Governing Urban Agriculture:: Internal, External and Contextual Factors

P a g e 1 | 67

M ASTER THESIS

OVERNING URBAN AGRICULTURE: INTERNAL, EXTERNAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

Gällande Urban Landbruk: Interna, Externa Och Kontextuella Faktorer

Author:

Lila Fillion Supervisor:

Andrew Karvonen Examiner:

Tigran Haas

AG212X Degree Project in Urban and Regional Planning, Second Cycle KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

September 2020-January 2021 Stockholm, Sweden The WandelGarten

SweGreen

P a g e 2 | 67

A BSTRACT (E NGLISH AND S WEDISH )

English

ElectriCITY, a citizenship-driven economic association aims at making Hammarby Sjöstad the most climate-friendly district in Sweden. Their next step is to integrate urban agriculture into the neighborhood. Urban agriculture is, by definition, growing or producing food in a city. It allows, among other things, to increase access to locally grown food for the population nearby and to educate city dwellers on many aspects of agriculture. This project’s goal is to offer a large overview of urban agriculture and its different governance characteristics. In addition to the literature review and to have a better understanding of the relevant stakes of this field, the project was based on six different case studies that introduce various types of urban agriculture governance: SweGreen (Stockholm), Odlande Stadsbasarer (Stockholm), Nature Urbaine (Paris), the WandelGarten (Freiburg), the Tillsammansodling group of Viva (Gothenburg) and Greenhouse (Malmö). The study was built on desk- studies, interviews, and two participant observations. It had a focus on the different governance characteristics of the urban agriculture approaches (internal, external, and contextual) based on a distinction between market-oriented projects and non-market-oriented ones. The findings showed similarities between the case studies on different points such as their approaches to sustainability or the need to have external partners and political support. They showed as well the importance to take into account the external and contextual factors for projects to be well-integrated into the urban system.

KEYWORDS: Urban agriculture, Governance, Market-orientation, Sustainable urban development

Svenska

ElectriCITY, en medborgardriven ekonomisk förening, syftar till att göra Hammarby Sjöstad till den mest klimatvänliga stadsdelen i Sverige. Deras nästa steg är att integrera urbant jordbruk i grannskapet. Stadsjordbruk odlar eller producerar, per definition, mat i en stad. Detta gör det bland annat möjligt att öka tillgången till lokalt producerad mat för befolkningen i närheten samt att utbilda stadsbor om jordbrukets olika aspekter. Projektets mål är att erbjuda en stor översikt över urbant jordbruk och dess olika styrningsegenskaper. Utöver litteraturöversikten, baserades projektet på en rad olika fallstudier för att få en bättre förståelse för relevanta insatser inom detta område. Dessa projekt introducerar olika typer av urban jordbruksstyrning: SweGreen (Stockholm), Odlande Stadsbasarer (Stockholm), Nature Urbaine (Paris), WandelGarten (Freiburg), Tillsammansodling- gruppen i Viva (Göteborg) och Greenhouse (Malmö). Studien byggdes på skrivbordsstudier, intervjuer och två deltagarobservationer. Den fokuserade på de olika styrningsegenskaperna för urbana jordbruksmetoder (interna, externa och kontextuella), baserat på en åtskillnad mellan marknadsorienterade och icke-marknadsorienterade projekt. Resultaten visade likheter mellan fallstudierna på olika punkter, bland annat deras förhållningssätt till hållbarhet eller behovet av att ha externa partners och politiskt stöd. De visade också vikten av att ta hänsyn till de externa och kontextuella faktorerna för att projekt skulle kunna integreras väl i det urbana systemet.

NYCKELORD: Stadslandbruk, Styrning, Marknadsorientering, Hållbar stadsutveckling

P a g e 3 | 67

A CKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I must deeply thank my supervisor Andrew Karvonen who helped me at all stages of my thesis. In addition to answering my questions very quickly, he advised and helped me to orient my thesis as it stands today. I am very grateful to have had such a committed thesis supervisor throughout this project.

I must also thank ElectriCITY and especially Jörgen Lööf who gave me the idea of this project but also the opportunity to reflect on how urban agriculture could be implemented in a neighborhood like Hammarby Sjöstad.

Many thanks go without saying to all the interviewees who offered their time so that I could move forward with my project. All these interventions gave me an incredible insight into the field of urban agriculture which helped me build my thesis but also taught me a lot more. Thanks again to the projects that I had the opportunity to visit and join for an afternoon.

I also want to acknowledge all my thesis coworkers, other KTH students with whom we shared time working on our respective theses, making this time even more pleasant.

Finally, I want to thank all the numerous persons who helped me during this work, all those who brought their touch and helped me in my questionings.

Lila Fillion Stockholm, January 2021

P a g e 4 | 67

T ABLE OF CONTENT

Abstract (English and Swedish) ... 2

Acknowledgments ... 3

Table of content ... 4

List of Figures and Tables ... 6

1 Introduction ... 7

1.1 Why urban agriculture? ... 7

1.2 Aim of the project & Research questions ... 7

1.3 Outline ... 8

2 Background ... 8

2.1 Definition of urban agriculture and the different types ... 8

2.2 Urban agriculture through history and up to today ... 9

2.2.1 Historical view of urban agriculture ... 9

2.2.2 Review of current urban agriculture in Sweden and Stockholm ... 10

2.3 The potentials and challenges of urban agriculture in urban sustainability ... 10

2.4 The potential of urban agriculture in the current crisis ... 13

2.5 Different growing techniques in urban agriculture approaches ... 14

3 Conceptual Framework ... 16

3.1 Governance of urban agriculture projects ... 16

3.2 The three levels of complexity in urban agriculture governance ... 17

3.2.1 Internal governance characteristics ... 18

3.2.2 External governance characteristics ... 19

3.2.3 Broader context ... 19

3.3 Distinction based on the degree of market-orientation ... 20

3.4 Contextualization in the study ... 20

4 Methodology ... 21

4.1 The case study approach ... 21

4.2 Data gathering ... 23

4.3 Data analysis ... 25

4.4 Research validity and Limitations ... 26

5 Findings and Analysis ... 26

5.1 Case studies descriptions ... 27

5.2 Analysis & Discussion: Internal governance characteristics ... 31

5.2.1 The hybridity of approaches ... 31

5.2.2 The challenges in gathering all the resources ... 32

P a g e 5 | 67

5.2.3 The involvement of the actors and the sharing of the tasks ... 35

5.2.4 Summary table of the internal governance characteristics of the case studies ... 36

5.3 Analysis & discussion: External governance characteristics ... 39

5.3.1 The integration in the urban system ... 39

5.3.2 The importance of partnerships ... 41

5.3.3 Public policies and regulations ... 43

5.3.4 Summary table of the external governance characteristics of the case studies ... 44

5.4 Analysis & discussion: Broader context ... 47

5.4.1 Local cultural, political, and economic context ... 47

5.4.2 The impact of the geographic location ... 49

5.4.3 Urban agriculture projects vs. climate and climate change ... 49

5.4.4 Summary table of the contextual governance characteristics of the case studies ... 51

6 Conclusions ... 54

6.1 Overall learnings ... 54

6.2 Towards an integration in a sustainable neighborhood ... 55

6.3 Suggestions for future research and concluding remarks ... 56

Bibliography ... 58

Appendices ... 65

Appendix A: Semi-structured interview questions ... 65

Appendix B: Permaculture practices of The WandelGarten ... 66

P a g e 6 | 67

L IST OF F IGURES AND T ABLES Figures

Figure 1: The three pillars of sustainability, adapted from Hallett et al. (2016) ... 11

Figure 2: Three levels of complexity that impact governance processes in urban agriculture projects, adapted from Prové et al. (2015) ... 18

Figure 3: The case studies of a) SweGreen, b) Odlandade Stadsbasarer and c) Nature Urbaine ... 28

Figure 4: The case studies of d) the WandelGarten, e) Viva and f) Greenhouse ... 30

Figure 5: Position of the case studies on the spectrum of urban agriculture introduced by Interviewee 4 ... 32

Figure 6: Different policy perspectives on urban agriculture, taken from De Zeeuw et al. (2011) ... 44

Figure 7: Map indicating where the case studies are located, retrieved from Google Maps (2020) ... 50

Figure 8: Worm farm of the WandelGarten ... 66

Figure 9: Hochbeet ... 66

Figure 10: Hügelkultur ... 67

Figure 11: Lasagna bed ... 67

Figure 12: Herbs block ... 67

Figure 13: Tipi ... 67

Tables

Table 2: Presentation of the chosen case studies ... 22

Table 3: Follow-up of the semi-structured interviews in a semi-natural setting ... 23

Table 4: Follow-up of the participant observations ... 24

Table 5: Follow-up of the events attended ... 25

Table 6: Internal governance characteristics of the market-oriented case studies ... 37

Table 7: Internal governance characteristics of the non-market-oriented case studies ... 38

Table 8: Short circuits of the market-oriented case studies: organized and geographic proximity ... 39

Table 9: External governance characteristics of the market-oriented case studies ... 45

Table 10: External governance characteristics of the non-market-oriented case studies ... 46

Table 11: Broader context of the market-oriented case studies ... 52

Table 12: Broader context of the non-market-oriented case studies ... 53

P a g e 7 | 67

1 I NTRODUCTION

1.1 W

?

As it is well-known, urban growth is going fast and is changing the way we live (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). According to United Nations data, two out of three people are likely to live in cities or other urban centers by 2050 (United Nations, 2018). This means that about 2.5 billion people could join urban areas in thirty years. To meet all the challenges arising from this urbanization, cities need to turn into self-regulating, sustainable systems.

Today’s urban food system depends on large amounts of food being brought in from outside and it requires vast areas of land (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Johnson, 2019). In 2050, 80% of the world’s food will be consumed in cities. Rapid urban expansion and population growth, combined with the climate emergency, make the issue of the food supply in cities a very pressing concern (Johnson, 2019).

For example, in Stockholm County, only 3% of the Swedish arable land can be found (Länsstyrelsen Stockholm et al., 2019). This makes Stockholm county vulnerable in case of a crisis regarding the food system. Addressing this, the Stockholm food strategy pointed out that primary food production needs to increase within the Stockholm borders (Länsstyrelsen Stockholm et al., 2019).

Urban agriculture can be seen as a promising solution to these challenges as cities have the potential to produce food despite their inherent density (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). Through own production or short value chains, urban agriculture provides urban dwellers with access to fresh and nutritious food at a reasonable cost and limits farmers’ losses through proximity to markets (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020). But more than just a geographical shift, urban agriculture is also a transition from conventional rural agriculture to a mainstream urban experience and offers opportunities in sectors such as social and environmental improvement, health, or economic reliance (Mougeot, 2000; Yusoff et al., 2017).

1.2 A

& R

Hammarby Sjöstad, a sustainable city district in Stockholm, has the potential to integrate urban agriculture (Lööf, 2020). It already hosts several testbeds for smart energy, sustainable transport, and sharing economies (Fränne, 2007). The neighborhood was first intended as a sustainable Olympic village before being transformed into a neighborhood with a high environmental profile (Foletta, 2011). ElectriCITY, founded in 2014, is a citizenship-driven economic association that aims at making Hammarby Sjöstad the most climate-friendly district in Sweden. Its operations are run under the project called Hammarby Sjöstad 2.0 that has for objective to take the Paris Climate Deal 2050 to Hammarby Sjöstad by 2030 (ElectriCITY, n.d.; Larsson, 2020). ElectriCITY wants the integration of urban agriculture in Hammarby Sjöstad to be one of the next steps (Lööf, 2020).

This project aims at helping ElectriCITY to have a large overview of urban agriculture and to propose pathways towards a later successful urban agriculture integration into Hammarby Sjöstad. In a general vision, the study is focused on urban agriculture approaches that could fit in a sustainable neighborhood and precisely in the sustainable neighborhood of Hammarby Sjöstad. To have a better understanding of the relevant stakes of this field, the study will focus on the different governance characteristics of the urban agriculture approaches (internal, external, and contextual) based on a distinction between market-oriented projects and non-market-oriented ones. The study is based on a case study approach and will thoroughly go through six different case studies: SweGreen (Stockholm), Odlande Stadsbasarer (Stockholm), Nature Urbaine (Paris), the WandelGarten (Freiburg), the

P a g e 8 | 67 Tillsammansodling group of Viva (Gothenburg) and Greenhouse (Malmö). The project will be guided by the governance characteristics of the different urban agriculture approaches and answer the following research questions:

1. How is urban agriculture influenced by internal characteristics related to objectives, actors, and resources?

2. How is urban agriculture influenced by external characteristics related to legitimation, partnerships, and public policies?

3. How is urban agriculture influenced by contextual characteristics related to the local cultural, political, and economic environment, geographic location, and climate?

1.3 O

The report starts with a literature review on urban agriculture. It highlights, among other things, how urban agriculture can be beneficial for sustainable urban development and describes its challenges.

The report continues with a description of the conceptual framework that was chosen to analyze the six case studies. The methodology used throughout the project is explained in detail before the description of the case studies, which is followed by the presentation and analysis of the findings.

2 B ACKGROUND

This section provides a general description of the background of urban agriculture. To this end, a literature review was conducted to describe and examine how others have researched the topic (Lune and Berg, 2017; Rowe, 2014). In order to better understand the background and theoretical concepts of the main topic (Rowley and Slack, 2004), many sources were reviewed such as scientific articles, literature from different urban agriculture association such as the Urban Agriculture Magazines of The RUAF Global Partnership on Sustainable Urban Agriculture and Food Systems, previous research papers or more diverse sources (webpages, telecommunication networks, etc.). The literature has been carefully selected to offer a review that is targeted but also of broad interest, with both recent and older studies (Pautasso, 2013).

2.1 D

The question of food provision in the urban context is an integral part of urbanism and urban agriculture is only one component of a number of alternative visions and terminologies that address this urban question (Dehaene et al., 2016). Duany and Plater-Zyberk (2011), for example, introduce and define three different concepts: agrarian urbanism “a society involved with the growing of food”, agricultural urbanism “when an intentional community is built that is associated with a farm” and urban agriculture “cities that are retrofitted to grow food”.

The last one, under study in this thesis, is also defined by the Research Center on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RCUA), as “the growing of trees, food and other agricultural products (herbs, pot plants, fuel, fodder) and raising of livestock (and fisheries) within the built-up area or on the fringe of cities” (RUAF Foundation, n.d.). It is not explicitly mentioned in this definition but urban agriculture is not only a question of urban location but rather that it is an integral part of the urban socio-economic and ecological system (Mougeot, 2000). For this reason, Mougeot (2000) defines urban agriculture as:

An industry located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food

P a g e 9 | 67 products, (re-)using largely 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.

Urban agriculture is different from, and complementary to, rural agriculture in local food systems because of its close interaction with the urban environment (Mougeot, 2000). Traditionally, agriculture and urbanity have been perceived as exclusive, except for their interdependence (Verzone, 2012). But now that agriculture is increasingly taking place in cities, it should be emphasized that, in addition to its location, urban agriculture differs from conventional rural agriculture by its inherent multifunctionality and by its motivations. Its main focus is not always on the production of food as it plays a role in other domains such as waste recycling, community cohesion, education and learning, landscaping or climate resilience (Cohen and Reynolds, 2015; Dubbeling et al., 2017).

Nonetheless, the precise nature of urban agriculture varies from city to city and depends on different characteristics such as its objectives, actors, location, types of production, integration with other production activities, the destination of the product, and the degree of market orientation or scales of technology used (Mougeot, 2000; RUAF Foundation, n.d.). There are many urban agriculture initiatives that can range from micro-farming on balconies to multifunctional urban agricultural enterprises (Martin-Moreau et al., 2019). It is difficult to classify all the different models of urban agriculture because it depends on the criteria chosen to differentiate them. It is possible to differentiate the different types according to whether they are non-commercial or market-oriented such as Pearson et al. (2010) but also according to scale (micro, meso, or macro), spatial location (building, inner-city, city fringe), level of control over the production process (open, mixed, controlled), etc. (Martin-Moreau et al., 2019; van der Schans et al., 2014).

Some examples of the most common types of urban agriculture projects have been introduced by the RCUA as follows (RUAF Foundation, n.d.):

o Educational and institutional gardens o Small specialized producers

o Large scale farming in the urban fringe o High tech urban farming in/on buildings o Low-tech forms of vertical farming/aquaponics

o Metropolitan food clusters, integrated design of food production & logistics

2.2 U

Urban agriculture has always been part of city life as it has adapted to changing situations and has often been a response to urban dynamics (Van Veenhuizen, 2006). The objective of this section is to provide an overview of the history of urban agriculture but also of its current state in Sweden and more particularly in Stockholm.

2.2.1 Historical view of urban agriculture

Throughout history, urban agriculture has been used mainly by city dwellers to improve their livelihoods and health conditions (Orsini et al., 2013; Van Veenhuizen, 2006). For example, allotment gardens have been very popular in Europe for more than 150 years and their history is linked to the period of industrialization and urbanization. In the 19^th century, many people migrated to cities to find employment but suffered from extremely poor living conditions. To combat these conditions, city administrations, churches, and employers provided spaces for garden purposes to these families (de Bon et al., 2015). Urban agriculture was an essential part of survival strategies during difficult times

P a g e 10 | 67 such as natural disasters, economic crises, epidemics, or wars (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Van Veenhuizen, 2006). The First World war led to the creation of Schrebergaerten in Germany or, in a lesser context, to the cultivation of kale on Karlaplan in Stockholm (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000;

Oliviusson et al., 2019). In Great Britain, the Dig for Victory campaign put a large part of urban land under cultivation at the outbreak of the Second World War (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Doron, 2005).

After the wars, most of the land used for food production was returned to its original pre-war use (Doron, 2005).

However, urban agriculture has also existed historically to benefit from the opportunities of the urban environment such as direct access to urban consumers and markets or the availability of cheap inputs (Van Veenhuizen, 2006). Nowadays, urban agriculture is being used as a response to the unemployment crisis but also as an enabling function for sustainable city development (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Van Veenhuizen, 2006). Indeed, urban agriculture has become an obvious subject in the sustainability discussion and is used as a response of urban farmers to urban policies (Oliviusson et al., 2019; Van Veenhuizen, 2006).

2.2.2 Review of current urban agriculture in Sweden and Stockholm

In recent years, urban food production has led to many new businesses in North America, Europe, and Asia but in Sweden and especially Stockholm it still has very few applications (Oliviusson et al., 2019).

The city of Malmö and the city of Gothenburg are better examples than Stockholm about urban cultivation. For example, Malmö’s food policy describes the importance of preserving the farmland within its city for food production, biodiversity, education, recreation and to strengthen rural-urban linkages (The City of Malmö, 2010). The city strives to make urban cultivation possible in public areas and is running several projects for urban cultivation, such as Stadsbruk, Slottsträdgården, and Odla i Parken (Boudet and Fumey, 2020; Malmö Stad, 2020; Oliviusson et al., 2019). Gothenburg, on its side, offers Grow Here, a digital platform for growers at the hobby level as well as for actors managing commercial farms (Grow Here, 2020). The purpose is to facilitate the process of locating arable land (Grow Here, 2020; Oliviusson et al., 2019).

However, investment in urban farming is also increasing in Stockholm as a result of demand from residents, property owners, and the City of Stockholm (Oliviusson et al., 2019). Stockholm’s sustainability goal is to become a fossil-free city by 2040 and, as part of a transition to a more resource- efficient lifestyle, the City of Stockholm wants to increase local food production (Landahl et al., 2016;

Oliviusson et al., 2019). Increasing local food production in Sweden would reduce urban vulnerability, which is very important, as it is the country with the lowest rate of self-sufficiency in Europe (55%).

Indeed, for example, if import routes were closed, half of Sweden's food supply would be exhausted within 10-12 days (Civilförsvarsförbundet, 2013). Faced with this situation, the Stockholm Food Strategy stressed that primary food production must increase within Stockholm's borders (Länsstyrelsen Stockholm et al., 2019).

2.3 T

As explained by Hallett et al. (2016), sustainability is defined by the ability to last and can be characterized by a balance between three different factors: a system must be sustained by its physical environment, society, and economy. This balance is called the three pillars of sustainability which are schematized in Figure 1 and the origins of this paradigm are variously attributed to the Brundtland Report, Agenda 21, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (Purvis et al., 2019).

P a g e 11 | 67 Figure 1: The three pillars of sustainability, adapted from Hallett et al. (2016)

For agriculture projects, achieving this balance is never easy because the economic concerns are short- term and not in line with long-term environmental ones (Hallett et al., 2016). In the urban environment, economic pressures are strong due, among other things, to high land prices (Hallett et al., 2016). However, the concept of urban agriculture offers several potentials and benefits that contribute to the sustainability of the urban food system, but also, more generally, to the sustainability of cities (Ackerman et al., 2014; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Sousa and Batista, 2013). The involvement of urban agriculture projects in this urban sustainability can be observed by projects working on one or more of the pillars, if not all, depending on the type of urban agriculture (Cohen and Reynolds, 2015).

Some types of urban agriculture projects are based on community involvement, with the degree of community and citizen engagement depending on the type of urban agriculture implemented. For these types of projects, it appears that urban agriculture is a healthy occupation and a popular way to relieve stress (Doron, 2005). It empowers the community by creating positive interactions and social well-being, leading to cultural integration and a sense of belonging to the area (Yusoff et al., 2017). It breaks down barriers and brings everyone together regardless of age, ethnicity, class, and gender and prevents social problems (Doron, 2005; Van Veenhuizen, 2006). Moreover, bringing any type of urban agriculture to cities offers the opportunity to provide green education to people about agriculture and the food system, whether this comes directly from community involvement or from the large urban farms participating in programs (Ackerman et al., 2014; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000).

Urban agriculture projects can also be fundamental in alleviating food insecurity in the area (Gerster- Bentaya, 2015; Michel and Soulard, 2017). It appears that food insecurity is not only a rural concern as the number of people affected by it in cities is approaching the number of rural ones. Moreover, this insecurity seems to be mostly coming from problems of food availability, accessibility, price, and adequacy (Gerster-Bentaya, 2015).

Moreover, urban agriculture projects, mainly commercial ones, have a positive impact on the local economic development of the area (Van Veenhuizen, 2006). They contribute to household income, offset food expenditures, and create various jobs (Ackerman et al., 2014; Doron, 2005). The various approaches to urban agriculture generate jobs in food growing, processing, and marketing but the projects also require a lot of design professions such as urban, interior, or building design (Doron, 2005). As Doron (2005) explains economic hardship is the main reason urban agriculture is so common

Environmental

Economic

Social

P a g e 12 | 67 in developing countries but it is also economically beneficial for developed countries. He gives the example of the USA where a third of the country’s agricultural output comes from urban areas (Doron, 2005).

Environmental benefits must also be highlighted. For outdoor urban agriculture approaches, a place of cultivation is a form of green infrastructure and an ecosystem as a whole that improves the microclimate in cities and contributes positively to the comfort of citizens. Indeed, among other things, vegetation tends to increase humidity, reduce urban heat island effects¹ and introduce more pleasant odors to the city (Ackerman et al., 2014; Alexandri and Jones, 2008; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). It creates shadow and protects from wind. Moreover, by capturing dust and gases from polluted air, vegetation also has a good impact on citizens' health (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). Agricultural space as urban vegetation is beneficial in stormwater management because, according to different characteristics (soil moisture, runoff levels, erosion, and soil loss), it offers natural pervious surfaces that can infiltrate and absorb storm precipitation (Ackerman et al., 2014; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000;

The Freshwater Society and The Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, 2013). In addition, local food production facilities often use less environmentally hazardous substances such as fertilizers and pesticides (Larsson, 2013).

Furthermore, urban agriculture has the potential to reduce transportation because food stays in the city where it is produced. It reduces the distance between producers and consumers, which reduces the amount of energy required and CO2 emitted, but also reduces spoilage and therefore food waste (Ackerman et al., 2014; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). This potential is far from being insignificant as in Sweden, nowadays, food travels approximately 2,000 miles before reaching the end consumer (Mousavi and Cumselius, 2020). Urban agriculture is often characterized by short supply chains and social relations based on proximity (Moustier and Renting, 2015). It can be part of a phenomenon called ‘‘alternative food chains’’. These alternative food chains provide people with quality local products, through short supply food chains. They strengthen the proximity between producers and consumers through a market that is expected to be more profitable and that reduces the transaction costs in the marketing of perishable products (Aubry and Kebir, 2013; Moustier and Renting, 2015).

One principle of resilient urban food systems is the creation of synergies that most modern cities lack due to a linear metabolism (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Wiskerke, 2015). Opportunities are missed to connect flows and turn waste into a valuable resource. Urban food supply systems should be redefined towards a more circular approach creating synergies (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Wiskerke, 2015).

Urban agriculture has the potential to be multifunctional and simultaneously serve different objectives in several areas of urban policy such as environmental quality, poverty, food insecurity, and job creation (Wiskerke, 2015). Urban agriculture projects have the potential to integrate into cities to become part of the social-economic context by creating synergies in the area, such as the high-tech indoor farms using heat waste and CO2 from the buildings of which they are part (Mougeot, 2000).

Urban agriculture also has potentials in urban waste management because it can reduce urban waste, by, for example, reducing the need for packaging in suppressing long-distances transport, valuating food waste into compost, reusing materials, or water wastes (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000).

However, urban agriculture also comes with some challenges and raises questions. The most common concerns about outdoor urban agriculture relate to the health risks that can result from urban food production, such as disease vectors attracted by agricultural activity or contamination of crops by pathogenic organisms, agrochemical residues, or heavy metal uptake (de Zeeuw, 2004; Mougeot,

1 The heat island effect is the fact that urban areas have higher average temperatures than the surrounding rural area. Mitigating this effect can be done by increasing the amount of vegetation in the urban area.

P a g e 13 | 67 2000; Van Veenhuizen, 2006). Environmental risks are also of concern. Indeed, inappropriate farming practices can lead to several issues such as the destruction of fragile ecosystems or the contamination of drinking water supplies when fertilizers are used or wastewater is discharged (de Zeeuw, 2004;

Mougeot, 2000). Visual and olfactory nuisances can also be consequences of outdoor urban agriculture. All of these concerns are legitimate and mostly result from poorly conducted practices (de Zeeuw, 2004). They should not be exaggerated and should be compared with those of rural agriculture.

Risks can be greatly reduced by educating urban farmers (de Zeeuw, 2004). Concerns have also been expressed about the suitability of urban land for growing food. These concerns need to be taken into account and soil pollution should always be studied before urban farms are started (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000).

Economic challenges also await urban agriculture projects as it can be difficult to find reasonable prices to secure the amount of land needed (Stuchtey and Vahle, 2019). However, costs are also reduced in other dimensions such as transportation (Doron, 2005). Several agricultural concepts are being explored in the field of urban agriculture, but their successes seem very context-specific and difficult to scale up. Transfer to a mass market is a challenge that seems hard to meet (Stuchtey and Vahle, 2019).

2.4 T

A very current phenomenon has been proving the importance of the food value chain and the high potential of urban agriculture: the epidemic of COVID-19. This crisis shows the importance of building stronger short food supply chains by strengthening urban-rural linkages and fostering local food production (Fei et al., 2020; International Network Urgenci, 2020; Payne et al., 2020). Peri-urban and urban agriculture would shorten supply chains and produce fresh food locally, thus strengthening the resilience of food systems in the event of crises such as the COVID-19 epidemic (Adam-Bradford and van Veenhuizen, 2015; Lal, 2020; Payne et al., 2020).

The COVID-19 crisis has led and continues to lead to a huge waste of food while increasing food hunger, demonstrating the need for rapid change in the current food system (Fleetwood, 2020). The global pandemic has prompted most countries to implement drastic public health measures as well as social and economic interventions such as quarantines, lockdowns, or the closing of national borders (IMF, 2020). All of these measures have led to a reduction of economic growth or a foreseeable economic recession with a significant impact on the food system. The entire food system was not at all adapted to the new situation, it created food shortages as a consequence of panic-buying staples by consumers that were under stress due to lockdowns or fear of the virus but, at the same time, farmers had a lot of surplus products that resulted in huge food losses (RUAF Foundation, 2020). This came from the industrial long supply chain that caused problems in harvesting food or transporting it to consumers (RUAF Foundation, 2020).

Perishable foods were the most affected by COVID-19 due to their short life and reliance upon workers for harvesting and processing (Fleetwood, 2020). Travel bans and border closures have prevented seasonal workers from different countries from traveling (SverigesRadio, 2020), delayed the transport of seeds and fertilizers (Fleetwood, 2020), or forced ship cargoes to be quarantined, resulting in food spoilage (Fleetwood, 2020). The measures have created problems in the globalized food system as they have led to labor shortages that have left the harvest rotting in the fields and spring planting not carried out (RUAF Foundation, 2020).

The supply chain has created many food losses as the foodservice channel has become limited. Indeed, to slow the spread of the virus, food service establishments had to follow restrictions that led them to

P a g e 14 | 67 either close or limit the service (Chenarides et al., 2020). Among other consequences, this led to increased surplus production (Langhout, 2020). It has led to the creation of new agreements with suppliers but has also led to many food losses, as the inflexible supply chain makes it difficult for farmers to sell their surpluses to grocery outlets or donate them to food banks (Langhout, 2020;

Mollenkopf et al., 2020). For example, 13% of the total potato production in the Netherlands was wasted in the summer of 2020 (Langhout, 2020).

The COVID-19 pandemic not only disrupted the food supply chain but also exacerbated undernourishment and malnutrition (Lal, 2020). According to the World Bank, a hunger pandemic could follow the COVID-19 pandemic, not because of a lack of available food, but rather because it cannot be harvested or transported to consumers through the industrial long-chain food system (Fleetwood, 2020; International Network Urgenci, 2020).

2.5 D

Among all the different characteristics of an urban agriculture project, a choice must be made by the project owners as to their approach to growing food and the way they want to do urban agriculture.

Indeed, as in non-urban agriculture, different techniques can be used that range from conventional agriculture to other less conventional concepts (Stuchtey and Vahle, 2019).

Urban agriculture is a topic that offers many opportunities for innovation (Prain and De Zeeuw, 2007).

It is, in fact, an innovation in itself of more conventional agricultural models. Indeed, it differs from conventional models by bringing agriculture to cities rather than rural areas in a more circular approach that targets nearby consumers rather than global markets (Mougeot, 2000; van der Schans et al., 2014). For this, urban agriculture must be innovative in several ways, such as its integration into the urban landscape and economy, but also in the way it organizes the production, processing, and distribution chain with nearby markets (Prain and De Zeeuw, 2007; van der Schans et al., 2014).

Currently, initiatives are pouring in with totally different ideas about new growing methods. Some are more high-tech and propose ideas for growing food in a controlled environment, while others suggest less technical solutions that use or rebuild nature's productive capacity (Loessl, 2014; Stuchtey and Vahle, 2019). All of these techniques attempt to address the challenge of limited space in cities to grow food, although they all have different ways of approaching it.

For advanced techniques inspired by the possibilities of new technologies, the most common are hydroponic, aeroponic, or aquaponic farms (Dumont, 2019). They can be part of the concept of Zero- acreage farming and be installed on the roofs of buildings, under greenhouses, or in buildings or sheds (Dumont, 2019; Specht et al., 2014). The crops are entirely controlled and grow mostly in a vertical farming position (Birkby, 2016). The definition of these techniques can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: Definition of different high-tech growing techniques

Techniques Definition References

Vertical farming The cultivation of plants on vertically inclined surfaces, or in different layers within a high-rise building.

Loessl (2014), Swegreen (n.d.), Birkby (2016)

Zero-acreage

farming It is including all forms of farming that are not using open space such as rooftop gardens, greenhouses, green walls, indoor farms, and vertical greenhouses.

Thomaier et al. (2015), Specht et al. (2014)

P a g e 15 | 67 Hydroponics Soilless culture in controlled-environment

agricultural systems with the provision of nutrients in a liquid form through the soil alternative.

Swegreen (n.d.), Jensen (1997), Sheikh (2006), Orsini et al. (2013); Romeo et al. (2018) Aeroponics Soilless culture with no rooting substrate

other than the air in which the roots are suspended.

Weathers and Zobel (1992), AlShrouf (2017); Birkby (2016) Aquaponics Symbiotic combination of aquaculture (fish

farming) and hydroponic. Beckers (2019), Raulier et al.

(2020), Goddek et al. (2015) This type of technique uses new technologies as an approach to sustainability. As Loessl (2014) from the Association for Vertical Farming explains about vertical farming, this approach is relatively new and uses methods of Controlled Environment Agriculture such as artificial lighting in multi-leveled systems.

These high-tech indoor farms can be set up regardless of climate, sunlight, and region because they provide, indoor, an optimal climate to produce the highest yields of highly nutritious, organic, and safe food, locally and all-year-round (AlShrouf, 2017; Birkby, 2016; Loessl, 2014). These types of high tech urban agriculture have several advantages described by Loessl (2014) as:

 increased production per square meter, growth rates, and nutritional values

 decreased land, pesticide, water, and fertilizer use thanks to recycling systems,

 elimination of agricultural runoff and seasonal, regional, and climatic restrictions

However, it is a new system that still raises many questions about social inclusion and economic feasibility (Loessl, 2014). The management of high-tech farms requires a high level of technical expertise and the use of electricity (Birkby, 2016; Dumont, 2019). Technically, it is also impossible to cultivate all types of plants because some can’t be grown in hydroponics or aquaponics (Birkby, 2016).

Besides, high-tech farms are generally commercial projects where it is often difficult to involve the community, hence, in some cases, the problem of social inclusion (Dumont, 2019).

Another approach to sustainability in urban agriculture is to use the closed-loop operation of natural ecosystems (van der Schans et al., 2014). As with high-tech approaches, there are different ways of doing this (Martin-Moreau et al., 2019). These low-tech approaches can be practiced in the open ground or in containers. They can be anywhere and come from a more traditional culture (Dumont, 2019; Martin-Moreau et al., 2019). Depending on the type of governance of the project, this type of approach can change the relationship between citizens and the city by fostering strong citizen engagement. The advantages of these low-tech approaches are multiple and are more related to the social and environmental pillars of sustainability, as Dumont (2019) explains. A few examples are given here:

 increasing environmental resilience: biodiversity, stormwater management, decreased urban heat islands, easy management of recycling and waste, reduction of toxic products

 promotion of health and healthy lifestyles

 improvement of social and recreational interactions

In these types of low-tech urban agriculture and more traditional culture, each project can choose an approach to grow food as well. One concept worth mentioning for its possibilities in urban agriculture is permaculture. The word permaculture was coined by Mollison and Holmgren in the mid-1970s and comes from permanent agriculture (Holmgren, 2007). It is defined by Mollison (1988) as “the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing

P a g e 16 | 67 their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way”. The principle of permaculture is to work with nature and its goal is to benefit life in all its forms. The Mollisonian Permaculture Principles are (Mollison, 1988):

1) Work with nature, rather than against it 2) The problem is the solution

3) Make the least change for the greatest possible effect 4) The yield of a system is theoretically unlimited

5) Everything gardens

Permaculture is opposed to the intensive agriculture model because it places nature at the heart of agriculture. As explained by the founder of the Bec Hellouin farm, a permaculture-based farm in France, the idea of permaculture is to produce large quantities from small areas, while restoring the biosphere and stopping the use of chemical inputs and fossil fuels (Hervé-Gruyer, 2019). Permaculture is a way of thinking to create an abundant future and can be applied to anything, from a home garden or a farm to a city block or an entire village (Kennedy, 1991; Millison, n.d.). It is simply a way of organizing what has always been there in a different way so that it works to conserve energy or to produce more energy than it consumes (Hervé-Gruyer, 2019; Kennedy, 1991). In a permaculture approach, each agriculture field or garden has to look for the solutions best suited to the reference situation it has and how to use the resources present in a way that would benefit all forms of life (Millison, n.d.).

All of these different techniques for urban agriculture have possibilities and try to use what cities offer such as small empty spaces, waste heat, 2 to 3 degrees Celsius more than the surrounding countryside, organic matter in household and green waste, runoff water, etc. (Hervé-Gruyer, 2019).

3 C ONCEPTUAL F RAMEWORK

The conceptual framework is introduced to provide a way to analyze the governance characteristics of urban agriculture projects according to three levels of complexity. It serves as the foundation of the study and as a tool to scaffold the research about urban agriculture governance while assisting the study in making meaning of the findings (Dickson et al., 2018; Smyth, 2004). The conceptual framework was adapted from a model of an existing theory built by Prové et al. (2015). The slight adaptation, to meet the research purpose, was made possible because the conceptual frameworks, by being based on flexible conceptual terms, are open to modification (Dickson et al., 2018; Jabareen, 2009).

Moreover, this conceptual framework provides clear links between the literature and the research objective as it shapes the research questions and contributes to the trustworthiness of the study (Lune and Berg, 2017; Smyth, 2004).

3.1 G

The concept of governance has no precise definition or universal theory (Kleinschmit et al., 2009;

Prové, 2018). Various approaches have defined the concept but definitions tend to vary according to sector and extent (Kleinschmit et al., 2009). In one definition given by Palmer et al. (2009) in the management of a project, governance is defined as the exercise of political, economic, and administrative authority. Moreover, governance processes are often considered as participatory approaches to public policy that include in the process interaction from various stakeholders (Kleinschmit et al., 2009; Suleiman, 2020). In this study, governance will refer to how urban agriculture projects have been organized by the actors in terms of processes, institutions, and decision-making.

P a g e 17 | 67 The governance of urban agriculture projects is quite difficult because they do not find their place in the current governance systems (Reed et al., 2018). Indeed, as a mix of rural agriculture and urban development that is intertwined in global regulations and markets but aiming at a localized stating, urban agriculture has to face policies that are not in line with the concept and that are not prepared to deal with it (Curry et al., 2015; Ernwein, 2014; Reed et al., 2018). This leads to a complexity that threatens the viability of the projects (Reed et al., 2018).

In addition to this complexity, urban agriculture projects are embedded in a multifunctional context and are involving a multitude of actors. Their governance has to deal with all the actors involved:

suppliers of resources, inputs, and services and producers, transporters and processors, retailers and consumers, promoters and managers (Dubbeling and Merzthal, 2006; Mougeot, 2000). But that is not all: urban agriculture must also take into account policies in a range of other sectors simultaneously (waste, health, environment, etc.) (Curry et al., 2015; Dubbeling and Merzthal, 2006). It is therefore difficult to clearly identify responsibility for governance in urban agriculture projects given that the policy framework is not as holistic as the urban agriculture projects (Curry et al., 2015).

Moreover, the type of governance needed is also linked to the identity of the urban food project. For some, it is an escape from capitalism, for others, it may be a form of food provision or a means of creating social ties (Reed et al., 2018). The social, cultural, ecological, and economic contexts of projects play a role in their identity and thus in the type of governance that is most appropriate (Taylor and Lovell, 2014).

As a result, different governance models for urban agriculture have developed, such as edible landscaping, schoolyard and community gardens, social enterprises, and urban commercial farms (Valley and Wittman, 2019). The multi-functionality of the food system is more and more recognized by policymakers, prompting urban food planners to engage with academics, professionals, community, non-government and non-profit organizations to imagine strategies for food supply (Prové et al., 2015;

Valley and Wittman, 2019). This growing recognition is leading to unanimous agreement on the need for more inclusive, adaptive, and multilevel governance (Prové et al., 2015).

3.2 T

To better understand the diversity of governance in urban agriculture initiatives, Prové et al. (2015) developed a framework that characterizes governance through three levels of complexity. It aims to facilitate the analysis of urban agriculture practices based on the characteristics of governance (Prové, 2018). The three levels of complexity are the internal governance characteristics, the external governance characteristics, and the broader context that are schematized in Figure 2.

The conceptual framework is used in this study to identify the key elements in the governance of the case studies. It has been adapted to this particular project and its own study interests by selecting only the relevant characteristics.

It is important to note that all these characteristics are interdependent and influence each other, so they must all be taken into account in order to fully understand the governance processes of urban agriculture projects (Prové et al., 2015).

P a g e 18 | 67 Figure 2: Three levels of complexity that impact governance processes in urban agriculture projects, adapted from Prové et

al. (2015)

3.2.1 Internal governance characteristics

The first level of complexity concerns the internal governance characteristics of urban agriculture projects. It shows the diversity of the internal structure of urban agriculture by collecting the different primary characteristics.

As explained in the literature review, there is no single objective for urban agriculture, which means that all projects may have different activities and objectives (Reed et al., 2018; Taylor and Lovell, 2014).

Among the different urban farms and gardens, the objectives can be, separately or simultaneously, environmental, social and educational, economic, or even sanitary (Cohen and Reynolds, 2015). In addition, it is essential to know some general characteristics to better understand projects and their governance, such as the scale in terms of cultivated area and population outreach or the time frame.

Projects may have an indeterminate time scale with long-term objectives or be designed to fit within a specific time period due, for example, to a lease or funding (Hodgson et al., 2011). Several things may depend on this, such as stakeholder engagement or project legitimation (Prové et al., 2015).

Furthermore, urban agriculture projects need resources such as land, funding, and knowledge (Prové et al., 2015). How projects access these resources is a point of interest in this study, as well as the actors of the urban agriculture initiatives and how they manage the projects. The actors that are accounted for in this internal governance characteristic are those directly involved in the development of the project such as suppliers of resources, inputs, and services, producers, or managers (Mougeot, 2000). The interest is also in the organizational structure concerning the organization, decision- making, and coordination of the project. It is how the actors share tasks and responsibilities.

This first level of complexity with all these internal governance characteristics allows for a deeper understanding of urban agriculture project governance from the inside. However, the governance of a project cannot only be defined by internal characteristics as governance also incorporates external factors.

External governance characteristics

 Partnerships and external stakeholders

 Legitimation Processes

 Public Policies

Internal governance characteristics

 Project Objectives

 Scale

 Time frame

 Actors

 Organizational structure

 Resources (land, funding, knowledge)

Broader Context

climate, geography, political and economic situation and cultural values Urban agriculture initiative

P a g e 19 | 67 3.2.2 External governance characteristics

The external governance characteristics in this conceptual framework relate to the components of projects that impact them or are impacted by projects. Three characteristics are analyzed by considering their link to the governance process of urban agriculture initiatives: partnerships and external stakeholders, legitimation processes, and public policies.

The first feature of this section concerns the partnerships and non-internal stakeholders that urban agriculture projects have. As part of a multi-sectoral environment, urban agriculture often touches a large number of urban management areas, which involves several external actors (Dubbeling and Merzthal, 2006). These actors may be linked to urban agriculture projects via a formal or informal partnership to collaborate or simply be actively or passively concerned by the project (Prové, 2018).

All of these external actors can be an individual, a group, an organization, or a system and come from a variety of backgrounds such as the private sector, academic organizations or research institutes, different levels of government or relevant municipal departments, non-governmental organizations, or social movements or others (Dubbeling and Merzthal, 2006; Suleiman, 2020). Their number and composition differ from project to project (Dubbeling and Merzthal, 2006) but they are extremely important for long-term development and integration into the urban context (Mansfield and Mendes, 2013; Wiskerke, 2015).

Besides, depending on all the different internal and external actors, it is important to wonder “How is the initiative accepted by the different stakeholders?” (Prové et al., 2015). This helps to understand where the different sources of resilience are coming from and whether the urban agriculture project is approved and supported by the surroundings and stakeholders (Knapp et al., 2016; Prové, 2018).

This is part of the legitimation processes that urban agriculture projects have to undertake during their development.

Finally, public policies can enable or constrain the development of urban agriculture (Curry et al., 2015). Therefore, this last feature aims to investigate the relevant policies that affect the governance process of urban agriculture projects as well as how they are perceived and interpreted by initiatives (Curry et al., 2015; Prové, 2018). These policies can be found in a range of different sectors that are intertwined with urban agriculture: waste, health, environment, etc. (Curry et al., 2015; Dubbeling and Merzthal, 2006; Prové, 2018).

3.2.3 Broader context

The development of an urban agriculture initiative is influenced by the broader context in which it takes place as it directly impacts the operation and mediation of projects. A good example of this is the case of the bankruptcy of UrbanFarmers in The Hague, Netherlands (Raulier et al., 2020). This project went bankrupt in July 2018. It was one of the biggest European rooftop greenhouses that combined fish and vegetable production. The first factor in the bankruptcy was the choice of strategy (Ancion et al., 2019). At first, the strategy was a B2B model that did not work because business customers preferred their previous cheaper suppliers. Thus, they turned to a B2C model but did not truly understand their consumers (Ancion et al., 2019). Indeed, consumers couldn’t afford their high- quality products at high prices because the rooftop was located in the poorest neighborhood (Ancion et al., 2019; Raulier et al., 2020). In addition, the customers already had access to fresh fish and vegetables due to the proximity to the sea (Ancion et al., 2019; Raulier et al., 2020).

Hence, in order to analyze the governance system, it is important to wonder “What are the contextual factors affecting the initiative?” (Prové et al., 2015). These contextual factors are dependent on the

P a g e 20 | 67 urban agriculture initiative but may include the following: climate, politics, geography, economics, cultural values, and urban-rural linkages (Prové, 2018). In this study, the focus has been on European cities to be used as relevant illustrations of urban agriculture projects that could fit in Hammarby Sjöstad. However, not all external factors are the same in European cities, and based on this, the study chose to further analyze, within the urban context, the factors of climate, geographical location, political and economic situation, and cultural values.

The geographic location (inner city, city fringe, etc.) and the climate are important factors because they have a direct impact on the project (Prové, 2018). They impact, for example, the type of urban agriculture performed (high-tech or low-tech, open land or inside, etc.) or the good reception of the project by the surroundings (Mougeot, 2000; Mousavi and Cumselius, 2020; van der Schans et al., 2014). The impact of the political and economic situation on urban agriculture projects and vice-versa provides a better understanding of the integration of the project into the urban system which is an important factor as it constitutes the distinction between urban and rural agriculture according to Mougeot (2000). Cultural values are also significant in analyzing the governance of an urban agriculture project because the governance of projects often depends on the support and interest they receive (Prové, 2018).

3.3 D

-

As explained in section 2.1, urban agriculture has different dimensions and approaches. In this project, it was decided to study the governance of urban agriculture projects by distinguishing them by their degree of market-orientation. These two dimensions are therefore the ones highlighted throughout the project and answer the questions “Where are the products from Urban Agriculture consumed?”

and “How is the project governed?” (Vejre et al., 2015).

Van Veenhuizen (2006) compares market-oriented urban agriculture to multifunctional and subsistence urban agriculture. This study considers market-oriented urban agriculture in the same way as defined by Van Veenhuizen (2006). It is defined as a form of income generation producing food and non-food products for the market (Liu, 2015; Van Veenhuizen, 2006). It is part of a market chain, uses more inputs and externalities, and can be governed by traditional business models, as in the case of a small-scale family, but also by entrepreneurial models (van der Schans et al., 2016; Van Veenhuizen, 2006).

This study opposes market-oriented urban agriculture to non-market-oriented urban agriculture. The latter is defined by the production of food for self-consumption that can also serve other functions such as social fulfillment and neighborhood attachment, urban greening, green infrastructure, or education (Poulsen et al., 2017; Van Veenhuizen, 2006). It can be used by actors as a way to save money on food and can involve a variety of growing techniques (Poulsen et al., 2017; Van Veenhuizen, 2006). These non-commercial approaches to urban agriculture can be public such as through allotments, community gardens, or guerrilla gardens, but also private through personal cultivation in home gardens or in housing (Kennard and Bamford, 2020). Individual initiatives such as household gardens are not included in this study, the focus is on community cultivation in the public sphere or the more private sphere within housing communities.

3.4 C

In the context of this study, the conceptual framework is applied to six case studies that differ in their degree of market-orientation: SweGreen (Stockholm), Odlande Stadsbasarer (Stockholm), Nature Urbaine (Paris), the WandelGarten (Freiburg), the Tillsammansodling group of Viva (Gothenburg) and

P a g e 21 | 67 Greenhouse (Malmö). The analysis of these case studies, using the conceptual framework, serves as a basis for the broader objective of this thesis, which is to better understand the governance processes of urban agriculture to provide an in-depth knowledge of the field and a better apprehension of the implementation of such projects in a sustainable neighborhood. In this objective, the research addressed the following questions:

1. How is urban agriculture influenced by internal characteristics related to objectives, actors, and resources?

2. How is urban agriculture influenced by external characteristics related to legitimation, partnerships, and public policies?

3. How is urban agriculture influenced by contextual characteristics related to the local cultural, political, and economic environment, geographic location, and climate?

4 M ETHODOLOGY

The study was carried out with a Case Study approach that collected numerous qualitative data. This section aims at presenting the methodology and the different steps of the project to answer the research questions (Baron, 2008).

4.1 T

Following the definition of Gerring (2004), a case study is “an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units”. There are different types of case study approaches according to Lune and Berg (2017): intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. This project followed a collective case studies approach which is also called multiple-case studies, cross-case studies, or comparative case studies (Lune and Berg, 2017). This collective case studies approach involves conducting several case studies to get a better understanding as a basis for theorizing about a broader context (Lune and Berg, 2017). In doing so, this project has gathered information about several case studies to have a broader understanding of the governance of urban agriculture projects.

Additionally, this research methodology provides more context, history, and meaning as it is focused on the uniqueness of each case (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Lune and Berg, 2017).

The case selection was one of the first steps in the work of this thesis as it is the primordial task of a case study project (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). This is a challenging endeavor because case studies have the double objective of being a representative sample and a useful variation on the dimensions of theoretical interest (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). The case selection strategy used in this project is the diverse case method, which requires at least two case studies that have the objective to represent the full range of values according to special characteristics (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). It thus fits perfectly with the objective of this study to conduct various case studies displaying different governance systems in urban agriculture projects.

The selection of the case studies started in the first month because this process is substantial and includes several steps for each case study: finding the case study, conducting desk-study, contacting stakeholders, interviewing stakeholder(s), and conducting a final analysis. The main point of interest in this study is the governance of the project (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). However, it was important as well in the study to select diverse case studies and not only of the governance type. The goal was for all case studies to provide insight into a specific contextual project and the different types of governance of urban agriculture projects.

P a g e 22 | 67 The following criteria have been used to achieve this objective:

o The type of governance. As governance is the differentiating element chosen in this comparative study, it is the variable of interest and the most important one. To be selected, case studies had to have a type of governance relevant to the project.

o The approach to sustainability. Learning about the different approaches to sustainability in each urban agriculture project is relevant as well as it is believed to be a significant characteristic to take into account when deciding on the integration of urban agriculture. To render the study more approachable, the case studies were split into market-oriented approaches and non-market-oriented approaches.

o The model of urban agriculture. This project’s goal is to offer a comparative study of several urban agriculture projects. The study, therefore, tried to include as many different types of cases as possible inside the plurality of urban agriculture models.

o The location. Being able to visit the site and conduct interviews in person is very beneficial to the understanding of the operation of the project. Case studies were therefore chosen to allow for an on-site visit. However, because of COVID-19 and lack of resources, some of the case studies could not be visited but were retained in the comparative study as they remained relevant to this project. Moreover, case studies in ecological neighborhoods were prioritized and all case studies are located in a developed country.

The chosen case studies are presented in Table 2 and will be described more carefully in section 5.1.

Table 2: Presentation of the chosen case studies

Case Study Market-orientation Growing techniques Approach to sustainability SweGreen, Stockholm Market Indoor hydroponic Economic,

Environment Odlande Stadsbasarer,

Hogdalen Market (project

phase) Underground farm Economic,

Environment, Social Nature Urbaine Market + cultivation

lots for residents Rooftop hydroponic

and aeroponic farm Economic,

Environment, Social The WandelGarten,

Freiburg Non-market –

community based Permaculture garden Social, Environment Viva, Gothenburg Non-market – in

housing association Conventional – beehive, greenhouse, cultivation

Social, Environment

Greenhouse, Malmö Non-market – included in the housing

Conventional - Cultivation balconies and green rooftop with a greenhouse

Social, Environment

Gathering data on case studies is very dependent on the availability of the stakeholders of the respective projects and their willingness to share their knowledge (Lune and Berg, 2017). It appears that some case studies might have been more relevant but had to be excluded from the study due to a lack of data.

Finally, a case study approach requires that the data-gathering process uses a variety of methods and sources to create a deep examination of the case (Lune and Berg, 2017). The data gathering process is described in the following section.