15 Multifunctional Urban Landscapes: The Potential Role of Urban Agriculture …
293
globalised food markets and a consumerist lifestyle. Then there are social motivations
– many urban gardens are tended communally, and serve as places of integration and
openness towards the urban environment (Lohrberg 2011).
Internationally, “urban agriculture” is considered to be an umbrella term for all
types of food production in the city. Whereas central importance was attached to food
production in early definitions of the term (UNDP 1996), more recent definitions
recognise the diversity of the different types of UA, which provide the city with
other services apart from food:
Urban agriculture spans all actors, communities, activities, places and economies that focus
on biological production in a spatial context, which – according to local standards – is
categorized as ‘urban’. Urban agriculture takes place in intra- and periurban areas […]
urban agriculture is structurally embedded in the urban fabric; it is integrated into the social
and cultural life, the economics, and the metabolism of the city. (Vejre et al. 2016, 21).
The following table lists examples of different types of UA. Their boundaries are
blurred or may overlap in some cases, and are not always clear-cut (Table 15.1).
15.2 Motivations for UA: New Consumer-Producer
Relationships and Co-production
The notion of sharing as a (business) principle is increasingly applied with reference
to urban gardens. This is particularly the case with volunteer-led community gardens,
which are characterised by tremendous openness towards gardening enthusiasts and
by the sharing of resources and space (Zoll et al. 2018; Opitz et al. 2017). Rather
than seeking to make a profit, many of these initiatives operate under the principles
of a non-profit or sharing economy (Piorr et al. 2018; De Cunto et al. 2017). The
principle of sharing is evident in collaboration among the volunteers and in the
sharing of resources (land, money, labour and means of production) as well as crops
and knowledge.
Figure 15.1 shows the focus of different types of UA. While some types of UA
(such as home gardens) are merely practised in a private setting, with no engagement involved, other types of UA are largely shaped by elements of collaboration
and co-production. For example, interaction between members is a key element of
community gardens, which are geared towards social networking, whereas interaction between producers and consumers is the core of the business model when it
comes to community-supported agriculture, for instance.
The main reason for the particular relevance of collaboration and co-production
in UA is that the marketing of food produced in UA differs considerably from that
in commercial agriculture. Food grown in urban settings is usually marketed locally,
i.e. it is consumed in the city where it was grown. Whereas the food produced by
established large farms is usually traded on the world market, UA is characterised by
direct marketing (RUAF Foundation). While urban gardens tend to be small-scale
293
globalised food markets and a consumerist lifestyle. Then there are social motivations
– many urban gardens are tended communally, and serve as places of integration and
openness towards the urban environment (Lohrberg 2011).
Internationally, “urban agriculture” is considered to be an umbrella term for all
types of food production in the city. Whereas central importance was attached to food
production in early definitions of the term (UNDP 1996), more recent definitions
recognise the diversity of the different types of UA, which provide the city with
other services apart from food:
Urban agriculture spans all actors, communities, activities, places and economies that focus
on biological production in a spatial context, which – according to local standards – is
categorized as ‘urban’. Urban agriculture takes place in intra- and periurban areas […]
urban agriculture is structurally embedded in the urban fabric; it is integrated into the social
and cultural life, the economics, and the metabolism of the city. (Vejre et al. 2016, 21).
The following table lists examples of different types of UA. Their boundaries are
blurred or may overlap in some cases, and are not always clear-cut (Table 15.1).
15.2 Motivations for UA: New Consumer-Producer
Relationships and Co-production
The notion of sharing as a (business) principle is increasingly applied with reference
to urban gardens. This is particularly the case with volunteer-led community gardens,
which are characterised by tremendous openness towards gardening enthusiasts and
by the sharing of resources and space (Zoll et al. 2018; Opitz et al. 2017). Rather
than seeking to make a profit, many of these initiatives operate under the principles
of a non-profit or sharing economy (Piorr et al. 2018; De Cunto et al. 2017). The
principle of sharing is evident in collaboration among the volunteers and in the
sharing of resources (land, money, labour and means of production) as well as crops
and knowledge.
Figure 15.1 shows the focus of different types of UA. While some types of UA
(such as home gardens) are merely practised in a private setting, with no engagement involved, other types of UA are largely shaped by elements of collaboration
and co-production. For example, interaction between members is a key element of
community gardens, which are geared towards social networking, whereas interaction between producers and consumers is the core of the business model when it
comes to community-supported agriculture, for instance.
The main reason for the particular relevance of collaboration and co-production
in UA is that the marketing of food produced in UA differs considerably from that
in commercial agriculture. Food grown in urban settings is usually marketed locally,
i.e. it is consumed in the city where it was grown. Whereas the food produced by
established large farms is usually traded on the world market, UA is characterised by
direct marketing (RUAF Foundation). While urban gardens tend to be small-scale