INTENSIVE VERTICAL URBAN AGRICULTURE: RETHINKING OUR CITIES’ FOOD SUPPLY. MOVING TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT.
_________________________________________________________________
Master Thesis
SUSTAINABLE URBAN MANAGEMENT – Built Environment (15 Credits) MALMO UNIVERSITY Submitted by: ROMAIN VUATTOUX Spring Semester 2012
Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture: rethinking our cities’ food supply... Moving towards Sustainable Urban Development.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Is rethinking agriculture an integral part of Sustainable Urban Development? Does Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture provide a way forward in creating sustainable food production? And if so what are the key barriers to further development of I.V.U.A.?
ABSTRACT
Our modern “traditional” agricultural system is not sustainable. This system is highly dependent on limited resources such as land, oil and water. It also has numerous negative impacts, including the depletion of resources leading to higher prices, pollutions leading to health risks, global warming, deforastation and biodiversity loss. These dependencies and consequences are combined with a growing and ever more affluent global population which requires greater amount of resources to support its growth and which increases the negative impacts on the environment. All indicates that our system is reaching its limits and that there is a need for new solutions. This research introduces the general context (problem and existing research) and explores an alternative, namely: Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture (I.V.U.A.). This method seems to offer two particularly interesting promises beneficial for Sustainable Urban Development: the reduction of transportation, and the integration of food production in the urban nutrient and energy cycles. However, to achieve these potential benefits the technology (in a broad sense) has to meet several challenges and there is a need for further experimentation. This study explores challenges of I.V.U.A. and key factors enabling or hindering experimentation in this field.
This investigation identified key barriers to further development of I.V.U.A. through the use of a case study. The Plantagon International AB is a unique project which will be built in 2013, in Linkoping, Sweden. It will be the first vertical greenhouse of a considerable scale in the world with a research and commercial aim. Barriers to I.V.U.A. were identified as:
- Lack of awareness about the problems with our modern food supply, and hence missed opportunities for S.U.D.
- Attitudes that are working against I.V.U.A. and competition for recognition with other forms of agriculture as alternative to the problem of food production
- Lack of technical abilities, knowledge and skills in I.V.U.A. - Funding/supporting infrastructures (physical or informational)
- Blockages that are the result of administrations and policies which are largely based around “traditional” agriculture.
Finally, a set of recommendations was drawn from the interviews of the case study and the litterature review, to help planners and decision-makers lift these barriers and enable experimenting. These four implications to consider and explore are:
- Gaining understanding of the complexity of S.U.D. problems and the need for a wide range of solutions which include I.V.U.A.;
- Including a greater amount of stakeholders, and considering contexts - Improving access to land but also to resources and infrastructures - Building support to enable I.V.U.A. to thrive on its own.
Keywords: Sustainable food supply/production system, urban agriculture, closed-loop systems,
intensive vertical urban agriculture, import substitution, peak oil/resources, barriers, policies for innovation, participatory planning.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATION...5
I. INTRODUCTION: Problem Statement, Research Questions, Aim and Description of Thesis Disposition ...6
II. PREVIOUS RESEARCH: PROBLEMS WITH OUR “TRADITIONAL” AGRICULTURE AND TESTED SOLUTIONS IN INTENSIVE VERTICAL URBAN AGRICULTURE ...9
1. Problems with our modern (“traditional”) agricultural production and food supply systems ...9
2. Research, projects and tested solutions in Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture (I.V.U.A.) ...11
III. METHODOLOGY ...13
A. Literature review and Secondary data ...13
B. Case Study ...14
a. The Choice Of The Plantagon In Linkoping...15
b. Interviews ...15
c. Limitations Of The Study ...17
IV. RETHINKING AND REDESIGNING OUR FOOD SUPPLY FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT (S.U.D.): THEORIES FOR I.V.U.A. 17 1. Closing Loops To Integrate The Food Supply In The Nutrient and Energy Cycle And Reducing The Need For Natural Resources Through Import Substitution ...19
2. Making it all possible: Participatory planning to stimulate innovation as enabling strategies for I.V.U.A.. ...21
V. PRESENTATION AND ANYLISIS OF THE CASE STUDY:...25
1. Introduction to the case study: Plantagon International AB...25
VI. DISCUSSION: MOVING THE ISSUE FORWARD ...31
VII. REFERENCES ...37
VIII. APPENDICES ...42
Appendix A: Cuba and Peak Oil As An Illustrative Summary ...42
Appendix B: Interviewees Profile ...44
Appendix C: Interview guide ...44
Appendix D: Figures ...46
- Figure 1: Graph Showing Global Peak Oil Forecast ...46
- Figure 2: Simplified Model Of The Modern Agricultural System: Manmade Nutrient Cycle ...47
- Figure 3: Simplified model of the Natural Nutrient Cycle: Model used in Bio-mimicry ...47
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Several people have contributed to make this research possible. I would like to thank them. Thanks to my tutor Dr. Peter Parker for his time and precious comments during the writing and research process. I would also like to thank my tutoring group members (Tim Nabholz, Christina Fuller, Theo Marson, Olga Belorusova and Shilan Babanzadeh) for their valuable feedback. Also, thanks to the interviewees who gave me time and precious insights, and allowed me to cite them. Particularly: Anna-Maria Orru, Owe Pettersson, Niels Peter Flint and Dr. Tim Delshammar. Two people also provided useful suggestions and directions to get me started, I would like to thank Emily Dowding-Smith and Erika Hoenig. I am equally thankful to my cousin Amandine Vuattoux and my father Jean-Charles Vuattoux who both helped proofread this work and provided helpful opinions to ensure its readability. A special thanks also goes to Tim Nabholz for proofreading sections of my thesis shortly before submission while he was also busy writing his own thesis.
To all I express my gratitude for their support.
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
C.S.A. Community Supported Agriculture E.F. Ecological Footprint
E.P.A. Environmental Protection Agency E.U. European Union
F.A.O. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations F.P.Cs. Food Policy Councils
G.M.O. Genetically Modified Organism
I.D.R.C. International Development Research Center I.V.U.A. Intensive vertical urban agriculture
L.D.Cs. Less Developed Countries M.D.Cs. More Developed Countries R&D Research and Development
R.U.A.F Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security Foundation S.E.S. Socio-Ecological Systems
S.L.U. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences S.U.D. Sustainable Urban Development
U.A. Urban Agriculture U.K. United Kingdoms U.N. United Nations U.S. United States
I. INTRODUCTION
When planners talk about Sustainable Urban Development (S.U.D.), they often think about energy, transport, water and waste, and they advocate for additional green spaces in the city. Yet one of the major aspects of society: food, is seldom considered by the same planners. A change in our agricultural production and food supply systems towards more sustainable forms of production, may provide the backbone for a full societal infrastructure change with positive effects on all spheres of S.U.D. (i.e.: Environmental, Economic, Social).
Traditionally our cities have been shaped by food routes and markets (Halweil, 2004; Steel, 2009), and this continues today, as our cities are designed in such a way that it makes us dependent on unsustainable means to reach our food or for our food to reach us. This is exemplified in our car dependency for shopping in large box stores in suburbs, which are themselves supplied by imports of products from all over the world. This whole system relies almost entirely on cheap oil and other limited resources such as land and water. To adapt to the future, it has been argued that we need to increase the resilience1 of our cities (Folke et al., 2010). Our dependencies to cheap oil and other limited resources raise questions about the vulnerability and safety of our system of food production and supply.
Urban Agriculture (U.A.) as a form of import substitution to strengthen local economies has long been advocated as means to reduce greenhouse gases emissions and to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels (Sachs, 1988, Schuman, 1998). Urban Agriculture (U.A.) is defined by the Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security Foundation (R.U.A.F) as the growing of plants and the raising of animals within and around cities, integrating its features in the urban ecosystem (economic and ecological) (R.U.A.F., no date). U.A. has almost always existed, even if it declined in More Developed Countries (M.D.Cs.) since World War II (Mougeot, 2006). In Africa, it is estimated that 40 percent of the urban dwellers are involved in some form of agriculture, this number rises to 50 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean (F.A.O., 2012). Although this does not tell us the quantity of food produced, these figures implies that a great number of people keep a tie to agriculture, and are impacted by U.A. in L.D.Cs.. In recent years, a popular movement in More Developed Countries (M.D.Cs.) has come in the form of community gardens (Mougeot, 2006). As community gardens do not generate great economic profits, they have not been able to bring the sense of a viable economic activity which would help promote U.A. (Brown, 2008).
Another form of U.A. that has been proposed in recent years is vertical farming. This method consists in growing food vertically, with designs that include: facades, walls, rooftops, or different levels stacked up. These methods, if combined with an intensive system of production, may provide economies of scales, reduce transport, and decrease local food costs by integrating food production in the cities cycles (energy, nutrient). This form of U.A. is called Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture (I.V.U.A.),
1 Resilience is an important theory that could be useful to look at closed-loop systems for cities, however it is not covered in this paper due to lack of space. For more information see: Folke, C. et al. (2010).
Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society. 15(4):20
and although very few studies have been done so far (Ljungquist, 2012), some people suggest it may have a positive impact for S.U.D. (Hoenig Andrade 2011).
Linkoping in Sweden, recently authorized the construction of the Plantagon, a pioneering project that will lead research in Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture (I.V.U.A.), with the purpose to develop an efficient and cheap urban food production system. This is the first vertical urban agriculture project that moves from the drawing boards to reality. The Plantagon creates a set of implications that needs to be considered early and beyond its marketing appeal, to see what opportunities it can bring for S.U.D.. As a new project it is facing many barriers, and these need to be identified in order to be addressed.
Problem Statement
Our “traditional” (modern) agricultural system has been successful in the past decades in providing food for an increasing amount of people, but it may face difficulties to achieve higher production capacities in the near future. While population continues to expand, resources such as fossil fuels are rapidly being depleted, pollution and environmental degradations are reaching unsustainable heights and all these problems accumulate with negative local and global consequences. This situation will require us to think and adopt sustainable alternatives for our food supply. Some solutions are already being tested with the reintroduction of Urban Agriculture. In recent years, a proposal has been made for Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture However, this innovative solution, because of certain barriers, has not yet been experimented nor implemented. If I.V.U.A. is to be tested and implemented, these barriers will have to be identified and lifted. Research Questions
Is rethinking agriculture an integral part of Sustainable Urban Development? Does Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture provide a way forward in creating sustainable food production? And if so what are the key barriers to further development of I.V.U.A.? Aim
This paper aims to demonstrate the need to bring back the topic of food production for urban areas into the S.U.D. discourse particularly in More Developed Countries (M.D.Cs.) where the subject has often been overlooked in past decades2. Exploring key factors for further development, will hopefully contribute to the theoretical work on the question. The main purpose being to highlight barriers to innovation, this research also aims at demonstrating the need for innovative solutions and the need for exploration in solutions for S.U.D., outlining aspects of policy to foster experimentation with potential solutions.
Description Of Thesis Disposition
This paper is a broad scientific study which is divided into two parts: Problem and Solution. The problem of this thesis is illustrated by the first background question of the thesis: “Is rethinking agriculture an integral part of Sustainable Urban Development?”
2
In recent years Urban Agriculture and Gardening has begun to reappear and to be debated in a few M.D.Cs.’ cities, as will be discussed later in this text.
The first question looks at the more general urban level context, and is explored drawing on existing literature. The main research questions are the two that follow, which are explored by means of a case study: “Does Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture provide a way forward in creating sustainable food production? And if so, what are the key barriers for further development of I.V.U.A.?” This last question allows me to begin to address the solution to challenges faced by I.V.U.A.. The case study is used to obtain results regarding barriers but also to explore possible paths for the future.3 The conclusion attempts to tie both the general problem to the specific solutions, by drawing conclusions for the wider context of innovations in S.U.D..
The following section (II) was divided into: 1. A short presentation of the problems and limitations generated by our modern agricultural production and food supply system. Particularly the threat of Peak Oil. This provides the context and shows the need to find alternatives to our “traditional” agriculture. 2. A brief overview of research, projects and solutions in Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture (I.V.U.A.) that are being developed and tested. Section III describes how the questions of this thesis were answered and what methods were used to carry out the research. Section IV introduces theories relevant to I.V.U.A.. It helps highlight the opportunities I.V.U.A. could contribute to S.U.D.. These opportunities along with the case study introduce theoretical solutions to the problems identified in section II and give a theoretical approach to lifting the barriers to implementation and testing identified in section (V). A short introduction of the case is made (section V) immediately followed by the analysis. The analysis presents the results obtained from the interviews of the case study. Here, the barriers are identified, so that the results can be discussed in section VI. Section VI, ties back on literature and introduces recommendations for policy-makers and planners, providing the beginning of an answer to: “What are the key barriers to further development of I.V.U.A.?”. This final section’s goal is to answer the research question provided in section (I) and provide theoretical recommendations for policy-makers and planners. The nature of the thesis (broad scientific study about a novel issue) called for a slightly different interpretation of the “Analysis” and “Discussion” sections than traditional research papers. The analysis section in this thesis comprises a discussion of the results with regards to the barriers identified through the case study. While the “Discussion” builds on the “Analysis” to provide the begining of a path to lift those barriers, applying the results to theory. The necessity for theory enabling this exploration generated a theory section that includes both “problem” and “solution” theories that enable the discussion throughout the last two parts of the thesis (i.e.: analysis and discussion of ways forward).
3
I.V.U.A. is one form of U.A that may comprise part of the solution for the future. I do not in any way argue that it is the only solution for the future. Specialists of U.A. might wish to focus on more specific literature, as this paper is not focused on specific policies or technicalities of I.V.U.A., but rather offers general considerations for innovative solutions. This paper being limited in length also does not cover an assessment of I.V.U.A..
II. PREVIOUS RESEARCH: PROBLEMS WITH OUR “TRADITIONAL”
AGRICULTURE AND SOLUTIONS BEING TESTED IN URBAN AGRICULTURE
This section is divided into two parts. The first part introduces some of the problems with our modern system of agricultural production and the second introduces some of the research and solutions that have been carried out to overcome these challenges so far.
1. Problems With Our Modern (“Traditional”) Agricultural Production And Food Supply Systems
Understanding the problems caused by intensive modern agriculture is essential to establish the need for Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture. Over the years many researchers have identified a variety of problems caused by or resulting from our modern agricultural system. These problems are often interrelated and interdependent, and not independent causes/consequences. Since the invention of totalitarian agriculture in the “fertile crescent” some 11,000 years ago (Sachs, 1988; Quinn, 1992), agriculture has been both the cause and consequence of population growth. Our population has grown to 7 billion and we are expected to be around 9 billion by 2050 (U.N., 2004). By that time the United Nations (U.N.) estimates that 80% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas. Countries around the world are catching up with More Developed Countries’ (M.D.Cs.) standards of living and food habits, and consume an increasing amount of resources. More water, energy, land and food are needed to feed this growing population, this increases demands and drives prices up but it also produces more waste and pollution than ever before. Due to the lack of space given in this work, only one pressing problem has been briefly developed.4 The problem discussed here is that of Peak Oil.
Agriculture: Peak Oil
Our “traditional” agricultural system, or rather the one that evolved from the industrial revolution (end of 18th century) and the modern green revolution (1960s), is not sustainable. This system depends largely on fossil fuels for production, transformation, packaging, conservation and transport. Particularly for seasonal items transported by air freight (Wallgren, 2006). As oil prices rise, food production, dependent on fertilizers and pesticides, along with the other steps of the food supply, will become increasingly expensive (Brown, 2008; Wallgren and Hojer, 2009). Wallgren and Hojer (2009) in their research show that, in 2000, 13% of the total energy use in Sweden was for the Swedish food supply system. Some attribute the recent years’s fluctuations in oil prices to Peak Oil. What we know for sure is that oil prices fluctuations contribute to higher volatility for food prices and decreases the global food security.
Peak oil is often portrayed as a theory by media coverage. However, if the exact date of the peak is debatable and even postponable -by increased efficiency, technology or new discoveries-, we live on a planet with limited resources and know that there are not infinite amounts of oil to go about. The concept was explained by Hubbert who built a model that correctly predicted the peak of U.S. conventional oil production between 1965-1970 (it occurred in 1970) (Hubbert, 1956). This model has since been developed
4
Nonetheless, there are other important problems, including: global climate change, problems associated with the globalization of our food supply/consumption.
further by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (A.S.P.O.) established by Colin Campbell in 2000. Recent A.S.P.O.’s predictions of peak oil suggest it might have occurred around 2010.5 They specify that the question is not when it happens but what we will do about it (A.S.P.O, 2012). The majority of the oil consumed worldwide is for food (Morgan, 2006). Our modern agricultural, industrial and transportation system (production, transformation, transportation, refrigeration, packaging...) depends on fossil fuels and especially oil.
Experts (Simmons, 2005; Jancovici and Grandjean, 2006) tell us we can no longer count on cheap oil, we will need to make our agricultural system and cities more sustainable by planning and testing solutions that will enable us to use less (or no) oil and energy (Wallgren and Hojer, 2009). Closed-loops and import substitution strategies may go a long way in helping achieve sustainability. However, as Wallgren and Hojer (2009) point out, consumption habits will have to change as we are “eating energy” and wasting much of it.
The U.S. Energy Information Agency (E.I.A.) in their International Energy Outlook 2011, expect the world’s total energy consumption to have nearly doubled from its 1990 level by 2020. It also states that: “The largest industrial consumer of energy is the chemical sector, which accounted for 22 percent of total world industrial energy consumption in 2008.” (E.I.A., 2011). Chemicals represent 33% of all energy used in the industrial sector, the largest global energy user in industries and a large part dedicated to agriculture (ibid.). Rockstrom et al., in their 2009 article on Planetary Boundaries, warn that humanity already transgressed three of ten plantery boundaries: Biodiversity loss, Nitrogen cycle and Climate Change. While, the Phosphorus cycle boundary is close to its limit and Ocean acidification about ⅔ of its way. According to Foley (2012), our agricultural system doubled the flow of nitrogen and phosphorus. Phosphorus and Nitrogen are found in fertilizers, and used for intensive agricultural production. They are both oil derived and often wash off with human waste, in sewage systems or with agricultural run offs. They end in water bodies where they cause long-term damage: acidification and eutrophication which lead eventually to biodiversity loss. They also contribute to global warming and chemical pollution with serious implications for human health (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000).6
The common response to increasing population has been to increase the use of fertilizers. Drechsel et al.(2001) focused their study on the relationship between population density, soil nutrient depletion and economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. They explain that soil nutrient depletion or soil fertility depletion is considered as the most significant biophysical factor limiting food production per capita on the majority of African small farms (Drechsel et al., 2001). They describe a vicious circle in which an increasingly dense population, increases pressure on soils and reduces productivity, the result often being an increase of the use of expensive fertilizers to compensate that loss. Intensification of food production through higher inputs, better technology and increased irrigation has largely compensated the drop in land available per person (F.A.O., 2012). However, an important question raised by intensification is: how much more inputs (fossil fuel based) and irrigation can we use before it becomes counter
5 For a graph showing Global Peak Oil Forecast see Appendix D, Figure 1. 6
Figure 2, in Appendix D shows a simplified model of the modern agricultural system: manmade nutrient cycle.
productive? A paradox is arising as our agriculture is now causing many of the major problems we are facing; yet with a rapidly growing population and bigger cities, we have less space and we need agriculture more than ever to produce increasing yields (Foley, 2012).
2. Research, Projects And Tested Solutions In Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture (I.V.U.A.)
This paper looks at solutions that I.V.U.A. may have to offer to overcome the problems mentioned above. There may be other solutions to the problems generated by modern intensive agriculture that are different from I.V.U.A., and that are not necessarily part of U.A. either. However, these are not discussed here. Some references to U.A. will be made when relevant to I.V.U.A.. Following, I introduce some of the research and solutions that have started to be carried out.
a. Projects And Examples Of I.V.U.A.
So far, much of the research has focused on the productivity of U.A. One of the first and probably the most important survey conducted on estimating the worth and size of major urban crop and animal production, was the Mazingira Institute’s statistical survey of agricultural production in Kenya (Lee-Smith et al. 1987). Since then, U.A.’s advantages have repeatedly been demonstrated by Less Developed Countries (L.D.Cs.) (Mougeot, 2006). The productivity of U.A. has also been highlighted in Newman and Jennings (2008) as they report findings from Hopkins (2000) who showed that bio-intensive gardening in the US has recorded higher yields than commercial mechanized levels. These yields are 2 to 16 times higher according to Hopkins’ research (Newman and Jennings, 2008). Newman and Jennings (2008), explain that in L.D.Cs. or countries which suffered crisis (i.e.: Argentina, Cuba), U.A. successfully generated jobs while pulling people out of poverty and hunger. Appendix A, provides an illustrative summary with Cuba, of a country’s response to Peak Oil. The International Development Research Center (I.D.R.C.), has throughout the 1980s until now, carried out and compiled hundreds of surveys and research in Africa and Latin America. Their work has gained international recognition, particularly throughout L.D.Cs. but also in the eyes of world institutions such as the F.A.O., the U.N. and the World Bank. Their results have demonstrated the importance of U.A. to achieve sustainable development (Mougeot, 2006). Now it is More Developed Countries (M.D.Cs.) and particularly Europe, that remain to be convinced of its positive potentials. A few M.D.Cs., such as Canada have been very active proponents of U.A., and a few cities such as London have a dynamic U.A. (ibid.), but much remains to be done.
Particular techniques of indoor or vertical U.A. have been tested along with their productivity. According to Ljungquist (2012) few vertical cropping systems have been studied in scientific articles, and for him the most common difficulty these systems meet is the uneven light distribution and light angles (Ljungquist, 2012; Raviv and Lieth, 2008; Leoni et al. 1994). Ljungquist’s investigated vetical hydroponic systems as a way to answer the growing “demand for local food production, increased urbanization and expanding cities” which creates a need for optimization productivity and a maximization of space utilization (Ljungquist, 2012). Gordon Graff, a professor at Waterloo University, in his proposal for intensive U.A. demonstrates how it is possible to have a viable production in indoor controlled environments (Alter, 2011). Yet, there are still many
doubts as to whether I.V.U.A. ideas can be proven economically viable as nowhere in the world yet have any experiments been made.
More solutions for U.A. will need to appear in this century, a few projects focusing on sustainable food production systems have started to appear. Most of these projects are in a very early phase of development and some are beginning to be tested. Two experimental projects on indoor and vertical urban agriculture are currently undergoing test of productivity: the Plantlab in Holland and the Suwon vertical farm in South Korea (Kretschmer and Kollenberg, 2011). Both have so far demonstrated the possibility to grow consequential amounts of food in controlled environments. For example, Bright Farms, a U.S. company, already works with supermarkets, to try to change the supply chain. The companies’ founder, Paul Lightfoot, summarizes the problem with our modern agriculture by saying: “It is both highly efficient, and highly inefficient”. What he means is that it has been highly efficient at providing food, yet, it is also depleting resources and creating all sorts of externalities (Lightfoot, 2012). BrightFarms design, finance, build and operate hydroponic greenhouse farms at or near supermarkets. By doing so they cut costs, time and distance from the food supply chain that fills the supermarkets (BrightFarms, 2012). This initiative has already proven successful, and is rapidly expanding with already almost ten projects in large cities such as New York. Some projects include rooftop or other elements of I.V.U.A..BrightFarm has been testing the idea that U.A. and I.V.U.A. may be both possible but also profitable. Another project currently under development in Jordan, is trying to apply an integrated production approach to produce food, energy and water in the desert, while using biomimicry for restorative design. This project is the Sahara Forest Project (Seawater Greenhouse, 2008). It bases itself on the imitation of natural ecosystems to provide all the services that we usually obtain through the use of fossil fuel burning and water overuse. It integrates energy production, with water management, agricultural production and greening of desert areas (Orru, 2012). Many of these principles are increasingly appearing in I.V.U.A. projects.
More projects which include I.V.U.A.could be cited. From green roofs (e.g.: Green Bronx Machine) to community gardens or through networks (e.g.: Urban Edibles), all are trying to reconnect the people back with their food and rebuild communities around the food production. Many of these projects have proven successful means of re-inserting people in society, providing healthier food by spreading the responsibility of the food production within communities that both produce and then consume it.
b. Strategies And Policies To Strengthen Local Agriculture And U.A.
Looking at what enables U.A. and local agriculture may be helpful to see what should be required for I.V.U.A.. Several studies of traditional Chinese cities, including Shanghai (Cai and Zhang, 2000) have demonstrated that Chinese cities and their agricultural hinterland have long been viewed as a whole. In medieval European cities and their agricultural hinterland were also closely tied (Steel, 2009). Shanghai, until recently was largely self-sufficient in vegetables and grain. This self-sufficiency has become threatened by rapid industrialization and urbanization (Newman and Jennings, 2008), yet, Cai and Zhang (2000), explain that 87% of the total area of Shanghai is rural and that the city administration tries to preserve as much of the land as possible for agriculture. 80% of the arable land is protected by law (Cai and Zhang, 2000). The city
administration is also a strong advocate of U.A., the strategy for development of this sector is further mechanization and technical innovation. Even if until now the profits in U.A. have been low, the city administration actively tries to bring production costs down (ibid.). To do this it uses three strategies: increase output; application of new technologies along with added value through improved production quality; and production services improvement (i.e.: lower transport costs in Shanghai) (ibid.).
The Foodprints toolkit, designed by Anna Maria Orru and Johan Zetterquist (2012), is an attempt to involve people in the design process to think and create closed-loops food systems which would then be implemented through policy making. The toolkit, helps policy-makers in Stockholm and elsewhere, work with citizens to achieve this outcome (Orru, 2012). It is an attempt at finding a process that will change the attitude towards U.A.and I.V.U.A.. Another strategy discussed by Newman and Jennings (2008) is that of Community Supported Agriculture (C.S.A.). This strategy focuses on strengthening local economies and ensuring that the locally produced food is healthy, as farmers are responsible to the community (Newman and Jennings, 2008). C.S.A. systems have demonstrated the advantage of guaranteeing an income to farmers and sharing risks as well as reducing waste or loss of harvested farm produce (ibid.). The authors also highlight Northey Street City Farm as an example of educational tool and source of inspiration for communities in Brisbane, Australia (ibid.). Many other examples of U.A. have demonstrated their capacity for improving health and education (Mougeot, 2006; Cooper, 2008).
III. METHODOLOGY
This study is carried out using two methods. This choice of a variety of research methods was made because of the novelty of the object of analysis (the Plantagon as an example of I.V.U.A. and innovative solution for S.U.D.). These methods here are complementary. The literature review helped obtain information about the subject of research and provided the theoretical frame for analysis and for the discussion which offers the beginning of an answer. While the case study with its interviews helped identify the key barriers to I.V.U.A..
A. Literature Review And Secondary Resources
Several theories can help identify potential benefits of I.V.U.A. and barriers it faces, while providing suggestions to overcome barriers. The literature review allowed for the identification of opportunities that I.V.U.A. may contribute to S.U.D. It also provided a theoretical framework to explore solutions to the problems listed in the first part of this thesis. This slightly unusual approach was adopt as a necessity to enable discussion throughout the “Analysis” and “Discussion” sections, as both of these sections look at different aspects (i.e.: “Analysis”: looks at barriers; “Discussion”: looks at possible paths forward, placing the research in the more general theoretical context). The reader will forgive me for this minor change which I hope results in a more fluid read adapted to the novelty of the research topic and justified by it.
This paper used an extensive qualitative analysis and review of secondary sources providing an understanding of the research and knowledge in the field of U.A. or
I.V.U.A.. My goal here is not to evaluate the predictions or specific technicalities, but rather to provide a general idea with focus on the barriers to I.V.U.A. projects and to expose some of the possible solutions.
Much of the data was collected from peer-reviewed articles or from other official publications such as the F.A.O. Statistical Yearbook 2012, which compiles statistics from F.A.O but also from global statistical providers (e.g.: United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund). I have used data provided by the Plantagon and press releases, as this is an upcoming project which has not yet been studied. I bear in mind that the information provided may be partly biased, as it serves as a promotional tool, and also that many of the figures are estimates. As Bryman states these provide: “a distinct level of “reality” in their own right” (Bryman, 2008; p.527). The press releases allowed me to obtain information that the Plantagon’s website and brochure did not provide, but with the same considerations. This use of non peer reviewed data was also done in an effort to keep the interviews short as the Plantagon staff and other interviewees had busy schedules.
It should also be noted that I do not speak or read Swedish, and I was unable to read original documents and sources in the language such as specific policies in Swedish which may have been helpful. However, this was not a major problem in the interviews as all of the participants spoke very good English. Accordingly, this analysis is based entirely on people that are part of the project or English published material.
B. Case Study
This case study serves as an exploratory empirical enquiry of an organization, that enables the investigation of a contemporary phenomenon in its real-life context (Yin, 2003). This case is then used to investigate as well as illustrate a futuristic solution in I.V.U.A.: The Plantagon. It looks at how theory is being applied and develops hypotheses and propositions for further enquiry. As it is proven that case studies present certain limitations, in this paper I have tried to address these based on Yin’s (2003) recommendations. A rigorous research method was applied. I tried to stay as objective and unbiased as possible about the case. The case research was built in such a way that it may be replicated in further research. Another recurring concern raised about case studies “is that they provide little basis for scientific generalization” (Yin, 2003; p.10). Yin (2003) offers a response to this criticism, stating that: “case studies, like experiments, are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes.”(p.10). Hence, I have based myself on Yin’s answer to allow my results to be generalized for theoretical propositions. Meanwhile, I bore in mind that my results are not “general scientific truths”, or that if by chance they are, that they may not remain with further developments in I.V.U.A.. However, my decision to follow Yin is justified by the fact that the Plantagon so far, is the only project of I.V.U.A. of that scale. Consequently, it does offer a basis for generalization, since it cannot be (yet) compared to other projects. My goal here is not to do a “statistical generalization” but rather to do an “analytical generalization” to expand and generalize theories (Yin, 2003). I have carried out a qualitative analysis7, as a quantitative one was impossible8, to interpret the findings.
7
Qualitative analysis aims at describing. It is opposed to quantitative analysis which collects frequencies. In this research it is based on interpretations of discussions with the interviewees.
8
This particular case allows the reader to draw certain conclusions about the barriers faced by a futuristic solution in I.V.U.A..9 Consequently, it enables a look at the implications for the support of such solution. To describe the design of my case study, I use Yin’s (2003) “Components of Research Design”. The study question here consists in answering: “Is rethinking agriculture an integral part of Sustainable Urban Development? Does Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture provide a way forward in creating sustainable food production? And if so what are the key barriers to further development of I.V.U.A.?” This case study shows the potentials that exist to implement theories of S.U.D. (i.e.: closed-loop systems, import substitution) through I.V.U.A.. It also illustrates theories on lifting barriers through participatory planning and innovative policy-making for S.U.D..
a. The Choice Of The Plantagon In Linkoping
The Plantagon appears to be a unique and forward-thinking project which can exemplify the barriers faced by innovative solutions in I.V.U.A.. It is the first project that will move from the drawing boards to become reality. Additionally, it is developed not only as research center but also with a strong commercial aspect in mind. I chose this project because it appeared to me to be the most ambitious and large scale so far. Small scale hydroponic systems have been developed and tested, but the Plantagon is different from many projects in that it does not use a hydroponic system and is immediately aimed at large scale production.
As the first project of its kind, it of course presents several limitations. One such limitation is that there are no other projects to compare it with. Another is that it is somewhat difficult to acquire information as it is a commercial project and stakeholders wish to protect their concept and avoid revealing certain information related to technicalities or strategies by fear of potential competition.
b. Interviews
Yin (2003) identifies interviews as one of the six sources of evidence for case study research. Qualitative interviews represent a large portion of the empirical data collection for this thesis, and provide answers for qualitative analysis (Yin, 2003). They are complementary to the case study and sometimes directly part of it (i.e.: Owe Pettersson’s interview). By carrying out in-depth interviews10 with different stakeholders and professionals of U.A., I tried to obtain information about the role played by policy-makers. Next, I identified the role that policy-makers’ attitudes has on policy-making for I.V.U.A projects in particular, but also on other future innovations in U.A.. From these interviews I also intend to identify some of the barriers that prevent these solutions from being implemented or tested. An interview guide with the general questions discussed is available in Appendix C.
I have chosen to conduct semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews are interviews in which general questions are set in the beginning but can change or in which new questions can be added during the interview process (Bryman, 2008). This is a
9 I have no pretention here to provide a full working theory from my generalizations, but only hope to provide the beginning of an answer.
10
In-depth here refers to extensive interviews and to the fact that interviewees where asked to develop their answers and not simply give short answers.
qualitative research method which considering the time constraints presented a few difficulties, such as reaching the interviewees during their office hours. However, there are advantages to this method. By using semi-structured interviews, I allowed the interviewees to answer with more flexibility and freedom to develop certain points. This allowed me to obtain some information that I may not have thought to ask otherwise, or that they would not have provided within the limitations of set questions. Additionally, semi-structured interviews allowed me to keep a certain neutrality and to guarantee that I would be less likely to influence the answers of the interviewees as opposed to multiple choices questions (Bryman, 2008). Consequently, I tried to avoid provoking answers with hypothetical questions and focused on asking open-ended questions targeted to one single issue, as recommended by Bryman (2008). Upon request by the interviewees, I sent the interview guide with the general questions for discussions. This comforted them as for some English was not their native language.
In an effort of research ethics, I have considered the recommendations of Yin (2003) and Booth, Colomb and Williams (2003). Each participant in the interviews were asked their permission, and consented to be cited and referenced in this research. They were offered the option of anonymity too, however they declined the need for this. Efforts were made to ensure that the participants were not forced into compromising situations, and were free to answer the questions put forth. Interviews were conducted with: Plantagon AB (Owe Pettersson, COO and Senior Vice-President), Tim Delshammar (from S.L.U.) and Anna Maria Orru (Architect who works on Foodprints Stockholm) and Niels Peter Flint (Sustainable Vision Designer). These people were chosen due to their work with U.A., their role as planners and policy-makers, or their direct involvement with the Plantagon project. They were also the only four people available for interviews within the time of the research even though more people were contacted. The interviews’ length with each participants averaged 45 minutes, ranging from 30 minutes to 1 hour. These interviews were transcribed shortly after they were completed, for review by my tutor. The results obtained from the interviews were used to identify barriers and solutions.
The participants background and interview dates, are provided in appendix C. The interview questions, were designed to obtain information with regards to the opportunities and barriers that I.V.U.A. and innovations in food production face. The purpose being to answer the research question: “Does Intensive Vertical Urban Agriculture provide a way forward in creating sustainable food production? And if so, what are the key barriers for further development of I.V.U.A.?” The questions where all open ended questions and were formulated so as to let the interviewees choose freely the answers they would give. With the interviews I hoped to collect the impressions and experiences of the different participants in their field with relevance for the Plantagon/I.V.U.A..
c. Limitations Of The Study
Some of the difficulties of the data collection for this thesis should be highlighted. It has been exceptionally difficult to collect data and to reach stakeholders for several reasons:
or Linkoping to complete face-to-face interviews. Consequently, all interviews were carried out by phone or on Skype.
The limited time available for the research, coupled with the difficulty to reach some of the interviewees. This limited the depth of the research possible and the follow up of interviews. Some of the main stakeholders were not available or unreachable. Availability of the interviewees determined what interviews could be carried out in the given time. Interviews were attempted with: Sweco, Linkoping municipality, the Onondaga nation, and Symbiocity. My attempts with Linkoping consisted of three weeks of phone calls, waiting for people to return from leave or vacation, and being forwarded to other contacts each time I finally reached the person I had been waiting to talk to. Finally when I reached the “right” person I was told that he would be on vacation the following week too and had no time. With more time a few more interviews would have added extra weight to the results of my research. Also, different perspectives might have arisen.
Another limitation for this research was the accessibility to the data. As the Plantagon is still in an early phase of development, there was not a lot of data available and that had already been published. In addition, there were only few knowledgeable stakeholders who had already been involved in the project. My final contact with Linkoping stated that the work on the Plantagon’s project was going to start very shortly but that for the moment nothing had yet been done.11
Further difficulties with regards to accessibility were that certain documents were not accessible as the Plantagon wished to preserve some information for business purposes. The same research if carried out a year later might have provided more data and hence possibly different results.
IV. RETHINKING AND REDESIGNING OUR FOOD SUPPLY FOR S.U.D.:
THEORIES FOR INTENSIVE VERTICAL URBAN AGRICULTURE (I.V.U.A.) Barriers To Innovation Theory
It is important to start by clarifying what is meant by the term “barriers”. In this text, “barriers” will be used to talk about all the difficulties that an idea or organization may face and that could prevent its implementation or functioning. For the sake of clarity I define these difficulties under two categories: Ability and Willingness. Ability comprises aspects such as: technical and knowledge gaps, physical limits, financial or legal blocks (e.g.: organizational structure/procedures, policies/laws). Willingness is comprised of: socio-cultural blocks (e.g.: awareness, acceptance, norms, resistance, degree of motivation, organizational habits), political blocks and communication systems (e.g.: lobbies, media12). I assume that an idea could fail because of problems with Ability or Willingness, or both. However, to succeed an idea or organization will have to overcome both aspects. To take an example, Gonzalez, Jaumandreu and Pazo (2005) look at barriers to innovation (most particularly financial) as they investigate subsidies’ effectiveness. They demonstrate that subsidies can help stimulate R&D, and that if removed some firms would stop pursuing R&D. However, they explain that most subsidies currently go to
11
Phone call with Michael Porath, city of Linkoping. On May 11th, 2012. 12
firms that would have carried out R&D regardless of subsidies (Gonzalez et al., 2005). This case clearly shows the inter-dependence between Ability (financial help available) and Willingness (help offered in the form of subsidy) and illustrates their blurry borders. Consequently, and for the sake of clarity this classification will not be used in the analysis, as the focus of the research is on the barriers themselves rather than which categories they fall in. A description of each barriers would be too lengthy in such a work to be discussed here, hence the reader will be asked to follow the general description of barriers I gave above, and understand the term barriers in its broad perspective.
Introduction Of I.V.U.A. Theory
From the legendary “Hanging Gardens of Babylon”, to today’s sometimes eccentric visions of some architects and designers, the idea of growing food in vertical structures seem to have always existed. However, it is only recently that Despommier and Ellingsen (2008) and Despommiers (2010) reintroduced the concept of vertical U.A. with their writings on The Vertical Farm. In his book he advocates the use of tall
buildings for urban agriculture, providing high yields and offering a wide range of advantages over traditional agricultural models. As no such structure exists yet, his arguments are largely speculative, but are useful to think of the possibilities that I.V.U.A. may offer once certain difficulties are overcome. Here I describe some of the theoretical approaches that could be used to help overcome the problems mentioned above and promote I.V.U.A.
How Does I.V.U.A. Fit In With Sustainable Urban Development?
The UN World Commission on Environment and Development published a report entitled Our Common Future, which is often considered as the first report to define sustainable development (Bruntland; 1987). It defined sustainable development as: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”(Wheeler and Beatly; 2004; p.56). In the same report it highlights the potential of U.A. as a tool for Sustainable Urban
Development (S.U.D.) (Mougeot, 2006). As we have seen above, our current practices are highly dangerous to the environment and consequently not economically nor
environmentally sustainable. I.U.V.A. may present a wide range of solutions to many of those problems.
Some theories help identify the opportunities for S.U.D. that I.V.U.A. has to offer. These answer the problems identified in section (II). Here two theories illustrate the benefits of I.V.U.A,.:
- Closing loops to integrate the food supply in the nutrient and energy cycle And Reducing the need for natural resources through import substitution.
Another set of theories is then used to help identify some of the solutions to lift barriers that I.V.U.A. is facing. These are presented under the heading:
- Making it all possible: Participatory planning and policies stimulating innovation for I.V.U.A.
1. Closing Loops To Integrate The Food Supply In The Nutrient and Envergy Cycle
And Reducing The Need For Natural Resources Through Import Substitution
In their chapter on Cities As Sustainable Ecosystems (CASE), Newman and Jennings (2008) review Bossel’s (1998) systems model of sustainability which defines sustainability based on systems thinking (Bossel, 1998). For Bossel any self-organizing system is sustainable or viable as long as “orientors”/characteristics are in a satisfactory state. Newman and Jennings summarize Bossel’s research and present the first two set of these characteristics as “Healthy (Effective)” and “Zero Waste”, which for Bossel include strategies such as: local, needs-based economies and food production systems that incorporate strategies of sustainable ecosystems (e.g.: nutrient cycling) (Bossel, 1998). Nelson (1996) and Mougeot (2006), both argue U.A. has the capacity of closing the “nutrient loop”, this equates to using the cities as nutrient sink by establishing organic waste recycling systems, decreasing imports and maximizing the use of resources (Mougeot, 2006). I.V.U.A. offers the same potential, by integrating energy and nutrient recycling in its processes it may reduce outside demands for these inputs. Nutrient losses are currently compensated by chemical fertilizers, these are made from nitrogen and phosphorus, which contaminate water sources and bring extra costs for health and environmental clean up.
In Europe, our current agricultural system (often called: conventional or traditional) is based on cheap oil and subsidies. The man-made nutrient cycle (Appendix D – Figure 2) illustrates this system. Deelstra and Girardet (2000), give several cities (i.e.: Paris, London) as examples of where urban agriculture was very intensive until the invention of motorized transport. Prior to this, cities had developed circular metabolisms, but cheap oil finished to make modern cities linear (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). In Europe, as well as in North America the agriculture industry has become highly subsidized and so have transportation systems, with roads, harbours and rail spreading around every parts of countries to bring food from one part to another. There is a clear transportation reduction advantage to having I.V.U.A., but also many U.A. models try to emulate the natural nutrient cycle (see Appendix D – Figure 3). These authors claim that U.A. can play an important role in the three approaches to waste reduction (i.e.: reduce, re-use, recycle), while advising that “urban planner and educators should make a point of studying the ecology of natural systems” (p.51). This would result in economic savings for the municipality as it would require less waste management (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000), and less imports of energy through/for the food supply. By reducing, reusing and recycling great savings could be achieved (Despommier, 2008), giving a competitive advantage to the I.V.U.A. produce.
I.V.U.A. by strengthening the economic and environmental resilience and the autonomy of the city, reinforces its resistance to global crisis. As long as the local system is reliable, adaptable and resistant to its own crisis, prices fluctuations will for instance have a lesser impact on a city that owns its own production system. Consequently this could reduce social tensions and precarity. As in the illustrative case of Cuba (Appendix A), a city’s greater autonomy gives it more political freedom, by reducing dependencies on outside inputs (which are often controled elsewhere).
Deelstra and Girardet (2000), explain that U.A. offers the opportunity of recycling nutrients and therefore conserve urban soils, provided contamination is prevented from entering the cycle (e.g.: disease, toxins). Smit and Nasr (1992), summarize the benefits of
closed-loop systems brought by U.A. as “converting waste into resources, putting vacant and under-utilized areas into productive use, and conserving natural resources outside cities while improving the environment for urban living”(p.141). Newman and Jennings argue that “closing nutrient cycles through urban agriculture is a key way to foster more sustainable urban ecosystems” (Newman and Jennings, 2008; p.51). Figure 3 (Appendix D) illustrates what a closed nutrient cycle looks like.
Huang, Wong & Chen consider that sustainable development represents more than just “protecting” the environment. Sustainable development requires economic and social change in order to reduce the need for environmental protection. For them, there is a need to redesign urban metabolisms to imitate and integrate them in the living world, by creating closed-loop systems (Huang, Wong & Chen, 1998). To build the needed system approach, these authors believe that understanding the cause-effect relationships between sectors is essential. This is an attempt at reproducing nature’s metabolism in urban environments. Timothy Beatly (2003) explains that “a number of cities have taken action to promote more closed-loop urban metabolism, in which, as in nature, wastes represent inputs or “food”, for other urban processes.”(Beatly, 2003; p.455). The Swedish (e.g.: Stockholm, Malmo) examples of combining biogas and fertilizer production, and district heating from waste collected is the result of integrated departments, or strong cooperation between departments. However, few of these systems have so far integrated food productions, and mostly concentrate on waste and energy (Beatly, 2003). Closing the nutrient and energy loops, could allow I.V.U.A. to be integrated in the urban metabolism. Maximizing resource utilization and capturing flows, it would also force us to consider our waste as a resource to rid the system of toxic waste.
Import substitution is a concept of S.U.D. that has relevance to I.V.U.A.. This theory advocates for the reduction of the use of resources, of negative impacts and for the strengthening of local economies. Herman Daly (1973) is a well-recognized ecological economist who has developed the concept of the steady-state economy. He argued for the need to “keep economic activities within the boundaries and limitations of ecosystems through bioregional economies” (Newman and Jennings, 2008; p.115), so as to avoid the overuse of resources that trade tends to generate. Daly is in favor of U.A. as a way of developing a bioregional economy. Similarly, Newman and Jennings (2008) argue for the promotion of small-scale urban and peri-urban agriculture and claim that “the closer the production of food to its consumption the better and the less energy required to transport it” (p.116). They recognise that their solutions are probably not sufficient to fulfill all citizens’ needs, but argue that it is nevertheless important. I.V.U.A. could fulfill a greater share of the needs, by increased production (Despommier, 2008). This is also a conclusion of Mougeot (2006). Already in 1988, Ignacy Sachs was advocating for more self-reliance through U.A.. He envisioned U.A. as a tool to help L.D.Cs. feed their hungry populations and boost their development (at the time Latin America was under economic crisis). He also pleaded to close the food-energy loop to reduce energy and food import bills. However Sachs mentions that the greatest reluctance to U.A. was cultural, as rural migrants resist the idea of farming in cities. He also described the lack of skills and techniques as a cause of slow progress of U.A. (Sachs, 1988).
A key argument presented by Bellows and Hamm (2001) is on “Local autonomy and sustainable development”. Bellows and Hamm define import substitution as promoting the production “at home” of what formerly had been imported from outside
the “home region”(p.272). Interestingly, import substitution began as state level public policy in Latin American countries in the 1930s, as a response to the debt crisis in these countries. It was an attempt at increasing national autonomy, and has since been applied several times to food systems. Belows and Hamm continue by explaining that there is a misinformed tendency to portray local food systems as inevitably sustainable systems while portraying transnational ones as inevitably unsustainable. Indeed, they argue that a local food system could in fact be unsustainable if it uses conservative/conventional systems of production, while a global system could be sustainable as long as the production is alternative/organic (Bellows and Hamm, 2001). The authors bring some criticism for import substitution as they claim that it “can, however, also reproduce locally the nation’s generally unsustainable food production conditions while at the same time it reduces jobs elsewhere. It is also apparent that local fresh production often feeds already secure rather than food insecure populations, magnifying existing unequal relations of consumption locally.”(ibid., p.273). As they discuss sourcing, the authors also advocate that “flexible sourcing remains important because complete reliance on local production is usually neither feasible [...] nor sensible (because of environmental disruptions such as floods and drought) in the short and long term. (ibid., p.273). A strength that U.A. can provide to balance this difficulty is highlighted by Brown (2008) as he explains that local food production allows the producers to adapt rapidly to changing demands from consumers. Additionally, Dixon et al. (2009) present U.A. (civic agriculture) as “a holistic approach to food insecurity that is more attentive and responsive to the local economic, environmental and social factors that affect diet and health”(p.17). They argue that U.A. and local agriculture has a greater potential to contribute to the health of citizens than traditional industrial ones. Moreover, I.V.U.A. , because of its often indoor design reduces the effects of environmental diruptions on the production of food, guaranteeing a stable year-round output (Despommier, 2008).
Import substitution much like the theory of closed-loops urban metabolism mentioned before helps reduce energy demand, and can counter negative effects of globalization such as climate change by reducing imports. Nonetheless the import substitution should be well considered so as not to create new problems, or not to increase inequitable treatment of labor or access to produce.
2. Making It All Possible: Participatory Planning and Policies Stimulating Innovation
As Enabling Strategies For I.V.U.A.
Participatory planning enables communication between stakeholders and hence promotes trust building, resulting in solutions that are better adapted to their context (Carp, 2004). This theory is particularly useful when looking at U.A. as it may be a local solution that could involve or impact many urban dwellers and a solution that could have important effects on S.U.D.. Participartory planning may be done by involving the public directly into projects (Listerborn, 2007), but it may also be done in new ways of involving policy-makers and planners to make them consider the challenges and opportunities of U.A.. Recently, there has been increased discussion about the value of participatory planning and public-private partnerships (Das and Takahashi, 2009, Cliffton and Amran, 2011). Promoters of participatory planning argue that it is essential to include stakeholders into solutions and innovations (Bryson, 2004, Björgvinsson, Ehn and Hillgren, 2010; Clifton and Amran, 2011). This approach is often said to result in
greater creativity as well as better understanding and acceptance of projects by the various stakeholders, promoting equity through participation and trust-building. It is increasingly clear that these methods tend to have higher results for S.U.D. However, criticisms of participatory planning are advanced by Clifton and Amran (2011) who argue that too often this approach does not reach sustainable requirements, by not considering the well-being and justice of citizens. From a corporate perspective, shareholders have a different vision than stakeholders, as they are primarily worried about financial benefits, and often have little consideration for sustainability. This criticism is echoed by Das and Takahashi (2009) or by O’Toole and Meier (2004) who talk about the risk of cooptation of private interests.
Bezemer and Heady (2008), explain that generally speaking agriculture has not been part of development agendas because of what they qualify as “the urban bias”. This “urban bias” means that the focus of development strategies is on industries and trade, rather than primary industry approaches. It highlights the separation of agriculture from the city, and portrays agriculture as something undesirable in the city. They explain that this problem is systemic with institutional causes, for example policies (Bezemer and Heady, 2008). Although in many Less Developed Countries (L.D.Cs.) Urban Agriculture (U.A.) is already common practice, it is still rare in More Developed Countries (M.D.Cs.). Mougeot (2006) states that U.A. is not a new phenomenon, but rather something that has always existed, even in large cities (e.g.: Xi’an in China). He further argues that the reason M.D.Cs. do not have U.A. is because of the zoning thinking that evolved in Europe (Mougeot, 2006). He states that “because it is spontaneous and uncontrolled, many city planners and municipal governments view U.A. as an unsightly problem” (ibid.; p.8). For Mougeot, the single biggest barrier to U.A. in developing countries has been the European colonial era type of thinking which tried to reproduce, in L.D.Cs.’, the same setting as in cities of northern climates with their rules and regulations. In both L.D.Cs. and M.D.Cs., the lack of recognition of the benefits of U.A. by urban planners and municipal governments has hindered its development. Whereas, Mougeot argues that: “U.A. must be viewed not as a problem but as one tool contributing to sustainable urban development, and conventional strategies for urban food security need to be reassessed in view of its potential role” (ibid.; p.10). Following are possible steps to consider taking for lifting barriers to I.V.U.A..
Rittel and Webber (1973) wrote about problems in social policy, arguing that these problems are “wicked”, which means that they are by nature more complex than traditional “tame” problems13. Their theory does not only apply to social policy making, it has often been applied to planning and architecture (Latour, 2008), but more recently it has been more generally applied to S.U.D. problems. Finding new designs that are not just more efficient but also more equitable is the root of this concept. It implies that planners attempt to understand problems before looking for solutions and for them to do what is best and what is “good” (Rittel and Webber, 1973). From this perspective, U.A. and I.V.U.A. challenge the traditional approach to the food supply and question the equity of the traditional system.
“Urban Agriculture needs to be recognized as an important and increasingly central phenomenon of urbanization.” (F.A.O., 2012; p.214). This statement by the
