Implementing Urban Agriculture in Europe: A Case Study of ...urbanagriculturebasel.ch/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/LADINA-KNAPP... · Implementing Urban Agriculture in Europe: A Case

WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY

Implementing Urban Agriculture in Europe: A Case Study of Urban Agriculture Projects in the

Netherlands and Switzerland

Ladina Knapp May 2013

Implementing Urban Agriculture in Europe: A Case Study of Urban Agriculture Projects in the Netherlands and Switzerland

Master thesis for the chair group Ecological Farming Systems submitted in fulfilment of the degree of the Master in Organic Agriculture

at Wageningen University, The Netherlands

May 2013, Wageningen Wageningen University and Research Centre Msc Thesis Ecological Farming Systems Course code: BFS-80436

By: Ladina Knapp Registration number: 871217448010 Supervisors: Jeroen Groot Farming Systems Ecology Group Esther Veen Rural Sociology Group Examiner: Pablo Tittonell Farming System Ecology Group

Preface This thesis was written for the completion of the Master in Organic Agriculture at the Wageningen University (WUR), in the group of Farming Systems Ecology. This research took place in the context of the Food Urban Initiative in Switzerland, which is concerned on the ways in which UA projects can be established in Switzerland. At the very beginning of the writing, this thesis was supposed to go in another direction by analysing projects only in Switzerland and establishing a systematic matching method between community gardens and a given urban area. Due to the nature of the subject, it became obvious that a systematic matching method was not feasible and thus I decided rather to highlight how such projects originate, what criteria are taken into consideration and what perturbations they face. I would like to thank my supervisors Jeroen Groot and Esther Veen for all the support and guidance and feedback. I would also like to thank Katja Heitkaemper from the Food Urban Initiative who gave me input with regard to this initiative. Furthermore, I would like to show my gratitude to all the respondents of the interviews and questionnaires that took time to answer my questions. Additionally, I would like to thank all my friends and family for having supported me while writing this thesis as well as having entertained me with laughter and fun during these 6 months.

Summary This thesis focuses on the origins and the establishment of community gardens and "entrepreneurial" commercial urban agriculture (UA) projects in the Netherlands and in Switzerland. Community gardens are defined in this thesis as gardens producing vegetables, fruits or herbs, established on a plot by different kind of initiatives (private initiatives, social movements or institutions). "Entrepreneurial" UA projects are defined as commercial projects, which have the main goal of selling the harvest and with this revenue support the activities undertaken in the project. This may include urban farms or small-scale projects with their own garden and processing the products e.g. for their own restaurants. The research was initiated in the context of the Food Urban Initiative (FUI) in Switzerland, which is trying to establish strategies for developing UA projects in the country. In the context of the FUI and in the context of the identified knowledge gap in the academic literature concerning UA projects, the key aim of this thesis is to identify which components are necessary when establishing an UA project and which challenges these projects might face. In fact, the literature highlights that there is a lack of knowledge on how UA projects are being established in Europe. UA projects were analysed as socio-ecological systems, facing different types of perturbations, to which they have different sensitivities, vulnerabilities and sources of resiliencies. First of all, in this paper a bibliographical research was carried out, which gives an overview on community gardens and "entrepreneurial" UA projects and identifies a number of perturbations highlighted by the literature. Then, leaders of 29 UA projects in Switzerland and in the Netherlands were interviewed or filled in a questionnaire. From these 29 projects, information was retrieved concerning their origin and establishment, and about their vulnerability or resilience to a range of perturbations. The sources of perturbations and resilience of UA systems was analysed using a theoretical vulnerability framework. Scores going from LOW to HIGH vulnerability were given to the 29 projects researched, based on the data collected. In addition, a list regarding the different types of components to take into consideration when establishing an UA project was retrieved from the data collected. This list includes biophysical criteria (soil, sun availability, wind exposure, access to water) but also socio-institutional criteria (flexibility of plot owner, neighbourhood type, local policies). The community gardens were mostly established by a group of local residents on empty unused plots that were supposed to be used for construction purposes in a later stage. As a consequence, the projects were temporary and lacked security of land availability. There were some exceptions to this, such as entrepreneurial UA gardens, which usually had a determined contract, with a maximum of ten years to use the plot. Biophysical environmental factors were not the main constraints or perturbations to the systems and did not impede the establishment of UA projects. The main perturbations and causes of vulnerability originated from social-institutional and human conditions, such as the institutional sphere, the will of local authorities, the local policies towards UA as well as the motivation and determination of the leaders in the UA projects. For every UA project, the exposure to the perturbation, the sensitivity to it and the resilience to it diverged. The average vulnerability score of the UA systems varied between MEDIUM to LOW vulnerability. Many different sources of resilience were found when facing the perturbations, such as social protest if the project takes an end, adaptation of project leaders to local circumstances, or social control against theft and vandalism. Overall, the UA systems’ vulnerability depended on the local circumstances and thus it is difficult to give an overall conclusion. Yet, from this research, the socio-institutional sphere affected most the establishment of UA projects.

1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Context and Research Question ............................................................. 2 1.2 A Vulnerability Perspective on UA Projects ............................................................. 4

2 Methodology .................................................................................... 6 2.1 Literature review ...................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Interviews and questionnaires ................................................................................. 6 2.3 Interview Analysis ................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 8

3 Literature Review: Origin, Motivation and Establishment of UA Projects ................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Non-Commercial UA Projects ................................................................................ 10 3.2 "Entrepreneurial" Urban Agriculture ....................................................................... 11 3.3 Perturbations faced by UA systems ....................................................................... 12

4 Description of UA Projects ........................................................... 16 4.1 Community Gardens .................................................................................................. 16

4.1.1 Origins ................................................................................................................. 16 4.1.2 Ownership and Policies ....................................................................................... 17 4.1.3 Financial Issues ................................................................................................... 18 4.1.4 Social Organisation of community gardens .......................................................... 18 4.1.5 Soil Conditions and Production Methods ............................................................. 19 4.1.6 Criteria for Crop Selection ................................................................................... 20

4.2 “Entrepreneurial” Urban Agriculture ........................................................................... 21 4.2.1 Origins ................................................................................................................. 21 4.2.2 Social organisation of "entrepreneurial" UA projects ............................................ 22 4.2.3 Soil and Production Methods ............................................................................... 22 4.2.4 Criteria for Crop Selection ................................................................................... 23

5 Vulnerability Analysis ................................................................... 25 5.1 Vulnerability assessment of UA projects ................................................................ 25

5.1.1 Sources of perturbations and possible resiliencies .............................................. 25 5.1.2 Vulnerability score: Exposure, Sensitivity and Resilience .................................... 27

5.2 Matching Plots and Projects .................................................................................. 31 5.2.1 Criteria for Plot Choice ........................................................................................ 31 5.2.2 What Type of Project for Lausanne's Neighbourhood? ........................................ 33

6 Discussion ..................................................................................... 35

7 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 38

8 References ..................................................................................... 40

9 Annex ............................................................................................. 43

1

1. Introduction How does urban agriculture (UA) develop in a city? How do we go from empty spaces to productive spaces? This research focuses on the establishment and management of UA projects in the Netherlands and in Switzerland. Definitions of UA can differ according to the location in which it is developed, the type of projects and their scale (Quon 1999). UA can include many different types of activities such as “community and private gardens, edible landscaping, fruit trees, food-producing green roofs, aquaculture, farmers markets, small-scale farming, hobby beekeeping and food composting” (Mendes, Balmer et al. 2009). Urban agriculture in this paper is defined broadly as encompassing “the production of all manner of foodstuffs, including fruit and vegetable growing, livestock rearing and beekeeping, at all levels from commercial horticulture to community projects to small scale hobby gardening” (Garnett 1996). This definition fits well this research since it considers not only commercial projects but also community projects and small-scale projects such as hobby gardening. In fact, for this research, interviews were undertaken with UA project leaders and questionnaires were submitted to UA project leaders involved in different types of projects, namely community gardens and entrepreneurial urban agriculture projects in the Netherlands and in Switzerland. Community gardens are defined broadly as gardens, producing edible products, established on a given area by different kind of initiatives, private individual initiatives, social movements or institutions. "Entrepreneurial" UA projects are defined as commercial projects, which are selling the harvest, and with this income, support the activities undertaken in the project. It may include urban farms, selling their products to the public or processing the products for their own restaurant, and smaller-scale projects, which produce part of the products for their restaurant. The assumption in this research is that UA can increase the quality of life in cities. This assumption is mostly based on the academic literature, which refers to UA as being of interest for not only productive but also ecological and cultural functions (Lovell 2010). UA can use empty spaces and transform them into productive spaces (Mougeot 2000), which can then also become habitats for the “urban wildlife” (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010). UA projects generally increase the amount of vegetation in a city which may regulate levels of humidity (Lovell 2010) and lower temperatures in the city, capture dirt and gases deposition, and even may regulate rainfall since water can be drained through the soil (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010; Deelstra and Girardet ND). Further, UA projects can be an essential component for solid waste management, which may be converted into compost and reused instead of delivered to the landfill site (Drescher, Holmer et al. 2006). Likewise, UA can also make use of household waste, which may be recycled, such as tyres or wood (Deelstra and Girardet ND). According to Lovell (2010), the most evident benefit of UA is that food production is in the city, in close proximity to the consumers (Lovell 2010). When food is produced in the city, food miles are generally reduced which may well reduce carbon dioxide emissions linked to it (Department for the Environment Farming and Rural Affairs 2005 in (Viljoen and Bohn 2009). However, these positive effects concerning carbon dioxide emissions are not yet clear and remain debated (Sukkel, Stilma et al. 2010). UA may however contribute to reducing the overall release of carbon dioxide emissions because plants and trees capture them (Deelstra and Girardet ND). UA can also in some cases provide employment (Mougeot 2000), as well as have positive educational purposes for schools or positive externalities on participants' health (Bourque 2000; Teig, Amulya et al. 2009). In some studies, it has been highlighted that participants in community gardens or school gardens have healthier nutrition than non-participants (Lovell 2010). Finally, when UA projects develop on empty plots, greening of the area is beneficial to residents living in the neighbourhood (Lovell 2010). From the above description on UA, the conclusion is that UA

2

impacts the urban system (Veenhuizen 2006) and might in some cases increase the quality of life in a city. A number of cities and UA initiatives have recognized the positive externalities of UA and are trying to establish policy strategies which encourage food production in cities (Lovell 2010). Yet UA projects are very complex and involve many different domains in the fields of social and natural sciences (Verzone 2012).

1.1 Research Context and Research Question This research was conducted in the framework of the Food Urban Initiative in Switzerland (FUI). This initiative tries to link cities more to food production and to increase the quality of life in cities. FUI is composed of members having different backgrounds such as agronomists, economists and architects. According to leaders of this initiative, research on UA has not been ample enough and although UA is quite popular there is still a lack of objective ways of implementing it into a city (Verzone 2012). There is a knowledge gap concerning which specific conditions are needed in order to establish UA projects and have positive outcomes. A neighbourhood in Lausanne was identified and the main goal is to put forward urban agriculture projects for this neighbourhood. This neighbourhood was chosen because it is representative of areas in many cities in Switzerland, which are not being used anymore such as old railway stations, with commercial buildings and residential buildings surrounding the area. The FUI team has developed so far a typology of twelve prototypes1 of possible agricultural activities2 in the city of Lausanne. The case study of Lausanne was chosen because the municipality is interested in urban agriculture projects, especially since it is the first municipality having established guidelines in the communal directive plan with regard to allotment gardens (FUI, 20123). The neighbourhood should not be taken as it is presently on the picture, since according to the FUI, before the establishment of UA projects in this neighbourhood many modifications might take place.

Projects in this report are limited to community gardens and entrepreneurial gardens. The community garden prototype was chosen together with the FUI initiative. This choice was primarily based on preference issues from the researcher and the FUI initiative. Yet, I decided to add to my research entrepreneurial UA projects in order to have a broader view of UA projects in Europe and a broader palette of UA possibilities. Entrepreneurial UA projects are quite new in Europe and thus I was very inquisitive about them. I decided to focus on projects undertaken in the Netherlands and in Switzerland. The Netherlands was chosen out of practical reasons, but also due to the large amount of UA projects available. Lately, many citizen initiatives related to local production and consumption of food have developed in the

1 Prototypes are different projects that are potentially able to bring more quality of life into cities. These prototypes all exclude

animal husbandry. This is mostly due to epidemic issues according to the FUI but also to ethical reasons. 2 Collective gardens, microplot gardens, private gardens, urban farms, wall gardens, rooftop farms, vertical farms, aquaponic

farm, greenhouse farm, public space production in a park or a graveyard, allotment garden, continuous productive landscapes, collective gardens for an office, a school or a neighbourhood. 3 http://www.foodurbanism.org/survey-description/

Figure 1. Picture of neighbourhood, Lausanne

Figure 2. Overview of neighbourhood, Lausanne

3

Netherlands (Schans 2010). The Netherlands has approximately 250'000 community and allotment gardens accounting for 4000 ha of land (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010) and the Netherlands also have interesting innovative projects such as the commercial urban farmer in Rotterdam or the office rooftop garden in Amsterdam Zuidpark. The lack of knowledge highlighted by the FUI is also highlighted in the academic literature, regarding the establishment of UA projects in Europe. Different knowledge gaps were identified regarding UA projects. According to Clavin (2011) a lot of information is available on community gardens in the USA and Australia (Clavin 2011), and this is further highlighted by Guitart, Pickering et al. (2012), who argue that most of the academic literature on community gardens focuses on projects located in disadvantaged multicultural neighbourhoods in the USA (Guitart, Pickering et al. 2012). The latter highlight the need to further study UA projects outside of the USA, in order to have more knowledge on the different types of "motivations, benefits and challenges" faced in other countries (Guitart, Pickering et al. 2012). According to Mendes Balmer et al. (2009), there is a lack of research on the practical processes which take place when establishing an UA project, or the policy consequences that UA projects might have (Mendes, Balmer et al. 2009). Further, it is not clear which are the mechanisms that induce municipalities’ to endorse UA projects (Mendes, Balmer et al. 2009). There is a lack of studies regarding the challenges that come upon community gardens during the early phases of establishment (Corrigan 2011). At the environment level, Lovell (2010) highlights that it would be interesting to establish a systematic matching method which assesses how suitable a plot of urban land is for agricultural projects, based on different criteria, namely biophysical such as the sun and soil but also social such as the closeness to resources or markets (Lovell 2010). Based on these different factors, “land use inventories” can be established, illustrating the land suitable for UA projects (Lovell 2010). By establishing “land use inventories” it can also contribute to increase “institutional awareness” as well as trigger more political support for UA (Lovell 2010). Finally, there is also a lack of projects available that are economically viable and which makes the most out of the urban environment, and consequently there is also a lack of literature analysing entrepreneurial UA projects (Graaf 2012). Thus, instead of only focusing on community gardens, it is also interesting to include projects which try to be commercial and entrepreneurial.This is one of the reasons why in this report I decided to include not only non commercial UA but also entrepeneurial UA projects. Literature on the topic mostly describes the possible positive externalities that UA seems to offer via case studies. Yet, understanding how UA projects are being established is crucial to conceive which main criteria need to be satisfied in order to successfully develop such projects in a city. The main research question of this thesis is:

What are the components that are needed in order to establish an UA system in a given neighbourhood?

In this thesis, I will analyse UA projects as socio-ecological systems in the theoretical framework of vulnerability and resilience assessments further explained below. Urban areas are mostly human dominated yet there is a large interaction with the ecological dimension when referring to UA projects and that is why I consider it as a socio-ecological system in this thesis. These systems face perturbations, to which they are vulnerable, yet they also have a certain level of resilience, which enables UA projects to endure. From the UA projects researched, I identified the perturbations they face, and I identified the sensitivity of the systems to the perturbations, their ability to withstand or adapt to the perturbation (resilience) and the resulting level of vulnerability. The sub questions are:

What are the sources of perturbation that UA systems face?

What are the levels of vulnerability of UA system with regard to the identified perturbations?

What are the sources of resilience for UA systems?

4

The concepts perturbation, vulnerability and resilience are further explained below. In order to answer these questions, I undertook interviews with leaders and sent questionnaires to leaders of 29 different UA projects in different cities of the Netherlands and Switzerland. This report is divided in seven sections. In chapter 1, I briefly define UA and the context in which this research takes place. Also, I define my research question and the theoretical framework on which I will base my analysis. In chapter 2, I describe the methods I used for this report, namely a bibliographical research, interviews and questionnaires. I also highlight the limitations to this work. In chapter 3, I present a review of literature on community gardens, entrepreneurial UA projects and the perturbations such UA projects face. In chapter 4, I describe 29 UA projects in the Netherlands and in Switzerland, divided into community gardens and entrepreneurial UA projects. Finally, in chapter 5, I analyse the projects in the context of the vulnerability framework, by identifying the origins and sources of perturbations of UA projects. In this section, I apply the theoretical framework to the results from the interviews and questionnaires. I also define a list of criteria for the establishment of UA projects and the possible projects to be established in Lausanne. In chapter 6, I discuss about the main conclusions from the vulnerability assessments and further compare the perturbations found in the research projects to the ones found in the literature review. In chapter 7, I draw conclusions from the results of this thesis.

1.2 A Vulnerability Perspective on UA Projects In order to understand the challenges and the establishment of UA projects in the Netherlands and in Switzerland, a theoretical framework based on vulnerability and resilience of the system is used. According to Ernstson et al. (2010), numerous components of this theoretical framework are interesting and highly relevant for urban areas (Ernstson, van der Leeuw et al. 2010). Urban areas can mostly be seen as a “human dominated ecosystem" in which social dynamics play a big role (Ernstson, van der Leeuw et al. 2010), yet they are "coupled socio-ecological systems" (Berkes, Folke et al. 1998) since there is an interaction between the ecological and human dimension. This approach includes the social sciences aspects such as the economic, cultural, political historical characteristics of the system but also the natural sciences aspects such as the biophysical characteristics of the place (Eakin and Wehbe 2009). This theoretical framework fits well into the analyses of UA projects, since such projects are very much interlinked with both the human influences such as institutions, policies, motivation of leaders and the environmental influences mostly related to the resources needed in UA projects such as soil, water, sun, and pests or diseases of plants. This framework is also principally chosen due the nature of the research question which tries to identify how such projects are established; under which circumstances they are established, which are the perturbations they face and what the sources of the resilience are. According to Eakin and Luers (2006), vulnerability assessments analyse a given system in given local circumstances. The vulnerability of a system is determined by the exposure to perturbations, the sensitivity to these events and the possibilities for adaptation or resilience (Figure 3) (Smit and Wandel 2006). In order to understand all these concepts, they need to be defined. A perturbation is a changing condition, originating from either human or environmental (or both) conditions, and it presents a stress to the system (Smit and Wandel 2006). Exposure of a system highlights the probability of occurrence of a perturbation (Gallopín 2006). Sensitivity of a system shows the level to which the system is modified due to a perturbation (Adger 2006). The adaptive capacity of a system is the capacity of a system to adapt or to modify itself in a way that it can cope with the perturbation (Adger 2006). Resilience was initially defined by Holling (1973) as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same

5

function, structure, identity and feedbacks (...)” (Holling 1973). In the literature, some authors refer to resilience and adaptive capacity as having the same meaning since they are very much related to one another (Gallopín 2006; Smit and Wandel 2006). Thus in this report, I will use the term resilience of the system. The resilience of a system depends on different aspects such as the management capacities, the financial funds, access to information and infrastructure and the institutional sphere and as a consequence, resilience is context specific (Smit and Wandel 2006). The diversity of components and processes in a system and the degree of self-organization are all features that can affect the resilience of a system (Tidball and Krasny 2007). According to Okvat and Zautra (2011) these features can all be found in nearly all community garden projects (Okvat and Zautra 2011).

Figure 3. Vulnerability framework for UA projects adapted from (Turner, Kasperson et al. 2003). Figure 3 highlights that the human and biophysical dimensions of systems are interconnected and need to be considered. Each UA project has different kinds of actors involved, with different biophysical situations, different goals and different institutional spheres, which influence the establishment and management of the project. The system is quite complex, with different dynamics, yet via such a framework, the goal is to identify the sources of perturbations on a system and the level of vulnerability of the whole system. By identifying the latter, it will enable to understand the main perturbations that UA face and what needs to be undertaken in order to diminish the vulnerability of such systems. Finally, via such a theoretical framework, the sources of resilience, which enable UA systems to carry on, are identified. By comparing different UA projects, different perturbations these systems face can be analysed and contrasts in resilience strategies can be identified.

PERTURBATIONS

Frequency of perturbation

Level to which the system is modified due

to the perturbation

How the system is coping with the perturbation

EXPOSURE

SENSITIVITY RESILIENCE

VULNERABILITY OF THE UA SYSTEM

Human conditions (institutions, society, politics)

Environmental conditions (biophysical)

Drivers/Causes Consequences

Outcome of response

6

2 Methodology

2.1 Literature review I undertook a bibliographical research in order to first define what information already exists on community gardens and entrepreneurial UA projects. From this bibliographical research, I was able to have an overview of such projects, their establishment and the benefits they have. Additionally, it enabled me to identify what types of questions to formulate for the interviews and questionnaires. I also identified the perturbations to the system, which are referred to in the literature. Comparing these perturbations found in the literature to the main perturbations highlighted by the projects researched is of great interest and enriching with regard to knowledge on UA projects. The articles referred to in the bibliographical research were found via Google Scholar, Scopus and the Wageningen University Library search engine. The different key words used were "urban agriculture", "agriculture urbaine", "urban farming", “urban farms” "community gardens", “allotment gardens”, “school gardens”, "roof top gardens", "peri-urban agriculture", "short food cycles", "community supported agriculture", “commercial urban agriculture”, "entrepreneurial urban gardening", and "entrepreneurial community gardens". Most of the articles are from reviewed journals, and some references are reports or publications, which were not reviewed and may be considered as grey literature. Yet the latter were considered because of the small quantity available of academic references in the topic referred to. In this research the goal is not to estimate the consequences of such projects, but to focus on the establishment of such projects and the challenges they face.

2.2 Interviews and questionnaires The field research is based on semi structured interviews and questionnaires. I chose to undertake interviews in order to collect new information from UA projects in the Netherlands and Switzerland. All in all, 8 questionnaires were submitted and 21 interviews were undertaken. For the Netherlands, different experts from the Wageningen University in the field of UA were contacted. The website Farming the City4 was very much used in this thesis since most of the projects listed on the website were located in the region called “Randstad5” of the Netherlands, which was useful for me out of practical reasons in order to travel less. Projects located in Switzerland were identified via an internet search. The projects were either interviewed via the phone, or a questionnaire was sent. Due to a lack of response from the projects in Switzerland and lack of time, the amount of projects researched in Switzerland is smaller. The questions asked in the semi-structured interview and the questionnaires were the same, resulting into 39 questions (Annex A). The semi-structured interviews lasted in between 30 and 60 minutes, they were recorded and transcribed. The amount of information received in the questionnaires was smaller than the amount of information received via semi-structured interviews due to lack of interaction. Yet, since the questions in the interviews and the questionnaires were the same, I decided to analyse these two types of data collection together.

4 http://farmingthecity.net/

5 The Randstad refers to Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht.

7

Name of project Type of UA project Location Type of

interview

Projects located in the Netherlands

1. Moestuinman Community Garden Rotterdam Semi Structured Face to Face

2. Vrijgroen I Community Garden Leiden Semi Structured Face to Face

3. Vrijgroen II Community Garden Leiden Semi Structured Face to Face

4. Ghandituin Community Garden Rotterdam Semi Structured Face to Face

5. Voedseltuin Community Garden Rotterdam Semi Structured Face to Face

6. Tuin aan de maas Community Garden Rotterdam Semi Structured Skype Interview

7. Het Bergwegplantsoen Community Garden Rotterdam Semi Structured Face to Face

8. Tuin op de Pier Community Garden Rotterdam Semi Structured Face to Face

9. Buurttuin Transvaal Community/ Allotment Garden Amsterdam

Semi Structured Face to Face

10. Valreepgarden Community/Allotment Garden Amsterdam

Semi Structured Face to Face

11. Buurtmoestuin de Middenmoes

Community/Allotment Garden Heerhugowaard

Questionnaire via email

12. Bikkershof Community/ Allotment Garden Utrecht

Questionnaire via email

13. Buurtmoestuin de Trompenburg

Community/Allotment Gardens Amsterdam

Semi Structured Face to Face

14. Stadslandbouw Schiebroek Zuid

Community Garden/Allotment Garden Rotterdam

Semi Structured Face to Face

15. Heiloo Garden Planned Community Garden Heiloo

Semi Structured Skype interview

16. Tussentuin Community Rooftop Garden Rotterdam

Semi Structured Skype interview

17. Zuidpark Amsterdam Community Rooftop Garden Amsterdam Questionnaire

18. De Groene Campus, to be established Educational Garden Helmond

Semi-structured Face to Face

19. Educatieve Moestuin Educational garden Amsterdam Semi Structured Face to Face

20. Daktuinen Beuningenplein

Educational Rooftop and plot Amsterdam

Semi Structured Face to Face

21. Dakakker

Educational Rooftop Garden Rotterdam

Semi Structured Face to Face

22. Uit je eigen stad Urban farm Rotterdam

Semi-structured Face to face

Projects located in Switzerland

23. Beaulieu Urban farm Geneva Questionnaire

24. Gemeinschafts Garten Landhof Community Garden Basel

Semi Structured Skype Interview

25. Stadion Garten Community Garden Zürich Questionnaire

26. Frau Gerolds Garten Community Garden and restaurant garden Zürich Questionnaire

27. HEKS Community garden Bern and Basel Questionnaire

28. L'arbre à Palabre Planned Community garden Biel

Semi Structured Skype Interview

29. Lorraine Community garden Bern Questionnaire

Table 1. Overview of projects researched

8

2.3 Interview Analysis The interviews are analysed first via coding. Main subjects originating from the interviews can be highlighted and categorized under different concepts thanks to the coding methodology, such as origin of the project, establishment of the project, perturbations to the project, financial support, type of owner of the plot and so on. These categories enable to establish a list of findings from the interview and compare them. The coding of the interviews was established with the help of the programme Atlas Ti6 which helps in analysing qualitative data. This program enables you to code the interviews and it gives a good overview of the codes and quotations found in every interview. In fact, it is thanks to the data collected from the different projects that I was able to identify which are the main criteria needed for an urban agriculture project to be established and which are the main sources of perturbations to the system. Yet, the establishment of these criteria is based on interpretation of the data collected. This method was enriching in this case since studies on UA in the Netherlands and Switzerland are limited. From the different perturbations identified in the interviews, I established the level of exposure of the systems to these perturbations, the level of sensitivity, the level of resilience and an overall vulnerability level. Levels of exposure and sensitivity vary from LOW with a score 0 to MEDIUM with a score 1 to HIGH with a score 2. For the level of resilience, the scores are reverse because resilience is positive, so the level HIGH is scored 0, the level MEDIUM is scored 1 and the level LOW is scored 2. From these scores a complete vulnerability assessment is undertaken for every project analysed and it enables to compare the different projects and to have an overview of the most important perturbations to the system. Scores were given in order to be able to compare the vulnerability of different UA projects and which perturbations are affecting most UA systems.

2.4 Limitations From these 29 projects, I am aware that I cannot generalize my results to all UA projects in the Netherlands and Switzerland or in Europe. The list of UA projects is not complete and many different types of projects remain to be studied. All the UA projects are quite different, and from these it is not possible to establish a blueprint on how to establish an UA project or on which perturbations will be faced by the projects. Nevertheless, these case studies can still give ideas, examples and patterns with regard to the establishment of urban agriculture in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Regarding the challenges that were faced during the management of the UA projects researched, it would have been interesting to get the information from the participants of the project and not only the leaders of the project, in order to get a broader perspective of the problems and different opinions. Yet, this would have been more time consuming, and consequently I would have had a smaller amount of garden projects researched. The amount of information retrieved from this research is larger for community gardens than for entrepreneurial UA projects. This is due to the fact that the amount of community gardens researched is much greater than the number of entrepreneurial UA projects researched. This gives an uneven amount of information regarding these different projects. Moreover, not much literature was found concerning exclusively entrepreneurial urban agriculture. Some projects that were contacted, were not yet established, and were only in the process of being established. These projects were nevertheless included in the research, since it was interesting to see what type of challenges the leaders were facing presently, although less information was gathered regarding the management of those projects since they were not yet established.

6 http://www.atlasti.com/index.html

9

Finally, the vulnerability score of the UA projects researched are based on the interpretation of the data retrieved. Due to the fact that I decided to have a larger number of projects, the interviews or questionnaires did not give me enough information in order to do an accurate vulnerability assessment of each project. A full vulnerability assessment would have been possible if fewer projects would have been chosen. Yet, it was of great interest to have a large number of projects in order to identify the sources of perturbations to the systems.

10

3 Literature Review: Origin, Motivation and Establishment of UA Projects

In 1996, according to the UNDP, around 800 million persons were involved in UA (UNDP 1996). UA already started during the Industrial Revolution in England and continued to develop during the World Wars in order to combat hunger (Hanna and Oh 2000). These gardens were referred to as "Victory gardens" (Hanna and Oh 2000). In the United States, it started in 1893 with poverty relief programmes from the government in which vacant land was given to the unemployed in order to produce food for themselves (Hanna and Oh 2000). Currently, urban agriculture can also be perceived as an attempt to go against the uncertainty of the global food sector, mostly defined by international decision makers (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010). However, UA is becoming popular not only for food production but also for its multiple functions (Jansma, Sukkel et al. 2012). UA projects, which are mostly “human-dominated ecosystems”, are gradually perceived as creating social functions (Evers and Hodgson 2011) and important ecosystem services (Ernstson, Barthel et al. 2010).

3.1 Non-Commercial UA Projects Non-commercial UA projects mostly include allotment gardens, community gardens or small scale green activities involving food production. Overall, in Europe, allotment gardens are quite traditional and there are about 3 million allotment gardens (Björkman (2000) in (Colding and Barthel 2013). An allotment garden generally contains individual plots of the same size, which are individually managed and are mostly located on areas owned by the local municipality (Colding and Barthel 2013). Allotment gardens generally have a well-defined long-term contract regarding the use of the land (Colding and Barthel 2013), maybe since allotment gardens were already established in the past during difficult situations such as hunger and thus they have more historical bonds with the local authorities (Krasny and Tidball 2009). When compared to allotment gardens, community gardens do not have such well-defined contracts for the use of the land (Colding and Barthel 2013). In fact, in the USA community gardens are generally located on unstable plots of land, often only for short-term use since the vacant land will later be used for construction purposes (Colding and Barthel 2013). Community gardens are generally managed by a group of local residents, and most of the times the production costs are higher than the value of the harvest (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010). Community gardens have a custom of "self-organization and emergence" (Krasny and Tidball 2009) and they are generally established by individuals being part of the same neighbourhood, or an institution, such as a hospital or a school (Draper and Freedman 2010). They can also be established around social features namely the ethnic origin, age or religion (Drescher, Holmer et al. 2006). There are various definitions given to community gardens. Generally, the gardeners share the resources such as the land or the water (MacNair, 2002 in (Drescher, Holmer et al. 2006), or they manage the whole area together and also share the harvest (Holland 2004). Ferris et al (2001) argue that it is not of great benefit to define a community garden in an exact way, since it would establish limits on the different possible types of projects that emerge from local initiatives (Ferris and Sempik 2001). In fact, there are many community gardens which also include some individual plots or allotment gardens which have a collective plot, and thus it does not seem necessary to define in an exact way what a community garden is. In this report, I will refer to gardens with individual plots and one big collective plot or gardens only with one collective plot as community gardens, since there is a sense of collective management in both types of gardens. Gardens established by schools or other institutions are also refered to in this report as community gardens.

11

Community gardens can be established for a number of different purposes. Holland (2004) identified the following: “skills, education, community development, leisure, health, food, business, area protection, extension of an existing project". According to Corrigan (2011), community gardens are more successful when established by the gardeners themselves, from a “bottom up” initiative (Corrigan 2011). Via community gardens, food security is improved, first by producing food and second by empowering as well as supporting knowledge on how food is produced and also by changing food habits and trying to re-establish the connections between society and food production (Evers and Hodgson 2011). However, community gardens are not only about producing food but also about rebuilding social bonds (Evers and Hodgson 2011), increasing social connections between members of the garden and thus increasing community connections in the neighbourhood (Wakefield, Yeudall et al. 2007; Milburn and Vail 2010). There is an increasing amount of literature that puts forward development of social capital thanks to community gardens (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Mendes, Balmer et al. 2009). Community gardens may improve participants’ nutrition, increase their physical activity and have positive changes in their mental health (Wakefield, Yeudall et al. 2007; Lovell 2010). Further community gardens have educational value at schools for instance with topics related to nutrition or the environment (Heim, Stang et al. 2009; Guitart, Pickering et al. 2012). Moreover, children can learn on the spot about plants and their life cycle, arrange beds and plant seeds, and harvest the crops (Pudup 2008). Community gardens can also increase the value of the surrounding residential property according to a study undertaken in New York City. Investments in community gardens can have a significant payoff since it can provide extra taxing revenues from the improved status of the neighbourhood (Been and Voicu 2006). Furthermore, community gardens can also provide economic benefits because instead of financing and managing urban green spaces they can delegate this responsibility to local management and thus decrease the economic burden (Colding and Barthel 2013). Community gardens can additionally have an environmental value for instance they can be a habitat for bee species (Matteson, Ascher et al. 2008). Having collected bees in different community gardens in New York City, this study concluded that community gardens have an ecological importance especially when considering all the different kind of bee species that were found in the community gardens (Matteson, Ascher et al. 2008). Urban gardens can also benefit biodiversity preservation by including native species in the garden (Lovell 2010). Additionally, UA projects can change the microclimate via regulating humidity, decreasing the amount of wind and providing shade (Lovell 2010). Finally, since community gardens generally include different kinds of plants, vegetables, flowers and berry bushes, the planting of these also supports pollination and seed dispersion (Ernstson, Barthel et al. 2010).

3.2 "Entrepreneurial" Urban Agriculture There are also cases of entrepreneurial gardens where people can come buy the products or consume them in a local restaurant, such as the example of the Marconi Strip in Rotterdam, where there is an urban farmer, living of the profits of the urban farm (Paul de Graaf, personal communication, January 21, 2013). This is sometimes referred to in the literature as urban farming, defined as “the growing, cultivating and distributing of food within a city or town boundary to generate revenue” (Golder 2013). Urban farming has a number of positive outcomes for the local community as well, for instance by increasing the availability of fresh products and increasing the level of awareness on how food is produced (Golder 2013). The urban farm can also be a channel for waste recovery as every other urban agriculture project (Golder 2013). Urban farming generally includes activities such as “aquaponics, vertical farming, micro-green operations and greenhouses on rooftops” (Golder 2013). Some UA projects such as vertical buildings built only for food production are still very new and have to be perceived as "cutting edge solutions", in need of more knowledge with regard to technical

12

aspects, as well as economic aspects (Torreggiani, Dall’Ara et al. 2012). Generally urban farms are small scale but focus on high value crops in order to get a higher return (Golder 2013). Some farms however in the peri-urban region of a city may also be quite large scale.

3.3 Perturbations faced by UA systems UA faces many challenges that can be subdivided into different categories. Kaufman and Bailkey (2000) classified the obstacles to UA in different groups, namely the obstacles that are "site-related", "government-related", "procedure-related" and "perception-related" (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000). In the table below, I used those categories and I added some issues to them from other sources of literature. Based on the resilience and vulnerability framework concepts, these challenges can be referred to as perturbations on a given UA project, the latter referred to as a system. Systems differ in resilience and each system has different adaptation processes, going from having some adjustments to the system to the ending of a system.

Perturbations Description

Site related perturbation:

- Access to land; Limited space available

- Land tenure issues

- Contaminated site

- Vandalism and safety issues/ crime or misuse of garden

- Disorganization of the area and pollution of resources

- Empty land not being used in a commercial way

- Garden needs to be located near participants

- Access to water

- Access to electricity (power and lighting)

- Sun availability

- Soil conditions

High price of the land, Zoning of land (Lovell

2010; Golder 2013) Small plots (Mougeot 2000): limited available

space demands for more intensive production methods and higher use of fertilizer per area (Whittinghill and Rowe 2011)

Lack of plot ownership (Feen, McGrew et al.

1999; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Wakefield, Yeudall et al. 2007; Milburn and Vail 2010)

Public stakeholders perceive UA projects as temporary land use (Feen, McGrew et al. 1999; Corrigan 2011)

Urban soils are generally disturbed as well as

polluted, mostly with lead, cadmium, and arsenic, due to human activities (Leake, Bradford et al. 2009; Raes, Ann et al. 2013)

Located near a traffic road (Säumel, Kotsyuk et al. 2012)

Vandalism, theft, sex tourism, drugs (Reynolds

2011) (Lovell 2010)

Plots of UA perceived as untidy either by local authorities or residents of the neighbourhood, resources can become polluted via agrochemicals (Mougeot 2000; Niwa 2009)

Considered to be less efficient in terms of

profitability of the production in urban circumstances (Viljoen and Bohn 2005)

A minor walk or bike ride from the participants

(Milburn and Vail 2010)

Water needed in some periods of the season (Nasr, MacRae et al. 2010)

Access to electricity, especially for an entrepreneurial UA project (Nasr, MacRae et al. 2010)

6 to 8 hours of sun per day (Milburn and Vail 2010)

A minimum of 20 cm topsoil; Raised beds (10 cm wide, 60 cm tall) (Milburn and Vail 2010)

Table 2. Types of Perturbations in Urban Agriculture systems

13

Perturbations Description

- Wind exposure

Buildings around or trees diminishing wind exposure (Milburn and Vail 2010)

Government related perturbation:

- Government ideology going against UA

- Absence, change of policies/ Taxations or lack of subsidies

If the government is against, it can block the

development of UA either at the local level or at the national level (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000)

“Policy vacuum”: There are no regulations yet on how lots should be used (Lachance 2004)

If no "sensitive and supportive" regulation is established the development of UA is restrained (Howe 2003; Okvat and Zautra 2011)

Procedure related perturbation:

- Lack of financial resources

- Lack of time

- Lack of cooperation between local organizations

- Lack of inputs such as seeds or compost

- Improper handling of agrochemicals

- Exclusion of part of residents

- Need of leadership/ continued support of local community

- Soil management practices (Okvat and Zautra 2011)

In some cases, much money is needed to start

the project (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000)

Project leaders might have issues in establishing and managing the garden especially when participants do not have much knowledge on gardening yet (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000)

Lack of coordination between local

organizations working in the same field of UA (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Reynolds 2011)

Seeds should be accessible to the whole population in order for UA to enlarge (Nasr, MacRae et al. 2010)

A good distribution program needs to be developed in a city to provide access to compost for urban growers (Nasr, MacRae et al. 2010)

Health problems (Whittinghill and Rowe 2011)

When gardens are fenced, locked and only for a given group of gardeners, the wider community might feel excluded (Okvat and Zautra 2011)

Projects need to be based on an “inclusive process”, start with a small group and establish a larger vision in order to include a broader group of people (Milburn and Vail 2010)

Leadership is needed in UA projects in order for

it to be established and further managed and local support needed for long term (Milburn and Vail 2010)

Soil management can either improve or deteriorate the natural environment; applying unnecessary amounts of nitrogen reduces soil organic carbon (Okvat and Zautra 2011)

Perception related perturbation

- Negative perception of UA

- Lack of support

Production of food on ex-contaminated sites, low economic profits, working the land seen as something negative for some cultures (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000), potential increase of pests and rodents (Whittinghill and Rowe 2011)

Lack of data on how it is to live in a city with UA

(Viljoen, Bohn et al. 2005)

14

Perturbations Description

In need of a “multidimensional evaluations” (...) that includes economic and non-economic evaluation methods, quantitative and qualitative information (Viljoen, Bohn et al. 2005)

As seen in the table above, most of the perturbations are grouped under the site related and procedure related perturbations. I will not go through every point mentioned in the table; rather I will discuss the perturbations which are most cited in the literature. Regarding the site related aspects, access to land and land tenure are very much highlighted in the literature. Zoning policies of urban areas can sometimes impede UA projects from establishing. Most of the sites on which community gardens are situated are insecure and can be terminated by the municipality at any moment (Feen, McGrew et al. 1999; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Zimbler 2001; Milburn and Vail 2010) Soil is also an important component. Although the ideal area would be a plot with a rich soil, having high nutrient levels and organic matter, a great number of UA projects is located on poor soils and thus projects either use raised beds or add new soil to the area (Lovell 2010). One problem concerning soil is contamination. When comparing rural production sites and urban production sites, the crops in urban sites are usually exposed to greater amounts of contaminants such as trace metals and organic contaminants (Säumel, Kotsyuk et al. 2012). There are different ways to have heavy metal accumulation in crops, first via cultivation in a contaminated soil, second by using wastewater for plant irrigation and third via car and industrial emission pollution transported by the wind (Säumel, Kotsyuk et al. 2012). The contamination process depends on the type of plants, the interplay between chemical reactions and the types of minerals and organic matter in the soil (Saed 2012). For instance, leafy vegetables and herbs are generally described as accumulating high quantities of trace metals (Säumel, Kotsyuk et al. 2012). According to Lovell, further research is needed in order to understand the different uptake of toxins by different crops in different production conditions (Lovell 2010). Via UA, much more people are starting to get in contact with urban soil and thus they should be aware of the problems that can arise with contaminated soil (Raes, Ann et al. 2013). However, there are ways to control for it for instance, heavy metals can also be immobilised in the soil by keeping a high pH by adding lime and having a high level of organic matter via adding compost or manure (Deelstra and Girardet ND). Another possibility is to choose plants that do not “accumulate metals in their edible parts, (i.e. fruit bearing crops)” (Lovell 2010). Further, establishing barriers between the garden area and the roads can also help in reducing the trace metal content. Via educational programs and further research such perturbations can be further diminished. Howe (2003) highlights that land in urban areas is inclined to have high prices and generally residential or industrial buildings have either a bigger appeal or offer larger financial profits than UA projects (Howe 2003). According to the latter, the higher profits that can be obtained with other activities than UA in a city puts pressure on UA possibilities (Howe 2003). The value of urban land is a key issue and new planning approaches are needed in order to argue in favour of the use of urban land for non-building activities (Viljoen and Bohn 2009). In order for UA activities to be competitive with the urban industry, it needs to have a considerable additional value (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010). According to the latter, in Europe there are many UA projects that provide multiple functions for instance a plot used for producing food, educating people and treating waste water at the same time (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010; Säumel, Kotsyuk et al. 2012). This is why UA needs to be evaluated in a different way (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010). In fact, due to the large qualitative values of

15

greenspaces, it is hard to include them into a standard evaluation process (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010). In order to analyse such multifunctional spaces, there is a need to have multidimensional assessments which include financial but also non financial values (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010) and which take into account the numerous services and benefits UA offers (Lovell 2010). Thus, a space which is used for UA could be analysed by taking into consideration the “use value” which includes the financial aspects and the “non use value” which includes “intangible functions of space” such as “the aesthetic pleasure, phsychological well-being, social interaction etc” (Leeuwen, Nijkamp et al. 2010). Finally with regard to the government, the main perturbation is the absence of policies. UA leaders need to deal with the government case by case (Howe 2003). Regulations can act as a barrier or as a support for UA projects. In one case study, the mere establishment of hoop houses in a community garden in the USA posed legal problems and the building permit acquirement process lasted more than two years (Masson-Minock and Stockmann 2010).

16

4 Description of UA Projects In this thesis, community gardens are all analysed together, although these projects are all very different from one another. Some have only collective plots, others have individual and collective plots, some originate from local residents, others from social movements or institutions. The projects, which were more directed towards entrepreneurial UA projects, are analysed separately, since such systems have different goals. For a more detailed overview of every project researched, see Annex B.

4.1 Community Gardens

4.1.1 Origins

An overview of the 26 community gardens analysed is provided in Annex C, Table 1 including the starting year of the gardens, the size and the number of participants. The majority of the gardens were located in residential neighbourhoods. These residential neighbourhoods were primarily occupied by private residences and not by commercial or industrial residences. Most of the projects interviewed had a legal status, going from foundations to associations or managing workgroups. According to the interviewees, a legal status is needed in order to get funding sources and it increases the legitimacy of the project. Some gardens only had collective plots and a collective harvesting of the produce (20 out of 26), while others have individual plots and one collective plot with herbs, fruit trees and berry bushes (6 out of 26) (See Annex C, Table 2). The participants varied from the active participants that come by the garden at least once a week, of which some were also member of the foundation board or association board, and the participants which come by once a month or even less. The common element highlighted by the majority of garden leaders was that the participants were all residents of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Gardens originated via different types of initiators from local residents, social movements, housing corporations etc. (See Annex C, Table 3). The goals of the projects also differed and from the 26 projects researched, I established 6 different categories of goals, together with their 6 different types of leaders. Categories of leaders vary from private individual initiatives, to school initiatives, social movements, housing corporations, non-profit organizations or private building owners. For each category the stated goals are listed below in Table 3. The majority of the projects researched originated from the motivation of one leader or a group of residents of the neighbourhood to establish a garden. This is well illustrated in the following statement: “There was only grass when I came here in 2007, (...) and a bit of sand and that was the spot where I thought together with my husband that maybe there are pieces of land where we can grow carrots and onions in the sand (...) A lot of people in the neighbourhood were very enthusiastic (...)” (Tuin aan de Maas, Rotterdam).

Figure 4. The start-up of Tuin op de Pier Figure 5. Het Bergwegplantsoen

17

Private individual initiative (15 out of 26)

Being outside

Physical work

Having green functional areas in neighbourhood

Growing own vegetables

Bringing biodiversity to the city

Increasing knowledge of citizens on food production

Social Movement initiative (4 out of 26)

Changing reference frame of people

Giving more functions to a public space

Establishing a local food network

School initiative (1 out of 26)

Including green activities into curriculum

Using less space around the school by making use of the roof

Housing Corporation initiative (2 out of 26)

Improving the neighbourhood

Getting the neighbours to know each other

Non-profit charitable organization initiative (2 out of 26)

Producing fresh vegetables for the Food Bank

Establishing volunteer work for people receiving social benefits

Social projects for the disadvantages (i.e. migrants)

Owner of the Building (2 out of 26)

Rendering the building more attractive (in the case of a rooftop garden)

Demonstrating how to grow food on a rooftop garden

4.1.2 Ownership and Policies

In most of the gardens, either the local municipality is the owner of the plot, or a housing company is. The length of the contract varies between one to three years. For some exceptions, the contract is unlimited (See Annex C, Table 4). The areas where community gardens are established are either empty plots, green squares in the neighbourhood or rooftops (See Annex C, Table 5). The empty unused areas are a result of the economic crisis and the lack of demand for real estate property (mentioned by 7 out of 26 projects). When the area is an empty unused plot, it can deteriorate due to waste disposal or undesired activities like drug dealing, sex tourism or robbery. This is illustrated in the following statement: "(...) if you have a plot which is just empty, you get waste, you get weeds, and it doesn't look nice. So it attracts criminal activities, not necessarily but usually these places don't become nice places. But by putting some activities there it can avoid that and it’s positive and if it's also something for the community and its green, what's not to like about it?" (Moestuinman, Rotterdam). Many respondents highlighted that municipalities and housing companies are generally motivated to allocate the unused sites for garden initiatives to maintain or enhance the quality of the area. When asked how long the short notice is for them to remove their garden of the plot, most of the leaders did not know: “It’s not really clear, what I did do is I asked if next year we are still in business and they said yes (...). So basically it seems like every year they give us the green light, but (...) they could put us away of the plot before we harvest the products. But I assume that, because they are also sensitive for public opinion, they are probably going to...I mean these plans don’t develop so fast, so probably it’s not going to happen.” (Moestuinman, Rotterdam). Regarding this land tenure insecurity, community garden leaders adopted different strategies. Some counted on social protest if the garden were to be removed, other stated from the beginning that they would leave the area once it is used for other purposes. Social protest coming from the neighbourhood if a project were to be removed is well illustrated in

Table 3. Type of community/allotment gardens distinguished on the basis of the goals and leaders

18

this comment: "(...) after 2 years there would be a lot of pressure, because our movement is growing and we have a lot of alliances, then the government would have a problem with their image (...)" (Gemeinschafts Garten Landhof, Basel). When asking the leaders whether there were any specific legal restrictions for UA, not one respondent knew about a specific restriction to UA. Most respondents highlighted that the authorities were quite flexible and cooperative regarding the establishment of greenhouses or for instance the use of water sources, which are not theirs (i.e. sources from firehouse). Yet, this flexibility varies from one authority to another: "(...) I know a lot of people whom have an easy time with the authorities. I am thinking why the local authorities are being that complicated with us when it could be so easy” (Moestuinman, Rotterdam). Local authorities may also block the process by establishing strict regulations: “(...) I had a set of 5 pages of all the rules I had to conform to (...) it was absurd (...) I didn’t think it was very supportive, it was like a legal document that you would give to a developer, not to some kind of initiative civilians who want to make their neighbourhood a bit better (...)” (Heiloo garden). Various respondents (18 out of 26) highlighted some challenges such as the amount of time needed to contact and communicate with the local authorities and the number of aldermen with whom they have to communicate. What is more, when changes take place in the local authorities, the process is slowed down since communication needs to be established with new aldermen: "The problem is that I used to communicate with one alderman who was very interested in this project, but the mayor sent away all of the aldermen due to bad budget management. So now there are 3 new aldermen, one is responsible for the sustainability, and one for the area. So now I have to deal with two aldermen" (Vrijgroen II, Leiden).

4.1.3 Financial Issues

For the majority of the gardens, money didn’t really seem to be an issue. According to one interviewee: “you can start with little money, just by buying some seeds and some tools” (Vrijgroen II, Leiden). Gardens are generally receiving subsidies from the local authorities, the national government, foundations, competitions on creative urban projects, and financial contributions from the participants. The amounts invested vary between 500 Euros (excluding gardening tools) to 85’000 Euros for a one-year budget for the garden. These budgets vary according to the goal of the garden, the number of persons included in the garden, the hiring of staff, the size of the garden and the location and type of plot for instance if it is located on a roof, on a polluted plot that needs to be sanitized, on a plot with many bushes or a plot with only grass.

Large rooftop gardens generally invested more money since technical expertise is needed to estimate how much load the roof can handle and what insulation techniques are needed in order to avoid leakage in the building. In the case of the Dakakker 140’000 Euros were invested, and finances originated from a €4 million prize from the City of Rotterdam, concerning an architectural project, of which the rooftop garden was part.

4.1.4 Social Organisation of community gardens

The main issues highlighted concerning the organisation of gardens were: building up a group of motivated persons for the garden, vandalism in the neighbourhood, knowledge on gardening or thievery of vegetables. Being an enthusiastic group of people was perceived as an important element for the garden to be established (23 out of 26). In the case of the garden in Heiloo for instance, the leader highlighted: “I always said I want to do a lot of work for this project but I don’t want to do it

Figure 6. The Dakakker project, Rotterdam

19

alone. I had the feeling I had to do it all by myself, and that’s not what a community garden is about. Maybe the time is not right, I don’t know” (Heiloo’s garden). In order to establish the garden in the neighbourhood, the leader of the project needed to have 70% of the persons surrounding the area willing to have the garden, but due to fear of vandalism, it was not possible to get the 70%: “(...) there was no way to get those people who were living around the piece of ground meant to be a community garden, to get them with us to make it a garden because they were too afraid that it would be damaged, that was a big disappointment (...)” (Heiloo’s garden). The leader in Heiloo decided to try to establish a plan B with a community garden in a plot on a private property of a psychiatric hospital: “I will start a project in another plot, together with an institution for mental illnesses. We can make more use of the people in the mental institution; they have a greenhouse in which they work with people from the mental illness institution. I still want to go on, and I start plan B." (Heiloo’s garden). In this case the leader managed to get more support from the institution. A number of interviewees argued that the people of the neighbourhood must be in favour of the garden, and integrate the project well into the neighbourhood (21 out of 26). One of the gardens used to be in the centre of Leiden and then they had to move because the municipality gave the plot for a company to build a parking lot. In this case the interviewee stated: "The other plot was in the Bioscience Park, it's a prestigious park, and we were not prestigious, we were "too hippie like". We had a contract for 2 years, and the union of the companies around asked the municipality not to give more than 2 years contract." (Vrijgroen II, Rotterdam). Knowledge of gardening was an issue for specific projects established by Transition Town7 Rotterdam, having the goal of creating a local food network via the multiplication of community gardens in a neighbourhood. When such is the goal, it seems like knowledge and interest on gardening from the participants becomes an important criterion in order for the garden to be self-sustainable, especially when the project is not an initiative originating from the residents themselves. Thievery of vegetables might become a perturbation when it happens frequently. To face the problem of theft, leaders propose different strategies: producing an abundant amount of vegetables, regulating it via social control of the neighbourhood or trying to negotiate with the people that are harvesting the vegetables without putting anything back to the garden. The idea of abundance is the following: “I really believe in the abundance so if there is enough, people won't steal, people won't demolish (...) I am a big believer of the abundance philosophy (...) I am also trying to create more of such gardens in order for there to be the situation where there is more food than what people need (...)” (Moestuinman, Rotterdam). Other leaders thought that theft could be regulated by social control: "The first things I can remember here is that a tree got stolen taken away with the roots, and then one time all the rhubarb was stolen, two big bags of harvest whereas we've never seen that person here before. But there is a lot of social control because there is the building here of Humanitas and with old people in it, and they always look down on the garden (...)” (Het Bergwegplantsoen, Rotterdam). When residential houses surround the garden, social control is higher, especially if the garden is well integrated and accepted by the local residents.

4.1.5 Soil Conditions and Production Methods

In every garden, a soil test was undertaken, financed by local authorities or housing companies (See Annex C, Table 6). In the Valreep, no test was undertaken since initiators knew the plot was polluted beforehand. When soil was polluted either raised beds are established or the soil is sanitized via local authorities’ support.

7 Transition Town Rotterdam is a network of people whom try to change their neighbourhood or city

into a “healthy, resilience and vibrant ” area http://www.transitiontownrotterdam.nl/

20

None of the gardens had a report of the soil; all of the reports were with the local authorities or housing corporations. Sometimes, it can also be perceived as if soil pollution is not the main worry: “Yes we did it once but every year we think we should do it another time. It’s not like something we don't like to do, but it’s just that we forget about it. We have to do it once; we have also to test the ground to see whether there is enough calcium for the vegetables. But we don't really think about whether its polluted or not.” (Tuin aan de Maas, Rotterdam). Regarding the soil quality itself, most of the times this was not considered as an important criteria when establishing the garden, mostly since the leaders had no choice concerning the plot. One respondent mentioned that she had more than one plot available and could choose accordingly to soil quality: “(...) that plot was too dry, it was sand. So the other plot was better. It's better to have a soil that is wet and not very fertile than a soil that is dry. You can do something about a wet soil, via drainage, and you can build more fertility.” (Vrijgroen II, Leiden). For the production methods, most of the garden leaders say that they try to look at a good combination of plants, have much diversity via polycultures for instance and they generally practice a crop rotation. Every garden leader highlights they do not use chemical pesticides and chemical fertilizers. The main inputs are manure and compost. The manure is either bought, or received from children animal farms or from acquaintances such as farmers or horse riders. Whether the manure is completely organic is not a big concern: “It’s not entirely organic, but you just work with what you got.” (Moestuinman, Rotterdam). The compost is also either bought, or produced with the vegetable scraps of the participants or vegetable scraps coming from organic restaurants. For some respondents, the soil was challenging because it was not fertile enough and it takes time to build soil fertility:“(...) the biggest problem with temporary gardens is that you need years to build up soil organic matter. And it is hard to build it up, if in some years you are leaving the area to another area, once again you have to build it all up again.” (Vrijgroen II, Rotterdam). Regarding the roof gardens, the soil is a light type of soil, based on a special lava stone substrate in some cases. Plants don't seem to grow well in that soil. In the case of the Dakakker, the respondent highlighted that he has been adding manure three times a year in order for plants to grow well (Dakakker, Rotterdam). Regarding pests and diseases, the gardens did not face many problems. When problems arise, project leaders try to adapt, either by changing the type of plants, or by bringing in more diversity into the garden: “We do have insects on some vegetables like borecole and broccoli, but we just try something else, instead of killing the insects to get some groceries out of it, we just put other vegetables.” (Tuin aan de Maas, Rotterdam). Most of the leaders also consider it a learning process, with a trial and error method.

4.1.6 Criteria for Crop Selection

Crops were chosen in different ways in the gardens: participants met before the season and establish which crops will be grown or participants experimented during the season, which crops work. Most of the times crops were chosen based on participants’ eating preferences and also on sun availability. The type of vegetables and fruits that appeared the most were: Red beet, rocket lettuce, fennel, kohlrabi, tomatoes, spinach, potato, bean, carrot, cabbage, lettuce, chard, celery, tomato, onion, pumpkin, courgette, black radish, different types of Chinese cabbage, spinach, artichokes, raspberry, strawberry. Herbs and edible flowers are also commonly grown in every garden. One project was not able to plant fruit trees, because the local municipality asked them not to do so, since it is a temporary garden and once it is ended, they do not want to have the responsibility of removing the fruit trees (L'arbre à Palabre, Bienne).

21

In the case of rooftop gardens, the crops were chosen based on different criteria, namely low maintenance plants, drought resistant, bird, mouse and caterpillar resistant, aesthetically nice and easy to harvest (Dakakker, Rotterdam). In the case of the Groene Campus project, the crops that were chosen depended on the educational goals.

4.2 “Entrepreneurial” Urban Agriculture

4.2.1 Origins

The concept of having a commercial urban farmer is quite new for Europe. According to the interviewee from the project Uit je eigen stad in Rotterdam, he is the first commercial urban farmer in Western Europe. "Commercial" in the sense that he can earn his living thanks to this activity and the project itself does not receive governmental support as all the other UA projects do. Two other projects in Switzerland go in this same path, although at a smaller scale and both projects in Switzerland are receiving subsidies from the government. Yet, there are some entrepreneurial components to it, since in one case the harvest is used in a restaurant (10% of products come from the garden) and the financial returns of the restaurant is a financial support for the garden, and in the other case, the project has an area where people can pick themselves the vegetables and another area with a greenhouse used as a plant nursery. The seedlings are sold to local vegetable cooperatives. For a general overview of entrepreneurial UA projects, see Annex C, Table 7, including starting year, size of project and number of participants. The leaders were most of the time private individuals, who get together and as a group had the idea of establishing an innovative project, with the main common goal of bringing food back to the city (See Annexe C, Table 8). The plots were located in different areas: The Uit je eigen stad project is located in an industrial area, near the old harbour of Rotterdam, the Frau Gerolds Garten project is located in a commercial area and the Beaulieu project is located in a park.

The owner of the plots differ from housing corporations, to private individual owners to the municipality, and the contracts also differ from a maximum of 10 years to negotiating every year for the next year in the case of the Beaulieu project. This gives a certain uncertainty to the project.

Figure 8. Uit je eigen stad: neighbourhood area

Figure 7. Frau Gerolds Garten

Source: (http://www.fraugerold.ch/garten/)

22

Name of projects

Before the garden Owner of the plot

Length of contract with owner of plot

1. Uit je eigen stad

Old railway station for cargo purposes

Housing corporation 10 years

2. Frau Gerolds Garten

Empty private plot Private individual owner 4 years

3. Beaulieu Plot in a big park where the Green Services of Geneva used to have their plant production

Municipality Negotiated every year

Around 1000'000 Euros were initially invested in the Uit je eigen stad project, 83'000 Euros for the Beaulieu project, and 8'500 Euros for the Frau Gerold Garten project. Yet, these are only estimations and for instance in the Frau Gerold Garten project the water system investment is not included in the 8'500 Euros. The funds originate from bank loans, housing corporation loans, and crowd funding in the case of Uit je eigen stad. For the other two projects, they received subsidies from the local authorities at the beginning of the project. In the case of the Frau Gerold Garten, the garden is now mostly financed thanks to the restaurant's income. For the Beaulieu project, the nursery project is financially sustainable whereas the pick themselves vegetable project is not financially sustainable and is mostly subsidized by the local authorities.

4.2.2 Social organisation of "entrepreneurial" UA projects

The urban farmer at Uit je eigen stad works there 50 to 60 hours per week during the summer, and around 40 hours per week during the winter, with the help of an intern. Ten greenhouses were established of 25 m long, known as tunnel greenhouses. Water is collected from the permanent greenhouse roof into a water collector, and from a 25 meters deep well. In the case of Frau Gerolds Garten there are three gardeners, working part time, which receive a small income for their work in the garden, and sometimes volunteers from the neighbourhood also come to help in the garden. In the case of the Beaulieu project, there are 3 gardeners working part time to cultivate the plants, and the clients can come harvest the products, while the seedlings are sold to local vegetable cooperatives. The management perturbations varied, but for these projects the pre-establishment management perturbations were highlighted. In the case of Uit je eigen stad, it took three years to handle all the administrative aspects such as getting the plot, getting the licence, organising the area and getting the loans. In the case of Frau Gerolds Garten, the most difficult part was to build up the whole project and get the licence for the restaurant. In the case of Beaulieu, it was also difficult to get the plot. The respondents also referred to the fact that the projects can only work if the citizens like the project and support it: “If the people from Rotterdam don't like this project then we are doomed, it will not work (...)” (Uit je eiden stad, Rotterdam).

4.2.3 Soil and Production Methods

In the case of Uit je eigen stad, the soil was only slightly polluted, but since it used to be a train station before, the project managers took the precaution of establishing 0.5 meters of fresh soil from the south of Rotterdam and they established a cloth in between the fresh soil and original soil on the plot: "There is almost no pollution but since it was a railway station you never know if maybe in one spot, oil went down, and its polluted. One little piece can be polluted and somewhere else not. It happens everywhere, like tractors spill oil, you never

Table 4. Before the garden, owner of the plots, and length of the contract for the "entrepreneurial" UA project

23

know, but in general there is almost not pollution. But to prevent even that little risk, especially the idea that some people think it’s then polluted, we can say, no there is a layer in between and roots cannot grow in between (...)" (Uit je eigen stad, Rotterdam). In the case of Frau Gerolds Garten, the soil was polluted and thus raised beds are used. According to this respondent: "Raised beds are inefficient, but it's the only way in the city " (Frau Gerolds Garten, Zürich). Finally in the Beaulieu project, the soil was not polluted; the area is located in a park and before the area was used by the Green services of the city. The three projects are organic gardens and have crop rotations, yet only one of the projects has the certification, namely the Beaulieu project. Although in Uit je eigen stad they use organic production methods, they do not have the organic certification: "Everything we do in the garden is organic, fits into organic rules but we will never get an organic licence because the soil is taken from somewhere else and there is an anti-root cloth underneath it, so according to organic rules it’s a substrate, it’s not the original soil, it’s a substrate and a substrate is not organic although the substrate is organic. Growing on substrate is not organic. (Uit je eigen stad, Rotterdam)". In urban areas, most of the times it is necessary to have fresh soil, since soil is most likely to be polluted in urban areas. In this case, the respondent argues that maybe once urban farmer projects develop more often, there will be another legal framework for urban farmers concerning organic production: “Maybe if there are more urban farmers there will be new rules established for urban farmers in the nearby future, but only if there is enough urban farmers. This is the only commercial urban farmer so far in Western Europe as far as I know. There are a few commercial ones in the States.” (Uit je eigen stad, Rotterdam). According to the respondent of the project Uit je eigen stad, one big perturbation to this "entrepreneurial" UA system was the soil. The soil was brought from the South of Holland, from a two-meter deep soil profile. The soil had many different layers, which are now mixed, and thus it lacks a soil structure. The soil is not very fertile either. In order to face this, they contacted a company specialized in soil and giving advice for this specific soil on how to render it fertile. They gave a special compost mix suited for this type of soil. The respondent from Uit je eigen stad did not mention having problems with the crops regarding diseases a part from rhizoctonia in the potatoes. He did however mention that such problems will probably arise in the future: “Pests and diseases probably we will get them next year because that’s a normal problem with this kind of soil, it’s not in balance. Now it’s young and fresh and its easily taken out of balance. It can go ok but it easily can go wrong. There is no resistance. It’s not balanced out very well” (Uit je eigen stad, Rotterdam). One major issue were the root weeds. Another issue were the rabbits and the pigeons. In order to face these challenges, the farmers are exploring possibilities of hunting them, yet in an urban context this seems quite delicate. For the Frau Gerold’s project, there are not many production issues, the respondent only referred to pests such as rats. Finally, for the Beaulieu project, no production challenges were mentioned in the respondent’s answer of the questionnaire.

4.2.4 Criteria for Crop Selection

According to the respondent from Uit je eigen stad, the crops are chosen accordingly to the payback. He argues that the land in urban areas is expensive and since the area is not that large (1 ha of vegetable area) it is not possible to use large machines, as do the regular farmers in the rural areas. In Uit je eigen stad, instead of producing regular onions, they produce fresh onions that need to be harvested manually. These vegetables are very labour intensive. The strategy of this project is to produce vegetables, which can't be found in every supermarket, mostly because they don't have a long shelf life. They produce a variety of vegetables such as sweet corn, zucchini, yellow zucchini, pickles, cucumbers, tomatoes, salads, red/yellow/white/orange/purple beets, orange/white/yellow/black carrots, different varieties of chinese cabbage, kohlrabi, cabbages and so on. Uit je eigen stad project also

24

has some brusselsprouts or boeren cole during the winter. These crops are not financially viable for such a small area, yet: “(...) we have them because we want people that are walking around here to see it, especially these plants which are beautiful plants to see and people eat them a lot so you have to have them but we only do a small part.” (Uit je eigen stad, Rotterdam). For the crops in the nursery project of Beaulieu, the criteria for crop selection is based on rare, local, non-hybrid crops which have the label ProSpeciaRare8 in Switzerland. In the case of Frau Gerold, the production is mostly for the restaurant and thus is based on the preferences for the restaurant menu, mostly herbs and salads.

8 http://www.prospecierara.ch/fr/fondation/la-fondation-prospecierara

25

5 Vulnerability Analysis The research showed that UA systems are most of the times quite vulnerable, yet resilient in some cases. Resilience in the sense that there are system disturbances, yet there is a capability of the system to adapt to it, via "self-organization, a capacity for learning, and a capacity to absorb change" (Nelson, Adger et al. 2007). Depending on the factors of perturbations, the system might either adapt to the perturbations, transform into another project or be brought to an end. In this section I will identify the different sources of perturbation and undertake a vulnerability assessment of each UA system researched. The score given to the vulnerability assessments are all based on the interpretation of the results from the research on the projects in the Netherlands and in Switzerland.

5.1 Vulnerability assessment of UA projects

5.1.1 Sources of perturbations and possible resiliencies

From the UA projects researched, a number of aspects appeared to be sources of perturbations to the system. I decided to only focus on perturbations, which were common to most UA projects, namely: a lack of land tenure, a lack of policies, departure of leader, withdrawal of subsidies, lack of remuneration, lack of support from the neighbourhood, unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism), lack of demand for products, lack of nutrients/pests, and polluted soil. Lack of land tenure was highlighted in the UA projects researched. The latter are mostly located on uncertain future construction plots owned by the local municipality and they have an uncertain contract with the municipality. Most of these projects are accepted on empty plots because the plots are unused anyway. This lack of land tenure does present a certain perturbation, especially in order for participants to continue to be motivated to establish a temporary project, for which the number of years is generally unknown. Furthermore, if the garden is moved from one area to another, it is difficult to re-establish the garden on another plot, not only with regard to soil fertility but also with regard to finding new-motivated participants in the neighbourhood. Yet, it seems like the gardens have different strategies regarding the use of the land and the continuation of the garden project. Some leaders hope for social protest, others highlight the importance of a project to be well integrated in the neighbourhood and finally some leaders say that they will accept the future establishment of new buildings and they will not protest against it. The authorities are either too strict about UA projects and establish long lists of regulations, as was the case for the project in Heiloo, or the authorities remain flexible about the regulations and even go further and support the establishment of UA projects. This political will seems to depend very much on the aldermen, whether they have an inclination for UA projects or not. Some are more flexible and open to UA projects, others are less flexible and believe that everything needs to be well regulated and top down. Which role municipalities have did not become clear in this research. From the interviews, it seemed like local municipalities were pleased with these developments, since local residents were taking care of unused areas, which were starting to become a dumping area. Yet, local authorities still seem to perceive these projects as not part of the city. Leadership was highlighted by the projects researched as being of great importance to establish a long-term project in a neighbourhood. In order to get the plot, the funds, and the group of motivated participants, there is a need to have at least one leader. In some projects, if this leader leaves, it might put an end to the project if no other leaders are to be found. In other project, potential leaders are already participating to the project and the fear of lack of leadership is non-existent.

26

The majority of projects researched rely on subsidies from foundations. Although it appears to be quite easy to get subsidies for such projects, most of them rely on these subsidies. A withdrawal might impact the establishment of such UA systems. From this research it is not clear whether such UA systems would exist nevertheless without the access to subsidies. Some project leaders of community garden argued that they would finance it with private funds if subsidies were not available. In the case of entrepreneurial UA projects, the majority of the finances originate from bank loans, but crowd funding was also used. In those cases, the investments are larger than community gardens. A number of leaders argued that they should be remunerated for the social benefit they are bringing to the neighbourhood. However, from what is said, leaders did not find funds to be remunerated. Other project leaders did not refer to it as being an issue, and perceived the project as a hobby where remuneration is not necessary. Only specific projects had remunerated staff, such as those working with social Housing Corporation as a social leader of the project or entrepreneurial UA projects. Lack of support from the neighbourhood is a perturbation mostly in order for the project to be established but also in order for the project to be long term. When the project is well integrated in the neighbourhood, planners include the garden in the map, as if it was long term and not temporary. In some cases, lack of support from the neighbourhood did not enable the establishment of the project, or put an existent project to an end. Further, social control against vandalism or theft might also increase when the project is well integrated in the neighbourhood. Vandalism impeded the establishment of one project studied. Vandalism can be an issue, depending on the degree and level of it. However, vandalism can also decrease if such a project is established, according to the respondents. Yet, it is difficult to establish causality between establishment of projects and reduction of vandalism. UA systems adapt to theft of vegetables, and they have different sources of resilience such as social control, or producing abundantly in order to have enough harvest even if thievery occurs. If the garden is well integrated in the neighbourhood, social control over the garden might also appear according to the interviews and vandalism or disturbances in the garden might decrease. Lack of demand for products was highlighted mostly by the "entrepreneurial" UA projects as a perturbation since without the support from the public, the project would not be profitable and investments would not pay out. Lack of nutrients and exposure to pests is considered as a perturbation when the level and degree of such perturbations is high. The majority of the UA projects are located on non-fertile plots of land, and they are adding manure and compost to fertilize it. Most of the projects tended to change the type of crop when problems appeared. Crops are very diverse and projects have a crop rotation. Nearly half of the projects are on plots with non-polluted soil, and the other half located on polluted soil or on rooftops. From the researched projects, especially for the community gardens, it did not appear to be very regulated. Soil was tested at the very beginning of the project, but only one mentioned that the authorities tested the soil every two years. Most project leaders were not concerned with soil pollution. When soil was polluted either it was sanitized or raised beds were used. The entrepreneurial gardens soils seem more controlled with regard to contamination. In one case the soil was replaced with new fresh soil and a cloth was established between the old and fresh soil in order to avoid any kind of fear of pollution by the consumers.

27

5.1.2 Vulnerability score: Exposure, Sensitivity and Resilience

From the different perturbations identified above, a vulnerability diagnosis was undertaken for each of the 29 projects researched (See Annexe D). For each project, I went through every perturbation and established a score for the exposure, sensitivity and resilience of the project to the perturbation. The average of these three scores represents the vulnerability score of the system for each perturbation. The exposure of a project highlights the frequency of the occurrence of the perturbation going from LOW, MEDIUM to HIGH. The sensitivity highlights the reason why and how these perturbations affect an UA system. For instance, when there is the perturbation lack of land tenure, the sensitivity of the project can be that it is only temporary and the source of resilience can be social protest. Different sources of resilience were found, going from social protest when a project is to be removed, to diverse sources of income and low costs for the establishment of a project, to compromises with local neighbourhoods, negotiations with local authorities, social control against theft or vandalism and flexibility in growing diverse crops adapted to the local circumstances. An overall vulnerability score to the whole system with regard to these ten perturbations was also established. The average vulnerability scores per perturbation in Table 5 give a general overview of the UA projects researched, divided between the community garden projects and the “entrepreneurial” UA projects.

Perturbations Average vulnerability score

Community gardens (26 projects)

“Entrepreneurial” UA projects (3 projects)

Lack of land tenure MEDIUM Score 1

MEDIUM Score 0.8

Lack of policies MEDIUM score 1 MEDIUM Score 0.8

Departure of leader MEDIUM Score 0.9

MEDIUM Score 0.8

Withdrawal of subsidies MEDIUM, score 1.2 MEDIUM 1.3

Lack of remuneration LOW Score 0.5

MEDIUM Score 1.3

Lack of support from the neighbourhood MEDIUM Score 1.2

MEDIUM Score 1.3

Theft and vandalism in urban environment MEDIUM Score 0.9 MEDIUM Score: 1.3

Lack of demand for products LOW Score 0

MEDIUM Score: 1.3

Lack of nutrients/ Pests MEDIUM Score: 0.8

HIGH Score: 1.6

Polluted soil MEDIUM Score: 0.8

MEDIUM Score: 1.1

Most of the scores for the community gardens vary between MEDIUM and LOW. The highest vulnerability scores for the community gardens are the withdrawal of subsidies and the lack of support from the neighbourhood, followed by the lack of land tenure and lack of policies. The departure of leader, the lack of nutrients/pests and the polluted soil scored in between 0.8 and 0.9. These perturbations seemed to affect the system less than the others since the

Table 5. Urban Agriculture systems: vulnerability assessment score per type of UA project and type of perturbation

28

score is smaller to 1. Regarding the community gardens, the vulnerability score for the lack of demand is at a low level because the goal of such projects is usually not to sell the harvest, but to consume it themselves. Further, the vulnerability score for the lack of remuneration is low because most of the times community gardens are seen as a hobby and no remuneration is required. Yet, in some community gardens, leaders did refer to remuneration aspects and the importance for them to be remunerated because of the social benefit they put forward. For the “entrepreneurial” UA projects, the scores vary from MEDIUM to HIGH. Only one perturbation was considered as HIGH, namely the lack of nutrients and pests. This is due to the fact that "entrepreneurial" UA projects all highlighted the issue of the infertile soil and how it affects the productivity and income of the project. Withdrawal of subsidies, lack of remuneration, lack of support from the neighbourhood, theft and vandalism and lack of demand for products all scored 1.3. An average vulnerability score was calculated for each project. The scores go from MEDIUM (1.3) to LOW (0.3). Projects established by housing corporations, private building owners or institutions such as schools have a low vulnerability score. Many projects are in between 0.8 and 1, including community gardens and "entrepreneurial" UA projects. The highest vulnerability score is 1.3, given to Heiloo, a project that was not established on the original plot planned.

Overall average vulnerability scores

Project Average Vulnerability Score

1. Heiloo 1.3

2. Vrijgroen I 1.2

3. Beaulieu 1.2

4. Uit je eigen 1.1

5. Frau Gerolds Garten 1.1

6. HEKS 1.1

7. Voedseltuin 1.1

8. Lorraine 1

9. Moestuinman 1

10. Vrijgroen II 1

11. Daktuinen Beuningenplein 1

12. Gemeinschafts Garten 1

13. Het Bergwegplantsoen 0.9

14. Buurtuinen Transvaal 0.9

15. Tuin aan de Maas 0.9

16. Ghandituin 0.9

17. Buurtuinen de Trompenburg 0.9

18. Stadion garten 0.9

19. L'arbre a palabre 0.9

20. Tuin op de pier 0.8

21. Buurtuinen Middenmoes 0.8

22. Bikkershof 0.8

23. Educatieve Moestuin 0.8

24. Valreep 0.6

25. Tussentuin 0.6

26. Stadslandbouw Schiebroek 0.5

27. De Groene Campus 0.4

28. Zuidpark 0.3

29. Dakakker 0.3

The tables 5 and 6 above give an overview of the perturbations and the vulnerability scores related, however the exposure of a system to a perturbation, the sensitivity to it and the

Table 6. Overall average vulnerability score per project

29

resilience varies enormously depending on local circumstances, local leaders and the types of UA project (See Annexe D). I will not go through every 29 projects, but rather take some projects, which highlight well the differences in local socio-institutional circumstances and how this affects the UA system. In fact, perturbations originating from the human conditions are generally affecting the UA systems more than the environment conditions (bio-physical). Three projects, namely Heiloo's project, Valreep and Vrijgroen I illustrate well the following perturbations: lack of land tenure, departure of leader and lack of support from the neighbourhood. These three projects were chosen as examples since they illustrate well how those perturbations affect a system, but also how these systems react differently to the perturbations. These three perturbations were chosen, because there are all linked to one another. For the lack of land tenure, in the three cases the exposure is high because the leaders of the project do not own the plot of land but the municipality does. In the case of Heiloo, the plot could be used if the conditions established by the municipality were completed; yet those conditions were very strict and thus were not completed. In this case, other perturbations are also linked to the lack of tenure perturbation as for instance the lack of support from the local authorities, which established an extensive list of legal restrictions regarding the project's establishment. Since support was not received from the municipality, the leader of the project in Heiloo changed the location of the plot, from a municipality owned land to a non-municipality owned land. The leader tried to find support via other paths, in this case via the institution for mental illnesses, in which the leader is now planning another UA project. In the case of the Valreep project, the municipality did not agree to let the project use the plot and thus it became an illegal project. The resilience of the Valreep system is higher to the Heiloo project because although illegal, the Valreep project was established anyways, without support from the authorities. The lack of land tenure also affected the Vrijgroen I project. The owner of the land is the municipality, and during the second year of this project the municipality decided to stop the contract and replaced it to a parking lot. This lack of land tenure is linked also to the perturbation lack of integration to the neighbourhood, because if this project were well integrated in the neighbourhood, social protest from the neighbourhood might have appeared, but it did not. In fact, the Vrijgroen I project used to be in the Business Centre of Leiden and the leader believes that the project was "too hippie like" and simply did not fit into the neighbourhood.

Lack of land tenure

EXPOSURE SENSITIVITY RESILIENCE VULNERABILITY SCORE

HEILOO

HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): Municipality established conditions in order for the plot to be used by project

LOW (score 2): Municipality conditions were not fulfilled by project leader

HIGH (Score 2): Project was not established on that plot

VALREEP HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): Illegal project

HIGH (score 0): Although illegal to use land the project is using it

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established on illegal plot

VRIJGROEN I HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): Municipality can end project whenever wanted

LOW (score 2): No social protest from majority of neighbourhood

HIGH (Score 2): Project was ended

The Valreep system scored a high level of resilience for all three perturbations. The high level resilience of the Valreep system can also be linked to the type of leadership. In the

Table 7. Lack of land tenure: Heiloo, Valreep, Vrijgroen I

30

Valreep, not only are there active residents in favour of the project, but there is also a social movement behind it, namely the squatting movement, supporting it. In the case of the Heiloo project, there was mainly one leader trying to establish the project and thus the resilience of the system did not score HIGH because although some residents were interested in the project, they did not play an active role and were not potential leaders.

Departure of leader

Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

HEILOO HIGH (score 2): Project only has one main leader

HIGH (score 2): Lack of support for leader; too much burden

MEDIUM (score 1): A group of residents are supporting the project but not really involved

HIGH (score 1.6): Although some residents are enthusiastic the entire burden is falling on one main leader.

VALREEP LOW (score 0): Project has different leaders and the squatting movement behind it

LOW (score 0): Project is well supported by not only garden leaders but squatting movement

HIGH (score 0): If the one of the leaders leave, another is available

LOW (score 0)- Project is well supported by various leaders

VRIJGROEN I MEDIUM (score 1): Project had around 5 core participants

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): If one leader would leave others would be available

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by more than one leader

Finally, the rather low level of resilience of the Heiloo project is also linked to the fact that there was a lack of support from the neighbourhood. Residents in the neighbourhood were afraid of vandalism and in order for the project to be established, 70% of the surrounding residents had to be in favour.

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

HEILOO HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

LOW (score 2): The project was not established due to lack of support from neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): The project was not established in the first plot due to lack of support from the neighbourhood

VALREEP HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but to be long term needs continual support

VRIJGROEN I HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

LOW (score 2): Project did not attract much people

HIGH (score 2): The project took an end due to lack of support

All in all, when calculating the average vulnerability scores of these three systems with regard to these three perturbations, the vulnerability score of the Heiloo and the Vrijgroen project is high with a score of 1.8 and 1.6, and the Valreep vulnerability is medium with a score of 0.8. Although the local authorities do not recognize the Valreep project and leaders do not receive any subsidies, the group of people working in this project are still motivated to continue the project. The garden receives much support from the squatting movement and this also is a source of resilience for this system. Thus, the resilience of the system also depends on the internal participants of the UA system and the institutions or social movements supporting them.

Table 8. Departure of leader: Heiloo, Valreep, Vrijgroen I

Table 9. Lack of support from the neighbourhood: Heiloo, Valreep, Vrijgroen I

31

The exposures of the three systems to the perturbations, except for the “departure of leader” perturbation, are all considered as HIGH. Yet as described above, and illustrated in Figure 7, the vulnerability score varies from HIGH (Vrijgroen I and Heiloo) to MEDIUM (Valreep).

From the analysis of the three projects above, it appears also clearly that the perturbations and the sources of resiliencies are linked to one another. For the Heiloo project, the lack of support from the neighbourhood is linked to the fact that there is an unsafe urban environment. The latter is linked also the lack of policies which includes the lack of political will also to make the residents more confident and fear vandalism less. The lack of policies in this case was not positive but negative because local authorities were dealing with the establishment of UA projects for the first time and thus established a long list of regulations for the area. Further although the sources of perturbations are of relevance to almost every type of project, the system’s resilience differs enormously based on the local circumstances for instance the local leadership, the support of the project by institutions or social movements, the local authorities in favour or against the project, and the local support of the neighbourhood.

5.2 Matching Plots and Projects From the sources of perturbations highlighted above and the vulnerability scores, I can conclude that the main criteria for suitability of locations are not site-related (biophysical) but are rather related to the socio-institutional sphere. The establishment of an UA system can take place in any spot of the city, if the system is ready to adapt to the circumstances given and if the local authorities or the owner of the area accepts the project and is flexible about it. In some cases however, leaders had a choice between different plots and this is how different types of criteria were identified which make it easier when establishing a garden. Different possible solutions to eventual perturbations to the system were also identified.

5.2.1 Criteria for Plot Choice

The project leaders highlighted different aspects that can be taken into consideration when choosing the plot, listed below in Table 10. They are categorised as follows: soil, sun availability, amount of wind, access to water, type of neighbourhood, environment, owner of the plot, size of plot, number of participants and

Figure 9. Vulnerability scores with different levels of perturbations adapted from (Nelson, Adger et al.

2007).

Vulnerability score

HIGH

LOW

Perturbations

LOW

HIGH

Vrijgroen I Heiloo

Valreep

32

goal of the project. The aspects identified by the respondents are similar to the ones identified in the academic literature (Lovell 2010; Milburn and Vail 2010).

Criteria for choice plot Description

Soil:

- Soil pollution

- Soil quality

If soil is polluted it can be sanitized or use raised beds Polluted spots can be used for non-edible flowers If soil is polluted, another plot can be found if

available In most cases soil quality was not regarded as an

important criteria in order to establish the garden In one case one plot was chosen because it was less

dry than another plot which was more humid Compost and manure is incorporated in every soil in

order to improve soil quality In the case of rooftop gardens, most of the times a

light type of soil is used in order to diminish the amount of weight on the rooftop.

Type of Neighbourhood:

- New or old

- Mixing different types of social neighbourhoods

- Residential or industrial

- Next to the centre or not

- Visibility from street

- Vandalism/Unsafe neighbourhood

Project is easier integrated into a new neighbourhood

than in an old existing neighbourhood

Project is best placed in same type of social neighbourhoods in order not to have social tensions between two different types of social neighbourhoods.

Gardens are best located in residential areas close to

the participants (5 min walk or bike ride) Whether the garden is in the centre or the

surrounding of the city, it did not seem as important criteria.

Some leaders highlighted the importance for the garden to be visible from the street in order to arouse curiosity and attract more participants

If there is a lot of vandalism (mostly vandalism

undertaken by the teenagers of the neighbourhood) in the neighbourhood it might refrain local initiatives from taking place. It depends on the level of vandalism.

Environment:

- Noisy or calm

- Next to a crowded car road

- Next to buildings (microclimate)

- Infrastructure availability - Sun availability

Most gardens try to be located away from busy

streets When located near busy streets, filter bushes can be

grown in between the garden and the road

When gardens are located near buildings, the temperature rises, thus even with not much sun, there can be a microclimate. Wind exposure is diminished.

Located nearby to small sheds or garages that can be used to store tools

Located near water sources, legal or illegal (i.e firehouse)

When no water source available, collection of rainwater via water tanks or ponds.

Sun availability was only a criteria when more than one plot available

In shady areas, vegetables resilient to shade are grown.

Owner of the plot:

- Flexible and cooperative Leaders interviewed preferred having as less

restrictions and rules possible If the garden is part of a bigger project, such as for

Table 10. Criteria for UA choice plot

33

instance in one case a possible plot would have been in a new designed park, then according to the leader, there might be to many restrictions established by the project or the local authorities

If the local authorities are not very flexible, this can impede some leaders from establishing the garden

Size of the plot One leader established a minimum size of 1500 m2,

other leaders chose smaller areas and then decide to expand the area if the garden is a success or decided to plan a second community garden in their neighbourhood

Some leaders argued that there is not much choice on the size of the plot and they take what is available

Number of participants The number of participants depends on the goal of the project, the number of persons interested, the size of the plot

Need to have a small core active group of participants, potential future leaders of the project.

In the opinion of one respondent, the soil is the most important component when choosing a plot, while the majority of the other leaders did not share that opinion since they had no choice between plots. In one plot, the soil was polluted, and instead of bringing soil from another area, she decided, based on sustainability issues, that it would be better to find a non-polluted plot. The sun availability was also referred in some cases as being important because the persons did not want to produce shadow vegetables, whereas in other cases, it didn't seem to be a criteria for the plot choice, and the leaders seemed to be flexible by planting plants that are well adapted to the sun availability of the plot. The size of the garden varies between 60 and 10,000 m2. When asked whether the size was one of the criteria for the establishment of the garden, answers were diverse, but most of the time size did not matter, what mattered was to get a plot. In other cases, the whole plot was not used and the number of participants determines the area used. In one case, the leader's first goal was to have his own area to produce vegetables so the size did not matter, whether it was only for one person or for twenty. The leader was determined in finding a space to plant. From the 29 projects researched, we can conclude that it is not possible to establish a list of criteria regarding plot choice because the plot choice varies enormously, depending not only on local circumstances (i.e. availability of different plots) but also on subjective preferences and goals of the leaders.

5.2.2 What Type of Project for Lausanne's Neighbourhood?

One of the sub goals of this research was to understand what type of UA project would fit best the neighbourhood Flon Sébeillon in Lausanne, by researching what types of community gardens and entrepreneurial UA projects exist, how they originated and what challenges they faced. From the results given by the interviews, it appears to be difficult to establish a systematic method, which establishes which project fits best which area. Most of UA projects interviewed in this research are initiatives, which come from local motivated residents of the neighbourhood. In three cases, the projects were established via a social movement and when this was the case, it seemed difficult for the project to become self-sustainable from the very beginning. None of the projects are initiatives coming from the local authorities. The area in Lausanne is mostly a non-residential area as already described, with many offices and flat roofs, although around the area there are some residential buildings. The neighbourhood area does not have much green space available. Yet, according to the Food Urban Initiative, the situation in which the neighbourhood is at present should not limit the

34

possible projects in the neighbourhood. From the projects analysed in the Netherlands, different possibilities appear from community gardens to entrepreneurial UA projects. Below are different examples of possible projects in the area of Sébeillon Flon:

- An open community garden in the area. In this case, the asphalt should be removed or raised beds (in boxes) should be established. Before establishing the project, a survey should be undertaken in the nearby residential areas to see whether people would be interested in such a project. At the beginning, a leader of the project should be established in order for the project to be well organised, well managed, and well integrated into the neighbourhood. At some point, the garden might become self-sustainable with the residents of the nearby neighbourhoods.

- A rooftop garden for the offices, like the one in Zuidpark Amsterdam, where the

persons working in the office take care of the rooftop garden and it can be a place for meetings as the one of the Dakkakker, or a place to have lunch.

- A rooftop garden or a garden below producing products for a restaurant nearby. In

this case, a gardener should be employed, like in the case of the Frau Gerolds Garden.

- If the area was to change completely, and the buildings would not be existent

anymore, there could be a possibility of establishing an urban farm like the one of Uit je eigen stad. In this case, many investments would be necessary, and an urban farmer willing to farm in that area should be found.

- Small projects such as the Daktuinen Beuningenplein, is also a possibility in order to

start UA projects and to sensitize the local population to UA projects. Small projects can also start via guerrilla gardening for instance.

- Since there is a school in the area, it could also be possible to establish an

educational garden either on the spaces below or on the rooftop. These project suggestions are all based on the different projects interviewed in this research. The perturbations that are faced by these projects are all referred to above in section 5.1.1. The type of projects to be established in the neighbourhood of Sébeillon Flon depends on the goals of the leaders of the project. Further, from the researched projects, most originate from bottom up initiatives. This could lead to the conclusion that bottom up projects is the way to go in order for a project to be long term and well established in the neighbourhood, without facing vandalism issues or lack of interest from the residents. Yet based on this research, we cannot conclude that bottom up projects are the most resilient projects. From the research undertaken in the Netherlands, the UA projects vary and it is not possible to establish a blueprint for what type of projects should be established in the neighbourhood of Lausanne. As mentioned by one respondent: "It depends on what you want, what’s the goal of the garden. And it also depends on the possibilities... do you have money? Do you want to use money? Do you have a lot of time or little time?" (Moestuinman, Rotterdam). A positive element is that the municipalities in Lausanne are willing to integrate UA projects into the city, and this is already an important piece of the puzzle, as highlighted above. Regarding the resident motivations, a specific survey should be undertaken in the neighbourhood of Lausanne regarding what type of projects they would be interested in, and whether they would also be willing to have a function to it and participate to it.

35

6 Discussion Via the analysis of 29 UA projects, a list of perturbations was established concerning UA systems. These systems vary and not every perturbation is faced in the same way by each project. Indeed, from the research we can conclude that the perturbations originate mostly from the social-institutional dimension rather than the biophysical dimension of the system. Only small amounts of perturbation originate from the environment condition. This can also be due to the fact that most of these UA systems are newly established and have not yet faced many perturbations coming from the environmental conditions, which are yet to come as highlighted in diverse interviews. In some interviews leaders also highlighted that thanks to the diversity of the plants as well as the small-scale area of the plot, not many diseases and pests can arise. In other interviews, pests or diseases were faced, but when it happened they replaced crops by another more adapted crop, so the source of resilience is the flexibility of such a system to change from one crop to another. Most of the sources of perturbations come from the human condition, which are related to institutions, the political sphere, the leadership, the land tenure issues or the social environment in which such UA systems are established. However, in some cases such as the "entrepreneurial" UA projects, soil fertility perturbations were highlighted, and the system was more vulnerable to it than in other situations, mostly because it is an entrepreneurial system. The latter bases the functioning of the system mostly on the income of the harvest, especially for the Uit je eigen stad project. The vulnerability assessment of the projects researched illustrates well that the vulnerability scores vary to a large extent from one system to another. The vulnerability score depends on the exposure, sensitivity and resilience of the system to the perturbation. The vulnerability assessment highlighted well where the perturbations are coming from, and at what level they affect the system. Further it highlighted the variations from one system to another. The scores given to each concept of the vulnerability assessment enabled to distinguish which perturbations affected the system most and which perturbations needed to be given more attention to when establishing UA systems. Finally, the vulnerability of a system depends enormously on local circumstances, type of project leaders and their motivation as well as goal of the project. Finally, via a scoring of the projects, they can be compared to one another. When comparing systems, it is also easier to identify in which case the system is resilient to a perturbation and what is the source of resilience and in which case it is not and thus what is lacking to the system. From this research it is difficult to make a conclusion about how UA systems can be established since it depends of different factors and since the overview of 29 projects does not enable to undertake general conclusions. However, it is interesting to compare the findings of the research with the literature findings. Overall, the projects studied were not yet institutionalised, meaning that they are not yet incorporated into a structured system. The lack of land tenure, the lack of policies and the withdrawal of subsidies are perturbations, which are all related to the "policy vacuum" mentioned by Lachance (2004). There are no sets of policies yet for UA projects. This is also highlighted in the literature by Mansfield and Mendes (2012), whom argue that the type of role that governments should have is not well established and needs to be enhanced (Mansfield and Mendes 2012). In this case, it seems, as it is difficult to judge whether it would be better to leave the “policy vacuum” as it is, or to establish a legal framework for the establishment of UA projects. It seems as if these UA projects are very bottom up, and emerge out of local residents initiatives. Thus, if a legal framework and restrictions are applied to UA, it might impede the establishment of such projects. Yet, legal frameworks which support land tenure contracts for UA projects could for instance enhance the security of such projects and even increase the amount of projects established. Specific legal frameworks for commercial UA projects could be interesting for instance in the case of Uit je eigen stad project. In this project, most of the production

36

methods are organic production methods, but since the soil was added to the location, this production site cannot be regarded as producing organic crops. Milburn and Vail also highlighted the lack of support from the neighbourhood as being important in order for a project to be long term (Milburn and Vail 2010). From the projects researched this is a major perturbation when the neighbourhood does not support the project, to the point that a project might not be established. Further, once the project is established and the neighbourhood does not integrate it well neither supports it, there might be a lack of social control against vandalism or thievery. In a worst case scenario, the neighbourhood might even go against the project and ask the owner of the plot not to renew the contract. From the interviews it seems that social movements are also of great importance to sustain UA projects in cities. Yet, it is difficult to identify which factors are the ones that make projects successful, since all of these projects, except one namely the Bikkershof project, are quite recently established, and thus it is hard to evaluate if these projects are successful or not. In the literature, it is said that if a project lasts 10 years it can be considered to be successful (Milburn and Vail 2010). It is interesting to highlight that not every perturbation identified in the literature review was a main factor of perturbation for the projects established. For instance, soil pollution and the following health consequences that might arise are very much highlighted in the literature as one main perturbation for UA systems. Yet, in the projects researched, such aspects were not highlighted as key perturbations to the system. For every polluted plot, there seemed to be a solution either by replacing it with fresh soil or by using raised beds. From the overall interviews or questionnaires submitted, soil pollution was not the major concern. Yet, in the future, as is already highlighted in the literature (Leake, Adam-Bradford et al. 2009; Saed 2012; Säumel, Kotsyuk et al. 2012; Raes, Ann et al. 2013), health issues arising from contaminated sites can arise and become a source of perturbation for the establishment of UA projects. On the one hand, it seems necessary to increase food safety of these urban products and thus more studies are needed on how to monitor soil pollution and for instance establish a number of guidelines also with regard to the type of species that are the most well adapted to polluted environments (Säumel, Kotsyuk et al. 2012). On the other hand, as already mentioned in the literature, if too many regulations are established this might also limit the establishment of UA projects and become a source of perturbation to the establishment of projects (Okvat and Zautra 2011). Vandalism and theft was also a perturbation mentioned in the literature as being a perturbation to the system (Reynolds 2011). In the researched projects, one example highlights well that the project was not established due to vandalism problems in the neighbourhood (Heiloo project), yet in many other cases, from the leaders opinion the project enhanced the quality of life in the neighbourhood and sex tourism or drug dealing diminished in the area where there used to be the empty plot and where dumping of trash was taking place. This is also well highlighted in the literature, that UA projects can increase the value of the neighbourhood and also diminish the costs of the local municipality for the maintenance budget of green areas since the area is mostly maintained and taken care of by the local residents (Been and Voicu 2006; Colding and Barthel 2013). Finally, from this research I can conclude that it is difficult to establish a list of criteria, which is needed in order for a given plot to match a given project because the establishment of a project mainly does not depend of the physical characteristics of the plot. A systematic matching method between a given plot and a given project is thus not possible. An UA project can be established in any spot of the city, if the plot is available and if the local leaders are flexible enough to adapt to the local circumstances. The crops that will be planted also depend on the eating preferences of the leaders and on the rules established by the municipality. In one case, participants were not allowed to plant fruit trees because it is a temporary project and thus at one point the trees should be taken away. According to the municipality, this would cause too much work and maybe social protest. Thus it is also not

37

possible to establish a list of given vegetables that fit best a given project. In some cases forgotten vegetables were planted for curiosity purposes, and in others they were not due to lack of knowledge from the participants concerning these vegetables. Most of the researched projects were based on a trial and error method and were resilient enough to adapt to the environmental problems they faced. This is mostly the case for the non-entrepreneurial projects, which do not rely on an income in order for the project to go further. For entrepreneurial projects, when the soil lacks of nutrients or exposure to pests is high it might become a big perturbation, yet from what is described by the UA entrepreneurial projects, they also seem to be quite flexible and adapt to the local circumstances. Yet, perturbations arising from other sources such as the socio-institutional conditions are more difficult to adapt to because UA projects leaders are generally not the owner of the plot being used and local municipalities have the right to establish regulations regarding public areas. By increasing collaboration between groups of leaders in UA projects and the urban planners, it could create complementarities and reduce the vulnerabilities of UA projects (Ernstson, Barthel et al. 2010).

38

7 Conclusion This thesis contributed to fill a gap in knowledge in the field of UA projects in the Netherlands and Switzerland. The main focus was on the origins and the establishments of community gardens and entrepreneurial UA projects and the assessment of their vulnerability and resilience to different sources of perturbations. Once the sources of perturbation are identified, it gives further insight on what changes should be established in the system in order for it to endure and multiply, and thus increase the quality of life in cities, such as Lausanne, which was the case study of this thesis. The main components of these two systems, namely community gardens and "entrepreneurial" UA projects, were identified and a list of different criteria (biophyical and social) was established, giving further insight on which criteria to take into consideration when establishing an UA project. Presently, UA projects such as community gardens originate mostly from bottom up initiatives. The main components needed in order to establish such projects are motivation of local citizens and leadership but also political will from the local authorities. Social movements such as the bottom up Transition Town movement or the squatting movement supported some projects, while institutions such as schools or medical institutions supported other projects. Yet local residents established most of the projects in this research. Entrepreneurial UA projects are still very limited in Europe, yet from those identified, they all originated from a group of private individuals interested in working in this new field and bringing food back to the city. Different sources of perturbations and sources of resilience were identified in this thesis. Different scores were given to the UA systems, based on a vulnerability assessment of these projects, taking into account the exposure, sensitivity and resilience of the projects to the perturbations. It is difficult to establish an overall conclusion because UA systems vary a great deal depending on the local circumstances and type of leaders involved in the project. Most of the perturbations originated from human conditions, such as policies, institutions and motivation of local leaders. A small number originated from environmental conditions, such as lack of nutrients, polluted area, and amount of pests. From this research, the biophysical factors are not the main factors influencing the establishment of UA projects. In fact, when the soil was polluted, raised beds were established or the soil was sanitized. When the plot was small it was used anyways and when there was a lack of nutrient, leaders tried to fertilize it by adding inputs such as manure or compost. When vegetables were not growing well, leaders decided to change the type of vegetables, and when the sun availability was low in some areas of the plots, vegetables resilient to shadow were planted. Lack of nutrients and high levels of pests were considered problematic for "entrepreneurial" UA projects, because they base the system on the income of the harvest. The UA systems researched presented a large amount of flexibility and thus resilience in this sense. In fact, even if biophysical factors are not adequate, leaders continue their project and adapt to the circumstances. Since most of the projects researched are not dependent on these systems in order to gain a living, most of them used a trial and error method. This was different for the entrepreneurial projects where professionals are employed in order to be sure that the production weighs out and an income is received. Further, when socio-institutional conditions were difficult, UA systems also adopted resilience strategies towards these perturbations such as social protest when a project is to be removed, social control when theft or vandalism occurs, a number of potential leaders available, and funds originating from various sources. UA projects are still under the process of being studied, and all the positive benefits of such systems in the literature are not yet entirely proven. Projects are different from one another

39

and are facing different challenges, even when these projects are situated in the same country. That makes it very difficult to establish a systematic matching method between an area and an UA project, and it is also challenging to establish a blueprint on which components are needed in order to establish an UA project. Further research is needed in order to highlight all the benefits that such projects can provide given certain defined circumstances in order for such projects to multiply and also move from a temporal to long-term status and thus perceived by the local authorities as part of the neighbourhood rather than temporal. From all the media attention that is being given to UA projects, and all the UA projects that are starting off in different regions of Europe, it seems however that UA is at its beginning in Europe and will rather develop further than take an end. Yet, it seems that the majority of projects are non-commercial. In order for projects to become less temporary and longer term, it seems that UA projects should be more entrepreneurial in order to also be financially viable. Yet, on the other hand, as already highlighted a number of times, there is a need to analyse non-commercial UA projects by evaluating every positive externality it may bring. When such an evaluation is possible, non-commercial UA projects might gain more security and support from local authorities.

40

8 References Adger, W. N. (2006). "Vulnerability." Global Environmental Change 16(3): 268-281. Been, V. and I. Voicu (2006). "The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values."

Real Estate Economics 36(2): 241-283. Berkes, F., C. Folke, et al. (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems:Management Practices and

Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Bourque, M. (2000). Policy Options for Urban Agriculture. Policy Options for Urban Agriculture,

Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security. 5. Clavin, A. A. (2011). "Realising ecological sustainability in community gardens: a capability approach."

Local Environment 16(10): 945-962. Colding, J. and S. Barthel (2013). "The potential of "Urban Green Commons" in the resilience building

of cities." Ecological Economics 86: 156-166. Corrigan, M. P. (2011). "Growing what you eat: Developing community gardens in Baltimore,

Maryland." Applied Geography 31(4): 1232-1241. Deelstra, T. and H. Girardet (ND). Urban Agriculture and Sustainable CIties, Resource Center on

Urban Agriculture and Forestry. Draper, C. and D. Freedman (2010). "Review and Analysis of the Benefits, Purposes, and Motivations

Associated with Community Gardening in the United States." Journal of Community Practice 18(4): 458-492

Drescher, A. W., R. J. Holmer, et al. (2006). Urban homegardens and allotment gardens for sustainable livelihoods: Management strategies and institutional environments. Tropical Homegardens. B. M. Kumar and P. K. R. Nair, Springer Netherlands. 3: 317-338.

Eakin, H. C. and M. B. Wehbe (2009). "Linking local vulnerability to system sustainability in a resilience framework: two cases from Latin America." Climatic Change 93(3-4): 355-377.

Ernstson, H., S. Barthel, et al. (2010). "Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: The case of Stockholm." Ecology and Society 15(4): 28.

Ernstson, H., S. E. van der Leeuw, et al. (2010). "Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems." Ambio 39(8): 531-545.

Evers, A. and N. L. Hodgson (2011). "Food choices and local food access among Perth's community gardeners." Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 16(6): 585-602.

Feen, G., S. McGrew, et al. (1999). Entrepreneurial Community Gardens: Growing Food, Skills, Jobs and Communities. USA, Regents of the University of California.

Ferris, N. J. and J. Sempik (2001). "People, Land and Sustainability: Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development." Social Policy & Administration 35(5): 559-568.

Gallopín, G. C. (2006). "Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity." Global Environmental Change 16(3): 293-303.

Garnett, T. (1996). "Farming in the City: The Potential of Urban Agriculture." The Ecologist 26(6): 299-307.

Golder, H. L. (2013). The Urban Farming Guidebook: Planning for the Business of Growing Food in BC's Towns & Cities, Real Estate Foundation British Columbia; Ecodesign Resource Society; HB Lanarc.

Graaf, P. D. (2012). Room for urban agriculture in Rotterdam: defining the spatial opportunities for urban agriculture within the industrialised city. Sustainable food planning: Evolving theory and practice. A. Viljoen and J. S. C. Wiskerke. The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Guitart, D., C. Pickering, et al. (2012). "Past results and future direction in urban community gardens research." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11: 364-373

41

Hanna, A. K. and P. Oh (2000). "Rethinking Urban Poverty: A Look at Community Gardens." Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 20(3): 207-216.

Heim, S., J. Stang, et al. (2009). "A Garden Pilot Project Enhances Fruit and Vegetable Consumption among Children." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 109(7): 1220-1226.

Holland, L. (2004). "Diversity and connections in community gardens: a contribution to local sustainability." Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 9(3): 285-305.

Holling, C. S. (1973). "Resilience and stability of ecological systems." Annual review of ecology and systematics 4: 1-23.

Howe, J. (2003). "Growing Food in Cities: the Implications for Land-Use Policy." Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 5(3): 255-268.

Jansma, J.-E., W. Sukkel, et al. (2012). The impact of local food production on food miles, fossil energy use, and greenhouse gas emission: the case of the Dutch city in Almere. Sustainable food planning: evolving theory and practice. A. Viljoen and J. S. C. Wiskerke. The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers: 307-322.

Kaufman, J. and M. Bailkey (2000). Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: 1-116.

Krasny, M. E. and K. G. Tidball (2009). "Community Gardens as Contexts for Science, Stewardship, and Civic Action Learning." Cities and the Environment 2(1): 1-18.

Lachance, J. D. (2004). Supporting Urban Agriculture: A proposed Supplement to the City of Detroit Master Plan of Policies. U. o. M. T. C. o. A. a. U. Planning: 1-22.

Leake, J., A. Adam-Bradford, et al. (2009). "Health benefits of 'grow your own' food in urban areas: implications for contaminated land risk assessment and risk management?" Environmental Health 8(Suppl 1): S6.

Leake, J. R., A. A.-. Bradford, et al. (2009). "Health benefits of "grow your own" food in urban areas: implications for contaminated land risk assessment and risk management?" Environmental Health 8(1): 1-6.

Leeuwen, E. v., P. Nijkamp, et al. (2010). "The multifunctional use of urban greenspace." International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8(1:2): 20-25.

Lovell, S. T. (2010). "Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States." Sustainability 2: 2499-2522.

Mansfield, B. and W. Mendes (2012). "Municipal Food Strategies and Integrated Approaches to Urban Agriculture: Exploring Three Cases from the Global North." International Planning Studies 18(1): 37-60.

Masson-Minock, M. and D. Stockmann (2010). "Creating a legal framework for urban agriculture: Lessons from Flint, Michigan." Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 1(2): 91-104.

Matteson, K. C., J. S. Ascher, et al. (2008). "Bee Richness and Abundance in New York City Urban Gardens." Annals of the Entomological Society of America 101(1): 140-150.

Mendes, W., K. Balmer, et al. (2009). "Using Land Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture." Journal of the American Planning Association 74(4): 435-449.

Milburn, L.-A. S. and B. A. Vail (2010). "Sowing the Seeds of Success Cultivating a Future for Community Gardens." Landscape Journal 29(1): 71-89.

Mougeot, L. J. A. (2000). Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks and Policy Challenges. Ottawa, Canada, International Development Research Centre. 31.

Nasr, J., R. MacRae, et al. (2010). Scaling up Urban Agriculture in Toronto: Building the Infrastructure. M. Foundation. Toronto: 1-65.

Nelson, D. R., W. N. Adger, et al. (2007). "Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32

395-419. Niwa, N. (2009). "La nature en ville peut-elle être agricole?De la Suisse au Japon." Les cahiers du

développement urbain durable URBIA(8): 103-126.

42

Okvat, H. A. and A. J. Zautra (2011). "Community gardening: A parsimonious path to individual, community, and environmental resilience." American journal of community psychology 47(3-4): 374-387.

Pudup, M. B. (2008). "It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects." Geoforum 39(3): 1228-1240.

Quon, S. (1999). Planning for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and Strategies for Urban Planners. C. F. P. Series, International Development Research Centre. 28: 1-88.

Raes, H. A. M., P. R. D. Ann, et al. (2013). "Assessing the Educational Needs of Urban Gardeners and Farmers on the Subject of Soil Contamination." Journal of Extension 51(1).

Reynolds, K. A. (2011). "Expanding technical assistance for urban agriculture: Best practices for extension services in California and beyond." Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development: 197-207.

Saed (2012). "Urban Farming: The Right to What Sort of City?" Capitalism Nature Socialism 23(4): 1-9. Saldivar-Tanaka, L. and M. E. Krasny (2004). "Culturing Community Development, Neighborhood

Open Space, and Civic Agriculture: the Case of Latino Community Gardens in New York City." Agriculture and Human Values 21: 399-412.

Säumel, I., I. Kotsyuk, et al. (2012). "How healthy is urban horticulture in high traffic areas? Trace metal concentrations in vegetable crops from plantings within inner city neighbourhoods in Berlin, Germany." Environmental Pollution 165: 124-132.

Schans, J. W. v. d. (2010). "Urban Agriculture in the Netherlands." Urban Agriculture magazine(24): 40-42.

Smit, B. and J. Wandel (2006). "Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability." Global Environmental Change 16: 282-292

Sukkel, W., E. Stilma, et al. (2010). Verkenning van de milieueffecten van lokale productie en distributie van voedsel in Almere : energieverbruik, emissie van broeikasgassen en voedselkilometers. Lelystad, Praktijkonderzoek Plant & Omgeving.

Teig, E., J. Amulya, et al. (2009). "Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens." Health & Place.

Tidball, H. G. and M. E. Krasny (2007). From risk to resilience: what role for community greening and civic ecology in cities? Social learning: towards a sustainable world. A. E. J. Wals: 149-164.

Torreggiani, D., E. Dall’Ara, et al. (2012). "The urban nature of agriculture: Bidirectional trends between city and countryside." Cities 29(6): 412-416.

Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, et al. (2003). "A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science." Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 100(14): 8074-8079.

UNDP (1996). Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. Publication Series for Habitat II. U. N. D. Program. New York, UNDP. 1.

Veenhuizen, R. v. (2006). Farming for the Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities. Philippines, IDRC & RUAF Foundation.

Verzone, C. (2012). FUI Food Urbanism Initiative. IFPRA 2012- European Congress, Basel Beyond boundaries. Basel.

Viljoen, A. and K. Bohn (2005). Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes:urban agriculture as an essential infrastructure. UA Magazine: 34-36.

Viljoen, A. and K. Bohn (2009). "Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL): Essential Infrastructure and Edible Ornament." Open House International 34(2): 50-60.

Viljoen, A., K. Bohn, et al. (2005). Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities. Oxford, Great Britain, Elsevier.

Wakefield, S., F. Yeudall, et al. (2007). "Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto." Health Promotion International 22(2): 92-101.

Whittinghill, L. J. and D. B. Rowe (2011). "The role of green roof technology in urban agriculture." Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27(4): 314-322.

Zimbler, R. L. (2001). Community Gardens on the Urban Land Use Planning Agenda. Masters of Regional Planning, University of North Carolina.

43

9 Annex

ANNEXE A. Interview questions- urban agriculture Origins of the garden

1. How did the idea of having a garden start?

2. Was it hard to find a plot of land?

3. Why did you choose this site?

4. What was the expected distance to urban centre, infrastructure, markets and facilities? What

is the actual distance?

5. What were the minimum and maximum surface area of the garden that you targeted before

site selection? What is the actual area?

6. Who were the main actors implied in the process? (entrepreneurs, residents, policy makers,

property development, education and youth)

7. What kind of constraints did you face when establishing the project?

8. What legal status does your community garden have?

Management of the garden 1. How did you manage to establish a garden? What were the first steps?

2. Which are the main criteria that need to be present in order to develop a garden?

3. What are the main challenges you are presently facing?

4. How will you manage the garden? (Individual plots or collective plots? How many members?)

Legal issues

1. Were there any rules concerning urban agriculture?

2. Was it hard to convince the authorities or were they in favour of the garden?

3. Did the authorities help you to find the land?

4. Do you plan to sell the products? If yes, How do you deal hygiene and food sales regulations?

Economic issues

1. How are you financing the garden?

2. Do you get support from the authorities?

3. Is the project economically viable?

4. What were the biggest costs?

Agronomy

1. How did you do to evaluate the quality of the soil, of the air, water?

2. - Do you have soil test reports (OM, nutrient status, pH, environmental assessments

pollutants)?

3. How did you evaluate the area of the garden? ( sun and wind exposure)?

4. How did you decide on which crops you are going to produce?

5. How did you choose the size of the garden?

6. Do you farm organically? Why?

7. Do you use compost? Urban waste? (i.e. closed cycle?)

8. Where did you get the seeds?

9. How will you handle biodiversity in the garden?

10. How will you handle sustainability?

11. How do you have access to water?

Users of the garden 1. Who is using the garden?

2. What is the motivation of the users?

3. What are the benefits that you would like to have from this project?

4. What is the main goal of the community garden?

5. What type of neighbourhood is it?

6. How many labour hours are spent or will be spent approximately? What is the availability or

labour?

Concluding questions

44

1. Which are the main elements that need to be there in order for a community garden to be

established and successful?

45

ANNEXE B. Description of community gardens and "entrepreneurial" UA projects 1. Moestuinman, Rotterdam Moestuinman is a community garden established in 2011, mainly by one leader linked to the Transition Town, with the support of another participant of the Transition Town movement. Located in a residential area of Rotterdam. Garden plots are collective most of the time, one or two are individual plots but the harvest is also shared. 2. Vrijgroen I, Leiden Community garden established in 2010 in the centre of Leiden by a group of persons whom thought that a garden should be established in that area for the United Nations Biodiversity Year in 2010. The project could use the area for a minimal period of 2 years. In 2012, the contract for the area was not renewed and the garden had to move. A parking lot replaced the garden project. According to the leader, the garden was not well integrated into the neighbourhood. 3. Vrijgroen II, Leiden Community garden established by a group of persons, of whom some had already established the Vrijgroen Leiden I project in the Business centre of Leiden. They started to work on a new plot since 2012. Most of the participants are the same as in project Vrijgroen I, yet some stopped participating because the plot is too far away from their residence. 4. Ghandituin, Rotterdam Ghandituin is a community garden established in 2011 by a group of persons, of which some are linked to the Transition Town movement. The garden used to be a school garden but due to lack of finances, this garden stopped. At some point, there were rumours that it would not be a green area anymore. Since Transition Town was looking for a plot to have a garden, they asked the local authorities for that plot and managed to get it. Since the local authorities had already seen such projects established by Transition Town in the nearby neighbourhood and liked them and they easily gave the plot to them.

Figure 1. Moestuinman garden view Figure 2. Moestuinman collective plot

Figure 3. Vrijgroen II, view of the garden

Figure 4. Vrijgroen II, shed for tools

46

5. Voedseltuin, Rotterdam Voedseltuin was established in 2011, originating from the idea of two private individuals whom thought that they could produce fresh food for the Food bank, in order to increase the amount of fresh food in the Food bank basket. This community garden is a different kind of community garden, since people receiving social benefits can come volunteer the 20 hours required per week by the authorities of Rotterdam. At the beginning the garden was receiving funds from the government for their service. Now, the funds have stopped, but the staff is looking for funds from other sources, mainly foundations. 6. Tuin aan de Maas, Rotterdam Tuin aan de Maas was established by a group of residents whom originally thought to embellish the empty plots and use the sandy areas to plant onions or carrots. Now it became a community garden where people gather in weekends and harvest together the crops. It was established in 2012 in a residential area on a pier of Rotterdam. If the area is needed to build residential buildings, the leaders of the garden agreed to leave the plot without any opposition.

Figure 5. Ghandituin garden

Figure 9. Tuin aan de Maas vegetable plots

Figure 6. Ghandituin neighbourhood

Figure 7. Voedseltuin garden Figure 8. Voedseltuin raised beds

Figure 10. Tuin aan de Maas

47

7. Het Bergwegplantsoen, Rotterdam Het Bergwegplantsoen was established by the leaders of the Transition Town Movement in Rotterdam in 2009 and is located on a green square of a residential area. 5 active participants mostly manage the garden and Transition Town is not much involved anymore.

8. Tuin op de Pier, Rotterdam This community garden is in the phase of establishment. It started in 2012, with a group of residents living near an empty plot and some of which were also involved in the community garden on the nearby pier, Tuin aan de maas. Based on that community garden, the group of residents decided to establish their own community garden on their pier.

9. Buurttuinen Transvaal, Amsterdam This community garden is on a green square in a residential area, and was established in 2011 by a group of residents whom were interested in using the area in a more functional way, by producing edible plants. The authorities facilitated at first the contact between different resident whom had contacted the government for some plans they had for the green square. The plots are individual, but there is also a collective plot with herbs, and the management of the area is collective.

Figure 11. Het Bergwegplantsoen Figure 12. Het Bergwegplantsoen neighbourhood view

Figure 13. Tuin op de Pier, setting up Figure 14.Tuin op de Pier, tool box container

Figure 15. Buurttuinen Transvaal neighbourhood

Figure 16. Buurttuinen Transvaal garden

48

10. Valreep garden, Amsterdam Valreep garden is a community garden, located on a polluted area. Raised beds are used. It is located in on the plot of a squatted building. The squatting movement is supporting this garden, yet it is "illegal" since the local authorities do not recognize it. It originated from a group of persons whom wanted to increase the available area for planting for the residents of a given neighbourhood. Yet, since no other plots were available, they decided to go on that plot, even though it is polluted. 11. Buurtmoestuin de Middenmoes, Herhugowaard This community garden originated from a group of residents whom thought that something could be established on the empty plot, where a school used to be but was demolished. It was established in 2010, and there are individual plots and collective plots. The management of the area is also collective. 12. Bikkershof, Utrecht There used to be a garage on the area, but then it moved to another area of the city, and thus there was an empty plot available. One main leader of the neighborhood together with a group of residents established this community garden in 1987. The garden has some individual plots and one big collective plots. They also have some animals namely chickens, Indian ducks and rabbits. 13. Buurtmoestuin de Trompenburg, Amsterdam This small garden of 112 square meters was established in a small plot in between two playgrounds. The idea came mainly from one resident of the neighborhood, supported by a group of residents, to replace the bushes in that plot by a small vegetable garden. There are 15 individual plots with a collective plot and the management of the area is collective. 14. Stadslandbouw Schiebroek Zuid, Amsterdam This project originated from a social housing corporation with the goal of embellishing the neighborhood. A social leader was hired in order to manage the garden and the participants of the project. At the very beginning there was only a group of 4 persons interested, and not it increased to around 20 active participants. 15. Heiloo’s Garden This project originated based on the idea of one main leader in Heiloo, whom together with the support of some residents wanted to establish a community garden in a given neighborhood in between two schools. The given neighborhood did not support this garden due to the presence of vandalism in the neighborhood, which could affect the project. The local authorities were not very supportive for this first project since they established a long list of regulations regarding the project. Thus the leader decided to find support coming from other sources, namely from a psychiatric hospital. The plan is now to establish this community garden on the property of the psychiatric hospital. 16. Tussentuin, Rotterdam This project originated from a social housing corporation. The area was improved and thus the garden was also partly renovated. The social housing corporation could have sanitized the ground in order for it to be possible to have vegetable gardens, but that was not of highest priority to them. A social leader was hired in order to manage the collective garden, and a small vegetable rooftop garden was established. 17. Zuidpark, Amsterdam This project originated from the owner of a building, who decided to embellish and increase the attractiveness of the building by establishing a rooftop garden. The latter is an area for lunch time, with benches and tables for lunch and raised beds having different kind of vegetables. There are 30 gardeners from the building participating. There is also a technical support coming from an expert company in rooftop gardens. 18. De Groene Campus, This project originated from a school in Helmond. The idea is to establish a rooftop garden on the rooftop of the school. This project is yet to be established. Making use of the rooftop garden would reduce the space needed around the school and further would also render the school attractive. 19. Educatieve Moestuin, Amsterdam This project originated from two leaders studying UA nearby Amsterdam. From their network of friends they got to know that a plot was free in an area rented by the gardeners association of Amsterdam.

49

The two leaders decided to establish a garden based on volunteer work. The volunteers help out in the garden and in exchange can participate to workshops organized by these two leaders on different topics such as permaculture, biodynamic agriculture and so on.

20. Daktuinen Beuningenplein, Amsterdam This project originated from a local resident motivated to undertake something in her neighborhood in order to green the area. She got support from the local youth centre, where she used their rooftop to undertake planting activities with the local kids of the neighborhood. She also managed to find an unused plot in the area and asked local authorities to use it. She also undertakes planting activities with kids of the neighborhood on that plot. Presently, she is looking for more support from the neighborhood and other UA projects.

21. Dakakker, Rotterdam This rooftop garden originated from the idea of the owner of the building, together with architects and the Rotterdam Milieucentrum. This project got a prize from a local competition organized by the authorities of Rotterdam. It was also presented during the International Architecture Biennale in Rotterdam in 2012. Presently one main leader is managing the garden together with the help of volunteers who come every Friday to volunteer in the garden. Part of the harvest is given to volunteers and part is given to a local restaurant nearby. The main aim of this garden is to demonstrate the possibilities of rooftop gardening.

Figure 20 Dakakker Rotterdam

Figure 17. Educatieve Moestuin Figure 18. Educatieve Moestuin: plot preparation

Figure 19. Daktuinen Beuningenplein Figure 20. Nearby plot used by leader of the Daktuinen Beuningenplein project

50

22. Uit je eigen stad, Rotterdam Uit je eigen stad is an entrepreneurial project originating from three private individuals. They hired a gardener to take care of the garden. They have 1 hectare of vegetable areas, and their plan is also to develop aquaponics and have more chickens in the future. They have also a restaurant where they use their own products. They also have a small shop where they sell part of the products. An area for confereces is also available. They can rent the area for 10 years.

23. Beaulieu, Genève Beaulieu project is in the middle of a park in Geneva, considered in this report as an entrepreneurial UA project. It originated from a group of individuals motivated to use the area, which used to be from the green services of Geneva. They have two main activities, namely a nursery where they grow seedlings and sell them to local vegetable cooperatives, and an area where there is a " harvest yourself" garden with different types of vegetables. The seedling project could be self-sustainable in terms of financial aspects, but the "harvest yourself" area is not and they are receiving subsidies from the government. The project started in 2012 and the leaders are yet unsure of the length of their contract in that area. 24. Gemeinschafts Garten Landhof, Basel This garden originated from two main leaders. The plot used to be a parking lot, and the local authorities financed the transformation of the parking lot into a green area. It is a collective permaculture garden. There is a core group of participants but there are also many visitors from all around Switzerland coming to visit this garden. The local green movement in Basel is very strong. 25. Stadiongarten, Zürich This garden is located in the old stadium of Zürich. The area was always closed down, and a group of local residents asked local authorities to make use of it. Vegetables are grown in raised beds, and it is accessible to everyone, no need to be a member. 26. Frau Gerolds Garten, Zürich This project is considered to be an "entrepreneurial" UA project in this report. It is a garden with raised beds, managed by three gardeners working part time. The harvest is used in the restaurant, which is located right nearby to the garden. There are also some raised beds for the local residents wishing to plant their own vegetables. The garden is mostly supported by the restaurant income. 27. HEKS, Basel and Bern The HEKS is the Swiss interchurches aid; HEKS stands for Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz. One leader of the HEKS established community gardens in Basel and Bern for the migrants. Participants that are involved need to make sure that they use the plot during the whole year and take care of it. Some plots are also collective, and the area is collectively managed. 28. L'arbre à Palabre, Biel This project is not yet established, but is planned for this year by a group of local residents. The whole process of getting a plot in a park took three years. The local authorities accepted to give a plot for a period of one year located in a park. Every year the contract can be renegotiated if the project goes well. The goal is for it to be a collective garden where neighbours can meet and grow their vegetables collectively.

Figure 21. Uit je eigen Stad vegetable plot Figure 22. Uit je eigen Stad restaurant

51

29. Lorraine, Bern This project is established by a group of local residents on an unused plot. The garden only has raised beds since the soil was not convenient and they thought that raised beds were more convenient since their plot is only temporal. Raised beds are mobile and when they need to leave they can easily move them. When plans are established to build something they need to leave the area. The garden is collective and all crops and harvest of crops are collectively managed.

52

ANNEXE C. Research results on community gardens and "entrepreneurial" UA projects Table 1. General information on the community gardens

Name of garden Starting year

Size (m

2)

Collective or individual

Number of participants

Gardens in the Netherlands

1. Tussentuin 2012 60 Collective/Individual 14 active participants

2. Buurtmoestuin de Trompenburg 2009 112 Collective/Individual 15 active participants

3. Valreepgarden 2011 350 Collective/Individual 40 active participants 20 participants

4. Educatieve Moestuin 2013 300 Collective

2 active participants 20-30 participants

5. Heiloo’s garden

To be established 2013 350 Collective

20 interested participants

6. Het Bergwegplantsoen 2009 400 Collective 5 active participants

7. Buurttuinen Transvaal 2011 500 Collective/Individual 50 participants

8. Moestuinman 2011 800 Collective 4-8 active participants 20 participants

9. Dakakker 2012 1000 Collective 1 active participant 5-10 participants

10. Buurtmoestuin de Middenmoes 2010 2'200 Collective/Individual

6 active participants 65 participants

11. Bikkershof 1987 2'600 Collective/Individual

10 active participants 200 official participants

12. Zuidpark Amsterdam 2012 3’000 Collective 30 active participants

13. Ghandituin 2011 3'000 Collective 20 active participants

14. Tuin aan de maas 2007 3'600 Collective 5 active participants 20-30 participants

15. Voedseltuin 2011 7'000 Collective 3 staff 20 volunteers

16. Tuin op de Pier 2012 7'500 Collective

7 active participants 100 persons interested

17. Vrijgroen I 2010 7'500 Collective 5 active participants Unlimited;open

18. Vrijgroen II 2012 10'000 Collective 8 active participants

19. Stadslandbouw Schiebroek Zuid 2011 - Collective/Individual

22 active participants 50 participants

20. De Groene Campus

To be established in 2013 - Collective

Students from the school

21. Daktuinen Beuningenplein 2012 - Collective

1 active participants 10-20 participants

Gardens in Switzerland

22. Gemeinschafts Garten Landhof 2011 1400 Collective 15 active participants

23. Stadion Garten 2012 900 Collective

5 active participants 30 participants

24. L’arbre à Palabre

To be established in 2013 600 Collective

Estimated 30 participants

25. HEKS 2008 - Collective/Individual 52 active participants

26. Lorraine 2011 100 boxes Collective 30 active participants

53

Table 2. Type of management in community/allotment gardens

Type of garden Type of management

Individual plots with one larger collective plot

Individual harvest of individual plots

Rules concerning the individual plots

In some cases an annual fee (10-12 euros) for the maintenance of the garden is asked

Collective plots Collective harvest on working day in the garden

Harvest when vegetables are ready to be harvested, first come first serve

The amount of vegetables you get usually does not depend on the amount of hours you spent working in the garden

In one case, an annual fee is asked for the maintenance of the vegetable garden and on the rooftop garden an indirect monthly fee is paid via the rent, which include a fee for the outdoor green.

In two cases, the gardeners harvest some vegetables and the other part goes to the canteen of the office complex or in the other case to a restaurant nearby; this would also be the case for the future De Groene Campus project where part of the harvest goes to school canteen.

Table 3. Type of initiators for community/allotment gardens

Number of Gardens Type of initiators

1. Vrijgroen I 2. Vrijgroen II 3. Buurttuinen Transvaal 4. Valreep 5. Tuin aan de Maas 6. Tuin op de Pier 7. Bikkershof 8. Buurtmoestuin de Middenmoes 9. Buurtmoestuin Rivierienburt 10. Heiloo’s garden 11. Gemeinschafts Garten Landhof 12. Stadion Garten 13. L’arbre a Palabre 14. Lorraine 15. Educatieve Moestuin 16. Daktuinen Beuningenplein

One leader or a group of people (2-4) followed by other interested persons from the neighbourhood

1. Het Bergwergplantsoen 2. Ghandituin 3. Moestuinman

Social movement

1. Schiebroek Zuid 2. Tussentuin

Housing corporations with an external leader managing the garden

1. Voedseltuin 2. HEKS

Non-profit charitable initiative

1. Zuidpark Amsterdam 2. Dakakker

Private owner of the building

1. De Groene Campus School

54

Table 4. Owner of the plots and length of contract for community gardens

Name of projects Owner of the area Length of contract with owner of plot

1. Moestuinman Social Housing Company Negotiate every year for the next one

1. Schiebroek Zuid 2. Tussentuin

Unlimited

1. Ghandituin Municipality Not defined

1. L’arbre a Palabre 2. HEKS

Negotiate every year for the next one

1. Het Bergwergplantsoen 2. Buurttuinen Transvaal 3. Bikkershof 4. Buurtmoestuin

Rivierienburt 5. Heiloo’s garden

Keeping it if well maintained

1. Tuin op de Pier 2. Tuin aan de Maas 3. Buurtmoestuin de

Middenmoes 4. Stadion Garten 5. Gemeinschafts Garten

Landhof 6. Valreep 7. Lorraine

Keeping it until plans come to build something else

1. Vrijgroen I 2. Educatieve Moestuin

Contract for a minimum of two to three years

1. Vrijgroen II 2. Voedseltuin

Contract for a minimum of three years

1. Zuidpark Amsterdam 2. Dakakker

Private owner of the rooftop building

Unlimited

1. De groene campus School rooftop/Youth centre rooftop

Unlimited

1. Daktuinen Beuningenplein

Negotiate every year for the next one

Table 5 Type of plot before the establishment of the community gardens

Gardens Before the garden

1. Heiloo’s garden 2. Het Berwegplantsoen 3. Buurtmoestuin de Trompenburg 4. Buurtuinen Transvaal 5. Schiebroek Zuid

Green square in the middle of neighbourhood

1. Tuin op de Pier 2. Buurtmoestuin de Middenmoes 3. Tuin aan de maas 4. Voedseltuin 5. Valreep 6. Moestuinman 7. Vrijgroen I 8. Vrijgroen II 9. Lorraine 10. Stadiongarten

Empty plot where plans were to build commercial or residential buildings or parking lots

1. Ghandituin 2. Educatieve Moestuin 3. HEKS

Garden

1. Bikkershof 2. Gemeinschafts Garten Landhof

Parking lot

1. Tussentuin 2. Zuidpark Amsterdam 3. De groene campus 4. Daktuinen Beuningenplein 5. Dakakker

Roof

55

Table 6. Soil pollution of community and allotment gardens

Garden name Soil pollution

1. Buurtmoestuin de Middenmoes 2. Schiebroek Zuid 3. Ghandituin 4. Voedseltuin 5. Tuin aan de maas 6. Tuin op de Pier 7. HEKS 8. Gemeinschafts Garten Landhof 9. Educatieve Moestuin

Soil not polluted

1. Het Bergwerglplantsoen 2. Bikkershof

Soil polluted but then sanitized

1. Moestuinman Soil polluted below 1m30

1. Vrijgroen II Soil polluted so looked for other non-polluted plot

1. Buurtuinen Transvaal 2. Buurtmoestuin de Trompenburg 3. Vrijgroen I

Some soil plots polluted

1. Valreep 2. Tussentuin 3. Stadiongarten 4. Lorraine

Soil polluted so using raised beds

1. Zuidpark Amterdam 2. Dakakker 3. Groene Campus 4. Daktuinen Beuningenplein

No soil available on rooftop so, soil added

1. Heiloo’s garden 2. L'arbre à Palabre

No soil test undertaken yet

Table 7. General overview of "entrepreneurial UA projects

Name of Project Type of project Size (㎡) Starting year

Number of participants

1. Uit je eigen stad Urban farm 20'000 2012 1 farmer with a volunteer 3 managers

2. Frau Gerolds Garten Community Garden and restaurant garden

2’500 2012 7 members of the association 3 gardeners (small financial reward)

3. Beaulieu Urban farm 600 2010 13 members part of the association 3 staff

Table 8. Type of initiators and goals of "entrepreneurial" UA projects

Name of Project Type of initiators Goals

1. Uit je eigen stad Group of three leaders Bringing food back to the city

Using their production for the restaurant

2. Frau Gerolds Garten Group of 7 leaders Bringing food back to the city

Using their production for the restaurant (10% of the products come from the garden)

Organising workshops for future urban gardeners

Using an empty plot and rendering it into a meeting place and platform for residents

3. Beaulieu A group of people whom had already established an association

Bringing food back to the city

Producing for the local vegetable cooperatives

Producing vegetables for people to come harvest it themselves

56

ANNEXE D. Vulnerability assessment for the 29 projects and overall vulnerability scores averages

HEILOO PROJECT

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): Municipality established conditions in order for the plot to be used by project

LOW (score 2): Municipality conditions were not fulfilled by project leader

HIGH (Score 2): Project was not established on that plot

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality is dealing with UA for the first time

HIGH (score 2): Regulations are too strict according to the leader

LOW (score 2): Leader was not able to negotiate with local authorities for more flexibility

HIGH (score 2): Project was not established on municipal land

Departure of leader HIGH (score 2): Project only has one main leader

HIGH (score 2): Lack of support for leader; too much burden

MEDIUM (score 1): A group of residents are supporting the project but not really involved

HIGH (score 1.6): Although some residents are enthusiastic the entire burden is falling on one main leader.

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project would be financed by subsidies. No private finances available.

HIGH (score 2): Project is not established without subsidies

HIGH (score 0): Subsidies from foundations available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Without the subsidies the project would not be established even if municipality regulations were more flexible.

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not mention the remuneration issue

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

LOW (score 2): The project was not established due to lack of support from neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): The project was not established in the first plot due to lack of support from the neighbourhood

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Vandalism in the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production and safety

LOW (score 2): The project was not established partly due to vandalism

HIGH (score 2): The project was not established due to fear of vandalism from the local residents

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

Soil not used yet Soil not used yet Soil not used yet Soil not used yet

Polluted soil Soil test not undertaken Soil test not undertaken Soil test not undertaken

Soil test not undertaken

AVERAGE: MEDIUM 1.3

TUIN AAN DE MAAS

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): When plans to build are established, project will take an end

MEDIUM (score 1): Project leaders accepted from the beginning to leave the plot when needed

HIGH (Score 1.6): Project was established on temporary plot.

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Local municipality is flexible and supportive

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project was established on municipal land

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has five leaders

MEDIUM (score 1): Leadership is not lacking unless all 5 leaders

HIGH (score 0): A group of residents are supporting the

MEDIUM (score 0.6)- Residents and core group supporting project

57

leave project and 5 leaders are very active

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project would be financed by subsidies. No private finances available.

HIGH (score 2): Project is not established without subsidies

HIGH (score 0): Subsidies from foundations available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Without the subsidies the project would be less developed

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW- (score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3)-: The project was established but to be long term needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Unsafe environment on empty plot

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): The project was established anyway

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and neighbourhood safety improved according to leaders

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1)- The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to green a dumped area and have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil was not polluted

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil test was undertaken and declared as safe

MEDIUM (score 1): Project located on non-polluted soil yet, more soil tests should be undertaken for precaution issues.

AVERAGE MEDIUM 0.9

VALREEP

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): Illegal project

HIGH (score 0): Although illegal to use land the project is using it

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established on illegal plot

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

HIGH (score 2): Illegal project

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and establish project nevertheless

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project was established on illegal plot

Departure of leader

LOW (score 0): Project has different leaders and the squatting movement behind it

LOW (score 0): Project is well supported by not only garden leaders but squatting movement

HIGH (score 0): If the one of the leaders leave, another is available

LOW (score 0): Project is well supported by various leaders

Withdrawal of subsidies

LOW (score 0): Project does not receive subsidies because illegal

LOW (score 0): Project never received subsidies from foundation. All are private small investments.

HIGH (score 0): Squatting movement and participants are willing to finance the project partly

LOW (score 0): Withdrawal of subsidies is not a perturbation because never received subsidies.

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW (score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from HIGH (score 2): HIGH (score 2): HIGH (score 0): MEDIUM (score 1.3):

58

the neighbourhood Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

Lack of neighbourhood integration

Project attracted many participants

The project was established but to be long term needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

MEDIUM (score 1): Environment located on squatted area

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): The project is well supported by squatting movement, social control is present

MEDIUM (score 0.6): The project was established and neighbourhood safety improved according to leaders

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to green a dumped area and have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted

HIGH (score 2): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

HIGH (score 0): Raised beds were used

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project located on polluted area yet raised beds were used

AVERAGE: MEDIUM Score 0.6

MOESTUINMAN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Housing corporation owns the land

HIGH (score 2): Housing corporation can end project whenever wanted

HIGH (score 0): Social protest;

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project established on temporary plot

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of certainty, negotiates every year

HIGH (score 0): Leader adapt to given circumstances and try to keep good contact with aldermen

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project depends on flexibility of local aldermen

Departure of leader

HIGH (score 2): Project has mainly one leader overtaking the whole burden

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

LOW (score 2): Potential leaders not yet found

HIGH (score 2): Difficult to find potential leaders

Withdrawal of subsidies

LOW (score 0): Project did not receive many subsidies. Individual investments were made by leader

LOW (score 0): Project does not depend on subsidies

HIGH (score 0): Project leader motivated to invest his own funds for garden establishment

LOW (score 0): Withdrawal of subsidies is not a perturbation because never received a large amount of subsidies

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2): The leader referred to remuneration issues

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 0): Project leader organised courses which take place in the garden and receives remuneration

MEDIUM (score 1): Concern about remuneration but leader managed to find a source of remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but to be long term needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Environment located on empty plot, dumping area started; drug dealing

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): The project is well supported by neighbourhood; social control

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and neighbourhood safety improved according to leaders

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

59

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1)- The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to green a dumped area and have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted

HIGH (score 2): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

HIGH (score 0): Raised beds were used

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project located on polluted area yet raised beds were used

AVERAGE MEDIUM score 1.

VRIJGROEN I

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): Municipality can end project whenever wanted

LOW (score 2): No social protest from majority of neighbourhood

HIGH (Score 2): Project was ended

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of certainty, negotiates every year

LOW (score 2): Leader adapt to given circumstances but no support found

HIGH (score 2): Project depends on local political will and was ended

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project had around 5 core participants

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): If one leader would leave others would be available

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by more than one leader

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project relied on subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Less budget available for project

HIGH (score 0): Diverse sources of subsidies available

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Relied on subsidies but different sources available

Lack of remuneration

MEDIUM (score 1): The leader referred to remuneration issues

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 2): No remuneration sources found

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Concern about remuneration but leaders continue without remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

LOW (score 2): Project did not attract much people

HIGH (score 2): The project took an end due to lack of support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

MEDIUM (score 1): Environment located in the middle Business Centre

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production

HIGH (score 0): Located in an open space, obvious to public

MEDIUM (score 1): The project was established in urban area where theft possible but rare

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to green a dumped area and have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted in some areas

HIGH (score 2): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

HIGH (score 0): Raised beds were used in polluted areas

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project located on polluted area yet raised beds were used

AVERAGE Medium score 1.2

VRIJGROEN I I

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): Municipality can end project after 3 years

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project established on temporary plot

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): HIGH (score 2): MEDIUM (score HIGH (score 1.6):

60

Municipality decides on regulations for the project

Reduction of certainty, negotiates every year; takes time to negotiate; changes of aldermen took place

1): Leader adapt to given circumstances

Project depends on local political will and decision making takes time

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project had around 5 core participants

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): If one leader would leave others would be available

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by more than one leader

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project relied on subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Less budget available for project

HIGH (score 0): Diverse sources of subsidies available

MEDIUM (score 1) Relied on subsidies but different sources available

Lack of remuneration

MEDIUM (score 1): The leader referred to remuneration issues

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 2): No remuneration sources found

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Concern about remuneration but leaders continue without remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project trying to integrate via activities with local schools and other activities with neighbourhood

MEDIUM (score 1.3) The project is newly established and still looking for more support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

MEDIUM (score 1): Located in a residential area further away from urban centre

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production

HIGH (score 0): Located in an open space, obvious to public

MEDIUM (score 1): Thievery possibilities existent but never happened yet.

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to green an area and have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 2): Soil was not polluted

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

HIGH (score 0): Soil expert in the group Soil test undertaken

MEDIUM (score 1): Project located on non polluted area according to soil test

AVERAGE MEDIUM score 1

GHANDITUIN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure MEDIUM (score 1): Gardeners association owns land

HIGH (score 2): Gardeners association can end contract

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on temporary plot

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of certainty, negotiates every year; takes time to negotiate; changes of aldermen took place

MEDIUM (score 1): Leader adapt to given circumstances

HIGH (score 1.6): Project depends on local political will and decision making takes time

Departure of leader

MEDIUM (score 1): Project has around 3 core participants and supported by social movement

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

LOW (score 2): Potential leaders replacing the 3 not yet existent; Existent leaders planning on establishing another garden

HIGH (score 1.6): Project supported by more than one leader yet if they leave to establish another project might create leadership issues

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project relied on subsidies; Project is paying a rent

HIGH (score 2): Less budget available for project

HIGH (score 0): Diverse sources of subsidies available; Diverse sources of income

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Relied on subsidies but different sources available

61

possible (renting local for yoga classes)

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2): The leader referred to remuneration issues

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 2): No remuneration sources found

HIGH (score 1.6): Concern about remuneration but leaders continue without remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracts many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Project well integrated in the neighbourhood and residents participate

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

MEDIUM (score 1): Located in a gardening area with barrier around

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production

HIGH (score 0): Located in an area with barrier around

MEDIUM (score 1): Thievery possibilities existent but rare

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

LOW (score 0): The soil was very fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

LOW (score 0.3): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to green an area and have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil LOW (score 0): Soil was not polluted

LOW (score 0): Soil not polluted no consequences

HIGH (score 0): Soil test undertaken Children garden used to be there before

LOW (score 0): Project located on non polluted area that used to be a children gardening school

AVERAGE MEDIUM score 0.9

VOEDSELTUIN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure MEDIUM (score 1): Municipality own land

HIGH (score 2): Municipality can end contract

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on temporary plot

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of certainty, negotiates every year; takes time to negotiate; changes of aldermen took place

MEDIUM (score 1): Leader adapt to given circumstances

HIGH (score 1.6): Project depends on local political will and decision making takes time

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has around 3 core remunerated staff

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

MEDIUM (score 1): Potential leaders replacing the 3 not yet existent but staff is remunerated

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project supported by more than one leader yet if they leave, lack of leadership issues might arise

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project relied on subsidies; Project gives crops away to Food Bank

HIGH (score 2): Less budget available for project

MEDIUM (score 1): Diverse sources of subsidies available but extra remuneration for staff is needed

HIGH (score 1.6) Relied on subsidies and remuneration for staff needed

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2): The leader referred to remuneration issues

HIGH (score 2): Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 2): Not many remuneration sources found

HIGH (score 2): Concern about remuneration; looking for funding sources

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project embellishes industrial neighbourhood; integrated in the map planning

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Project well integrated in the neighbourhood

Unsafe urban environment (theft,

MEDIUM (score 1): Located in an industrial

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production;

HIGH (score 0): Many participants

MEDIUM (score 1): Thievery/vandalism

62

vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

area where sexual tourism and drug dealing occurred

Unsafe environment in the garden, social control

possibilities existent but rare

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project gives crops to Food Bank

LOW (score 0): Project does not receive income for the crops anyhow from the Food Bank

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products; products are meant for Food Bank

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): Different sources of inputs possible, received for free; Diverse vegetable production decreases pest problems.

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil was not polluted but located in industrial area

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

HIGH (score 0): Soil test undertaken

MEDIUM (score 0.6) Project located on non-polluted area according to soil test

AVERAGE Medium score 1.1

HET BERGWEGPLANTSOEN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure MEDIUM (score 1): Municipality owns land

HIGH (score 2): Municipality can end contract

HIGH (score 0): Social protest Green square, not a construction zone

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on temporary plot

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leader adapt to given circumstances; Participants are embellishing area via their project

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project depends on local political will and decision making takes time

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has around 5 core participants

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

MEDIUM (score 1): If one leader leaves other leaders available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project supported by more than one leader

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project relied on subsidies;

HIGH (score 2): Less budget available for project

HIGH (score 0): Diverse sources of subsidies available

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Relied on subsidies but many sources available

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0) The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0) No remuneration issue

LOW (score 0): Not many remuneration sources found

LOW (score 0): no remuneration issue

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project embellishes neighbourhood;

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Project well integrated in the neighbourhood

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Located in an urban residential area where thievery possible

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production; Unsafe environment

HIGH (score 0): Many participants in the garden, social control

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Thievery/vandalism possibilities existent but rare

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): Different sources of inputs possible, received for free; Diverse vegetable production decreases pest problems.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted

HIGH (score 2): Health consequences

HIGH (score 0): Soil was sanitized by municipality; new fresh soil added

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Project located on sanitized area

AVERAGE MEDIUM score 1.1

63

TUIN OP DE PIER

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): When plans to build are established, project will take an end

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established on temporary plot.

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has five leaders

MEDIUM (score 1): Leadership is not lacking unless all 5 leaders leave

HIGH (score 0): A group of residents (100 people) are supporting the project and 5 leaders are very active

MEDIUM (score 0.6)- Residents and core group of active participants supporting the project

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project financed by subsidies. .

HIGH (score 2): Project is not established without subsidies

HIGH (score 0): Subsidies from foundations available; participants pay a fee

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Without the subsidies the project would not be established

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW- (score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but to be long term needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Unsafe environment on empty plot

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): The project was established anyway based on other garden experiences where neighbourhood improved according to leaders

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and neighbourhood safety might improve according to leaders

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to green a dumped area and have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil was not polluted

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil test was undertaken and declared as safe

MEDIUM (score 1): Project located on non-polluted soil yet, more soil tests should be undertaken in future for precaution issues.

AVERAGE Medium 0.8

BUURTTUIN TRANSVAAL

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): When plans to build are established, project will take an end

HIGH (score 0): Social protest Green square area, no construction zone

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established on temporary plot.

64

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land regulated by local authorities

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has five core leaders

MEDIUM (score 1): Leadership is not lacking unless all 5 leaders leave

HIGH (score 0): A group of residents are supporting the project and 5 leaders are very active

MEDIUM (score 0.6): Residents and core group of active participants supporting the project

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project financed by subsidies. .

HIGH (score 2): Project is not established without subsidies

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of subsidies available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Without the subsidies the project would not be established

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW (score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants Activities undertaken with neighbourhood to include residents in project

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but to be long term needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Unsafe environment on empty plot

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): Social control; open space in the middle of residential square

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and neighbourhood safety improved according to leaders

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was partly polluted

HIGH (score 2): Health consequences

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil test was undertaken and declared as safe Non edible plants planted in polluted areas

HIGH (score 1.6): Project located on partially non-polluted plot; more soil tests should be undertaken in future for precaution issues.

AVERAGE Medium 0.9

BUURTMOESTUIN DE MIDDENMOES

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): When plans to build are established, project will take an end

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established on temporary plot.

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land regulated by local authorities

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 6 core leaders

MEDIUM (score 1): Leadership is not lacking unless all 6 leaders leave

HIGH (score 0): A group of residents are supporting the project and 6 leaders are very active

MEDIUM (score 0.6): Residents and core group of active participants supporting the project

65

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project financed by subsidies. .

HIGH (score 2): Project is not established without subsidies

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of subsidies available Participant fee

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Without the subsidies the project would not be established

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW (score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants Activities undertaken with neighbourhood to include residents in project

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but to be long term needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Unsafe environment on empty plot

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): Social control; open space in the middle of residential square

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and neighbourhood safety improved according to leaders

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil was not polluted

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil test was undertaken and declared as safe

MEDIUM (score 1): Project located on partially non-polluted plot; more soil tests should be undertaken in future for precaution issues.

AVERAGE Medium 0.8

BIKKERSHOF

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Municipality owns the land

HIGH (score 2): When plans to build are established, project will take an end

HIGH (score 0): Social protest Existent since 1987

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established on temporary plot.

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land regulated by local authorities

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 10 core leaders

MEDIUM (score 1): Leadership is not lacking unless all 10 leaders leave

HIGH (score 0): A group of residents are supporting the project and 10 leaders are very active. Existent since 1987.

MEDIUM (score 0.6): Residents and core group of active participants supporting the project

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project financed by subsidies. .

HIGH (score 2): Project is not established without subsidies

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of subsidies available Project has income from a bike parking shed

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Without the subsidies the project would not be established yet has alternative sources

Lack of LOW (score 0): LOW (score 0): HIGH (score 0): LOW (score 0): No

66

remuneration The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

No remuneration asked Project would be established without remuneration

vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants. Existent since 1987.

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

MEDIUM (score 1): Urban environment

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): Social control; Barrier

MEDIUM (score 0.6): The project rarely faced thievery issues or vandalism

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted

HIGH (score 2): Soil polluted; possible long term consequences (health aspects)

HIGH (score 0): Soil was sanitized; Soil test undertaken in two spots of the garden every year

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project located on sanitized area with soil tests undertaken

AVERAGE Medium 0.8

BUURTMOESTUIN DE TROMPENBURG

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure MEDIUM (score 1): Municipality owns land

HIGH (score 2): Municipality can end contract

HIGH (score 0): Social protest Green square, not a construction zone

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on temporary plot

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leader adapt to given circumstances; Participants are embellishing area via their project

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project depends on local political will and decision making takes time

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has around 5 core participants

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

MEDIUM (score 1): If one leader leaves other leaders available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project supported by more than one leader

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project relied on subsidies;

HIGH (score 2): Less budget available for project

HIGH (score 0): Diverse sources of subsidies available

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Relied on subsidies but many sources available

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): NO remuneration issue

HIGH (score 0): No remuneration needed

LOW (score 0): No concern for remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project embellishes neighbourhood;

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Project well integrated in the neighbourhood

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Located in an urban residential area where thievery possible

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production; Unsafe environment

HIGH (score 0): Many participants in the garden, social control

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Thievery/vandalism possibilities existent but rare

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

67

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): Different sources of inputs possible, received for free; Diverse vegetable production decreases pest problems.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was partially polluted

HIGH (score 2): Health consequences

HIGH (score 0): Raised beds used Non edible plants planted in polluted areas

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Project located on partially non-polluted plot; more soil tests should be undertaken in future for precaution issues.

AVERAGE Medium 0.9

STADSLANDBOUW SCHIEBROEK ZUID

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure

LOW (score 0): Social Housing company, leader of the project, owns land

LOW (score 0): Project will not take an end;

HIGH (score 0): Social housing company invested in the area on its own private plot

LOW (Score 0): Project was established by a Housing corporation on their own plot of land

Lack of policies LOW (score 0): Plot is private property

MEDIUM (score 1): Plot faces less influence from local authorities

HIGH (score 0): Leaders are not very limited by local authorities since the leader is owner of plot

LOW (score 0.3): Project established on private land but local policies can still influence the project

Departure of leader LOW (score 0): Project has 30 active participants

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): Supported by many active participants

MEDIUM (score 0.6): Residents and core group of active participants supporting the project

Withdrawal of subsidies

LOW (score 0): Project largely financed by private owner

LOW (score 0): Project not much influenced by subsidy withdrawal

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of funds available

LOW (score 0): Project is funded by property owner, subsidies from foundations are not the main source of support

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): Remuneration not referred to

HIGH (score 2): Lack of income for leader

HIGH (score 0): Social leader says to be motivated to continue project without remuneration

LOW (score 0.6): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

MEDIUM (score 1): Urban environment

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): Social control; Open space in between residential area

MEDIUM (score 0.6): The project rarely faced thievery issues or vandalism

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances than the selling of product

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products although sometimes they sell processed products on the local market

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1)-:The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil MEDIUM (score MEDIUM (score 1):

68

was not polluted not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

1): Soil test was undertaken and declared as safe

Project located on partially non-polluted plot; more soil tests should be undertaken in future for precaution issues.

AVERAGE Low 0.5

TUSSENTUIN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure

LOW (score 0): Social Housing company, leader of the project, owns land

LOW (score 0): Project will not take an end;

HIGH (score 0): Social housing company invested in the area on its own private plot

LOW (Score 0): Project was established by a Housing corporation on their own plot of land

Lack of policies LOW (score 0): Plot is private property

MEDIUM (score 1): Plot faces less influence from local authorities

HIGH (score 0): Leaders are not very limited by local authorities since the leader is owner of plot

LOW (score 0.3): Project established on private land but local policies can still influence the project

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has one social leader

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): Leader is motivated to stay without remuneration A number of participants are already planting independently

MEDIUM (score 1): Residents and core group of active participants supporting the project

Withdrawal of subsidies

LOW (score 0): Project largely financed by Social Housing

LOW (score 0): Project not much influenced by subsidy withdrawal

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of private funds from Social Housing

LOW (score 0): Project is funded by Social Housing, subsidies from foundations are not the main source of support

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2): Social leader is remunerated

HIGH (score 2): Lack of income for leader

HIGH (score 0): Social leader says to be motivated to continue project without remuneration

MEDIUM (score 1.3): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

MEDIUM (score 1): Urban environment

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of production and safety

HIGH (score 0): Social control; Open space in between residential area

MEDIUM (score 0.6): The project rarely faced thievery issues or vandalism

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances than the selling of product

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted

HIGH (score 2): Soil polluted; possible long term consequences (health aspects)

HIGH (score 0): Rooftop of a storage building used as a plot for gardening

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project located on rooftop with new fresh soil

AVERAGE Medium 0.6

69

ZUIDPARK

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure

LOW (score 0): Leader of project owns area; (Owner of building, leader, owns rooftop)

LOW (score 0): Project will not take an end;

HIGH (score 0): Owner of the building whom is leader of project can decide what to do

LOW (Score 0): Project was established by a private individual on it's private property (office building)

Lack of policies LOW (score 0): Plot is private property

MEDIUM (score 1): Plot faces less influence from local authorities

HIGH (score 0): Leaders are not very limited by local authorities since the leader is owner of plot

LOW (score 0.3): Project established on private land but local policies can still influence the project

Departure of leader

MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 30 active participants and professional support for rooftop gardens

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): Large number of participants are active

MEDIUM (score 1): Residents and core group of active participants supporting the project

Withdrawal of subsidies

LOW (score 0): Project largely financed by private owner

LOW (score 0): Project not much influenced by subsidy withdrawal

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of private funds Green areas fee for the building

LOW (score 0): Project is funded by private owner mostly and other sources of funds

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): No remuneration asked

LOW (score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established but needs continual support

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

LOW (score 0): Rooftop garden

LOW (score 0): Garden located on rooftop; not easily accessible by public in general

HIGH (score 0): Social control

LOW (score 0): The project never faced such problems

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances than the selling of product

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a rooftop area used and render building attractive

Polluted soil LOW (score 0): Soil was not polluted

LOW (score 0): No large sensitivity

HIGH (score 0): Rooftop of a building, fresh soil added

LOW (score 0): Project located on rooftop with new fresh soil

AVERAGE Low 0.3

DE GROENE CAMPUS

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure LOW (score 0): Leader of project is director of school

LOW (score 0): Project will not take an end;

HIGH (score 0): Director of school wants to establish project on rooftop

LOW (Score 0): Project will be established by school director on own school

Lack of policies LOW (score 0): Plot is private property

MEDIUM (score 1): Plot faces less influence from local authorities

HIGH (score 0): Leaders are not very limited by local authorities since the leader is owner of area

LOW (score 0.3): Project established on private land but local policies can still influence the project

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has teachers and students participating

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): Large number of participants are active

MEDIUM (score 1): Students and teachers are supporting the project

Withdrawal of MEDIUM(score 1): MEDIUM(score 1): MEDIUM (score MEDIUM(score 1):

70

subsidies Project largely financed by private owner

Project not much influenced by subsidy withdrawal but demands rather high investments for rooftop

1): Different sources of private funds

Project is funded by private owner mostly and other sources of funds

Lack of remuneration

MEDIUM(score 1): Remuneration given to teachers

MEDIUM (score 1): Rooftop garden will become part of the curriculum, teachers receive remuneration anyway

MEDIUM (score 1): Teachers already remunerated before school rooftop

MEDIUM (score 1): Participants such as teachers will be remunerated for project, but it will be part of curriculum

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

MEDIUM (score 1): Neighbourhood support not much needed since plot on rooftop

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracted many interests Project located on rooftop

MEDIUM (score 0.6): The project is not yet established but support is there

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

LOW (score 0): Rooftop garden

LOW (score 0): Garden located on rooftop; not easily accessible by public in general

HIGH (score 0): Social control

LOW (score 0): Project located on rooftop garden not accessible to general public

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances than the selling of product

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a rooftop area used and render building attractive

Polluted soil LOW (score 0): Soil was added on rooftop

LOW (score 0): No large sensitivity

HIGH (score 0): Rooftop of a building, fresh soil added

LOW (score 0): Project located on rooftop with new fresh soil

AVERAGE Low 0.4

EDUCATIEVE MOESTUIN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure MEDIUM (score 1): Gardeners association owns land

HIGH (score 2): Gardeners association can end contract

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on temporary plot

Lack of policies MEDIUM (score 1): Gardeners association established policies

HIGH(score 2): Garden project needs to respect policies established

HIGH (score 0): Leader adapt to given circumstances

MEDIUM (score 1): Project depends mostly on regulations established by gardeners association

Departure of leader

MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 2 core leaders and supported by volunteers

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

LOW (score 2): Potential leaders replacing the 2 not yet existent

HIGH (score 1.6): Project supported by more than one leader yet if they leave to establish another project might create leadership issues

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project relied on subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Less budget available for project

HIGH (score 0): Diverse sources of subsidies available; Diverse sources of income possible (renting local for yoga classes)

MEDIUM (score 1.3) Relied on subsidies but different sources available

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2): The leader referred to remuneration issues

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 2): No remuneration sources found

HIGH (score 1.6): Concern about remuneration but leaders continue without remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

MEDIUM (score 1): Neighbourhood support important but most important is gardeners association support

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Project attracts many participants

MEDIUM (score 0.6) Project well integrated in the neighbourhood and in the gardeners association

71

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

LOW (score 0): Located in a gardening area with key locked high barrier around

HIGH (score 2): Reduction of production

HIGH (score 0): Protected with a lock from urban environment

MEDIUM (score 0.6): Thievery possibilities existent but rare

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): The project was not planning in selling

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Project will not try to sell products

LOW (score 0): The project leader was not going to sell the products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

LOW (score 0): The soil was very fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Soil is fertile Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

LOW (score 0.3): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have an area for workshops on vegetable production

Polluted soil LOW (score 0): Soil was not polluted

LOW (score 0): Soil not polluted no consequences

HIGH (score 0): Soil test undertaken Plot used for gardening since 10 years already

LOW (score 0): Project located on non-polluted area that used to be a gardening plot

AVERAGE Medium 0.8

DAKTUINEN BEUNINGENPLEIN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure

HIGH (score 2): Leader of project does not own rooftop of youth centre

HIGH (score 2): Project depends on youth centre director

MEDIUM (score 1): Leader negotiates with youth centre Rooftop is used for nothing else

HIGH (Score 1.6): Project leader negotiates every year to use rooftop

Lack of policies

HIGH (score 2): Plot is from youth centre, depends of youth centre policies

HIGH (score 2) Uncertainty in project continuation

HIGH (score 0): Leader adapts to given circumstances Negotiation continues every year

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project established on youth centre rooftop and depends of the will of the youth centre director

Departure of leader HIGH (score 2): Project has one leader taking all the burden

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

LOW (score 2): One main leader doing all the work Participants are children mainly

HIGH (score 2) If main leader leaves, project will end

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project largely financed by subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Lack of budget for project

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of private funds

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project relies on subsidies from foundation

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2): The leader referred to remuneration issues

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 2): No remuneration sources found

HIGH (score 1.6): Concern about remuneration but leaders continue without remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed to establish project

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

LOW (score 2): Project attracted many children yet lack of network support from neighbourhood or children parents

HIGH (score 2): The project was established but needs continual support not only from children but from other supportive actors

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

LOW (score 0): Rooftop garden

LOW (score 0): Garden located on rooftop; not easily accessible by public in general

HIGH (score 0): Social control

LOW (score 0): Project located on rooftop garden not accessible to general public

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances than the selling of product

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ HIGH (score 2): The soil MEDIUM (score 1): HIGH (score 0): MEDIUM (score 1): The

72

Pests was not fertile Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

Compost and manure easily found for free

goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a rooftop area used and render building attractive

Polluted soil LOW (score 0): Soil was added on rooftop

LOW (score 0): No large sensitivity

HIGH (score 0): Rooftop of a building, fresh soil added

LOW (score 0): Project located on rooftop with new fresh soil

AVERAGE Medium 1

DAKAKKER

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure LOW (score 0): Leader of project owns area; (Owner of building, leader, owns rooftop)

LOW (score 0): Project will not take an end;

HIGH (score 0): Owner of the building whom is leader of project can decide what to do

LOW (Score 0): Project was established by a private individual on it's private property (office building)

Lack of policies LOW (score 0): Plot is private property

MEDIUM (score 1): Plot faces less influence from local authorities

HIGH (score 0): Leaders are not very limited by local authorities since the leader is owner of plot

LOW (score 0.3): Project established on private land but local policies can still influence the project

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has one main leader but supported by architects and owner of building

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): Potential leaders present

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by different leaders

Withdrawal of subsidies

LOW (score 0): Project largely financed by architectural prize

LOW (score 0): Project not much influenced by subsidy withdrawal

HIGH (score 0): One big financial prize received

LOW (score 0): Project is funded by private owner

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2) Leader is remunerated

HIGH (score 2): Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 0): Remuneration sources available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Remuneration needed but sources available

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

LOW (score 0): Not much neighbourhood support needed since located on private rooftop

MEDIUM (score 1): Lack of neighbourhood integration but located on private area

HIGH (score 0): Rooftop gardens are generally well received by public because innovative and greening Garden leader owns building

LOW (score 0.3): The project was established and is well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

LOW (score 0): Rooftop garden

LOW (score 0): Garden located on rooftop; not easily accessible by public in general

HIGH (score 0): Social control

LOW (score 0): The project never faced such problems

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances than the selling of product

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products although part of products sold to local restaurants

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily financed by project

MEDIUM (score 1): The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to have a rooftop area used and illustrate how rooftop gardens can be established

Polluted soil LOW (score 0): Soil was not polluted

LOW (score 0): No large sensitivity

HIGH (score 0): Rooftop of a building, fresh soil added

LOW (score 0): Project located on rooftop with new fresh soil

AVERAGE Low 0.3

73

UIT JE EIGEN STAD

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Area owned by municipality

HIGH (score 2): Project can take an end

HIGH (score 0): Leaders of project have a contract for 10 years

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established but temporary

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land

Departure of leader

MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 3 main leaders and 1 main gardener

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): 4 leaders very active and involved

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by different leaders

Withdrawal of subsidies

LOW (score 0): Project largely financed by private investment

LOW (score 0): Project not much influenced by subsidy withdrawal

HIGH (score 0): Private investments Crowd funding

LOW (score 0): Project is funded by private investments

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2) Leaders are remunerated

HIGH (score 2): Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 0): Remuneration sources available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Remuneration needed but sources available

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Surrounding residents accepted well the project Embellishes the area and is a lunch/dinner location in industrial area

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and is well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Urban environment

HIGH (score 2): Garden easily accessible

HIGH (score 0): Social control Project leaders are present every day

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project never faced such problems

Lack of demand for products

HIGH (score 2): Goal is to sell products

HIGH (score 2): Project establishment dependent on income by selling of products

HIGH (score 0): Diverse rare vegetables Fresh and local

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Goal is to sell products but public is attracted to this offer: innovative, fresh and local

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

HIGH (score 2): Affects vegetable production and sales; Increased costs for inputs

MEDIUM (score 1): Compost and manure easily financed by project

HIGH (score 1.6) The goal of the project is to be productive; income depends on sales of products

Polluted soil

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil was not polluted but located on old railway station

HIGH (score 2): Products sold in restaurant Long term health consequences if polluted Spots may be polluted

HIGH (score 0): Fresh soil added, cloth between new fresh soil and old soil

MEDIUM (score 1): Project located on area where railway station used to be but fresh soil added

AVERAGE Medium 1.1

BEAULIEU

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Area owned by municipality

HIGH (score 2): Project can take an end

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established but may be temporary

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 3 main leaders and 3 main gardeners

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): 4 leaders very active and involved

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by different leaders

74

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project largely financed subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Lack of budget for project

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of funds available; selling of seedlings and of crops

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project relies on subsidies, but sources are diverse and other income available

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2) Leaders are remunerated

HIGH (score 2): Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 0): Remuneration sources available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Remuneration needed but sources available

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Surrounding residents accepted well the project Embellishes the area Original project supporting local crops

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and is well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Urban environment

HIGH (score 2): Garden easily accessible

HIGH (score 0): Social control Project leaders are present every day Seedlings area in greenhouses locked

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project never faced such problems

Lack of demand for products

HIGH (score 2): Goal is to sell products

HIGH (score 2): Project establishment dependent partially on income by selling of products

HIGH (score 0): Diverse rare vegetables Fresh and local

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Goal is to sell products but public is attracted to this offer: innovative, fresh and local

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not very fertile

HIGH (score 2): Affects vegetable production and sales; Increased costs for inputs

MEDIUM (score 1): Compost and manure easily financed by project. Diverse crops are planted.

HIGH (score 1.6): The goal of the project is to be productive; income depends on sales of products

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil was not polluted

HIGH (score 2): Products sold to public Long term health consequences if polluted

HIGH (score 0): Soil not polluted Raised beds are used

MEDIUM (score 1): Project located in a park, non-polluted soil

AVERAGE Medium 1.2

GEMEINSCHAFTS GARTEN LANDHOF

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Area owned by municipality

HIGH (score 2): Project can take an end

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established but may be temporary

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 2 main leaders

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): 2 leaders very involved and potential leaders are identified

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by different leaders and potential leaders available

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project largely financed subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Lack of budget for project

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of funds available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project relies on subsidies, but sources are diverse

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2) Leaders mentioned remuneration issue

HIGH (score 2): Lack of remuneration

MEDIUM (score 1): Remuneration sources not always available but leader continue without remuneration

HIGH (score 1.6): Remuneration asked but not always available, yet leaders continue project nevertheless

75

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Surrounding residents accepted well the project Embellishes the area Many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and is well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Urban environment

HIGH (score 2): Garden easily accessible

HIGH (score 0): Social control

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project rarely faced such problems

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

MEDIUM (score 1): The soil was fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM ( score 0.6) The goal of the project is not to be productive but rather to be a place for neighbours to meet and plant

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil was not polluted

HIGH (score 2): Long term health consequences if polluted Used to be parking lot

HIGH (score 0): Soil not polluted New soil was added

MEDIUM (score 1): Project located in a non-polluted area but more soil tests should be undertaken in future for precaution issues.

AVERAGE Medium 1

STADION GARTEN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Area owned by municipality

HIGH (score 2): Project can take an end

HIGH (score 0): Social protest

MEDIUM (Score 1.3): Project was established but may be temporary

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 5 main leaders

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): 5 leaders very involved

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by different leaders and many different participants

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project largely financed subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Lack of budget for project

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of funds available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project relies on subsidies, but sources are diverse

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW (score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Surrounding residents accepted well the project Embellishes the area Many participants

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and is well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Urban environment

HIGH (score 2): Garden easily accessible

HIGH (score 0): Social control

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project rarely faced such problems

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ MEDIUM (score 1): The MEDIUM (score 1): HIGH (score 0): MEDIUM (score 0.6)

76

Pests soil was fertile Affects vegetable production

Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

The goal of the project is not to be productive but rather to be a place for neigh

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted

HIGH (score 2): Long term health consequences if polluted

HIGH (score 0): Raised beds used

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project located in polluted area but raised beds are used

AVERAGE Medium 0.9

FRAU GEROLDS GARTEN

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure MEDIUM (score 1): Area owned by private owner

HIGH (score 2): Project can take an end

HIGH (score 0): Contract for 4 years

MEDIUM (Score 1): Project was established but is temporary

Lack of policies

MEDIUM (score 1) Municipality decides on regulations for the project; High regulation for restaurant activity

MEDIUM (score 1): Policies for restaurant are established but complicated

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 0.6): Project established although faced challenges regarding policies, mostly for restaurant activities

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has 7 main leaders

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): 7 leaders very involved and 3 gardeners

MEDIUM (score 0.6): Project supported by different leaders

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project financed by subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Lack of budget for project

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of funds available Income from the restaurant sales

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project relies on subsidies, but sources are diverse

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2) Leaders are remunerated

HIGH (score 2): Workers and leaders become unsatisfied

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of income Sales of restaurants

MEDIUM(score 1.3): remuneration needed but sources available

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Surrounding residents accepted well the project and is a lunch/dinner location in industrial area

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and is well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Urban environment

HIGH (score 2): Garden easily accessible

HIGH (score 0): Social control

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project rarely faced such problems

Lack of demand for products

HIGH (score 2): Goal is to sell products

HIGH (score 2): Project establishment dependent on income by selling of products

HIGH (score 0): Diverse rare vegetables Fresh and local

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Goal is to sell products but public is attracted to this offer: innovative, fresh and local

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

HIGH (score 2): Affects vegetable production and sales; Increased costs for inputs

MEDIUM (score 1): Compost and manure easily financed by project

HIGH (score 1.6): The goal of the project is to be productive; income depends on sales of products

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted

HIGH (score 2): Long term health consequences if polluted

HIGH (score 0): Raised beds used

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project located in polluted area but raised beds are used

AVERAGE Medium 1.1

HEKS

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure

HIGH (score 2): Area owned by municipality or gardeners’ association

HIGH (score 2): Project can take an end

MEDIUM (score 1): Contract negotiated every year

HIGH (Score 1.6): Project was established but is temporary

77

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty

HIGH (score 0): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1): Project established on municipal land

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has a social leader

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

LOW (score 2): One social leader by project

HIGH (score 1.6): Project supported by different leaders

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project financed by subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Lack of budget for project

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of funds available Donations

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project relies on subsidies, but sources are diverse

Lack of remuneration

HIGH (score 2) Leaders are remunerated

HIGH (score 2): Workers and leaders become unsatisfied

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of income

MEDIUM (score 1.3): remuneration needed but sources available

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Surrounding residents accepted

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project was established and is well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Urban environment

HIGH (score 2): Garden accessible

HIGH (score 0): Social control Barrier around the garden

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project rarely faced such problems

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production: Increased costs for inputs

MEDIUM (score 1): Compost and manure easily financed by project

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The goal of the project is not to be productive but rather to be a place for migrants to meet and have their own gardens

Polluted soil MEDIUM (score 1): Soil was not polluted

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil not polluted but possible long term consequences (health aspects)

MEDIUM (score 1): Soil test was undertaken and declared as safe

MEDIUM (score 1): Project located on partially non-polluted plot; more soil tests should be undertaken in future for precaution issues.

AVERAGE Medium 1.1

L’ARBRE A PALABRE

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Area owned by municipality

HIGH (score 2): Project can take an end

MEDIUM (score 1): Contract negotiated every year

HIGH (Score 1.6): Project was established but is temporary

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty Much time needed to negotiate for plot

MEDIUM (score 1): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project established on municipal land

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has a core group of 5 people

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): 5 core active people and around 30 participants interested Potential leaders available

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by different leaders

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project financed by subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Lack of budget for project

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of funds available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project relies on subsidies, but sources are diverse

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW (score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

78

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Surrounding residents accepted

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project is to be established but is well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Urban environment

HIGH (score 2): Garden accessible

HIGH (score 0): Social control Very visible to public

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project not yet established so difficult to assess what will happen

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

No use of soil yet No use of soil yet No use of soil yet No use of soil yet

Polluted soil No soil test undertaken yet

No soil test undertaken yet

No soil test undertaken yet

No soil test undertaken yet

AVERAGE Medium: 0.9

LORRAINE

Perturbation Exposure Sensitivity Resilience Vulnerability Score

Lack of land tenure HIGH (score 2): Area owned by municipality

HIGH (score 2): Project can take an end

MEDIUM (score 1): Contract negotiated every year

HIGH (Score 1.6): Project was established but is temporary

Lack of policies HIGH (score 2): Municipality decides on regulations for the project

MEDIUM (score 1): Reduction of leaders certainty Much time needed to negotiate for plot

MEDIUM (score 1): Leaders adapt and negotiate well with the local authorities

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project established on municipal land

Departure of leader MEDIUM (score 1): Project has a core group of 5 people

HIGH (score 2): Lack of leadership

HIGH (score 0): 5 core active people and around 30 participants interested Potential leaders available

MEDIUM (score 1): Project supported by different leaders

Withdrawal of subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Project financed by subsidies

HIGH (score 2): Lack of budget for project

HIGH (score 0): Different sources of funds available

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project relies on subsidies, but sources are diverse

Lack of remuneration

LOW (score 0): The leader did not refer to remuneration issues

LOW (score 0): No remuneration asked

HIGH (score 0): Project would be established without remuneration

LOW(score 0): No vulnerability to remuneration

Lack of support from the neighbourhood

HIGH (score 2): Neighbourhood support needed

HIGH (score 2): Lack of neighbourhood integration

HIGH (score 0): Surrounding residents accepted

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project is established and well supported

Unsafe urban environment (theft, vandalism, drug dealing, sex tourism)

HIGH (score 2): Urban environment; dumping area

HIGH (score 2): Garden accessible

HIGH (score 0): Social control Very visible to public

MEDIUM (score 1.3): The project rarely faces thievery or vandalism

Lack of demand for products

LOW (score 0): Goal is not to sell products

LOW (score 0): Project establishment not dependent on income

HIGH (score 0): Other sources of finances

LOW (score 0): The project leader's goal was not to sell products

Lack of nutrients/ Pests

HIGH (score 2): The soil was not fertile

MEDIUM (score 1): Affects vegetable production; Increased costs for inputs

HIGH (score 0): Compost and manure easily found for free Diverse vegetables and small plot reduces pests occurrence

MEDIUM (score 1)- The goal of the project was not to be productive but mostly to green a dumped area and have a space for neighbours to meet and plant.

Polluted soil HIGH (score 2): Soil was polluted

HIGH (score 2): Health consequences

HIGH (score 0): Raised beds were used

MEDIUM (score 1.3): Project located on polluted area yet raised beds were used

AVERAGE Medium 1

79