urban green infrastructure: the role of urban agriculture ... › art › v9n1a04.pdf · urban...

Urbanism Urban green infrastructure: the role of urban agriculture incity resilience• T. Panagopoulos et al.

55

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE: THE ROLE OF URBANAGRICULTURE IN CITY RESILIENCE

Thomas PANAGOPOULOSProf. Dr. University of Algarve, Centro de investigação sobre espaço e

Organizações, Faro, Portugal, [email protected]

Ilze JANKOVSKALatvia University of Agriculture, Akademijas iela 11, Jelgava, Latvia,

[email protected]

Maria BOSTENARU DANDr. “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest,

Romania, [email protected]

Abstract. Studies about the subject of cultivated land confirmed that it isthe part of urban informal open space and the specific land using form inthe city’s natural area. It has ecological, cultural, social and socio-economicvalue and help to achieve more sustainable urban forms. The Europeanpractice shows that the functions of allotments are changing in the citydevelopment process from the producing to the function of traditional citygreenery which does not demand the city’s budget money. The moving ofpopulation into cities drives increasing demands for residential buildingsand other urban built up land. From the city planning point of view it isconvenient to develop the allotment territories which usually are locatednear the city centre and has appropriate infrastructure. However theallotments are very popular among the unprosperous people and eldersbecause of contact with the nature and some economic benefits fromcultivating the land. Studies show that the complex metropolitan systemscannot be managed by a single set of top-down governmental policies;instead, they require the coordinated action of multiple independentplayers operating under locally diverse biophysical conditions andconstraints, constantly adjusting their behaviour to maintain an optimalbalance between human and ecological functions. The increase in urbanagriculture in many European cities has been part of a response to a senseof a global crisis, attesting to the resilience of the people living in cities.However, the citizens involved have much to gain from municipalintervention, which can provide and operate some important foragriculture communal infrastructures and define a set of rules. Themunicipality is also in an ideal position to design and apply acomprehensive strategy for its territory. In conclusion, municipalintervention is instrumental for urban agriculture and for the city’sresilience because is as a vital source of food and occupation in times ofcrisis and help in adaptation to the climate or other sudden changeconsequences.

• Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 9 • Nr. 1 • 2018

56

Key words: urban agriculture, allotments, urban planning, greeninfrastructure, urban dynamic in natural area, complex metropolitansystem

1. IntroductionResilience refers to the capacity of asocial-ecological system both towithstand perturbations from for instanceclimate or economic shocks and torebuild and renew itself afterwards(Hollings, 1973). Resilience is the mostevolved step in disaster managementafter recovery, preparedness andmitigation (Bostenaru, 2005). Communityresilience displays technical,organisational, social and economicdimensions (Bruneau et al., 2003). In thissense, a decision tree can be appliedtaking into account actors from all thesedisciplinary fields. Resilience theory,considers that humans and nature arestrongly coupled and coevolving, andshould therefore be conceived of as one“social-ecological” system. Also considersthat systems are in constant flux, highlyunpredictable when forced to change,and self-organizing with feedbacks acrossmultiple scales in time and space. A keyfeature of complex adaptive systems istheir ability to self-organize in possiblesudden shifts between states. Sometimeschange is gradual and things moveforward in roughly continuous andpredictable ways, but at our times, in thebeginning of a new millennium andglobalization era, change is sudden,disorganizing and turbulent reflected inimpacts on many vulnerable regions andchallenges the adaptive capacity of thecities of those regions. It is thisvulnerability of the landscape againstwhich the disaster managementdimension of resilience should intervene.Urban landscapes are socio-ecologicalsystems (Anderson, 2006) where social

and ecological processes are deeplyintertwined, and together shape theurban ecosystems (Benson, 2009). Whenhumanity is considered a part of nature,cities themselves can be regarded as aglobal network of ecosystems (Bolundand Hunhammar, 1999). This system haslow stability, different dynamics, morenon-native species, different speciescomposition and unique energetic. Mixesof native and non-native species interactin complex, anthropogenically drivensuccessions, but with humanparticipation, they also equilibrate intocommunities stable over time (Benson,2009). Bolund and Hunhammar (1999)identify seven different urban naturalecosystems; street trees, lawns/parks,urban forests, cultivated land, wetlands,lakes/sea, and streams. Every of thisecosystem generates different ecologicalservices simultaneously: supporting,cultural, provisioning and regulating(Andersson, 2006). Those systemsconstitute the Green Infrastructure of theCity and defined as outdoor places withsignificant amounts of vegetation, mainlysemi-natural areas that represent the lastremnants of nature in urban territory.They preserve biodiversity in urbanareas, sequester CO2, produce O2, reduceair pollution and noise, regulatemicroclimates, reduce the heat islandeffect, affect house prices, haverecreational value and are useful forhealth, well-being and social safety(Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Stratu etal. (2016) investigated the role of woodenspecies in providing microclimate controland reduction of pollution, whilePanagopoulos et al. (2016) investigated in


57

a similar way the role of greeninfrastructure on urban health.

A particular case is that of Pavia, a smallcity in northern Italy, where riceproduction is integrated into the city notvia the allotments, but through greenstrips. In the periphery housing and riceculture alternate on different parts of thestreet. Bostenaru (2015) is a study on howgames theory can be applied to model thedecision on rice culture in this context.The paper further explores theimprovement of ecological conditionsmentioned, through the habitat providedby rice cultures helping maintainingbiodiversity through a literature review.Studies about the subject of cultivatedland confirmed that it is the part of urbaninformal open space and the specific landusing form in the city’s natural area. Thecultivated lands in urban ecosystemusually possess a diversity of vegetationstructures (trees, shrubs, herbaceousplants and grasses) and together withcompost heaps, hedges, walls and ponds,gardens have considerable diversity ofplant and animal, particularlyinvertebrates habitats (Alberti andMarzluff, 2008).

Urban greening in Europe has developedsynchronized with the evolution ofcivilization and society. The innate desireto re-establish the severed links withnature in cities was explain by thebiophilia concept of Wilson in 1984.Urban planners and landscape architectspersistently defended the integration ofrural to the interior of the city forhistorical and cultural reason because weshould maintain the identity of the placeand keep its genius loci. Recentpublications have dealt with the subjectof urban renewal and sustainability inWestern Europe. Urban sprawl areas asmixtures of urban and rural land uses are

being created increasingly rapidly in thesuburbs of the cities. The trend in all bigcities around the world is that rural lifebecomes urban life in green scenery.Natural systems take from theirenvironment but they give somethingback. Cities consume significant amountof resources and have environmentalimpact far further than their borders.Cities should help sustain and enrich ourhuman communities in our bioregionskeeping part of the land as natural orrural.

Urban allotments consist of land dividedinto a series of small parcels which areused by individuals and families as aplace to grow a wide array of flowers,vegetables and fruit, which coexist in thecity with the raising of rabbits, poultry, orother stock. With regard to the areas, weconsider urban open spaces and innercourtyard plots any small cultivatedstrips located within town boundaries aswell as larger peripheral areas (Fig. 1).This trend had no East West segregationeven in times of cold war, as in Hungaryhobby gardeners used this secondemployment to grow vegetables andfruits (the urban agriculture allotmentbeing called “hobby”) and the trend ispresent also in Germany, where theallotments are called Schrebergarden.“Hobbygardens” were also present inSlovakia, from before the 1990s, and thissecond lot of a family could be used asvacation slot or for visitors, as it wasforeseen with a temporary habitativebuilding (personal experience inBratislava, Maria Bostenaru). ActuallySlovakia displays the third highestnumber of members in the association ofurban agriculture allotments („OfficeInternational du Coin de Terre et desJardins Familiaux“). Talking also frompersonal experience, urban agricultureallotments are proposed for intercultural


58

integration practices, for example inKarlsruhe (Germany) or Vienna (Austria),in the student dormitory HaDiKo in thevicinity of the Schrebergärten, or forintegration of migrant women (DorisDamyanovic project Urbanes Gärtnernvon und mit Frauen, presentation at theRome conference of genderSTESeptember 2014).

Historically urban agriculture draws onthe model of the Italian villa, which was aproductive villa in the periphery of thecity. The villa Medici in Rome conservestraces of the Lucullus gardens. The villaLante in Bagnaia, also Italy, has a partwhich is a urban forest apart of theformal garden with water plays, just toname two personally visited examples.Current structural funds Europeanprojects of Nicolas Triboi (Atelier FoaieVerde) in Romania build on this model inproviding urban agriculture instead ofdense housing neighbourhoods (seeBostenaru, 2015 for an example nearBucharest). Also in contemporary Italythe issue is not foreign to the research.Michele Nori from the EuropeanUniversity Institute is looking into ruralpastoralism today, as well as RoxanaTriboi from Romania in the doctoratework.

Fig. 1. Urban agriculture in Faro, Portugal.

Urban agriculture is more advanced indeveloped countries than it is in the

developing and emerging economieswhere its practice would be comparativelymore critical to the wellbeing of citydwellers. In cities of the developed world,municipal initiatives promoted householdand community gardening for foodsecurity in times of economic crises.Today, cities such as New York, Tokyo,Montreal, London, Stockholm, Lisbon andSt Petersburg have connected urbanagriculture with resource recycling,biodiversity conservation, therapy,recreation, education, safe food provision,community development and greenarchitecture (Jankovska andPanagopoulos, 2010).

Urban performance depends on the city'shard infrastructure, but increasingly alsoon the availability and quality ofknowledge communication and socialinfrastructure. The latter is decisive forurban competitiveness and dependsmostly on soft infrastructure likeknowledge networks, voluntaryorganisations, crime-free environment,entertainment economy (Hollands, 2008),and green infrastructure (Benedict andMcMahon, 2006).

European urban planning laws requirethat the municipalities should draw uptheir “municipal green infrastructureplan” in order to protect its values andnatural resources. The idea is to form theso-called greenways and green spacenetworks crossing the city and linkvarious land uses because creating aninterconnected system of parks,allotments, urban forests and open spaceis manifestly more beneficial thancreating parks in isolation (Benedict andMcMahon, 2002).

Planning for urban agriculture to providethe urban need has a long-standinghistory to many parts of the world. The


59

question raised in the present study iswhich role can play the urban allotmentsin green infrastructure and city resilience.To understand the urban agriculturalsituation, the study focuses on the Rigametropolitan area as the case for the mainpart of the discussion.

2. Socioeconomic and environmentalconditions of Riga city in the current

crisis situation

Latvia’s income level remains among thelowest in the EU with more than half ofLatvia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)produced in the Riga region. Riga is amajor industrial, commercial, culturaland financial centre of the Baltics, and animportant seaport although; Riga´seconomy is mainly service-based.

The seasonally adjusted unemploymentrate Latvia in November (2009) reached22.3% and for the third month is thehighest in the EU (EU's statistical officeEurostat data). Last year, theunemployment rate had risen fully in allEU countries, but the largest increasesoccurred in Latvia - from 10.2% to 22.3%(Table 1).

Table 1. Unemployment rate in economically activepopulation in Latvia (15-64) (source: CentralStatistical Bureau http://www.csb.gov.lv/)

1. quarter 2. quarter 3. quarter 4. quarter2008 6.8 6.6 7.5 10.12009 14.3 17.2 18.6 20.12010 20.7 19.8 18.2 -

The direct result of this increase inunemployment due to the recent globalcrisis is an accelerating increase inemigration. According to the CentralStatistical Bureau of Latvia, there is aconstant increase in emigration to othercountries from 500 average monthlypersons in 2008, to 615/month in 2009 to882 persons per month in 2010.

Another result of the crisis is an increasein small crimes related to self subsistence.Overall, in 2009 to 1,000 people last yearwere made in 252 crimes; about 48% ofcrimes consisted of property theft, whichoccurred in 27,067 cases (instead of 19629in 2007), followed by the property stolenfrom the apartment - 4133 times in 2009compared to 3654 in 2007 (Table 2).

Table 2. Registered crime rate in Latvia (source:Central Statistical Bureau, http://www.csb.gov.lv/)

2007 2008 2009Total 55260 57475 56748Property theft 19639 23639 27067Thefts of apartments 3654 3538 4133Robberies 1468 1441 1516

Other indirect effect of the recent crisisis the increase in social help of Rigaresidents. Riga City Council WelfareDepartment informed that in 2010annual budget for the social help ofRiga residents' allocated 15.754 millionLVL. Compared with 2009, in the firsttwo months of 2010, the number ofpeople who receive a contribution ofguaranteed minimum of income levelincreases till 82%. A year ago thiscontribution received 8695 people, butin the first two months of 2010 - 15831people. The number of recipients ofhousing contribution increases till12.7%: the first two months of 2009,housing benefit got 26 911, but this year- 30,329 people.

Among new clients of Riga SocialServices increases the number of personsin working ages – in 2009 in the first twomonths the total amount of such clientswas 419 or 31.7%, but in the similarperiod of 2010 - 447 or 37.1% of all newcustomers. In the end of February’ 2010the State Employment Agency in Rigaregistered 48700 unemployed persons,but vacancies - only 798 (about 168 jobsless than a month before). Per job


60

claiming in February it was noticed anaverage of 61 unemployed citizens.Unemployment contribution in Januaryin Riga was only for 53% of the registeredunemployed persons. Compared withJanuary of 2010, in February, the numberof unemployed persons in working agesincreased till 750 persons which asked formunicipal social assistance; it is thelargest increase in the last year. Themunicipal social assistance received12.5% of registered unemployedpersons. This is explained with increasingnumber of unemployed persons, who donot receive unemployment contribution.Compared with February 2009, thenumber of long-term unemployedperson’s increases in double and it is 382people (www.riga.lv).

And if the above are some indirect costsof crisis that the city has to pay withoutto have any increase in income, thereare other costs related to green areamaintenance and municipal wastedisposal that remain constant and onlywith municipal policy that maintain itsgreen areas without to ask for the citybudget money but by offering it asallotment green space. Like this thefunction of urban agriculture productsare changed into the function oftraditional city green area which doesn’tneed city maintenance.

The municipality is also in an idealposition to design and apply acomprehensive strategy for its territoryand promote partly a recycling of theorganic daily waste and use inallotments.

In Riga, one person produces on average290 kg of municipal waste per year(www.riga.lv). Precise information on thecomposition of the waste is not available,however just a few data suggest that the

cities organic waste particles are morethan 50%, but in villages is less than 10%of the total waste. An essential conditionfor the waste management plan is toreduce the amount of bio-disposed to the2020th was targeted to be only 35% of the1995th deposited amount. In practicalterms this means that biodegradablewaste - kitchen and garden green waste -as well as production biowaste berecycled in a compost way to the citiesallotments and other green areas. In otherwords the municipal intervention is alsoinstrumental for urban agriculture.

4. The importance of greeninfrastructure for sustainable city

There has been a rapid increase inknowledge about the importance of theexternal environment to our health andwellbeing (Nilsson et al., 2011). Theresults of a range of studies gives strongsupport that the human body reactsinvoluntarily to natural elements andpeople feel more satisfied with theirhomes, jobs and lives when they havesufficient access to nature in the urbanenvironment (Fuller et al., 2007). Theword ‘nature’ has different meanings asobvious and direct qualities of naturalenvironment which are well recognizedby the city dwellers as values andbenefits of nature in urban space likehealth, peace, loneliness and freedom(Fig. 2). From this point of view thewidespread need and desire to cultivatea garden is seen as an expression of thevital-utilitarian meaning of nature andto experience nature as an environmentwhere they can rest and recover fromdaily stress (Maas, 2006). Moreover,such projects can offer the opportunityfor community empowerment,attachment to the local community anda sense of ownership and can lead to‘defend and improve local communities’(Woolley, 2005).


61

Fig. 2. A close view of a forest in Riga city.

According to Nilsson et al., (2011), thefactors contributing to poor health of citydwellers are: an increasingly sedentarypopulation, increasing levels of mentalstress associated with modern urban life,work practices and hazardousenvironments, such as air polluted. Thenatural areas and natural features likeforests and trees are recognized ascapable of providing conditions toimprove those negative factors. Stressand related conditions, as reflected inmedical records, have increaseddramatically among adults and childrenin Western societies (Grahn andStigsdotter, 2003). In the process ofimprovement of urban environments, it isessential to facilitate the access to localgreen areas that can relief environmentalstress and provide conditions for rest andrelaxation, as well as seeking to reducelevels of traffic noise (Gidlöf andOhrstrom, 2007).

According to Skärbäck, (2007) the stress issignificantly reduced when peopleinteract with natural areas and scenicvalues. The landscape affects humans inmany ways including aestheticappreciation, health and welfare. Thereare a range of landscapes used in studiesof environmental psychology, and thereis evidence of health effects related to thewatching of these landscapes. According

to Velarde et al. (2007) watching ofnatural landscapes gives a positiveimpact with respect to health comparedto urban landscapes.

Today the wide nature territories andgreen areas of Riga occupy 44.8% of thecity territory, together with the naturaloverland water systems. These resourcesare essential for recreation purposes andensuring long-term development of thecity. Therefore it is essential to promotethe maintenance and development planof Riga greenery system.

The forest lands within theadministrative borders of the city aremaintained with a purpose to provide theinterconnection of the nature andgreenery territories of the city with theforests of the suburbs and to facilitate themaintenance of the biological andlandscape diversity in the territory of thecity (Fig. 3).

The mentioned city of Karlsruhe presentsalso a dialogue between urbanagriculture and the forest in the city. SuchSchrebergärten are on the periphery ofthe forest part of the city, making thetransition between the part left naturaland the mineral cultivated city. Some ofthem are even included in the touristiccircuit of the little train crossing the forestpark, an area otherwise not accessible fornon owners.

The architecture of Riga reflects theinterweaving between natural andcultural, between the city and the forest.When with the arrival of the 20th centurythe international trend was for newmaterials like steel, glass and concrete, inRiga the traditional material of timber wasemployed. It resulted thus an exoticarchitectural landscape of NationalRomanticism, drawing on tradition. In the


62

Baltic landscape this is not unique, inTallinn, Estonia, this draws on the calcarstone employed in both Art Nouveau andFunctionalism. Less visible in Riga itself,the timber Art Nouveau is very wellrepresented in Jurmala, the seaside holidyresort of the city. Riga is also member ofthe Reseau Art Nouveau, since thisarchitecture shaped the city. The Reseau isrunning now a European project calledArt Nouveau and Ecology, emphasizinghow nature and culture played together inthis style. One further feature to beanalysed in this is the representation ofplants in Art Nouveau ornaments, whichare many times of vegetal inspiration.

Different of today’s green walls, they canrepresent exotic plants.

Apart of hosting an Art Nouveau andEcology meeting and exhibition, Rigarecently hosted also a meeting onIntelligent Management of HeritageBuildings COST meeting, looking intointegration of buildings in theirsurroundings (leading the workinggroup). Earlier on, it hosted on onsustainable development in digitalrepresentation, with focus on transport.Making periurban green space accessibleis a challenge for transport systems in thecity, and these include the holiday resort.

Fig. 3. Riga´s urban forests.


63

Green in terms of buildings has been apossibility for city branding, forexample in the context of Dubai (Pataki,2015), in a city with problems assuringthe energy problems, where the nextSolar Decathlon will be held. Urbanagriculture through its export ofbiomass is a good competitor in thissense, as biomass is a kind of renewableenergy. This topic has been recentlydiscussed in the COST action“Renewable energy and landscapequality”, emphasizing the need tospread to Eastern Europe. Not only newbuildings need to be green, but alsointervention on existing buildings, suchas the mentioned Art Nouveau. Aninsight is given in Balliana et al. (2016).

One of the objectives set for the Rigalong-term development strategy until theyear 2025 is to be “Clean and green city”.The further development policy of natureterritories and green areas of the city willbe very important for the achievement ofthis objective. Thus the most importantdevelopment objectives of the structure ofthe nature territories and green areas inRiga are:1) To ensure rational use of the city

territory corresponding to thesustainable development principles.

2) To maintain and develop the natureterritories and green areas in orderthey could fully carry out thefunctions provided for them.

3) To ensure access to the overlandwater objects and the public landnature territories for the cityinhabitants and guests.

It could be a great goal of the city of Rigato design an accessible, healthy and greencity and to enter the as a member of theEuropean Network of Healthy Cities. Forthat purpose Riga should take intoaccount WHO’s charters that call for the

promotion of urban forestry and urbanagriculture as a means to increase theamount and distribution of locally grownfood, especially fresh vegetables, whichprovide several health benefits.

The policy of Riga City Council onallotments is to maintain the gardeningplots in the city as the type of temporaryuse of land in places under the risk offloods or because they have specialimportance in maintaining cultural andhistoric environment, nature and greenareas; to carry out monitoring on regularbasis; to elaborate special Riga CityCouncil binding regulations for use ofgardening plots; not to allow any type ofbuilding; to facilitate development oflong-term gardening plots in the area ofTīraine Street and Olaine parish.

5. General features of urban agriculturein Riga, Latvia

Riga city development plan (2006-2018)emphasises that the family allotments aswell as parks, schools, other green spacescemeteries and river/lake banks have agreat significance in preserving differentspecies of birds and invertebrates (RDP,2014). The amount of agricultural andnatural green in the living environmentincreases the level of species richness andis positively related to perceived generalhealth (Mass, 2006).

The movement of introduction of natureinto the city began in nineteen century.This was a carefully constructed image ofnature but it did not remind people of theagricultural landscapes recently leftbehind by many new urban dwellers(Woolley et al., 2005). Urban areas haverecently experienced a decline in thequality and quantity of their green spaceand the enjoyment of nature is notobvious anymore, therefore every accessto green spaces and spending time in


64

nature give important physical andpsychological benefits gained by greenspace users (Maas and Verheij, 2006;Fuller et al., 2007).

The rapid growth of cities drivesincreasing demands for residentialbuildings and other urban built up land(Benson, 2009).The most traditionaltypologies of natural world have beendetermined from the point of view of theplanner, designer or manager—sometimes as a tool for the distribution ofresources or to help prioritise urban openspaces for development or regeneration(Woolley, 2005). People from lowsocioeconomic groups without resourcesto move to greener areas outside the citiesare affected and this may lead toenvironmental injustice with regard tothe distribution of public green spaces(Maas and Verheij, 2006). From the cityplanning point of view it is convenient todevelop the allotment territories whichare near the city centre because itdecreases people movement andconsequently new street networkconstruction, as mentioned in the needfor transport and accessibility of greenspace. Nevertheless, lessons can bedrawn from green belts of moredeveloped green city policies such as inFrankfurt on the Maine or Vienna. InVienna the urban agriculture of vineriesis an essential part of the green belt(Bostenaru, 2015).

The landscape network Le NotreInstitute draws on 4 lines for the yearlyforums, which include rural landscapeand urban periphery. A communicationbetween the two might take indiscussion the urban agriculture on theperiphery of the cities. Cities for whichthis was discussed include EasternEuropean ones such as Sarajevo orBucharest, but not yet Riga.

As historically allotments were formedon the territories of Riga city in the placeswhere the capital construction waspossible only with additional costsbecause of the ground problems. Theallotments were not planned taking intoconsideration the suitability of ground,water and air quality for producing freshfood. When the construction industry andmethods developed became possible tomake constructions in vacant territoriesand most of these territories are providedfrom allotments.

Fig. 4. Urban allotments in Riga, Latvia.

The last conflict arises between owners ofallotments and Riga municipality wasabout territory (~45ha), owned bymunicipality, close to the city centre – inthe opposite side of the Old City overriver Daugava. This area was chose forthe new city centre and now the detailedplans of this centre are worked out.Similar long term conflict is aboutterritory of allotments on the islandLucavsala on river Daugava – also closeto the city centre – unique place whereencounter a lot of different interests.

A lot of areas of current family allotmentsare located in the territory of Free Port ofRiga. This adds a political dimension togreen areas that engages different groupsto take a stand in emergent conflict. Sincethese social and political processes


65

nevertheless influence the spatial patternsof green areas, they come to influence atlocal and greater scales the ecology of thecity and its capacity to generateecosystem services (Benson, 2009). Asemphasize Alberti et al. (2008), complexmetropolitan systems cannot be managedby a single set of top-down governmentalpolicies; instead, they require thecoordinated action of multipleindependent players operating underlocally diverse biophysical conditions andconstraints, constantly adjusting theirbehaviour to maintain an optimal balancebetween human and ecological functions.

The two counter opinions about thecultivated land in the space ofcontemporary city create a structuralconflict arises between interest groupsviewing green areas as unexploited spaceappropriate for physical infrastructure,and groups considering green areas ofvalue in their existing form (Jankovska etal., 2010). For this reason, creatingdecision structures between the resiliencestakeholders is necessary, and can besimulated with game theory asmentioned. Other conflict situationssoftware is available, but essential is tounderstand the urban managementproblem and propose operations in theurban space.

Allotments in Latvia and Riga have along history. The use and status of themover the years have varied with changesbeing influenced by national land userequirements, legislation and personalchoice (Woolley, 2005). During 1710-1814the people made the so called "kitchengardens" which can be considered theorigin of contemporary family allotments.The first colonies of family allotments inRiga were formed already in 1907 andthey had an important place in the greenstructure of Riga. In the 1930s there was a

great culture of allotments in Rigareaching the amount of 7500 allotments in65 colonies.

Having a family garden was a matter ofsurvival in Soviet time, and thegovernment gave urban residents rightsto a 600m2 plot in garden colonies,frequently located at some distance fromthe city. They performed the function ofleisure-time areas, mainly for the lesswealthy, working-class segment ofsociety. They were a sort of a bonus forthe members of the working class oflarge cities. Conveniently located, oftennear the city centre, they were anexcellent spatial manifestation ofsocialised urban structures, which undersocialism were egalitarian by definition.In the city of that time, one could findmany examples of areas emphasising theassumptions of social egalitarianism ofthe socialist state.

The layout of these sites is always asimple grid with access to individualparcels via alleys, which are not pavedand not wide enough to accommodate areal street (Grava, 2007). Even during theSoviet period, many people builtstructures (classified officially as “utilitybuildings”) that could accommodateovernight stays. Considerable ingenuityhad to be applied and miniaturizeddimensions utilized to stay within thenorms (Grava, 2007). In 1995 in Riga citywere about 32 000 family allotments on1600ha in the inner city.

After the regaining of independence ofLatvia in 1991 it was approved in 1995, thefirst Riga city development plan (1995 –2005). One of the city development aims itwas to form a healthy environment andgive a priority to preserving the naturevalues and renaturalisation andrecultivation of the degraded environment


66

in the former development of the city. Thenotion "nature base" appeared in thedocument for the first time. According tothe Riga city development plan (RDP,2014) the nature base is made of sixdifferent but mutually connected nature

elements: forests, meadows, greenery,wetlands and channels with their banklines, allotments and fallows. The 20thcentury marked the straightening of riversfor less floods, and therefore cuttingmeadows from the river.

Fig. 5. The urban allotments in Riga are divided in 4 categories according to contract.


67

The contemporary trend isrenaturalisation also because thefloodplain prevents the disaster. Citieswhich use the heritage qualities ofinclusion of water may fight the hazardthrough including nature and becomingthus more resilient (Bostenaru andGheorghe, 2015) and more ecological.

In the following – Riga city developmentplan 2006-2018 (RDP, 2014) the allotmentshave been classified as the territory partsof nature and greenery and are defined asa territory for a family garden with orwithout temporary buildings accordingto the definite time in the contract andthey were divided in 4 categories as it canbe seen in Fig. 5. In the 21st century, thereshould be adequate level of awarenessand other considerations in urbanagriculture. So, the Riga city developmentplan 2006-2018 supposes the allotmentsmainly to be used temporarily till theterritory zoning according to thedevelopment plan where a temporaryconstruction up to 30m2 is allowed (RDP,2014).

6. Discussion and conclusionsThere are many problems connected withthe allotments. The aesthetic quality ofallotments is low because of the differentkind of allotment houses and fences.Many allotments are deserted and that iswhy the environment is degraded: thereis a high soil and ground-water pollutionat some places and insecure socialenvironment because of homeless peopleand tramps. People do not invest infacilities and the maintenance of theseterritories is not checked because of theshort land lease contract time. Thetenants do not have a necessity to form anaesthetic and ecological landscape space.There are in Riga no rules about theexterior look of the existing houses,fences and etc. and their maintenance and

the consequences of the trespassing theserules. Several years ago Department ofEnvironment of Riga City Councilworked out the conception of theallotments and their maintenance but itwas not supported.

Accumulation of heavy metals or organic,xenobiotic organic compounds in soils iscommon in urban areas and researchcarried out of Department ofEnvironment (2006) show that manyallotments in Riga are polluted withheavy metals and oil products. Harmfulsubstances are delivered to allotmentspartly from the amendment soil used toimprove fertility which is derived fromformer dumping places. A solution ofreusing former dumping grounds andareas along the motorways could be thetransformation to flower gardenallotments. In yard greeneries could turninto small allotments. Those pointsshould be estimated properly and mustbe included in Regulations concerningthe utilization and building of theterritory of Riga, but many believe thatthe allotments in the central part of thecity and along the main streets are notsuitable for allotments because of air andsoil pollution. According to the policy ofRiga City Council (RDP, 2014) familyallotments in the city should be limited inplaces of flood risk which come incontradiction with the rule of theProtection Zone Law (Republic of Latvia,1997) that aim to decrease the negativeeffect of pollution on water ecosystemsand to limit the activities at floodedterritories.

The city of Riga is facing difficulties infinding an adequate solution to the mainproblem of how to apply methods ofsustainable development and enhance theareas in the long term. The Europeanpractice shows that the functions of


68

allotments are changing in the citydevelopment process. The function ofurban agriculture products has changedinto the function of traditional city greenarea which doesn’t ask for the city budgetmoney. Despite the rapid increase of thebuilt environment in the city, familygardens have ecological, cultural, socialand socio-economic value and help toachieve more sustainability (Alberti et al.,2006). The desire of Riga inhabitants is tocontinue urban agriculture as in manyother big cities of the developedeconomies. The involvement of civilsociety in protecting nature is on the riseand plays an important role in articulatingthe ecological and social values that existin green areas (Mazzotti and Morgenstern,2009). We need tools and methods forincreasing the sustainability of urbanareas by protecting and connecting greenspaces, given the fact that ecological, socialand economical conditions are oftenmutually dependent.

Urban allotments were mentioned as atraditional urban form with a long anddistinguished history. Research indicatesa relationship between sensoryperception of natural environments andhuman health Grahn and Stigsdotter(2010) and for this the urban allotmentscan be viewed as elements of importanceto public mental health. Lisbon is asuccessful example of urban allotmentsused as simultaneous environmental andagriculture projects within a frameworkof sustainable city.

For the Riga family allotments the mainproblems are political interests in landdevelopment and absence of normativewhich constrains the maintaining of thisarea and prescribe the criteria for visualqualities. The Department of Riga CityDevelopment ought to finish theinventory of Riga landscape for forming

and maintenance of green areas, familyallotments and parks. The conceptionplan of Riga green areas could help tounderstand which should be the places ofthe protected areas in Riga and which theplaces of nature base areas with possibleparks. The involvement of landscapearchitects and landscape urbanists in thedevelopment of the master plan and lateron of the local plans is essential. Table 3shows the strengths, opportunities,weaknesses and threats of urbanallotments in Riga city.

Table 3. SWOT analyses of urban agriculture inRiga.

Strengths Fresh food supplyUrban green infrastructure improvementSecondary income for part-time farmersLeisure activities for weekendBiodiversity enhancementReduce risk of floodImprove city microclimate

Weaknesses Agriculture is decaying industryLack of research on urban agricultureLack of urban spaces for agricultureAllotments are temporaryLack of aestheticsInsecure social environment

OpportunitiesOccupation for elderlyReduce poverty and unemploymentEnvironmental educationEnhance human-nature relationshipGrowing demand for organic foodAvailable free time for city-dweller

Threats Rising cost of landLack of City Green infrastructurePlanLack of agricultural policies, laws,and regulations affecting urbanfarmersLack of investment in agriculturecommunal infrastructure.Lacking large scale operationEnvironmental pollution

The paper by Petrişor et al. (2016) showsthe context of Green Infrastructure inRomania, in different contexts, includinggeographic conditions (such as vicinity ofthe Danube) and urban sociologyconditions (such as the presence of ethnic


69

minorities). An interesting part of the studyis the application of fractal analysis to thedeveloped taxonomy. Fractal analysispermits the study of urban development intime on the selected items which are in thiscase instead of the roadways the greencorridors. Buhociu et al. (2013) bringsagricultural development at the Danube todetail, this time in rural areas.

At European level the COST networkGreen in Urbs is dealing with comparinggreen infrastructure across countries andis due to come to a final conference inOrvieto, Italy, in April 2017.

Without a City Green Infrastructure Plan,Riga is in risk to be an example thatcommercial investors may create thespatial structure of the post-socialist city.Too little attention is paid to theexperience of Western cities, bothAmerican and European, which faced theproblems of urban sprawl and inner-citydecline much earlier. Despite the fastincreasing urban land commercialisation,it is easy to find in the city’s structureexamples of nature reserves, allotmentgardens and urban forests. Unfortunately,those spaces are expected to fall victim tocommercially oriented investors if the cityauthorities will not implement fast theRDP. Meanwhile, the importance of theclever landscaping will be increasinglyimportant in the context of urban floodingexacerbated by climate change. Thereforeurban forests and allotments, greencorridors, green drainage, and greenurbanism have to be seen by city plannersas means to increase city resilience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Academic study and publication financedby the project “Support for doctoral studiesin LUA” /2009/0180/1DP/1.1.2.1.2/09/IPIA/VIAA/017/.

REFERENCES

Alberti M., Marzluff J. M., Shulenberger E.,Bradley G., Ryan C., ZumBrunnen C.(2008), Integrating Humans into Ecology:Opportunities and Challenges for StudyingUrban Ecosystems, in: Marzluff J.M.,Endlicher W., Bradley G., Simon U.,Shulenberger E., Alberti M., Ryan C.,ZumBrunnen C. (eds.), Urban Ecology. AnInternational Perspective on the InteractionBetween Humans and Nature, Springer,Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 147 - 158.

Andersson E. (2006), Urban Landscapes andSustainable Cities, Ecology and Society11(1):34.

Balliana E., Ricci G., Pesce C., Zendri E. (2016),Assessing the Value of Green Conservation forCultural Heritage: Positive and CriticalAspects of Already Available Methodologies,International Journal of ConservationScience 7(1): 185-202.

Benedict M., McMahon E. (2006), GreenInfrastructure: Linking Landscapes andCommunities, Island Press, Washington DC,USA.

Benedict M. A., McMahon E. T. (2002), GreenInfrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21stCentury, Renewable Resources Journal20(4):12-17.

Benson L. (2009) Social and political aspects of urbanecology: possibilities and constraints for civicactors to influence urban green area planningat Årstafältet, degree project, StockholmUniversity, Sweden.

Bolund P., Hunhammar S. (1999), Ecosystem servicesin urban areas, Ecological Economics 29(1):293-301.

Bostenaru Dan M. (2005), Multidisciplinary co-operation in building design according tourbanistic zoning and seismic microzonation,Natural Hazards and Earth SystemSciences 5(4): 397-411.

Bostenaru Dan M. (2015), Application of the GreenRevolution Game, Open Journal of Ecology5(6): 274-286.

Bostenaru Dan M., Gheorghe D. (2015), Workshopsummary: "Floods, state, dams and dykes inmodern times: Ecological and socio-economictransformations of the rural world", WebEcology 15(1): 29-31.

Buhociu D. H., Rahoveanu A. T., Florescu T. C.,Crăciun C., Popa A. (2013), Ruralwaterfronts, green areas and natural landscapeat the Danube, Journal of Food, Agricultureand Environment 11(3-4): 1692-1696.


70

Fuller R. A., Irvine K. N., Devine-Wright P., WarrenP. H., Gaston K. J. (2007), Psychologicalbenefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity,Biology Letters 3(4): 390-394.

Gidlof-Gunnarsson A., Ohrstrom E. (2007), Noiseand well-being in urban residentialenvironments: The potential role of perceivedavailability to nearby green areas, Landscapeand Urban Planning 83(2-3): 115-126.

Grahn P., Stigsdotter U. (2003), Landscape Planningand Stress, Urban Forestry and UrbanGreening 2(1): 1-18.

Grahn P., Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010) The relationbetween perceived sensory dimensions of urbangreen space and stress restoration, Landscapeand Urban Planning 94(3-4): 264-275.

Grava S. (2007), Urban transport in the Balticrepublics, in: Stanilov K. (Editor), The Post -Socialist City, Urban Form and SpaceTransformations in Central and EasternEurope after Socialism, Springer, Dordrecht,The Netherlands, pp. 313 - 347.

Hollands R.G. (2008), Will the real smart city pleasestand up?, City 12(3): 303-320.

Holling C.S. (1973), Resilience and stability ofecological systems, Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 4(1):1-23.

Jankovska I., Panagopoulos T. (2010), Challengesand prospects of urban allotments in Latviaand Portugal, in: Panagopoulos T., NoronhaT., Beltrao J. (eds), Advances in UrbanRehabilitation and Sustainability, Faro, pp.113-118.

Jankovska I., Straupe I., Panagopoulos T. (2010),Naturalistic Forest Landscape in Urban Areas:Challenges and Solutions, in: Jha M (ed.),Latest trends on urban planning andtransportation, WSEAS Press, Corfu,Greece, pp. 21-27.

Maas J., Verheij R. A., Groenewegen P. P., de VriesS., Spreeuwenberg P. (2006), Green space,urbanity, and health: how strong is therelation?, Journal of Epidemiology &Community Health, 60(7): 587-592.

Mazzotti F. J., Morgenstern C. (2009), A ScientificFramework for Managing Urban NaturalAreas, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw112

Nilsson K., Sangster M., Gallis C., Hartig T., deVries S., Seeland K., Schipperijn J.(2011), Forests, Trees and Human Health,Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

Panagopoulos T., González Duque J. A., BostenaruDan M. (2016), Urban planning with respectto environmental quality and human well-being, Environmental Pollution 208(1):137-44.

Patachi L. (2015), Green City Branding. Sustainabilityor Mere Pretence?, Acta TechnicaNapocensis: Civil Engineering &Architecture 58(4): 263-271.

Petrişor A.-I., Andronache I. C., Petrişor L. E.,Ciobotaru A. M., Peptenatu D. (2016),Assessing the fragmentation of the greeninfrastructure in Romanian cities using fractalmodels and numerical taxonomy, ProcediaEnvironmental Sciences 32(1): 110-123.

RDP (2014) Sustainable Development Strategy of Rigauntil 2030 and Development Programme of Rigafor 2014-2020, http://www.rdpad.lv/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ENG_STRATEGIJA.pdf

Republic of Latvia (1997) Protection Zone Law Latvia,http://www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/docs/LRTA/Likumi/Protection_Zone_Law_.doc

Skärbäck E. (2007), Urban forests ascompensation measures for infrastructuredevelopment, Urban Forestry & UrbanGreening 6(4): 279-285.

Stratu A., Costică N., Costică M. (2016), Woodenspecies in the urban green areas and their rolein improving the quality of the environment,Present Environment and SustainableDevelopment 10(2): 173-183.

Velarde M. D., Fry G., Tveit, M. (2007), Health effectsof viewing landscapes - Landscape types inenvironmental psychology, Urban Forestry &Urban Greening 6(4): 199-212.

Wilson E. O. (1984), Biophilia: The Human Bond withOther Species, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, USA.

Woolley H. (2003), Urban open space, Spon Press,London, UK.

Received: 11 January 2017 • Revised: 16 January 2017 • Accepted: 25 January 2017

Article distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

urban green infrastructure: the role of urban agriculture ... › art › v9n1a04.pdf · urban...

Documents