agriculture and the city: a method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban...

14
Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy jo ur nal ho me pag e: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts Daniele La Rosa , Luca Barbarossa, Riccardo Privitera, Francesco Martinico Department Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 7 April 2014 Received in revised form 14 June 2014 Accepted 19 June 2014 Keywords: Sustainable planning Urban agriculture Suitability modelling GIS Indicators a b s t r a c t Contemporary cities are threatened by urban development decreasing the overall environmental quality and fragmenting natural and agricultural landscapes. As a result of this fragmentation the number of Non Urbanized Areas (NUAs) present in urban contexts is dramatically decreasing. These areas include cultivated land, Abandoned Farmlands, Grassland, Woods and Shrubs that are often located at the peri- urban cities’ fringes. Among NUAs, farmlands and other forms of urban and peri-urban agriculture provide all three major categories of ecosystem services, provisioning, regulating and cultural services. Recently, New Forms of Urban Agriculture (NFUA) have gained increasing attention from researchers for their promising multifunctionality. Incorporating NFUA into the urban environment will thus improve the sustainability of cities, taking advantage of the multiple benefits and services they can provide. This paper presents a method for the characterisation of NUAs in terms of their physical, ecological and social features. These areas are analysed with different criteria and related indicators structured according to a GIS-based Multi Criteria Suitability Model. The proposed model checks the suitability of transformation of the NUAs toward NFUA, thereby enhancing their ecological and social function as well as accessibility and overall connectivity. Different scenarios of spatial configurations for NFUA have been explored with a sensitivity analysis on the values of used indicators. The method was tested for the municipality of Catania, south Italy, an urban context characterised by a relevant shortage of public green spaces and services. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction For decades in many European countries the dynamics of urban and economic growth have been separated from demographic development (Kasanko et al., 2006). Despite the decreasing pop- ulation, urban expansion due to spatial development pressure has been an impressive driver of very high consumption of land and agricultural resources. In Europe, at least 2.8% of land experienced a change in use between 1990 and 2000, including a significant increase in urban areas (Commission of the European Communities, 2006). Contemporary cities are often threatened by urban devel- opment decreasing the overall environmental quality and frag- menting natural and agricultural landscapes (Olson and Lyson, 1999; Paül and McKenzie, 2010). This is particularly relevant at the cities’ fringe, where uncontrolled urban development is often characterised by discontinuous patterns and consequent Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 095 7382523; fax: +39 095 330309. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. La Rosa). fragmentation of farmlands (Gallent and Shaw, 2007). These phenomena are particularly relevant in Mediterranean cities, where the high degree of land-use transitions a consequence of urban growth with poor environmental regulations produce urban landscapes characterised by a lack of green areas and high levels of ecological fragmentation (EEA, 2006). The relationship between the agricultural landscape and the city is reflected in the particular contemporary peri-urban landscapes, where residen- tial low-density settlements are intertwined with farmlands that have been partially modified and reduced by urbanisation. A low- density settlement has widely become the main landmark of new metropolitan areas (Munoz, 2003). As a result of this fragmentation the number of Non Urbanized Areas (NUAs) present in urban contexts is dramatically decreasing. These areas include, among others, cultivated land, Abandoned Farmlands, Grassland, Woods and Shrubs that are often located at the peri-urban cities’ fringes. They contain a significant amount of vegetation, often representing the last remnants of nature in metropolitan areas (La Rosa and Privitera, 2013) and providing important ecosystem services such as purification of air and water, mitigation of floods and droughts, re-generation of soil fertility, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.014 0264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Upload: francesco

Post on 30-Jan-2017

237 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

Af

DD

a

ARRA

KSUSGI

I

adubaai2

om1ao

h0

Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

jo ur nal ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

griculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of neworms of agriculture in urban contexts

aniele La Rosa ∗, Luca Barbarossa, Riccardo Privitera, Francesco Martinicoepartment Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 7 April 2014eceived in revised form 14 June 2014ccepted 19 June 2014

eywords:ustainable planningrban agricultureuitability modellingIS

ndicators

a b s t r a c t

Contemporary cities are threatened by urban development decreasing the overall environmental qualityand fragmenting natural and agricultural landscapes. As a result of this fragmentation the number ofNon Urbanized Areas (NUAs) present in urban contexts is dramatically decreasing. These areas includecultivated land, Abandoned Farmlands, Grassland, Woods and Shrubs that are often located at the peri-urban cities’ fringes. Among NUAs, farmlands and other forms of urban and peri-urban agriculture provideall three major categories of ecosystem services, provisioning, regulating and cultural services. Recently,New Forms of Urban Agriculture (NFUA) have gained increasing attention from researchers for theirpromising multifunctionality. Incorporating NFUA into the urban environment will thus improve thesustainability of cities, taking advantage of the multiple benefits and services they can provide.

This paper presents a method for the characterisation of NUAs in terms of their physical, ecologicaland social features. These areas are analysed with different criteria and related indicators structuredaccording to a GIS-based Multi Criteria Suitability Model. The proposed model checks the suitability

of transformation of the NUAs toward NFUA, thereby enhancing their ecological and social function aswell as accessibility and overall connectivity. Different scenarios of spatial configurations for NFUA havebeen explored with a sensitivity analysis on the values of used indicators. The method was tested forthe municipality of Catania, south Italy, an urban context characterised by a relevant shortage of publicgreen spaces and services.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ntroduction

For decades in many European countries the dynamics of urbannd economic growth have been separated from demographicevelopment (Kasanko et al., 2006). Despite the decreasing pop-lation, urban expansion due to spatial development pressure haseen an impressive driver of very high consumption of land andgricultural resources. In Europe, at least 2.8% of land experienced

change in use between 1990 and 2000, including a significantncrease in urban areas (Commission of the European Communities,006).

Contemporary cities are often threatened by urban devel-pment decreasing the overall environmental quality and frag-enting natural and agricultural landscapes (Olson and Lyson,

999; Paül and McKenzie, 2010). This is particularly relevantt the cities’ fringe, where uncontrolled urban development isften characterised by discontinuous patterns and consequent

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 095 7382523; fax: +39 095 330309.E-mail address: [email protected] (D. La Rosa).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.014264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

fragmentation of farmlands (Gallent and Shaw, 2007). Thesephenomena are particularly relevant in Mediterranean cities,where the high degree of land-use transitions – a consequenceof urban growth with poor environmental regulations – produceurban landscapes characterised by a lack of green areas and highlevels of ecological fragmentation (EEA, 2006). The relationshipbetween the agricultural landscape and the city is reflected in theparticular contemporary peri-urban landscapes, where residen-tial low-density settlements are intertwined with farmlands thathave been partially modified and reduced by urbanisation. A low-density settlement has widely become the main landmark of newmetropolitan areas (Munoz, 2003).

As a result of this fragmentation the number of Non UrbanizedAreas (NUAs) present in urban contexts is dramatically decreasing.These areas include, among others, cultivated land, AbandonedFarmlands, Grassland, Woods and Shrubs that are often located atthe peri-urban cities’ fringes. They contain a significant amount

of vegetation, often representing the last remnants of nature inmetropolitan areas (La Rosa and Privitera, 2013) and providingimportant ecosystem services such as purification of air and water,mitigation of floods and droughts, re-generation of soil fertility,
Page 2: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

se Po

msatsc2

umapsua(tv

ipUpcuera

rcpsdrsomrPlam

tt(iosa2NsPtTl

wtmmfew

D. La Rosa et al. / Land U

oderation of temperature extremes and enhancement of land-cape quality (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Gómez-baggethunnd Barton, 2013; La Rosa and Privitera, 2013). As part of an agricul-ural and green infrastructure they can contribute to the economic,ocio-ecological, psychological, cultural, and spiritual welfare of theommunity (Hubacek and Kronenberg, 2013; La Rosa and Privitera,013).

Within NUAs, farmlands and other forms of urban and peri-rban agriculture provide services. Agriculture supplies all threeajor categories of ecosystem services, provisioning, regulating

nd cultural services (MEA, 2005). Even if the most tangible servicesrovided by agriculture are food, fuel and fibre, a number of otherervices are also provided, such as maintenance of soil fertility, reg-lation of pollinators, pests, pathogens and wildlife, water qualitynd supply, greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestrationSwinton et al., 2007). Other cultural services provided by agricul-ural landscapes include the benefits coming from open space, ruraliewscapes, and cultural heritage related to rural lifestyles.

New Forms of Urban Agriculture (NFUA) have gained increas-ng attention from researchers for their multifunctionality andost-productive attitude (Zasada, 2011; Taylor Lovell, 2010).rban agriculture practices have been defined as “the growing,rocessing, and distribution of food and non-food plant and treerops in farmlands that are mainly located on the fringe of anrban area” (Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010; Mougeot, 2006). Growingvidence suggests that incorporating NFUA into the urban envi-onment will greatly improve the sustainability of cities, takingdvantage of the multiple benefits and services they can provide.

Different types of NFUA can be identified. Urban Farms rep-esent a partnership of mutual commitment between farms andommunities of supporters which provide a direct link between theroduction and consumption of food (Van En, 1995). Community-upported Agriculture can also provide environmental benefitsue to an environmentally friendly production process as well aseduced ‘food miles’ thanks to the proximity of production and con-umption (Bougherara et al., 2009). Allotment Gardens can providether important social values, including active participation in theanagement of gardens by social groups such as children and

etired or un-employed adults (Rubino, 2007). Finally, Agriculturalarks, intended as agroforestry systems (Sturm, 1998), representarge farmland areas where production along with rural landscapend wildlife management and protection (Sorace, 2001) and enjoy-ent, could also provide cultural and aesthetic benefits.Planners and political decision makers should carefully consider

he role of NFUA in urban contexts, since urban areas are expectedo keep growing in the future and threatening agricultural landsEuropean Environmental Agency, 2006). Despite its important rolen contributing to cities’ sustainability, NFUA has been the focusf few studies and applications with reference to urban planningtrategies aimed at the promotion of ecosystem services provisionnd sustainable multifunctional forms of agriculture (Aubry et al.,012). A better understanding of the different features of currentUAs would allow identification of the land uses that are most

uitable to fulfil the multifunctional aims of NFUA (La Rosa andrivitera, 2013). This requires a method for the characterisation ofhese NUAs in terms of their physical, ecological and social features.his will be useful for proposing suitable changes to current NUAsand uses as they move toward NFUA.

In this paper, current NUAs located mainly on the urban fringeere analysed with different criteria and related indicators struc-

ured in a GIS-based Multi Criteria Suitability Model. The proposedodel checks the suitability of transformations of the areas as they

ove toward NFUA, thereby enhancing their ecological and social

unction as well as accessibility and overall connectivity. Differ-nt scenarios of spatial configurations of NFUA have been exploredith a sensitivity analysis of the values of used indicators. The

licy 41 (2014) 290–303 291

method was tested for the municipality of Catania, south Italy, anurban context characterised by a relevant shortage of public greenspaces and services (Privitera et al., 2013). The study area and usedgeo dataset are described in “The study area and available geo-data set” section. The proposed Multi Criteria Suitability Model ispresented in “Method” section. Results of the model are given in“Results” section and than discussed in “Discussion” section. Finallyconclusions are summarised in “Conclusions” section.

The study area and available geo-data set

The study area is the municipality of Catania (Fig. 1), one of themain cities in southern Italy, with an administrative area of 180 km2

and a population of 293,104 (in 2012). The city is the centre of alarge conurbation that represents the largest metropolitan area inSicily, a settlement system characterised by extensive urban sprawl(La Greca et al., 2011). The favourable location of the city along thecoast, well connected to the motorway and railway system andthe presence of a commercial port and busy airport give the city astrategic role in the region.

Existing settlements have developed around the historical cen-tre and have grown beyond the city’s administrative borders,incorporating existing agricultural and fishing villages into onelarge metropolitan area. The result is a rather heterogeneous aggre-gate of settlements. Rich and vital urban fragments are intertwinedwith poor and marginal ones, the latter often corresponding withsocial housing schemes or illegal settlements. The main city in char-acterised by a shortage of public spaces and services, especiallygreen spaces. Currently the amount of public green space is about3 m2/inhabitant much less than the minimum amount stipulated bynational legislation which is 9 m2/inhabitant (Privitera et al., 2013).

Many NUAs are located at the fringe of the city, especially Aban-doned Farmlands, farmlands and lava fields formed by ancient lavaflows from Mount Etna. For some of the existing NUAs, the pro-posal of a new land-use Masterplan defines a set of new land-uses,including urban agriculture. However, this provision has been madewithout considering specific criteria to determine which areas aremost suitable for NFUA.

In the current study, all GIS elaborations were based on a spatiallayer of NUAs, obtained mainly by Urban Atlas land-use layer (EEA,2010). For the city of Catania, this layer had an average scale of detailof 1:12,000. Urban Atlas layers are based on the land-use classifi-cation of a SPOT 5 image (resolution 2.5 m). However, to updateand check the Urban Atlas land-use layer, a visual inspection ofhigh-resolution (0.25 cm per pixel) regional orthophotos (RegioneSicilia, 2009) and recent Google Maps images was performed. Inorder to make possible its updating, Urban Atlas land-use layerwas spatially adjusted with 150 control points to match the Ital-ian national geo-referencing system of the regional orthophotos.Finally, the census data tracts from the 2001 national census wereavailable as a polygonal shapefile.

Method

Multi Criteria Suitability Model

The interaction between GIS and Multi Criteria Decision Analysisis well established and studied, especially for land suitability spa-tial modelling (Carver, 1991; Thill, 1999; Chakhar and Mousseau,2008): GIS provides a full set of techniques and solutions for spa-

tial decisions while Multi Criteria, Decision Analysis is a tool forsolving problems characterised by multiple alternatives, whichprovides a method for designing, evaluating and prioritising deci-sions (Malzcewski, 2007).
Page 3: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

292 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

tania

tptYpsaipeauS(e22

sACN

bapmNybant

mist

Fig. 1. The municipality of Ca

Within Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, problems with mul-iple attributes are decision analysis models assumed to have aredetermined and/or limited number of alternatives. Thereforehey are and referred to as discrete decision problems (Hwang andoon, 1981). The solution to this type of problem is a selectionrocess as opposed to a design process, because there might beeveral solutions depending on the values of considered attributesnd a predetermined number of solutions. This type of problemnvolves use of geo-referenced spatial data, the decision maker’sreferences and a set of evaluation criteria represented as map lay-rs or attributes (Malczewski, 2004). Examples of multi-attributepproaches for land suitability analysis include landscape and nat-ral habitat planning (Ahrenz and Kantelhardt, 2009; Prato, 2000;tore and Kangas, 2001), watershed planning and managementWang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2011), agricultural suitability (Chent al., 2010), environmental and urban planning (Feick and Hall,002) and participatory planning (Feick and Hall, 2002; Kyem,004).

As stated in the introduction, the proposed method checks theuitability of land-use transformations of existing Non Urbanizedreas toward new forms of agriculture. It is structured into a Multiriteria Suitability Model aimed to produce different scenarios ofew Forms of Urban Agriculture (NFUA).

Criteria are intended as standards of judgment or rules on theasis of which alternative decisions can be evaluated and orderedccording to their desirability (Malzcewski, 2007). In the pro-osed model, criteria are structured as attributes that the NUAsust have in order to change their current land-use toward aFUA. Attributes were derived from a literature review and anal-sis of spatial and physical features of existing NUAs and expressoth explicit and implicit spatial criteria (Malzcewski, 2007). Eachttribute is described by an indicator calculated in GIS. The combi-ation of criteria is then used in the Multi Criteria Suitability Modelo identify different configurations of areas suitable for NFUA.

The model comprises two main phases: the first defines a pri-

ary set of NUAs potentially suitable for NFUA; the second phase

dentifies which of the NUAs selected in the first phase are mostuitable for NFUA according defined suitability criteria. Finally, spa-ial configurations for these new land uses are proposed.

(Italy) and current land uses.

The preliminary step in developing the model was to define thecategories of NFUA to be used as new land uses for NUAs. Accord-ing to a literature review and existing experiences, the followingtypologies were defined.

- Urban Farms. These represent the primary form of urban andmulti-functional agriculture (Aubry et al., 2012) and are charac-terised by the production of fresh products. They clean up the cityby recycling waste (Mougeot, 2005), provide landscape and socio-educational functions (Ba and Moustier, 2010) and contribute tourban employment and reduction of inequalities (Dubbeling et al.,2010). Urban Farms are often run according to a Community Sup-ported Agriculture (CSA) model (Wells and Gradwell, 2001) andcan be of varying sizes, starting from a minimum size of 0.8 Ha,and providing fifty shares (2–4 people) of products per hectare(Van En, 1995).

- Allotment Gardens. These are places for leisure and integration ofolder people and socially deprived groups (Rubino, 2007) wheregardening is the main activity. The minimum plot area can varyfrom 50–100 m2 to 200–400 m2 (Rubino, 2007). According toNational Society of Allotment Gardens and Leisure GardenersLimited (no date) a single plot of about 250 m2 can provide foodfor four people per year.

- Agricultural Parks. These are large farmland areas where pro-ductive uses (usually organic farming) are implemented alongwith rural landscape protection and enjoyment. These parks arean innovative and scalable model that facilitates land access forbeginning and immigrant farmers, local food provision for diversecommunities, natural conservation, public education and jobtraining opportunities. In France, sizes vary from 10 to 10,000 Ha(Donadieu, 1998). Other examples include Sunol AgPark in theUSA (7 Ha) and Parco Agricolo Sud Milano in Italy (46,000 Ha).

These typologies encompass different management and prop-erty structures: from communal based management of public lands

in Community/Allotment Gardens, to a regional or provincial man-agement of private farms in Agricultural Parks. Other managementsinclude collective farming or other forms of cooperation amongsingle farmers or land owners.
Page 4: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

se Po

tptN

-

-

-

-

-

pSl

C

pcBww

T

pLootuttapt

os

aa

D. La Rosa et al. / Land U

The first phase of the model analyses the existing NUAs in ordero find a primary set of areas to be assessed for new NFUA. Thishase considers as its main criterion the compatibility of a transi-ion from a current land-use toward one listed above as defining anFUA. In the study area, the following cases have been observed.

Farmlands and Abandoned Farmlands are always consideredcompatible with transition toward all NFUA. This conditionassumes that soils and physical characteristics of these areas aresuitable for an agricultural use and they would be conserved incase of transformations toward NFUA.

Bare Soils are considered compatible as long as they are contigu-ous with existing farmlands. This condition assumes that Bare Soilcan be transformed into an NFUA if it is geographically contiguousto other agricultural land uses. This might make the transfor-mations more feasible from an economic point of view, becausethey would take place in areas that are contiguous to existingfarmlands.

Woods and Shrubs are considered compatible if tree land coveris below 20%. This condition assumes that patches of Woodsand Shrubs with low presence of trees provide a low contributein terms of evapotranspiration and biodiversity (La Rosa andPrivitera, 2013) and thus might be converted into NFUA throughremoving existing trees and/or planting new crops. On the con-trary, patches with higher tree land cover might be more suitablefor other forms of green spaces (i.e. urban parks) where existingtrees might be maintained and/or integrated with small foresta-tion interventions or other equipments.

Lava fields are considered incompatible because agricultural landuses are not be appropriate on this type of land.

Public urban greenspaces are considered incompatible as trans-formations would significantly alter the current layout of theseareas and their function for public leisure.

According to the above criteria, two indicators are used in thishase to check the compatibility of existing Bare Soil, Woods andhrubs with transformation into NFUA These are Contiguity to Farm-ands and Trees Land Cover, respectively.

ontiguity to Farmlands (CO F)This indicator verifies the existence of contiguity between

atches of Bare Soils and Farmlands. Operationally, this indicator isalculated using a spatial join function of GIS between the layers ofare Soils and Farmlands land uses. A new binary attribute (CO F)as added to the Bare Soils layer and calculated as “Y” for patchesith contiguity or “N” on the contrary.

rees Land Cover (TLC)This indicator evaluates the percentage of tree land cover for

atches belonging to Wood and Shrub land-use category. Treesand Covers is visually identified and digitised by interpretingrthophotos taken in the late spring of 2007. A detailed extractionf land cover features was possible thanks to the high resolution ofhese orthophotos (0.25 m), enabling the identification of individ-al trees. The choice for a manual approach to land cover was dueo the high knowledge of the area by the operator that undertookhe visual inspection: this allowed to have a fast (2 working days)nd accurate (>90%) tree extraction. TLC is then calculated as theercentage between the surface covered by trees and the area ofhe single patch.

After calculation of the two indicators, GIS spatial queries basedn values of indicators are performed to identify the primary set of

uitable NUAs.

The second phase is aimed at better characterising existing NUAsnd addressing them to the most suitable NFUA. The suitabilitynalysis considers the criteria of patch size, accessibility by people,

licy 41 (2014) 290–303 293

presence of tree land cover and contiguity to farmlands. For eachNFUA, proposed criteria follow the conditions listed below:

- Urban Farms: size ranking from 5000 to 20,000 m2 and accessibil-ity by 2000 inhabitants for every 1 Ha of land, within a pedestriandistance buffer of 500 m. Considering that 1 Ha of land can pro-duce food for 200 people – 50 shares of food for four people(Van En, 1995) –, the condition of 2000 inhabitants per hectarewould ensure the economic feasibility of Urban Farms, even ifonly 10% of the population would be interested in purchasingproducts. Moreover, a minimum percentage of tree land coveris required as an indicator of agricultural productive potential ofcurrent Farmlands patches.

- Allotment Gardens: maximum patch size of 5000 m2 and acces-sibility of 100 inhabitants for every 1000 m2 of land within apedestrian distance buffer of 250 m. Considering that 1000 m2

of land can be used by 20 people – 1 lot of 50 m2 for one person(NSALG no date) –, the condition of 100 inhabitants per 1000 m2

ensures accessibility to Allotment Gardens because they aremainly provided for older people and socially deprived groups.Moreover, the above mentioned criteria of Contiguity to Farm-lands and percentage of Tree Land Cover are required.

- Agricultural Parks: minimum patch size of 20,000 m2 to allowproductive uses and other functions (landscape protection andleisure). Moreover, the contiguity of NUAs to existing farmlandswas required for ensure economic feasibility and accessibility.Finally, a minimum percentage of tree land cover is required asan indicator of agricultural productive potential for AbandonedFarmlands (mainly citrus fruits or olive trees).

Table 1 shows all possible transitions from current land uses ofNUAs (Farmlands, Abandoned Farmlands, Woods and Shrubs, BareSoil) to NFUA (Urban Farms, Allotment Gardens, Agricultural Park).The same table also reports the indicators for the suitability crite-ria introduced above. Each transition is considered to be suitableif a patch of NUAs presents defined values of indicators. For exam-ple, in order to be suitable as an Urban Farm, a patch of Farmlandmust be between 2000 and 5000 m2, and there must be more than2000 people living in a buffer of 500 m from the patch. Some tran-sitions (i.e. Farmlands to Allotment Gardens, Woods and Shrubs toAgricultural Parks, Bare Soils to Allotment Gardens) are consideredunsuitable because they would deeply modify the existing agri-cultural activities (Farmlands), alter the existing physical featuresof more natural patches (Woods and Shrubs) or need too large aninvestment for their implementation (Bare Soils).

All these criteria are represented by one or more spatial indi-cators that are calculated with GIS. All indicators are numericallyexpressed as attributes of each patch of NUAs in a GIS vector layer.The following indicators have been used.

Size (A), records the area of the single patch of NUA.Proximity to residential areas (PR Res), accounts for the total num-ber of people that can access each NUA. The indicator is weightedwith patch size, as the larger a patch is, the greater its influencein attracting people. Two distance thresholds are fixed: 500 m forUrban Farm and 250 m for Allotment Gardens: this distinction is setas Allotment Gardens usually require a shorter distance from resi-dential areas then Urban Farms (Bendt et al., 2013). Operationally,this indicator is calculated using GIS functions of overlay analysisand spatial join. First, the number of people inside each buffer fromthe NUA is derived by a census data layer. Second, a geographical

intersection of census tracts and buffer area is performed to esti-mate the population potentially having access to the patch. Finally,the indicator is calculated as the ratio between the total populationestimated in the buffer area and the patch size.
Page 5: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

294 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

Table 1Possible transition between current land use and NFUA with relative criteria and indicators.

Current land uses New Forms ofUrban Agriculture

Indicators

Size (A), m2 Proximity toresidentialareas (PR Res)

Contiguity toFarmlands(CO F)

Trees LandCover (TLC)

FarmlandsUrban Farms 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000

inhab. within500 m bufferfor each 1 ha ofland

/ /

Allotment Gardens Not suitable transition

Agricultural Park >20,000 / Yes /

AbandonedFarmlands

Urban Farms 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000inhab. within500 m bufferfor each 1 ha ofland

>30%

Allotment Gardens <5000 Min 100 inhab.within 250 mbuffer for each0.1 ha of land

/

Agricultural Park >20,000 / Yes >50%

WoodsandShrubs

Urban Farms 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000inhab. within500 m bufferfor each 1 ha ofland

/

Allotment Gardens <5000 Min 100 inhab.within 250 mbuffer for each0.1 ha of land

/

Agricultural Park Not suitable transition

BareSoils

Urban Farms 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000inhab. within500 m bufferfor each 1 ha ofland

/

SA

rBouuavhssa

Allotment Gardens

Agricultural Park >20,000

Trees Land Cover (TLC) is calculated for Woods and Shrubs andAbandoned Farmlands land-use categories as already reported inthe first phase of the methodology. The tree land cover representsin the first case the natural or semi-natural vegetation, while in thesecond case it represents the last remnants of agricultural treesonce present in patches of abandoned farmland.Contiguity to Farmlands (CO F) is calculated for Bare Soil as reportedin the first phase of the method.

ensitivity and scenarios analysis for New Forms of Urbangriculture

Different scenarios for NFUA – in terms of types of NFUA andelative number of patches – depend on the values of indicators.y fixing different value thresholds for indicators, the number ofccurrences for each NFUA will vary according to the thresholdsed (Chen et al., 2010). Sensitivity analysis is generally aimed atnderstanding how the variation in the output of a model can bepportioned, qualitatively or quantitatively, to different sources ofariation, and how the model depends upon the information that

as been used (Saltelli et al., 2000). To understand how differentcenarios can be produced by changing indicator thresholds, a sen-itivity analysis was carried out. By changing values of indicatorsnd fixing different thresholds it is possible to explore the change

Not suitable transition

/ / /

in number and types of resulting NFUA, as well as their spatialconfigurations.

For each transition from current land-use to a NFUA, a numberof finite combinations of threshold values are explored in order tounderstand whether one indicator is more influential than anotheror to find out within which range of values the number of resultantpatches of NFUA remains stable.

Three planning scenarios were tested. The first one is the MixedLand Use Scenario (S1), aimed at minimising the variation in resul-tant occurrences of the three different NFUA and thus producing amore differentiated spatial configuration. This scenario is obtainedby finding the values of indicators that minimise the standard devi-ation of the number of patches of Urban Farms, Agricultural Parks,Allotment Gardens and Farmlands.

This condition is expressed by

Min (Std Dev (#UF, #AP, #AG, #F),

where #UF, #AP, #AG, #F are the number of occurrences respec-tively for Urban Farms, Agricultural Parks, Allotment Gardens and

Farmlands; Std Dev is the standard deviation of the number ofoccurrences of all kind of NFUA.

The second scenario is Max Urban Agriculture (S2) that max-imises the number of occurrences of Urban Farms and Allotment

Page 6: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303 295

r the a

Gt

Tor

N

vTtn

R

aC

FS

The second phase of the Multi Criteria Suitability Modelproduces a spatial configuration of NFUA as the result of applica-tion of the suitability criteria and relative attributes and indicators

Table 2Type and number of occurrences of NFUA for each considered transition.

Fig. 2. Current NUAs in Catania Municipality (left) and suitable NUAs afte

ardens, as these NFUA are more related to forms of urban agricul-ure. S2 was obtained with the condition

Max (#UF + #AG).

he third scenario is Max Agriculture (S3). It maximises the numberf occurrences of Farmlands and Agricultural Park. The conditionequired was

Max (#F + #AP).

As can be seen, S1 and S3 scenarios are defined not only fromFUA but also current patches of Farmlands.

Operationally, scenarios are produced by iteratively changingalues of indicators with GIS multi-attributes structured queries.he ArcGis Model Builder environment was used to parameterhese values and structure the queries. Each query resulted in aumber of occurrences for all NFUA.

esults

The available land-use map shows that 201 patches of NUAsre present (Fig. 2, left) in the study area of the municipality ofatania. As introduced in “The study area and available geo-data

ig. 3. Suitable NUAs after the application of the second phase of the Multi Criteriauitability Model and relative New Forms of Urban Agriculture.

pplication of the first phase of the Multi Criteria Suitability Model (right).

set” section, the current land uses of these areas are Farmlands,Abandoned Farmlands, Bare Soils, Lava Fields and Woods & Shrubs.

The first phase of the Multi Criteria Suitability Model assessesthe suitability of current land-use of NUAs to transformations intoNFUA. Within the existing patches of NUAs (Fig. 2, left) 127 are suit-able: 43 of Farmlands, 57 of Abandoned Farmlands, 23 of Woods andShrubs and 4 of Bare Soils (Fig. 2, right). These patches represent thefirst set of NUAs to be used as NFUA. Even if the main characterisingelement is the relevant variation in size of these patches (with rela-tive high standard deviation), it is interesting to see how very largepatches (more than 5 Ha) are also present in the area, consideringthat all patches are generally close to dense urban fabric boundariesor to the city centre.

Current land uses New Forms ofUrban Agriculture

Number of resultedpatches

Farmlands(43)

Urban Farms 11Agricultural Park 18

AbandonedFarmlands (57)

Urban Farms 5Allotment Gardens 2Agricultural Park 1

Woods andShrubs (23)

Urban Farms 9Allotment Gardens 1

Bare Soils(4)

Urban Farms 0Agricultural Park 4

Table 3Total number of patches for each NFUA type.

New Forms of UrbanAgriculture

Number ofresulting patches

%

Urban Farms 25 20Allotment Gardens 3 2Agricultural Park 23 18Other current land uses

(Farmlands, AbandonedFarmlands)

76 60

Total 127 100

Page 7: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

2 se Po

anPof

aN

TV

96 D. La Rosa et al. / Land U

s reported in Table 1. Fig. 3 and Tables 2 and 3 show the type andumber of obtained NFUA. The most common NFUA is Agriculturalark (27 patches), also according to the wide area covered by manyf the existing NUAs, followed by Urban Farms (20 patches) and a

ew Allotment Gardens (2 patches).

Not all the NUAs were suitable to be transformed into NFUAccording to proposed suitability criteria: among the 127 suitableUAs, 65 patches (Farmlands and Abandoned Farmlands) did not

able 4alues of indicators for the three proposed scenarios.

Current landuses

Prospectedland uses

Scenarios Indicators

Size (A), m2

Farmlands

Urban FarmsS1 6000 < A < 20,000

S2 4000 < A < 20,000

S3 5000 < A < 10,000

Agricultural ParkS1 >20,000

S2 >20,000

S3 >10,000

Abandoned Farmlands

Urban FarmsS1 6000 < A < 20,000

S2 6000 < A < 20,000

S3 6000 < A < 10,000

Allotment GardensS1 <6000

S2 <6000

S3 <5000

Agricultural ParkS1 >20,000

S2 >20,000

S3 >10,000

Woods and Shrubs

Urban FarmsS1 6000 < A < 20,000

S2 6000 < A < 20,000

S3 6000 < A < 20,000

Allotment GardensS1 <6000

S2 <6000

S3 <6000

Bare Soils

Urban FarmsS1 5000 < A < 20,000

S2 5000 < A < 20,000

S3 5000 < A < 10,000

Agricultural ParkS1 >20,000

S2 >20,000

S3 >10,000

licy 41 (2014) 290–303

change their land-use after application of the Suitability Model. Thiscan be seen in Fig. 3, where the unsuitable NUAs are reported witha simple black outline.

The three alternative scenarios were tested with the sensi-

tivity and scenario analysis to produce varying configurations interms of the number of involved patches and their spatial local-isation. Table 4 reports the indicator thresholds for the threescenarios under consideration, Table 5 summarises the number and

Proximity to residential areas(PR Res)

Contiguity toFarmlands (CO F)

Trees LandCover (TLC)

Min 1000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

/ /

Min 500 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

Min 2000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

/ Yes /

Min 1000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

>50%

Min 1000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

>20%

Min 2000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

>20%

Min 50 inhab. within 250 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

/

Min 50 inhab. within 250 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

Min 50 inhab. within 250 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

/ Yes >50%

>50%

>20%

Min 2000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

/ /

Min 1000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

Min 1000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

Min 100 inhab. within 250 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

/ /

Min 100 inhab. within 250 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

Min 100 inhab. within 250 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

Min 2000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

/ /

Min 2000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

Min 2000 inhab. within 500 mbuffer for each 1 ha of land

/ / /

Page 8: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303 297

an Agriculture for the four proposed planning Scenarios.

ttoo(

ooaiT

bCACwci

erm

Table 5Number of patches for each NFUA in the 3 proposed Scenario.

NFUA Scenario 1 (mixland-use)

Scenario 2(max urbanagriculture)

Scenario 3 (maxagriculture)

Urban Farms 26 36 17Allotment Gardens 7 7 3Agricultural Park 23 23 32Total NFUA 56 66 52Other current land uses

(Farmlands,Abandoned Farmlands)

71 61 75

Fig. 4. Spatial configurations of New Forms of Urb

ypologies of NFUA for each scenario, while Fig. 4 shows the rela-ive maps of the spatial configurations of NFUA. Results indicate anverall similarity among the three scenarios, but the total numberf patches of NFUA recorded a higher variation, ranking from 52Scenario 3) to 66 (Scenario 2).

As introduced in “Method” section, configurations of NFUAbtained from the Multi Criteria Suitability Model were dependentn the criteria used, indicators applied to describe these criteriand consequently the values of indicators. The influence of eachndicator was different for each land-use transition considered inable 1.

Overall, the most influential indicators in determining the num-er of occurrences of the different NFUA were Size (A) and Tree Landover (TLC), while less significant was the Proximity to Residentialreas (PR Res). The contiguity condition described by indicator ofontiguity to Farmlands (CO F) was not significant as the conditionas very often verified. For all transitions, Tables 6–9 report the

hanges in numbers of occurrences when changing thresholds ofndicators and their combinations.

From Farmlands to Urban farms, indicator A was most influ-ntial. As can be seen in Table 6, the inclusion of a size criterioneduces the number of resultant occurrences of Urban Farms muchore than the inclusion of the indicator of PR Res. For example,

Total 127 127 127

considering a PR Res value of 2000 inhabitants, the number of resul-tant Urban Farms drops from 24 to 17 when introducing values ofA between 4000 and 20,000 m2. Only 11 Urban Farms resulted forvalues of A between 5000 and 2000 m2. From Farmlands to Agri-cultural Park, the only active indicator was A, as the requested

condition of contiguity to current Farmlands is always verified.This means there are no isolated patches of Farmlands in themunicipality.
Page 9: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

298 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

Table 6Sensitivity analysis of indicators values for transitions from current Farmlands.

Current landuses

Prospectedland uses

A, m2 # PR Res, Numberof inhab.within 500 mbuffer for each1 ha of land

# A and PR Res # A and PR Res #

Farmlands

Urban Farms

5000 < A < 20,000 15 >2000 24 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

11 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 500

15

4000 < A < 20,000 21 >1000 32 4000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

17 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 1000

15

4000 < A < 10,000 15 >3000 19 4000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000

12 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

11

6000 < A < 20,000 14 >4000 13 6000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000

11 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 3000

8

6000 < A < 10,000 8 >5000 11 6000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000

6 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 4000

4

Agricultural Park

>10,000 m2 24 / / / / / /

>15,000 m2 18

tPdaUwdhoitoAdA(

daFmc

Nwmot

D

U

cfTs

>20,000 m2 15

>25,000 m2 15

From Abandoned Farmlands to Urban Farms, the most influen-ial indicators were TLC and A. Table 7 shows that considering aR Res value of 2000 inhabitants, the occurrences of Urban Farmsecreased from 32 to 10 for values of A from 5000 to 20,000 m2

nd values of TLC > 15%. Setting the TLC as >40%, the number ofrban Farms occurrence drops to three. No change in occurrencesas reported when setting TLC between 20 and 30%. From Aban-oned Farmlands to Allotment Gardens, the influence of A was veryigh (Table 7). Considering a PR Res value of 100 inhabitants, theccurrences of Allotment Gardens decreased from 11 to 3 whenntroducing values of A below 20,000 m2. However, it can be notedhat PR Res values higher than 50 also reduced the occurrencesf Allotment Gardens. In transitions from Abandoned Farmlands togricultural Parks, the TLC indicator proved very influential, pro-ucing a significant reduction in occurrences. Table 7 shows thatgricultural Parks reduced from 12 (values of A > 20,000) to 4

TLC > 10%) or even 1 (TLC > 40%).From Woods and Shrubs to both Urban Farms and Allotment Gar-

ens, again the most influential indicator was A (Table 8). Sensitivitynalysis showed a reduction of occurrences from 17 to 9 for Urbanarms (5000 < A < 20,000 and PR Res > 2000) and from 6 to 1 for Allot-ent Gardens (A < 5000 and PR Res > 100). For these transitions, the

ondition expressed by PR Res was always verified.Finally, transitions from Bare Soils were very limited (Table 9).

o Urban Farms resulted from all considered indicator thresholds,hile four occurrences resulted for Agricultural Parks. This wasainly due to the low number of current Bare Soil areas and their

verall large size (minimum size of 50,000 m2) that severely limitedhe number of suitable areas for Urban Farms or Agricultural Park.

iscussion

rban agriculture and sustainable urban planning

Literature about urban agriculture includes many studies con-

erning a wide range of functions and benefits provided by growingood in urban and peri-urban areas (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000;aylor Lovell, 2010). Prospective NFUA in urban contexts repre-ents a useful alternative for urban and landscape planners aimed

at supporting agricultural activities and providing green areas withlimited costs for public administrations.

Areas for urban agriculture can be planned and designed in dif-ferent forms and to different scales to contribute to biodiversityconservation and provide a massive range of ecological benefitsfor urban residents (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). The integrationof urban agriculture into densely populated areas might greatlyextend opportunities for mixing food production with social, cul-tural and recreational functions of urban green spaces (TaylorLovell, 2010).

To be a feasible alternative in cities and cohabit with other urbanland uses, urban agriculture should include ecological and cul-tural functions in addition to the direct benefits of food production(Taylor Lovell, 2010). Recent literature about urban sustaina-bility is increasingly acknowledging that a transition of agricultureinto strong multifunctionality generates many benefits for society(Wilson, 2008; Knickel and Renting, 2002; Zasada, 2011), thanks tothe localisation of farms near or inside dense urban areas and theconsequent easier transfer of benefit from the agriculture activitiesto urban environment (Deelstra et al., 2001).

Therefore the challenge for urban planning is creation ofan urban environment that includes a wide range of functionsincluding urban agriculture and other typologies of green spacesfor leisure, biodiversity protection and recreation (La Rosa andPrivitera, 2013). This environment has to be designed according tothe specific features of geographical contexts (Hough, 2004). How-ever, integration of urban agriculture in land-use planning has beenseldom considered in top-down urban planning and urban agricul-ture practices have often been implemented from the bottom-upand spontaneously (Taylor Lovell, 2010). This research aims to ori-ent land-use planning toward choosing which typologies of NewForms of Urban Agriculture can be used and where they can belocated.

Method and results

Although the proposed Multi Attribute Suitability Model isbased on a pre-defined set of categories of NFUA, namely UrbanFarms, Allotment Gardens, Agricultural Parks, these categories are

Page 10: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

D.

La R

osa et

al. /

Land U

se Policy

41 (2014)

290–303

299

Table 7Sensitivity analysis of indicators values for transitions from current Abandoned Farmlands.

Current landuses

Prospectedland uses

A, m2 # PR Res, Numberof inhab. within500*/250** mbuffer for each1 ha of land *forUF **for AG

# TLC, % # A and PR Resand TLC

# A and PR Resand TLC

# A and PR Resand TLC

#

Abandoned Farmlands

Urban Farms

5000 < A < 20,000 26 >2000 32 >15% 17 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 15%

10 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 30%

5 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 30%

5

4000 < A < 20,000 28 >1000 46 >20% 16 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 20%

8 4000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 30%

6 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 1000and TLC > 30%

6

4000 < A < 10,000 16 >3000 25 >25% 13 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 25%

5 4000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 30%

4 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 3000and TLC > 30%

4

6000 < A < 20,000 21 >4000 19 >30% 13 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 30%

5 6000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 30%

4 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 4000and TLC > 30%

3

6000 < A < 10,000 9 >5000 10 >40% 8 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 40%

3 6000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000and TLC > 30%

2 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 5000and TLC > 30%

1

Allotment Gardens

A < 3000 1 >50 27 / / A < 3000 andPR Res > 100

1 A < 5000 andPR Res > 50

2 / /

A < 4000 1 >100 11 / / A < 4000 andPR Res > 100

1 A < 5000 andPR Res > 100

2 / /

A < 5000 3 >200 4 / / A < 5000 andPR Res > 100

3 A < 5000 andPR Res > 200

1 / /

A < 6000 8 >250 2 / / A < 6000 andPR Res > 100

3 A < 5000 andPR Res > 250

1 / /

Agricultural Parka

A > 10,000 15 / / >30% 4 A > 10,000 andTLC > 50%

1 A > 20,000 andTLC > 10%

4 / /

A > 15,000 13 >40% 2 A > 15,000 andTLC > 50%

1 A > 20,000 andTLC > 20%

2 / /

A > 20,000 12 >50% 1 A > 20,000 andTLC > 50%

1 A > 20,000 andTLC > 40%

1 / /

A > 25,000 11 >60% 1 A > 25,000 andTLC > 50%

1 A > 20,000 andTLC > 50%

1 / /

a For the transition AB > AP the condition of Contiguity to farmlands is always requested.

Page 11: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

300 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

Table 8Sensitivity analysis of indicators values for transitions from current Woods and Shrubs.

Current landuses

Prospectedland uses

A, m2 # PR Res, Numberof inhab. within500*/250** mbuffer for each1 ha of land *forUF ** for AG

# A and PR Res # A and PR Resand

#

Woods and Shrubs

Urban Farms

5000 < A < 20,000 9 >2000 17 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

9 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

9

4000 < A < 20,000 9 >1000 21 4000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

9 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 1000

9

4000 < A < 10,000 4 >3000 10 4000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000

4 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 3000

8

6000 < A < 20,000 9 >4000 8 6000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

9 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 4000

6

6000 < A < 10,000 4 >5000 7 6000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000

4 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 5000

5

Allotment Gardens

A < 3000 0 >100 6 A < 3000 andPR Res > 100

1 A < 5000 andPR Res > 100

1

A < 4000 1 >50 15 A < 4000 andPR Res > 100

1 A < 5000 andPR Res > 50

1

A < 5000 1 >200 1 A < 5000 andPR Res > 100

1 A < 5000 andPR Res > 200

1

250

naper

TS

A < 6000 1 >

ot general ones, rather they encompass typologies of urban

griculture that have been widely adopted for urban areas in Euro-ean countries and especially in Mediterranean areas (Priviterat al., 2013). Other geographical contexts or planning scales mightequire different categories of NFUA, such as domestic gardens

able 9ensitivity analysis of indicators values for transitions from current Bare Soils.

Current landuses

Prospectedland uses

A, m2 # PR Res, Nof inhab.within 5buffer fo1 ha of la

Bare Soils

Urban Farms

5000 < A < 20,000 0 >2000

4000 < A < 20,000 0 >1000

4000 < A < 10,000 0 >3000

6000 < A < 20,000 0 >4000

6000 < A < 10,000 0 >5000

Agricultural Park

A > 20,000 4 /

A > 10,000 4

A > 15,000 4

A > 30,000 4

1 A < 6000 andPR Res > 100

1 A < 5000 andPR Res > 250

1

(Cameron et al., 2012), educational or social farms (Canavari et al.,

2011; Zasada, 2011), and thus different criteria and indicatorsshould be chosen for the suitability model. However, if differentcategories of NFUA are used, the proposed Multi Attribute Suitabil-ity Model can be still applied without any limitation, taking care of

umber

00 mr eachnd

# A and PR Res # A and PR Resand

#

1 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

0 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

0

2 4000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

0 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 1000

0

0 4000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000

0 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 3000

0

0 6000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 2000

0 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 4000

0

0 6000 < A < 10,000andPR Res > 2000

0 5000 < A < 20,000andPR Res > 5000

0

/ / / / /

Page 12: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

se Po

ci

dNmrpitTp

enNluti

lct(e(tg

eihFssnb2tNi

amlwPaetrecsm(uda

fsjgc

D. La Rosa et al. / Land U

alibrating indicators in a way that is appropriate to the geograph-cal context under exam.

Section “Method” introduced the criteria that defined the con-itions that a current NUA should have in order to be suitable for anFUA, expressed with specific values of indicators. In the suitabilityodel no weights have been applied to these criteria as they reflect

equired conditions for their suitability. Unlike other GIS suitabilityroblems that output suitability maps from the weighted sum of

nput layers, this approach resulted in the selection of existing areashat have particular attributes that satisfy the requested criteria.his means conditions expressed by the criteria represent an idealoint of the decision.

The different influence of criteria on the selection of NFUA wasxplored through sensitivity analysis. As noted in “Results” section,ot all criteria had the same influence in determining the number ofFUA. We found that the influence of indicators was always strictly

inked to the physical features of the NUAs (size, location in therban context and tree cover). For this reason, it would be difficulto extrapolate general considerations about the influence of criterian other geographical contexts.

The entire suitability model relies heavily on the quality ofand-use data. For this reason accurate identification of land-useategories is a preliminary and crucial step. In the examined casehis was done thanks to the high resolution of available orthophotossee section “The study area and available geo-data set”). How-ver one strength of the method is the limited quantity of geo-dataland-use map, orthophotos, census data) needed for application ofhe suitability model, thus allowing its replicability to other geo-raphical areas.

With regard to the results obtained, although small in number,xisting patches of NUAs present an overall medium-large size. Thiss partly due to their peri-urban location, resulting in few patchesaving the best size to be transformed into Allotment Gardens. Urbanarms were the most frequent NFUA identified as suitable in thistudy because they matched the most frequently occurring patchize. We also found that proximity to residential areas was not a sig-ificant indicator in dense urban contexts, as almost all patches cane accessed by many people living within a buffer distance of about50–500 m. The results also showed that Scenario 2 (Urban Agricul-ure) involved the most patches: this was due to the high number ofUAs suitable for Urban Farms (more than half of involved patches

n the scenario).Improvements in the method might include additional criteria

nd indicators such as terrain morphology, land ownership, frag-entation of farmland plots and mixed uses within NFUA. The

and’s soil features might be considered to more specifically addresshich crops might be more suitable for Urban Farms or Agricultural

arks. An interesting advance in the research might also be to evalu-te the increase of ecosystem services resulting from transitions ofxisting NUAs to NFUA (La Rosa and Privitera, 2013): particularly,he evaluation of regulating ecosystem services such as storm wateregulation (Freshwater Society, 2013) and cooling functionality ofxisting NUAs (Qiu et al., 2013) would be an useful way to betterharacterise existing NUAs and thus producing a more a diversifiedpatial configuration of NFUAs able to increase city adaptation anditigation to climate change issues affecting urban environments

Lwasa et al., 2013). In this direction, additional criteria for the eval-ation of such regulating services will require a more precise andifferentiated identification of land covers (e.g. tree/shrubs speciesnd types of cultivars/groves).

Important inputs in decision making about NFUA can also comerom participatory processes and civic engagement in an urban

ociety (Goldberger, 2011). The involvement of different social sub-ects in decision making can clarify the interests of citizens better,aining local knowledge about the geographical context throughustomised data collection and improving the dialogue between

licy 41 (2014) 290–303 301

different stakeholders (Redwood, 2009). Moreover, raising pub-lic awareness can be a crucial step in increasing civic welfare andpromoting long-term sustainability (Lyson, 2004).

Planning outcomes

The proposed method offers a spatial tool for urban planners tounderstand how and where urban agriculture can act as a bufferagainst urban development (Aubry et al., 2012). The method alsoproduces scenarios with a differentiated number of areas: thismight be useful for small local municipalities that have restrictedfinancial resources to develop projects for green areas and there-fore have to define priorities for the implementation of new greenspaces.

Regarding integrating NFUA with other green spaces in thecity, an interesting outcome might include connection of NFUAinto an agricultural greenway network. Greenways are one of themost powerful and widespread environmental tools used at urban,metropolitan and regional scales. They counteract ecological frag-mentation and integrate urban development, nature conservationand public health promotion (Ahern, 1995; Fábos and Ryan, 2006)and help linking rural and urban spaces along the rural–urbaninterface through linear systems (Walmsley, 2006). Greenways areplanned, designed and managed at different scales and for multiplepurposes, including providing ecosystem services such as purifi-cation of air and water, mitigation of floods, climate regulation,generation and renewal of soil fertility, accessibility to open spacesand intellectual stimulation.

Applying the greenway approach would develop a network ofurban agricultural areas throughout the city (Viljoen et al., 2005),connecting NFUA to existing green spaces and other agriculturalareas. Patches of NFUA linked each other through a network ofconnections would be integrated with other functions includinglocal parks and other space for leisure. These connections mightimprove not only accessibility to agricultural areas, but also to theentire urban environment.

One important aspect not covered in this paper deals with theproperty of the land that will change its land-use according to thenew scenario of NFUA. This issue is directly linked to the economicfeasibility of the proposed scenarios, as direct public acquisitionsof land are often economically unsustainable for local administra-tion and face resistance from private landowners (Bengston et al.,2004). The issue of economic feasibility could be addressed throughincentive-based approaches for protecting open space (Maruaniand Amit-Cohen, 2007). From this perspective, Transfer of Develop-ment Rights programs can be used to obtain economic benefits fordifferent stakeholders, including landowners of areas designatedfor NFUAs, developers of parcels to be developed within these areas,and local administrations that may implement NFUAs with no orlimited financial efforts (Martinico et al., 2014).

Conclusions

The study introduces a method to check the suitability of land-use transitions of current Non Urbanized Areas to New Forms ofUrban Agriculture, and proposes scenarios for new spatial config-urations of NFUA to increase the provision of urban ecosystemservices such as food production in urban contexts and accessto green spaces. The suitability of transitions of NUAs to NFUAhave been checked with a GIS-based Multi Criteria SuitabilityModel and relative spatial indicators. The model produces sce-

narios for NFUA that integrate urban agriculture in the city andprovide useful information for urban planning polices aimed atreaching a multifunctional and sustainable land-use for currenturban open spaces. Moreover, the introduction of NFUA might be
Page 13: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

3 se Po

afmcoe

R

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

DD

E

E

F

F

F

G

G

G

H

H

H

02 D. La Rosa et al. / Land U

useful planning strategy to protect existing productive farmlandrom urban development pressures. Finally, the proposed scenarios

ight enhance the overall quality of the urban landscape, supportlimate change adaptation policies and increase the economic valuef land as contributing toward a more liveable and healthy urbannvironment.

eferences

hern, J., 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape Urban Plan. 33,131–155.

hrenz, H., Kantelhardt, J., 2009. Accounting for farmers’ production responsesto environmental restrictions within landscape planning. Land Use Policy 26,925–934.

ubry, C., Ramamonjisoab, J., Dabatc, M.H., Rakotoarisoad, J., Rakotondraibee, J.,Rabeharisoaf, L., 2012. Urban agriculture and land use in cities: an approach withthe multi-functionality and sustainability concepts in the case of Antananarivo(Madagascar). Land Use Policy 29, 429–439.

a, A., Moustier, P., 2010. La perception de l’agriculture de proximité par les residentsde Dakar. Rev. Econ. Region. Urbain. 5, 913–936.

endt, P., Barthel, S., Colding, J., 2013. Civic greening and environmental learning inpublic-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape Urban Plan. 109, 18–30.

engston, D.N., Fletcher, J.O., Nelson, K.C., 2004. Public policies for managing urbangrowth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned inthe United States. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 271–286.

olund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29,293–301.

ougherara, D., Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N., 2009. Buy local, pollute less: what driveshouseholds to join a community supported farm? Ecol. Econ. 68, 1488–1495.

ameron, R.W.F., Blanusa, T., Taylor, J.E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A.J., Henricot, B.,Thompson, K., 2012. The domestic garden – its contribution to urban greeninfrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 129–137.

anavari, M., Huffaker, C., Mari, R., Ragazzi, D., Spadoni, R., 2011. Educational farmsin the Emilia-Romagna region: their role in food habit education. In: Sidali, K.L.,Spiller, A., Schulze, B. (Eds.), Food, Agri-Culture and Tourism – Linking LocalGastronomy and Rural Tourism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Springer, Hei-delberg, pp. 73–91.

arver, S.J., 1991. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical informa-tion systems. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 5 (3), 321–339.

hakhar, S., Mousseau, V., 2008. Spatial multicriteria decision making. In: Shehkar,S., Xiong, H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of GIS. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 747–753.

hen, Y., Yu, J.S., Khan, S., 2010. Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weightsin GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environ. Modell. Softw. 25, 1582–1591.

hen, H., Wood, M.D., Linstead, C., Maltby, E., 2011. Uncertainty analysis in a GIS-based multi-criteria analysis tool for river catchment management. Environ.Modell. Softw. 26, 395–405.

ommission of the European Communities, 2006. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protec-tion, Available from: www.ec.europa.eu/environment/soil

eelstra, T., Girardet, H., 2000. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In: Bakker,N., Dubbeling, M., Gundel, S., Sabel-Koschela, U., de Zeeuw, H. (Eds.), GrowingCities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. Deutsche Stiftungfur Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Feldafing, pp. 43–65.

eelstra, T., Boyd, D., van den Biggelaar, M., 2001. Multifunctional land use—anopportunity for promoting urban agriculture in Europe. Urban Agric. 4, 33–35.

onadieu, P., 1998. Le Campagnes Urbaines. Actes Sud, Arles.ubbeling, M., de Zeeuw, H., van Veenhuizen, R., 2010. Cities, Poverty and Food:

Multi-Stakeholder Policy and Planning in Urban Agriculture. Practical Action,pp. 192.

uropean Environmental Agency, 2006. Urban Sprawl in Europe: The Ignored Chal-lenge. Report 10, EEA, Copenhagen.

uropean Environmental Agency, 2010. Urban Atlas, Available from:http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas (accessed02.02.14).

ábos, J.G., Ryan, R.L., 2006. An introduction to greenway planning around the world.Landscape Urban Plan. 76, 1–6.

eick, R.D., Hall, B.G., 2002. Balancing consensus and conflict with a GIS-based mul-tiparticipant, multi-criteria decision support tool. GeoJournal 53, 391–406.

reshwater Society, 2013. Urban Agriculture as a Green Stormwater Man-agement Strategy, Available from: http://www.arboretum.umn.edu/UserFiles/File/2012%20Clean%20Water%20Summit/Freshwater%20Urban%20Ag%20White%20Paper%20Final.pdf (accessed 02.02.14).

allent, N., Shaw, D., 2007. Spatial planning, area action plans and the rural nexturban fringe. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 50, 617–638.

oldberger, J.R., 2011. Conventionalization, civic engagement, and the sustainabilityof organic agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 27, 288–296.

ómez-baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem servicesfor urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245.

ough, M., 2004. Cities and Natural Process: A Basis for Sustainability. Routledge,

New York.

ubacek, K., Kronenberg, J., 2013. Synthesizing different perspectives on the valueof urban ecosystem services. Landscape Urban Plan. 109 (1), 1–6.

wang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Appli-cations. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

licy 41 (2014) 290–303

Kasanko, M., Barredo, J.I., Lavalle, C., McCormick, N., Demicheli, L., Sagris, V., Brezger,A., 2006. Are European cities becoming dispersed? A comparative analysis of 15European urban areas. Landscape Urban Plan. 77, 111–130.

Knickel, K., Renting, H., 2002. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study ofmultifunctionality and rural development. Sociol. Ruralis. 40, 512–528.

Kyem, P.A.K., 2004. On intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: thesearch for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. Ann.Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94, 37–57.

La Greca, P., Barbarossa, L., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Martinico, F., 2011. The densitydilemma. A proposal for introducing smart growth principles in a sprawlingsettlements within Catania Metropolitan Area. Cities 28, 527–535.

La Rosa, D., Privitera, R., 2013. Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-useplanning of agricultural and green infrastructure in urban context. LandscapeUrban Plan. 109, 94–106.

Lyson, A., 2004. Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. TuftsUniversity Press, Medford.

Lwasa, S., Mugagga, F., Wahab, B., Simon, D., Connors, J., Griffith, C., 2013.Urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry: transcending poverty allevi-ation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Urban Clim. 7, 92–106,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.007.

Malczewski, J., 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview.Prog. Plan. 62, 3–65.

Malzcewski, J., 2007. GIS based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the liter-ature. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 20, 703–726.

Maruani, T., Amit-Cohen, I., 2007. Open space planning models: a review ofapproaches and methods. Landscape Urban Plan. 81, 1–13.

Martinico, F., La Rosa, D., Privitera, R., 2014. Green Oriented Urban Development forurban ecosystem services provision in a medium sized city in Southern Italy.iForest, http://dx.doi.org/10.3832/ifor1171-007.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Bio-diversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Mougeot, L.J.A., 2005. Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensionsof Urban Agriculture. IDRC, Earthscan, London, pp. 286.

Mougeot, L.J.A., 2006. Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for SustainableDevelopment. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.

Munoz, F., 2003. Lock living: urban sprawl in Mediterranean cities. Cities 20 (6),381–385.

National Society of Allotment Gardens and Leisure Gardeners Limited (no date). Cre-ating a new allotment site. Available from: http://www.nsalg.org.uk/ (accessed21.02.13).

Olson, R.K., Lyson, T.A., 1999. Under the Blade: The Conversion of Agricultural Land-scapes. Westview Press, Boulder.

Paül, V., McKenzie, F.H., 2010. Agricultural areas under metropolitan threats: lessonsfor Perth from Barcelona. In: Luck, G.W., Black, R., Race, D. (Eds.), DemographicChange in Australia’s Rural Landscapes – Implications for Society and the Envi-ronment. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 125–152.

Prato, T., 2000. Multiple attribute evaluation of landscape management. J. Environ.Manage. 60, 325–337.

Privitera, R., Martinico, F., La Rosa, D., Pappalardo, V., 2013. The role of non-urbanizedareas for designing an Urban Green Infrastructure. Nordic Journal of Architec-tural Research 2, 157–186.

Qiu, G., Li, H.-Y., Zhang, O.-T., Chen, W., Liang, X.-J., Li, X.-Z., 2013. Effects of evapo-transpiration on mitigation of urban temperature by vegetation and urbanagriculture. J. Integr. Agric. 12, 1307–1315.

Regione Sicilia, 2009. Volo fotogrammetrico, lidar, ortofoto e cartografia, Avail-able from: http://www.sitr.regione.sicilia.it/images/docs/volo sicilia digit.pdf(accessed 02.02.14).

Redwood, M., 2009. Agriculture in Urban Planning—Generating Livelihoods and FoodSecurity. Earthscan, London.

Rubino, A., 2007. The allotment gardens of the Ile de France: a tool for social devel-opment. J. Mediterr. Ecol. 8, 67–75.

Saltelli, A., Chan, K., Scott, M., 2000. Sensitivity Analysis, Probability and StatisticsSeries. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Sorace, A., 2001. Value to wildlife of urban-agricultural parks: a case study fromRome urban area. Environ. Manage. 4, 547–560.

Store, R., Kangas, J., 2001. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expertknowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape Urban Plan.55, 79–93.

Sturm, H.J., 1998. Development and dynamics of agricultural parks in West Africa. In:Kirby, K.J., Watkins, C. (Eds.), The ecological history of European forests: basedon presentations given at the International conference on advances in forest andwoodland history. University of Nottingham, September 1996, pp. 25–32.

Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., Hamilton, S.K., 2007. Ecosystem services andagriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol. Econ.64, 245–252.

Taylor Lovell, S., 2010. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land useplanning in the United States. Sustain 2, 2499–2522.

Thill, J.C., 1999. Multicriteria Decision-making and Analysis: A Geographic Informa-tion Sciences Approach. Ashgate, New York.

Van En, R., 1995. Eating for your community: towards agriculture supported com-munity. Context (Fall) 42, 29–31.

Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., Howe, J., 2005. CPULS: Continuous Productive UrbanLandscapes—Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities. Elsevier,Amsterdam.

Walmsley, A., 2006. Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century.Landscape Urban Plan. 76, 252–290.

Page 14: Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts

se Po

W

W

W

D. La Rosa et al. / Land U

ang, X., Yu, S., Huang, G.H., 2004. Land allocation based on integrated GIS opti-

mization modeling at a watershed level. Landscape Urban Plan. 66, 61–74.

ells, B.L., Gradwell, S., 2001. Gender and resource management: community sup-ported agriculture as caring-practice. Agric. Hum. Values 18, 107–119.

ilson, G.A., 2008. From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. J. Rural Stud. 24, 367–383.

licy 41 (2014) 290–303 303

Zasada, I., 2011. Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal

demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy28, 639–648.

Zezza, A., Tasciotti, L., 2010. Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security:empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy 35,265–273.