Non-Environmental Urban Agriculture

1 Tim van Hoek, Tobias Domenie

AR1R035 – Housing Policy, Management and Sustainability Tutor: Drs. C.L. van der Flier

Tim van Hoek 4012127

Tobias Domenie 4015894

Abstract:

There are more and more agricultural activities in the urban environment. But these activities are mostly one-sided imposed by urban planners as a sustainable measure. This can cause trouble in acceptance of the measure by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. Also the opportunity to improve the neighbourhood in greater extent is missed. Urban agriculture is very versatile. Multiple functions of urban agriculture can be applied in order to serve the urban planners’ interests and the general interests of a neighbourhood. In that way urban agriculture can be used to also serve the interest of neighbourhoods and improve them. Keywords: Urban agriculture, merger of interest, Dakakker Rotterdam, De Moestuin Utrecht, improved neighbourhoods

Non-environmental urban agriculture Introduction Urban agriculture is a well-used sustainable measure within urban areas (Philips, 2013, p. 50). People

who work in the field of urban sustainability are eager to create a form of urban agriculture in

neighbourhoods. This is mainly because of the sustainable theme of urban agriculture. But there are

also a lot of people who do not see the direct benefits of urban agriculture for them personally. They

do not have the same positive feeling with sustainability in urban areas, they have different interests

than the sustainable urban planners have. Therefore it is important to research how sustainable

measures can trigger these different interests as well. Urban agriculture is already a good qualitative

sustainable measure, but is it possible to take it to the next level and give it even more quality?

Most of the research on urban agriculture focuses on the agricultural activity itself, but not

on the way it is accepted in a neighbourhood and what urban agriculture can contribute to the

neighbourhood other than sustainability. When it is known what urban agriculture can do to serve

the interests of a neighbourhood, the quality of urban agriculture could be improved and with this

enhancement the neighbourhood where it is implemented could be improved.

This research focusses on how the interests of urban agriculture can be merged with the

interests of urban farming in order to improve neighbourhoods. The following questions will be

answered. The main research question:

How can the interests served by urban agriculture be merged with the general interests of the

neighbourhood in order to improve the neighbourhood?

Sub-questions:

1. What is the meaning of the concept merging interests, how can it be used to improve

sustainable developments?

2. What is urban agriculture and what interests can be served by urban agriculture?

3. What are general interests of a neighbourhood?

4. How can these interests be merged?

5. Does this result in an improved neighbourhood?


In figure 1, the research is displayed in a conceptual model. This model shows the main components

of the research graphically (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 18).

What do we mean with ‘interests’? The MacMillan online dictionary gives the following

definition: ‘an advantage or benefit to someone or something’ ("interest - definition," n.d.). This is

the definition we use. The interests of the neighbourhood are an advantage or benefit to the

neighbourhood. The interests that are being served by urban agriculture are the advantages or

benefits as a result of urban agriculture. By merging interests of different parties in one measure, the

acceptance of the measure by the different parties will grow.

A literature study with documents as source of data is conducted. This will answer what the

merger of interests is, what the general interests served by urban agriculture are and what the

general interests of a neighbourhood are. This will result in two models. One with the interest that

urban agriculture serves, and one with the general interests of a neighbourhood. Two cases are then

used to illustrate if the interests of a neighbourhood can be served by urban agriculture and if that

can result in an improved neighbourhood. The first case is the Dakakker on the Schieblock in

Rotterdam. This is a garden of a roof of an old office building in the heart of Rotterdam. The second

case is De Moestuin in Utrecht. De Moestuin is a garden with the main purpose of creating jobs for

people who have difficulties to access the normal labour market. The cases were selected because of

the amount of information that could be found on the cases. Another reason was that in the

literature of the literature study some references were already made to these cases. The third reason

of selection was that at first glance these cases already showed signs of the merger of interest. With

the results of the case analysis we can get a better idea if the merger of interests for urban

agriculture leads to an improved neighbourhood.

Figure 1 Conceptual model (own illustration)

What is the meaning of the concept merging interests, how can it be used to improve

sustainable developments? At this time we are still recovering from an economic crisis. But this crisis was not the first crisis that

we had to endure, we had other downturns before. For example the great depression in the 1930’s.


If there is one thing that we can learn from these crises is the fact that these crises were great

opportunities to change and rebuild our economy, society and organization in landscaping. These

crises gave us the chance to see what is not functioning well in our society and change it to improve

our future. This is what Richard Florida calls ‘The great Reset’(Florida, 2010). Looking to our future

we have to reshape a lot of different aspects of our live to ensure this better future. Some examples

of these aspects are how and where we live and work and how we shape our earth. Improving all the

aspects will have benefits for everybody (Florida, 2010). With the current crisis we have this

opportunity again, so we should use this. We should try to improve our future and the earth we are

living on. So sustainability has to become a big part of this reset.

Richard Florida is not the only person who is publishing about our future. Al Gore did it

before, he tried to open the eyes of everybody and letting them realise that we are destroying our

own earth. He showed that a change is needed to preserve our world as we know it. (Gore, 2006, p.

8)

Anke van Hal and her colleagues at Nyenrode Business University believe that their approach,

the merger of interest perspective will help to ensure this new future in a sustainable way.

“We want to improve the quality of living of people (both here and now, and

there and later) within the context of the built environment.”(Van Hal, 2014, p. 45). But to achieve

this goal in a sustainable way changes have to be made in the economy, technology, policy, ecology

and society. The need for these changes is also the biggest problem in creating a better future.

People prefer not to change, certainly when this change means that they have to remove the things

they love, for example: Luxury houses, fast cars and fast air-travel (Van Hal, 2014, p. 44). These are

things that people really like and they got used to it. Big changes will or can have an effect on these

items and maybe they have to. If people really like something they tend not to dispose it easily. This

is a big group of people who will only change if they have no other choice, this is the majority of

people. Because change can be very difficult these people have to be shown that these changes have

a positive side and are interesting for them as well. This is the goal of the merger of interests (Van

Hal, 2014, pp. 43-45).

In short the merger of interest is about: how sustainability will improve the environment we

live in. But to make sustainability a communal property, and promoted by everybody, it has to

engender a positive feeling. People need something that makes the sustainable measure interesting

to them in a non-environmental way. Sustainability can use the merger of interest as an approach to

help achieve this extra quality. It is about creating a win-win situation. Sustainability wins and the

people win as well (Van Hal, 2014, pp. 45-46).

To create this win-win situation it is needed to know what the interests of the people

regarding the neighbourhood are. What do people see as an advantage or benefit for their

neighbourhood. The interests and fascinations should always be the starting point and residents

should have choices in what will be implemented and their consequences. Involvement is therefore

needed. The possibilities and consequences should be clear and be communicated to the residents.

Not only should a committee of the residents be involved but a more diverse group of residents. The

designers need to know how the people use their home and how it can be improved. The daily use

and perception of the neighbourhood are most important for the tenants. Designers can respond to

these daily routines and show and give the experience of the changes. This way tenants will accept

the changes better, be prouder and more careful with their living environment because the interests

are merged (van der Werf, van Hal, & Koot, 2013, pp. 10-12).

Multiple sources will agree that there are changes to be made if we want to secure our

future. We need to become more sustainable and everybody needs to support sustainability.

Therefore it is important to show and convince the whole earth population of the powers of

sustainability according to van der Werf, van Hal & Koot.


H. Priemus has a different point of view. He states that sustainable housing is not clearly

defined in scientific literature and policy documents. A letter of recommendations has been send to

the Dutch government about how to achieve sustainable housing. He suggests that sustainable

housing has to be achieved through regulations for housing management and construction. Priemus

states that environmental qualities should contain flexibility, affordability, demand-driven market

and technical reliability as qualities. In this scenario the tenants have to adapt to the new way of

living, although he admits that this has failed in the past (Priemus, 2004, pp. 14-15). So this approach

apparently does not work due to the lack of communication with the users.

Emirto Rienhart, a former project manager for Aedes, gave a great example. Aedes wanted to

place solar cells on the roofs of their houses. But the tenants were not really happy with that idea. So

Aedes tried to figure out why, they had to know the interests of the residents. After multiple

meetings with residents they figured that the tenants were not interested in cleaning their attic. To

place the solar cells the attics needed to be clear so the construction workers could place the panels.

The residents were more interested in not cleaning their attics than sustainable energy. So Aedes

made the deal with all the tenants that Aedes will hire a professional cleaning team to clean the

attics and the residents would not be charged. This did not change the interests of the tenants but it

responded to the interests of the tenants. At this moment the houses have solar panels and the

tenants also have clean attics again.

This is just one example of how the merger of interest can help promote sustainable

measures. It gives us reason to believe that the merger of interest can be used to promote urban

farming. It is about creating a win-win situation. If it could be demonstrated that urban agriculture

could also serve interests of others, a merger of interests is possible and urban agriculture can

become a more supported sustainable measure.

Conclusion How can the merger of interest be used to create a sustainable measure that has benefits for

everybody? In conclusion; using the merger of interest is an approach to create an improved

neighbourhood by merging the interests of the residents with the interests a sustainable measure

can serve. This is not a easy task because every area will have their own interests. So first of all, the

interests should be known. What do the residents really want and how can a sustainable measure

deliver that? This will take a lot of knowledge and creativity to come up with a solution that

promotes and brings together all the different interests in sustainable way. Once the correct solution

is designed a (innovative) funding model should be found to realise it. So the merger of interests is a

great tool to use and it has a lot of different opportunities. Every neighbourhood can use it in a

different way, this is up to the designer who brings all the interests together. The possibilities are

endless, as long as everybody can make their interests clear. Two cases will be elaborated to

illustrate how the merger of interest can be used for urban agriculture.

What is urban agriculture and what interests can be served by urban agriculture? Urban farming is something that is often associated with sustainability. The farms give more “green” in the cities and are therefore considered as sustainable measure in a city. But is urban farming all about sustainability and to what extent is it sustainable.

De Graaf (2011, p. 3)mentions that urban agriculture (UA) creates biodiversity; a nice micro-climate for human and animal, and with local cycles that reduces logistics, water nuisance is reduced and materials are being reused.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) states that urban agriculture contributes to a safe and clean environment. Urban and peri-urban horticulture can turn waste into a productive resource (FAO, 2010, p. 10). Bio-compost can be made from different waste


flows. This reduces the logistics needed for waste collection. Urban agriculture also contributes to the quality of the ground water and reduces air pollution. Another point the FAO mentions is the heath reduction in warm cities. When rooftop gardens are used, the temperature on hot days in the surrounding of the buildings with rooftop gardens is lower than in other parts of the cities (FAO, 2010, p. 11).

De Graaf and the FAO both agree that UA contributes to reduce pollution of water and air, creates local cycles that reduces the logistics. So they agree on the aspects of pollution and logistics. The difference in the broader and smaller view on sustainable benefits can result from the focus of the different reports. Where De Graaf focusses on Rotterdam, the FAO focusses on UA worldwide. It is possible that some of the benefits that the FAO mentions are not relevant for Rotterdam.

The above mentioned interests that UA serves are mainly sustainable but UA has also benefits on various other fields like economics and health care.

Veen et al. describe urban agriculture and how policy makers can use urban agriculture to achieve their goals. They give the following definition of urban agriculture: “Urban agriculture is the production, processing and marketing of food and related products and services in urban and peri-urban areas, making use of urban resources and waste” (Veen, Breman, & Jansma, 2012, p. 4)

This definition is rather broad. Every form of UA fits in this definition, from community gardens to commercial farms. Because of this broad definition they refer to another source to make distinctions between different archetypes of urban agriculture. These archetypes are described by Jansma et al (2011, p. 9) and are: the food farm – producing food; the energy company – making green energy with agriculture; the recycling company – recycling waste like compost and gray water; The recreation business - recreation with an agricultural décor; the education business – education on how food is produced and distributed; the community business – collaboration of volunteers to create cohesion; the care business – helps people with different needs for care; the green manager – management of the green urban space; the distribution company – brings local products to local customers; green roofs – using grass, moss or vegetables on roofs for isolation, water management and food production; estates – big area with a manor and agricultural activities; producing neigbourhoods – the integration of living and food production.

According to Veen et al (2012, p. 4), the added value of urban agriculture is the direct link that it makes or restores between various green services and the town or the city’s inhabitant. These new compounds can contribute to the sustainability of the urban living environment, both economically, physically and socially.

What Veen et al imply is that UA serves interests of green services and town or city’s inhabitants. And the combination of serving not only the interests of green services, but also of inhabitants of cities, is considered the added value of UA.

In the examples that Veen et al give, they show opportunities and threats on twelve different fields of policy making. This implies that urban agriculture can serve the interests in twelve different fields (table 1). Some of them could be of interest in our research and could overlap with the interests the neighbourhoods in our research question. Figure 1 shows urban agriculture in relation to the three P’s of sustainability (people, planet, profit) and the three main policies.


Figure 2: Urban agriculture in relation to the three P's of sustainability (Veen et al., 2012, p. 4)

The economic city Entrepreneurship / making money

The healthy city Well-being / Quality of life

Our city Identity / Cohesion

Employment habitat (green / biodiversity) Care and well-being

Added value (direct earnings)

Environment (incl. cycles) Participation and cohesion

Indirect benefits (example: health)

Climate (incl. energy) Recreation and leisure

Desirable living climate Food and heath (incl. physical exercise)

Education

Table 1: The twelve policy fields where urban agriculture can be used to serve its interests (Veen et al., 2012, p. 7)

That urban agriculture is a broad field and in need for further categorizing is also shown by Sarah Rich. In her book she does not give a clear definition but she groups the farms she describes in five groups: edible education, edible entrepreneurship, growing public health, the art of growing food and little homestead in the city (Rich, 2012, p. 7).

This division shows some similarities with the archetypes of Jansma, but are broader and not clearly defined. But the fact that all the authors previously mentioned make a division in urban agriculture shows that there are groups of farms with similar characteristics and similar interest that can differ between groups or archetypes.

The FAO also mentions that UA can be used to serve urban policy maker’s interests. They made a division in policy areas that urban agriculture can contribute to: LED (production, employment and income generation, enterprise development), health (food security and nutrition, food safety); urban environmental management (urban greening, climate and biodiversity; waste recycling; reducing ecological footprint of the city), and social development (poverty alleviation, social inclusion of disadvantaged groups, HIV-AIDS mitigation, recreation and education) (FAO, 2007, p. XI).

This division shows similarities with the division of Veen et al. The three pillars of their division were the economic city, the healthy city and our city. These are comparable with LED, health and social development of the FAO. These fields serve interests other than the main idea of sustainability that one has of urban farms. The care/health part and the economic part can clearly states the interests of residents of a neighbourhood like the need of employment and the need for healthcare.


Conclusion What are interests that can be served by urban agriculture? Urban agriculture is a collection of different types of agriculture. Each type has its own purposes and serves other interests. A table is made to show which type of UA goes along with what interests (table 2).

>interests Functions UA em

plo

ymen

t

Ad

ded

val

ue

hea

lth

care

We

ll b

ein

g

edu

cati

on

coh

esio

n

Bio

div

ersi

ty

Foo

d

clim

ate

hab

itat

leis

ure

food x x

energy x

recycling x x

education x

community x x x

care x x x

management x x x x

distribution x x

recreation x Table 2: Functions of urban agricultures and the interests they can serve.

In the table are only the interests selected that match most with the main activity of the UA function. This does not mean that functions can only serve the interests that are selected; they can serve other functions as well. Also, functions can be combined in a farm. This leads to multiple interests that are combined in a farm.

What are general interests of a neighbourhood? There is not one specific interest that all the neighbourhoods have in common. Every neighbourhood

will have their own needs to improve the area. Some neighbourhoods have great ratings are

perceived as good neighbourhoods and other neighbourhoods have lower ratings. By researching

how these ratings are made and what elements do make a great neighbourhood, it might be possible

to define a general ‘interest‘for neighbourhoods.

The book ‘Krachtwijken met karakter’ is a research project commissioned by the Dutch

ministry about 40 priority neighbourhoods and their qualities. This research is part of the plan to

stimulate these priority neighbourhoods. These qualities can tell more about what makes a good

neighbourhood. The qualities are divided into 8 different categories(Lörzing, Harbers, & Schluchter,

2008). Location – Is the area located close to the city centre, is there a good connection with public

transport or close to nature? Functional mix – Mixing of function, housing and work, will help achieve

a higher liveliness and social control within the area. Structure – The structure of roads, water or

green can give the area more attractiveness. Urban Clusters – Repeating elements can have a

positive effect on the perception of space. Public Space – Public space will affect how the area is

perceived and can give an area more quality. Iconic buildings – Iconic buildings can give more

identification with the area. Monuments – Monuments will remember people to the past and will

affect the perception like and iconic building(Lörzing et al., 2008, pp. 30-31). The book elaborates on

these categories and how they can be implemented in the transformation of an urban area to an

improved neighbourhood. Although this research is aimed at priority neighbourhoods it gives more

solutions about solving problems that can occur in any neighbourhood.


A different method of grading is used by Deijkers & van Leeuwen for their research of best

community of the year for Elsevier. Although this test is for a larger area, some parts of their

indicators can be used to measure neighbourhoods as well. Elsevier also uses 8 different themes and

each theme has more subjects. All the different elements were rated from - - to + +. Based on this

research we can learn what criteria’s can be used and are used to create a great neighbourhood.

Location – Historic elements, attractive neighbourhood, nature, tranquillity and space. Basic facilities

– for children, youth and shops. Additional facilities – Culture, entertainment, recreation and sport.

Disturbance and Safety – little disturbance, low crime rate, traffic safety. Social Climate –

Composition of population, social cohesion. Economy – business and work. Accesability – public

transport, accessibility by car. Municipal service and prices (Deijkers & van Leeuwen, 2012). Some

themes are not applicable for neighbourhoods. But other themes will give a good view on what has a

high value within the urban area. There are differences between Krachtwijken met karakter and the

Elsevier, but this is because they had different points of view and different subjects. For this research

the method of Deijkers & van Leeuwen is the most suitable because it covers the subjects of urban

agriculture the best.

In this research it can be beneficial to have the satisfaction statistics of the Dutch population

about their living environment. Overall is the population more satisfied about their neighbourhood if

we compare 2009 and 2012. Only 5% of the total population is not satisfied with their area,

compared to 6% in 2009. Facilities like youth meeting points, playgrounds for kids, public transport,

parking, shops and green are rated more positive. These are good examples of what the population

claims to be needed for a great neighbourhood. Liveability is an important indicator too. But there is

a great difference between different neighbourhoods. Priority neighbourhoods have a lower

liveability, although it is rising compared to 2009. So there is more importance to improve the

priority neighbourhoods(Blije, Groenemeijer, Gopal, & van Hulle, 2012, pp. 65-66).

For more specific information about a certain area or region we can use the Leefbaarometer

of the ministry of Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties. The Leefbaarometer is an online

platform that has information about liveability for the current situation, the developments and the

background of the neighbourhood. This gives the possibility to what certain problems are within an

area and how it can be improved. The Leefbaarometer has information of different years, this gives

the opportunity to see if the locations are affected by urban agriculture. The liveability is measured

with the use of different themes. Housing stock, Public Space, Facilitations, Demographics, Social

Cohesion, Safety and not themed (RIGO Research en Advies, 2012).

Conclusion As stated before, every neighbourhood will have its own interests because every neighbourhood is

different. But in general we will make use of the eight themes of Deijkers & van Leeuwen because

their themes have a better coverage on urban agriculture compared to the themes of Kracht wijken.

Location, Basic facilities, Additional Facilities, Disturbance and Safety, Social climate, Economy,

Accessibility and Municipal service and prices are the themes that will be used. These eight themes

are used by Deijkers & van Leeuwen to rate a neighbourhood and therefore will give an idea how

good a neighbourhood actually is. So by improving on these themes it is possible to create a better

neighbourhood. By matching these themes in a table with the interests that urban agriculture can

serve it can be shown how the merger of interests can work. Therefore we will make use of the

tables 3 and 4 for the two cases. This way the cases can illustrate how the merger of interests can

work for urban agriculture.


>interests served case em

plo

ymen

t

Ad

ded

val

ue

hea

lth

care

We

ll b

ein

g

edu

cati

on

coh

esio

n

Bio

div

ersi

ty

Foo

d

clim

ate

hab

itat

leis

ure

case Table 3: The UA interests the case serves

>interests served case Lo

cati

on

Bas

ic f

acili

ties

Ad

dit

ion

al

faci

litie

s

Dis

turb

ance

an

d s

afe

ty

Soci

al c

limat

e

eco

no

my

acce

ssib

ility

Mu

nic

ipal

se

rvic

e an

d

pri

ces

case Table 4: The neighbourhood interests the case serves

>interests UA Interests Neighourhoods em

plo

ymen

t

Ad

ded

val

ue

hea

lth

care

We

ll b

ein

g

edu

cati

on

coh

esio

n

Bio

div

ersi

ty

Foo

d

clim

ate

hab

itat

leis

ure

Location x x x

Basic facilities x x

Additional facilities

x x x x

Disturbance and safety

x

Social climate x x

Economy x x

accessibility

Municipal service and prices

Table 5: Merger of interests between UA and Neighbourhoods

Certain interests of UA can be merged with some of the general interests of neighbourhoods. An

overview is given in table 5. The merger will be briefly described. The general interests of

neighbourhoods will be typed in italics.

Location can be merged with biodiversity climate and habitat. These interests contribute to

the attractive neighbourhood and nature characteristic of the interest location. Basic facilities can be

merged with education, because education is a basic need for children, and food because shops are

basic facilities. Health, care and leisure facilities are considered additional facilities and can be

merged with the interest additional facilities. Social cohesion served by UA will improve safety and

can therefore be merged with Disturbance and safety. Social climate is about population composition

and social cohesion and can be merged with well being and cohesion. Employment and added value

are about business and jobs and can be merged with Economy.


Cases The following cases will be researched to support our main research question, how can urban

agriculture use the merger of interest to improve the neighbourhood? The first case will be the

Dakakker on the Schieblock in Rotterdam. The second case will be De Moestuin in Utrecht. In both

cases urban agriculture is implemented within an urban area. But there where different drivers to

place urban agriculture. Both cases will be described and explained how the merger of interest of the

farm affects the neighbourhood.

Case 1: Dakakker on the Schieblock in Rotterdam Description of the case

The Dakakker in on top of the Schieblok in Rotterdam is the first rooftop field in the Randstad. It is

part of a bigger project called: Luchtsingel started in April 2012. The Luchtsingel is a project to

promote the Hofplein in Rotterdam. The Hofplein in Rotterdam had an image as a neglected and

abandoned area, so the Luchtsingel was initiated to repair this image and create a new and lively

area (Luchtsingel). The Luchtsingel consists out of four elements; a bridge that connects the city

centre with the north and it acts as an economic catalyst, the roof of the Hofbogen became a public

roof, Pompenburg became a Park for recreation and urban farming and the Dakakkers on the roof of

the Schieblock (Luchtsingel).

The Dakakkers started as an experiment to see the possibilities of a farm field on a roof. It

has multiple functions, there is a vegetable garden. The harvest of this garden is delivered to local

restaurants and sold during festivals. To make sure that all the plants get pollinated there are bees

kept at the roof. These bees do not only pollinate the green on the roof but also the local green, this

improves the local area in a green way and serves this ‘local’ interest. All the plants are being taken

care of by volunteers under the supervision of specialist Wouter Bauman. They are also taken care of

by different activities for the local community that take place on the roof and by educational

seminars for primary schools and professionals. These activities serve the interests in basic and

additional facilities in an educational way. These kind of activities also promote the social climate.

On the roof is a pavilion with a kitchen that can be rented for meetings, workshops and diners

(Luchtsingel). All these different activities are there to serve the interests of the local community

(table 6).

>interests Functions UA em

plo

ymen

t

Ad

ded

val

ue

hea

lth

care

Wel

l bei

ng

edu

cati

on

coh

esio

n

Bio

div

ersi

ty

Foo

d

clim

ate

hab

itat

leis

ure

Dakakkers X x X X X X x Table 6: The UA interests Dakakkers serves

From the perspective of the interests of the neighbourhood the following functions can be identified

(table 7).


>interests UA

Loca

tio

n

Bas

ic f

acili

ties

Ad

dit

ion

al

faci

litie

s

Dis

turb

ance

an

d s

afe

ty

Soci

al c

limat

e

eco

no

my

acce

ssib

ility

Mu

nic

ipal

se

rvic

e an

d

pri

ces

Dakakkers x x x x x Table 7: The neighbourhood interests Dakakkers serves

By adding new green and bees to help the local green it serves the interests for the location. With the activities, educational seminars and the volunteers the basic and additional facilities are being served. These activities also serve the interests in the social climate. It became a place where people can meet. All the products that are produced stimulate the local economy and het Schieblock became more interesting because of its roof, and therefore an economy boost.

Conclusion

Although the Dakakkers are initially used as an experiment for roof gardens within a bigger project to

improve the neighbourhood. It shows that it can serve the interests of the local community and

therefore improve the local area. The project Luchtsingel has the opportunity to improve on all the

interests of the neighbourhood because the project consists of different elements. These other

elements could serve different interests. All these elements together could serve all the interests

Case 2: De Moestuin in Utrecht In 2002 the foundation Moestuin Projecten founded a kitchen garden at the Maarschalkerweerd on the edge of the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands. It is called De Moestuin. Nowadays De moestuin contains a kitchen garden, a shop, a luch café, an apiary and a woodshop ("Over De Moestuin," n.d.).

The foundation set three goals. First to facilitate education and employment to people with a big distance to the labour market. Second to grow biological crops and maintain old races. Third to organize educational activities (De Moestuin Maarschalkerweerd, n.d.).

To achieve this goals, they work together with a care company that delivers the professionals to guide the people in need at the garden. All the labour at the garden, shop, café and woodshop is done by volunteers with no perspective on the labour market.

The garden funds itself through sponsoring and the revenues of the garden, shop and café. In the shop they do not only sell products they made themselves, but also other biological products from outside the garden. In that way they have a full assortment of products whole year long. This makes the shop more feasible and makes it produces better revenues.

Because of the shop and the café, the foundation is not only a care provider but also a commercial player. They try to sell goods to people who are willing to pay for local biological products. There are also some arrangements with local hospitality. A few restaurants can in consultation with De Moestuin determine what products they will grow in the garden and the quantities. This means an insured income if the vegetables will grow well.

De Moestuin serves different kinds of groups, The people in need of care, the local hospitality and the customers of the shop and café. These groups ask different things from De Moestuin but these things are found in this one place.

From the urban agriculture side, De Moestuin has the following functions: food, education, care and distribution. The interests that go along with these functions in the case of De Moestuin are: employment, added value, care, education, cohesion, food and leisure (table 8).


>interests served UA

emp

loym

ent

Ad

ded

val

ue

hea

lth

care

We

ll b

ein

g

edu

cati

on

coh

esio

n

Bio

div

ersi

ty

Foo

d

clim

ate

hab

itat

leis

ure

De Moestuin x x x x x x x Table 8: The UA interests De Moestuin serves

>interests served UA

Loca

tio

n

Bas

ic f

acili

ties

Ad

dit

ion

al

faci

litie

s

Dis

turb

ance

an

d s

afe

ty

Soci

al c

limat

e

eco

no

my

acce

ssib

ility

Mu

nic

ipal

se

rvic

e

pri

ces

De Moestuin x x x x x Table 9: The neighbourhood interests De Moestuin serves

From the neighbourhoods perspective De Moestuin serves: Location – nature, space; basic facilities – shop; additional facilities – café, possibilities for voluntary work; social climate – social cohesion; economy – the business of selling food, employment (table 9).

Conclusion

De Moestuin is a good example of the merger of interests in urban agriculture. Although the first goal of the foundation fits in the function ‘care’ of urban agriculture, they combined several functions in De Moestuin. Through the combination of functions it also servers more interests than the interests of the care function of urban farming. Through the facilities they offer and the natural characteristics of the garden, De Moestuin also serves multiple interests of a good neighbourhood.

Cross-case analysis Both of the cases use urban agriculture as their main theme. In both cases urban agriculture is supported by other activities like education and catering facilities. But the way how they serve these other activities differ. The catering service of the Dakakkers is not every day in use, only when it is rented. The Moestuin makes more use of their café and shop. This is the big difference between the two cases, along with their location. The two cases have the same served interests, but the Moestuin is serving the interests more extensive by making more use of these other activities in comparison with how much the Dakakkers make use of these activities. For example: the catering service of the Moestuin has more business hours and is open to everybody, but the catering service of the Dakakkers is only open to people who rent it for the moment that they rent it.

This differentiation is visible in the whole projects. The two cases are very similar but on a different scale. The Dakakkers is smaller and therefore has less capabilities in extra activities to serve interests of the neighbourhood. The Moestuin is bigger and this gives the Moestuin more capability to serve the interests of the neighbourhood. The comparison of these cases shows us the opportunities of the size of urban agriculture. With a smaller farm it is harder to serve more interests, and not only the interests of urban agriculture.

Conclusion To answer the research question: How can urban agriculture use the merger of interest to improve

the neighbourhood? It is possible in many different ways, there are a lot interests for either urban

agriculture as for neighbourhoods. It is possible as long as there is a good analysis of what the


neighbourhood really needs. In the two cases that are presented we see that it is possible even while

serving the interests of the local community was not the first goal, but it has been used to make sure

the urban agriculture would work.

Although we see with the two cases that only urban agriculture is not enough. Urban

agriculture needs more than just one field with crops. A goal is needed for the crops, for example

local restaurants or the food bank. Other functions that did support urban agriculture in these cases

are: catering, shops, workshops, education and a place for people to meet and work together. But to

make the best use of these other activities, a big project is needed. Only a small project for urban

agriculture will not be enough to make full use of these activities and their capabilities in the serving

of interests the neighbourhood.

In order to make urban agriculture improve the neighbourhood it is in need of more facilities

and extra functions, but these functions should not interfere with each other.

To answer our main question: How can the interests served by urban agriculture be merged

with the general interests of the neighbourhood in order to improve the neighbourhood? Based on

our literature study and case study, this is possible in many different ways. We learned from the

Dakakkers and the Moestuinen that urban agriculture needs extra facilities that can serve more

interests of the neighbourhoods. The size of urban agriculture is an important factor in the possibility

to serve more interests of the neighbourhood. With these facilities urban agriculture can reach a

higher level of quality and actually improve the neighbourhood. But what facilities are needed is

different for each neighbourhood. We learned that the merger of interests is possible for urban

agriculture and the neighbourhoods they are implemented. This research is just the beginning of the

study on how urban agriculture can improve neighbourhoods; it only shows that the interests served

by urban agriculture can be merged with the general interests of the neighbourhood. More research

is needed in order to gain more insight in the facilities that are needed to be combined in urban

agriculture so that urban agriculture can improve the neighbourhood.


References Blije, B., Groenemeijer, L., Gopal, K., & van Hulle, R. (2012). Wonen in ongewone tijden -De

resultaten van het Woononderzoek Nederland 2012. Den Haag: Het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties.

de Graaf, P. (2011). Ruimte voor stadslandbouw in Rotterdam. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.pauldegraaf.eu/portfolio/recente%20projecten/rvsl.html

De Moestuin Maarschalkerweerd. (n.d.). Jaarverslag 2013. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://www.moestuinutrecht.nl/stichting

Deijkers, R., & van Leeuwen, A. (2012). Leeswijzer bij ranglijst gemeenten en buurten. Elsevier(30-06-2012), 80-81.

FAO. (2007). Profitability and sustainability of urban and peri-urban agriculture. Rome: FAO. FAO. (2010). Growing greener cities. Rome: FAO. Florida, R. (2010). The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash

Prosperity. United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers

Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We

Can Do About It. New York: Rodale. interest - definition. (n.d.). Retrieved December 18, 2014, from

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/interest#interest_39 Jansma, J. E., Veen, E., Dekking, A., Vijn, M., Sukkel, W., Schoutsen, M., . . . Wieringa, H. (2011).

Staalkaarten stadslandbouw+ : ontwikkelstrategieën om te komen tot stadslandbouw in Almere. Lelystad: Praktijkonderzoek Plant & Omgeving, Business Unit Akkerbouw, Groene Ruimte en Vollegrondsgroenten.

Lörzing, H., Harbers, A., & Schluchter, S. (2008). Krachtwijken met karakter. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.

Luchtsingel, S. d. Luchtsingel - Dakakker. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://www.luchtsingel.org/locaties/dakakker/

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook (second ed.). London: Sage.

Over De Moestuin. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://www.moestuinutrecht.nl/meer-over-de-moestuin

Philips, A. (2013). Designing Urban Agriculture - A Complete Guide to the Planning, Design, Construction, Mantenance, and Management of Edible Landscapes. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Priemus, H. (2004). How to make housing sustainable? The Dutch experience{. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 5-19

Rich, S. C. (2012). Urban farms. New York: Abrams. RIGO Research en Advies. (2012). ONDERSCHEID IN LEEFBAARHEID: Ontwikkeling van de leefbaarheid

2010-2012 Atlas voor Gemeente. Den Haag. van der Werf, E., van Hal, A., & Koot, N. (2013). Increasing the enthusiasm amongst residents for

energy efficiency in housing. unpublished. Van Hal, A. (2014). The Merger of Interests 2.0 - The story behind a perspective shift. Breukelen:

Nyenrode Business Universiteit. Veen, E., Breman, B., & Jansma, J. E. (2012). Stadslandbouw : een verkenning van groen en boer zijn

in en om de stad. Wageningen: Wageningen UR.

http://www.pauldegraaf.eu/portfolio/recente%20projecten/rvsl.html

http://www.moestuinutrecht.nl/stichting

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/interest#interest_39

http://www.luchtsingel.org/locaties/dakakker/

http://www.moestuinutrecht.nl/meer-over-de-moestuin

http://www.moestuinutrecht.nl/meer-over-de-moestuin

Non-Environmental Urban Agriculture

Documents

Transcript of Non-Environmental Urban Agriculture