What is Urban Farming?Attend a food conference today and in all likelihood there will be a tract on urban farming. There will be participants and speakers referring to themselves as urban farmers. Google “urban agriculture” and you will find thousand of sites. Urban farming is clearly in the minds eye of many individuals, community groups, food justice advocates, environmentalists, city planners and gardeners. That’s great, but what does it all mean, what is urban agriculture and why all the interest now? After all, growing food in cities is not a new concept.As with most things, ask two different people and you will get two different answers. So we’ll speak for ourselves and for what we’ve learned as urban farmers.Simply put urban agriculture is growing or producing food in a city or heavily populated town or municipality. Urban farming is often confused with community gardening, homesteading or subsistence farming. We’re happy to be thought of in such fine company but the fact is that they are very different animals. What distinguishes us is that urban agriculture assumes a level of commerce, the growing of product to be sold as opposed to being grown for personal consumption or sharing. In community gardening, there is no such commercial activity.You don’t have to be a corporation to be an urban farm or have a large tract of land. An individual, a couple of friends, a nonprofit entity, or neighborhood group can start and run an urban farm. There is no one correct sales outlet for an urban farm. Food can be the sold to restaurants or at a farmers market, given to a local soup kitchen or church, but the food is raised primarily to be moved (through some form of commerce) from the grower to the user.As more of us begin to understand our food system, more of us seek to have more input into how food is grown, how it is treated after being harvested and how it moves from one place along the food route to another. People have begun to understand how far food travels, and that they, as the consumer, have had no say in what is grown or how it is grown. Urban agriculture can change that and in doing so it can take a rightful place is the larger food system.Urban agriculture has become a means to increase access to locally grown food and a way of reintroducing the public to the many aspects of food that we have lost as a culture. How food grows, what grows regionally and seasonally are all important lessons and make a better informed urban consumer. Urban farms can be the front line of the food system.For some the term urban implies inner city, like where Greensgrow is. For others, urban has come to mean areas that are on the perimeter of cities (what some refer to as peri-urban). There is no single characterization of size or placement; some are on rooftops, on landfills, brownfields, or areas where

housing or industry may have been demolished. Some cities are giving up part of their park systems to allow urban farmers to plant their seeds. Every urban farm is different just as every rural farm is different.Zoning plays a big role in urban agriculture. It can dictate what kind of growing may be allowed, whether animals, retail sales, and even education can be part of the operation. Many cities have multiple restrictions on raising animals with the result that most urban farms don’t keep animals for production purposes. Farming, big or small, is almost always a regulated activity. The production and selling of a food is potentially rife with safety and liability issues, as well as commerce, zoning and cultural issues. Producing food for people to eat is a big responsibility and not to be entered into without a great deal of thought and planning.Some urban farms are built exclusively for education, training or re-entry programs. Many are built to improve food access in a specific community or to continue traditional culinary cultures. Some are built as for profit concerns, recognizing that the savings on food transportation can make urban farming financially viable as well as more environmentally responsible. For others food justice is the reason to develop urban farms in their communities, which means improving the access to fresh food for economically disadvantaged communities

- See more at: http://www.greensgrow.org/urban-farm/what-is-urban-farming/#sthash.IzXX9hPH.dpuf

Urban Farming

Urban farming is the process of growing and distributing food, as well as raising animals, in and around a city or in urban area. According to the RUAF Foundation, urban farming is different from rural agriculture because "it is integrated into the urban economic and ecological system: urban agriculture is embedded in -and interacting with- the urban ecosystem. Such linkages include the use of urban residents as labourers, use of typical urban resources (like organic waste as compost and urban wastewater for irrigation), direct links with urban consumers, direct impacts on urban ecology (positive and negative), being part of the urban food system, competing for land with other urban functions, being influenced by urban policies and plans, etc".[8] There are many motivations behind urban agriculture, but in the context of creating a sustainable city, this method of food cultivation saves energy in food transportation and saves costs. In order for urban farming to be a successful method of sustainable food growth, cities must allot a common area for community gardens or farms, as well as a common area for a farmers market in which the foodstuffs grown within

the city can be sold to the residents of the urban system.(Read more on the Urban Agriculture page)

Urban agriculture is the practice of cultivating, processing, and distributing food in or around a village, town, or city.[1] Urban agriculture can also involve animal husbandry, aquaculture, agroforestry, Urban beekeeping, and horticulture. These activities occur in peri-urban areas as well.[2]

Urban agriculture can reflect varying levels of economic and social development. In the global north it often takes the form of a social movement for sustainable communities, where organic growers, ‘foodies,’ and ‘locavores’ form social networks founded on a shared ethos of nature and community holism. These networks can evolve when receiving formal institutional support, becoming integrated into local town planning as a ‘transition town’ movement for sustainable urban development. In the developing south, food security, nutrition, and income generation are key motivations for the practice. In either case, more direct access to fresh vegetables, fruits, and meat products through urban agriculture can improve food security and food safety.

History

Huerto (vegetable garden or orchard) Romita, organization dedicated to urban agriculture located in the La Romita section of Colonia Roma, Mexico City.

Community wastes were used in ancient Egypt to feed urban farming.[3] In Machu Picchu water was conserved and reused as part of the stepped architecture of the city, and vegetable beds were designed to gather sun in order to prolong the growing season.[3] Allotment gardens came up in Germany in the early 19th century as a response to poverty and food insecurity.[4] Victory gardens sprouted during WWI and WWII and were fruit, vegetable, and herb gardens in US, Canada, and UK. This effort was undertaken by citizens to reduce pressure on food production that was to support the war effort. Community gardening in most communities are open to the public and provide space for citizens to cultivate plants for food or recreation. A community gardening program that is well-established is

Seattle's P-Patch. The grass roots permaculture movement has been hugely influential in the renaissance of urban agriculture throughout the world.

The idea of supplemental food production beyond rural farming operations and distant imports is not new and has been used during war times and the Great Depression when food shortage issues arose. As early as 1893, citizens of a depression-struck Detroit were asked to use any vacant lots to grow vegetables. They were nicknamed Pingree's Potato Patches after the mayor, Hazen S. Pingree, who came up with the idea. He intended for these gardens to produce income, food supply, and even boost self independence during times of hardship.[citation needed]

During the first World War president Woodrow Wilson called upon all American citizens to utilize any available open space for food growth, seeing this as a way to pull them out of a potentially damaging situation. Because most of Europe was consumed with war, they were unable to produce sufficient food supplies to be shipped to the U.S., and a new plan was implemented with the intent to feed the U.S. and even supply a surplus to other countries in need. By the year 1919 over 5 million plots were growing food and over 500 million pounds of produce was harvested. A very similar practice came into use during the Great Depression that provided a purpose, a job, and food to those who would otherwise be without anything during such harsh times. In this case these efforts helped to raise spirits socially as well as to boost economic growth. Over 2.8 million dollars worth of food was produced from the subsistence gardens during the Depression. By the time of the Second World War the War/Food Administration set up a National Victory Garden Program that set out to systematically establish functioning agriculture within cities. With this new plan in action, as many as 5.5 million Americans took part in the victory garden movement and over 9 million pounds of fruit and vegetables were grown a year, accounting for 44% of U.S.-grown produce throughout that time.[citation needed]

In 2010, New York City saw the building and opening of the world's largest privately owned and operated rooftop farm, followed by an even larger location in 2012.[5] Both were a result of municipal programs such as The Green Roof Tax Abatement Program.[6] and Green Infrastructure Grant Program[7]

With its past success in mind and with modern technology, urban agriculture today can be something to help both developed and developing nations.

A tidy front yard flower and vegetable garden in Aretxabaleta, the Basque Country

Perspectives

A vegetable garden in the square in front of the train station in Ezhou, China

Resource and economic

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), has defined urban agriculture as:[8]

[A]n industry that produces, processes and markets food and fuel, largely in response to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on land and water dispersed throughout the urban and peri-urban area, applying intensive production methods, using and reusing natural resources and urban wastes to yield a diversity of crops and livestock.

Environmental

The Council on Agriculture, Science and Technology (CAST) defines urban agriculture to include aspects of environmental health, remediation, and recreation:[9]

Urban agriculture is a complex system encompassing a spectrum of interests, from a traditional core of activities associated with the production, processing, marketing, distribution, and consumption, to a multiplicity of other benefits and services that are less widely acknowledged and

documented. These include recreation and leisure; economic vitality and business entrepreneurship, individual health and well-being; community health and well being; landscape beautification; and environmental restoration and remediation.

Modern planning and design initiatives are often more responsive to this model of urban agriculture because it fits within the current scope of sustainable design. The definition allows for a multitude of interpretations across cultures and time. Frequently it is tied to policy decisions to build sustainable cities.[10]

Food security

Access to nutritious food, both economically and geographically, is another perspective in the effort to locate food and livestock production in cities. With the tremendous influx of world population to urban areas, the need for fresh and safe food is increased. The Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) defines food security as:

All persons in a community having access to culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate food through local, non-emergency sources at all times.

Areas faced with food security issues have limited choices, often relying on highly processed fast food or convenience store foods that are high in calories and low in nutrients, which may lead to elevated rates of diet-related illnesses such as diabetes. These problems have brought about the concept of food justice which Alkon and Norgaard (2009; 289) explain is, "places access to healthy, affordable, culturally appropriate food in the contexts of institutional racism, racial formation, and racialized geographies…. Food justice serves as a theoretical and political bridge between scholarship and activism on sustainable agriculture, food insecurity, and environmental justice." [11]

Impact

Economic

Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) expands the economic base of the city through production, processing, packaging, and marketing of consumable products. This results in an increase in entrepreneurial activities and the creation of jobs, as well as reducing food costs and improving quality.[12] UPA provides employment, income, and access to food for urban populations, which helps to relieve chronic and emergency food insecurity. Chronic food insecurity refers to less affordable food and growing urban poverty, while emergency food insecurity relates to breakdowns in the chain of food distribution. UPA plays an important role in making food more affordable and in providing emergency supplies of food.[13] Research into market values for produce grown in urban gardens has attributed to a

community garden plot a median yield value of between approximately $200 and $500 (US, adjusted for inflation).[14]

Social

There are many social benefits that have emerged from urban agricultural practices, such as improved overall social and emotional well-being, improved health and nutrition, increased income, employment, food security within the household, and community social life. Urban agriculture can have a large impact on the social and emotional well-being of individuals. Individuals report to have decreased levels of stress and better overall mental health when they have opportunities to interact with nature through a garden. Urban gardens are thought to be relaxing and calming, and offer a space of retreat in densely populated urban areas [15]

UA can have an overall positive impact on community health, which directly impacts individuals social and emotional well-being. There have been many documented cases in which community gardens lead to improved social relationships, increased community pride, and overall community improvement and mobilization (2). This improvement in overall community health can also be connected to decreased levels of crime and suicide rates [15]

Urban gardens are often places that facilitate positive social interaction, which also contributes to overall social and emotional well-being. Many gardens facilitate the improvement of social networks within the communities that they are located. For many neighborhoods, gardens provide a “symbolic focus,” which leads to increased neighborhood pride[16]

When individuals come together around UA, physical activity levels are often increased. Everything that is involved in starting and maintaining a garden, from turning the soil to digging holes, contributes to an individual’s physical activity. Many state that working in agriculture is much more interesting and fulfilling than going to the gym, and that it makes getting exercise “fun.” In addition to the exercise that individuals receive while actually working in gardens, many people say that the majority of the exercise they receive through urban agriculture is actually getting to the gardens—many people either walk or ride their bike to the sites, which provides many physical benefits [17]

UPA can be seen as a means of improving the livelihood of people living in and around cities. Taking part in such practices is seen mostly as informal activity, but in many cities where inadequate, unreliable, and irregular access to food is a recurring problem, urban agriculture has been a positive

response to tackling food concerns. Due to the food security that comes with UA, a feelings of independence and empowerment often arise. The ability to produce and grow food for oneself has also been reported to improve levels of self-esteem of self-efficacy.[15] Households and small communities take advantage of vacant land and contribute not only to their household food needs but also the needs of their resident city.[18] The CFSC states that:

Community and residential gardening, as well as small-scale farming, save household food dollars. They promote nutrition and free cash for non-garden foods and other items.

This allows families to generate larger incomes selling to local grocers or to local outdoor markets, while supplying their household with proper nutrition of fresh and nutritional produce.

Some community urban farms can be quite efficient and help women find work, who in some cases are marginalized from finding employment in the formal economy.[19] Studies have shown that participation from women have a higher production rate, therefore producing the adequate amount for household consumption while supplying more for market sale.[20]

As most UA activities are conducted on vacant municipal land, there have been rising concerns about the allocation of land and property rights. The IDRC and the FAO have published the Guidelines for Municipal Policymaking on Urban Agriculture, and are working with municipal governments to create successful policy measures that can be incorporated in urban planning.[21]

Energy efficiency

The current industrial agriculture system is accountable for high energy costs for the transportation of foodstuffs. According to a study by Rich Pirog, the associate director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, the average conventional produce item travels 1,500 miles (2,400 km),[22] using, if shipped by tractor-trailer, 1 US gallon (3.8 l; 0.83 imp gal) of fossil fuel per 100 pounds (45 kg).[23] The energy used to transport food is decreased when urban agriculture can provide cities with locally grown food. Pirog found that traditional, non-local, food distribution system used 4 to 17 times more fuel and emitted 5 to 17 times more CO2 than the local and regional transport.[24]

Similarly, in a study by Marc Xuereb and Region of Waterloo Public Health, they estimated that switching to locally grown food could save transport-related emissions equivalent to nearly 50,000 metric tons of CO2, or the equivalent of taking 16,191 cars off the road.[25]

A windowfarm, incorporating discarded plastic bottles into pots for hydroponic agriculture in urban windows

Carbon footprint

As mentioned above, the energy-efficient nature of urban agriculture can reduce each city’s carbon footprint by reducing the amount of transport that occurs to deliver goods to the consumer .[26]

Also these areas can act as carbon sinks [27] offsetting some of carbon accumulation that is innate to urban areas, where pavement and buildings outnumber plants. Plants absorb atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and release breathable Oxygen (O2). The process of Carbon Sequestration can be further improved by combining other agriculture techniques to increase removal from the atmosphere and prevent release of CO2 during harvest time. However, this process relies heavily on the types of plants selected and the methodology of farming.[25] Specifically, choosing plants that do not lose their leaves and remain green all year can increase the farms ability to sequester carbon.[25]

Reduction in ozone and particulate matter

The reduction in ozone and other particulate matter can benefit human health.[28] Reducing these particulates and ozone gases could reduce mortality rates in urban areas along with increase the health of those living in cities. Just to give once example, in the article “Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement,” the author argues that a rooftop containing 2000 m² of uncut grass has the potential to remove up to 4000 kg of particulate matter. According to the article, only one square meter of green roof is needed to offset the annual particulate matter emissions of a car.

Soil decontamination

Vacant urban lots are often victim to illegal dumping of hazardous chemicals and other wastes. They are also liable to accumulate standing water and “grey water”, which can be dangerous to public health, especially left

stagnant for long periods. The implementation of urban agriculture in these vacant lots can be a cost-effective method for removing these chemicals. In the process known as Phytoremediation, plants and the associated microorganisms are selected for their chemical ability to degrade, absorb, convert to an inert form, and remove toxins from the soil.[29]Several chemicals can be targeted for removal including heavy metals (e.g. Mercury and lead) inorganic compounds (e.g. Arsenic and Uranium), and organic compounds (e.g. petroleum and chlorinated compounds like PBC’s).[30]

Phytoremeditation is both an environmentally friendly, cost-effective, and energy-efficient measure to reduce pollution. Phytoremediation only costs about $5–$40 per ton of soil being decontaminated.[31][32] Implementation of this process also reduces the amount of soil that must be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill.[33]

Urban agriculture as a method to mediate chemical pollution can be effective in preventing the spread of these chemicals into the surrounding environment. Other methods of remediation often disturb the soil and force the chemicals contained within it into the air or water. Plants can be used as a method to remove chemicals and also to hold the soil and prevent erosion of contaminated soil decreasing the spread of pollutants and the hazard presented by these lots.[33][34]

Noise pollution

Large amounts of noise pollution not only lead to lower property values and high frustration, they can be damaging to your hearing and health.[35] In the study “Noise exposure and public health,” they argue that exposure to continual noise is a public health problem. They cite examples of the detriment of continual noise on humans to include: “hearing impairment, hypertension and ischemic heart disease, annoyance, sleep disturbance, and decreased school performance.” Since most roofs or vacant lots consist of hard flat surfaces that reflect sound waves instead of absorb them, adding plants that can absorb these waves has the potential to lead to a vast reduction in noise pollution.[35]

Nutrition and quality of food

Daily intake of a variety of fruits and vegetables is linked to a decreased risk of chronic diseases including diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Urban agriculture is associated with increased consumption of fruits and vegetables [36] which decreases risk for disease and can be a cost-effective way to provide citizens with quality, fresh produce in urban settings.[37]

People are more likely to try new vegetables when they take an active role in the planting and cultivation of an urban garden.[36] Produce from urban gardens can be perceived to be more flavorful and desirable than store bought produce [38] which may also lead to a wider acceptance and higher intake. A Flint, Michigan study found that those participating in community gardens consumed fruits and vegetables 1.4 more times per day and were

3.5 times more likely to consume fruits or vegetables at least 5 times daily (p. 1).[36]Garden based education can also yield nutritional benefits in children. An Idaho study reported a positive association between school gardens and increased intake of fruit, vegetables, vitamin A, vitamin C and fiber among sixth graders.[39]

Urban gardening improves dietary knowledge.[37] Inner city youth of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota who were part of a community garden intervention were better able to communicate specific nutritional benefits of fruits and vegetables on the body than those who had not participated in a community garden.[40] Community gardeners were also found to consume fewer sweet foods and drinks in a Philadelphia study.[36]

The nutrient content of produce from an urban garden may be higher due to decrease in time between production and consumption. A 30-50% nutrient loss can happen in the 5–10 days it takes to travel from farm to table.[37] Harvesting fruits and vegetables initiates the enzymatic process of nutrient degradation which is especially detrimental to water soluble vitamins such as ascorbic acid and thiamin.[41] The process of blanching produce in order to freeze or can reduces nutrient content slightly but not nearly as much as the amount of time spent in storage.[41] Harvesting produce from one’s own community garden cuts back on storage times significantly.

Urban agriculture also provides quality nutrition for low income households. Studies show that every $1 invested in a community garden yields $6 worth of vegetables, if labor is not considered a factor in investment.[37] Many urban gardens reduce the strain on food banks and other emergency food providers by donating shares of their harvest and provide fresh produce in areas that otherwise might be food deserts. The supplemental nutrition program Women, Infants and Children (WIC) as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have partnered with several urban gardens nationwide to improve the accessibility to produce in exchange for a few hours of volunteer gardening work.[42]

Economy of scale

Using high-density urban farming, as for instance with vertical farms or stacked greenhouses, many environmental benefits can be achieved on a city-wide scale that would be impossible otherwise. These systems do not only provide food, but also produce potable water from waste water, and can recycle organic waste back to energy and nutrients.[43]At the same time, they can reduce food-related transportation to a minimum while providing fresh food for large communities in almost any climate.

Health inequalities and food justice

A 2009 report by the USDA determined that "Evidence is both abundant and robust enough for us to conclude that Americans living in low-income and minority areas tend to have poor access to healthy food", and that the

"structural inequalities" in these neighborhoods "contribute to inequalities in diet and diet-related outcomes".[44] These diet related outcomes, including obesity and diabetes, have become epidemic in low-income urban environments in the United States.[45] Although the definition and methods for determining "food deserts" have varied, studies indicate that, at least in the United States, there are racial disparities in the food environment.[46] Thus using the definition of environment as the place where people live, work, play and pray, food disparities become an issue of environmental justice.[47] This is especially true in American inner-cities where a history of racist practices have contributed to the development of food deserts in the low-income, minority areas of the urban core.[48] The issue of inequality is so integral to the issues of food access and health that the Growing Food & Justice for All Initiative was founded with the mission of “dismantling racism” as an integral part of creating food security.[49] Not only can urban agriculture provide healthy, fresh food options, but also can contribute to a sense of community, aesthetic improvement, crime reduction, minority empowerment and autonomy, and even preserve culture through the use of farming methods and heirloom seeds preserved from areas of origin.[50][51]

Environmental justice

Urban agriculture may advance environmental justice and food justice for communities living in food deserts. First, urban agriculture may reduce racial and class disparities in access to healthy food. When urban agriculture leads to locally grown, fresh produce sold at affordable prices in food deserts, access to healthy food is not only a luxury for those who live in wealthy areas, thereby leading to greater equity in rich and poor neighborhoods.[52]

Improved access to food through urban agriculture can also help alleviate psychosocial stresses in poor communities. Community members engaged in urban agriculture improve local knowledge about healthy ways to fulfill dietary needs. Urban agriculture can also better the mental health of community members. Buying and selling quality products between local producers and consumers allows community members to support one another, which may reduce stress. Thus, urban agriculture can help improve conditions in poor communities, where residents undergo higher levels of stress due to hopeless caused by a lack of control over the quality of their lives.[53]

Urban agriculture may improve the livability and built environment in communities that lack supermarkets and other infrastructure due to the presence of high unemployment caused by deindustrialization. Urban farmers who follow sustainable agriculture methods can not only help to build local food system infrastructure, but can also contribute to improving local air, and water and soil quality.[54] When agricultural products are produced locally within the community, they do not need to be transported, which reduces CO2 emission rates and other pollutants that contribute to high rates of asthma in lower socioeconomic areas. Sustainable urban

agriculture can also promote worker protection and consumer rights.[54] For example, communities in New York, Illinois, and Richmond, Virginia have demonstrated improvements to their local environments through urban agricultural practices.[55]

However, urban agriculture can also present urban growers with health risks if the soil used for urban farming is contaminated. Although local produce is often believed to be clean and healthy, many urban farmers ranging from New York urban farmer Frank Meushke [56] to Presidential First Lady Michelle Obama [57] have found their produce contained high levels of lead, due to soil contamination, which is harmful to human health when consumed. The soil contaminated with high lead levels often originates from old house paint containing lead, vehicle exhaust, or atmospheric deposition. Without proper education on the risks of urban farming and safe practices, urban consumers of urban agricultural produce may face additional health related issues[52]

Benefits

The benefits that UPA brings along to cities that implement this practice are numerous. The transformation of cities from only consumers of food to generators of agricultural products contributes to sustainability, improved health, and poverty alleviation.

UPA assists to close the open loop system in urban areas characterized by the importation of food from rural zones and the exportation of waste to regions outside the city or town.

Wastewater and organic solid waste can be transformed into resources for growing agriculture products: the former can be used for irrigation, the latter as fertilizer.

Vacant urban areas can be used for agriculture production. Other natural resources can be conserved. The use of wastewater for

irrigation improves water management and increases the availability of freshwater for drinking and household consumption.

UPA can help to preserve bioregional ecologies from being transformed into cropland.

Urban agriculture saves energy (e.g. energy consumed in transporting food from rural to urban areas).

Local production of food also allows savings in transportation costs, storage, and in product loss, what results in food cost reduction.

UPA improves the quality of the urban environment through greening and thus, a reduction in pollution.

Urban agriculture also makes of the city a healthier place to live by improving the quality of the environment.

UPA is a very efficient tool to fight against hunger and malnutrition since it facilitates the access to food by an impoverished sector of the urban population.

Poverty alleviation: It is known that a large part of the people involved in urban agriculture is the urban poor. In developing countries, the majority of urban agricultural production is for self-consumption, with surpluses being sold in the market. According to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), urban poor consumers spend between 60 and 80 percent of their income on food, making them very vulnerable to higher food prices.

UPA provides food and creates savings in household expenditure on consumables, thus increasing the amount of income allocated to other uses.

UPA surpluses can be sold in local markets, generating more income for the urban poor.[12]

Community centers and gardens educate the community to see agriculture as an integral part of urban life. The Florida House Institute for Sustainable Development in Sarasota, Florida, serves as a public community and education center in which innovators with sustainable, energy-saving ideas can implement and test them. Community centers like Florida House provide urban areas with a central location to learn about urban agriculture and to begin to integrate agriculture with the urban lifestyle.[citation needed]

Urban farms also are a proven effective educational tool to teach kids about healthy eating and meaningful physical activity.[88] An example of educational urban agriculture is Full Circle Farm, an 11-acre (45,000 m2) farm on a middle school campus in Silicon Valley.

Trade-offs

Space is at a premium in cities and is accordingly expensive and difficult to secure.

The utilization of untreated waste water for urban agricultural irrigation can facilitate the spread of waterborne diseases among the human population.[89]

Although studies have demonstrated improved air quality in urban areas related to the proliferation of urban gardens, it has also been shown that increasing urban pollution (related specifically to a sharp rise in the number of automobiles on the road), has led to an increase in insect pests, which consume plants produced by urban agriculture. It is believed that changes to the physical structure of the plants themselves, which have been correlated to increased levels of air pollution, increase plants' palatability to insect pests. Reduced yields within urban gardens decreases the amount of food available for human consumption.[90]

Studies indicate that the nutritional quality of wheat suffers when urban wheat plants are exposed to high nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide concentrations. This problem is particularly acute in the developing world, where outdoor concentrations of sulfur dioxide are high and large

percentages of the population rely upon urban agriculture as a primary source of food. These studies have implications for the nutritional quality of other staple crops that are grown in urban settings.[90]

Agricultural activities on land that is contaminated (with such metals as lead) pose potential risks to human health. These risks are associated both with working directly on contaminated land and with consuming food that was grown in contaminated soil.[91]

Municipal greening policy goals can pose conflicts. For example, policies promoting urban tree canopy are not sympathetic to vegetable gardening because of the deep shade cast by trees. However, some municipalities like Portland, Oregon, and

Davenport, Iowa are encouraging the implementation of fruit bearing trees (as street trees or as park orchards) to meet both greening and food production goal.

URBAN

DEFINITIONS

• Open space can be defined as land and water in an urban area that is not covered by cars or buildings, or as any undeveloped land in an urban area (Gold, 1980).

• Tankel (1963) has suggested that open space is not only the land, or the water on the land in and around urban areas,

which is not covered by buildings, but is also the space and the light above the land.

• Cranz (1982) argued that open spaces are wide-open areas that can be fluid to the extent that the city can flow into the park and the park can flow into the city.

• Open space has also been described from a user’s point of view as being an arena that allows for different types of activities encompassing necessary, optional and social activities (Gehl, 1987).

Urban open spaces are:

• invaluable assets in maintaining ecological health in a highly developed urban matrix.

• But habitat values and ecological quality of these areas are often challenged by consecutive urbanization.

• Urban open spaces are vital part of urban landscape with its own specific set of function.

• Open spaces (natural or man made) contribute to the quality of life in many ways (Burke and Ewan, 1999).

• Besides important environmental benefits, these areas provide social psychological services, which are critical for the livability of the city and well being of urbanites (Chiesura, 2004).

(Thompson 2002) sees open spaces in cities as places to celebrate cultural diversity, to engage with natural processes and to conserve memories

• Open space is an essential part of the urban heritage, a strong element in the architectural and aesthetic form of a city:

1. plays an important educational role,

2. is ecologically significant,

3. is important for social interaction

4. fostering community development and

5. is supportive of economic objectives and activities.

In particular it helps reduce the inherent tension and conflict in deprived parts of urban areas . It has an important role in providing for the recreational and leisure needs of a community and has an economic value in that of environmental enhancement.

Driver and Rosenthal (1978) identified social benefits of green spaces, including trees and other features, as:

• Developing, applying and testing skills and abilities for a better sense of worth; Exercising to stay physically fit.

• Associating with close friends and other users to develop a sense of social place.

• Gaining social recognition to enhance self-esteem

• Enhancing a feeling of family kinship or solidarity;

• Teaching and leading others, especially to help direct the growth, learning and development of community

• Reflecting on personal and social values

• Feeling free, independent and more in control than is possible in a more structured home and work environment

• Growing spiritually;

• Applying and developing creative abilities;

• Learning more about nature, especially natural processes, man’s dependence

• upon them and how to live in greater harmony with nature;

• Exploring and being stimulated, especially as a means of coping with boring,

• undemanding jobs and to satisfy curiosity and the need for exploration;

• Replenishing adaptive energies and abilities by temporarily escaping adverse social and physical conditions experienced in home, neighborhood and work environments.

Social

Perhaps the most obvious benefits and opportunities that urban open spaces provide for city living are social benefits—that is opportunities for people to do things, take part in events and activities.

Active & Passive recreation

Open space for recreation and amenity accounts for 14 per cent of the land take of the urban environment in Britain (Morgan, 199 1991). Such open space is used for a range of recreational and amenity purposes which we will consider under the groupings of passive and active recreation. Active recreation is usually taken to mean activities such as football, cricket, hockey and other games, whereas passive recreation is taken to mean activities such as watching—wildlife—looking at views, reading, resting or meeting friends.

Active & Passive recreation

An alternative form of active recreation, which often makes use of open spaces, has developed in recent years and is worthy of mention. ‘Urban outdoor activities’ can provide opportunities for young and old to develop

feelings of well-being, self-confidence, relaxation

Open Spaces As Educational Resources

The increasing use of open spaces as an opportunity for education can be seen

from many examples. When the project ‘Learning through Landscapes’ was introduced one of its aims was to extend environmental education to use schools, grounds (Adams, 1989) rather than just relying on nature walks around the park, which many of us experienced as children. Research undertaken in twelve primary schools with 216 pupils identified that the children found the tarmac and concrete to be boring and that children wanted to have trees, grass and opportunities to develop imaginative play (Titman, 1994). A variety of projects affording educational benefits and opportunities have been recorded in research undertaken for the Department of Environment (Department of the Environment, 1996).and independence (Sainsbury, 1987).

Health

Health is not the mere absence of illness, but means physical, social and mental wellbeing.(The World Health Organization)

Contribution to physical & mental health-opportunities for exercise & natural views

Open spaces can and should, play an important part in providing opportunities for the activities suggested by the above evidence. Children of both pre-school and school ages can benefit from a range of open spaces, such as playgrounds, parks, school playgrounds and playing fields that are designed and maintained in a suitable manner In addition it would be beneficial to link the use of open spaces in with sports Programmes.

Aesthetic appreciation

Aesthetic appreciation relates to the beauty, or ugliness, of the open space

Environmental

• Urban open space is a key component to sustainable living in cities because they provide environmental benefits. In siting early settlements across the world mankind knew and understood the character of land, land cover and water surfaces. However, built environments have had an impact on local climates, with such intervention becoming greater with increased urbanization (Morcos-Asaad, 1978).

• Urban open space provides a range of tangible environmental benefits, such as mitigating urban heat island (UHI) as well as air and water

pollution (Yu and Hien 2006, Cavanagh et al. 2009), and improving biodiversity (Tzoulas and James 2004).

.Measuring the economic benefits of open space

• From an economic perspective, the valuation of urban open space is difficult to calculate because it is a classic public good, where there is no market price. Its lack of value in monetary terms prevents urban open space from being properly evaluated in cost-benefit analyses.

Neil Dunse and colleagues reviewed economic condition with reference to four key categories:

Proximity to open space-Being in close proximity to open spaces does have positive impact on property values, but this is largely dependent on the type of open space and distance from the space.

Condition- The parks were grouped into four categories: small and attractive, small and basic, Medium and attractive, medium and basic. It was found that small, attractive parks have a positive and statistically significant influence on neighboring property values and medium sized, attractive parks exhibited a positive, but not statistically significant, effect. Basic parks, on the other hand, were found to have a negative and statistically significant impact on neighboring property values.

Development potential-Neil Dunse suggests that any amenity values associated with an open space are likely to vary, depending on its development potential - permanently protected open space may be valued more highly than open space that could be developed in the future. This does seem to be the case.

Economic status of the area.

Employment opportunities- Green spaces in urban areas can provide opportunities for community involvement that can in turn help to develop a sense of self-esteem and enable individuals and communities to develop skills new to themselves.

Tourism- Some urban open spaces not only provide opportunities for local people and their daily life but can also be used as regional or national attractions for tourists.

Open space typologies

There are various typologies given by researchers, organizations & authorities to differentiate various types of open spaces .Like lynch (1981) developed a typology for open space that identified Regional parks, squares, plazas, linear parks, adventure playgrounds, wastelands, playgrounds and playing fields. This typology perhaps focuses more on spaces that are dominated by hard landscape, rather than later typologies that have included or focused on green open spaces.

• Domestic urban open spaces

Domestic urban open spaces are those open spaces in the urban context that are physically closest to home. These include spaces that are integral within a housing area, private gardens, community gardens and allotments. The first two are those most closely linked with the home because they are the physical setting within which the home is placed. Community gardens may be associated with a small group of family houses, a small block of flats for professional people or perhaps a group of bungalows for the elderly. Community gardens are thus shared physically but the use of them may not be a shared experience—it may be that one might be the only user at a particular time.

• Neighborhood urban open spaces

Neighborhood urban open spaces are those that are part of the neighborhood in two ways. First of all they are physically further from home, except on rare occasions. than domestic urban open spaces. This means that to use neighborhood urban open spaces one has to make a very specific decision to do so. This may be different from some domestic urban open spaces which one can almost treat as an extension of the home. E.g. Parks, Playgrounds, Playing fields and sports grounds, School playgrounds, Streets, City farms, Incidental spaces and natural green space.

• Civic urban open spaces

The largest number of urban open spaces discussed fall into the category of civic urban open spaces.Commercial urban open spaces include squares & plazas.Ports & docks.

• Open Spaces

What it is?

• Land or open surface open to sky !

• Surface not covered by impermeable surface!

Characteristic

• Relatively free from development

• Vegetated to provide visual contrast to man made environment

• It is much more than a left over category of land.

• Open Spaces

What it is?...

Physically, Open space is described as -

• Land not intensively developed for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional uses.

• Public or privately held land.

• Agricultural lands and forests.

• Undeveloped shorelines and scenic lands

• Public parks and preserves.

• Water bodies, wetlands, streams, floodplains.

• Open Spaces

Open Spaces contains one or more of the followings-

• Rural landscape

• Ecological and environmentally sensitive areas

• Recreation areas

• Trails

• Ian McHarg,1967 identified 8 important types of open space

• Surface water

• Marshes

• Flood plains

• Aquifers

• Aquifers recharge areas

• Steep lands

• Prime agriculture land

• Urban forest and wood lands

• Types of Open spaces..

A. Utility Open Spaces

B. General open spaces

C. Corridor open space

D. Multi use open space

• Types of Open spaces..

A. Utility Open Spaces

i. Resource lands- for production and extraction, eg. Forests, grazing areas, lakes and rivers for water supply

ii. Urban utility space- Dam sites, reservoir, land fills, waste disposal area, treatment facilities

iii. Flood control and drainage- flood plain, flood banks, watershed, drainage ways etc.

iv. Reserves and preserves- forest, area for wildlife, lands for future expansion etc.

• Types of Open spaces

B. General open spaces

i. Wilderness areas- Scenic & ecological values etc.

ii. Protected areas- controlled for development, coastline and shore areas etc.

iii. Natural parks- National parks, forests, city parks etc.

iv. Urban parks- Zoos, botanical garden, urban forest, water bodies, amphitheatre etc.

v. Recreational areas- golf courses, play grounds, swimming pools, Picnic area etc.

vi. Urban develoment open spaces- Green belts, setbacks and open space around buildings etc.

• Types of Open spaces

C. Corridor open space- Right of way spaces of highway, streets etc.

D. Multi use open space- Campuses, private clubs with recreation facilities, cemeteries & garden areas etc.

• Function of open space

Adequate open space is vital for proper functioning of urban system.

Functions

– To give structure, shape and form to the city.

– To provide space needed for recreation, preserve scenic value, protect watershed, aquifers, natural habitats, flora and fauna and provide natural drainage

• Benefits of open space

A. Social benefits

– Interaction between man and nature, enjoyment, recreation etc.

B. Aesthetic benefits

– Preserve natural beauty, improve ugliness, buffering unpleasant view and disturbing spaces, visual relief from manmade city scapes.

C. Psychological

– Maintain emotional well being

• Benefits of open space

D. Economic

– Spatial improvement are linked to cities economic future through development.

E. Structuring development

– Buffer between conflicting land use

F. Ecological process

– Adequate amount of carefully located spaces are necessary for the improved management and use of our essential natural resources, air and water

• The Value of Open Space

• There is value to preserving most types of open space land uses, but the values tend to vary widely with the size of the area, the proximity of the open space to residences, the type of open space, and the method of analysis.

• Both publicly held and privately held lands can provide open space benefits, but because people who do not directly own the land still enjoy the benefits, open space is likely to be underprovided by the private sector.

• The Value of Open Space…

• Beyond the benefits to private land owners Open space provides a range of benefits to citizens of a community

• Parks and natural areas -recreation;

• wetlands and forests supply storm-water drainage and wildlife habitat;

• farms and forests provide aesthetic benefits to surrounding residents.

• And in rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, any preserved land can offer relief from congestion and other negative effects of development.

• The Value of Open Space…

• It also depends on the size and location of open spaces. (Small fragment open space or large open space in distant location.)

• use value- the benefit is related to seeing or using the open space. ( such as having a pleasant view, experiencing improved water quality, or having increased opportunity for viewing wildlife.)

• direct use of the open space –(without knowing that open space exists-also called passive use values)

• People may get utility, or satisfaction, from knowing that farms on the periphery of an urban area exist as they have for generations.

• How can we preserve open spaces

Situation

• Open spaces are competing with urban growth and are on the losing ends

• The first one sacrificing for development is open spaces

• Perception that open spaces like public parks do not produce economic benefits

• Open spaces shouldn’t be thought as residual spaces.

• How can we preserve open spaces

• Economic efficiency is also necessary, analysis is needed whether to invest on forest land, wet land or agriculture which is important? Target most valuable parcels so state and local governments, and conservation organizations, must figure out

– how much land to target for preservation, whether that land should be in private or public ownership

– where open space should be located, and what types of open space— farms, forests, wetlands, parks, etc. are the most desirable.

• Open space planning in philippines

• Functional open space- an important element of CLUP

– Functional open spaces are lands that are deliberately kept in their open character for their contribution towards maintaining the amenity value of the environment.

Local open space (LGUs are responsible to manage)

- Communal forests, river banks, prime agricultural lands, historical sites, environmentally critical and hazardous areas could form part of open space.

• Open space planning in philippines

• Protected areas are part of the open space system. NIPAS protected areas are:

– Strict nature reserve

– Natural park

– Natural environment

– Wildlife sanctuary

– Protected landscape or seasacape

– Resource reserve

– Natural biotic area

– Other categories established by national and international aggrements

Other protected areas are:

1. Non-NIPAS Categories

– Second growth forest (>1000m &>50% slope)

– Mangroves and fish sanctuaries

– Buffer strips along river banks in forest, agricultural land, urban area etc.

2. Environmentally constrained areas

– Areas prone to weather and water related hazards, vulnerable to earthquake-induced hazards, affected by volcanic hazards and areas subject to erosion

3. Protected agricultural areas

4. Others

– Water sheds for domestic water supply source, Historic sites, Utility easements, Visual corridors with high aesthetic values, Geothermal reserves

• Environment and Natural Resources- Sectors and Sub sectors for Ecological Profiling

a. Lands

i. Public lands

ii. Private lands

iii. Ancestral domain

b. Forest lands

i. Protection forest

ii. Production forest

c. Mineral lands

i. Metallic mineral lands

ii. Non- metallic mineral lands

d. Park , wild life and other reservations

e. Water resources

i. Fresh water

ii. Marine water

f. Air quality

g. Waste management areas

i. Solid

ii. Liquid

iii. Toxic and hazardous

• Open Space

Summary

• It is more than residual land.

• It is not physically intensively developed and can be public and private.

• Regardless of the ownership of the land almost every one can benefit from the open space

• Adequate open space is vital for the functioning of urban system

• Planning and regulatory framework of the Philippines have given emphasis on conserving and protecting various types of open spaces.

Urban open space

Forsyth Park is a large urban open space area in the downtown district ofSavannah, Georgia.

In land use planning, urban open space is open space areas for "parks", "green spaces", and other open areas. The landscape of urban open spaces can range from playing fields to highly maintained environments to relatively natural landscapes. They are commonly open to public access, however, urban open spaces may be privately owned. Areas outside of city boundaries, such as state and national parksas well as open space in the countryside, are not considered urban open space. Streets, piazzas, plazas and urban squares are not always defined as urban open space in land use planning.

Scope

The term "urban open space" can describe many types of open areas. One definition holds that, "As the counterpart of development, urban open space is a natural and cultural resource, synonymous with neither 'unused land' nor 'park and recreation areas." Another is "Open space is land and/or water area with its surface open to the sky, consciously acquired or publicly regulated to serve conservation and urban shaping function in addition to providing recreational opportunities."[1] In almost all instances, the space referred to by the term is, in fact, green space. However, there are examples of urban green space which, though not publicly owned/regulated, are still considered urban open space.

From another standpoint public space in general is defined as the meeting or gathering places that exist outside the home and workplace that are generally accessible by members of the public, and which foster resident interaction and opportunities for contact and proximity. [2] This definition implies a higher level of community interaction and places a focus on public involvement rather than public ownership or stewardship.

Ownership

Generally considered open to the public, urban open spaces are sometimes privately owned. Some examples of such places include higher education campuses, neighborhood/community parks/gardens, and institutional or corporate grounds. These areas still function to provide "aesthetic and psychological relief from urban development".[3] Nevertheless, most commonly the term is used to reference spaces that are public and "green".

Benefits

The benefits that urban open space provides to citizens can be broken into three basic forms; recreation, ecology, and aesthetic value.

Recreational

Urban open space is often appreciated for the recreational opportunities it provides. Recreation in urban open space may include active recreation (such as organized sports and individual exercise) or passive recreation, which may simply entail being in the open space. Time spent in an urban open space for recreation offers a reprieve from the urban environment.

Ecological

The conservation of nature in an urban environment has direct impact on people for another reason as well. A Toronto civic affairs bulletin entitled Urban Open Space: Luxury or Necessity makes the claim that "popular awareness of the balance of nature, of natural processes and of man’s place in and effect on nature – i.e., "ecological awareness" – is important. As humans live more and more in man-made surroundings – i.e., cities – he risks harming himself by building and acting in ignorance of natural processes." Beyond this man-nature benefit, urban open spaces also serve as islands of nature,

promoting biodiversity and providing a home for natural species in environments that are otherwise uninhabitable due to city development.

In a sense, by having the opportunity to be within a natural urban green space people gain a higher appreciation for the nature around them. As Bill McKibben mentions in his book The End of Nature, people will only truly understand nature if they are immersed within it. He follows in Henry David Thoreau's footsteps when he isolated himself in the Adirondack Mountains in order to get away from society and the overwhelming ideals it carries. Even there he writes how society and human impact follows him as he sees airplanes buzzing overhead or hears the roar of motorboats in the distance.

Aesthetic

The aesthetic value of urban open spaces is self-evident. People enjoy viewing nature, especially when it is otherwise extensively deprived, as is the case in urban environments. Therefore, open space offers the value of "substituting gray infrastructure."[4]

One researcher states how attractive neighborhoods contribute to positive attitudes and social norms that encourage walking, while having close access to recreational facilities such as parks increases the likelihood that people will translate walking intentions into actual action. [5]

Other values of urban open space

The value of urban open space can also be considered with regards to the specific functions it provides. For example, the Bureau of Municipal Research in Toronto lists these functions as the nature function, urban design function, economic function, social retreat function, and outdoor recreation function.[6] Another study categorizes the values open space offers from a sociological viewpoint, listing: civic and social capital, cultural expression, economic development, education, green infrastructure, public health, recreation, and urban form.[4] These studies reiterate the same core benefits of urban open spaces and none of the options create any inconsistencies with the others.

Additional beneficial aspects of urban open space can be factored into how valuable it is compared to other urban development. One study categorizes these measures of value into six groups: utility, function,

contemplative, aesthetic, recreational, and ecological.[7] These categories account for the value an urban open space holds to the development of the city in addition to just those things citizens consciously appreciate. For example, the "function value" of an open space accounts for the advantages an urban open space may provide in controlling runoff. The final three values listed, aesthetic, recreational, and ecological, are essentially the same as the values that make urban open spaces consciously valuable to citizens. Of course, there are several different ways to organize and refer to the merit of open space in urban planning.

A study conducted in Australia provided insight into how there is a correlation between community development/community safety and natural open space within the community. Open areas allow community members to engage in highly social activities and facilitate the expansion of social networks and friendship development. As people become more social they decrease the perceptions of fear and mistrust allowing a sense of community bondage. [8]

Public health

This chart shows the rate ratios of mortality for all causes. The ratios are with respect to the high income group’s incidence of mortality that is taken as 1.0 (base)

Significant research supports the notion that urban open spaces offer health benefits to city residents through exposure to a natural environment. It has been unambiguously shown that there is a strong association between the enjoyment of nature and the health of a city population in general. Studies have examined several aspects of this association and also specific impacts on distinct demographic groups. Most have been reviewed and listed in a comprehensive analysis by the Health Council of the Netherlands[9]

A large epidemiological study [10] in Britain looked at mortality and morbidity among three income levels in relation to their access to green open space. The study examined about 360,000 deaths in a population of about 41 million. While it confirmed that wealthier individuals were generally healthier than those with lower incomes, it made another remarkable discovery: That all groups irrespective of

income showed an improvement in health in proportion to their access to green space and that the differences in health status between income groups, who had equivalent access to progressively more green space, shrank favouring the lowest socio-economic group with the highest morbidity.In simple terms, everyone benefited but the lowest income group benefited the most. (see chart). These striking results based on an exceptionally large sample confirm unambiguously the health-related effects of green space and suggest its importance as an element in neighbourhood layouts. Not only would it reduce health disparities between incomes but it would also promote general health and well-being.

A second epidemiological study in the Netherlands[11] examined the health of 17,000 people in relationship to the presence of green space in their surroundings. It found that residents of neighbourhoods with abundant green space were, on average, healthier. This correlation was clearly evident in the general population but it was more pronounced among seniors, housewives and low-income people. Also significant was the correlation between health and the total amount of green space, which, in some cases, was located at a distance of 1–3 km from home.

A third study took place in Tokyo,[12] which is known for its very high building density. This was a longitudinal study that followed a group of 3,000, 70-year old citizens over five years. The presence of relatively plentiful green space in a neighbourhood correlated with a lower mortality risk. This correlation was stronger in a sub-sample of elderly people with few physical disabilities.

Other research looked at specific demographic groups such as age, occupation, socioeconomic status and unusual health conditions or symptoms. Though these studies vary in their degree of scientific rigour, they all point to the potential benefits of nearby nature. For example: • Convincing evidence suggests that nature has a positive effect on recovery from stress and attention fatigue. For example, people in highly stressful occupations such as caregivers or hospital nurses can shed much of their stress by being or walking in natural settings. This détente, evidently, can occur even when the exposure to nature is brief. • Similarly, evidence shows that nature has a positive impact on mood, concentration, mental fatigue, self-discipline and physiological stress. • Likewise, results that show faster recovery rates

for hospital patients, who have a view of nature through their window, can be attributed to stress reduction, in the absence of other explanatory mechanisms. • Parents of children suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder, report improvement and fewer attention problems when the area of play is in natural settings • Green spaces may enhance the potential of creating and sustaining community interaction and networks

A study in Finland found that mental restoration, feelings of vitality and mood are negatively impacted when an individual is located in an urban environment. However, the presence of urban parks (public green spaces) allowed for some beneficial restoration and aided both vitality and creativity. The results of this study pointed to the conclusion that spending time in urban green areas after work has stress-reducing effects and that public parks in urban communities should be easily accessible. [13]

Last Child in the Woods speaks of the positive effects nature in general has on children, even when experienced in small islands of green within a city.[14] Urban open spaces offer citizens relief from the strains of urban environments and everyday demands. That respite can come in the form of a walk or run, time spent sitting or reading, watching the birds, essentially any time spent in the natural environment the open space offers. Research shows that when open spaces are attractive and accessible, people are more likely to engage in physical activity,[15] which has obvious inherent health benefits. Accessibility has been shown to increase open space use, which drops dramatically for distances longer than a five-minute walk (about 400 m). Neighbourhood layouts such as the Oglethorpe Plan for Savannah, GA or the contemporary Fused Grid achieve high degree of accessibility.

Public recreation parks are multi-use, but recent advances in best practices has prompted many cities to move away from old-fashioned and biologically impoverished "urban savannah" designs, to mosaic environments, which allow full recreational use but maintain higher levels of biodiversity and hence deliver greater benefits to human well-being.[16]A recent study in Sheffield, UK, found that the psychological benefits gained by visitors to urban green spaces increased with their biodiversity,[17] indicating that 'green' alone is not

sufficient; the quality of that green is important in delivering the health benefits.

Biodiversity and ecosystems of urban open space[edit]

The environment of an urban open space significantly influences how that space is perceived and used. Some green spaces maintain a natural environment with a native and self-sustaining ecosystem. Depending on factors such as the location of the city and the location of the space within the city, this natural open space may be a grassy field, woodland, or something aquatic such as a stream, swamp, pond or lake. Other areas may be more heavily influenced by its purpose and use. Examples of open space that would match this description are playing fields, gardens, or imposed ecosystems. In these instances, the mechanics and engineering of a space (ex. grey water reuse/altered water drainage) may need to be altered in order to accommodate a space. One example is Teardrop Park designed by Landscape Architecture firm Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates. The small space in which the park is located made the reuse or water runoff necessary in order to cut costs and conform to green building standards.

Species of flora and fauna commonly found in urban open space may include species that have adapted to city life as well as species not typical in the conventional urban environment because of significantly different ecosystems that comprise urban open spaces. Species most often able to co-exist with man in an urban setting are usually those that "are able to reproduce rapidly and to take advantage of transitory conditions or to evolve varieties suited to the urban situation".[18] Therefore, larger urban open spaces, especially those with various types of environments, are more likely to support a diverse ecosystem. Depending on the type of open space, species may be either exotic and native producing a corresponding ecosystem. Often, large urban open spaces that rely on a natural local ecosystem experience greater success in terms of maintaining a balanced biodiversity, so long as the areas are "established and managed primarily to benefit natural wildlife populations in order that they may function as regional reservoirs."[19]

History

London

London has a long history of urban open space, which has significantly influenced development of modern parks, and is still among the greenest capital cities in the world.[20]

The basis for many urban open spaces seen today across Europe and the West began its process of development in London in the 17th and 18th centuries. What would eventually become urban open green space began as paved public plazas. Though they were intended to be open to the public, these spaces began to be re-designated as private parks around the late eighteenth century. It was during this period that the areas became pockets of green in the urban environment, commonly modelled after the natural wild of the countryside.[21]

The first parks to reverse the trend of privatization and again be opened to the public were England’s royal parks in the nineteenth century. This was done in response to the extensive and unexpected population movement from the country into cities. As a result, "the need for open space was socially and politically pressing… The problems, to which the provision of parks was expected to offer some relief, were easy to describe: overcrowding, poverty, squalor, ill-health, lack of morals and morale, and so on".[22] Such sentiments again received significant popular support during the "City Beautiful" movement in America during the 1890s and 1900s. Both trends focused on providing the public an opportunity to receive all of the perceived health and lifestyle benefits of having access to open space within urban environments.

Current trends

Segmentation of urban open spaces was particularly prominent in America during the twentieth century. Since the late 1800s romantic park systems, open space designers have been concerned with guiding, containing or separating urban growth, distributing recreation, and/or producing scenic amenity, mostly within the framework of geometric abstractions."[23] Such segmentation was especially prominent in the 1990s, when urban open spaces took a path similar to that of parks, following the modernization trend of segmentation and specialization of areas.[24] As modernity stressed "increased efficiency, quantifiablity, predictability, and control… In concert with the additional social divisions" (Young 1995), open spaces grew more specific in purpose. Perhaps this increase in division of social classes’

use of open space, demonstrated by the segmentation of the spaces, displays a situation similar to the privatization of London parks in the eighteenth century, which displayed a desire to make classes more distinct.

Today, places like Scandinavia, which do not have a significant history of outdoor recreation and gathering places,[citation needed] are seeing a proliferation of urban open spaces and adopting a lifestyle supported by the extra urban breathing room. An example of this can be seen in Copenhagen where an area closed to car traffic in 1962 developed, in just a few decades, a culture of public political gatherings and outdoor cafes emerged.[25] Not only is appreciation for and use of urban open spaces flourishing in locations that historically lacked such traditions, the number of urban open spaces is increasing rapidly as well.

Controversy

Value

Properties near urban open space tend to have a higher value. One study was able to demonstrate that, “a pleasant view can lead to a considerable increase in house price, particularly if the house overlooks water (8–10%) or open space (6–12%).”[26] When it comes to proximity to the park edge, while there is a premium attached to apartments in close vicinity to the park, a negative premium is attached to this attribute for single-family houses, which may be due to the potential negative externalities that may surround parks, particularly in the evenings.[27]

Access

Urban open space is under strong pressure. Due to increasing urbanization, combined with a spatial planning policy of densification, more people face the prospect of living in less green residential environments, especially people from low economic strata. This may lead to environmental inequality with regard to the distribution of (access) to public green space.[28]

One study, which compared public open spaces between high socioeconomic neighborhoods and low socioeconomic neighborhoods, found that urban open space in the highest socioeconomic neighborhoods had more amenities (e.g. picnic tables, drink fountains

and toilets) than open spaces in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods.[29] Urban open spaces in higher socioeconomic neighborhoods were more likely to have trees that provided shade, a water feature (e.g. pond, lake and creek), walking and cycling paths, lighting, signage regarding dog access and signage restricting other activities as well.

Green ParkGreen Park is a park in the City of Westminster, central London. One of the Royal Parks of London, it covers 19 hectares (47 acres)[1] between Hyde Park and St. James's Park. Together with Kensington Gardens and the gardens of Buckingham Palace, these parks form an almost unbroken stretch of open land reaching from Whitehall and Victoria station to Kensington and Notting Hill.

By contrast with its neighbours, Green Park has no lakes, no buildings and few monuments, having only the Canada Memorial byPierre Granche, the Constance Fund Fountain and the RAF Bomber Command Memorial, opened in 2012.

The park consists almost entirely of mature trees rising out of turf; the only flowers are naturalized narcissus. The park is bounded on the south by Constitution Hill, on the east by the pedestrian Queen's Walk, and on the north by Piccadilly. It meets St. James's Park at Queen's Gardens with the Victoria Memorial at its centre, opposite the entrance to Buckingham Palace. To the south is the ceremonial avenue of the Mall, and the buildings of St James's Palace and Clarence House overlook the park to the east. Green Park tube station is a major interchange located on Piccadilly, Victoria and Jubilee lines near the north end of Queen's Walk.

HistoryThe park is said to have originally been a swampy burial ground for lepers from the nearby hospital at St James's. It was first enclosed in the 16th century when it formed part of the estate of the Poulteney family. In 1668 an area of the Poulteney estate known as Sandpit Field was surrendered to Charles II, who made the bulk of the land into a Royal Park, as "Upper St James's Park" and enclosed it with a brick wall.[2] He laid out the park's main walks and built an icehouse there to supply him with ice for cooling drinks in summer.

The Queen's Walk was laid out for George II's queen Caroline; it led to the reservoir that held drinking water for St James's Palace, called the Queen's Basin.

At the time, the park was on the outskirts of London and remained an isolated area well into the 18th century, when it was known as a haunt of highwaymen and thieves; Horace Walpole was one of many to be robbed there.[3] It was a popular place for ballooning attempts and public firework displays during the 18th and 19th centuries. Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks was composed specifically for a fireworks celebration held in Green Park in 1749.[4] The park was also known as a duelling ground; one particularly notorious duel took place there in 1730 between William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath and John Hervey, 1st Earl of Bristol.[5]

John Nash landscaped the park in 1820, as an adjunct to St. James's Park.

It was next to the park that was also the site for Edward Oxford's assassination attempt on Queen Victoria on 10 June 1840.

There are Government offices and corridors, linking the nearby Royal palaces, beneath the east side of Green Park, which continue to run to the south. These are clearly visible on the edges of Green Park and St. James's Park, with the glass roofs just below ground level. The rooms are thought to be conversions of some of the tunnels built as part of theCabinet War Rooms from the Second World War.

Beneath Green Park still runs Tyburn stream.[6]

Gallery

Green Park and Constitution Hill

 

Green Park, London

 

Canada Gate, located on the south side of the park

 

Pierre Granche's Canada Memorial in Green Park, London,

near Buckingham Palace

  

Buckingham Palace seen from Green Park

“Urban Farming, Green Parks and Urban Open

Spaces”

Research Work No: 6Due Date: August 27, 2014

111005638

DE

SIG

N 0

7

Student ID

Arch. Ma.Teresa C. Velasco

Instructor

References:

https://www.google.com.ph/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Gk_8U5ysMcyEoAP87oKoDA&gws_rd=ssl#q=green+park+definition

http://urpl.wisc.edu/ecoplan/content/lit_urbanag.pdf

http://www.greensgrow.org/urban-farm/what-is-urban-farming/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_open_space

http://www.slideshare.net/PrakashAryal1/open-spaces-29485007?related=1