‘Finding Spaces for Productive Cities’ 6th AESOP Sustainable Food Planning conference Leeuwarden, the Netherlands 5 -7 November 2014
PROCEEDINGS
Edited by: Rob Roggema and Greg Keeffe
cover image: Roofgarden Ebisu, on top of the Ebisu metro-station, photo: Rob Roggema
Published in Velp, the Netherlands by: VHL University of Applied Sciences PO Box 9001 6880 GB Velp THE NETHERLANDS Email: rob.roggema@wur.nl Conference website: www.findingspaces.nl/aesop6 ISBN 978-90-822451-2-7 Copyright Š VHL 2014 Individual chapters Š the authors 2014 This publication is copyright. Other than for purposes, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the publishers.
Preface The 6th Annual Conference of the Special Working Group on Sustainable Food Planning of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) will be held at Post Plaza in Leeuwarden from 5-7 November 2014. A broad range of papers of an average high quality, from academics, policy advisors and practitioners will be presented at the conference. This publication contains the refereed proceedings of those contributed papers. Participants who submitted their full paper by the due date were eligible to be considered for these refereed proceedings. The papers presented in these proceedings have been selected on the basis of a blind peer review process of extended abstracts. We have received 128 abstracts, of which the scientific committee selected 74 to include as full papers in these conference proceedings and additionally 66 for the poster session. Some of the papers have been found challenging enough for being included in the proceedings as a poster. Not all posters have been included in the proceedings as authors had the choice of bringing the poster directly to the conference. In these proceedings 72 of the full papers have been reproduced. I am very grateful to referees for their work within a short timeframe. Three awards will be presented at the end of the conference. The Scientific Committee selects the best scientific paper, while the audience will have the decisive voice in the Awards for the best poster and the best oral presentation. The conference includes several high level keynote speeches. After the Opening words of Isabelle Diks, Alderman in the Municipality of Leeuwarden and Diane Keizer-Mastenbroek, member of the Board of VHL University of Applied Sciences, and the remarks of the Confernce Chair (Rob Roggema), the first keynote address will be given by Dan Kinkead, headof the Future City of Dertroit. Further during the conference keynote speeches will be given by Guido Santini (FAO), Greg Keeffe (QUB) and Andre Viljoen (Brighton University and chair of AESOP’s special working group Sustainable Food Planning). Besides 18 Parallel sessions with oral presentations and Design LAB’s, there will be two special sessions, one for local governments and organisations and one for PhD-candidates and Young Professionals. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the 6th AESOP conference on Sustainable Food Planning and makes it a success. We also wish you all fruitful discussions and a pleasant time in the Netherlands.
The Editors, Rob Roggema, VHL University of Applied Sciences, Conference Chair Greg Keeffe, Queens University Belfast
Members of the Scientific Committee Luis Maldonado - Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain Coline Perrin - INRA, France Arnold vd Valk - Wageningen University, the Netherlands Gaston Remmers – CAH, the Netherlands Craig Verzone Verzone Woods Architectes Sàrl, Switzerland Andre Viljoen – Brighton University, UK Wim Timmermans – VHL, the Netherlands Greg Keeffe – QUB, Northern Ireland Sven Stremke – WUR, the Netherlands Nico Tillie – TU Delft, the Netherlands Rik Eweg – VHL, the Netherlands J. Sundaresan Pillai – CSIR-NISCAIR, India Eric Koomen - VU, the Netherlands Ditrk Wascher – WUR, the Netherlands Jeroen de Vries – VHL, the Netherlands Axel Timpe – RWTH Aachen, Germany John Martin – La Trobe University, Australia Katrin Bohn – TU Berlin, Germany Mikey Tomkins – University of Brighton, UK Robbert Biesbroek – WUR, the Netherlands
Conference Chair Rob Roggema, VHL
Organising Committee Lidwien Reyn, Bureau Mozaiek Tulay Yilmaz, VHL Esra Güclü, VHL Ineke Hoogland, VHL
CONTENT 3
1 Spatial design --- practical and innovative design examples, design theory applicable to productive landscapes in sustainable urban, peri-urban and rural environments
211
2 ---
Urban planning
3 ---
Governance
4 ---
Entrepreneurship
track focusing on land use planning, socio-economic aspects of planning, planning urban functions, city lay-out, transport
378
focus on the decision making process, reaching agreement with stakeholders, participative planning, planning as process
530
the entrepreneur as catalyst for food production in and/or with the city, successful implementation, ways to realise urban agriculture and financial models, business cases, business models
644
5 Environmental flows/circular economy --- flows of materials, energy, water, nutrients and waste, the metabolism of urban
systems, resource management
722
6 Health --- benefits for people close to food production; possible impact local production on
health, activity, school performance, sport, wellbeing of youth, adults and elderly. Clean, controllable and securing food supply
769
7 Social innovation --- new ways of public involvement, innovative coalitions, brokerage concepts, role
of NGO’s, eco-innovators, new alliances
848
880
8
Local initiatives
--- case studies of best practices, case description, the advantages and disadvantages, learnings and tips for starting projects, do’s and don’ts
9 Extraordinary ideas and initiatives --- proposals and projects in unexpectedly related fields such as art, performance,
installations, other impossibilities, viewpoints outside current discourses, and everything else.
track 3
Governance focus on the decision making process, reaching agreement with stakeholders, participative planning, planning as process
Track 3. Governance ---- focus on the decision making process, reaching agreement with stakeholders, participative planning, planning as process
CONTENT 3.1 Urban Agriculture Quick Scan Map. Meta design as a strategic tool for collaborative urban planning 381 Berit Piepgras 3.2 25 years Regional Park Emscher Landscape Park Evaluation and Perspectives for Agriculture in 2014
399
Denise Kemper and Bernd Pölling 3.3 Urban Agriculture in Sao Paulo (Brazil): actors, space and governance models
416
Giulia Giacche and Wania Rezende Silva th
st
3.4 From a 20 Century Utopia - to 21 Century Refuge?
430
Dr. Kumru Arapgirlioğlu and Dr. Deniz Altay Baykan 3.5 The “Cultivated Urban Gardens” role within the industrial renewal context. The case of Villeurbanne, France.
454
Mónica A. Hernández H. 3.6 Participatory Learning and Gender Partnerships In Climate Change And Food Security: Mfoundi-Yaounde Cameroon
471
Roseline NjIH Egra Batcha and Paul Tchawa 3.7 When the perception and development of Urban Rooftop Farming depend on how Urban Agriculture is defined: Examining diverging stakeholders’ experiences and views in Barcelona, Spain 491 Esther Sanyé-Mengual, Isabelle Anguelovski, Jordi Oliver-Solà, Juan Ignacio Montero and Joan Rieradevall491 3.8 Fooding the city: everyday food practices and the transition to sustainability
505
Nevin Cohen, Rositsa Ilieva 3.9 From local food to panacea against world hunger. The Quinua issue Mariagiulia Costanzo
379
519
3.1 Urban Agriculture Quick Scan Map. Meta design as a strategic tool for collaborative urban planning Berit Piepgras HybridSpace
Abstract The paper discusses the opportunities for service design as a strategic tool in urban agriculture (UA) processes. Based on a research project on vacant property and urban agriculture in The Hague, a concept for meta design, a digital tool, has been developed. This tool is a contribution to the collaborative urban planning processes taking place in Dutch cities. Also, it takes into account the problem of large amounts of vacant property in The Netherlands. With an inclusive strategy, it reveals new opportunities for a participative urban planning process for resilient, healthy and green cities of tomorrow. This digital tool is a project in development, using the city as a living lab. The purpose of the research is to reveal the possibilities of vacant property and empty lots as space for UA. More specifically, this research aims to find answers to the question “What kind of UA is the most beneficial to run in a specific vacant spot?“.Desktop research (data mining, literature, references) as well as field work (interviews, expert meetings) were used to gather information. By working with both qualitative and quantitative research methods, a more complete picture of the process was generated. Visualisations and mappings of the results are used to provide spatial insight. The results of the research consist of spatial and socio-economic mappings and charts. This information is combined into a design concept for collaborative urban planning. The design is a proposal for a governance tool in UA processes. Keywords: participative planning, urban agriculture, urban retrofit, meta design, stakeholders, governance
Introduction In 2012, I was commissioned by the Sustainability Centre The Hague to conduct research on and to initiate urban agriculture (UA) projects in The Hague. The project was divided into two subcategories: UA and buildings (interior and rooftop, preferably vacant office buildings) and UA in combination with vacant spaces or infills. The UA was thought of as a temporary development of 380
these spaces. The ambition was to have two up-and-running cases per project within the same year. Considering the time it takes to find spaces that are physically suitable and placed in an adequate socio-economic setting, and the time frame given by the planting seasons, I expressed my concerns about the feasibility of the project. In collaboration with the Sustainability Centre, I reformulated the ambition into a more strategic and long term objective. In order to gain knowledge that is valuable for a long-term development of UA, the research was set up as a broad, explorative research-by-design project, mainly based on existing data, references and cases. The process of UA became manageable and we were able to help UAinitiatives and connect stakeholders and knowledge in a more customised way later on that year. In my practice as an architect I am interested in meta-designs and discovered opportunities for participative planning tools in this project. The information gathered for this hybrid project includes literature regarding design, sociology, planning, and ecology. This research project is an ongoing project with an iterative design approach. The purpose of the research is to reveal the (successful) possibilities of vacant property and empty lots as space for UA. More specifically, this research aims to find answers to the question “What kind of UA is the most beneficial to run in a specific vacant spot?“ and „How do we connect the future Urban Farmer to this space?“.
Materials and Methods The goal for this research is to push beyond the initiation of only one or two cases. The aim is to understand the beneficial factors for bottom-up process like UA. Not only the factors connected to a specific plot, but also the mix of stakeholders with different sets of values and ambitions play a role in the success or failure of UA. Initial desk top research and literature studies gave an overview of the subject. By gathering information on UA in Dutch cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht and by reading about UA in other countries like USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany and Denmark, it quickly became clear, that UA is not only site-specific, but also societyspecific: UA consists of spatial as well as socio-economic and societal components. Parallel to the theoretical approach, and the inventory of success factors of UA, and their regional correspondency and differences, several projects were initiated and/or assisted throughout 2012. This way, the research was toggling between theoretical, evidence based, case-specific and qualitative research methods. By setting up and guiding various projects in The Hague, the following challenges and opportunities became apparent in 2012: • Different neighbourhoods bring forth different sorts of UA • There is great enthusiasm about UA amongst citizens • Poor exchange of knowledge between UA initiatives • No clarity on UA regulation or municipal strategy • No integral or central platform for UA in The Hague • Non-existing central information platform nor sharing of information between citizens and municipality • Health, Outreach and Spatial departments of the municipality seemed not to be exchanging information regarding UA 381
If the point of departure is that UA delivers an added value to the community, city and/or the property owner, these benefits have to be identified in order to be valorised. Hereby, focus areas for the development process of UA can be defined. In 2012, little knowledge was available on this topic. No platform covered an integral approach. The various aspects and sub-themes were to be found at different initiatives, such as the Social (Cost) Benefit Analysis-tool TEEB Stad, in development at that time. A. de Muynck discusses the possibilities of UA as sustainable urban development in her MCD thesis. A year later, urban farming had become more prevalent as a communitybuilding tool and was used by big companies, such as the constructor Heijmans. If the main purpose is to create successful UA plots in The Hague, then the challenge is to recognise suited stakeholders and plots and combine these two. After setting up an inventory of UA processes, the determinants of UA were formulated. These determinants are used in developing the meta design, where they are visible as the layers of the UA opportunity map. The following UA sub-categories are researched by project consultancy and reference literature: planting, designing, legal aspects, community building, logistics and temporary property development. A successful UA project is based on factors that go far beyond availability of land and its soilcondition: It consists of spatial and socio-economic factors, that can roughly be divided into the following four main categories. • Spatial / where • Stakeholders / who • Sorts of UA / what • Value / why Understanding these factors is helpful when developing business plans and setting up an UA project. Each category can be further explored, such as for example the cost- and energy-intensity per kind of UA. Spatial/Plot • Zoning area • Vacancy and its time frame • Ownership • Interior or exterior • Vertical or horizontal plot • Sun and daylight • Soil condition • Criminality/safety • Distance to market/distribution • Waste management/compost Stakeholders • Commercial or non-commercial • Amateurs or skilled • Interests, values and ambitions • Proximity to plot • Income 382
• • •
Social and cultural background Existing networks and communities Demographics
Sort of UA • Low tech/high tech • Produce for own consumption or for sale • Investment and ROI (return on investment) Benefits and value • SCBA (Social Cost Benefit Analysis) • Physical and psychological health • UHI (Urban Heat Island) • Lowering CO2 footprint • Water management • Education • Liveability of neighbourhood and criminality rates • Real estate market value and price One way to get relatively quickly access to the numbers of the above, was to use existing information, i.e., big data and open data. These are publicly available data sets, official statistical data sets and various levels of “quantified self“ data sets. This spatiotemporal information is being visualised as mappings. In order to handle this information and its complexity, digital tools are needed. Also, location-specific patterns or correlations can be revealed. The visualisation is part of the research by design approach of this project. 1. An inventory of existing UA in The Hague was made and mapped. It shows the UA initiatives, emerging initiatives and school gardens (of time mapped in 2012).
Figure 1 Mapping of UA initiatives and school gardens, Piepgras, B. (2012)
383
Considering bee keeping being UA as well, it was also mapped.
Figure 2 Mapping of bee keeping in The Hague, Piepgras, B. (2012)
2. Existing data sets and mappings, that were found to have an influence on UA were used for the spatial analysis: vacant property, supermarkets working with local farmers, farm markets, demographics (i.e., income, age, cultural background), and soil condition to start with.
384
Figure 3 Soil condition with high risk for public health by the municipality of The Hague
Figuur 4 Municipality of The Hague: Vacant property of the municipality Piepgras, B. (2012) 385
Figure 5 Restaurants serving sustainable food
Figure 6 Jumbo: Supermarkets selling locally grown vegetables
Working with several UA initiatives, information was gathered on the mechanisms of each initiative. Factors like self-reliance, income and level of education stand out as important factors determining the sort of UA being initiated. For example: High-income areas are more likely to have urban gardens with small areas of produce. Most of the area here is for recreational and educational use. In low-income neighbourhoods, there is more focus on UA with high produce and/or outreach and social cohesion projects. UA as a commercial initiative has not yet been initiated in The Hague. High square-meter prices, despite a serious vacancy problem, seems to be the biggest hurdle herein. During the research project, I set up an expert meeting in collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce in The Hague. As a result hereof, a pilot project of an UA co-op in an office building in The Hague is now being developed. 3. A quick scan was developed by M. Franse and myself to test the knowledge gained so far. Socio-economic factors and spatial factors were mapped around two vacant office buildings. We developed a spatial plan and programme for UA by using the potential of the specific location and projecting a mixed programme in both situations. The quick scans and visualisations served as inspiration for the aforementioned expert meeting.
386
Figure 7 Quick Scan and Location specific potential of Haagse Veste. Visualisations of location specific UA approach. Inspiration for expert meeting UA and vacant offices. Piepgras, B. and Franse, M. (2012)
Figure 8 UA programme of Haagse Veste. Visualisations of location specific UA approach. Inspiration for expert meeting UA and vacant offices Piepgras, B. and Franse, M. (2012)
387
Figure 9 Visualisation of Haagse Veste. Visualisations of location specific UA approach. Inspiration for expert meeting UA and vacant offices The next step is to develop a multi-criteria analysis to convert the data into usable knowledge, the “UA mutability“ of a plot. In order to convert such an analysis into a useful tool for future UA stakeholders, a userfriendly and appealing interface is a necessary part of the tool. Piepgras, B. and Franse, M. (2012)
Results Meta Design and Service Design. Like other Dutch municipalities, the municipality of The Hague is in a transition of becoming a privatised and participative society. The municipality wants to facilitate bottom up processes and support self reliance for its citizens. How can a top-down organisation like a municipality facilitate bottom up processes the best? Three different sorts of conclusions and advice have been formulated in this research project: • Advice for citizen/the future urban farmer, spanning from legal to design advice. • Advice for the municipality, spanning from service design approaches on internal and external communication to social cost benefit business plans. • Advice for property-owners with the pilot project and De Schilde as case. Several opportunities for UA have been formulated within the research project for the Sustainability Centre and then discussed with the municipality, e.g., business plans and governance of bottom up projects and the need for a multidisciplinary central UA information point.
388
In the Food Strategy of The Hague, a strategy published by the municipality at the end of 2013, four ambitions corresponding to the advice, are formulated: • To develop a digital Urban Agriculture map • To provide a central, governmental information point for UA • To provide a (digital) map and information on vacant property and plots without development plans. Also, the indoor UA pilot project in an office building has been launched. Citizens want to get involved, but they often do not know where to start. As such, many initiatives failed based on what is wrongly perceived as citizen apathy or simply absence of demand for a particular projects service. We believe that this in fact is the fault of apathetic officials who fail to understand the importance of proactive education in initiating UA projects. A tool to let nonplanners design their surroundings is therefore needed, a so called meta-design. In this case the digital tool, an opportunity map for Urban Agriculture, is made in an iterative process with a service design approach: By monitoring the user behaviour and using this feedback, the design and the functions of the app and/or website are improved. The result of this research project transforms its conclusions and advice into a design proposal. In the following the tool is explained. It connects the information gathered on determinants for successful UA in The Hague and is translated into four different profiles. 1. The main stakeholders are translated into four profiles: The future urban farmer, the consumer, the property owner, the government. This takes different interests, values and
ambitions into consideration. In this pilot version, the future urban farmer is being shown. Figure 10 Choose profile. Visualisation of concept: Opportunity map for Urban Agriculture. Piepgras, B. (2013)
389
Figure 11 Scan for opportunities. Visualisation of concept: Opportunity map for Urban Agriculture. Piepgras, B. (2013)
2. The location is being “quick scanned“ by using data sets. In this pilot, the sets are: existing UA initiatives, vacant property, supermarkets, soil condition, restaurants, and community centres. These are determinants taken into consideration in order to estimate the business opportunities and possibilities for a future urban farmer. For other profiles, different data sets will be of interest. Also, additional relevant layers can be implemented throughout the process. Figure 12 Multi-criteria analysis. Visualisation of concept: Opportunity map for Urban Agriculture. Piepgras, B. (2013)
390
Figure 13 Advice and further information. Visualisation of concept: Opportunity map for Urban Agriculture Piepgras, B. (2013)
3. 3.After running the quick scan, a multi-criteria analysis, a prioritised set of optimally suited sorts of UA will show. Also, recommendations, tips, further reading and contact persons will appear. This is general information on various topics, such as juridical, spatial, design, budget, planting and planning, generated from the research in 2012. For further expertise and information, a link or contact person is provided. Again, this tool works with data mining of existing data and information. This interactive tool works with a curated open source approach. Transparency is created by publishing the source of the used datasets and reports. There are two interaction areas in this tool. First, the collaboration between knowledge contributors is organised, preferably by the triple helix constellation and with contributions by citizens. Secondly, interaction is created between the user interface (UI) and the users. This behaviour can be monitored and the feedback can be used for optimisation of the election of determinants as well as of the design of the tool. Where the first part of the design process is a business-to-business approach, built on personalised interaction and dialogue, the second part is a business to consumer and automatised approach. The UI offers an “open map“ layer and a postbox for (data-set) contributions by users. This is to avoid the tool becoming a top-down platform of only sending information one-way. These contributions will have to be monitored and/or curated. A less time consuming way of curating the written contributions, is to let the crowd itself place comments. This wikipedia type of approach nevertheless also needs monitoring from time to time. Concerning the layers of data sets and the multicriteria analyses, professional development and monitoring remains necessary. In the book Participation is Risky, L. Huybrechts points out the beneficial factors of multidisciplinary collaborations and introduces different approaches to joint creative processes. This research focuses on participatory art and design projects, preferably with a DIWO (Do-It-With391
Others) approach. This research not only gives a good overview on participative designing but provides the reader with insights, categories and tools when dealing with participative designs. In the following, the UA opportunity map is placed within this participative design system. By defining the participative projects as „socio-technical assemblies that are continuously in movement“, a to a certain extent uncertain outcome is implied. Projects are divided into “projecttime“ and “use-time“ projects, hereby defining when the participation itself takes place. Two concepts arise from this definition, namely “hybridity“ in project-time and “generativity“ in usetime. In generative projects, „makers offer an infrastructure to the participants“. The UA opportunity map is developed as a tool for others to interact and is therefore clearly a project with a “generative“ approach. Stakeholders with their contribution of data sets will give it a slight “hybrid“ approach. The tool is therefore developed as a participant driven project and, once published, a maker-driven tool. The participative part of a generative project lies within the way it is shared. For this, three different ways of sharing are formulated: “shareability“, “modularity“ and “deviationism“. Roughly it explains the level of modification that is available for the participant. The UA tool is using existing data and translating this into a location specific, personalised UA success factor and offering advice. The main focus lies therefore in the shareability and access to information. Participants being able to donate data sets and mappings, provide the project with certain modularity. The project is set up as an iterative process, which takes into account optimisation throughout the process. The level of openness is therefore higher than a top-down information sending website. Deviationism is not a built-in part of the tool and would only occur as a side effect.
Discussion Governance This research by design project formulates answers to the questions “What kind of UA is the most beneficial to run in a specific vacant spot?“ and „How do we connect the future Urban Farmer to this space?“. These answers serve as input for the ongoing top-down/bottom-up dialogue and advocates a not only greener, but also a more spontaneous form for urban planning. Bottom-up processes are not solely demand-driven. Service design and meta design are designers’ tools to innovate processes and to facilitate communication between several stakeholders, such as citizens and municipality. By connecting organisations and communities to locations on a map like in this meta design proposal, a governance space can emerge. Within this space, participative planning can be further explored. Top-down organisations such as municipal departments, and bottom-up initiatives run by citizens have a common ground to meet within this platform. Companies with a commercial interest can also participate within this space. The tool contributes to a society that is becoming more privatised and relying on participation from not only citizens, but also from the municipality, research institutes and the industry. By stimulating selfreliance and DIY/DIWO projects, the tool offers knowledge and benefits for all stakeholders. The municipality is helped in implementing its strategies for UA, urban retrofitting and “the participative society“, as well as contributing with transparency and service. Monitoring the process of organic city planning is an added value for the municipality. Companies benefit from a platform where knowledge is shared and where exposure is created for their CSR (Corporate 392
Social Responsibility) strategies. Universities share information and knowledge. In exchange, the tool can be used as a monitoring tool and living lab for e.g. citizen science generated data. The platform serves as a forum for publishing new findings, for example public health issues. The citizen is helped with knowledge and receives tools to interact with his or her city. Administrational procedures can be shortened with this tool, in order to get processes started before the enthusiasm of different parties has vanished. A more collaborative and organic way of planning the city is the outcome of this tool. This tool seeks to serve with a transparent and inclusive way of governing the city. The Municipality In 2013 a proposal to develop this opportunity map was discussed with the municipality of The Hague. As mentioned before, a process driven product development like this map involves some risks: Questions arise on whether the analysis would work and the cost-benefit of the project. Therefore, this UA map pilot is developed as a phased project. Starting with two profiles, the consumer and the future urban farmer as well with a limited number of datasets. Later in the process, after a successful testrunning of the map, re-designs and upgrades are to be made. By doing so, the advantages of an iterative process and explorative design methods can be optimally used. Several departments were connected to the proposal, such as the departments Participation, GIS (Geographic Information System), and Sustainability. The map was to be developed in collaboration with the PPP (public private partnership) of Sustainable The Hague (Duurzaam Den Haag). This digital platform, initiated in 2012 and to be co-created together with citizens and companies, was searching for projects to kick off the concept. The then emerging The Hague Open Data was also developing with a demand-driven approach and were welcoming my specific questions about for example soil information. Unfortunately, the project was withdrawn by the municipality and has not been commissioned. An UA map is currently being developed inhouse by the municipality. Triple Helix The tool is a product being developed with and for several stakeholders. This development team already represents a part of the Triple Helix. A triple helix connection favours a hybrid and collaborative approach on interaction and sharing of knowledge between government, university, and industry. In a Stanford definition, in its best case, the government will take on the task as “public entrepreneur in addition to its regulatory tasks“. Firms can raise their “level of technology“ whereas universities can contribute to “socio-economic development“. This requires a certain level of proactivity and openness from all parties. In this proposed tool a fourth party has joined, namely the citizen. The development of this tool includes in its best case all parties af the triple helix. Product development involves risks that governmental institutions on a city level cannot always take. Also, setting up Open Data still seems to be a complex task for municipalities to handle. Meta Design Further development and a pilot implementation of (part of) this UA opportunity map is necessary to monitor its functions. Further research on, whether this tool stimulates UA and bottom up projects is also necessary in order to validate this tool. For example, a baseline measurement of 393
UA projects at the time of implementation followed up by a regular interval of monitoring. Other, qualitative validation methods, like the impact of UA projects on their surroundings would also be necessary to further develop the social cost benefit analyses of this project. The prosperity of an UA project is dependent of the condition of the location, physical as well as socio-economic. In UA projects that are mostly bottom up projects and therefore a part of participative planning, risks are being taken. The added value or trade offs are not only to be found in the produce but also in the process itself, such as awareness, public health benefits, and ownership of a project, problem or place. This process requires proactive citizens and a proactive government and a certain level of openness to the process. In the development of an UA project, participant driven, DIWO processes are to be preferred. The opportunity map for UA is a meta-design tool developed for the stakeholders of the UA process. This is a maker driven tool offering insight in the location specific opportunities of a certain plot. The opportunities are measured by socio-economic as well as physical determinants. The UA initiator is guided by his own background and ambitions. Therefore the tool works with a user centred design, a profile user interface. This personalised approach combined with the location specific drivers is being used to provide relevant UA information and advice to the user. The map is a starting point of UA initiatives: a quick scan. The digital UA opportunity map, a generative tool, can be used as a participative planning tool for UA. It connects initiators with different sorts of UA and suitable spaces by sharing information on a website and/or interacting by modules (data-sets). The location specific set-up of the tool is generated with existing data and can therefore be implemented in other cities than The Hague. This map is a proposal for a governance tool and stimulates participation in various ways. Stakeholders contribute with knowledge and data in order to finetune the map. This creates a co-ownership and the contributors become “shareholders“ of the tool. The personalised user interface provides the user with information by using references and showing location specific opportunities. A UA layman, for example, can fairly quickly get an overview and initiate a DIY or DIWO project. The map connects various aspects of UA in one platform. The multidisciplinary set-up connects different stakeholders around a project or plot. Within this governance setting, the municipality can play an active role and partake in the bottom-up strategies of the city. The UA opportunity map offers a tool for strategic approach on an inclusive and transparent governance of UA in Dutch cities.
References Berendsen R. (2013) Stadmakers Den Haag. Interview #4 Berit Piepgras. Retrieved from http://www.stadmakers.nl, 3. And http://issuu.com/stadmakers/docs/_4bp_interview_1_ Charitos, D. et al. (ed) (2013) Conference proceedings of Hybrid City 2013-Subtle Revolutions. In: Ivkovic, M., Van Emden, R. and Piepgras, B. (2013) Fun, games and collaborative plans-Benefits and shortcomings of including interactivity and gaming into the collaborative urban planning. Athens. Cohen, N. et.al (2012) Five Borough Farm - Seeding the Future of Urban Agriculture in New York City. NYC: Design Trust for Public Space. Danish Technological Institute (2009) Assessment of service design projects. Copenhagen: Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, 5-6. Retrieved from http://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/file/188539/Maaling_af_innovation_i_offentlige_serviceydelser.pdf 394
Food Matters for Brighton & Hove City Council (2011) PAN 06 - Planning Advice Note Food Growing and Development, Brighton & Hove City Graaff, P. de et al.(2011) Ruimte voor stadslandbouw in Rotterdam. Retrieved from http://www.pauldegraaf.eu/downloads/RvSL/RvSL_PdeGraafO&O-2011.pdf Hohenschau, D.L. (2005) Community food security and the landscape of cities, University of British Columbia Holland Barrs Planning Group for the City of Vancouver (2007) Designing Urban Agriculture Opportunities For Southeast False Creek, Vancouver Huybrechts, L. (ed.) (2014) Participation is Risky: Approaches to Joint Creative Processes. Amsterdam: Valiz. Lems, E. (2011) Buurtmoestuinen -Kansen voor sociale cohesie en leefbaarheid in Amsterdam Nieuw-West. Stadsdeel Nieuw-West, Amsterdam Muynck, A. de (2011) Stadslandbouw en duurzame gebiedsontwikkeling -Afstudeerscriptie Master City Developer. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Stadsontwikkeling Rotterdam, Technische Universiteit Delft. Retrieved from http://thesis.eur.nl/pub/10369/ Noes Piester, H. (2009) Servicedesign Does it make a difference? Danish Technological Institute. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/29952036 Piepgras, B. (2013) Stadslandbouw als mogelijke invulling van leegstaande kantoren en braakliggend terrein in Den Haag. The Hague: Issuu. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/beritpiepgras/docs/stlb/1?e=4755093/1610277 Steinmaier, E. (2011) ABN AMRO, Kansen voor kwaliteit De Nederlandse kantorenmarkt in beeld, 29. Retrieved from https://insights.abnamro.nl/kansen-voor-kwaliteit-de-nederlandsekantorenmarkt-in-beeld/Visschedijk, P. et al. (2012) BUURTUIN..! Leren van de Jardins PartagĂŠs in Frankrijk, Wageningen: Alterra Wageningen. Retrieved from http://edepot.wur.nl/194852 Vreugdenhill, J. & Van Westrenen, F. (ed.) (2009) Foodprint Stadsgids Den Haag. The Hague & Rotterdam: Stroom Den Haag / NAi Publishers.
Websites Beekeeping (selling points) http://imkersdenhaag.nl/honing-kopen/ Brooklyn Grange Farm http://brooklyngrangefarm.com/education/ Crisis- en herstelwet http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/crisis-en-herstelwet Heijmans, development of Katendrecht http://www.fenixlofts.nl/inspiratiesessie-18-meirotterdamse-oogst-zaait/ Municipality of The Hague (2014) The Food Strategy of The Hague. Retrieved from http://www.denhaag.nl/home/bewoners/gemeente/document/Voedselstrategie-gemeente-DenHaag-1.htm 395
Municipality of The Hague, Soil Information http://www.denhaag.nl/home/bewoners/natuur-enmilieu/to/Bodemverontreiniging-spoedlocaties.htm Municipality of The Hague/Sustainable The Hague, UA map http://www.duurzaamdenhaag.nl/projecten/projectenkaart Municipality of The Hague (2013) UA pilot De Schilde http://stadslandbouwdenhaag.nl Municipality of The Hague, Vacant property www.denhaag.nl/home.bouw-enontwikkellocaties.htm Open Data The Hague http://www.denhaag.nl/home/bewoners/actueel/feiten-en-cijfers/opendata.htm Open Data The Hague/Columby https://weare.columby.com Piepgras, B. (2012) Map of UA initiatives in The Hague 2012 http://goo.gl/maps/wWKFp Piepgras, B. (2012) Map beekeeping https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=206107563484587411408.0004b743c46dd6d1c040b&ms a=0 Piepgras, B. (2012) Map of soil information https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=206107563484587411408.0004c1b840e0cc35fab0f&msa =0 Piepgras, B. (2012) Map of restaurants/cafĂŠs serving local produce https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=206107563484587411408.0004b8ec2f514e43051a5&msa =0 Piepgras, B. (2012) Map of selling points for local produce https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=206107563484587411408.0004b747de4c43e99560c&ms a=0 Restaurant reviews, Iens http://www.iens.nl/restaurant/denhaag/biologisch Stanford University, The Triple Helix concept http://triplehelix.stanford.edu/3helix_concept Stadsgewest Haaglanden, The Hague region http://bis.steenworp.nl Statistics Netherlands http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/home/default.htm Statistics The Hague http://www.denhaag.buurtmonitor.nl Supermarkets, Jumbo http://www.jumbosupermarkten.nl/Alle-Jumbo-Winkels/ Supermarkets, Marqt http://www.marqt.com/winkels-en-openingstijden/ Supermarkets, Plus http://www.plus.nl/winkels Sustainability Centre The Hague http://www.haagsmilieucentrum.nl/index.php?onderwerp_ID=3 Sustainable The Hague http://www.duurzaamdenhaag.nl TEEB Stad, Social (Cost) Benefit Analysis http://www.teebstad.nl/ UA initiative, advised in 2012: De Gezondheidsdialoog & Vergeten tuin, 396
http://www.awpgnzh.nl/index.php?s=176 UA initiative, advised in 2012: Laak Kobus, http://www.kobus.nu UA initiative, advised in 2012: Laak Coรถperatief Eigenwijzer, http://www.cooperatiefeigenwijzer.nl/index.php?view=article&id=116%3Aelemammusa&option=com_content&Itemid=46 UA initiative, advised in 2012: De Zeeheldentuin http://zeeheldentuin.nl
397