Food Futura - graduation project by Vivianne Heijkoop

Food Futura The design of a mind changing concept, ďŹ nding true sustainability in food production

Vivianne Heijkoop

Title

Food Futura The design of a mind changing concept, finding true sustainability in food production.

Author

V. (Vivianne) Heijkoop, 0741090 v.heijkoop@gmail.com www.vivianneheijkoop.nl

Date

9 November 2017

Supervisory Committee

prof.ir. P.J.R. (Paul) Diederen ir. R.P.J. (Ruurd) Roorda ir. B.A.H.L. (Bram) van Kaathoven

Colophon

Eindhoven University of Technology Faculty of Built Environment Department - Architectural Urban Design and Engineering (AUDE) Chair - Rational Architecture (RA) A catalogue record for this book is available from the Eindhoven University of Technology Repository. 2

Copyright ÂŠ 2018 by Vivianne Heijkoop All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronically, mechanically, by photocopies, recordings or otherwise - without the prior written permission of the author

Summary The problem being addressed in this research is the environmental impact of biodiversity loss as a result of monoculture cultivation, and the distanced relation of food production with food consumption. In responds to this problem this research attempts to find a sustainable solution for agricultural production that preserves and improves biodiversity in the agricultural landscape for it is believed that this is key and the foremost important start towards sustainable food production. Relating to the social trends, this research attempts to raise sustainable awareness of the food, for when people’s consciousness of the food industry grows, it can become a driver of change. At the basis of this thesis lies a thorough research to social and ecological sustainability in agriculture. It responds to the burden of agriculture on climate change. This research departs from the principles of nature and the ecological network, to re-establish the interaction between agriculture and nature in which both enhance each other. Furthermore, it relates to the social food trends of today, as it attempts to re-establish a connection between humans and the origin of food. Its aim is to create sustainable awareness of the food industry.

The location of this study is the area of Middachterbeek, an area designated to be a robust connection of the Ecologische Hoofd Structuur. The landscape of Middachterbeek is restored to a healthy environment holding a selfregulating ecosystem, generated by a symbioses of nature and agriculture, designed according to the principles of nature and agroecology. Instead of nature and agriculture working against each other, this design implements the principles of the robust connection for nature and agroecological farming as such that they enhance each other. The combined result is a design characterized by a continuously changing landscape; both seasonal and annual. These changed give the area a dynamic experience. Granting the arisen sustainable food production, from this a social sustainable concept is designed for food processing and consumption. The architectural design brings together all actors of the area; humans, products and animals. The design, performing an important ecological function for the landscape design, forwards the sustainable message by means of its integration in the landscape, and its open industry. The lifted landscape interpreted by the roof creates constant awareness of the sustainable environment of food production and

its ecological meaning. The linear processing units represent the process line, intertwined by the consumption line, which opens the industry to visitors. This makes it possible for people to engage with the origin of the products they buy, creating awareness of the scenes behind the industry. The design thus creates awareness stimulating the sustainability debate, giving meaning to the sustainable environment it works in. The total final design is the result of the all gained knowledge in this research, translated in a landscape design and an architectural design that continue from on into the other. The elements described above, together drive the image of sustainable farming and sustainable food production. Food Futura – a food plaza forwarding a new experience of food - has become a meaningful place for both the area’s ecosystem, food production and (human) visitors. It re-establishes the connection of nature to agriculture and to humans. It thus becomes a driver of change. This gives back meaning to the countryside, for it now isn’t a monologue performed by monoculture cultivation, but an act of all different actors who are all given speech in the performance of sustainable food production. 3

“We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.” Chief Seattle, Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1854

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

Preface Our Earth is a precious place; a place we should value and be concerned in how we treat her. I believe Chief Seattle and Albert Einstein together point out the true matter what our future is about. Their message has been of inspiration for my master thesis and the philosophy it holds. While reading my thesis, I hope the presence of their message can be felt throughout. This book contains the result of a research towards sustainable farming and sustainable awareness of food in our current society, which is then translated into an architectural design supporting a new concept for the food production process. This thesis finds its basis in an ecological approach, for it is believed that when a right balance between nature and agriculture is achieved, true sustainability is found (Tittonell, 2014). It departs from the philosophy that after years of consuming our Earth, it is now time to give back. The philosophy that we should work with nature instead of against it, for I believe that when a healthy reconnection with nature is retrieved, a social reconnection with the food can be established. This research attempts to initiate a solution in the right direction, where the research is used as the fundament of a new type of design. This master thesis is derived from the

architectural design studio ‘The Farm – Mutant typology’. The character of the studio appeals to my deep interest in sustainability and my will to make the world a better place. Sharing a personal fascination for the food industry, the sustainability of food consumption and food production have been topics of interest in the last few years in my life. Therefore, I also have a personal ambition to contribute to the sustainable debate of food production. At the start of this studio, I started with a critique on architecture – I feel architecture lacks in its contribution to the social-ecological debate. What inspires me about the profession of architecture is its broad integration in society; it shapes the environment of society. And so it responds to our society; it’s needs, trends and problems. However, the society of today is complex. Architecture too must give answer to a growing complex question. It is thus understandable that responding equally to all issues the question encounters is difficult, if not impossible. Yet, it seems that the social environmental issues tend to fall to the background, over and over. Up until now, to me, architecture has felt as a profession that thoughtfully creates the image of being involved in the deeper social ecological matter, yet in the

end it is all about selling an image. I feel there are only a few architects that really get involved and translate social ecological relevant issues. The world is changing, and so is the role of architecture. Experiencing that climate change is affecting many layers of society makes that the sustainability debate is becoming more important than ever. The build environment has had impact on the ecological systems for many years. In responds multiple sustainability concepts pop up, and building the most sustainable building of the year has even become a contest. Especially at technological level there have been a multitude of innovations. Yet I believe there could be so much more to it. It is time that architecture too takes full responsibility in these debates and relates to these important topics with design. I believe we now should translate these concepts into an architectural language, and so give meaning to design by sustainability. I consider this studio as an opportunity to discover and investigate my role, the role I could take as an architect that deepens the meaning of my designs by responding to the larger socially and ecologically relevant issues. The role of the architect is changing, and I hope this is the road it will change to. 5

Table of contents Summary Preface

3 5

I. INTRODUCTION Introduction Research questions

11 19

II. THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecosystem Agroecological farming Location Program

24 27 29 40

III. LANDSCAPE DESIGN Robust connection Agroecological farming Buffers Conclusion

48 58 70 72

IV. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Program Concepts Design interpretation Conclusion Model images

81 92 98 134 136

V. CONCLUSION Conclusion Reflection References Figures and images

151 153 157 160

I. INTRODUCTION

Food Futura is a mind changing concept, aiming to contribute to global sustainability in food production. It revises the current food industry and provides a new vision to future food production. A visit to the food plaza is more than just doing grocery shopping. It gives insight in a sustainable food production process, from the origin of the product to the finished product that is taken home; a stage for sustainable food production. Positioned within the production field of the products processed in the food plaza, characterized by a rich biodiversity, it becomes a real hub for the environment it works for. The design provides a lively space in which all actors - people, birds, bees, butterflies and products - have their own and specific contribution to the process. It is the beating heart of the area, of which its ecological effects will spread to its environment and eventually contribute to a stronger and resilient ecological network of Europe.

which both enhance each other. Furthermore, it relates to the social food trends of today, as it attempts to re-establish a connection between humans and the origin of food. Its aim is to create sustainable awareness of the food industry.

At the basis of this thesis lies a thorough research to social and ecological sustainability in agriculture. It responds to the burden of agriculture on climate change. This research departs from the principles of nature and the ecological network, to re-establish the interaction between agriculture and nature in

Over 12.000 years of time the agricultural practises have developed from a simple system of survival into highly specialized agricultural methods, producing a wide range of products varying from basic needs to high-end culinary products. The first evidence of agriculture dates back from the beginning of the Neolithic Age,

The research responds to the collective preliminary research performed by all members of the graduation studio ‘The Farm – Mutant Typology’. In order to understand the agricultural field initiated to work in, the collective research attempts to give insight in the agricultural industry by means of different angles from which the agricultural industry is approached. The result sketches an image of today’s agriculture; it’s history, it’s processes and it’s architectural qualities. It attempts to master the architectural qualities found in the countryside.

Preliminary research

where the first principles of plant cultivation and animal domestication can be seen (Mazoyer & Roudart, 2006). The first principles of plantcultivation were based on the slash-and-burn system. The burning of forest was a method of soil fertilisation, as the ashes could contain up to three years of nutrition for the soil. However, as a result by 2.500 B.C. Europe was almost completely deforested. Therefore, new agricultural systems were developed; systems based on the techniques of ploughing and fallowing, using additive techniques for soil fertilisation by supplementing the soil with (animal) manure. Agriculture had become a practise of processing the soil to the desired conditions for optimal plant growth, a practise of which the basic principles are still seen in today’s agricultural culture (Mazoyer & Roudart, 2006; Slicher van Bath, 1963). In the last 200 years, the agricultural industry has experienced an explosive development as a result of industrialization (Federico, 2005). The introduction of machinery to the land has driven the agricultural practises to a high-speed food production unit, producing amounts of tenfold to hundredfold the amount per employer than before the industrialization. Especially after the World Wars Europe experienced an impressive 11

scale-up of the industry. By the end of the World Wars, Europe suffered from famine as food production was in a crisis. There was no money for farmers to invest in machinery, limiting their ability to meet the food demands. In reaction to this the European Union introduced the Common Agricultural Policies (CAP), stimulating the agricultural industry in order to increase food-production and fight food shortage by subsidising investments in industrial machines (European Union, 2012). This led to an increase in business size. Within thirty years 9 out of 10 (family) farms were taken over by larger companies, preceding the development of the first megafarms; a scale up of the industry. Large machinery has taken over huge amounts of manlabour. Nowadays counting only 4 percent of the population in Europe works in the agricultural business (Mazoyer & Roudart2006). As a result of the industrialization the distance of food production and food consumptions has extended drastically, distancing the consumer from the origin of the product. Nowadays it is hardly possible to realize what route a product passes before it is consumed. A product arrives at many different locations, from a storage building and a stable to a slaughterhouse and auction buildings, all buildings set up for the 12

processing of food. The agricultural industry has become highly specialized, having a new subindustry per step in the food processing line. The developments are driven by efficiency and food security, the economy and a wide set of regulations opposed by the industry itself, the government, food-security companies, animal-welfare foundations and the consumers themselves (European Union, 2012). The preliminary research shows the state to which the industry has developed. It sketches the image of today’s agriculture and its position in society. From the research it can be concluded that the agricultural industry has become an industry on itself, having developed extreme specialization distancing the industry from the public. It has evolved from a simple system of survival to an intertwined subject with regard to political, ecological, climatological, economic, philosophical and social discussions. It has therefore been transformed into a topic of complexity, making food production an ethical concern.

Practises of industrial agriculture

Agriculture concerns cultivation of the land; more defined, we adjust the land’s characteristics

by modifying it to our desired conditions that are all measured to efficient and high-quality food production, involving both plant- and animal products (Mazoyer & Roudart2006). Arable farming and horticulture adapt the land’s characteristics by the products grown and their supplements added to the soil for better harvest. Animal farming adapts the land’s characteristics by its heavy manure spread over the land and influences the local environment with greenhouse gasses produced by the animals. Therefore, with the practise of agriculture we have direct impact on the environment and the (local) ecosystem (Davis et al., 2016; Mendenhall, Kappel, & Ehrlich, 2013). Nonetheless, to keep up to the (future) food demands of our population we as human species conquer more and more of the earth surfaces, claiming it as our territories. Our consumption of earth grows and with the extension of the agricultural land we simultaneously extend our influences on earth (Mendenhall, Kappel, & Ehrlich, 2013). The global diet is consistent as the majority of plant products grown differentiates only a variety of five products. The numbers of UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization illustrate this.

Image 1.1 - Monoculture cultivation. Retrieved from AHN-USA (2017)

“More than 7 000 species of plants have been cultivated or collected. Many remain important to the food security of local communities. However, it is estimated that only 30 crops now provide 95 percent of human food-energy needs and just five of them – rice, wheat, maize, millet and sorghum – provide about 60 percent.” (FAO, 2017) The visual effect is widespread monotonous landscapes, cultivating one single product over many hectares (Image 1). As a result of growing food demands, the unvaried landscapes are increasing in size clearing out and fragmenting natural areas for the purpose of food production. This is causing significant negative environmental impacts. The clearing of natural habitats and the unvaried monotonous production process are a leading cause of worldwide biodiversity loss which is threatening the Earth’s ecosystem (WWF Global, 2017). “The main impact from farming comes from clearing natural habitats for agriculture and aquaculture – especially for intensive monocultures.” (WWF Global, 2017)

Negative impacts of biodiversity loss

As stated above, the worldwide biodiversity loss is mostly due to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation, threatening the living conditions of many species - in worst conditions leading to species extinction. In Europe too, this has resulted in an alarming list of endangered species and loss of rare natural habitats. Today almost half of the mammals and one third of the reptile, fish and bird species are considered endangered species (Andela et al., 2011). “Biodiversity refers to all species of plants, animals and micro-organisms existing and interacting within an ecosystem.” (Altieri, 1999) The decline of population or extinction of species affects an ecosystem’s functioning. An ecosystem and its functioning is determined by the interaction of the living and the non-living. The most valuable and strengthening actors of the ecosystem are called ecosystem services; these actors provide specific duties or services for the ecosystem and participate in significant exchanges within an ecosystem. They improve resilience for outer influences and environmental impacts and enhance the innumerable processes of the ecosystem within. A loss of biodiversity equivalently is a loss of ecosystem

services and weakens the ecosystem resilience (Mendenhall, Kappel & Ehrlich, 2013; Norton, 2016). Furthermore, an ecosystem of strong resilience is able to sequent Green House Gasses (GHG). Industrial agriculture is responsible for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4); CO2 emissions being the most effective in human-driven climate change, nevertheless 50 percent of global CH4 emissions and 75 percent of global N2O emissions are due to agricultural activities (Lin, et al., 2011). In an ecosystem that provides many ecosystem services, the storage of GHG is proven to be significantly higher than in weak ecosystems. Especially the ecosystem services responsible for healthy soil decomposition are able to store carbon and nitrogen in the soil, and a strong rooted soil structure deepens methane storage. A diversity of plant species contributes to larger carbon dioxide absorption as a result of photosynthesis. These ecosystem services all limit the negative impacts of GHG. Therefor biodiversity should be valued for it preserves important ecosystem services that have a significant contribution to climate change; a strong ecosystem with a large biodiversity holds resilience to environmental impacts and contributes to GHG-absorption (Image 2) (Lin et al., 2011).

Image 1.2 - Landscape of rich biodiversity

Anyway, monoculture cultivated landscapes lack (bio)diversity and respectively miss out on ecosystem services. Subsequently these ecosystem services need to be created manually, meaning that the land needs mechanical processing in order to meet the desired soil conditions for production growth; adding nutrition for soil fertility and compost for soil stability. Additionally, these landscapes require intense disease and pest management, as the agricultural ecosystem of monoculture cultivation is too weak to oppose the impact of diseases and pests. The mechanical inputs of either chemical or organic nutrition or pesticides and the weak soil structure are a burden to natural resources. There is no natural nutrition cycle provided by ecosystem services, hence it forms a weak resilience against external influence/impact. The weak soil is not able to hold water, therefor it easily deteriorates from the landscape (Mendenhall, Kappel & Ehrlich, 2013; Norton, 2016). Furthermore, the addition of fertilizers and pesticides are one of the main contributors of CO2 and N2O emissions in agricultural activity. Therefore, the practises of monoculture cultivation do not only affect the ecosystem resilience, but subsequently increase GHG emissions. It can be concluded that the current management lacks in its understanding 16

that food production is part of an ecological system (Lin et al., 2011). The resultant effects of monoculture cultivation go beyond the land worked on. The created agricultural ecosystem interacts with surrounding ecosystems. Therefore, the ecosystems fragility creates a vulnerable spot in Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecosystem network eventually causing major impact on soil and water. The lack of nutrition and soil stability have resulted in global soil degradation and erosion. Especially in the process of ploughing in order to add nutrition the fertility of the soil is highly damaged. In a monocultural landscape, the top soil is the only fertile soil, as the process of soil decomposition is eliminated in monoculture cultivation as a result of lack of diversity. This weakens the soil structure, making it vulnerable for weather influences like wind and water. Wind and water can easily grab the soil and carry it away; this process is called soil erosion. When this process continues over a longer period of time, all nutrition will diminish from the soil, resulting in soil depletion. This makes the land less interesting for farmers to use, therefor when conditions are really bad farmers leave the land and move on to new, fresh fertile soils. This leaves the plot empty, when not taken care

of this ends in desertification; a dead soil that lost ecological meaning in the ecosystem (WWF Global, 2017). The sum of effects show how far the influences of fragile ecosystems go; they are all equally significant and leading causes of climate change.

Call for change

By 2050 it is expected that more than 9,5 billion people will populate our planet, which measures a population growth of 2,1 billion people within 33 years (United Nations, 2017). This means that the industry will have to intensify and continue its growth, clearing out more land. The agricultural sector makes extensive use of earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural resources, especially due to the diminishing ecosystem services of monoculture cultivation. With the growth of production land, the need for natural resources will increase. Yet, the natural resources are limited. If we continue with the current agricultural practises of monoculture cultivation, the input requirements to the growing agricultural land of (natural) resources will outgrow to extends that cannot be met (Davis et al., 2016). Therefor this research calls for a change. However, the environmental impact of the

agriculture is not only an ecological matter, it is also a social matter. Especially in western countries the industrial scale up of food production has resulted in an increased distance between food production and food consumption. This also led to social changes of people’s relation to food and food production. For many people food has become a tool or materialistic product of which we always have the luxury to buy. The customer of food today is picky and seeks high value for their money. The demands for food and trends of consumption are drivers of the development of the agricultural industry. The food consumption tendency today strives for product perfection and overpacked supplies, especially in supermarkets. Many customers forget the hidden production process to achieve this demand, or have never even been aware of this. The effects of the production process on climate change are placed into the background, causing customers to have limited awareness of these negative effects. Opposing this trend of food perfection in supermarkets and supporting climate change mitigation, in the last ten years several trends have been noticed that reintegrate food production awareness and reconnect people to the origin of food. Examples are increased

preferences for organic products, a gained popularity for vegetarian or vegan diets and a growing number of initiatives that buy their products straight from the farmer. These and other trends show that there is a shift in our society, a shift towards awareness of the industry and interest in climate control. The upcoming trends have opened up the debate of sustainability of food production, gaining global attention. However, despite these trends the effective change remains limited. It is only a minor group of people who actually dive in the facts of sustainable food production an actually act. Furthermore, it is hard to define ‘real sustainability’ in the food industry. Many people think they contribute to a better climate, by buying certified products. These products have an image of being sustainable, however one who dives into the qualities of the certification labels will notice that there is a huge difference between ‘sustainability’; some labels make hardly a difference at all. It is thus hard to define the right choice, due to the separated layers of the industry. Despite this, sustainability of agriculture must be taken serious. Kyle Davis illustrates this:

“There is a widespread agreement that food production needs to increase substantially while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts, an approach known as sustainable intensification.” (Kyle F. Davis, 2016) Sustainable food production needs an acceleration. This acceleration can only be achieved when applying the sustainable concept over multiple layers of the industry. When sustainability of the agricultural industry is considered in its entirety and in its eternity, starting from the place where products are grown to the place where food is consumed, true sustainability will be found. Food consumption is a driver of the development of the industry. In order to make a real impact, the sustainable awareness of food consumption needs to rise. For then, if both farmers and consumers act to sustainability, it can become a true driver of change. “The food production and distribution network needs to be considered in its eternity.” (Norton, 2016)

Research questions The problem being addressed in this research is the environmental impact of biodiversity loss as a result of monoculture cultivation, and the distanced relation of food production with food consumption. In responds to this problem this research attempts to find a sustainable solution for agricultural production that preserves and improves biodiversity in the agricultural landscape for it is believed that this is key and the foremost important start towards sustainable food production. Relating to the social trends, this research attempts to raise sustainable awareness of the food, for when people’s consciousness of the food industry grows, it can become a driver of change. Without the support of consumer a shift of the industry is hard to reach. Therefor I seek for a balance in both an ecological and social answer to the problem addressed. The program defined for this thesis demands both a landscape design as well as an architectural design. The landscape design responding to the ecological quest of this research, finding sustainability of food production in preserving biodiversity. This is followed by an architectural design that complements the system of sustainable agriculture by a like-minded processing unit,

so that a prominent place of processing is created for these carefully grown products. The architectural design will act as the link between the social and ecological quest, by (re)connecting visitors of the processing unit with the origin of food production by means of a new experience of food. This has led to the following research question: ‘How can an architectural design of a sustainable food production concept provide a stage for sustainable food production, and so be a driver of change giving back meaning to the countryside?’ The answer to this question is attempted to be found with the use of two sub questions: ‘How can a new farming concept respond to the challenges and danger we have to face in future regarding the loss of biodiversity?’ ‘How can the architecture of a food processing and consumption unit give meaning to the new farming concept driving the image of sustainable farming?’

II. THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK

The solution envisioned is a new agricultural concept improving biodiversity where nature and agriculture enhance each other. This is complemented by an architectural concept that integrates social awareness. A concept that gives (back) sustainable meaning to places in the countryside. It is therefore a total revision of current (industrial) farming methods, considering the industry as a whole. The approach to this solution is giving answer to the ecological question by revising the farming methods, and giving answer to the social question by creating sustainable awareness through opening the food processing industry to consumers. Therefor food production, food processing and food consumption come together. A healthy ecological base for agriculture is generated by means of a landscape design, in which a food processing unit and consumption are included from which a social concept is elaborated by means of an architectural design. The philosophy from which this research departs is establishing a healthy reconnection between nature and agriculture, for it is believed that these two can enhance each other instead of work against each other. This reasoning has led to two leading principles that define the basis of the research towards a sustainable solution for

agricultural production; a solution that preserves and improves biodiversity in the agricultural landscape. The principles of Europe’s ecological network, and the principle of agroecological farming. First, this research relates to Europe’s (natural) ecosystem network. The European Union acknowledges the alarming decline of specie variety and habitat loss and in responds to this, in 1979, they have launched the Natura 2000 network (European Commission, 2017). This network is brought to existence with the aim to give halt to biodiversity loss by protecting and preserving selected (natural) sites within the European Union. The selected sites work together (re-)establish a strong ecological network contributing to Europe’s climate change resilience. It forms therefor a consistent base for the preservation of Europe’s biodiversity. This research makes a literal connection to the network, to contribute to it and for it is seen as strong base from which an agricultural concept can be elaborated.

the farmland. The principles of agroecological farming complement this approach. The strategy of agroecological farming is to mimic natural ecosystems that provide the desired ecosystem services for agriculture (Third World Network and SOCLA, 2015). The main driver of agroecological farming is diversification and the implementation of functional biodiversity. The principles of Europe’s ecosystem and agroecological farming are further explained in the next paragraphs.

Second, this research relates to ecological approaches in the farming system. It searches for actual sustainable farming methods at the location itself, focussing on the diversification of 23

Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecosystem Natura 2000

The Natura 2000 network counts over 25.000 protected sites stretching across all member states of the European Union, accounting for 18 percent of the European Union land and 6 percent of its marine territory (European Commission, 2017). The selection of ecological sites that are included in the Natura 2000 network is based on the Bird- and Habitat Directive, which describe scientific criteria for the selection of the areas and contain lists of both natural habitats and animals (and their habitat) that should be maintained in Europe (Figure 2.1) (European Commission, 2017). In the Netherlands 166 sights are designated to Natura 2000 covering 1,1 million hectares of which 69 percent are designated water areas and 31 percent land areas (Regiegroep Natura 2000, 2016; van â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;t Hof, 2011). The selected areas are not only natural sites, but also include sites of agriculture, shipping and fishing or sand and stone extraction (Regiegroep Natura 2000, 2016). The sites have been given juridical protection as in the Netherlands the Directives have been translated in the Nature Conservation Act of 1998 and in the law of Flora and Fauna. However, the network is not meant to exclude human activity in the areas or create strictly protected natural sites (Andela et al, 2011). Instead the network invites human 24

Habitat Directive Sites Bird Directive Sites

Figure 2.1 - Natura 2000 Network. Adapted from European Environment Agency (2012)

activity and finds a sustainable management in balancing economical needs with the ecological demands of the site. The network searches for a solution where human activity and nature mutually reinforce each other, rather than counteract on each other, as is illustrated by the vision of the European Commission: “The approach to conservation and sustainable use of the Natura 2000 areas is much wider, largely centred on people working with nature rather than against it.” – (European Commission, 2017) Natura 2000 is a boundary crossing perspective to the preservation of Europe’s biodiversity, however each member state has to act to it individually. In 2010 all Natura 2000 sites have been selected . The member states have since had three years of deliberation and created a management plan, after which it should have been brought to execution. In order to meet both the ecological and economic objectives, the management of the sites should be a deliberate process of discussion and cooperation between all partners working in the area and ecological experts. By 2018 each member state is required to have finished their goals and declare their responsibility to the European Union (European Commission, 2017).

1 2 3 4

Ecological goal Strengthen the quality of living areas for the red dear Conservation of biodiversity on a national scale Conservation of biodiversity on a regional scale Conservation of biodiversity in unforeseen circumstances

Requirements Enable migration in between the habitats of the red dears Linking of habitats on a national scale Making new habitats more accessible Creating diversion possibilities for new habitats in unforeseen circumstances

Figure 2.2 - Ecological goals and their requirements to achieve them. Translated from Alterra (2001) p.33

Ecologische Hoofd Structuur

Parallel to the Natura 2000, the Netherlands has developed their own plan of action in order to give halt to biodiversity loss; the ‘Ecologische Hoofd Structuur‘ (EHS) (Compendium voor de Leefomgeving, 2017). The EHS and the Natura 2000 network have been developed around the same time and in fact, the EHS has even been a model for the Natura 2000 network (van 't Hof, 2011). It has similar aims as the Natura 2000 network, but performs at a national level and covers a wider range of habitats as it consist of not only designated Natura 2000 sites, but also includes “the 20 National Nature parks, newly planned nature sites, agricultural areas managed by agricultural nature management and six million

hectare of waters.” (Atlas Leefomgeving, 2017). The EHS main target is to solve habitat fragmentation and to prevent further habitat loss, responding to the two incidents accounted most significant regarding biodiversity loss (Alterra, 2001). To achieve these ambitions the EHS has defined four ecological goals, that are translated in a design approach. The four ecological goals (Figure 2.2) describe the motives for conserving biodiversity by connecting the designated nature sites in order to strengthen spatial cohesion, and enhancing the quality of the habitat of the red deer in order to enable migration (Alterra, 2001). So therefore, The EHS’s purpose is not to exclusively maintain 25

the selected habitats, but additionally connect them to create a robust ecological network. Subsequently, the interaction between the nature sites increases for animals can migrate between different suitable habitats, contributing to the local ecosystem of the nature sites. This has positive effects on the ecosystem resilience. The realisation of a green infrastructure strengthens the ecosystem, it enables the ecosystem to re-establish itself when facing disturbance and therefor the network sustains resilience to climate changes and environmental impacts (Atlas Leefomgeving, 2017) In order to establish the ambition of creating a strong ecological network, the Nota ‘Natuur voor mensen, mensen voor natuur’ of 2001 has formulated the realisation of six robust connections that cross the Netherlands and join the most significant areas; the ecological cores (LNV, 2000). Furthermore, National Park ‘De Veluwe’ forms the core of the ecological network of the Netherlands. To realize its functioning for the network, an additional ten connections are established from De Veluwe to the network. Together the robust connections form the main arteries of the ecological network and De Veluwe is its booming heart (Figure 2.3). They are key to the strength and resilience of the Netherland’s 26

Robust connections Netherlands Robust connections Veluwe Sites part of the Ecologische Hoofd Structuur

Figure 2.3 - Ecologische Hoofdstructuur with robust connections highlighted. Adapted from Dienst voor het kadaster en de openbare registers (2007)

Agroecological farming ecosystem (Alterra, 2001). The policy of the robust connections is nature first! Its function is to overcome boundaries that are responsible for habitat fragmentation. However, the Nota envisions that wherever possible the robust connections should integrate recreation, cultural history and landscape quality and so invite human activity in the ecological structure. It then becomes more than just an ecological route. It forms a harmonious cohesion of humans and nature (LNV, 2000), connecting multiple layers of ecology and society. It thus so shares the same philosophy as the Natura 2000 network and relates to this research as it defends both a social and ecological solution (Alterra, 2001). By 2005 the exact boundaries of the robust connections were defined, after which the ambition was set to have it executed by 2018 the latest in order to have a strong performing network in 2020 (LNV, 2000). However, one can be sceptical whether these agreements will be met. Nature-management in Netherlands has had a lot of struggles to overcome since its ambitious start in 2001. The budget cuts for environmental management by the government forced the development of the EHS abruptly in the years of the economic crisis, resulting in a delay of the development of the EHS (van â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;t

Hof, 2011). In 2014 this was called to a halt, as ecologist plead for the importance of the EHS. However, it was figured that a new plan should be formed, meeting the new requirements, working with a new budget. As a result, the Ecologische Hoofd Structuur (EHS) transformed in the Nederlands Natuur Netwerk (NNN). The NNN, that now operates as the former EHS has kept the same goals and policy as the EHS and therefor guards the robust connections. The new plans as formulated in the NNN cover a total area of 695.000 hectare and have an delivery time of 12 years as it should be finished by 2027 (Compendium voor de Leefomgeving, 2017).

The understanding that agriculture needs to invest in sustainability is evident, as is previously discussed in the literature review. In the last twenty years many research is done and many attempts are made to the sustainability in agriculture. Twenty years ago, the concept of sustainability has had its focus on the reduction of pests and nutrition deficiencies, for they were believed to be leading cause of decreasing productivity of the land and having negative environmental impacts. Over time the problem of limiting natural resources was acknowledged, turning the sustainable perspective towards nutrition efficiency (Altieri, 1995). Both perspectives have led to the development of improved intensive farming systems and new technology that permits limited use of natural resources, chemical input and chemical protection. However, the practises of agriculture itself remains rather unchanged, and therefor up until today the sustainable act in agriculture remains highly technical, largely focussing on productivity. There has not been a significant change showing a true shift of the industry. In fact, monoculture cultivation has even increased in size, still inducing soil depletion and nutrition erosion on a large scale. This is going to change, the alarming effects of monoculture cultivation become more and more recognized, and 27

both farmers and researchers are conceding the disturbing situation, a new sustainable movement is recognized. A movement that departs from an ecological point of view as it focusses on the ecological effects and the role of agriculture in the local ecosystem, opposed to production efficiency (Altieri, 1995). â&#x20AC;&#x153;It is through this deeper understanding of the ecology of agricultural systems that doors will open to new management options more in tune with the objectives of a truly sustainable agriculture. [â&#x20AC;Ś] In the search to reinstate more ecological rationale into agricultural production, scientists and developers have disregarded a key point in the development of a more self-sufficient and sustaining agriculture: a deep understanding of the nature of agroecosystems and the principles by which they function. â&#x20AC;? (Altieri, 1995) Instead of being narrow focussed on the sustainability of the production, it has opened to a wider perspective where agriculture is seen as part of a complex system, interrelating with the social, ecological, economic and political system. And therefor it pleads that sustainability should also be found by means of a broader approach, addressing its interrelated role in the ecological system (Altieri, 1995). 28

1 2 3 4 5

Enhance recycling of biomass and optimizing nutrient availability and balancing nutrient flow. Securing favourable soil conditions for plant growth, particularly by managing organic matter and enhancing soil biotic activity. Minimizing losses due to flows of solar radiation, air and water by way of microclimate management, water harvesting and soil management through increased soil cover. Species and genetic diversification of the agroecosystem in time and space. Enhance beneficial biological interactions and synergisms among agrobiodiversity components thus resulting in the promotion of key ecological processes and services.

Figure 2.4 - Five principles that form the basics of agroecological farming. Cited from Third World Network and SOCLA (2015) p.8 Monoculture cultivation has only limited actors in its ecosystem, having almost no ecosystem services integrated. As a consequence, it results in high demands for external inputs such as artificial nutrition and chemicals to prevent diseases and pests (Third World Network and SOCLA, 2015). In a strong and healthy ecosystem these external inputs are eliminated due to its large (bio)diversity, for the interaction of a large and diverse amount of actors provide ecosystem services; working as a self-regulating system building on exchange of input and output. Therefore the functional (bio)diversity within an ecosystem is key to its resilience and responds regarding big environmental impacts. Considering this fact, diversification of the

farming systems is thought-out the first and foremost step towards sustainability (Altieri, 1999; Kremen, Iles, & Bacon, 2012). Shifting from monoculture cultivation towards diversified cultivation will introduce ecosystem services within the agricultural ecosystem. Subsequently, the system will become a self-regulating network of exchanges of important nutrition, soil building and pollination. And when achieving so, it will naturally suppress pests or diseases. This approach towards sustainable farming is called agroecological farming (Kremen, Iles, & Bacon, 2012). Learning from nature, agroecology formulates five principles based on the ecological principles

Location of nature that form the basics of agroecological farming (Figure 2.4). Applying these principles in the farming system will result in a selfregulating system with environmental benefits. The system then provides high quality ecological processes; it provides its own soil fertility, natural pest regulations, increased nutrition cycle, etc (Kremen, Iles, & Bacon, 2012). Agroecological farming requires a drastic shift considering the traditional farming systems, however the environmental benefits will earn success . Once a strong self-regulating ecosystem is build its effects will continue to spread to neighbouring sites, as interactions with other ecosystems will be established. It will eventually create an exchange of services for nature too, contributing to and benefitting from the natural ecosystem. Agroecology and nature work together and establish one strong network of ecosystem services (Altieri, 1999). Therefor in this research agroecological farming is considered as topic of interest for its philosophy relates to the philosophy of this research; a symbiosis of nature and food production.

The Ecologische Hoofd Structuur and the system of agroecological farming share the same objectives; preserving and improving biodiversity. Applying both principles at the same location foresees an impulse to the ecological network; the symbioses of a robust connection and agroecological farming develop in a coherent ecosystem of strong resilience. It finds its trust in (functional) biodiversity that develop important ecosystem services relevant for both. When these two concepts are applied together, they enhance each other and improve each other for they can stimulate and exchange in ecosystem services. Instead of the agricultural land working against the natural ecosystem, it now works together with it, increasing the size of the ecological network, subsequently increasing the impact and resilience of the ecological network. For this thesis it was tried to find a location where both concepts could be executed, to generate a strong base on which the architectural concept can be elaborated. A place that contributes and interacts with neighbouring ecosystems and so contributes to climate change mitigation (on a larger scale). To strengthen its effects, one of the robust connections of the EHS is considered the most interesting. Eventually, the location assigned for this case-

study is Middachterbeek (Figure 2.5); a landscape about 14 kilometres west of Arnhem, and 14 kilometres east of Doetinchem. This location consists one of the ten robust connections of the Veluwe to the EHS envisioned, and is currently dominated by agricultural businesses. It thus meets the criteria that it is both an agricultural area as well as designated to a robust connection of the ecological network. However, the ecological connection isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t established yet and thus still missing in the landscape. It covers 15 square kilometres and is clearly defined by the boundaries of the river and edge of the Veluwe Zoom (Figure 2.8 & 2.9). This is figured a suitable site to work in, for it is convenient in size, yet of significant scale to make an impact. It has a wide variety of land type surrounding it, so that it is possible to interact with a lot of different sites and ecotypes (Figure 2.6).

Location analysis

The location is accessible by the highway and the provincial way crossing the site in two directions (Figure 2.10). These two main routes connect the villages of Doesburg, Rheden and Dieren to the rest of the Netherlands. In addition, these routes function as the main gateway to the adjacent Nature Park the Veluwe 29

Veluwe Zoom Zoom (Figure 2.6). The Veluwe Zoom attracts 2 million visitors every year (Omroep Gelderland, 2017), who go there for leisure activities. These include walking, cycling, horse-riding and activities as bird-spotting and wildlife spotting (Natuurmonumenten, 2017). The visitor centre in Rheden is the main starting point for many visitors to start their journey. The centre provides information on the park and guides for several walking and cycling routes going through the park but also going to Doesburg, Doetinchem, Didam and Zevenaar. Furthermore it facilitates a bicycle rental. Doesburg, located at the other side of the Middachterbeek, is a nearby village that is well-visited for its protected cityscape (Gemeente Doesburg, 2017). The old city, a typical Hanzestad, was formed in 1237 and therefore holds a rich historical centre of beautiful old architecture. It is a wellrecommended city by the information centre of the Veluwe Zoom, and is included in some recommended routes. The Middachterbeek in this story is at the centre of activities. The area is included in multiple â&#x20AC;&#x153;knooppuntenroutesâ&#x20AC;? (Figure 2.11), the Dutch bicycle route system, which is popular among tourists and visitors. (Fietsnetwerk, 2017; Nederland Fietsland, 2017). These routes open 30

Robust connections Veluwe Ecological connection zones Figure 2.5 - Middachterbeek; the assigned location for this thesis.

the site to tourism. The area thus functions as a transfer for people, at any rate in a pleasant way. On the whole it is a rich area, as it holds many qualities worth visiting, what makes the place suitable for this case-study. Due to its many visitors the architectural design can become a well-visited place too. To illustrate the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s character the geography is analysed. The area of Middachterbeek consist of agricultural land, dominated by cow farms (Regiobedrijf, 2017). This is visualised by widespread grasslands, alternated with maize land that function as food production for the cows. Analysing the area by maps and a visit to the area, the area of Middachterbeek gives a slight hint of the typical old-Dutch countryside. Especially the south of the Middachterbeek connects to the dense forests of the Veluwe and includes several ecological functions at the agriculture field boundaries and forestry within the agricultural site. This gives variation and holds ecological qualities within. Whereas the north part of the area is characterised by open fields and structured nature planning. Therefore, it could be said that the area is characterized by a gradient of a more dense structure in the south, to a more open structure in the north (Figure 2.12). This means that the

area, despite its monoculture, has ecological functions incorporated. However, they are only limited, and therefor this site is still considered interesting for this research. Other ecological functions are present by the river surrounding the site and small waters surrounding the fields. The Ijssel running along the Middachterbeek provides the main water for the water management of the farmland. Actors that are attracted by these ecological functions are field birds and farm birds.

Dieren

Veluwe Zoom

Ellecom

Rheden Middachterbeek Doesburg

Figure 2.6 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; variation of ecotypes surrounding the area. Adapted from Google Maps (2017)

Figure 2.7 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; linedrawing 33

Veluwe Zoom

34 Ecological connection zones

Figure 2.8 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; ecological connection zones participating in EHS. Adapted from Atlas Gelderland (2017), map layer â&#x20AC;&#x2122;Ecologische verbindingzonesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

Ecological connection zones

Figure 2.9 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; water 35

Main roads 36 Agricultural roads

Figure 2.10 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; infrastructure

Knooppuntenroute Regional paths

Figure 2.11 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; ‘knooppuntenroutes’ and touristic regional paths. Adapted from PDOK Viewer (2017), map layer ‘knooppuntennetwerk’ and ‘streekpaden’. 37

38 Natural vegetation

Figure 2.12 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; natural vegetation

Figure 2.13 - Middachterbeek 1:30.00; all analysis layers combined 39

Program Despite the fact that the area is designated to be a robust connection of the EHS, connecting the Veluwe to the network, this connection is still missing. Due to delayed development of the EHS, or currently NNN, the area hasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t been redesigned yet. However, the first implementations of ecological functions are visible, which is the extended use of agricultural borders for ecological functions. This research elaborates on the current situation. The concept is to form a symbiosis of the ecological structure and agroecological farming (Figure 2.14). To achieve this, both principles as discussed above are implemented in a landscape design tim preserve and improve biodiversity. By means of these principles a sustainable area holding a strong ecosystem is realized. Furthermore, it is considered that the products grown in this sustainable area should have a special treatment of processing and consumption, to enhance their sustainable meaning. It would be a pity if they end up in the supermarket in the same basket as other (non-sustainable) products, after their sustainable growth-treatment. Therefor a food processing unit is designed that includes selling and consumption. The process is thus open for public and is taken as an opportunity to create 40

sustainable awareness among consumers. Whereas ecology, food processing and food consumption are now three paths that work separate from each other, in this design they are brought together interacting with each other. The concept is to intertwine the production and consumption line within a healthy ecological field of food production, so that a reconnection to food production and food processing is achieved among consumers, which is considered the basis for sustainable awareness (Figure 2.15). Two concepts are thus formulated, an ecological concept and a social concept, expressing the aims of the program. These two concepts are elaborated in a landscape design and an architectural design, which are further explained in chapter three and chapter four of this book.

NATURAL ECOSYSTEM SYMBIOSIS AGRICULTURE

IMPROVE BIODIVERSITY Figure 2.14 - Concept 1; symbiosis natural ecosystem and agriculture

ECOLOGY PROCESSING

PROCESSING CONSUMPTION

CONSUMPTION

ECOLOGY Figure 2.15 - Concept 2; intertwine the production and consumption line within a healthy ecological field of food production 41

III. LANDSCAPE DESIGN

The landscape design revises the total area of the location, implementing the theories of the Ecologische Hoofd Structuur and agroecological farming, which are previously discussed in chapter two. The design is based on the ecological qualities that the area holds, as it relates to the geography and existing ecological qualities of the site. The design keeps the original structure of the farming fields as a base. Furthermore the design responds to the described gradient, and emphasizes this quality of the area when implementing the robust connection and agroecological farming. The robust connection between the Veluwe to Bingerden within the agroecological field is implemented as such that the qualities of the natural ecosystem are contributing to the agroecological ecosystem and vice versa. This thesis suggests the correct implementation of the robust connection and the transformation to agroecological farming as a method to bring nature and agriculture together, for it facilitates ground for interaction providing ecosystem services and so a establishes a strong ecological connection. The landscape design is considered the foundation of sustainable food production, forming the basis for an architectural design of a sustainable food processing unit.

The robust connection is envisioned as two natural routes of distinct qualities to enable meaningful animals to bridge the Middachterbeek from the Veluwe to Bingerden; a land route and an air route (Figure 3.1). The land route, positioned in the south requires more dense characteristics as land-animals prefer regular presence of shelter and protection on their journey. The air route is positioned in the north as meaningful birds and animals are satisfied with low vegetation and open fields, and furthermore they provide ecosystem services for farming fields. Agroecological farming is based on diversity, and therefor includes a wide variety of products grown. Relating to the gradient of the area, the products are spread according to their preferred ecotype in which they grow, introducing the plants dependant on pollination in the open fields of the north, and the grassy vegetative types in the south (Figure 3.2).

other. It is then expected that an exchange of ecosystem services established between the agricultural land and the natural land. Together they strengthen and emphasize the dense-open gradient in the area and create different ecotypes contributing to the diversification of the area. A principle that is considered to be named separately is buffers. In the design buffer zones - consisting of water and uncontrolled nature area - are integrated. Buffers are functional for both agroecological farming and for the robust connection and thus integrated in both principles. Buffers increase the quality of the environment (Alterra, 2001). Water buffers increase hydrological qualities and combat drought in dry times. Nature buffers increase the air quality by capturing particulate matter and toxics generated by agriculture (such as nitrogen and sulphate). They thus have an ecological important function.

By applying the gradient to both the robust connection and the agroecological farming, it is expected that a platform for exchange and interaction is created. Nature and agriculture will work together, since their ecosystems relate to the gradient and thus relate to each 45

Figure 3.1 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; concept robust connection

Figure 3.2 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; concept agroecological farming 47

Robust connection The goals of a robust connection is to overcome boundaries that are responsible for the fragmentation of habitats (Alterra, 2001). It creates exchanges of habitats on regional and national level. Consequently, the design of a robust ecological connection has very strict criteria and high demands. In order to provide an overview in the long list of requirements, and to generate a homogenous approach for all robust connection in Netherlands, the organization of the Ecologische Hoofd Structuur in the Netherlands has produced a handbook to design and construct a robust connection; a handbook that covers all specifications and requirements per robust connection and introduces a method on how to design a strong ecological structure (Alterra, 2001). This is used as a guide to design the robust connection in the Middenachterbeek. The robust connection connects the Veluwe Zoom with Bingerden. The design brief for this connection according to the handbook, is of the highest ambition level (Alterra, 2001). The ambition level defines what ecological goals have to be met. The ambition level of this robust connection is B3+; it means that it has to meet all four ecological ambitions as formulated in chapter two. The rules are therefore strict and tight, leaving hardly any room for flexibility and 48

it should have no disturbance by agriculture (Alterra, 2001). Despite this, the ambition to connect it with agriculture is still set, as it is believed that agriculture could be a contribution to the robust connection, instead of a disruption. The design method as proposed by the handbook is to abstract the route to three elements, the corridor, steppingstones and key areas (Figure 3.3) (Alterra, 2001). The corridor is a strip of nature that runs from one habitat to the other. Depending on the distance between the habitats, the corridor is alternated with steppingstones and key areas. These are areas where animals can have a short rest of a few hours to regain power to continue their journey (steppingstone), or areas where the animals stay for a long rest or even live for a while before continuing their journey to the next habitat (keyarea). The distance between the habitats, key areas or steppingstones - the profile of the connection - is unique for each animal. The handbook has listed these requirements of each animal profile for the 53 most important animals for the Ecologische Hoofd Structuur in the Netherlands in terms of dimensions as well as type of vegetation (Alterra, 2001). These profiles are taken as a guide for the design.

The distance between the Veluwe and Bingerden measures 5 km. The animals that are most desired to take part in the robust connection to the Middachterbeek are the red deer, the tree marten, the adder and the silver moon butterfly. Alongside these four animals of significant importance for the ecological connection are the grass snake, the Nordic wool mouse, the heather frog, the heather butterfly and the bittern. In the comparison of their preferred nature type to travel in, the mammals are designated to the land route and the birds and insects are designated to the air route. Furthermore, bees and field birds are added to the air route, for these animals contribute to the pollination of agricultural products and the soil quality of the fields. The animalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s favoured (travel-)habitat and their requirements, based on the information of the handbook, are visualised (Figure 3.4 &3.6). The arrows define the scaled travel distanced from key area to key area. Steppingstones do not interrupt the travelled distanced, but are part of it. The conceptual representation for the connection are added to a combined route (Figure 3.5 &3.7), which are then projected on the landscape of the Middachterbeek area (Figure 3.10). The vegetation of the route is adapted to

Nature area A

Nature area B

Steppingstone

Corridor

Key area

Nature area A

Nature area B

Figure 3.3 - Method to design the profile of the robust connection. Adapted from Alterra (2001), p.47 the preferred habitats of the animals (Figure 3.8 &3.9), and to the native vegetation of the area. Native vegetation provide the highest quality ecosystem services for the area (Flora van Nederland, 2017; Staatsbosbeheer & WUR, 2017). Native plants are fully adapted to the climate they live in, which give them a natural ecosystem resilience. Furthermore, native plants attract

native insects which contribute to the ecosystem resilience for the same reason. The result is two routes. The land route is vegetated with forestry, heath and wetlands as main ecotypes. This is alternated with small grasslands. The air route is vegetated with regular fields and flower fields as main ecotypes,

alternated with hedgerows, small waters and tree rows at the field-borders. The native vegetation implemented in the area is derived from the Dutch â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Genenbankâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an organization that keeps track of native plants per area in the Netherlands (Staatsbosbeheer & WUR, 2017). 49

Otter

Heather frog Nordic woolmouse

Grass snake Tree marten

Adder

Red deer

Combined robust connection

5 km

Figure 3.4 - Conceptual representation of profiles for the robust connection per animal; land route 50

Combined robust connection land route

Key area

Corridor

Veluwe Zoom

Bingerden

1,2 km

5 km

Forestry, grasslands Heather, grasslands Wetlands, water streams

Figure 3.5 - The combined profile for the robust connection; land route 51

Roerdomp Other birds Bees Silver Moon Heather butterfly

+ 5 km Figure 3.6 - Conceptual representation of profiles for the robust connection per animal; air route

Combined robust connection air route

Steppingstones

Key area

Veluwe Zoom

Bingerden

1,5 km

5 km

Grasslands Flowerfields Heather

Figure 3.7 - The combined profile for the robust connection; air route 53

Veluwe Zoom

thicket

forest

Bingerden

rough

grass

heath

wetlands

Figure 3.8 - Impression of the vegetation applied in the robust connection profile; land route 54

Veluwe Zoom

willow trees

Bingerden

hedgerows ivy

ﬁelds

ﬂowerﬁelds

pond

wetlands

Figure 3.9 - Impression of the vegetation applied in the robust connection profile; land route 55

Forestry, grasslands Heather, grasslands Wetlands, water streams Grasslands Flowerfields 56 Heather

Figure 3.10 - Middactherbeek 1:30.000; implementation of conceptual profiles of the robust connection

Figure 3.10 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; implementation of the robust connection in the landscape design 57

Agroecological farming Plot Plot

Field Field

Polycultures Polycultures Crop-Livestock Crop-Livestock mix mix

Crop Crop rotation rotation Cover Cover crops crops Fallow Fallow ﬁeld ﬁeld

Landscape Landscape

Hedgerow Hedgerow Buﬀerzone Buﬀerzone

Riperian corridors corridors Riperian Agroforestry Agroforestry Meadows Meadows

Natural areas areas Natural

Figure 3.11 - Landscape characteristics of agroecological farmin from small scale (left) to large scale (right). Adapted from Kremen, Iles, & Bacon (2012) p.3 “Polycultures: Cropping systems in which two or more crop species are planted within certain spatial proximity, resulting in biological complementarities that improve nutrient use efficiency and pest regulation.”

“Crop-livestock mixtures: High biomass output and optimal nutrient recycling can be achieved through crop-animal integration. Animal production enhances total productivity without need of external inputs.”

“Crop rotations: Temporal diversity in the form of cereal-legume sequences. Nutrients are conserved and provided from one season to the next, and the life cycles of insect pest, diseases and weeds are interrupted”

“Cover crops and mulching: The use of pure mixed stands of grass-legumes, e.g., under fruit trees can reduce erosion and provide nutrients to the soil and enhance biological control of pests.”

“Green manure: Are fast-growing plants sown to cover bare soil. Their foliage smothers weeds their roots prevent soil erosion. When dug into the ground while still green, they return valuable nutrients to the soil.”

“Agroforestry systems: Trees grown together with annual crops in addition to modifying the microclimate, maintain and improve soil fertility.”

Figure 3.12 - Definitiions of agroecological principles. Cited from Third World Network and SOCLA (2015) p.10 The second intervention is the transformation of the farmland from monoculture cultivation to agroecological farming. The purpose of 58

agroecological farming is introducing diversity to the farm landscape (Kremen, Iles, & Bacon, 2012). This intervention requires a shift in

the farming culture as well as landscape characteristics. The landscape characteristics of agroecological farming can be described

from small scale on the plot to large scale in the landscape (Figure 3.11). When zooming in and out, different landscape elements are highlighted which are part of agroecological farming. Considering one single plot or field, polycultures and crop-livestock mixtures introduce diversity at a very small scale (Kremen, Iles, & Bacon, 2012; Third World Network and SOCLA, 2015). In one single plot only, already more than 25 different food products can be grown. However, this does require intense care and manual labour. Furthermore, the incorporation of animals on the plot will result in natural nutrition by manure and more ecosystem services. When scaling up to a multitude of fields, crop rotation, cover crops and fallow fields are applied. In this principle the rotation provides ecosystem services and cover drops or fallow fields prevent soil erosion or depletion. At the borders of agricultural fields, ecological functions are incorporated by means of hedgerows and buffer zones, which contribute to the larger ecosystem. These attracts a multitude of functional birds and insects to the farmland, improving the quality of the environment as a whole. When considering a large landscape, eventually the implementation of agroforestry, meadows or even including nature in the plan will provide ecosystem

services, to such extend that in can become a self-regulating area (Kremen, Iles, & Bacon, 2012; Third World Network and SOCLA, 2015). The principles of agriculture are thus applicable at any scale, all contributing to the diversification of the farmed land.

Implementation in design

The landscape design of Middachterbeek has all principles incorporated. The transformation to the new agroecological landscape is based on the original morphology of the current fields. The area already has important ecological functions incorporated, such as hedgerows and small buffer zones. Therefor the design is based on the historical outlines of the fields for it is believed they have good reasons to be shaped like this and it holds functional qualities. These are enhanced in the landscape design. The two most important integrated principles of agroecological farming that are significant for the landscape design are crop rotation and the implementation of ecological functions at borders of the fields. Crop rotation is a yearly change of products grown in a field, with the purpose of a continuous natural nutrition flow in the soil (Figure 3.13) (Altieri, 1995; Third World Network and SOCLA,

2015). Every plant-type takes specific nutrients from the soil, and gives other nutrients back to the soil (Figure 3.14). If a plot is grown with one single plant only every year, which is dependant of nutrient type A, the soil has no exchange of products due to the monotonous vegetation, and eventually will be depleted of nutrient type A. By yearly rotating the plant-type grown in the soil, an exchange of nutrients is established. Due to the variation in vegetation, a variation of nutrient types is demanded and given back to the soil. The nutrition flow of the soil is a continuously changing process, keeping the soil alive and preventing depletion. At the borders of the fields a multitude of ecological functions is integrated (Figure 3.15). This is shaped by the introduction of flower strips, hedgerows, or tree strips. These strips will attracts multiple actors such as birds and insect that bring new ecosystem services to the area, which can strengthen the agricultural fields. Furthermore, birds and insect help preventing diseases and pests, and contribute to the pollination of the products grown. Therefor a natural cycle of disease- and pest- management in integrated, and natural pollination . This reduces manual labour in pollination and the use of pesticides (Altieri, 1995; 1999). 59

Year 1

Year 2

Legumes

Legumes A

Year 4

Figure 3.13 - A yearly change of product grown on the fields, keeping the nutrition flow of the soil circular Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Year 1

Year 3

Roots

Fruits A

Roots

Leafs B

Fruits

Leafs

Figure 3.14 - Exchange of nutrients due to different types of plants grown on the field 60

Water

FlowerďŹ eld

Hedgerows

Trees

Figure 3.15 - Using the agricultural borders for the integration of ecological funtions 61

A scale up

Up until now, agroecological farming is mostly seen on a small scale, performed by individual farmers (Kremen, Iles, & Bacon, 2012). The practises of agroecological farming, since it is focussed on diversification, require a lot of different products in one farm. The farmer thus has to be an expert on a large amount of products. Furthermore, every plant needs different requirements. Therefore, this method is labour intensive; it requires a lot of time and knowledge of the farmer. However, in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s industry every farmer is a specialist, and one cannot afford it anymore not to be. The specialization in agriculture has determined the industry, because due to specialization the production has risen to the level of today; a level that cannot be met by regular farmers anymore. The industry is hard; a farmer who misses in knowledge and time will have a lower production eventually will drop out of the industry. Specialization is thus very important to survive the industry. This thesis therefore proposes a scale-up of agroecological farming. A scale-up that maintains the specialization of the farmers, but still implements the diversification of agroecological farming by sharing land and 62

spreading the production according to the ecological demands. Instead of every farmer growing all products on his own land to achieve diversity of the landscape, the farmers will work on a larger scale and spread their specialized production over the shared land for diversity in the landscape (Figure 3.16). What this means for a farmer in this area is illustrated with a scenario. For example, a farmer who is specialized in growing leafplants â&#x20AC;&#x201C; such as salads and spinach â&#x20AC;&#x201C; owns 10 plots surrounding his farm. He decides to work together with the farmers network and shares his land. In the new scenario he will grow his products on again 10 plots, however these are spread over the entire area of Middachterbeek, according to the ecological division. Each year the division of the plots changes due to crop rotation, to maintain a natural nutrition flow of the soil. Therefor the farmer will work on different plots every year. In this way he will be able to maintain his specialism, and thus high production, but also contributes to a diverse and sustainable food production. This requires a mind-shift in the working method of farming, however soon the ecological

benefits will weigh up against the work-change. The Middachterbeek will be transformed to a continuously changing landscape of sustainable food production, where all farmers work together to maintain the diversity of the landscape, without giving up on their specialism. There are three types of fields; the cow fields, the orchards, and the rotation fields. The cowfields for dairy production consist of grass an maize land. They are situated in the south for they follow the character of the land route. The orchard fields consist of fruit trees and demand pollination. They are therefore integrated in the air route, for this area attracts bees and other functional insects for pollination (Figure 3.17). The rotation fields, dominating the area, are the shared and yearly changing fields which consist of legumes, roots, fruits and leaf-plants (Figure 3.18 &3.19). The area will eventually have 2 dairy farmers, 3 orchard farmers, 4 legume-product farmers, 4 root-product farmers, 4 fruit-product farmers and 4 leaf-product farmers who work together in the same land. Combined with the implementation of ecological functions at the field borders, the result is a continuously changing landscape of a rich (bio)diversity (Figure 3.21).

Leaf-products farmer Fruit-products farmer Root-products farmer Legume-products farmer Orchard farmer Dairy farmer

Figure 3.16 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; organogram - the upscale of agroecological farming creates a farmers network 63

Orchard farmer 64 Dairy farmer

Figure 3.17 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; fixed fields assigned to dairy farmers and orchard farmers

Leaf-products farmer Fruit-products farmer Root-products farmer Legume-products farmer

Figure 3.18 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; rotation fields - assigned to a different farmer each year 65

Year 1 66

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4 Figure 3.19 - Middachterbeek; changing landscape as a result of annual rotation of products grown on the rotation fields 67

Ecological functions at borders

Rotation fields Figure 3.20 - Middachterbeek; implementation of most important agroecological principles seperately highlightes

Figure 3.21 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; the combined result of the implementation of agroecological principles 69

Buffers On top of the implementation of the robust connection and agroecological farming, is the implementation of buffer zones (Figure 3.22). Because of their important ecological function, and because of their meaning to both the robust connection and agroecological farming, this paragraph highlights the integrated buffer zones. The buffers in this design consist of water and nature, and are already integrated by following the principles of both the robust connection and agroecological farming. The water buffers are based on the original morphology, which are extended. In order for the buffer zone to work, the water is more frequently connected to the Ijssel, running along the Middachterbeek. This creates a continuous flow of water through the area, providing easy water access to all fields and natural areas. The nature buffers find their place at the borders of the fields. The ecological implementation of water, hedgerows, flower strips and tree rows at the border of fields have a double effect. They attract and provide ecosystem services, which as a result works as a buffer for the area. Because the borders are of high ecological value, they are able to balance the less rich biodiversity of the farmlands. 70

Water buffer Nature buffer

Figure 3.22 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; implementation of buffer zones 71

Conclusion The landscape of Middachterbeek is restored to a healthy environment holding a selfregulating ecosystem. The combined result is an enhancement of the existing gradient in the area, giving opportunity to create different ecotypes within Middachterbeek. Similarly, both the robust connection and the agroecological fields are adapted to it (Figure 3.23).

the seasons by the production, for this is a cycle of young plants that grow out to edible products, which leave the fields empty when being harvested. The yearly change is defined by the rotation fields. Because of their annual rotation, the area will have a cycle in products grown. These changed give the area a dynamic experience.

Instead of nature and agriculture working against each other, this design implements these principles as such that they enhance each other. It is an excellent performance of a robust connection, that benefits from the agriculture surrounding it, as well as that it contributes to it. The same for agroecological farming. Due to the enabled exchange of ecosystem services, by both being implemented according to the ecotypes provided by the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gradient, nature and agriculture work together and form a symbiosis.

The landscape design thus answers the first sub question: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;How can a new farming concept respond to the challenges and danger we have to face in future regarding the loss of biodiversity?â&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The responds is a landscape design where farming and nature enhance each other. Furthermore, the upscale of agroecological farming contributes to efficient food production, while improving biodiversity. The farmers keep their specialization, but by means of working together in the landscape, together they provide important ecosystem services supporting large and healthy harvest of sustainably grown products. This concept, together with its connection to nature, preserve if not improve the biodiversity of the area and contribute to important ecological areas.

The design is characterized by a continuously changing landscape; both seasonal and annual (Figure 3.24 & 3.25). Because of the large presence of nature, the seasons give the area a different character every moment of the year for it holds a large variety of plants. Nature defines the seasons with colours and vegetation. Furthermore, the agroecological fields define 72

Figure 3.23 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; final landscape design 73

Figure 3.24 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; final landscape design connected to its environment

Figure 3.25 - Middachterbeek 1:30.000; final landscape design - gradient of seasons from summer in the north to winter in the south 75

IV. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

The architectural design forwards a new experience of food; its production, processing and consumption. It contains the processing of the sustainably grown products in the fields surrounding it, and opens up the process to the public. It follows the concept as formulated in chapter two, reconnecting food consumption with food processing within a healthy ecological field of food production. In current society the field of ecology, food processing and food consumption seem to work parallel, without interaction. The preliminary research illustrates the difficulty of getting into the scenes behind food production. However, society is changing and initiatives concerned about food production pop up. People have a growing interest in the origin of the products they buy and the slogan ‘think global, act local’ seems to find success in almost every advertisement about sustainable consumption (Schwarz, 2014). The concept for the architectural design relates to this, by letting people buy and consume food at the origin of production. In this way it attempts to create sustainable awareness in food production, as people will be involved in the whole process again. The industry of today’s society is experienced as closed and behind the scene; this concept opens it so that consumers become part of the scene.

The aim of this thesis is to revise the food production as a whole. It revises everything from the farming methods to the way people buy, eat and experience food. The landscape design has created an ecological healthy base for sustainable food production, focussing on agriculture. The architectural design continues on this, focussing on the production process and consumption of food production, bringing the sustainability of food production to a higher level. Food Futura – a new experience of food, presenting a stage for sustainable food production.

is characterised by a calm and dense nature structure, that is only passed through by (land) animals, slow traffic or agricultural traffic. The north is characterised by an open field structure, and busy crossings of people, cars, trucks, bees, butterflies and birds through the area. For Food Futura becoming a stage for sustainable food production, the busy character of the north appeals to it. It gives opportunity in connecting all elements and actors crossing the area, and being in the centre of the scene the building will not stay unnoticed.

To strengthen the concept and enhance its meaning, the aim of the building is for it to become part of the sustainable landscape and fulfil an ecological role in the design. It then becomes part of the ecosystem and thus forms an ecological base within which the food processing and consumption find a reconnection. Furthermore, it will enhance the envisioned experience of food considering that the experience already starts with the ecological meaning of the landscape, which is now imposed to the architectural concept. Therefor the location of the building is figured to be part of a key area in the robust connection. Given the gradient of the landscape design, the south 79

The designated location is along the main road unlocking the area, part of the main gateway to touristic destination surrounding the Middachterbeek (Figure 4.1). This gives Food Futura a prominent place and easy access for visitors, but also for farmers delivering their products ready for processing. The location is surrounded by rotation fields, the building being at the centre of rotation. Because of this positioning, the fields surrounding the building will have a different production every year. As a result, visiting the place will have a direct experience of the continuous changing landscape and the role of ecological health for the entire area. It is thus at the heart of where nature and agriculture work together.

Figure 4.1 - Location Food Futura 80

Program The program for the architectural design holds three dominant functions; Its function as a key area for animals in the robust connection, its function as food processing units and its function as food consumption. The key area and food processing demand specific criteria, and are therefore highlighted in the next paragraph. In the concept for the architectural design, food consumption and food processing will intertwine.

Key area

A key area can be used by animals as a short term resting place on their crossing to other ecological, as well as a long term resting place. A key area is defined as an area that provides food, shelter and nesting places for animals populations, to such extend that a population is able to survive without the risk of extinction (Alterra, 2001). The actors of the key area are the birds and insects as defined in chapter 3; the silver moon butterfly, the heather butterfly and the bittern, and added to this are bees and other butterflies for their ecological function of pollination. However, there are more actors attracted to the (key) area, due to the agricultural practises and implementation of buildings in the

agricultural fields; these are field birds and farm birds. These birds are considered too, for they provide ecosystem services for the agricultural fields such as disease and pest management. Therefor food, shelter and nesting places for these birds are included. The field birds that visit the area of Middachterbeek are the oyster cather (scholekster), the lapwing (kievit), godwit (grotto), redshank (tureluur), field lark (veldleeuwerik), titlark (graspieper) and yellow wagtail (gele kwikstaart) (Natuurkennis, 2017). The farm birds that are present in the area of Middachterbeek are the swallow (zwaluw), church owl (kerkuil), sparrow (mus), kestrel (torenvalk) and mocking bird (spotvogel) (Vogelbescherming Nederland, 2017). The animals participating in the robust connection consist mainly of insects. The bittern being the only bird is not a prominent actor of the key area, as for this bird there was no key area needed in between the two ecological zone. The bittern is able to cross up to 30 km without resting areas in between (handbook). Nevertheless, place is given to this animal, but on lower priority. The bittern prefers water-edges and reed for shelter and seeks insects in water and air. The insects participating in the robust connection demand medium-low vegetation up

to 6 meters (Figure 3.9). The bees and butterflies mainly find food and shelter in low vegetated flowery fields, however they are eager to fly up higher for food and shelter served from plants as the willow tree or ivy growing up a faรงade or tree (Milieu Centraal, 2017). The field birds are divided into two types of birds; the so called waders and singers (Natuurkennis, 2017). The waders (including the oyster catcher, lapwing, godwit and redshank)prefer to wade in water and wetlands. They seek shelter at wateredges, in reed and vegetation up to 1 meter. The singers (including the field lark, titlark and yellow wagtail) are more active in the air and seek shelter in low vegetation in the (agricultural) fields (Jansma & de Wit, 2016; Natuurkennis, 2017). In the current agricultural business, these services are hardly provided for animals, because every type of vegetation is mown down until the very edge of the water. However, these animals are of high value for the healthy ecosystem of agricultural fields. Researchers plead for reintegration of unmown water-edges and a diversity of vegetation at the borders of fields (Jansma & de Wit, 2016). The farm birds listed by the Dutch Bird Protection organization are on the red list 81

Figure 4.2 - Habitat and nesting (heigth) requirements per animal of extinction, because of their population is decreasing fast. In the past decades farms and farmlands have become neat habitats, leaving 82

hardly any small places or corners for these birds to nest. The Dutch Bird Protection organization therefor calls for more places for these birds.

Farm birds generally prefer a higher nesting habitat, associated with their nesting in trees (Vogelbescherming Nederland, 2017). They

demand small hubs or corners for nesting, which in nature is provided by trees and bushes. The visualised requirements give an overview of the specific criteria as demanded per actor (Figure 4.2). It dictates different types of vegetation that should be included and different favoured heights of nesting for each animal. Water and water-edges demand special attention in the design. The key area thus should be of high diversity and comfort place to all animals.

Processing of products

The food processes encountered in the architectural design is based on the products grown in the agricultural land. The area has two dairy farmers, each estimated on having 200 cows. In 2015, a Dutch cow provided 8500 kg of milk that year on average. Based on this number, the 400 cows together could provide the area with 3,4 million kg of milk a year; a production of about 9300 kg of milk a day (Boerderij, 2016). According to statistics, most of the milk in Europe is used for cheese making, followed by butter, cream and drinking milk (Figure 4.3) (Eurostat, 2016). Therefor these processes are included in the architectural design, their size according to the daily milk

production. Furthermore the area has three fruit growers with orchards, responsible for 140 ha of orchard fields â&#x20AC;&#x201C; half of them producing apples, a quarter producing cherries and a quarter producing plumbs. Together they provide 3,2 million kg of apples, 450 tons of cherries and 850 tons of plums a year, based on the harvest statistics of 2010 (Heijerman-Peppelman & Roelofs, 2010). Their production process will be provided with different techniques of processing, starting by making it ready for sale as pure products (washing, cutting, shredding, packing). About 30 percent of the products will be used for further processing to salads, fruit juices and syrups. Additionally, the rotation fields will have a different fruits and vegetables every year. Their process line is similar to the fruit processing of the orchard. They are made ready for sale, and just about 20 percent is processed to salads or juices. Finally, in the key area cultivated bees are integrated, for they provide important ecosystem services for both the key area as well as the agricultural land; namely pollination services. Bees have honey as a by-product. Therefor a small honey process is included, yet

Figure 4.3 - EU statistics on milk use, retrieved from Eurostat (2016) 83

this exists only of cutting and centrifuging the wax panels, as honey is a pure product. The numbers stated above illustrate the size of the production, which are used as a base to give shape to the process lines. There is a clear distinction between dairy processing (Figure 4.5 & 4.7) and fruit and vegetable processing (Figure 4.6 & 4.7). Within their processing line another distinction is made; fresh processing and durable processing. Fresh processing is defined by this thesis as the processing of freshly harvested or collected products processed to ready-for-sale products. In dairy this includes the processing of milk to drinking milk, yoghurt, quark and butter and in fruits and vegetables this includes the cleaning, sorting and packing for sale. Durable processing is defined by this thesis as the processing of fresh products to durable products that can hold up to several months. In the dairy line this includes the processing to cheese and in the fruit and vegetable line this includes the processing to jam, syrup and juices (Figure 4.5 & 4.6). In regard to the sustainable agricultural production, it is investigated how the process lines can contribute to the healthy environment they are working in. The process lines use mainly 84

water as a (natural) resource. In addition to that the dairy processing demands extra ingredients such as acidification and straining, and the production of jam, syrup and juice demand extra sugar. The purpose is to use as limited external inputs from outside the area as possible, and to give back what is wasted. Especially in the waste-management the process lines could be of interesting contribution to the area. It is founded that the waste product of cheesemaking â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the whey that is left after the cheese is strained and pressed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; still contains plenty of proteins from the milk. This is useful nutrition for plants. After filtration is can become a rich source of nutrition and create bio-wetlands (Fifth Town, 2009). And so due to good waste management and limited use of natural resources it takes, but also gives back to its environment. It thus becomes part of the ecological cycle. These process lines and their natural resourceand waste management are integrated in the architectural design.

Resting

Milk

Processing

Yoghurt, quark, butter

Processing

Fruits, vegetables

Processing

Cleaned fruits, vegetables

Processing

Cheese

Jam, juices, honey Salads, soups

Resting

Milk

Processing

Fruits, vegetables

Processing

Figure 4.4 - Distinction process lines, translated in a concept for the architectural design based on their process 85

Milk processing

Yoghurt processing

Tank

Themise and standardise

Pasteurise

Tank

Themise and standardise

Acidiﬁcation, ermentation

Tank

Themise and standardise

Acidiﬁcation, fermentation

Tank

Themise and standardise

Tank

Themise and standardise

Add fruit

Quark processing

Butter processing

Strain

Cheese processing

Acidiﬁcation, strain, cutting, ripe and wash of curd

Add fruit

FRESH DAIRY PROCESSING

Fill

Leak out

Fill

Press to cheese shape

Brine bath

Ripe

DURABLE DAIRY PROCESSING

Fill

Figure 4.5 - Impression of all machines used in the process line of dairy processing. Created based on the information provided by Friesland Campina (2017) 87

Fresh fruit and vegetable, ready for sale Clean

Wash

Sort

Jam processing Wash

Cook

Wash

Cook

Syrup processing

Juice processing Wash

Cut

Cut wax

Centrifuge honey

Honey processing

Figure 4.6 - I 88

Scrape

Fill

Sieve

Press

Fill

Pasteurise

Fill

FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE PROCESSING

Cut

DURABLE FRUIT & VEGETABLE PROCESSING

Peel

Note: The processing of fruit and vegetables to salads is not included, for this is processed in an industrial kitchen. Therefor no special machines are required. Though this process has been given place in the design. It is yet not visualised by an iconic line.

Impression of all machines used in the process line of fruit and vegetable processing. Created based on the information provided by Alvan Blanch (n.d.) and Detelder (2013) 89

Fresh dairy processing

Durable dairy processing

Fresh fruit and vegetable processing

Durable fruit and vegetable processing

Figure 4.7 - Impression of the combined process lines 91

Concepts Given the program, the design is build up from three design guidelines. In short, the design should function as a key area demanding variation in vegetation and height levels, the design has to give place to the processing of products grown in the area of Middachterbeek, and as such that it will bring together food processing and food consumption. First, to give place to the ecological functions of the key area, the location is treated in the same way as the placement of ecological functions in the landscape design. In the landscape these functions are given place at the borders of the agricultural fields, by means of the integration of water, hedgerows, flower fields or trees. Similarly, this concept is translated over the key areas, though widening the borders, for a key area requires more space and peace from agricultural work. The borders of the agricultural fields in the key area therefore measure 20 metres. The most important requirement for the ecological functions that need to be integrated is height variations to give home to all animals in terms of shelter and nesting places. Instead of height variation provided by different vegetation as grass, bushes and threes, the height is resembled by a lifted landscape. This is interpreted by a folded roof rising up from the 92

landscape. By creating these different levels of vegetation by a roof, space for the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s program is opened. So the first concept is to integrate the building in the ecological area, the building giving height variation to the landscape comforting all animals visiting the key area (Figure 4.8.1). Second, the linearity of the process asks for a linear building set up. This corresponds with the linearity introduced by the key area, which finds its place at the (linear) borders of the agricultural fields. The program proposes a division between the dairy processing and the vegetable processing, which are translated in two lines along the borders. To emphasize the linearity of the process, the buildings are designed as slim as possible, measuring a depth of only 8,4 meters â&#x20AC;&#x201C; just enough space to operate two machines in the process. Within the processes a division is made between fresh product processing and durable product processing. This is translated in two separated buildings per process line. The building housing fresh product processing has a height of one layer and the building housing durable processing has a height of two layers, corresponding the split of processes as forwarded by the process lines (Figure 4.8.2).

Third, to (re)connect people with food production, the aim is to let the paths of production and consumption intertwine. This is literally translated to the visitor routes of the production process unit within the building. The visitor has a choice of how follows the process. The visitor can either walk along the process, seeing it as a whole. Or the visitor can dive into the process, carefully watching every step by entering the building. The process buildings have a visitors corridor before and after each step of the process, giving special attention to the path the products follow. It so becomes a story telling building. At the very end of the process lines shops are located where every form the products have known in the production process can be bought, from fresh to durable products. The visitors thus follow the same route as the production process, for both the products and the visitors their final destination being the shop - the place of consumption. Each process line has its own shop, so that the focus is kept on either dairy or fruits and vegetables (Figure 4.8.3). This has led to a design of a generous roof with a composition of slim lengthy processing buildings. They are both of distinctive architectural language - the roof rising fluently from the

1. Implentation of design at borders of fields, the roof resembling the different required heigths for the key area.

2. Linearity and different steps of the processed expressed by a composition of slim building allinged to the borders of the fields.

3. Visitors walk the same paths as the products do, passing along or intertwining the process line. Final destination for both is the shop at the end.

Figure 4.8 - Three design guidelines derived from the program of the building

landscape expressing the ecological functions of the area and the processing units being rather rigid, and straight expressing the linearity of the industry. The roof is primary designed on its

ecological function and gives place to birds and insects to live, nest and survive. The processing units are primary designed on production, intertwined by consumption. But despite the

different language, they form a whole as the roof unites the process buildings underneath (Figure 4.9 until 4.16). 93

Low vegetation zone - Bee - Silver moon butterﬂy - Heather butterﬂy - Sparrow - Titlark

High vegetation zone - ecoroof - Farmbirds (owl, falcon) - Bat - Swallow - Sparrow - Titlark - Bee

High v

egetati

on zon

one Low v

egeta

tion z

Low wet vegetation zone - Bittern

High vegetation zone - Swallow - Sparrow - Titlark

Figure 4.9 - Key area design; different ecosystems and height variation comforting important animals for the ecosystem 94

2. Figure 4.10 - 3D isometric final design 1:2000; combined (1) and exploded (2) 95

Figure 4.11 - Final design 1:1000; plan ground floor in situation 96

Figure 4.12 - Final design 1:1000; plan first floor

Figure 4.13 - Final design 1:1000; northnortheast

Figure 4.14 - Final design 1:1000; southsouthwest

Figure 4.15 - Final design 1:1000; elevation eastsoutheast

Figure 4.16 - Final design 1:1000; elevation westnorthwest 97

Design interpretation The design of Food Futura proposes a new experience of food. An experience taking the visitor from the origin of food productions (namely the fields it is located in), through the process to the consumption. On the journey to and through the building the visitor experiences all elements of the design contributing to the area of Middachterbeek. The building is accessed by the main road, where cars and bikes can be parked to continue a walk to the building. The building has a slow approach. This gives the building design a memorable experience, as one perceives every element contributing to the design. Furthermore, this is to remain the calmness in the key area and to prevent extreme disruption for habited and nesting animals in the key area. One arrives through a continuously landscape; a landscape that withholds a rich biodiversity. The route to the building is aligned in the key area strips, giving attention to the high ecological value of the area. Furthermore, the building is positioned in the middle of food production, the origin of the products. The walk to and through the building takes the visitor from the origin of food to the place of processing and finally consumption; following the same route as the 98

products processed and consumed in the food plaza. The visitors thus experience the enriched biodiversity of the area supporting sustainable food production while approaching the building (Figure 4.17). When approaching the building, the design is introduced by the roof rising up from the landscape. The roof has an ecological appearance by its curved edges and vegetation, designed for its ecological function in the key area. The roof attracts and habits important animals for the area of Middachterbeek. It appears as a living element, birds and insects flying in and around it. Underneath four volumes, the processing units, are visible. They appear as simple boxes expressing the linearity of the process â&#x20AC;&#x201C; their facades opening and closing depending on the production. The plaza under the roof is envisioned as the living hub of the building, the place where all actors come together. The visitors pass this space while visiting the process, or on their way to the shops. The animals fly in and out through the openings of the roof. Furthermore this space has the possibility to facilitate seasonal markets in times of large harvest, when the processing units are not able to support the large amounts

of storage. The longitudinal elevation of the building (Figure 4.18) expresses the living scene of the design. In the next paragraphs each design element is separately discussed.

Ecological functions

The design has an ecological function for the key area, as it has to support habitat for ecological important animals. It provides special habitat for the farm birds and small insects, for the field birds and the bittern will prefer to find protection in low vegetation provided by the fields and water edges. The habitats for the remaining animals require protection and shelter at different heights, defined per animal. These heights can be translated by nature, but also as other elements. In the design, these height differences are taken as a guide to work with and the heights are introduced to the landscape by the ecological roof (Figure 4.19). To meet the demands of the different habitats for the birds, the designed structure refers to the natural habitats (Figure 4.20). It shape of the structure is derived from the tree, by creating a structure of double columns and beams, strengthened by shores. The shores mimic tree branches which in nature provide support for

Figure 4.17 - Final design impression; approaching the building

nests. Furthermore they create stability in the structural design. Due to their implementation, wind bracing is not necessary. The result is a tree-minded structure, that can be experienced when visiting the building. From a distance the columns, beams and green roof give the impression of a forest (Figure 4.21). Inside the

building one will notice the differentiation of the structure by the different heights. The roof, resembling a folded landscape, has openings for animals to fly in and out and seek protection (Figure 4.22). However, whereas a comforting habitat for most of the birds is now created, especially the large farm birds are

predators for small birds and insects. Therefor the small birds and insects are given a more protected habitat, in a smaller space. This is integrated in the faรงade of the processing units. By placing the faรงade finish at a distance, the in between space of the faรงade can be filled with birdhouses and insect houses (Figure 4.23). 99

ELEVATIONS Long first half Long Second half

100 Southsouthwest

101

102

Figure 4.18 - Final design 1:200; elevation eastsoutheast. The living scene of the building containing different actors of visitors and animals

Northnortheast 103

Westwestnorth 104

Figure 4.19 - Final design 1:200; elevation eastsoutheast. The living scene of the building containing different actors of visitors and animals

Easteastsouth 105

Figure 4.20 - Character sketch; a reference to forestry and high vegetation - the natural habitats of the animals of the key area

106

Figure 4.21 - Final design impression; approaching the building as a bird, perceiving it as agreen area comforting many nesting possibilities

107

108

Figure 4.22 - Exploded view roof structure 1:200; providing corners and shelter for large birds

Figure 4.23 - Exploded view facade structure 1:100; housing small birds and insects behind the facade 109

Processing and consumption

The processing units form a composition of slim buildings aligned to the fields surrounding it, creating an open square in the middle. This open square gives place for people and animals to interact. Furthermore it provides space for a seasonal market in times of large harvest, and it could give place to other markets with sustainable initiatives. It so becomes a lively space, characterized by a mix of activities. The square thus serves different functions and will have a different appearance every time one visits the area (Figure 4.24). The concept of the processing units is to intertwine with food consumption. This concept is given place in the design by a visitors route through the buildings. The process lines are cut in different steps, categorized according to the operation. Each defined step of the process finds place in a separate room. This gives good overview of the process steps, and furthermore this makes it possible for specific climate control per room within the process. The visitor can so decide whether one wants to visit the process as a whole and walk along the building, or whether one wants to gain more knowledge by visiting each step separately and visit one of the corridors before and after each step. The 110

corridors provide extra information, and in case of a tour one can taste the differences between all the different steps of the process. The final destination of both visitors and products is the shop. They are located at the end of each process line. The visitor thus walk the same path as the products to, as it arrives at the building through the production fields, walks along the process and find the place of purchase and consumption at the end of each process line. This creates awareness of the industry behind the product processing. However, the processes of the buildings are not continuous. They depend on the supply of products. To give this meaning in the design, the design only opens up those parts where actual processing is happening. This is interpreted by a dynamic faรงade which opens when work is done. The visitor will so perceive the variation of processing by each visit to the building. This is further elaborated in the next paragraph on facades. The buildings are materialized by a black wooden faรงade. This is a reference to all neighbouring farms. In the area of Middachterbeek, the farmhouses and barns are typically finished by

wooden planks, painted black. To relate to the character of the area the faรงade of this design is treated the same way. However, the planks are not black by paint, but by the process of burning the wood. The process of burning wood is a method to protect the wood from weather influences. Furthermore this is a natural method of protection, preventing the use of toxics in the paint. This method is a way to give the wood eternal protection, and therefore after burning no future maintenance is required. Each building of the processing unit is shown in plan, section and elevation. First the dairy process is shown, after that the fruits and vegetable processing (Figure 4.25 until 4.38).

Figure 4.24 - Final design impression; open square providing space for a mix of activities 111

Dairy processing

112

5 1

8 4

1. Visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corridor 2. Drinking milk processing 3. Yoghurt, quark, butter processing 4. Fillingroom 5. Technical room 6. Storage 7. Coolingcel 8. Employee area 9. Changingroomd with shower

Figure 4.25 - Final design 1:200; plan ground floor fresh dairy processing unit 113

Figure 4.26 - Final design 1:200; section fresh dairy processing unit 114

Figure 4.27 - Final design 1:200; elevation fresh dairy processing unit 115

6 8

2 7

1. Visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corridor 2. Storage milk 3. Cheese processing 4. Brine bath 5. Elevator 6. Technical room 7. Storage 8. Employee area 9. Shop 116

Figure 4.28 - Final design 1:200; plan ground floor durable dairy processing

5 7

1. Visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corridor 2. Youngh cheese resting 3. Old cheese resting 4. Other cheese resting 5. Elevator 6. Technical room 7. Storage 8. Plastification table

Figure 4.29 - Final design 1:200; plan first floor durable dairy processing 117

Figure 4.30 - Final design 1:200;section durable dairy processing 118

Figure 4.31 - Final design 1:200; elevation durable dairy processing 119

Fruit and vegetable processing

120

8 7

1 3 5

1. Visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corridor 2. Cleaning, washing, sorting room 3. Cutting, shredding, packing room 4. Cooling cell 5. Technical room 6. Storage 7. Employee area 8. Changingroomd with shower

Figure 4.32 - Final design 1:200; plan ground floor fresh fruit and vegetable processing 121

Figure 4.33 - Final design 1:200; section fresh fruit and vegetable processing 122

Figure 4.34 - Final design 1:200; elevation fresh fruit and vegetable processing 123

5 1

1 8

1. Visitor’s corridor 2. Café 3. Café kitchen 4. Salad processing, industrial kitchen 5. Technical room 6. Storage 7. Elevator 8. Employee area 9. Shop 124

Figure 4.35 - Final design 1:200; plan ground floor durable fruit and vegetable processing

2 1 2

1. Visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corridor 2. Office 3. Jam, syrup, juice, honey processing 4. Filling room 5. Technical room 6. Storage 7. Elevator 8. Storage 9. Cooling cell

8 4

Figure 4.36 - Final design 1:200; plan first floor durable fruit and vegetable processing 125

Figure 4.37 - Final design 1:200; section durable fruit and vegetable processing 126

Figure 4.38 - Final design 1:200; elevation durable fruit and vegetable processing 127

Facade

As mentioned earlier, the processes in the buildings are not continuous. They depend on the supply of products. To create awareness of the seasonal production, and the actual natural origin of food products (the fact that it is actually grown, and not provided by a magic tree that just makes what you wish for), the facades represent the metaphor of the natural cycle of food production, giving a seasonal change to the building. Furthermore, the literal act of opening the façade when production is working is a literal metaphor to ‘opening the industry’. The industry of food production, which is experienced by closed and hidden for the consumer, is now exposed. The thought out effect of this gesture is the decrease the distance between food production and food consumption, for it is believed when people (re)connect again to the products they buy, they become aware of its impact. It so attempt to create sustainable awareness in the food production, which eventually will lead to sustainable consumption. The building will have a continuously changing appearance, corresponding the continuously changing landscape it is positioned in. The two 128

scenarios of an open and a closed façade are shown in plan and section, supported by an impression of the facades (Figure 4.40 until 4.45).

Figure 4.39 - Final design impression; lively suqare, seethrough to the landscape 129

Figure 4.40 - Final design 1:50; closed facade in elevation, processing not working

Figure 4.41 - Final design 1:50; closed facade in plan, processing not working 130

Figure 4.42 - Final design impression; closed facade, processing not working 131

Figure 4.43 - Final design 1:50; open facade in elevation, the process exposed to visitors

Figure 4.44 - Final design 1:50; open facade in plan, the process exposed to visitors 132

Figure 4.45 - Final design impression; open facade, the process exposed to visitors 133

Conclusion The architectural design brings together all actors of the area; humans, products and animals. It contributes to the ecology of the area, as its roof participates in the key area as a habitat for animals. The ecological expression of the roof attends the visitor to its function. The processing is expressed by the linearity of the building, giving insight in its background. It’s background is visited either in the same linear way, or can be further explored by means of visitor corridors. The dynamic façade of the processing units symbolise the natural cycle of food production. The result is a dynamic and ever changing building, due to its architecture as well as the vegetation and actor in and around it. The architectural design gives answer to the second sub question: ‘How can the architecture of a food processing and consumption unit give meaning to the new farming concept driving the image of sustainable farming?’. The elements described above, together drive the image of sustainable farming and sustainable food production. The food plaza has become a meaningful place for both the area’s ecosystem, food production and (human) visitors (Figure 4.46). It re-establishes the connection of nature to agriculture and to humans. 134

Figure 4.46 - Final design impression; impression of all actors finding place in the architectural design - the experience of Food Futura. 135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

V. CONCLUSION

Conclusion The total final design is the result of the all gained knowledge in this research, translated in a landscape design and an architectural design that continue from on into the other. The landscape design and the architectural design have given answer to the sub questions. From this the main research question can be answered. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;How can an architectural design of a sustainable food production concept provide a stage for sustainable food production, and so be a driver of change giving back meaning to the countryside?â&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The landscape of Middachterbeek is restored to a healthy environment holding a selfregulating ecosystem, achieved by a symbiosis of nature and agriculture. The landscape design introduces a long-planned robust connection, within an agricultural field without disturbing the crossing animals in the area. It is an excellent performance of a robust connection, that benefits from the agriculture surrounding it, as well as that it contributes to it. The result is a strong, resilient and healthy ecosystem serving both nature and agriculture. Granting the arisen sustainable food production, from this a social sustainable concept is designed for food processing and consumption. The architectural design, performing an important ecological function for the landscape design,

forwards the sustainable message by means of its integration in the landscape, and its open industry. The lifted landscape interpreted by the roof creates constant awareness of the sustainable environment of food production and its ecological meaning. The linear processing units represent the process line, intertwined by the consumption line, which opens the industry to visitors. This makes it possible for people to engage with the origin of the products they buy, creating awareness of the scenes behind the industry. The design thus creates awareness stimulating the sustainability debate, giving meaning to the sustainable environment it works in. In answer to the research question and to conclude this thesis, Food Futura is a total revision of the current agricultural industry. All elements in the design contribute to the performance of sustainable food production. It thus becomes a stage, for it is provides a base of a healthy ecosystem, on which interaction between all different actors of the designed environment is given place. The performance on this stage is a new experience of food forwarding the sustainable message of the design. It thus becomes a driver of change. This gives back meaning to the countryside, for it now isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t

a monologue performed by monoculture cultivation, but an act of all different actors who are all given speech in the performance of sustainable food production. Now that it is concluded that Food Futura is a strong and healthy network the conclusion can be taken to a higher level. In the introduction of this research it is stated that a strong, resilient and healthy ecosystem has (positive) effects on its environment. Therefore, it can be concluded that Food Futura has far stretched influences. The healthy ecosystem of Middachterbeek has positive impact on its surrounding ecological zones; the Veluwe Zoom and Bingerden. The ecosystems of de Veluwe Zoom and Bingerden strengthen, which then again will strengthen ecosystems surrounding these areas. Eventually the effects will lead all the way to the European ecosystem network, Natura 2000. Furthermore, among the visitors of Food Futura, sustainable awareness is created. The story, reaching the neighbouring villages, but also expectedly a significant amount of tourist, will be shared. Therefore, by the creation of a small sustainable area, it is expected that a large impact is created stretching far across the borders of the Middachterbeek. A local approach will contribute to global sustainability of food production. 151

152

Reflection Reflecting on last months, the creation of this thesis has been an interesting journey connecting the field of architecture to one of the most interesting global question; the question of food production. Working on a global question like this, is an eyeopener in many ways for it touches many layers of society as well as it is forwards an incredible stack of new knowledge and skill development. This has made it difficult, yet meaningful to work on. It has been both an incredible as well as tough time, in which I got to explore one of the many solutions towards (global) sustainable food production. I am very grateful for the opportunities I got in this design studio. The broad topic of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Farm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Mutant Typologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; has given me the option to truly find my own path in this topic. I have done research to and contributed to a topic of my personal interest, and by doing so contributed to the global question of food production. The vision I held in food production was the vision to (re)connect to nature, to Earth. Already very early in the process I had defined the philosophy of the thesis being to find a way to work with nature instead of against it. This perspective has led me to the base of the landscape design, being the ecological network of Europe and the Netherlands, and

agroecological farming. These appeared to be useful ingredients that departed from principles that could be applied and integrated in a design. My main aim of this thesis was to make a contribution to the socio-ecological debate with architecture. To do so I have broadened the field of architecture, dove into new subject matter and designed in a field new to me, using principles of ecology. It has taught me that by taking an integral approach to global questions, architecture can definitely respond in a meaningful way. Yet, its true effects will never be tested as this will not be build. Despite this fact, I can say from experience that its influences are there. During my graduation I have spoken to many people about this topic. This global issue appears to be of large interest among the people surrounding me, and therefore it has opened multiple discussion about the food industry. The resultant effect is sustainable awareness of the food industry not just among myself and the people who have participated in this studio, but also among many other people I know and I have spoken to. Therefor the most important conclusion of this thesis might be that it is already contributing to a better world. 153

154

I want to express my gratitude to Bram, Anne, Bas, Michelle, Meike, Patrick, Stefan, Frank, mom and dad, without whom this wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have been possible. Thank you!

155

156

References I - Introduction Altieri, M. A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74, 19-31. Andela, M., Roelse, I., Steenwijk, C., van Veen, E.-J., & van der Werff, N. (2011). Het fascinerende dossier Natura 2000. Leiderdorp: Printshop Ouwehand. Davis, K. F., Gephart, J. A., Emery, K. A., Leach, A. M., Galloway, J. N., & D’Odorico, P. (2016). Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Global Environmental Change 39, 125–132. European Union. (2012). The Common Agricultural Policy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Federico, G. (2005). Feeding the World, an economic history of agriculture, 1800-2000. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2017). Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture - Plant Genetic resources. Retrieved 9 11, 2017, van Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) -: http://www.fao.org/nr/cgrfa/cthemes/ plants/en/ Lin, B. B. (2011). Effects of industrial agriculture on climate change and the mitigation potential of small-scale agro-ecological farms. Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources No. 020. Mazoyer, M., & Roudart, L. (2006). A History of World Agriculture. (J. H. Membrez, Trans.) London: Earthscan. Mendenhall, C. D., Kappel, C. V., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2013). Countryside Biogeography. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Volume 2, 347-359. Norton, L. R. (2016). Is it time for a socioecological revolution in agriculture? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 235, 13-16. Slicher van Bath, B. H. (1963). The argrarian history of Western Europe A.D. 500-1850. London: Edward Arnold. Tittonell, P. (2014). Ecological intensification of agriculture — sustainable by nature. Environmental Sustainability 8, 53-61.

United Nations. (2017). Global Issues - Food. Retrieved 10 15, 2017, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/ food/index.html WWF Global. (2017). Farming: Habitat conversion & loss. Retrieved 9 11, 2017, from World Wildlife Fund: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/ footprint/agriculture/impacts/habitat_loss/

II - Theorethical Framework Alterra, Research Instituut voor de Groene Ruimte, Wageningen. (2001). Handboek Robuuste Verbindingen; ecologische randvoorwaarden. Wageningen: Stoas Digigrafi B.V. Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: principles and strategies for designing sustainable farming systems. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: http://www. agroeco.org/doc/new_docs/Agroeco_principles. pdf Altieri, M. A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74, 19–31. Andela, M., Roelse, I., Steenwijk, C., van Veen, 157

E.-J., & van der Werff, N. (2011). Het fascinerende dossier Natura 2000. Leiderdorp: Printshop Ouwehand.

Retrieved 10 16, 2017, from Hanzestad Doesburg: https://www.bezoek-doesburg.nl/ontdekdoesburg

Atlas Leefomgeving. (2017, 07 19). Natuurgebieden. Retrieved 10 16, 2017, from Atlas Leefomgeving: http://www.atlasleefomgeving. nl/meer-weten/natuurgebieden

Kremen, C., Iles, A., & Bacon, C. (2012). Diversified Farming Systems: An Agroecological, Systems-based Alternative to Modern Industrial Agriculture. Ecology and Society 17(4): 44.

Compendium voor de Leefomgeving. (2017, 09 26). Begrenzing van het Natuurnetwerk en de Natura 2000-gebieden. Retrieved 10 16, 2017, from Compendium voor de Leefomgeving: http:// www.clo.nl/indicatoren/nl1425-begrenzingvan-het-natuurnetwerk-en-natura-2000gebieden?i=19-22

LNV. (2000). Natuur voor mensen, mensen voor natuur - Nota natuur, bos en landschap in de 21e. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Den Haag.

European Commission. (2017, 04 27). Natura 2000. Retrieved 10 15, 2017, from European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/natura2000/index_en.htm Fietsnetwerk. (2017). Fietsroute Veluwezoom en Rhederlaag. Retrieved 10 16, 2017, van Fietsnetwerk: https://www.fietsnetwerk. nl/fietsroutes/fietsroute-veluwezoom-enrhederlaag/ Gemeente Doesburg. (2017). Ontdek Doesburg. 158

Natuurmonumenten. (2017). Beleef Nationaal Park Veluwezoom. Retrieved 10 16, 2017, from Natuurmonumenten: https://www. natuurmonumenten.nl/natuurgebied/nationaalpark-veluwezoom/beleef-nationaal-parkveluwezoom Nederland Fietsland. (2017). Uitgestrekte bossen en heidevelden. rETRIEVED 10 16, 2017, van Nederland Fietsland: https://www. nederlandfietsland.nl/knooppuntroutes/rondjeposbank-fietsroute Omroep Gelderland. (2017, 05 20). Bezoekers Veluwezoom hinderen elkaar: gebied gaat op de

schop. Omroep Gelderland. Retrieved from http:// www.omroepgelderland.nl/nieuws/2134835/ Bezoekers-Veluwezoom-hinderen-elkaar-gebiedgaat-op-de-schop Regiegroep Natura 2000. (2016, 09 15). Kernboodschap Natura 2000. Retrieved 10 15, 2017, from Regiegroep Natura 2000: http://www. natura2000.nl/pages/kernboodschap.aspx Regiobedrijf. (2017). Alle sectoren en branches in Nederland. Opgeroepen op 10 16, 2017, van Regiobedrijf: https://regiobedrijf.nl/ Third World Network and SOCLA. (2015). Agroecology: key concepts, principles and practices. Penang: Jutaprint. van 't Hof, S. (2011, 01 28). Onvoltooide Natuur. Retrieved 10 15, 2017, from Binnenlands bestuur: http://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/ruimte-enmilieu/achtergrond/achtergrond/onvoltooidenatuur.671825.lynkx

III - Landscape Design Alterra, Research Instituut voor de Groene Ruimte, Wageningen. (2001). Handboek Robuuste Verbindingen; ecologische randvoorwaarden.

Wageningen: Stoas Digigrafi B.V. Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: principles and strategies for designing sustainable farming systems. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: http://www. agroeco.org/doc/new_docs/Agroeco_principles. pdf Altieri, M. A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74, 19-31. Flora van Nederland. (2017). Retrieved 10 21, 2017, van Flora van Nederland: http://www. floravannederland.nl/home/plantensoorten/ hoofdgroepen/ Kremen, C., Iles, A., & Bacon, C. (2012). Diversified Farming Systems: An Agroecological, Systems-based Alternative to Modern Industrial Agriculture. Ecology and Society 17(4): 44. Staatsbosbeheer & WUR. (2017). Retrieved 10 21, 2017, from Genenbank inheemse bomen en struiken: http://www. genenbankbomenenstruiken.nl/default.htm Third World Network and SOCLA. (2015).

Agroecology: key concepts, principles and practices. Penang: Jutaprint.

I V- Architectural Design Alterra, Research Instituut voor de Groene Ruimte, Wageningen. (2001). Handboek Robuuste Verbindingen; ecologische randvoorwaarden. Wageningen: Stoas Digigrafi B.V. Alvan Blanch. (n.d.). Fruit Processing Pland and Machinery. Boerderij. (2016). Melkproductie per koe hoog in Nederland. Retrieved 10 31, 2017, van Boerderij: http://www.boerderij.nl/Rundveehouderij/ Nieuws/2016/2/Melkproductie-per-koe-hoog-inNederland-2764993W/ Detelder, A. (2013). Innovatieve fruit- en groentenverwerking / ideeĂŤn en recepten. Steunpunt Hoeveproducten, Landelijk Praktijkatelier. Eurostat. (2016, 10). Milk and milk product statistics. Retrieved 10 31, 2017, from Eurostat, statistics explained: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ statistics-explained/index.php/Milk_and_milk_ product_statistics

Fifth Town. (2009). Waste Management. Opgeroepen op 10 31, 2017, van Fifth Town Artisan Cheese co: http://www.fifthtown.ca/ artisan_cheese/initiatives/waste_management Friesland Campina. (2016, 03). Zuivel. Retrieved 11 1, 2017, from Friesland Campina: https://www. frieslandcampinainstitute.nl/zuivel/ Heijerman-Peppelman, G., & Roelofs, P. (2010). Eindrapport_13069. Retrieved from http://www. tuinbouw.nl/sites/default/files/documenten/ Eindrapport_13069.pdf Jansma, A., & de Wit, J. (2016). Voedsel voor weidevogels. V-focus (oktober), 30-32. Milieu Centraal. (2017). Tips voor een bijenvriendelijke tuin. Retrieved 10 31, 2017, from Milieu Centraal: https://www.milieucentraal.nl/ in-en-om-het-huis/tuinieren/tuinontwerp/tipsvoor-een-bijenvriendelijke-tuin Natuurkennis. (2017). Weidevogels. Retrieved 10 31, 2017, from Ontwikkeling Beheer Natuurkwaliteit: http://www.natuurkennis.nl/ Schwarz, M. (2014, 9 15). Think global, act local. Retrieved 10 31, 2017, van Nieuw Amsterdam, 159

Figures and images stad in transitie: https://stedenintransitie.nl/ stadbericht/think-global-act-local

All non-listed figures and images are created by the author.

3: Robuuste verbindingen. Apeldoorn. Retrieved 10 28, 2017

Vogelbescherming Nederland. (2017). Bescherming Erfvogels. Retrieved from Vogelbescherming Nederland: https://www. vogelbescherming.nl/bescherming/wat-wijdoen/op-het-platteland/erfvogels1/beschermingerfvogels

I - Introduction

Figure 2.4 - Cited from Third World Network and SOCLA. (2015). Agroecology: key concepts, principles and practices. p.8. Penang: Jutaprint.

Image 1.1 - AHN-USA. (n.d.). GM Promotes Monoculture. Retrieved 10 21, 2017, from http:// www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ monoculture.jpg Image 1.2 - Unknown. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 21, 2017, from https://washington.uwex.edu/ files/2012/03/1-stream-300x199.jpg

II - Theorethical Framework Figure 2.1 - Adapted from European Environment Agency. (2012). Natura 2000 Network Viewer. Copenhagen. Retrieved 10 27, 2017, from http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# Figure 2.2 - Translated from Alterra, Research Instituut voor de Groene Ruimte, Wageningen. (2001). Handboek Robuuste Verbindingen; ecologische randvoorwaarden. p. 33-34 Wageningen: Stoas Digigrafi B.V. Figure 2.3 - Adapted from Dienst voor het kadaster en de openbare registers. (2007). Kaart 160

Figure 2.6 – Adapted from Google. (2017). Google Maps. Digital Globe, Aerodata International Surveys. Retrieved 28 10, 2017, from https:// www.google.nl/maps/@52.0161947,6.1129581,6 748m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=nl Figure 2.8 - Adapted from Atlas Gelderland. (2017). Atlas Gelderland, kaartlagen ’Ecologische verbindingzones’. Provincie Gelderland. Retrieved 10 28, 2017, from http://kaarten.gelderland.nl/ viewer/app/AtlasGelderland Figure 2.11 - Adapted from PDOK - Publieke Dienstverlening op de Kaart. (2017). PDOK Viewer, kaarlagen ‘knooppuntennetwerk’ and ‘streekpaden’. Kadaster. Retrieved 10 28, 2017, from http://pdokviewer.pdok.nl/

III - Landscape Design Figure 3.3 - Adapted from Alterra, Research Instituut voor de Groene Ruimte, Wageningen.

(2001). Handboek Robuuste Verbindingen; ecologische randvoorwaarden. p. 47 Wageningen: Stoas Digigrafi B.V.

Pland and Machinery and Detelder, A. (2013). Innovatieve fruit- en groentenverwerking / ideeĂŤn en recepten. Steunpunt Hoeveproducten, Landelijk Praktijkatelier.

Figure 3.11 - Adapted from Kremen, C., Iles, A., & Bacon, C. (2012). Diversified Farming Systems: An Agroecological, Systems-based Alternative to Modern Industrial Agriculture. Ecology and Society 17(4): 44. p.3. Figure 3.12 - Cited from Third World Network and SOCLA. (2015). Agroecology: key concepts, principles and practices. p.10. Penang: Jutaprint.

I V- Architectural Design Figure 4.3 - Retrieved from Eurostat. (2016, 10). Milk and milk product statistics. Retrieved 10 31, 2017, from Eurostat, statistics explained: http:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index. php/Milk_and_milk_product_statistics Figure 4.5 - Created based on the information from Friesland Campina. (2016, 03). Zuivel. Retrieved 11 1, 2017, from Friesland Campina: https://www.frieslandcampinainstitute.nl/zuivel/ Figure 4.6 - Created based on the information from Alvan Blanch. (n.d.). Fruit Processing 161