| dc.description.abstract | Urban regions have a large impact on global environment in terms of energy, material and water and this impact will only increase in the future as population growth in urban regions continues. One of the causes of this is the urban food system: cities are dependent on an unsustainable global food system, characterized by low resilience and high resource dependency; urban demand for food has impacts throughout the entire year and stretching across the globe. Up-scaling the development of urban agriculture could be one strategy to create more sustainable urban food systems in the future, and increase the sustainability of the city as a whole. The ‘reconnection’ of food production to the city via the development of urban agriculture can be a way to increase the awareness of consumers on the origins and impact of the food they eat on a daily basis, and provide a wide range of environmental, economic and social benefits to urban areas. For this reason the development of urban agriculture is increasingly supported by city governments in North-America and Europe.
Scientific research on the development and governance of urban agriculture often does not, or very crudely, distinguish between different types and forms of urban agriculture that are present within cities. Furthermore the research usually deals with these issues at the scale of the city as a whole, rather than taking into account the extent to which the barriers and opportunities for urban agriculture differ at different locations within a single city. Recommendations flowing from this research, such as the installment of Food Policy Councils or the conduction of land inventories are useful, but research and policies aimed at specific types of urban agriculture or the development of urban agriculture at specific locations within a city can possibly generate even more benefits for the city as a whole, and be an effective way of aligning the goals of city governments and urban farmers. Therefore, the goal of this thesis is to find out how the use of specific governance instruments as well as locational characteristics influences the development of different types of urban agriculture.
A qualitative case study design has been chosen to explore the interrelationships between the development of urban agriculture, locational characteristics and the governance instruments available to different actors engaged in the governance and development of urban agriculture.
To ensure that most types of urban agriculture that have been (or are being) developed in the Netherlands at the moment, are included in the research, eleven cases within the Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht have been selected for the research. Three general frameworks have been developed to guide the empirical research: A typology of urban agriculture projects, as well as two general frameworks containing relevant locational characteristics and governance instruments.
The research shows that governance instruments are mainly used in a reactive and facilitative manner, and seem to have only a limited influence on the project characteristics of urban agriculture projects. Furthermore, empirics show that there is a causal relation in the other direction: urban agriculture project characteristics ‘trigger’ the use and availability of governance instruments. Locational characteristics play a stronger more determining role in the development of different types of urban agriculture. For all of the cases included in the research the characteristics of the location at which they were developed have influenced the characteristics of the project; urban farmers and project leaders adapt the characteristics of their project in order to make optimal use of the (niche-) spaces at which their projects are developed. However, the research also shows that project leaders and urban farmers can in turn influence those locational characteristics which are a barrier or disadvantage for the development of their projects. Contrary to what could be expected on the basis of the literature that has been reviewed, there is also an interrelationship between locational characteristics and the use and availability of governance instruments by different actors.
The research has shown that the characteristics determining locational suitability differ strongly for different types of urban agriculture. Furthermore, the adaptive capacity of urban farmers means that locational characteristics must not be treated as a static determinant in either policies or research related to the development of urban agriculture. Locational characteristics are dynamic, even though the costs, energy and impacts associated with adapting certain locational characteristics need to be taken into account when determining where to develop urban agriculture. Land inventories working with one rigid set of locational criteria, rather than a diversified set for different types of urban agriculture do not take into account the ability of urban farmers to make productive use of many different types of urban niches, and will almost certainly underestimate the potential for the development of urban agriculture within a city.
The fact that the use and availability of governance instruments is largely reactive rather than pro-active should also be taken into account by researchers and policy makers. The exact role of policy goals in the decision making of actors engaged in the governance of urban agriculture, and that of project goals in the decisions made by urban farmers and project leaders can be researched in more detail. Yet, even without this kind of research, the results presented in this thesis indicate that city-governments and other actors involved in the governance of urban agriculture could potentially influence the locational selection process and the type of urban agriculture that is developed by others. This could be achieved by the creation of even clearer and more specific policy goals, or possibly policy targets, ideally in cooperation with both civil society actors and urban farmers. In this way the use of governance instruments would remain reactive and facilitative in nature, but this reactive use would be more coordinated and effective.
City governments and civil society actors do not need to plan or conduct the development of urban agriculture themselves, but could ensure that the projects that are developed by others contribute to the realization of their own policy goals as much as possible, by supporting the development of specific types of urban agriculture at specific locations. Furthermore, if the ‘triggers’ for the use of governance instruments and the policy goals which are causing these triggers are established in consultation with civil society actors and urban farmers, the capacities of both of these types of actors can also be used as effectively as possible. Civil society actors can create preconditions for the use of their own governance instruments which complement those of city governments. And if the policy goals of city governments and civil society actors are communicated clearly to project leaders and urban farmers, these actors can in turn use their capacity to adapt the characteristics of their projects in such a way that they make optimal use of the governance support which becomes available when the characteristics of the location at which a project is developed or the characteristics of the urban agriculture project itself correspond with the policy goals of both city governments and civil society actors. This type of pro-active facilitation could be a more effective use of governance instruments in which the bottom-up nature of the development of urban agriculture is maintained and the resources and capacities of all three actors in the research can be used as efficiently as possible. | |
