food futures’.
Because of the popularity of gardening, there are TV gardening programs at prime viewing hours every night.
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.
3.2.4 Social capital label
Health
The most important health factor urban agriculture contributes to is diet-related. They especially contribute to
the food deserts. These are areas with no or distant grocery stores and many nearby fast food convenience
stores. Studies prove that communities living in these areas have higher rates of obesity, diabetes and heart
disease. Though a new good-food introduction is needed urban farms are not big enough to produce sufficient
food for the entire community.
Education
Several programs in gardening, composting, cooking, and farm stand or market management. Everyone, from
students to pre-school age members can participate in weekly classes, field trips and summer programs. They
learn not only how to grow healthy food but also how to cook, and consume the foods that contribute to their
health. To close the cycle they also learn about waste management, recycling and composting.
Recreation
The urban farms described do not provide recreational benefits. They aim at education, health and
employment.
Participation
The urban farms described are all public. Though not everyone can work in one of them they are accessible for
everyone to take course or to give a hand.
Cohesion
The urban farms aim at several groups inside the communities. These are for example students, preschool
members but also high risk youth population, homeless and low income individuals. Though these groups
participate they usually do not mix.
Safety
Urban farms are liable to vandalism because they are mostly easy accessed. Reports show that farms do need
gates and fences sometimes even video surveillance.
3.2.5 Economics label:
(Self)Employment
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 63
Urban farms provide employment opportunities to the local community. The farms employ mostly at-risk
youth, homeless and low-income individuals. A big chunk of the work is done by volunteers. In every case
described, however, the current income generated through farm sales is not enough to provide sufficient
wages for the farm employees. Non-profit organizations, grants, and other forms of outside funding usually
provide additional support.
Food security
The city farms are used to educate people about the way food grows and healthy food. Only 50% is consumed
on the farm the other part is sold on markets. No food is directly used in households.
Share in markets
Urban farms contribute 50% of their yield to local outdoor farmer food markets.
Durability
No sustainable materials have been used because of the low cost build. There was no room in the budget to
use sustainable materials.
Value increase
N/A.
Financial feasibility
Grant funding is in order. See (self) Employment.
3.2.6 Organization label
Stakeholders
The farms where initiated by local groups or non-profit organizations. they were reasonably good organized
from the beginning. Publicity was a big problem, people did not know about the farms and the reason why they
should visit a farm.
Basis
Four of these six farms owe their existence to community demand and initiative. This community demand, for
access to clean, healthy foods, educational open space, and environmentally friendly employment, is growing
throughout cities in the United States.
Involvement government
The government facilitated in the needs such as grants, up to date legislation and cheap building grounds. They
do not interfere with the farm itself.
Policies
Policies which enable the build of urban farms have been approved in all cities. It is not always very easy
because of the land that is acquired relatively cheap.
Communication and awareness
The urban farms promote themselves using mostly mouth-to-mouth communication. They get recommended
often and that way they create a larger basis with the community. The way the local community experiences
food has improved.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 64
Case study 4: Backyard gardening and greenhouse rooftops
The department of projects and external relations of Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee-Gaza and the
Consulat General De France A Jerusalem implemented and researched urban agriculture in refugee camps. The
project tries to develop different urban agriculture activities in several Refugees Camps in the Gaza Strip. The
implementation concerned growing crops in backyards and in 20m2 or 40m2 greenhouses on rooftops. The
crops and greenhouses have been provided totally equipped by the department. The objective of the project is
to improve health, food security, environmental and social situation of the 81 families which participated in the
project.
3.2.1 Air label
Due to the fact that permanent vegetable plants were used particulates are filtered out of the air.
3.2.2 Energy label
N/A because of the lack of substrates.
3.2.3 Water label
Because of the thick substrate described in the energy label, water gets more absorbed. A substrate of 25 – 50
cm equals a water absorption with a maximum of 70%. The project also makes use of collecting and using
rainwater. The greenhouses have drainage systems to avoid filtration and to reuse water.
3.2.4 Social capital label
Health
The greenhouses and backyards provide to the family direct and easy access to different fresh vegetables along
the year, depending on the kind of crop. The practice of urban agriculture also gives refugees an opportunity to
recover the severed connection with their agricultural backgrounds. Because of this the feeling of inactivity and
frustration decreases. The food grown inside the green houses and backyards is of a higher production quality
than the available vegetable quality in the market since the farmers use organic farming and therefore no
pesticides or other dangerous chemical products.
Education
The beneficiary 81 families, have received intensive technical training in different aspects of urban agriculture.
This way they are able to cultivate their own crops. Moreover, they have received continuous technical advice
during the entire project. Children are taught in the backyards and greenhouses about the function green
spaces, to know the plants and their requirements and to have their role in the agricultural project.
Recreation
Recreation was not a particular part of this case study due to the great demand for (healthy) food. But, as
described above, refugees felt more useful and back in touch with their farming backgrounds.
Participation
It is not possible for everyone to join in. Though it was possible to apply. The project was semi-public. The
beneficiary families have been selected on the following criteria:
• Living in a Refugee Camp.
• Poor households with low income.
• Family member above seven.
• Basic skills and experience in agriculture.
Cohesion
enhancement of relationships between neighbors. It is not estrange to receive visitors for seeing the
greenhouse, asking for some vegetable which he needs or simply for drinking a tea on the roof.
Safety
The backyards tended to be plundered every once in a while. The rooftops greenhouses on the other hand
where very safe and free of vandalism.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 65
3.2.5 Economics label
(Self)Employment
The 81 families were employed during the projects. They were supplied with all materials and could keep the
food they grew.
Food security
The amount of food that was grown in the gardens and greenhouses was enough to feed the families for on
average 30% of their needs. The income generated (in other words the food they did not have to buy which
saves money) lies between 20 and 30%.
Share in markets
The food was not sold nor traded because every family needed the amount of food they grew.
Durability
The greenhouses were made of sustainable glass. Due to the substrate on the rooftops the sustainability of the
houses were increased. Because of this substrate the cooling effect inside the houses was increased.
Value increase
N/A.
Financial feasibility
Estimations show that greenhouses are not profitable for the families if they have to cover all the costs (fixed
and running). Therefore the project was totally funded by the Israelian and Palestinian governments.
3.2.6 Organization label
Stakeholders
The project was initiated by the department of projects and external relations of PARC-Gaza. An external
organization covers the initial greenhouse fixed costs in such a way that the families only have to cover running
costs. No other stakeholders where involved because of the top down structure of the project.
Basis
There was a large basis for the implementation of urban agriculture. It is mentioned above that the refugees
left their original mostly agricultural villages. They are very pleased to see more green inside the camps.
Involvement government
The government used an open authoritarian style. The communication was single sided and the participants
functioned as recipient.
Policies
The government took care of the policies. Building regulations were altered.
Communication and awareness
Families were picked without a widely spread campaign. The governments are trying to create communication
due to case study reports but mostly to show other countries their interests. Awareness is not taken into
account.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 66
Case study 5: Community gardening
Havana, Cuba is described as a continuous productive urban landscape. This means that they are able to use
urban agriculture throughout the year. Urban agriculture was promoted in Cuba after the crisis when Cuba lost
more than 75% of its import and export capacity. Urban agriculture in Cuba is focused on community gardens
on the city fringe or in the city centre adjacent to major roads. the case study defines various kinds of
community gardens being:
• Plots (less then 1000m2)
• Intensive cultivation gardens ( between 1000m2 and 2000m2)
• Urban gardens ( between 2000m2 and 5000m2)
• High yield urban garden (over 10.000 m2)
Though these areas seem large pathways take up a lot of the available space. It is not unusual that a 1000m2
growing area requires a 3000m2 site.
3.2.1 Air label
Air contamination is deducted because of the placement of permanent plants, bushes and hedges. These
permanent vegetable plants take up a mentionable amount of particulates.
3.2.2 Energy label
The substrate is used. This is done by raising vegetable beds. This does not have an energy saving effect.
3.2.3 Water label
The ground absorbs the water. Water is reused on the site.
3.2.4 Social capital label
Health
Crops are cultivated on raised beds so they can come in contact with contaminated soil. Schools and
restaurants are supplied with fresh organic produce on a daily basis.
Education
Fields of urban agriculture are placed adjacent to schools which provides an opportunity for children of the
schools to educate themselves about the growth of food.
Recreation
The recreational aspect of urban agriculture has been recognized in the last years. Before it was all about food
security. Nowadays people also do it to recreate.
Participation
The sites for urban agriculture are public or semi public. Most sites have been fenced of. Inhabitants of Cuba
are always able to participate.
Cohesion
Many users of urban agriculture started by using derelict urban spaces in the city. It was available for all groups
but mainly for low-income households which had a greater need for food security. The large vegetable patches
between apartment buildings are cultivated with (a part of) the residents sometimes under leadership of a
professional. Social cohesion increased.
Safety
Security is of great importance at agricultural sited in Cuba. Although fences provide a physical barrier along
boundaries, trespassing is common.
3.2.5 Economics label:
(Self)Employment
Urban agriculture is a voluntary business.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 67
Food security
Urban agriculture provides food to each household and contributes to the urban food supply.
Share in markets
The food produced in the community gardens is mostly used by the residents or volunteers working the
patches. Also small markets are set up to sell food.
Durability
The materials used are not specifically durable. Vegetables are produced in an organic way without non-organic
pesticides and fertilizers. This mainly due to the fact that there is a lack of hard currency (initially).
Value increase
The city of Havana had a major beautification benefit of urban agriculture. Sites are also placed between
apartment buildings which makes the public space more attractive.
Financial feasibility
The Cuban government supported urban agriculture throughout Cuba.
3.2.6 Organization label
Stakeholders
Stakeholders where not inventoried before the project started.
Basis
Due to the crisis that hit Cuba the basis for urban agriculture was reasonable. People needed to provide food
for their families.
Involvement government
The inhabitants of Cuba started with urban agriculture as a response to the crisis the country was in. the
government stimulated this by introducing the NAAM model (see policies). This was all handled top down in an
open authoritarian style.
Policies
Urban agriculture was fitted into policies as NAAM; national alternative agricultural model. This model aimed at
the development of less mechanized, more labor intensive operations involving local communities to produce
sustainable food production enterprises.
Communication and awareness raising awareness
The crisis generated an awareness among people to become vegetable producers in urban and peri-urban
areas. Next to this there is a growing awareness that conventional techniques are causing environmental
damage.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 68
Case study 6
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 69
Case study 7
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 70
3.3 Case study 8
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 71
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-
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 72
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 73
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.
URBAN AGRICULTURE: A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE PROOFING THE NETHERLANDS 74