Urban farming and its relation to Public Space Theorizing the potential for strengthen the urban life in Hallonbergen, Sweden

Master’s Thesis in Spatial Planning with an emphasis

on Urban Design in China and Europe 30 ECTS credit points. Author: Niklas Åkerberg.

Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Sektionen för planering och mediedesign. Tutor: Gunnar Nyström.

Examiner: Mårten Dunér, Thomas Hellquist & Jana Revedin. Cover: Conceptual picture made by the author.

The thesis has been carried out in collaboration with Tyréns AB, Stockholm.

Urban farming and its relation to Public Space

Theorizing the potential for strengthen the urban life in Hallonbergen,

Sweden

Master Thesis no. 1234 Department of Spatial Planning Blekinge Institute of Technology Karlskrona, Sweden 2014

With more than half of the worlds population living in urban areas and a great increasing to be expected in the coming decades, we need to develop our approach to planning urban environments. The public space will probably have to be used by a greater concentra-tion of people, and it is therefore necessary to be able to ensure that our public spaces meets people’s demands.

In this thesis I want to see if Urban Farming can help to improve the urban life in public areas. An approach is taken to view urban farming from a perspective where the food production is not in focus, but rather how it can create an opportunity for social interac-tion for people, both participants and observers. This is because, according to my theoretical perspective can promote urban life and the process of social sustainability. Through a study of previous research and literature on the subject can previous experiences of urban farmings social impacts and relation to the public life be distinguished. Three interviews have been conducted, all with different actors related to urban farming, in order to form a picture of how the working with urban farming occurs and own experiences from different levels of the society. In the thesis is also a conceptual design proposal included. The design area is located in Hallonbergen, Sweden. To form an understanding for the public life in the area a survey of the inhabitants assumptions of their neighborhood and analysis have been performed.

It is concluded that the inhabitants in Hallonbergen experiences several social problems in their habitat. In relation to experiences from the literature and the expert interviews, it can be concluded that it is highly likely that a urban farming would be to the benefit of social interaction between the tenants. Which according to the theories will improve the urban life in public places. In the process of social sustainability is key factors defined, social equity and community sustainability. The research can conclude that previous experiences and research indicates that urban farming can have a strong impact on these. Conclusions of the thesis hopes to bring a new perspec-tive on the effects from urban farming, where an understanding of the social qualities can be at the center instead of food production.

Key words: Urban Design, Urban Farming, Sustainable development, Social sustainability, Hallonbergen, Stockholm, Sweden.

I would like to start with a big thanks to Veronica Johnander at Tyréns AB, for always good inputs and the handing of fresh litterature. Second, a thanks to Katrin Berkefelt who gave me the possibility of cooperation. Also to the rest of the people at Tyréns that in one way or another helped me through my work. Last but not least, I want to dedicate a great thanks, to family and friends for all your support.

This part provide a background of the topic, it also state the purpose and aim of the thesis. Furthermore, it presentes the structure and delimitations of the thesis.

Nowadays over half of the worlds population live in urban areas, and the number is constantly increasing. Studies are indicating that by year 2030 will almost 5 billion of the expected 8.2 billion people on earth live in urban areas (United Na-tions, 2011). This rapid population growth means that cities will grow fast and put great pressure on cities urban planning. Public spaces will probably need to follow the same trend as the rest of the social structure, they will become more concen-trated, smaller in area and need qualities and functions for a larger share of use. This means that it is time to see how we can develop our public places in order to get a prosperous urban life. It would be highly advisable to examine how we can create surplus values for our public places, and that is partly why I am in the study intends to explore one of our new urban phenomena impact on the public life. In these days, to feed humanity, we use land equivalent to the size of whole South America to grow and harvest our food. If the projections for population growth are right, will it lead to the necessity for cultivation of another enormous areas of land. This is something that is becoming an accept through for people around the world, and therefore it is now heavily investments in research made, into how food production and cultivation can be further developed.Maybe could some of the answer be found in our history and in a way bring cultivation back to the roots. While performing agriculture in urban areas seems to be a new phenomenon, it has been performed as long as the urban areas exist. Through the ages urban agriculture has played an extremely important role to ensure food to its residents, this has led human to always been innovative in its approach to produce food efficiently. Back in ancient Egypt were community waste used to feed the farmings inside the gath-ering sites. Machu Picchu’s city structure and architecture was designed based on a idea of integrated fields for cultivation and with terra cultures around the dwell-ings. The Inca City was also said to have been totally self-sufficient and where all the food came from walking distance.

Today, urban farming all over the world is transforming itself in response to en-vironmental, economical, technological and not at least political changes. It is a crucial role for today’s, and even more tomorrows, urbanizing worlds requirements to be understood and put into a greater consideration. The role of urban areas in sustainable development has probably become more salient than ever before, due to the rapidly increasing urban populations. Nowadays, over half of the world’s to-tal population are operating and living in urban areas, and these numbers are seen to increase over the coming decades.

In Sweden today, the average inhabitant is urban. Which mean that most of us live in urban areas. Also is very few of us actually working with agriculture or forestry. Thus, one can find that we are quite far from cultivation. Still do we have a strong tradition of allotment culture in Sweden and half of the population between 16 and 84 work with gardening more than 20 times a year, even if a very few of these are professionals and earn income from it, is it interesting. During to the occurring urbanization and that free land inside and around the cities are becoming a rarity, we need to develop this tradition. The development process has forced a loss of al-lotments to be expanded in urban areas. Now we need to create opportunities for farming in other ways, more concentrated, more compact, more urban.

In research can we see how urban farming, or urban agriculture, is a fresh and modern way of bringing food production back to it roots. Benefits like food secu-rity, a greener environment, job creation, a reduced carbon footprint, the ability to self-produce gives access to healthier products and more control, are all introduced as positive results from urban farming and important for sustainable development. It is also so that cultivation is now seen as trendy in many urban locations, where people all over the community wants to take a stand on climate change and what crops to be eaten. Urban farming have become a way of renew your neighborhood,

Introduction.

1.1 Background

or claim areas in cities that are unused or dilapidated and cultivate them. The ur-ban landscape has once again become an agricultural frontier for dwellers that form groups and start produce all kinds of crops. Restaurants are proud to sat that their herbs and spices are grown in the backyard, and all over the world are rooftops transformed into lush vegetable gardens. One of the more high-tech solutions that nowadays starting to become a reality and well function is the concept of Vertical farming. The concept can be briefly explained by saying that it is when growing crops in tall buildings inside the city limits. This have many advantages and can have great impact on the society as a whole, with the creation of a new market for work opportunities, a year round production, no need of the use of pesticides and less use of water.

However, this might be part of the solution for future food problems, but it has not much impact on the urban social life. This is something I strongly believe urban farming can have, and want to investigate in this thesis. However, it is not neces-sary for establishment of farmings in the most urban areas, where the land value often is sky-high and a statement that farming is profitable can be difficult. Instead is it in the semi-urban areas where a great potential for this phenomena exist, and especially in areas with problems that need to be solved, where a renewal is desired. I also believe that we can see that urban farming in many ways can help for a good public life at places, even without participation of actual cultivation. By adding small-scaled urban farming to certain existing public places can we hopefully create a place for everyone from a deeper psychological aspect. In a time where the social aspect of sustainability is more discussed than ever, I think that we can have useful experience by bringing back old theories of the good public life with the benefits of Urban Farming in an aim to help the process of social sustainability.

1.2 Aim

This master thesis is written to show how urban farming can help promote the ur-ban life in public areas, and how it benefits in the process for social sustainability. I want to investigate which effects the implementation of urban farming can have on the urban life of an area, in relation to social sustainability. The aim is to view ur-ban farming from a perspective where food production is not the focus, but rather what other effects that emerging from an urban farming project.

The purpose is therefore to examine the social aspects of urban farming and show how they can overcome shortcomings in the public environment and promote the urban life. The goal of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of how urban farming and how it can be useful in urban design, from a perspective where food production is not central. The thesis also include a conceptual design proposal which aims to illustrate how an implementation of a small-scale urban farm can create conditions for a more vital urban life, in the process towards social sustainability.

1.3 Research Question

The following questions have been formed to guide the research and to reflect on the result in order to draw conclusions;

How can an implementation of urban farming in public places promote a good urban life in the aim for social sustainability?

How can an implementation of urban farming improve the urban life in the case of Hallonbergen?

1.4 Delimitations

The research questions for this thesis will be approached from a spatial planning and urban development perspective. Regarding my theoretical framework in my research I have chosen to manage the concept of sustainable development. The definition of sustainable development relies on three aspects and treats the issues of environmental, economic and social sustainability. However, can this thesis not examine the environmental and economic aspect fully, due to the need of limiting the extent of the research. In relation to the purpose of the essay is the main focus instead on the social aspect of sustainability.

The case study of the thesis is geographically located in Stockholm. The reason that I have chosen this city is because it holding the urban characteristics of other larger cities around the world. Moreover, it is also necessary to stay in the town where I live, to facilitate site visits and personal meetings. It is also of advantage that I have great knowledge of the city. Finally, it is also the place where the company which I write my thesis with has their office and conducts most of their projects.

1.5 Outline of the report

In Chapter 1 the purpose and aim of this thesis is presented. It also intends to explain the necessary delimitations made through the research and shortly define relevant terms. In Chapter 2 the methodological choices for the thesis are pre-sented and motivated. I also present how the methods will be carried out and why. Chapter 3 serves to explain the theoretical framework in the thesis, how to un-derstand the term sustainable development and especially the social aspect. In the following, Chapter 4, the essence of my literature review is presented, the focus is on which research that is published about social sustainability and the benefits of urban farming. Chapter 5 is a continuation of the literature review but with the focos of explain the phenomenon of urban farming, how it has occurred, how it takes forms and who that is involved is described. It also presents the results from

the conducted interviews related to urban farming. In Chapter 6 I introduce my study area, where my conceptual design is applied. This area is used to exemplify how urban farming can strengthen the urban life at a certain place. In this chapter are also the results from the questionnaire presented. Chapter 7 will discuss, reflect and conclude my findings and outcomes in relation to the theoretical perspective. In Chapter 8 I show my design programming, the conceptual design is presented from illustrations and plans. Finally, Chapter 9 will present my conclusion and how specific problems can be resolved by urban farming.

1.6 Terms and definitions

Sustainable

- A widely used term that seems to have many meanings and inter-pretations. The definition most commonly encountered is from UNCED’s report Our common future (1987) and has a current widespread influence.

“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

- United Nations. Our Common Future - Brundlandt Report 1987, p. 15

In my work I have used the concept of sustainable development as a theoretical perspective in relation to spatial planning. What is covered by the term and its meaning is based on a definition from different sources, and is consequently more detail in the literature review.

Urban farming

- The term is closely related to urban agriculture, but needs to be seen as an own term. While urban agriculture in most definitions are the practice of producing and distributing food in urban areas, does it also include commercial farming and the animal husbandry. One of the most used definitions is from Smit, Nasr and Ratta and was first published in the United Nations

cation Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities from 1996 and have since then become a standard and frequently used term. The term has been fine-tuned and in the edition from 2001 it say;

“. . . an industry that produces, processes, and markets food, fuel, and other outputs, largely in response to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on many types of privately and publicly held land and water bodies found throughout intra-urban and peri-urban areas. Typically urban agriculture applies intensive pro-duction methods, frequently using and reusing natural resources and urban wastes, to yield a diverse array of land-, water-, and air-based fauna and flora, contributing to the food security, health, livelihood, and environment of the individual, household, and community.”

- Smit, Nasr and Ratta (2001),Chapter 1, p. 1.

However, urban farming which I referred to in this paper is the local production and cultivation of plants and crops grown within the daily rhythm of the city, and processed mainly for own use and as a leisure activity. It can be perform both in urban or peri-urban settings. Further explained under chapter 5 Urban farming.

Urban

– Most people know an urban place when they see it, but to define it is not as easy as it might seems. A clear meaning is that urban describes the characteristics of town or cities (i.e Carmona et al. 2010, p. 3). In my definition of the concept I have choose to understand it based on John R. Weeks (2010) narrative for its meaning. Urban can be explained in term of being a characteristic of place, rather than of people. However, can we proceed to define urban places as a “…spatial concentration of people whose lives are organized around nonagricultural activities.” (Weeks 2010, p. 34). In other words can urban be the opposite of rural, where the essential characteristic is that urban means nonagricultural (Weeks 2010). This definition becomes further interesting since this thesis is about bringing agricul-tural activities into an urban place. To summarize we can once again use John R. Weeks words;

“Urban is a place-based characteristic that incorporates elements of population density, social and economic organization, and the transformation of the natural environment into a built environment”

- John R. Weeks 2010, p. 34

In this chapter I explain my methodological choices made in the thesis and discuss the implications and ef-fects they have.

2.

Methodology.

This thesis focuses on formulating an understanding for urban farming, its usabil-ity and effects on urban areas. In the thesis is also a design proposal included to exemplify how urban farming can help to overcome problems related to the social life of the area. Almost all development around the world nowadays is talked about in term of sustainability, and during the last few years a great interest have been put into the phenomena of urban farms and its relation to sustainable development. Therefore is the thesis theoretical framework formed by the argumentation about sustainable development, with a particular focus on the social aspect. In the exist-ing literature of the field can we explore the benefits and disadvantages of urban farming, what that are meant with sustainability and how different projects imple-mentations and results have taken form. In my literature review will it therefore be a focus towards a narrative of proven benefits of urban farming and also how the term sustainable development have been used and problematized. Three interviews have also been conducted, these interviews form an understanding about how ur-ban farming are seen and used from different parts of the society. The interviews are conducted with professionals in urban planning and people that has founded or take part in projects of urban farming both as participant or land owner. By doing this I can form a clearer approach and guidelines for my conceptual design. To create a good urban design I believe it is necessary to have a design approach, for me have literature and practice in the field of urban design taught me to al-ways; find the key things of a site and to protect and develop on them, find the key problems of the site and design ways of making them better, and finally let the design proposal make sure to fulfill the need of the people we design it for. With this said, is it also necessary for me to find data that proves that problems that needs to be solved actually exist in my design area. To find and distinguish these it is good to talk with the inhabitants of the area. From a bigger research made by the company Tyréns AB have I been able to get a primary data for the inhabitants in Hallonbergen opinions and views on their neighborhood. In the questionnaire

573 respondents have answered questions about the built environment and their housing (see appendix B). The questions are related to nine factors that have an impact on the urban life.

Last year was an urban farm established in Hallonbergen, and to discern the views and opinions that have arisen in connection with its implementation, have I par-ticipated in a meeting. During the meeting did the landlord, the architect and participating or interested inhabitants talked about the project. The outcome from the meeting showed the encountered problems and the perception about the urban farm in general.

The results from the data are put in relation to each other in order to create a con-ceptual design for an urban farm in Hallonbergen. The literature review and the conducted interviews will show the social effects urban farming can have on an area. The outcome from this part will be opportunities and possibilities with urban farming than can help improve the urban life in Hallonbergen. The result from the questionnaire will show which shortcomings that can be found in the area, and form obstacles and problems that hopefully can be overcome or reduced by the im-plementation of an urban farm. From the conceptual design I will draw some con-clusion about how the urban environment of Hallonbergen can be strengthened. The following parts present the research process for my thesis. It also explains how I have found my literature. Further on it explains the qualitative and quantitative methods that I used and the expected outcomes.

In my research, have I also used a quantitative survey. In the meaning that it is based on equivalent and comparable data from so many people that the data can be expressed and analyzed in numbers (Esaiasson et al. 2007, p. 260). The primary data, all of the responses and the distributed questionnaire survey is shown in its entirety as appendix (see Appendix B).

In relation to the purpose of this thesis and the aim of investigate and analyze the opportunities of urban farming and its effects on the social life. I need to know the inhabitants a feelings and opinions of my design area. These will be done by a revision from a report made by Tyréns AB (2012). In the report five neighborhoods are included, and around 3400 inhabitants have taken part in a detailed question-naire about their satisfaction about the neighborhood (Tyréns AB 2012, p. 6). The report illustrates the overall results for different factors, not based on their geo-graphical location, and also explains concrete ways of how to work with the stated issue-factors. I have gain access to the primary data for one of the neighborhoods in the report, the area Hallonbergen which also is where I will make my conceptual design proposal.

The data consist on the answer of a questionnaire survey among the residents of Hallonbergen. 573 respondents have answer a questionnaire consisting of 31 ques-tions, some which also have a number of underlying issues (see Appendix B). The questions are formulated to be attributed to specific factors that have a relation to the site´s urban environment (see Appendix B). I have got access to the primary data and by the analyzing of this primary data, the result will show various fac-tors within the neighborhood that considered being of deficient nature. In which I mean that in relation to the theoretical framework for this paper, these factors have a negative impact on the urban life of the area. Impacts that affect the social life on the site, and that will form obstacles and problems that need to be solved in my design.

I have chosen to use a qualitative method in the study to understand the effects of urban farming and how it can be implemented. Qualitative approaches are pre-ferred in situations that require a deeper understanding for a social phenomenon or recognition of its effects (Esaiasson et al. 2007, p. 284).

The interviews have mainly been constructed through following guidelines pre-sented in Håkan Jonsson’s (2009) document about practical interview technique and Esaiasson’s et al. (2007) guidebook for research. The first thing that was im-portant for me was to start thinking through the conditions for the framework of the interview. Since it is hard, maybe even impossible, to not influence the interview situation from my own experiences or opinions, this can help me over-come the risk of me affecting the respondents or the answers (Jonsson 2009, p. 2). The framework of the interview that I created consists of topics to be grazed and specific questions; it also describes how and where the interview should be done. I also decided to conduct my interviews according to a widely used technique, called ”the Funneling Model”. Which can be described by a illustration model inspired from Kylén & Vestlund (1980)

In Phase 1, the contact is established and a focus is on becoming familiar to each other. It also creates a comprehensive information and structure of the interview.

18

2.1 Questionaire

2.2 Interviews

Furthermore, in Phase 2 form a basis for further interview, this is collected as much information as possible. In this part, it is important to open issues, which will submit the ability of the respondent to select what should be addressed (Kylén & Vestlund 1980, p. 36-48). Phase 3 involves a slow transition towards a clarifi-cation of facts. This is done by specifying, and set demanding and comprehensive questions that exemplify your problem. In Phase 4, one can challenge the respond-ent and its data, if necessary. Which means that one can try to oppose answers as aforesaid, or test assertions by repeating questions and statements (Ibid). The last two phases, Phase 5 and 6, is about the termination of the interview. Phase 5 be-gins by asking additional questions and explains how the work will be monitored, i.e. distributes information requested by the respondent. In the final Phase 6, a brief summary of the interview, it shows how valuable the call was and opens the possibility for further contact, if necessary (Ibid).

This meant that I used so-called semi-structured interviews, which meant that I had overarching themes that were covered by my questions. By using this structure I was able to ask follow-up questions and were given an openness to the unplanned responses (Longhurst 2010, p. 103). The interviews were recorded and transcribed in close proximity after they were carried out, in order to take advantage of that they were still fresh in the memory. That also help me evaluate my role and perfor-mance, and help improve my technique through the conducted interviews.

2.2.1 Respondents

Often at interviews with informants it is easy to find the most central located sources (Esaiasson et al. 2007, p. 291). This is also something that is affected of yourself, since you often have a preconceived idea of and image of the subject, and who you need to talk to (Ibid). To avoid this dilemma and maximize the potential information from the interviews, I chosed to take usage of the connections at the company in which I have worked with this thesis. It was also important that the respondents was following three advice from the literature of Grant Mc-Cracken (1988), that is; to not use people that you already knows as respondent, that the number of respondents is small so resources in analyzing is enough, and that the

respondents are not subjective experts (McCracken 1998). The respondents for the interviews were selected in an aim to talk with professionals related to the subject. But related in various ways and who can help provide an insight how urban farm-ing is discussed at different levels, however still in relation to urban design. In my thesis I have interviewed three persons that will be presented further in the result chapter of this thesis, but are as follows: Marina Queiroz, co-founder of a urban farming project, Therese Ingerdal who works at Förvaltaren AB and finally Katarina Borg that works at Stockholms City Planning Office.

2. Site visit & Observation

To gain further knowledge that is useful for my design task and to get an under-standing for the area, some visits and observations have been made in relation to the thesis. I have especially focused on gain knowledge about Hallonbergen since a concept design for an urban farm in the area will be made. There have been several visits in the area during the thesis work, which has contributed to a good overview of the area. In Hallonbergen they already have a small-scaled urban farm, which was established last year. During the period when this thesis was carried out, the cultivation season have not started, therefore could no observation of the partici-pants use in action be possible. However, did I have the opportunity to participate in a meeting for those involved or interested in Hallonbergens urban farm. This meeting support me with useful information on the views of the existing farm in the area, and can therefore be of great use in my own conceptual design. Since I wanted to form an objective view of the inhabitants usage and feelings for the urban farm, I choose to be passive during the meeting. This was done to minimize the risk of influence opinions after my preconceptions, and give me the opportu-nity to gain new perspectives to my work (Esaiasson et al. 2012, p. 348).

This chapter describes a set of ideas, assumptions and conditions that serve as a philosophical principal for determination of the state of the realm and its development. The chapter will also explain my definition of sustainability, the social dimension and the concept of urban farming, which will form a theoretical frame-work for my thesis.

3.

Theoretical perspective.

In my thesis I want to investigate how urban farming can be implemented in the public space in an aim to strengthen the process of social sustainability. It is neces-sary to point out that I choose to call it a process. The reason for this is because it should not be regarded as a state, but as a process in which people want to stay and work in the society both now but also in the future. I will explain this further but will first make a brief background and narrative of the concept of sustainable development.

3.1 Sustainable development

The term sustainable development is not a new concept, but can be traced all the way back to the Brundlandt Report from 1987, which was commissioned by the United Nations. In the report the term is defined as:

“Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future…”

– United Nations, Our Common Future – Brundtland Report 1987, p. 34. Since the publishing has the concept expended rapidly and today it is widely used all over the world. Even if there is an agreement that sustainable development should be an overarching goal for all urban development, it is not always how people choose to define and work with it. Sustainable development is consisted of three pillars, ecological, economic and social sustainability. These work as mutu-ally reinforcing pillars in an interdependent relationship. The debate and research about sustainable development have mostly concentrated on the ecological and economic aspect, while the social pillar may have reached a general acceptance but have rarely been clarified or defined (Dempsey et al. 2009, p. 290). Sustainable development is a broad and interdisciplinary concept that could be analyzed deeply and at a length greater that this thesis can handle. But I will however explain the

core ideas of the concept and then move on for a further and more comprehensive focus on the social aspect of sustainable development. Within the natural science questions are focused on how earth’s resources should be sufficient for a growing population, and how access and scarcity of these resources is spread over the earth’s surface in relation to the distribution of the population (Jörgensen 1999, p. 5). From the perspective of social science is it instead of importance to look upon the people behind the usage of natural resources, the people that fight for better living conditions. Decisions about resources are made by people in social settings, but it is not enough to only look at the individual as the consumer and how individuals can change. Instead is the focus on trying to understand how people are part of community organizations, which have developed under a long time. To under-stand the meaning of sustainable development it requires the knowledge about all three pillars.To understand how these work is it common is often one of the following models used.

In Model 1 - Russian Dolls the interrelationship are described as a dependency, where the environmental aspect is so important that the social and economical aspects are dependent on it’s state and health. In meaning that the resources and services provided from earth’s natural system are crucial for a functional infrastruc-ture, which in later turn are fundamental for a functional social system. Finally, without the functional social system, the economic system fails to be productive.

In Model 2 – Three-ring Circus, which can be seen as more contemporary, the three different aspects are presented that best to be seen as equally. This model is hard to realize in the reality and relates to Sören Olsson’s research (2012), in the way that it is hard to balance the different forces in every aspect. This because of both individual and institutional applicability and different conditions will create different situations in areas.

The reason why I choose to show both models are because I believe that they are 21

both useful for a mindset about the need of sustainability as a concept. While the first model, Russian Dolls, explain in a logic way how the interrelationship are grounded on natural conditions, such that the environment will always be a strong force on the society that occurs in the environment, and the economy will always take place inside the society where the strongest influence exist. However, can this model weaken the different aspects role and rank them along a kind of relevance. In the second model, Standard, the aspects is seen as equally and that is something I believe can benefit our mindset. When talking about something as sustainable, it is in a sense irrelevant to what extent the three different aspects individually can be called sustainable. To call something sustainable, it obviously needs to be ecologi-cal, economic and social sustainable and that is not something you can achieve by a certain score. To reach sustainability it is no enough to be sustainable in two of the three aspects, nor to what degree or how much sustainable it is, since it is not

a measure. The definition and model of sustainability is therefore better to serve as a tool to find measurements in the goal of achieve a sustainable world on all levels. So even if the plethora of research about sustainability and it’s meaning is in many ways important, it is far more important to just wake awareness of the way we have dealt with development. Cheng and Hu (2009) have explained this in a good way by the argumentation that question whether cities really can become sustainable or not is debatable, but that does not prevent us from taking steps towards sustain-ability in communities.

3.2 Social sustainability

Even if there is a quite small amount of literature that actually deals with the con-cept of social sustainability, is there a lot that deals with similar concon-cepts, such as social capital, social cohesion, social exclusion and inclusion. I my presentation about the concept I have chosen to work from article made by Nicola Dempsey et al. (2009). The reason for mainly use this article for my definition about the term is because the articles aim to look at social sustainability at the local level and in close relation to the built environment, which I think is relevant for this thesis.

In the article is two main factors of social sustainability is noted, social equity and community sustainability. In Swedish term might community seem a bit hard to define, but can be seen as the area in which people’s daily life is taken place and can differ in size based on geographical and other context. The reason for using these two themes is to be able to concretize social sustainability at the local level.

3.2.1 Social Equity

Social equity relates to that the resources of a society should be distributed equita-bly. In a society that is socially just, there is nothing that prevents people to partici-pate economically, politically or socially in the community (Dempsey et al. 2009, p. 292). So it is a society where no room is given for exclusion and discrimination. To be able to measure this is accessibility a common and fundamental measure (Ibid.). In which means that the built environment can have an effect on both the nature and character and the extent of access that exists in given locations. All residents in an area should have same access to for example decent housing, public service, recreation opportunities and green areas (Dempsey et al 2009, p. 293). In order to create a more socially sustainable society it is important that forces of en-gagement, power and influence receive and may take place in city planning and its conversion processes. By having a strong dialogue with the public it will be possible to find solutions and directions that are associated with the human creativity, and how it is useful in planning and decision making (Ibid.).

3.2.2 Community Sustainability

Community sustainability is about society’s ability to sustain and reproduce itself, all at a level of functioning that is acceptable (Dempsey et al. 2009, p. 294). This is closely related to concepts that encompass social networks, norms and social organization, such as social capital and social cohesion. It can be said that com-munity sustainability is about the social interaction between its members and the stability of the community (Ibid.). Both regarding the overall maintenance of net migration and of individual members. As well its participation in local institu-tions, their level of trust in the community, issues of security and safety finally the identification and pride in the community (Ibid.). To explain this more deeply the authors have formulate five sub-categorizes, in which they mean have a significant meaning to people’s daily life; social interaction/social networks in the community, participation in collective groups and networks in the community, community stability, pride/sense of place and finally safety and security (Ibid.).

Social interaction/social networks in the community. Without a social interaction can people who live at a certain place only be described in terms of a group of indi-viduals that lives separate lives. Social interaction and social networks are usually described as parts of social capital (Ibid.), and with social capital it is meant the networks, norms and trust formed in a community and that facilitate cooperation in society. The link between the built environment and social interaction and –net-works relates to the prevalence of mixed land uses, the density and layout of streets and neighbourhoods (Dempsey et al. 2009, p. 295). This can be interpreted as a mixed use and high density that can lead to social interactions based on the reason to move on a street.

Participation in collective groups and networks in the community. Participation in local activities is the dimension of social sustainability that is related to social cohe-sion (Ibid.). It may be about the involvement in local associations, in areas such as sport or culture. These associations, or institutions, may contribute to social creativity and community. They can be used to gather people and increase oppor-tunities to influence or be active in the urban development. In areas where the local

capacity is well organized will probably inhabitants also take a greater responsibil-ity and therefore it is easier to meet and overcome issues. The relation to the built environment is through the areas density and mixed usage, since inhabitants are then offered to be included in different activities (Dempsey et al. 2009, p. 296). With this said it is not the meaning that an area is unsustainable if people don’t participate in groups. That can be based on the fact that they don’t have time or just don’t find an interest in what is offered, but it can also be related to a flaw design so the area has few functions or that it takes to much resources in time and money to get to the offered activity (Ibid.).

Community stability. An area needs well-established long-term residents to be de-scribed as sustainable. To high mobility at the residents could be seen as a symptom for a failure of the local society, where people are unable to fell a connection to a social context or to their area (Ibid.). There is no obvious answer to the relationship between the degree of mobility and the built environment, but it may be related to the quality and management of the area and the built environment (Ibid). It is also related to the accessibility to services and housing that is needed, the size of dwellings and distance to schools can therefore become important in changing of the residents life situation.

Pride/Sense of Place. For a long time it have been argued that activities, settings and meanings are strongly interrelated (i.e. Gehl 2001 & Lynch 1960). A positive feel-ing and affection for the area can be seen as a dimension of social sustainability in the sense that it is an essential part of people’s appreciation of their neighborhood (Dempsey et al. 2009, p. 296). The sense of place can be defined as a mixture of emotional contact through the interaction with other people, the sense of belong-ing and the affection for a place. But it can also include a social order, common norms and values (Ibid.). If factors that gives a feeling that no one really care for the place occur, will people get affection and have negative affection and attach-ment to the place. It will most likely also have a negative effect on how safe the place is regarded to be, which can reduce the social interaction and participation in the community. If the affection is shared between all residents of an areas can it

create a special character to the place, something that gives uniqueness to the place (Dempsey et al. 2009, p.297).

Safety and Security. That people consider an area to be safe is a fundamental part of social sustainability (Ibid.). By providing a high security will give the sense of safety to an area, an in areas free from violence and threats will residents feel safe in their interaction with other people (Ibid.). This in turn will lead to that participa-tion of people in the areas activities. The link between the built environment and safety can for instance be windows, or in longer term visibility, since it creates a feeling that there is always someone who is able to oversee what that is happening in the area (Ibid). Dilapidated features and constructions in the built environment could instead give the feeling that the area is abandoned, and spread insecurity to the area.

To conclude the definition of social sustainability it can be said that Dempsey et al. (2009) mean that it is not only in areas where the physical environment is con-sidered perfect that social sustainability can occur. But it can also benefits from the fact that the residents in a neighborhood joins together to change their physical environment to the better (Dempsey et al. 2009, p. 292).

3.3 Good Public Spaces

The purpose of this thesis is formulated so I will present a conceptual design for an urban farm in Hallonbergen, Stockholm. In doing this is it crucial to form an understanding for how my design is performed. Even since I first came in contact with Jan Gehl’s theories in the book Cities for people (2010), have I been inter-ested in the way he understand public spaces. What might be an outcome from my background as a human geographer is that the human dimension always is of great interest for me. In order to understand what I in this thesis mean with the urban life and how we can design urban areas so it benefits the urban life, I have chose to work with Jan Gehl’s theories based from his very famous publication, Livet mellem husene (English title Life between buildings), that originally was published 1971. In 24

his theories are the social aspect strongly related to the urban life and since that is an argument that I stand by, is his theories of great use for me.

Jan Gehl usually talks about planning through different scales, and even if much can be done and said about a larger scale, like early in the planning stage, I will mainly focus on his theories related to a smaller scale. Such like the implementa-tion of urban farming on a specific place in the built environment.

3.3.1 Public Space for the People

According to Jan Gehl can the activities that take place in the public space be divided into three types, necessary activities, optional activities and social activities. In the necessary activities are all the activities that most people more or less are obligated to do (Gehl 1996, p. 7). These are for example to wait for the bus, go to school, run errands, and go to work and so on. It is mainly the everyday activities that belong in this type, must of the pedestrian traffic occur when one makes the necessary activities (Ibid.). Since these types of activities must occur, no matter the weather or which time of year it is, are the affection from the built environment not so significant than in other activities (Ibid.).

Optional activities are the one that you do if you feel like it, if the weather and place invites for it. For instance could it be to just take a stroll and see what happens in the area, sunbathing, or just sit down against a warm wall (Gehl 1996, p. 9). Because of this these activities are entirely dependent one the built environment, and will only occur if the outdoor environment are good enough (Ibid.). The ma-jority of all recreational activities that are performed outdoors are included in this category.

The social activities are most often the result of an activity that occurs spontane-ously from any of the other activities (Gehl 1996, p. 10). This means that the social activities are supported when the other ones are supported, and also have the premise that other people is on the same place. Examples on these activities are

children playing, conversations and greetings, group activities and the most com-mon social activity – to see and hear other people (Ibid.). They can also have dif-ferent character based on the context it occurs. For instance at courtyards, schools and outside workplaces, where it only travels a limited number of people can the social activities be quite versatile. Based on the fact that common interests exist or that people know each other, even if it is only because they have seen each other often (Ibid.). On public streets and in city centers are the social activities more monotonous, since they are more based on temporary and passive contacts, they have however a great value (Ibid.). Briefly said, can a social activity be when two people find themselves in the same place. To see and hear each other, to meet, is a social activity. That is what makes it so fundamental for the spatial planning. It is hard to decide the social qualities and intensity, but by planning for meeting and opportunities for passive contacts can we strengthen the place. The social activities are of great importance for our public spaces, the presence of other people, activi-ties, events and incentives is one of the most essential qualities of urban spaces in general (Gehl 1996, p . 11). It is hard to quantify how much the life on streets, parks and squares means for our contact needs, according to Jan Gehl (1996). However it is clear that if there is meeting opportunities, life and activity in the public spaces, it is more likely that people have the opportunities to see and hear other people, and the wish to share the space with them. Life in the public space is an offer to people, an opportunity to be with others in a relatively undemanding way (Gehl 1996, p. 15).

Other needs that life in the public space can satisfy are our need of experiences, and the experiences of seeing and hearing other people is one of the most interesting things for us (Gehl 1996, p. 19). By promoting life in public urban spaces can save us resources in terms of costly architectural attempts to make places more interest-ing. The public life on the streets is a self-reinforcing process, where people attract people and place themselves closer to each other. This can also led to that new activity occurs next to those already running (Gehl 1996, p. 21). The life between buildings or inside the buildings might always seem to be of higher value than the public space itself (Gehl 1996, p. 27). Therefore is it important to let people see the

life, either passively or actively. This can be easily helped by organizing the seats in the areas so they aiming at the activity (Gehl 1996, p. 25).

3.3.2 Planning Principles

According to Jan Gehl it is the physical environment which provides the conditions for the activity of the public rooms. The scope and character of the public activity is very much linked to the physical environments design and configuration. It is possible that with the spatial planning give both better and worse conditions that affect the public life in cities. In summarizing the investigations from Gehl (1996) it can be said that spatial planning have the possibility to affect the life in public space in three ways: how many people and activities that reside in the public space, how long they are there and what activities that can take place. Where the creation of new, better physical opportunities take place, have social activities a tendency to grow in number, diversity and duration (Gehl 1996, p. 33).

It is important to gather people to public areas, which can be done by pay great im-portance to the walkability in urban areas and the public spaces. These can benefit the urban life if they are seen as the most important element within the city, and if we connect all functions to them (Gehl 1996, p. 80-81). A first step towards this is to think in terms of integration and segregation. Integration of different activities and functions in and around the public space will give the people the possibility to operate together and mutually stimulate each other. The inhabitants should both be given the opportunity to travel together and meet in the daily functions (Gehl 1996, p. 95). This since a lot of activities, like talks and playing, occur when we are doing something else or on our way to something (Gehl 1996 p, 105).

Another thing that is important to reflect over is if the public place is inviting or re-pellent. This is about how the public space is located in relation to the private. Gehl research has concluded that smooth transitions and flexible boundaries between public and private areas can function as connecting links, which makes it easier for the inhabitants to move between private and public spaces (Gehl 1996, p. 107).

It is also important that the design of public places is created so that the activities and life that occurs are visible, both from people that pass by, but also from build-ings in the area. If people are able to see the public life, might a stronger feeling for participate emerge (Ibid.). In this sense it is also important to reflect about when the design should open up for participation or close in. Based on the activity that should take place can we work with different degrees of openness, the importance is just that our design will decide if it opens up or close in (Gehl 1996, p. 117). The quality of the public space is not determined of the amount of activities that take place, but rather which kind of activities. The space should hold good condi-tions in both getting to and from it, as to remain in it and participate in various recreational and social activities (Gehl 1996, p. 120). The optional- and social activities will fall away if the environment is not considered arbitrary. It is therefore important that the quality in walking, standing, sitting, seeing and hearing is good enough for these activities to happen (Gehl 1996, p. 123). We need to understand how we dwell in the public space. When we walk it is not only the physical distance that matters, but also the perceived distance, so what people find acceptable to travel by foot can be influenced by attractiveness of the environment and protec-tion from weather. If we also let walking paths move in the border zone of areas it is more possible that people stay and stand in the place, which allow participating in activities through observation (Gehl 1996, p. 142). The importance of good seating facilities are strongly emphasized by Gehl. Seating have almost the same criteria’s as standing, and is preferable located along the sides, have support for the back and clear visibility over the public room (Gehl 1996, p. 147). If people choose to sit in public area it is most likely to enjoy the qualities that it has to offer. However, it is good if the public space have both primary and secondary seating’s. Primary are benches and chairs placed by the sites principal qualities (Gehl 1996, p. 151). The secondary are the one that occur when it is a great need and can be steps, rails and other features which main purpose is not seating (Ibid). Finally Gehl theorize over the need to see and hear well at the place. If we are able to see or hear people, the public space will most likely be perceived as safe (Gehl 1996, p. 156). Therefore it is necessary to have good illumination and visibility in the

whole area, but it is also good to make sure that the public place is visible for the surrounding environment also.

Based on these arguments and in relation to the purpose of this thesis is it possible to form four principles from Jan Gehl theories. These will serve to understand how we can form good public spaces and with that a rich social life.

Principle 1 – Gather the people

First when more than one person is gathered at a place can physical social interac-tion occur. Social life in public spaces is a potential self-reinforcing process. This means that when someone starts to do something, there are clear indications that others want to participate in different ways. So even if there is individual activities will they, when performed next to each other, stimulate the social life (Gehl 1996, p. 69). Therefore is it crucial to first gather the people to the public spaces.

Principle 2 - Integrate all residents

In which means that the site’s features and functions should allow for different types of people to work unified or next to each other. It is important that we under-stand that the public is for everyone, and that functions do not privatize or exclude. This will also open up for more spontaneous and unexpected meetings to happen, which benefits the social life of a place.

Principle 3 - Non-repellent and inviting

In case the public environment invites or rejects is largely a matter of how it is located relative to the private. It is important that public areas are accessible and located in relative closeness of the housing for inhabitants to feel invited. This is important since our project area mainly focus on serving the inhabitants and is not a public square in a city center. Therefore should floating boundaries or transition-zones be used to let the inhabitants easily move between the private and public environments. Activities and functions that are visible and feel inspiring can gain great success the public life.

Principle 4 – Something to do

The more needs that the public space can satisfy, the greater chance is it that a more frequent usage and richer life will occur at the site. Even if we rarely say that we go out to satisfy our needs, is it a big reason for staying in a public setting. It is therefore important that there is an understanding for this need and a satisfaction for them. One great way of fulfill the need is to combine the public with.

In this text I introduce and discuss the existing literature in the subject and that is relevant for my thesis.

4.

Since my thesis is mainly focused on Swedish conditions and its urban develop-ment, has a selection of the material been collected from research performed in Sweden and unfortunately in Swedish. But since the phenomena of urban farming is widely spread and establish in other parts of the world, a range of the literature are international. This has helped refine and focus my research and narrow down my research question. By working with a traditional way of literature review it gives me the benefit that it can help me also developing a conceptual or theoretical framework (Coughlan et al. 2007, p. 660).

Across the globe, metropolitan areas and their peri-urban communities are seeing how its landscape and different neighborhoods are showing an increase of urban farmings in different forms. Nowadays cities can use and see urban farming as a strategy for development in fields like sustainable planning, community develop-ment, health benefits, and more (Golden 2013, p. 2).

My literature review seeks to identify the efforts, trends and gaps that can be found in research about urban farming and it’s impacts on the society. It addresses various factors that have been identified with an impact from urban farming, and what kind of advantages and disadvantages that can be found in the research. It also tries to conclude a review for the challenges for urban farming, and the gaps in litera-ture, where further research is needed. Since my focus in this thesis is mainly on the relationship between urban farming and the social dimension, I try to identify what already been written about it, even though a lot of the literature seems to talk about the environmental effects of urban farming. I have therefore also chosen to divide my review into different subcategories, and not structure the literature reviewed chronologically. This is because of that it is not urban farmings changing over time that is relevant for me, but how and why it can be a phenomena worth to include more in daily urban development. However, I will discuss how urban farming has been seen and research about from different angles, how it have been

presented as a tool to enhance biodiversity and bio-tope area factor for example. This is to show how urban farming is not just a temporary trend, but has been shown to bring effects that can help our society in the long run.

By looking at the existing literature in the field of study, we can see that it has been a lot written about urban agriculture, urban farming, community gardens and its importance as a tool to introduce greenery in the densification of urban areas. We can also discern a plethora of literature that addresses the concept of sustain-ability in urban planning, and its meaning. As a common thread can be seen that sustainability is discussed from three different factors, ecologically, economically and socially. and often depicts urban farming and urban agriculture as a functional ecological and economical alternative for sustainable development. However, the purpose of the implementation of my literature review has been to find informa-tion about the condiinforma-tions for urban farming as a tool and resource for urban de-velopment.

4.1 The Benefits of Urban farming

Even if the functions and argumentations of urban farming differ heavily around the world, can we see a changing over the last decade, where the demands from an increasing urbanization shows the need and potential of urban farming for produc-tion of food (McClitock 2009, p 197). The need of new techniques of food-pro-duction and usage of valuable land in urban areas have led all the way to the United Nations, and the United Nations Development Programme have in cooperation with The Urban Agriculture Network published a book that serves to explain the phenomena of Urban Agriculture and its relation to Sustainable Cities. Already in the very beginning of the book of Smit et al., thoughts are about how cities now have the possibility to take their knowledge and control their own food security

Literature Review.

is explained (Smit et al. 2001, p. 1). It also tells us how urban farming, maybe not can solve but at least be a part of the solution, in the parts of the world where hunger and malnutrition are serious problems (Ibid.). A great focus has been made on the environmental benefits of Urban Agriculture in the book. Which of course is relevant for a sustainable development, but it also shows that Urban Agriculture, or Urban Farming, is mostly thought of in a tool for food-production and benefit for the environment, and not as much a tool for the social life in urban areas. But it is still raised in the book what urban farming can mean for the city in terms of social benefits (Smit et al. 2001, ch. 7, p. 12). Smit et al. have from their case-studies found examples where urban farming have contribute to communities well-being by improvement of the areas aesthetics and solidarity (Ibid.). They also argue that neighborhoods that include urban farming tend to have higher levels of social interaction and good security, based on the fact that the activity is in the urban environment instead of behind closed doors (Ibid.). This will led to a shared concern for the cultivation and many times a shared harvest as well (Ibid.). How long we have been performing urban farming is hard to say, but it is clear that it is a recent phenomenon in only a few places. All over the world, there are deep traditions of producing agriculture within the cities. How it appears is grounded in local concepts and cultural values (Smit et al. 2001, p. 2). It is mostly in the developed parts of the world that urban farming have starting to grow lately, and is based on different reasons than food security or opportunities for income. It is more a reaction for the damaging ecological footprint the food industry is creating, or a demonstration against the quality of food produced and give an individual control over what is put on the plate, at least in developed countries. In developing countries inhabitants have been farming and perform agriculture in the cities for a long time, as a way to earn income and subsistence (Nugent 2001, p. 4). But many countries have learnt from this and starting to bring in more and more aspects of urban farming into their comprehensive plans. In Cuba, the use of urban farming has been argued to be one of the key factors as a mean to evade the shortage of food (Murphy 2004). Smit, Nasr and Ratta (2001) also tell us eight factors that have influence for how the current situations of farming in urban areas have been

emerged. Even if some of the factors are based on the historical and cultural roots in the subject, they say that a majority of the factors are contemporary developed. The fast urbanization has heavily increased the number of urban residents, and highlighting a poorer part of the urban population who find ways to support them-selves (Smit et al. 2001, p. 4).

Sheila Golden (2013) presents a good literature review on the impacts of urban farming and agriculture over different levels, and is meant to work as a synthesis of the most commonly cited impacts. According to her are the coming few years critical for the future of urban farming, and says that in the example of United States we can see that despite all reports of achievements of urban farming, have very few planners actually start to implement it in their agenda (Golden 2013, p. 17). Recommendations to remedy this are presented as to continue the research about urban farming and continue to prove the importance of it. Especially when it comes to its impacts for sustainability (Ibid). To overcome barriers for projects related to urban farming we need to understand its possibilities in relation to the social dimension. Both Galt’s & Bradley’s (2013) and White’s (2010) publica-tions shows that projects in urban farming that are initiated and maintained by the community, tend to be more successful. It is important create incitements for grassroots and social justice, and not take the power away from the inhabitants, but instead form a open dialogue and create together. Instead a challenge for cities and it’s inhabitants should be to overcome the lack of knowledge, such as relevant information and the spreading of it, and assistance in technical solutions (Golden 2013, p. 2-3).

The research also emphasizes how we can see a influence of biodiversity through urban farming. Axel Drescher (2003) have briefly explain the subject in his analysis over urban agriculture and its relation to urban planning, in which he state that already in 1992 Rio Conference the possibilities of urban agriculture was stated (Drescher 2003). The fact that we can get an increasing urban habitat diversity in cities from the concept of urban farming, will in turn led to biodiversity (Drescher 2003, p. 8). Smit, Nasr and Ratta (2001) develops the thought of urban farmings

relation to biodiversity in their publication , mention above. They say that farm-ing are one of the best land uses to promote biodiversity, and when brfarm-ingfarm-ing that into urban areas where the land uses normally are different can mostly be seen as positive (Smit et al. 2001, p. 23). This because, among other things, it convert packed soil to open soil, or converts rooftops and pavements into soil. A open soil that helps clean the water, bring plants that clean the air, attracts beneficial insects and is on of the most biodiverse material in the biosphere (Ibid). It also let the natural environment in the countryside run its course, by conserving the existing biodiversity at the place. Smit, Nasr and Ratta also says that some forms of urban farming, such as ornamental horticulture, may have one of the highest potential to expand biodiversity, especially the range of native plants. It will also have a great influence to a more diverse cropping pattern than commercial farming, which give a much more varied urban market (Smit et al. 2001, p. 24).

When it comes to the social value and effects of urban farming is Delshammar and Fors (2010) big contributors to the field and who have presented positive effects in their literature. They mean that farming both can be seen as complementation and promote health, but also let people meet and establish meeting points (Delsham-mar & Fors 2010, p. 7). Since a mixture of functions occurs, recreational park and cultivation, is the chances of create meetings and cooperations between different actors given (Ibid). They also claim that it is important to design an outdoor en-vironment that creates opportunities for social relations to develop. People need to meet each other and for that places where people can meet needs to exist, especially places that holds recreational functions (Delshammar & Fors 2010, p. 14). Dels-hammar earlier research from 2005 also talked about how inhabitants needs pos-sibilities for cultivation in their closeness for different reasons in his doctoral thesis. The thesis aim to study and analyze user participation in public park management and maintenance and which reasons and prerequisites there is. In the case study it was shown that a main reason for people to participate is the desire and ability to take part in the design of the site and in several cases was contributing factors also that the inhabitants wanted to have access to the possibility of farming and to refine their local environment (Delshammar 2005, p. 128). An additional factor

that was showed in the research was the ability to create new meeting places (Ibid).

4.2 Sustainable Development

Ever since we have been informed of the negative impacts on the environment as the world’s development means, a great amount of work and research has been put into the concept of sustainability. How can we define it, how can it be measured and what is needed to be done to achieve it? As a result of all the effort and research put into the field, the term ’sustainability’ has been loaded with so many implica-tions and nuances that in order to properly use it and understand it, it needs to be well defined whenever it is used.

Sustainability as a concept is most often dated back to the 1960s, where it served as a reaction to the poor management and usage of resources. Along with the fact that environment issues where seen as global, and where the solution of the issues is seen as a common political goal (McKenzie 2004). But it took some time until we really started to talk about sustainable development. The concept of sustainable de-velopment usually is said to been mention in official documents for one of the first time in the Brundtland report from 1987, ”Our Common Future”, that was written by the World Commission of Environment and Development (WCED) on the behalf of the United Nations (1987). In the document the term is defined as; ” Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs…”

- United Nations (1987) Our Common Future. This was a clear statement and since then it has a been an extensive spread of the concept and there is now a consensus that all urban development should have an overarching goal for sustainable development. The concept was also further dis-cussed in Agenda 21 (United Nations 1992), and it argue that urban areas should focus on two main goals; decent dwelling for everyone and a sustainable