Sep, 2016

IMPACTS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE ON

LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY
A Comparative Study of Two Cases of Urban Agriculture in the
Netherlands and China

Tianyu YANG
WAGENINGEN UR
Wageningen
MSc Thesis

Impacts of Urban Agriculture on Local

Sustainability

A Comparative Study of Two Cases of Urban Agriculture in the

Netherlands and China

Name: YANG, TIANYU

Reg.No.: 891023980080
Supervisor: Prof. Arnold van der Valk

Sep, 2016

Land use planning group, Wageningen University

Wageningen

i
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................vi
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... viii
Key Words ...................................................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background: Urban Agriculture Worldwide........................................................................ 2
1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Urban agriculture in the Netherlands........................................................................ 3
1.2.2 Urban agriculture in China............................................................................................. 4
1.2.3 The blank of academic literature ................................................................................. 5
1.3 Research Objectives and Research Questions ................................................................... 6
1.4 The Construction of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 6
2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 The Importance of Community ............................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Community in urban agriculture ................................................................................. 9
2.1.2 Social cohesion and social capital............................................................................. 10
2.1.3 The definition of urban farm and community garden ...................................... 11
2.2 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.1 Local sustainability .......................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Two ways of assessing sustainability ....................................................................... 14
2.2.3 The application of two ways on assessing local sustainability....................... 14
2.3 Local Food Systems.................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1 The conventional food system ................................................................................... 16
2.3.2 The alternative food system ........................................................................................ 17
2.3.3 The existence of conventional food system and alternative food system 19
2.4 Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................. 19
2.4.1 Local food system in local sustainability matrix .................................................. 19
2.4.2 The indicators and the standard................................................................................ 22
2.4.3 The conceptual framework .......................................................................................... 23
3. Research Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 An Explorative Study.................................................................................................................. 26
3.2 Case Study ..................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Research Process......................................................................................................................... 29
3.4 Research Techniques ................................................................................................................. 30
3.5 Research Validity ......................................................................................................................... 31
4. Case study in The Netherlands........................................................................................................... 33
4.1 The Local Context ....................................................................................................................... 34
4.2 Substantive Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 35
4.2.1 Environmental health ..................................................................................................... 35
4.2.2 Economic vitality.............................................................................................................. 41

iii
 4.2.3 Social equity ...................................................................................................................... 44
4.3 Procedural Sustainability—Stakeholder Analysis ........................................................... 46
4.3.1 The identification of related stakeholders ............................................................. 46
4.3.2 The interconnections between stakeholders ........................................................ 48
5. Case Study in China ................................................................................................................................ 50
5.1 The Local Context ....................................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Substantive Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 52
5.2.1 Environmental sustainability ....................................................................................... 52
5.2.2 Economic vitality.............................................................................................................. 55
5.2.3 Social equity ...................................................................................................................... 57
5.3 Procedural Sustainability—Stakeholder Analysis ........................................................... 59
5.3.1 The related stakeholders .............................................................................................. 59
5.3.2 The interconnection between stakeholders .......................................................... 61
6. The Comparisons of Two Case Study .............................................................................................. 62
6.1 What are the impacts of the Dutch urban farm on local sustainability? ............... 63
6.1.1 A complicated circle of metabolism......................................................................... 63
6.1.2 The diversity of development ..................................................................................... 64
6.1.3 An open opportunity for forming a community ................................................. 65
6.2 What are the impacts of the Chinese community garden on local sustainability?
........................................................................................................................................................... 66
6.2.1 The simple circle of metabolism ................................................................................ 66
6.2.2 The simple form of a particular community.......................................................... 67
6.2.3 The simple cooperation model .................................................................................. 68
6.3 What are the similarities and differences of the two cases with respect to local
sustainability? ............................................................................................................................... 69
6.3.1 The similarities .................................................................................................................. 70
6.3.2 The differences ................................................................................................................. 71
6.4 What lessons can be learnt from the two urban cases? .............................................. 72
7. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 74
7.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 75
7.1.1 Conclusions for the Dutch case ................................................................................. 75
7.1.2 Conclusions for the Chinese case ............................................................................. 75
7.1.3 The General Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76
7.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 76
7.2.1 Recommendations for the Netherlands ................................................................. 76
7.2.2 Recommendations for China ...................................................................................... 77
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix ......................................................................................................................................................... 85
1: Questionnaires ............................................................................................................................... 86
2: Interview list .................................................................................................................................... 91

iv
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: The theoretical framework of renewable energy project on local
sustainability……. ................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.2: The local food system ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2.3: The resources required in different food system processes ................................... 20
Figure 2.4: The local food system posited in local sustainability matrix................................... 21
Figure 2.5: The indicators of local sustainability derived from local food system ................ 22
Figure 2.6: The conceptual framework .................................................................................................. 23

Figure 3.1: Study area of Caetshage farm in Culemborg ............................................................... 27

Figure 3.2: Study area of Sanyuanli community garden in Beijing ............................................. 28
Figure 3.3: Research process ..................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 4.1: The administrative area of Culemborg city ................................................................... 34

Figure 4.2: The greenhouses on Caetshage farm .............................................................................. 36
Figure 4.3: The food products from Caetshage farm cover the residents need .................... 38
Figure 4.4: The preferable food resources around Eva-Lanxmeer area .................................... 39
Figure 4.5: The reasons that people purchase from their preferable food resources ......... 39
Figure 4.6: Residents’ perceptions on the regards of price and products quality ................ 42
Figure 4.7: The Caetshage service scope .............................................................................................. 43
Figure 4.8: The age groups distribution of questionnaires respondents ................................. 44
Figure 4.9: The participants on Caetshage farm ................................................................................ 44
Figure 4.10: The farming activities people participate on Caetshage farm ............................. 45
Figure 4.11: The frequency of people participates in farming activities ................................... 45
Figure 4.12: People’s opinions on participating farming activities ............................................. 45
Figure 4.13: The reasons of residents who do not take part in the farm activities............... 46
Figure 4.14: The Stakeholders power-interest matrix of Caetshage farm................................ 48

Figure 5.1: The administrative area of Sanyuanli ............................................................................... 51

Figure 5.2: Sanyuanli Community garden actual appearance ...................................................... 53
Figure 5.3: Residents’ perception on the products from community garden ........................ 54
Figure 5.4: The quantity coverage of residents’ needs.................................................................... 54
Figure 5.5: The preferred food resources in Sanyuanli neighbourhood................................... 55
Figure 5.6: The reasons that people purchase from their preferable food resources ......... 55
Figure 5.7: Service scope of Sanyuanli community garden ........................................................... 56
Figure 5.8: The income level of consumers in Sanyuanli community garden ........................ 57
Figure 5.9: The farming activities people participate in Sanyuanli community garden...... 58
Figure 5.10: The frequency of people participates in farming activities ................................... 59
Figure 5.11: People’s opinions on participating farming activities ............................................. 59
Figure 5.12: The Stakeholders power-interest matrix of Sanyuanli community garden .... 60

Figure 6.1: The metabolism flow of Caetshage farm ....................................................................... 64

Figure 6.2: The matebolism flow of Sanyuanli community garden ............................................ 67

v
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Sustainability in macro and micro level comparison. .................................................. 13
Table 3.1: The list of interviewees in Caetshage farm ...................................................................... 30
Table 3.2 The list of interviewees in Sanyuanli community garden ........................................... 30
Table 6.1: The comparison of local resources/circumstances of two cases ............................ 69
Table 6.2: The comparison between two different urban agriculture practices –
substantive sustainability .................................................................................................................. 69
Table 6.3: The comparison between two different urban agriculture practices –
procedural sustainability ................................................................................................................... 70

vi
Acknowledgement
The Master thesis section is a journey mixed with efforts and pleasure. And I am very pleased
that there are many kind and warm-heart people that support me to complete it.

First, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Professor Arnold van der Valk who provide his
professional knowledge, meanwhile, shed the light on thesis methodology. With his sincere
devotion, patience and supports, I gained knowledge and restore my confidence during the
research process.

Second, I express my special gratefulness to the interviewers and residents in two countries
who provided me plenty of information with kind heart, though we never meet before. Their
selfless support to my study is a great value for my research.

Last but not least, many thanks for my beloved family and sincere friends who have support
and give a lot of strength, and guide me walk out of unconfident. We communicated with
each other and share different opinions based on their knowledge, which always enlighten
me.

vii
Abstract
This thesis explores the performance of disparate types of urban agriculture and the impact
on sustainability on the local scale. The empirical part focuses on two cases, one in the
Netherlands and the other one in China. The two cases are compared to bring out similarities
and differences of urban agriculture.

The conceptual framework entails indicators deduced from five phases in the local food
system and three dimensions of substantive sustainability. The ultimate criterion is the answer
to the question if the agricultural enterprise has delivered a major contribution to urban
metabolism and local circularity. Another concern is procedural sustainability which referred
as stakeholder analysis. If the network of local stakeholders is identified, it may provide clues
as to future development.

The study concludes that two different cases of urban agriculture have contributed to local
sustainability by means of fostering circular metabolism. In both cases sustainability is
enhanced by maximizing the value of all the inputs and creating a space for residents to
enhance social cohesion. Both types of urban agriculture studies have their specific
characteristics.

The Caetshage farm in the Netherlands is in a form of diversity. It forms the circular
metabolism by maximizing the value of all the input resources; it provides open opportunities
for different people to participate in farming activities; it accumulates economic incomes by
attracting different consumers. With respect to involvement of stakeholders, local
governments, primary schools, farmers, residents and other commercial sectors have multiple
business cooperation.

The Chinese Sanyuanli community garden appears to be a simple but inflexible model. The
circular metabolism is in a simple circle; the food production amount is limited; the social
relationship is enhanced only within a particular group. Stakeholders such as local
government, residents in the neighbourhood and project initiators cooperate together to
iniate the project.

Both cases have strengths and weaknesses. But it is good to be learnt the strengths from
different cases and remedy the weakness on the condition of taking the local contexts into
consideration. The two different urban agriculture practices have provided different impacts
on local sustainability, by discovering such differences of urban agriculture practices. It has a
reference meaning for developing urban agricultures in a local level.

Key Words
Urban agriculture; local sustainability; urban farms; community gardens.

viii
1. Introduction

1
1.1 Background: Urban Agriculture Worldwide
Alongside the rapid urbanization seen globally over last century, urban agriculture has slowly
gained traction, with the practice of growing plants and raising animals within or around
cities increasingly recognised (Sjauw, 2015). Urban agriculture has been defined in a number
of ways. Some define urban agriculture as a form of agriculture that uses small plots of land
located within the urban area itself. Others consider any agricultural activities carried out in
urban and peri-urban areas as urban agriculture (Viljoen and Bohn, 2014). Urban agriculture
therefore acts as an overarching concept for a broad categorisation of agricultural activities
related to urban areas, though there is divergence with respect to scale, location, activities
and goals (Veen, 2015). However, there does exist consensus that urban agriculture is a
modern form of agricultural system reflecting the level of economic and social development
of a city (UN, 2010), a concept that has made this topic a popular theme in urban studies.

Sustainability is a widely acknowledged concept that calls for the integration of policy, and
environmental, social and economic dimensions (Holland, 2004). It requires efforts from all
levels of governance (Srinivas, 2015), from national level to local level. It is the tier of
govenments that is crucial for the development of sustainability. Thus, sustainability is always
an important theme for urban planning to provide people with the best standard of living,
one aspect of which is concern for the environment, assessed with regards to technical and
political measures (Budge and Slade, 2009). Among all the sustainability planning topics,
urban agriculture has gradually been studied widely. It is concerned as an alternative option
for sustainable development and has applied around the world.

In developed countries, the development of urban agriculture began following the end of
WWII (UN, 2010). With increasing demands for fresh and seasonal food and the growing
problem of obesity, food has gradually become a priority again. Urban agriculture is one
method that has been discussed as a way to solve these food-related issues. It is gradually
infiltrating mainstream thought and establishing itself in the field of planning. Community-
based agriculture has been adopted as the mainstream form of urban agriculture. In the US,
urban agriculture is primarily family-based, however such small scale trials have only had a
small impact on the large amount of vacant land that currently is not under used (UN, 2010).
In the European context, in contrast, local agriculture has become a focus for urban
development (Cai and Yang, 2008); with ventures consist of small urban farms, farmers’
markets, CSA, farm-to-school programmes, community gardens and allotment gardens, etc.
(Broekhof and van de Valk, 2012). Here local agriculture promotes the movement towards
alternative food networks which seeks to reduce the distance between producers and
consumers (Goodman and Goodman, 2009). The reason for the popularity of urban
agriculture is believed to lie in a demand from citizens to connect with nature and increasing
concerns about health (van der Schans, 2010).

In developing countries, the force of development in urban agriculture has also come from
food-related problems, mainly: the lack of the guaranteed food security and the need for
largescale food production. It is said that urban agriculture could help to improve both food
intake and food quality (RUAF foundation, 2015). However, two contrasting form of urban
agriculture exist, with increased urbanization and food requirements, in places such as Africa,
inducing significant changes in urban agriculture. On the one hand, low income farmers
conduct traditional practices working in the peri-urban areas. On the other hand, commercial

2
farmers with high productivity and market force have come to dominate urban agriculture.
The co-existence of both traditional and urban agriculture will pose a great challenge for
developing countries when people are seeking the promotion of multiple functional urban
agriculture in the future (Wahba, 2013).

1.2 Problem Statement

1.2.1 Urban agriculture in the Netherlands
Traditionally, agriculture in the Netherlands has been motivated by global export markets
(van der Schans, 2010), with access to fresh food no longer a pressing problem in the
Netherlands (Veen, 2015). However, some citizens have become disillusioned by the large
scale production of conventional food networks with food only accessible supermarkets. This
sentiment has led to initiates to develop urban agriculture. Further encouraged by political
support and market demands, urban agriculture has gained more and more ground, as it has
been promoted, developed, studied and researched by people in a range of disciplines.

Unlike the inefficient use of agricultural land in US and Canada, the Netherlands uses higher
intensity land practices in order to deal with the competition from high population density
(van der Schans, 2010). Urban agriculture has recently become a popular field in the
Netherlands, with a shift from peri-urban farms to urban environment (van der Schans, 2010).
This shift provides opportunities for farmers to develop on small plots which are also often
close to the citizens in the neighbourhoods, as highlighted by Van der Schans (2010). These
small plots used for agriculture within urban environment are normally recognized as a
practice of urban farm. These urban farms not only reduce the burden of production, but also
are required to have multi functions to be beneficial for urban development (van der Schans,
2010). There are a number of different examples of such urban farms. One example is the
organic farm on the outskirts of Zoetermeer called ‘‘t Geertje’. With a public mandate, this
organic farm has developed different functions such as a shop, restaurant and other services,
such as hosting corporate events and parties, (Geertje, 2015). Other examples can be found in
Rotterdam, where a project of urban farms (eatable Rotterdam) is under development to test
the possibilities of food production in a metropolis (Sjauw, 2015). Such urban farms have
gradually emerged in recent years.

In recent years, urban agricultural practices have been studied from a range of different
perspectives. In a report published by Levenston in 2013, it was concluded that urban
agriculture can not only provide more production opportunities for farmers, but also create
more job opportunities for workers and improve social development in the neighbourhoods
themselves. However, there is no conclusive evidence that these practices increase financial
profits (Levenston, M., 2013). This report has proved the necessity of investigation and
research, especially with regards the social and economic effect of urban agriculture, to
discover the important contributions that urban farms can have on maintaining sustainable
social development.

This is of increasing significance within the Netherlands, with evidence to suggest that social
cohesion is in a strong decline within the urban areas. Dutch society is also experiencing a

3
transition from a welfare state into a participatory society (Veen, 2015). This participatory
society requires active relationship between citizens, which could benefit from an improved
social and physical environment (Veen, 2015). Under such circumstances, the issue of social
cohesion is a more urgent topic of discussion than ever before. According to Veen (2015) and
van Wetten (2010), urban agriculture could help to increase social contact between people,
resulting in an enhancement of social cohesion. Therefore, it is worthwhile to discuss how
urban agriculture practices can be used to improve social cohesion.

Nowadays in the Netherlands, cities such as Almere, Tilburg and Rotterdam have started to
treat urban agriculture seriously as an important component of the urban planning process. It
is necessary to conduct researches on studying different types of urban agriculture practices
to adapt to the changes of urbanization in the future. To design effective agriculture practices
for a city area, planners need research their impact at local level. Having a promising practice
of urban agriculture is the first step. Small urban farm currently represents a popular type of
alternative food network in the Netherlands, and expansion of this form of urban agriculture
demands to be conducted in order to determine their influence on local sustainability. Such
research is also of value for planners who work on urban agriculture.

1.2.2 Urban agriculture in China

China, as an ancient agricultural nation, started to pay attention to the development of urban
agriculture from the early 1990s (Wahba, 2013). By 2005, the agri-business had developed a
dominant position in urban agriculture within China, with this usually taking the form of
agro-parks (Rong, 2013). Theoretically speaking, the core of agri-business is efficiency and
productivity (Broekhof and van de Valk, 2012) with the use of advanced technology
responsible for the massive yields of vegetables. Large agro-parks are normally located in
peri-urban area. These are constructed as a circle of productive land around urban areas to
support the daily needs within a city (Cao and Zhang, 2006). Most cities therefore have zones
for urban agriculture located on the outskirts as a form of permanent land use (RUAF
foundation, 2015). According to a report by the UN in 2010, China is able to produce more
than 85% of its vegetables every year with this help of agri-business (UN,2010). In recent
years, agro-parks have also transformed from the simple function of production to multi-
functional developments, simultaneously combining food production with uses for leisure
and tourism.

Alongside agri-business, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) has also gradually

emerged in China since 2010. As a community-based practice of alternative food networks, it
offers citizens an alternative source of food. Because of its advantages regarding access to
fresh, seasonal food and its reduction of the producer-consumer gap, it is soon becoming
welcomed among citizens. However, CSA is currently only carried out in first and second-tier
cities, e.g. Beijing, Shenzhen, Changzhou, etc. and the benefitting communities are in a
minority (Qu and Jiao, 2013).

Though the agri-business and the emerging CSA contribute to the development of urban
agriculture, they are not the only types in China. Some small ventures, such as rooftop and
balcony planting, have gradually become preferable activities by citizens and this trend is
getting more popular. In the last couple of years, there has also been news about citizens

4
spontaneously transforming green space in a community into small farms, e.g. planting
vegetables and raising hens. However, these actions of changing public land into personal
uses and consistently abusing the beautification of a community should be limited.

Such spontaneous actions are informal but have a vital energy (Veen, 2015). This
phenomenon happens generally in China could raise a change in the food system. From a
planning perspective, the community gardens formed by citizens themselves provide a
decentralized way to supporting the development of alternative food network, which could
further enhance the quality of life, and social safety (Veen, 2015). The concept of alternative
food networks in China is still a fresh field and in a necessary process of formalization. The
emergence of community gardens could be regarded as a new start of urban agriculture
practices in China. Their appearance confirms a re-localizing of agricultural production, which
will become more sustainable in order to meet local food requirements (Rong, 2013).

As the growth of such spontaneous actions in neighbourhoods gains momentum, it is

worthwhile to discuss these new practices of urban agriculture in China in order to seek an
alternative option. The extent to which community gardens in the Chinese context could
provide an effective and positive contribution to local sustainable development and fit in
China’s circumstances needs to be studied.

1.2.3 The blank of academic literature

Nowadays, sustainability is the major underlying principle of urban development. At the
beginning of this century, a growing mass of literature discussed the concept of ‘urban
agriculture’, ranging from the benefits and impacts of urban agriculture on the functioning of
local food system. There focused on the construction of local food systems and the role of
urban agriculture in achieving sustainable development. Among all the practices of urban
agriculture, community-based type is the mostly commonly cited, though this literature
focused primarily on the western context. Holland, (2004) has studied the British community
gardens under the policy context of Local Agenda 21; Firth, et,al (2011), have researched the
community gardens on social aspects in Australia; and Hinrichs CSA case in Midwest
community under the context of U.S. However, there is a lack of literatures on the
community-based urban agriculture cases under the Chinese context. There is also little
literature referring to how community-based urban agriculture have developed in the
presence of uncertain changes which presents the opportunity to provide insights on the
possible trends of community gardens that Chinese could refer.

Sustainability is a widely acknowledged concept that calls for an integration of policy and
environmental, social and economic dimensions (Holland, 2004). It needs efforts from all
government levels (Srinivas, 2015). Local sustainability policy-making depends on the local
government who would combine the local endogenous resources and sustainable
development in a higher level. It is the embodied form of instruction for the development of
local sustainability.

Urban planning is intended to provide people the best way of living concern with
environment by using technical and political measures (Budge and Slade, 2009). To guarantee
people’s quality of life, sustainability has become the main theme of the urban planning.

5
Overall, there is a lack of comprehensive conceptual framework used to examine various
different practices of urban agriculture. Thus, it is beneficial to the wider body of urban
agriculture research to conduct a comparison study of the urban agriculture practices in the
developed and developing world. This research will use two cases, The Netherlands and
China, to analyse their influence on and performance of local sustainability and explore the
future development of urban agriculture practices in these two countries.

1.3 Research Objectives and Research Questions

The preceding considerations show the urge to conduct research which may bring the
aforementioned practical and/or academic problems to a solution. The objective of this study
stems from these considerations.

This thesis aims to

 study the characteristics of two cases of urban agriculture and the impacts on local
sustainability in the Netherlands and China;
 explore similarities and differences of two different cases of urban agriculture;
 provide suggestions and recommendations for the future development of urban
agriculture in the two countries.

by means of conducting a comparative case study between Caetshage farm in Culemborg

and Sanyuanli community garden in Beijing.

In order to reach the research objectives, the following research questions will have to be
answered:

 What are the impacts of the Dutch urban farm on local sustainability?
 What are the impacts of the Chinese community garden on local sustainability?
 What are the similarities and differences of the two cases with respect to local
sustainability?
 What lessons can be learnt from the two urban cases?

The first three research questions pertain to the identification of the consequences of urban
farming on local sustainability. The forth question sheds light on the possible strategies in
both countries which can contribute to the consolidation of urban agriculture.

1.4 The Construction of the Thesis

The thesis is constructed in three parts. The first part includes Chapter 1, 2 and 3. Through
the demonstration of background and literature review, the theory will be provided.
Meanwhile, the indicators will be identified and it will help to conduct the case study. In the
second part, consisting of Chapter 4 and 5, gives the research results that find in the
fieldwork. And in the third part, i.e. Chapter 6 and 7, it is going to interpret the results of case
study and provide the final conclusions and recommendations for two countries. The specific
contents of each chapter display following:

6
Chapter 1: introduces the background information and states the necessity of study.
Chapter 2: promotes a conceptual framework based on the literatures and applies it in two
cases.
Chapter 3: describes the research methodology, research techniques, and research process.
Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 give the research results respectively in the Netherlands and China.
Chapter 6 is the analysis of comparison results including the answers to the research
questions.
Chapter 7 gives the conclusions and the related recommendations to both cases.

7
 2. Literature Review

8
This literature review is used to formulate an evidence based theoretical framework for
community involvement, urban agriculture and local sustainability that will support my case
study based approach looking at the impact of urban agriculture on local sustainability. This
chapter is divided into three parts: the first section provides a definition of communities and
describes the necessity of involving community study in urban agriculture practices; the
second section will study sustainable food systems at local level, exemplified by two aspects
of local sustainability and food systems. Building on these two sections, the third section will
provide a theoretical framework that will be applied to the case study selected for this study.

2.1 The Importance of Community

2.1.1 Community in urban agriculture
Urban agriculture practices cannot be isolated from the communities in which and for which
they are established. A community is defined as a common space that brings people together
and inspires shared action (Linn, 2007). The form of urban agriculture can be further sub-
divided based on different prerequisites. For example, community gardens can be divided
into school gardens, institutional gardens, residential gardens, etc. The categories are divided
based on the condition where a garden is attached to (Mees and Stone, 2012). However,
community gardens could also be divided into a share interest, such as Jewish community
gardens based on culture interest, and academic community gardens based on academy
interest. These differences were highlighted by a study by Dale, et al., (2010) who state that a
community needs to be defined broadly - not only by place but also by practice, professional
affiliation, shared interests and networks. Similarly, Firth, et al. (2011) also point out that two
fundamental categories of communities: place-based communities and interest-based
communities.

A ‘Place-based’ community usually refers to a community that is named after where it is

located. It is a community that is formed due to geographical proximity most commonly in
neighbourhoods or work places. Normally, in a neighbourhood or in a working place, the
appearance of a community garden is mostly due to the fact that people live or work in the
same environment.

However, the perception of ‘place-based’ community has been challenged by the emergence
of ‘Community-Supported Agriculture’ (CSA). CSA takes the form of one local agriculture
farm which can be supported by multiple place-based communities. The different place-
based communities form a new community around the farm which consists of groups of
people that are interested in urban agriculture. An ‘Interest-based’ community is defined as a
community within which people share the same value, goals, networks or enthusiasm for a
specific thing (Linn, 2007). For this reason, therefore, the community created around CSAs
appears interest-based rather than place-based.

The definition of a community therefore needs to defined and re-defined within each
different research context (Kingsley and Townsend, 2006). As demonstrated above, the
definition of a community is now no longer only based on geographic location, but based on

9
personal connectedness between people sharing the same interests (Firth, Maye, et al., 2011).
Within the context of urban agriculture, the place-based and interest-based communities
cannot be separate entirely. In many cases, the concept of community may encompass both
place-based and interest-based meanings. It is therefore important to address the foundation
on which the community is based before studying urban agriculture, because this leads to a
better understanding of social cohesion.

2.1.2 Social cohesion and social capital

Social cohesion is an ambiguous concept that is generally interpreted as a way that people
connect with each other (Veen, 2015). It can be operationalized through the use of
multidimensional elements, though they are all hard to measure in reality (Veen, 2015). Social
capital is one element of social cohesion, and is understood as a way to examine the social
networks of the people who make up a community (OECD, 2007). The level of social capital
can predict the level of local participation when forming a community (Kingsley and
Townsend, 2006) and it can indicate how a community will mobilize the social resources at
their disposal to makes full use of their skills within a certain area (OCED, 2007). Social capital
is essential for maintaining the value of public goods, which only can be pursued through the
community interest (Selman, 2001). Public services such as environmental preservation and
traffic mobility requires social capital (Selman, 2001). Thus, from this perspective, the study of
social capital could reflect the social coherence of a community.

According to OECD, (2007), social capital can be defined as a combination of the networks
and shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate co-operation within or among
groups (OCED, 2007). Using the research of Alaimo, et al., (2010), social capital can be
understood on two levels, individual level and community level. Individual level social
capital is described by Alaimo, et al., (2010) as:

‘generated by individuals for their own potential benefit, then neighbourhood

community development projects designed to increase social capital should focus
on promoting the development of individual social networks and attracting large
numbers of neighbourhood residents to get involved in activities that increase
networking, norms and trust’.

The definition above implies that social capital at individual level could review the internal
relationships within a certain community. It tends to consider the social capital from the
individual point of view, focusing on what an individual could contribute to the group rather
than a general impression of the public participation in a community.

At the community level, social capital can be understood to mean:

‘features of social organizations, such as networks, norms, and trust, which facilitate
actions of cooperation for mutual benefit’ (Kingsley and Townsend, 2006).

From the definition, it can be regarded a community as an entity, considering the relationship
of one community with others. It implies that if participators in one community have

10
established the community networks, norms, and trusts in a neighbourhood, the benefits it
generates would spill over to non-participating neighbours (Alaimo, Reischl, et al., 2010).

The above understandings of social capital provide two different perspectives regarding
social cohesions. The two levels of social capital give insights into the connectedness
between individuals in a community. However, in order to describe the dynamic interaction
within and between a community, we must consider the strength of the social capital. The
stronger the social capital of a community, the stronger social cohesion will be. According to
Firth, (2011), there are three categories that can be classified to evaluate social capital.

─ Bonding social capital means networks established from dense and strong trust which
form firm ties between individuals. This normally occurs between people who are in
close-knit groups or share the similar social identities, such as family, friends and
neighbourhoods.

─ Bridging social capital refers to the distant ties between people who share similar
social backgrounds, such as loose relationships between workmates. Bridging social
capital tends to heal the gap between individuals.

─ Linking social capital tends to describe the connectivity between people who are in
dissimilar situations, such as the connection with authorities or with financially influential
positions (Firth, Maye, et al., 2011, Alaimo, Reischl, et al., 2010).

These three categories can help to understand the social networks in a community. Through
the study of these three social capitals, we can identify whether a community has virtuous
social networks. Finding the balance between these three social capitals in a community is
also crucial, with the balance often dependent on the number of people who participate in
the same social network (Yates and Jochum, 2003). Through studying the three social capitals,
it tells whether a community has established virtuous social networks, which could enhance
the social cohesion in the urban agriculture.

2.1.3 The definition of urban farm and community garden

Urban agriculture practices are diverse in size, location, form and organisation (Clavin, 2011).
Within this review, focus will be placed on two distinctive forms of urban agriculture, notably:
urban farms and community gardens.

Regarding the urban farm, as its name suggested, it means a farm located in or in proximity
to an urban area, often growing food on previously vacant land, though not typically
dedicated to large scale food production (Watson, 2015).

Community gardens are another type of urban agriculture that are recognised as shared land
plots where a collective group of people are farming a variety of vegetable while managing
small stocks and plants (Bauermeister, Swain, et al., 2010). A complementary definition is that
community gardens are a public field where the ownership, access and control are in a
democratic way (Firth, Maye, et al., 2011). In the PhD research of Veen, (2015), a
comprehensive definition of community gardens is provided:

11
 Community garden is a plot of land located in the urban area cultivated either
communally or individually, by people from the direct neighbourhood or the wider
city (Veen, 2015).

The similarities between the urban farm and community garden lies on two aspects. First is
that they hold similar definitions, i.e. people have agriculture activities on a vacant piece of
land in the urban area. Second, is that from the community perspective, as discussed above,
they share the same nature as well. Both community gardens and urban farms were originally
established within place-based in a neighbourhood, but in this thesis, the communities are
more concerned from interest-based networks, with a common interest existing within a
wider group of people. This acts to explain the emphasis on the social aspect rather than on
the purpose of profit making within these communities.

The similarities between urban farms and community gardens provide the possibility for
comparison, fundamental to this thesis. The main distinction between the two types of urban
agriculture mainly lies on the size scale. Pragmatically speaking, a community garden is
normally limited to size of 100 m2 (Bradly, et.al., 2012), while an urban farm is normally a
number of acres (Watson, 2015). However, due to the fact that both types of urban
agriculture is aimed to encourage constructing communities among people, they are
comparable in this perspective despite the differences of size.

With basic understanding of the concepts above, the importance of studying communities is
exemplified. By studying urban agriculture from a community perspective, we can better
understand the definitions of different types of urban agriculture. From a social perspective,
communities are seen as the public places where different ethnic groups can interact and
overcome potential barriers (Kingsley and Townsend, 2006). Focusing this study on
communities within urban agriculture can not only help to identify the internal level of public
participation, but also aid the development between communities to improve social cohesion.

2.2 Sustainability
2.2.1 Local sustainability
The concept of sustainability is implemented through sustainable development at varying
levels. In western countries, sustainable development has been strictly practiced following a
hierarchical structure of national, regional and local initiatives, with both explicit or implicit
motivations (Holland, 2004). However, currently, most attention has been paid on the local
level. According to the research results from Dale, et al., (2010), the efforts about
sustainability are desired to be done at the community scale. Due to the fact that the
outcomes of international and national policies are the product of intense diplomacy, the
outcomes or the impacts are not impacting the (local) scale as they are expected to (Dale,
Ling, et al., 2010). However, when compared to the national level, the actual implementation
and application of innovation is more effective at the community scale. When all these
communities are then aggregated, the greatest impact on sustainability can be achieved
(Dale, Ling, et al., 2010). From the research of Connelly, et al., (2011), a comparison between

12
sustainability in national/regional level and sustainability in local level has been summarized.
Table 2.1 shows the differences in the manifestations of sustainability at different levels.

Table 2.1: Sustainability in macro and micro level comparison.

Sustainability in national Sustainability in local level

/regional level
Worldview characteristics Anthropocentric Biocentric
Rational individuals Collective action
Role of economy Economic growth Qualitative development
Centralized Community based
Source of problem and Supply problem Demand Problem
solution Technocratic Social relationships
Use of EIA, cost-benefit Small scale decentralization
analysis
Efficiency Self-sufficiency
Source: (Connelly, Markey, et al., 2011)

From the table 2.1, it can be seen that sustainability at different levels focus on different
points of interest. Local sustainability is more explicit and the environment is more central
than that in the national/regional levels.

Sustainability is more concerned from the three dimensions of it, i.e. economy, society and
environment. The three dimensions are independent but are not mutually exclusive. Generally,
sustainability is to balancing the efforts to meet basic human needs without destroying or
degrading the natural environment (Connelly, Markey, et al., 2011). As it is demonstrated
above of what local sustainability is focused on, the understanding of three dimensions of
local sustainability is also interpreted in a local way.

─ Environmental dimension of local sustainability means the focusing on the development

of the local endogenous resources which enable the reduction of local pollution and the
exploitation of resources, along with making the territorial area more ecologically
resilient; a state which increases the ability to adapt when facing local, regional or
national changes (del Rio and Burguillo, 2008).

─ Economic dimension of local sustainability intends to increase the local income and
improve the standard of living, reducing energy dependence and diversifying the energy
supply (del Rio and Burguillo, 2008).

─ Social dimension of local sustainability can be reflected on the achievement of

community peace through social cohesion, stability, social participation, respect for
cultural identity and institutional development. Reducing unemployment and improving
the quality of jobs, as well as increasing social cohesion and reducing poverty levels are
the key actions at local level to achieve sustainability from a social perspective. On the
one hand, activities such as community gardens, promotion of renewable energy within
the local area could help to build up social capital to enhance social relationships. On the
other hand, the activities can also increase local job opportunities to help solve
employment issues. Local sustainability also has a particularly positive psychological
impact on the prospects of the young local population. (del Rio and Burguillo, 2008)

13
2.2.2 Two ways of assessing sustainability
Local sustainability refers to within a specific small area, built and operated in a way that it
uses natural resources efficiently and equitably, for both present and future generations of
human beings and other species (Srinivas, H., 2015). Sustainability in the territorial context is
emphasized. In the research paper by del Rio, (2008), it was shown that there are two
conceptual frameworks to assess the sustainability in specific territorial areas, i.e. substantive
sustainability and procedural sustainability.

As demonstrated above, local sustainability can be concluded as an area which is designed,

built and operated in a way that it uses natural resources efficiently and equitably, for both
present and future generations of human beings and other species (Srinivas, H., 2015). It is
more territorial concerned. Sustainability is generally examined from the three dimensions of
it. Seeking out the performance of economy, society and environment helps to improve the
level of sustainability. However, based on the research paper of del Rio, (2008), he pointed
out the assessment from three dimensions is essential. This kind of assessment can be
regarded as substantive sustainability, which is explained as:

─ Substantive sustainability is how a specific project contributes to the improvement of

the economic, social and environmental dimensions in a specific territory (del Rio and
Burguillo, 2008). It operates through the constant capital approach and triangular
approach. Constant capital refers to the maintenance of a stock of capital under
sustainable circumstances, such as natural resources; while the triangular approach is
considered the interrelated three dimensions of sustainability (del Rio and Burguillo,
2008).

However, not only with the perspective of three dimensions, the other way of assessing
sustainability is discussed often as well. That is procedural sustainability. It more focuses on
the stakeholder analysis, which could have a review on the involvement of different
stakeholders on a specific territory.

─ Procedural sustainability means the participatory approach which can take the
stakeholders’ opinions into consideration, i.e. the stakeholder analysis. As sustainability is
not the responsibility of any single group or agency, stakeholders like the local
government, community citizens, local organizations, industries and other commercial
companies are all allowed to get involved in local projects with their different viewpoints,
obligations, skills, and resources (Binder, Feola, et al., 2010).

2.2.3 The application of two ways on assessing local sustainability

In the study of del Rio and Burguillo, (2008) about local renewable energy projects, the
authors formulated a theoretical framework of how to assess the impacts of a local renewable
energy project on local sustainability (Figure 2.1).

14
Figure 2.1: The theoretical framework of renewable energy project on local sustainability
Source: (del Rio and Burguillo, 2008)

In the study by del Rio and Burguillo, (2008), which focused on local renewable energy
projects, the authors formulated a theoretical framework for assessing the impacts of
different projects on local sustainability (Figure 2.1), which shows a logical process of using
substantive sustainability and procedural sustainability. Both approaches are applied to
assess comprehensively the impacts on local sustainability.

For the framework, on the one side, it is seen that the impacts of local sustainability are
analysed through the three dimensions of substantive sustainability and endogenous
development. Normally, endogenous development is conceptualised as

‘a process which raises the income levels of the population based on the intrinsic
local resources and the respect for community values and traditions’ (del Rio and
Burguillo, 2008).

The definition concerns with the main point of analysing the local resources. It focuses on
studying the advantageousness of specific territories, which base the sustainable
development projects on the use of local resource endowments (del Rio and Burguillo, 2008).
Local sustainability lies within endogenous development because it is mainly locally driven
(Binder, Feola, et al., 2010). Investigating local resources could have aware of the local
advantages and disadvantages and what resources can be used in the urban development.
Taken local resources into consideration is necessary as it helps to know whether full use of
resources is being made.

15
On the other side in the framework, it uses the procedural sustainability approach to have a
local stakeholder analysis, which provides the acceptance of a project. The analysis on local
stakeholders are significant. It shows a project could impact the social network and
cooperation which could imply the social sustainability among different local stakeholders.

The framework illustrates that the impacts on local sustainability depending on local
conditions and local networks, which meant that the study of local resources and substantive
sustainability, and procedural sustainability were inherently related (del Rio and Burguillo,
2008).

2.3 Local Food Systems

The food system is a topic that has been widely discussed. The food system refers to the
process and activities of food production, processing, distribution and the choice by
consumers (Holland, 2004). Two kinds of food system exist – conventional food system and
alternative food system. The conventional food system has dominated urban agriculture
globally, whilst the local food system has been raised as a counter movement and has
gradually attracted more attention (Campbell, 2004). Though holding the different values and
operating in different scales, the two food systems will be embedded within each other and
promote the development of food planning in the future (Campbell, 2004).

2.3.1 The conventional food system

The conventional food system also known as the global industrialized food system, is mainly
responsible for massive food production, in order to maximize the economies of scale and
lowing overall the customers cost (Campbell, 2004). It is characterized by efficiency and
externalized costs:

─ Highly specialized and standardized commodity growing practices dependent

on the biotechnology advances;
─ Federal and corporate support for a large-scale conventional agriculture, such
as forming agro-parks to produce food on a larger scale;
─ Corporate control of raw agricultural materials produced, and the
transformation into food products alongside distribution and marketing;
─ Reliance on food imports and exports that travel enormous distance to
consumers in different countries in the world, as known as food miles;
─ Emerging global food monopolies in the biotechnology and seeds,
commodities and food retailing (Campbell, 2004).

Based on the features listed above, it can be seen that the most important value of the
conventional food system is the consideration of food as a commodity. Turner, (2011) argues
that there is a disconnection between local food and consumers, especially as there is often a
division between nature and the urban areas of developed countries. The reason is that, in
urban areas, the large scale production that occurs within the conventional food system, with
food positioned as a commodity, alienates urban citizens. Its aim is to maximize the profits of
food production rather than integrate citizens, though plenty of people worldwide have seen
benefits of this system.

16
The conventional food system has some benefits. First, it raises the yield of food production.
Thanks to the massive-production of conventional food system, they help to resolve the
problems of food shortage worldwide (Viljoen, 2005). In 1990s, the conventional food system
was the dominant farming practice, which provided a way to make product chains and
farming methods more efficient (Holtslag, 2010). Second, the conventional food system
stimulates the interchange of global food. Due to the accelerated development of
international business, the immigrants have become one of the anthropologic matters in the
world. Conventional food systems with its feature of distance transportation, helps people to
obtain the food from thousand miles away. Meanwhile, it meets the immigrants’
requirements of accessing to the food from homeland more conveniently.

However, the conventional food system, with its advantages for large-scale production, also
has some inevitable problems. On regards of the social and economic perspectives, first, it
loses the connections between producers and consumers. While consuming the products, the
consumers have not been provided or given any minimum clue of the food provenance
(Wang, 2013a). The producers also know less about the exact demands of consumers. Second,
market force stimulates the production from conventional food systems into a vicious cycle.
In order to pay off the debts, the products as commodities are traded off and earn foreign
exchange to accumulate financial capital in most countries. However, this promotes an
insecurity to the growers, while lowered the environmental and social standards to cut the
costs and to compete in the international markets (Viljoen, 2005). However, by this way, the
development of local economies will be suppressed, and will further affect the resilience of
local development. Third, the inequity of the food provision will be increased depend on the
conventional food system (Wang, 2013a). Food price is determined by the food quality
(Wang, 2013a). Normally, the high price of food is more fresh and organic, which is
affordable by high-income groups of people. Whilst the low-income groups of people
purchase the food with low prices. The access to the productions of the conventional food
system is quite different between low-income and high-income groups of people (Holtslag,
2010), which leads to the inequity problem of food access.

There are also environmental issues attached to the conventional food system. For instance,
the reliance on biotechnology that may cause chemical pollution which will further harm
peoples’ health (Wang, 2013b); the food miles may result in a large carbon footprint (Viljoen,
2005); it may also lead to the degradation of public landscape because of high volume of
packaging disposed of (Wang, 2013a), etc. The emergence of the alternative food system is
able to overcome some of these shortcomings.

2.3.2 The alternative food system

The emergence of alternative food system makes up the problems of the conventional food
system. Alternative food systems are defined as ‘providing access to affordable, nutritious
and culturally appropriate food for people at all time’ (Campbell, 2004). Unlike the
conventional food system, alternative food system is aimed to put the value of food as a
community right (Campbell, 2004). The alternative food system has several positive
characteristics: shorter distances between producers and consumers; a small scale of
production; and a commitment to the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of
local sustainability (Jaroz, 2008).

17
The alternative food system has several sub-divisions. One of the most important is the local
food system. The local food system is referred to the networks of food production and
consumption that aim to be geographically and economically accessible and direct (Holtslag,
2010). It embodies the same characteristics of alternative food system.

Commonly, both conventional food system and alternative food system consist of five phases:
production, processing, distribution, consumption and waste management. In the
conventional food system, these phases are executed in a linear process, because food
production and waste management normally occur at quite a distance. Sustainable process
change the linear process of the conventional food system is into circular metabolism. For
example, the nutrient flow from farmland to city, and then back to farmland (Viljoen, 2005);
the alternative is the accumulation of waste.

Within the local food system context, the five phases of activity outlined above are limited by
the boundary of the community and service to the community. Local food systems use a
circular food system, where the food waste can be transformed into energy which contributes
to further food production activity. A circular local food system can therefore make full use of
local resources and reduce the ecological footprint of the agricultural area, which promotes
the development of local sustainability. As it has already promoted in the book of CPULs,
agriculture needs to move towards into more localized, efficient and circular urban systems.
This scenario certainly includes the use of the land within/on the edge of cities for food
production (Viljoen, 2005).

Figure 2.2: The local food system

Sources: http://www.foodwellalliance.org/why-local-food-matters/

18
2.3.3 The existence of conventional food system and alternative food
system
Around the 2000, there was a debate about whether focus should be placed on the
development of more localized food systems or whether efforts should be made to keep up
the pace of globalization through conventional food systems. In 2003, Hinrichs argued that
all the debates discussed from the only one side of the two food systems were a misleading
(Campbell, 2004). He argued that both the conventional and the alternative food systems are
dynamic and interrelated processes. They influence and feed back into each other, requiring
system-level analysis in many aspects (Campbell, 2004).

If taken from a binary conceptualization (either the conventional food system or the
alternative food system), there will be a loss of the dynamic processes that underpin the food
system which makes the system more vulnerable to changes (Feenstra, 2002). Only a co-
operation of the two food systems could provide the chance of creating effective social,
political, economic and intellectual space. However, the two food systems do not reinforce
each other (Morgan, 2006). They have their own purposes for food production. The
conventional food system could meet the food amount requirement to promote the national
economy development. Meanwhile, the alternative food system, especially local food systems,
could fulfil the needs of the dairy and fresh and seasonal vegetables to keep the nutrient flow
working in a circular and sustainable motion (Viljoen, 2005). The co-operation then could not
only face the uncertainty of development, but also push the economic development at both
the national/regional and local level.

2.4 Conceptual Framework

2.4.1 Local food system in local sustainability matrix
As described in the previous sections, the concept of sustainability consists of three aspects:
environmental, social and economic dimensions. As the different phases of the local food
system have different focuses and involve different resources, each phase has its contribution
to the local sustainability (production, processing, distribution, consumption and waste
management). Figure 2.3 below displays the resources and the focus of each phase in the
local food system.

Food production directly concerns the environment, health and economic vitality. In this
process, it demands local natural resources such as soil, energy, seeds and water as inputs to
produce food. There are however also other resources desired such as finance and human
resources. Fundamentally, the alternative food systems aim at building the short-supply
chains and new relationships between producers and communities (Wang, 2013a). They can
bring more job opportunities and higher incomes within the certain regions (Wang, 2013a). A
shorter distance of transporting and less middlemen within the process and marketing
phases also means more profit goes to local food producers.

In the food processing and distribution phases, the package adds to the value of the food
while the dominance of marketing logic affects the social meaning of food (Turner, 2011).

19
The relationship between producers and consumers can become closer. It can reduce the
conflicts between social classes and stakeholders with different purpose, as well as enhance
the social capital in the community (Alaimo, Reischl, et al., 2010). Seeing this from the
economic aspect, in local food system the costs of transportation can be saved, as the
distance is shorter and more efficient, while the local farmers are able to have a decent
income from these food system activities (Wang, 2013a). Regarding the environmental
perspective, the generation of the greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced, and the usage
of fuel can be decreased as well. Besides, local food also encourages the establishment of
traditional markets, opposing large shopping centres.

The consumption process relates to the local economic dimension. Consumption emphasizes
the social equity and accessibility. Different people with various identities are supposed to
have a similar access and similar affordability to the fresh and seasonal food. Consumption
on the local scale could also promote the development of the local economy.

Figure 2.3: The resources required in different food system processes

Source: http://nhfoodstrategy.weebly.com/about.html

20
The waste management, as a way of resources management, has important effects on the
environmental dimension of sustainability (Agudelo-Vera, Mels, et al., 2012). The central idea
of the waste management is to avoid nutrient losing as much as possible, and as such uses
different methods to maximize the value of waste resources (Wilson, 2007).

Figure 2.3 not only provides the required resources in each phase of local food system, but
also implies the relevant stakeholders in processes. From the supports of government to the
coalitions of different stakeholders, it provides the information about the importance of the
stakeholders’ relationships and the effect they could exert in local food systems.

Thus, based on the description of each phase above, when the local food system encounters
the three dimensions of sustainability, a position of each phase could have been set. The
different phases have been posited in the local sustainability matrix according to the required
social and natural resources, and also display the possible impacts that will be generated
(Figure 2.4).

─
Figure 2.4: The local food system posited in local sustainability matrix
Sources: http://www.foodsecuritynews.com/What-is-food-security.htm

Environmental Health aims to ensure that food production and procurement do not
compromise the land, air, or water at the present time, as well as for the future generations
(FSN, 2014). As it is shown in the figure 2.3, the food production and waste management
concerns with nature resources closely, such as land, soil, water, energy, etc. It relates to the
environmental aspects essentially.

Economic Vitality means to make sure that the people who are producing our food are able
to earn a decent living wages doing so. This ensures that producers can continue to produce
our food (FSN, 2014). Food production and food consumption are the most related phases
that could produce economic benefits. The financial flow within the two phases between
producers and consumers could imply the economic significance in the local area.

Social Equity tries to ensure that particular importance is placed on the community
development and its health events, making sure that healthy foods are available economically
and physically to the community and that people are able to access these foods in a dignified

21
manner (FSN, 2014). Social relations have woven into the local food system. Any form of
embodied engagement with the food system requires the recognition for the importance of
the socio aspects of food (Turner, 2011).

2.4.2 The indicators and the standard

Fitting the food system into a local sustainability matrix provides an overview to see the
implementation of local sustainability in the field of urban agriculture. Through studying each
phase of the local food system, the performance of local sustainability will be revealed. Based
on the demonstration of last section, the indicators of assessing the impacts on local
sustainability has been produced.

Demand resources
Food production
Products quantity
Environmental and quality
health
Food process
Waste treatment

Cost and benefits

Food delivery Economic vitality
Service scope

Food consumption
Consumer groups
Social Equity
The activities
Waste management

Figure 2.5: The indicators of local sustainability derived from local food system

The indicators for measuring local sustainability has been generated based on Figure 2.3 and
Figure 2.4, and can be seen in Figure 2.5. The indicators are derived from the local food
system; with the connection between the sustainability matrix and the five agricultural
processes clear. As long as these indicators are examined, the impacts of urban agriculture
practices on local sustainability can be determined. For example, in the community gardens,
cultivation could supply the food and waste management generate a circular system both
which benefits environmental sustainability. The community gardens can also be of benefit to
social capital (social sustainability); and training people in gardening skills, providing the
opportunity for research studies, and in some cases providing job opportunities, etc. benefits
economic sustainability (Turner, 2011).

In the study of sustainability, the principle of circular urban metabolism has become a
standard in determining the levels of sustainability in specific regions (Vergara and
Tchobanolous, 2012). The standard of Urban Metabolism is a term evolved from biology,
which indicates the materials flow within an urban system (Vergara and Tchobanolous, 2012).

22
It includes two types of flows: linear metabolism and circular metabolism. Currently, most
countries, especially developing countries, use a linear metabolism process, i.e. the model
inputs raw materials and outputs waste. However, the circular metabolism makes the process
a cycle, as much as possible, by using the various means, for example, cascading, recycling,
etc (Agudelo-Vera, Mels, et al., 2012). The purpose of circular metabolisms is to save
resources, and reduce consumption and pollution, moving agricultural systems towards more
sustainable development.

2.4.3 The conceptual framework

Assessing the performance of urban agriculture (urban farms and community gardens) is to
examine the contribution they make to the local food systems and see whether they are
working towards local sustainability.

Taking inspiration from the theoretical framework promoted by del Rio and Burguillo, (2008)
when assessing the impacts of renewable energy projects on local sustainability (Figure 2.1),
this study will determine the contribution of urban agriculture (community-based projects)
on local sustainability. The conceptual framework is intended to review the impacts of urban
agriculture to local sustainability. As mentioned by Turner, (2011), urban agriculture has a
significant role in facilitating the development of embodied and embedded relationships to
place, the food system and consequently in promoting local sustainability. Figure 2.6 gives
the flow chart of the conceptual framework.

Figure 2.6: The conceptual framework

23
The conceptual framework is constructed by two approaches: substantive sustainability
approach and procedural sustainability approach. The first approach is to study how an urban
agriculture case can perform in the local food system to benefit the local sustainability. First is
to investigate the local resources. Examine the local resources to have an overview of local
conditions. Then, the substantive sustainability from three dimensions are applied. It is
examined by the indicators displayed in Figure 2.5. By studying the three dimensions of local
sustainability, it can reveal the features of the local food system where urban agriculture
practices could be improved.

The second approach is the stakeholder analysis. It includes all the stakeholders, from citizens
to the government and the commercial companies, whoever is interested in the initiatives
involving the development of urban agriculture. By analysing the stakeholders, it not only
could help to see the involvement of different stakeholders and their roles in the
development process, but also knowing the efforts they would like to devote. This is a way to
know their performances in urban agriculture and to provide suggestions for the future.

The conceptual framework above provides the results of the impacts on local sustainability.
However, alongside the results, existing studies in the field of urban agriculture have
developed the knowledge about how to maintain a local and sustainable food system
(Feenstra, 2002). The potential for urban agriculture to promote local sustainability relies on
their communal nature, with a communal will and desire to be expressed (Turner, 2011). The
future development could be concerned from substantive sustainability and procedural
sustainability.

Alongside the local resources, including nature and social resource, the future development
of urban agriculture is able to be promoted. On the one hand, it is to improve the local
sustainability through revitalizing and strengthening the indicators of substantive
sustainability (Feenstra, 2002). On the other hand, the procedural sustainability is to enhance
the stakeholders’ cooperation and encourage more stakeholders to involve in the activities of
urban agriculture. Additionally, from planners’ perspective of view, based on the conclusions,
alongside the knowledge of local resources, suggests on developing urban agriculture in
local scale could be promoted.

24
3. Research Methodology

25
To plan a study properly, there are three questions needed to be answered: the intersection
of philosophy, strategies of inquiry and specific methods (Creswell, 2009). Philosophy
provides the view on how a thesis interacts with the rest of the world, which furtherly gives
the reference of strategy of inquiry. After fixing the research strategy, research techniques
could be used to translate the approach into practice (Creswell, 2009). Creswell, (2009).

3.1 An Explorative Study

According to Creswell, (2009), the worldview refers to a basic set of understandings within a
discipline that could direct actions in practice (Creswell, 2009). He generalized four
worldviews of philosophy foundation to guide the action of research work, i.e. post-
positivism, constructivism, advocacy and pragmatism (Creswell, 2009). This thesis is used to
explore the performances and roles of two different types of urban agriculture practices in
local sustainability which is fit for the worldview of social constructivism, which seeks to
understand the world where people live and work (Creswell, 2009). This worldview requests
that qualitative research is conducted in order to achieve in-depth exploration.

Using the constructivism worldview, a qualitative strategy has been selected for this study. In
qualitative research, Creswell, (2009) has displayed five strategies including ethnography,
grounded theory, case study, phenomenology and narrative research (Creswell, 2009). As an
exploratory research, this thesis use case study – a comparative case study - as a strategy of
inquiry to study the urban agriculture practices in local sustainability.

3.2 Case Study

A case study is described as a way to explore in depth one or more programs, events or
activities (Kumar, 2014). To do this research, two popular and promising cases in the
Netherlands and China have been selected for study. These two cases represent the
development of the present urban agriculture practices in their respective countries,
revealing the current situation in the two countries. According to Yin, (2009), unlike other
research methods, case study do not have a strict rules to follow (Yin, 2009). However, in
order to develop case study research properly, it is important to be aware of the units of
analysis. The research units are usually related to the research questions, and different units
could cause different research design (Yin, 2009). In this thesis, the units of analysis is two
different types of urban agriculture practices, i.e. the community garden and the urban farm.
They are the group units that need to be studied.

There are two purposes for designing comparative case study. Firstly, a multiple case study
could increase the external validity of the research (Yin, 2009). By studying two different
practices of urban agriculture on local sustainability, this could provide a general model to
other cases, which can function as a reference. Secondly, by comparing the two cases, the
similarities and differences of their influences on local sustainability can be also compared,
which allows for further exploration into the possible future of the current urban agriculture
practices in the Dutch and Chinese context.

26
Among the development wave of urban agriculture, China has conducted several forms of
urban agriculture. Sanyuanli community garden is a pilot trial in this field. While the urban
farm in Culemborg provides a model of urban farming which has demonstrated the
development of urban agriculture in The Netherlands. The two cases show the popularity of
urban agriculture in the two countries respectively. The background of the two cases is
demonstrated below.

Case in the Netherlands – Caetshage farm in Culemborg

Caetshage urban farm is located in the Culemborg in Netherlands. It is constructed on about

5 ha, but only about 2 ha. are under use. The farm is located near the neighbourhood of Eva-
Lanxmeer which contains about 800 dwellings (Energy-cities, 2013), designed through a
creative process with a bottom-up approach. It was built to promote sustainable
development. The farm provides the food for the citizens in the whole Culemborg city. There
is an ecological urban farm, aiming to provide fresh foods to the residents and bridge
residents with nature (EVA-Lanxmeer, 2015). It integrates different functions, including living,
working, recreation, education, etc. Studying the urban farm in Culemborg could help to
identify the influences of the urban farms on the local food system.

Caetshage urban farm is successor to a pre-existing local community garden, which has
evolved into the urban farm over the last few decades. Studing this case could have an
insight into the different practices and provide the experience and alternative options for
Chinese urban agriculture practice in the future.

Figure 3.1: Study area of Caetshage farm in Culemborg

Source: Google map

27
Case in China – Sanyuanli community garden in Beijing

Sanyuanli is an old neighbourhood in Beijing which has been established for over 30 years.
The neighbourhood is located in the third circle of Beijing which is surrounded by other
urban green spaces and a convenient transport network. Around the neighbourhood, there is
also located a vegetable market and a primary school.

Beijing Sanyanuli community garden was initiated by the French and supported by JCEF
Green Commission. As a formal pilot project established in 2015, it was proposed to occupy
400 m2 land in the community (Bernard, H., 2014). According to the latest report, the project
has started with 10 m2 and still in the expanding. It currently involves 10 households
participating in the community garden. Each of the households could have 1 m2 for
individually planting. The initiators created the Sanyuanli community garden as experiment in
Beijing in order to provide a case study to recommend the wider spread development of this
type of activity and help people who would also like to set up community gardens in China
(Bernard, H., 2014).

Figure 3.2: Study area of Sanyuanli community garden in Beijing

Source: Google map

28
3.3 Research Process
Based on the information above, the thesis research process can be seen in Figure 3.3. It
follows the model of Yin, (2009). First, clearly outline the research questions, and then based
on the research questions, a broad reviewing of literatures helps to construct a conceptual
framework, which will be applied into the case studies. Then, the case studies show the
research results of each case, and the comparisons of results will reveal the answer of
research questions. Last, try to determine the future development trend of urban agriculture
practices, within different national background.

Case study 1: Case study 2:

Caetshage Conceptual framework Sanyuanli

farm community
garden

Results Results
Comparison

Separate conclusions for both cases Conclusions

General conclusion

The future development

Recommendations

Experience learnt from Dutch case

The future development

Figure 3.3: Research process

29
3.4 Research Techniques
The research results are derived from several methods as follows:

Literature review

The literature review provides the theoretical foundation for this thesis. It helps to build the
theoretical framework which identifies how to frame the research. The relevant literature and
articles will focus on the concepts of ‘community gardens’, ‘urban farms’, ‘local food system’
and ‘local sustainability’. Thus, a conceptual framework of how urban agriculture practices
influence local sustainability can be formulated.

Interviews

In this research, semi-structured interviews are used for two reasons. First, it can help
interviewees to express their true feelings and opinions. Second, based on their different
answers of previous questions, researcher can improvise and follow a line of reasoning to
elicit other findings.

When interviews are the main resource for case study research, interviewees have to be select
from relevant stakeholders (Yin, 2009). In the case of Caetshage farm, two main interviewees
were selected. The first interviewee (Numbered as 1) is one of the member of residents’
foundation living in Eva-Lanxmeer. And the other interviewees (Numbered as 2) are the
Caetshage couple farmers. They are responsible for the development of Caetshage farm
including all kinds of field and business works. Other support interviewees were conducted
with residents who were met whilst collecting the questionnaires.

Table 3.1: The list of interviewees in Caetshage farm

Name of Interviewees Occupation

Interviewee 1 Contactor of residents’ foundation
Interviewee 2 Farmers
Random local residents on responding
questionnaires.

In the case of Sanyuanli community garden, three interviewees are selected. The first
interviewee (Numbered as 3) is the initiator of the project, who came from France to bring
the community garden idea in Beijing. The second interviewee (Numbered as 4) is the co-
initiator and also the trainer of this project, who is also from France. The last one is a staff of
local government, who works in the Zuojiazhuang local government and approved Sanyuanli
community garden project (Numbered as 5). During the collection of the questionnaires,
several short conversations happened with residents to find their opinions about the project.

Table 3.2 The list of interviewees in Sanyuanli community garden

Number of Interviewees Occupation

Interviewee 3 Project initiator. (member of JEFC Green committee)

30
 Interviewee 4 Co-initiator, trainer. (member of JEFC Green committee)
Interviewee 5 Staff of local government
Random local residents on responding questionnaires.

Questionnaires

Questionnaires functioned only as supporting evidence for the interviews. They also provided
the triangulation verification of the research to increase the research validity. As an
alternative resource, residents’ answers to the same questions could give greater comparative
value. One questionnaire was designed to be applied in both cases.

The questionnaires were targeted at the residents living in the communities. Two groups of
respondents are identified when collecting questionnaires. The first group were the residents
who are currently part of urban agricultural practices to see their satisfaction with such forms
of urban agriculture. The second group of respondents were the residents who are not
involved in the current urban agricultural activities in the rest of the city. Their answer to the
questionnaires can be analysed to see the potential for developing urban agriculture
practices.

The collection of questionnaires is achieved through both an online survey and by hand. For
the Dutch case, 33 questionnaires are collected, and for the Chinese case, 29 samples are
gathered.

Secondary data

There are two purposes for using secondary data. On the one hand, inevitably, every study
has missing information, secondary data can help to fill in the gap. On the other hand,
organizing and reading relevant documents and articles can also increase the research
validity because the use of historical materials can determine the development of urban
agriculture practices1.

3.5 Research Validity

As in the Yin’s book stated, a research design is supposed to represent a logical set of
statements, When using case studies, four validity should be referred to: construct validity,
internal validity and external validity (Yin, 2009). As this is a exploratory research, the internal
validity could not take into consideration (Yin, 2009).

1
Research limitations:

i. Due to the time limitation, personal resources and personal limitations such as inherent knowledge, the
exploration contained within this research may lack depth in presenting the facts.
ii. To determine the impacts of an urban agriculture practices on local sustainability research should use
multiple case studies to determine the general rules. By taking each independently, the result of each case
in this research is inevitably unilateral on some level.

31
The contruct validity normally indicate the operational measures for the concepts (Yin, 2009).
One way to verify the construct validity of data is to have a triangulation verification to
encourage convergent lines of inquiry (Kumar, 2014). Triangulation verfication means to use
multi-resource, multi-methods and multi-respondents, which the data could verify the
validity with each other. In this research, the main information comes from interviews with
relevant stakeholders, but questionnaires and secondary data as support resources are also
able to have a cross investigation to raise the construct validity of the research.

The external validity is to ensure that the research can be generalizable beyond the
immediate case study (Yin, 2009). In another word, external validity is that the research
conclusions not only fit for the cases in the study but also can be applied in other normal
cases. In this thesis research, two cases with different context and conditions are selected, a
conceptual framework replication is applied. It shows the external validity of the research,
especially on the conceptual framework level, is surely can be applied not only limited in a
single case study.

32
4. Case study in The
Netherlands

33
 This chapter displays the sustainability of urban agriculture practices in Caetshage farm in
Culemborg. The first part demonstrates the general local resources and the brief history of
the birth of Caetshage farm. The second part is described the substantive sustainability of the
farm from the indicators that listed from Literature Review. These aspects provide a holistic
view of the performances of urban farm in local food system. At last, the third part shows the
stakeholder analysis to reveal the involved stakeholders and their relationships in the
development of the urban farm.

4.1 The Local Context

Occupying about 31 km2, Culemborg is a city containing approximately 27500 populations.
According to the latest data, it is a dense city with more than 900 inhabitants per km2, and
people are mostly living inside the residents’ area of the city2. There are plenty of farm lands
surrounding the residents’ areas. Located in the south bank of the river Lek, the city has

Caetshage Farm

Figure 4.1: The administrative area of Culemborg city

2
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culemborg

34
enough water resources. With around 20 km straight distance from Utrecht, one and the only
rail way running across the city from north to south. As well as from the west to east, the
national main road of N320 goes through the city.

With the support of enough water resources, broad farm lands, convenient transportation
and plenty of residents, Caetshage farm has assimilated these local resources advantages,
and developed smoothly within a decade. Figure 4.1 is the map showing the administrative
boundary of the city, as well as the general land use of the city.

Caetshage farm is a small farm, setting in the centre of residents’ area. The red dot in the
Figure 4.1 shows the exact location of the farm. Caetshage farm was started along with the
Eva-Lanxmeer neighbourhood project around 2007. Before that time, about two decades ago,
the area was in the charge of private owners. They provided the opportunities to the
residents in participating the farming activities in community garden of 500 m2. At the
beginning of 21st century, the local government decided to take back the ownership of this
piece of land. However, it was out of use as well as the surrounding areas for few years, but it
was listed on the development schedule by the municipality. Till the year of 2007, with the
establishment of Eva-Lanxmeer residents’ area, as well as to meet the requests of local food
from local residents, the municipality decided to construct the 5 ha into a small urban farm,
which is intended to promote the urban sustainable development.

Since then, Caestshage farm began the development process. During the last eight years, the
farm started from scratch to a popular urban farm in the Netherlands. The land area of the
farm is about 5 ha in total, only 2 ha of which is used for the food production, and the rest 3
ha is in a using for the landscape as a local park. Apart from the development of the farm
land, the other facilities such as barn and houses have been constructed to meet the
requirements of daily activities of urban agriculture.

4.2 Substantive Sustainability

4.2.1 Environmental health
The demanded resources

Energy is one of the most important sectors in running the farm. It provides the essential
supports to the food production on the farm. The energy resources not only limited in
natural energies which can be absorbed by plants directly, but the converted energies, such
as gases, electricity, and heats can also be used for supporting the food production and food
storage. Apart from the energies, other resources such as water and fertilizers are also the
necessity in the food production. As the essential resource for the plants growing, water has
an irreplaceable position. The resources and the treatment of water indicate the direction for
managing and developing a farm. Meanwhile, the requirements of fertilizers, which provide
the necessary nutrition for the plants growing, play a significant role in the agriculture
productions. It mainly discusses the Caetshage farm from the energies, water resources and
wastes concerning on the environmental aspect.

a. The supply of converted energies

35
The converted energies are mainly required in the indoor productions (greenhouses). To have
a steady food production in the greenhouses, it normally demands a stable temperature
environment. Two approaches of heating up the greenhouse ambient is applied. One is the
greenhouse naturally absorb the sunlight heating up the internal ambient. The other way is to
use heating infrastructures to warm up the internal temperature.

All of the greenhouses in Caetshage farm are in simple structures – with walls and roofs made
by transparent plastic materials or glasses (see Figure 4.2). These materials keep the internal
ambient in the greenhouse a regulated climatic condition for plants growing. From the field
investigation, it is found out that there are no heating pipes installed. Based on the
explanation of the Residents’ Foundation Member Interviewee 1, the temperature of the
greenhouses fully depends on the synergy of the direct sunlight and the GHG (greenhouse
gas) emitted by the plants within the house. Two reasons are explained for not installing
heating up pipes. One is the farm lacks financial support to construct correspond facilities.
The other reason is the heat infrastructures in the neighbourhood cannot support the heat
demand in the greenhouse. As the farm is constructed as an affiliated area to Eva-Lanxmeer,
the energies are provided by the neighbourhood itself. However, from current situation, the
neighbourhood could not fully afford to the amount of farm and the neighbourhood.

Figure 4.2: The greenhouses on Caetshage farm

However, the lack of heat within the greenhouses did not bring too much concerns for the
farmers. According to the farmers who are responsible for the running of Caetshage farm, the
production activities in the greenhouses are only responsible for the food supplying in the
winter, along with the storage amount in the barn. The barn on the farm is the another main
sector of energy consumption. It was established 3 years ago, which is still in a fresh status
and under completion. The barn is a multi-functional house which combines the food storage
function with other services. The storage room maintains a low temperature to keep the
products fresh. The cooling machine used in the storage room entirely relies on the electricity
provided by public sector. There are other services such as group meetings, gathering parties,

36
etc. which requires the use of kitchen and conference room. The energies of gases and heats
supporting for the services comes from public sectors as well. Furthermore, there are several
small solar panels which have been installed on the roof of the barn, in order to provide extra
energies for the precaution use.

b. Water supply

Water is the other sector that concerns the environmental health closely. The irrigation in
Caetshage farm depends on the water providers. The sprinkling irrigation is used as a main
method.

However, it is worthwhile to mention that the Caetshage farm does not intentionally harvest
rain water for the daily irrigation. It mainly keeps the rainwater harvesting in a natural way.
During the rainy season, the rain water is naturally absorbed by the ground, while in the dry
season, the water use mainly depends on the fresh tapping water. Explained by the farmers, it
is on one hand, currently on the farm, there are not complete technical conditions and not
enough space to collect rain water for irrigation. The water resources that used on the farm is
considerably simple. On the other hand, the major amount of fresh water is used on the food
production field, which takes account of a considerably small percentage of total amount of
water demand. The need of rest amount of water for landscape parks is not as frequent as
the other, which is mainly relied on the use of rain water.

c. Fertilizer resources

The fertilizer as the nutrition resources of the plants plays an important role in the growth of
plants. However, the use of fertilizers concerns the environment as well as people’s health.
The overuse of chemical fertilizers would not only harm the soil quality and reduce the food
production yield, but also raise the potential of side effects on human’s health through the
food quality (Cao, Hou, et al., 2011).

According to the farmers, the fertilizers for plants in Caetshage farm comes from two ways.
One source is retrieved by composting the organic waste produced from the farm, and the
other way is by purchasing from the closed farm land. The composted fertilizers can
contribute about 20 tons each year, which accounts for 1/3 of the total amount. The fertilizers
are applied to the non-production fields such as the grass lands for landscape function. For
the rest 2/3 of fertilizers, about 60 tons, are all purchased from the farm lands in Culemborg
nearby. These fertilizers are treated meticulously and used to the food production lands,
which are able to enhance the soil quality and food quality.

In a word, based on the facts found from the field, the energy resources in Caetshage farm
have not been reached to a self-sufficient level. The farm is still limited in a primary stage that
mostly relies on the external resources to keep up the food production. The burden that
farmers do not focus on developing the energy sectors always lies on the reason of poor soil
quality. As quoted the farmers’ words:

“...Soil here is in a poor quality. Without good soil, there will be no proper
food productions. So till now, our primary issue is still focusing on the soil quality

37
 improvement. We think that the plan on developing the sustainable energy will
happen in the next coming five years.”

The focus on the improvement of soil quality has resulted in Caetshage farm a basic way of
accessing and using the resources, rather than seeking out alternative resources and
solutions locally. However, through the farm resources mostly rely on the external sources, it
can be recognized that the farm is intentionally maximize the use of resource they receive.

Products quantity and quality

On Caetshage farm, the food products are diversified. It has reached over 80 kinds of
vegetables, more than 40 kinds of fruits and around 20 types of ornamental flowers, as well
as so far approximately 10 different kinds of livestock. The farm follows a planned planting
calendar about time, amount of the seasonal vegetables and plants should grow. For instance,
lettuce as the mostly consumed vegetable, it grows about 23 times a year. While other
vegetables like broccoli grows 8 circles a year, and potatoes is only grow once time a year.
The farmers make sure that the amount of food production is able to support the residents’
amount.

The demand amount is

80%~90%
indicated by the consumers’
50%~60% 17%
25% responses. According to the
statistical result of investigated
samples, there are about 55%
residents in Eva-Lanxmeer have
purchased vegetables from
Caetshage farm. Among these
70%~80% people, the food products they
25%
purchase from Caetshage farm
fulfil their demand amount
differently. Figure 4.3 shows the
60%~70% coverage of farm products
33%
meet their demand amount.
Figure 4.3: The food products from Caetshage farm cover the About one fourths of people
residents need assume that the Caetshage
farm supply their food amount
for 50% -- 60% of the total demand. Another one fourths of people think the coverage of the
farm products on their food demand has reached 70% -- 80%. But about one thirds of people
agree that the farm could cover around 60%-70% of their daily needs. It can be seen that the
food products from Caetshage farm could cover a majority part of people’s food demand,
but cannot supply them completely.

Besides the Caetshage farm, the rest amount of food demand people purchased from other
different resources. Figrue 4.4 displays the preferable food resources that people purchase.
Over half of the respondents show their preference of Caetshage farm products. The other
food resources, supermarkets, grocery stores and open markets are popular as well.
Supermakets are the most preferable alternative food resource, which over 38.89% people

38
express their favourability. Grocery stores and open markets are compared to be less
preferred as the other two food resource.

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%

From the urban farm 55.56%

From supermarkets 38.89%

From other grocery store 16.67%

From other open markets 22.22%

others 0%

Figure 4.4: The preferable food resources around Eva-Lanxmeer area

Residents have their reasons of purchasing food products from their preferable resources.
Figure 4.5 shows the reasons that residents like the Caetshage farm mostly. They concerned
highly on the freshness and healthiness of the food products. The convenient accessibility is
also an important reason, which almost 40% answers agree with it. Apart from these two
reasons, the diverse choices and affordable prices are also taken into consideration.
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%

Easily accessible 38.89%

Choices diversity 16.67%

Fresh & Healthy 61.11%

Safe & reliable 16.67%

Attractive price 16.67%

Good package 0%

Ready to eat 27.78%

Others 5.56%

Figure 4.5: The reasons that people purchase from their preferable food resources


Respondents are allowed to have more than one answers which leads to over 100% in total.

39
Not only provides the farm enough amount of food production for the residents, the
freshness and healthiness of the food products shows the quality of their food. The farmers
process the food products with four classes to ensure the food quality.

The first class is the products harvested from the field with the best quality, which are directly
ready for sale. All the products in this class do not need involving any other processing
procedure apart from water cleansing. There is no extra packaging decorated in terms of
keeping the freshness of the food products.

The second level of products means that the vegetables or fruits are in a quality that are not
good enough for consumption directly, but neither too bad to consider it as a waste yet. This
class of vegetables or fruits usually comes from two resources. The first one is, some are the
vegetables stored or have stayed for a while after harvested and need to be replaced. The
second one is, the quality of some produces in harvesting was already found not good
enough. To deal with these products, the farmers treat these vegetables and fruits into
processed food products such as pickles and jams. The process needs extra resources and
procedures to have a proper treatment which leads to a considerably higher prices of the
products. It is a way of maximize the value and increases the efficient use of food products,
which can be regarded as an extension of the first class products.

The third classification indicates that the vegetables or fruits are still have some values but
are not appropriate for people’s consumption. These products are normally the residues from
last two levels of products. This group of products are considered as the fodder for the
livestock. Moreover, there is a forth level of vegetables and fruits. As the last and the lowest
level of products, they are concerned as the residues from last three classifications and has to
be treated as organic waste for composting use.

Overall, the Caetshage farm treated the food production strictly, in order to ensure the values
of all the food production could have been fully used. The strict quality classification
formulates a close nutrition loop of the production by having the reduction of useless waste
as much as possible. Residents also have the same consensus of the food quality, as fresh
and healthy is the reason of preference among residents. However, there is also a deficiency
on the quantity of food products that the amount for residents cannot meet the full
requirements.

Waste treatment method

As previously mentioned, about 1/3 of the fertilizers come from the composted organic
waste. It comes from the forth level of food productions and other organic wastes which have
fully lost the value of utility. Composting is the only way of waste treating method on
Caetshage farm. They use the basic Bokashi composting method to take control of the
composting smell.

Bokashi composting method is a way that uses a mix of microorganisms to cover food waste
to decrease smell. Most practitioners obtain the microorganisms from the product Effective
Microorganisms (EM1) first sold in the 1980s. EM1 is mixed with a carbon base (e.g. sawdust

40
or bran) that it sticks to and a sugar for food (e.g. molasses). The mixture is layered with
waste in a sealed container and after a few weeks, removed and buried (Cao, Hou, et al.,
2011). To start a proper composting should be separate organic wastes detail and pre-
treated with the sickness wastes. A good environmental-friendly composted fertilizer requires
a strict pre-treatment and the composting compartment must maintain in a stable
temperature around 70 degree and constant moisture level during composting process.

On Caetshage farm, there are three composting compartments. Each of them takes up about
5m by 10m, which three compartments in total occupy 150 m2 of the farm land. For the
farmers, three compartments are used in turn to deal with the wastes yearly. Once the end of
products produced, they are thrown into the compartments. However, lack of technical and
tools, the treatment of composting is staying in a primary level. There is no pre-treatment
step but concentrate all the organic waste together doing composting. The farmers tell that
they mostly leave the wastes composting simply, maintaining the composting work for a
regular time every year. The composting temperature is controlled around 60 to 70 degrees
to make sure no fatal diseases survive. However, it is acknowledged that the quality of
composting fertilizers is unpredictable as there is no sure about the nutrition completion,
which is not suitable for the growth of vegetables.

Applying the composting organic waste is the final step of forming a nutrition close-loop, but
it only. But it is the fact that it has not formulate a self-sufficient yet, the rate of recycle
organic waste is 100%, which indicates that the circular metabolism has been carried out in
the waste management.

4.2.2 Economic vitality

Caetshage farm has become an independent urban farm that all the resources supported for
the development should be found by themselves. Among all the resources, the economic
resources are one of the most important sectors. In this section, here mainly displays the
financial events including the sources, expenditures and services. The financial development
also keeps the diversity identity of the farm. The farmers devoted themselves into the farm
are considered as a contractor who take the full responsibility of the farm development.

Incomes and costs

Generally speaking, there are three sources to contribute the incomes of Caetshage farm.

The first source, which is also the main source, is the consumption on purchasing the
production from the store of Caetshage farm. Consumers consist of different groups,
including regular residents, individual guests, institutions, supermarkets and other grocery
stores.

The regulars as customers are the residents who living in the Eva-Lanxmeer. As there are over
800 people living there, more than 200 households (approximately 400 people) depends on
the food products from the farm. Other individual guests come from the city out of Eva-

41
Lanxmeer who come and visit now and then. The farm also exports their products to local
supermarkets so that more people could get in touch with their products.

Naturally, as the farm has a

Others
11% stable customer source, the
price level is also considered
Yes, high price
matches good carefully. According to the
It's hard to quality farmers, the price of the farm
say. 44% products they set mostly
17%
follows the market price, which
is neither too high to
affordable nor too low to lead
I work there,
don't pay for in a financial loss. Compared
them.
Yes, reasonable prices with the products in the
6%
matches reasonable supermarket and other grocery
quality, stores, the farmers believe
their products qualities are
better and the prices are in a
Figure 4.6: Residents’ perceptions on the regards of price and good match with it, which has
products quality been approved by customers
of Caetshage farm.

Based on the results from the residents’ samples of questionnaire (Figure 4.6), over 60% of
residents consider the food products from the farm is in a good quality, but it also matches a
high price level at the same time. There are also 30% people have their opinions reservation
as they do not know well about the price and quality matches properly. The matches of
quality and price depend on the time period, as some of them explained. Though, the quality
and price has been approved by the residents, more than 40% of them also state their
opinions that the farm still have the potential to improve the quality and prices. But residents
still prefer to buy vegetables and fruits from the urban farm, because they believe compared
with other reasons such as products are ready to eat from supermarkets, the farm can
guarantee the products fresh and healthy, which is the most important standard.

The second source is from the service industry. As the farm also focuses on developing the
service industry. With the primary schools located around, the farm provides an opportunity
for school education. As well as other institutions and groups, they keep a cooperation
relationship with the farm in return for some compensation to the farm. For example, a
welfare institution which helps the handicap people to receive few fieldwork opportunities on
the farm for getting in touch with nature, and in return, they pay for the farm for
compensation. Not only cooperate with public interest institutions, the farm also charges for
the tour visiting and renting spaces for interested companies or social groups. The service
incomes have gradually increased the occupation in the total income amount, which reached
about over 1/4 of total incomes now.

The third financial source is from municipality for the maintenance work of landscaping. The
park as a part of the farm, it is the farmers’ responsibility for keeping the park functioning.
However, this part of income only takes up small percentage among the whole farm incomes.

42
With the support of incomes, the financial expenditures also mainly spend on three aspects,
two of which are the largest parts of cost.

The first one is the investments on the food production. It includes the energy consumption
and fertilizers import. On one hand, due to the poor soil quality, the farmers invest a
relatively large amount of incomes on the soil improvement, e.g. the purchase on good
fertilizers and the seeds or seedlings in good qualities. On the other hand, the energy
supports for plants storage and the other services also costs high. Thus, there is not enough
budgets left for the development a circular system of energy, which is why the farm currently
still depends on the external resources mostly. In addition, to save money and to seek for a
way of more sustainable self-sufficient circle, the farmers start researching on growing plants
from the seeds that harvested by themselves, instead of importing cultivated seedling.
Though it will cost a longer period, it is considered as a new trial in the farm development.

The second largest expenditure is spent on the rent of lands and buildings. As the 5 ha of
lands belong to the Culemborg municipality, the farmers only have the use right of lands.
They are obligated to pay the renting fee of the farm land for the government to continue
the farm development.

The third part is used as the private incomes. The farmers as a contractor are in absolute
charge and responsibility of all the development work of the farm. The earned incomes not
only include the investment on the farm work, but also the farmers’ private salary.

Based on the descriptions above, it shows the farm develops concerning variable possibilities.
They develop the farm combining with service industry and landscape maintenance rather
than simply depend on the food products. Meanwhile, it also exposes a financial deficiency
that restricts the development of the farm. The incomes and the costs are currently in a
steady balance that implies there is no surplus for the farm constructing other facilities. It
limits the sustainable development concerning on the environmental aspect (section 4.2.1).

Service scope

The food delivery

as one the
important links
also plays a role in
local food system.
Though the urban
farm faces to the
entire population
of Culemborg, the
food delivery
service is still
limited in the area
around Caetshage
farm. Referred to Figure 4.7: The Caetshage service scope

43
the farmers, out of the consideration of delivery cost, they do not have the delivery service
often, which is one of the reason that restrict the expansion of the service scope. For the
regulars, they come to the farm and pick up their products by themselves, and for the other
individual customers, they also help themselves coming and buying products. Delivery only
happens when the supermarkets or for the needs of schools. The limited service scope of
Caetshage is shown in the yellow circle of Figure 4.7, which is the considerable range of the
farm could influence.

4.2.3 Social equity

Consumer groups

Among the customers as mentioned above, they are the residents includes different age
groups and social classes.

>60 There are over 30 respondents

11% <18 of customers who shows that
22% they know about the Caetshage
farm. All the respondents are
randomly collected from
45~60 website via Eva-Lanxmeer and
22% on the field, e.g. train station,
communities, etc.

Different groups of social

citizens participate in the
18~29 questionnaires. About 28% of
28% respondents are young people
30~44
17%
in the age of 18-29. While the
least age group of respondents
Figure 4.8: The age groups distribution of questionnaires are senior people over 60
respondents (Figure 4.8). The other
respondents lie in the rest age
groups averagely. Among all the
questionnaires, it finds out that
people in different social classes
decide the different quality of
products they are buying. Most
people purchase in Caetshage farm
are middle-class people whose
incomes are over 3000 EUR per
month at least.

The activities

Apart from the different social classes Figure 4.9: The participants on Caetshage farm

44
 of citizens consume the food products from the farm, the activities also attract different social
class of people involve in. Caetshage farm is open to all the citizens who intend to participate
in the activities in contributing the local food system, which provides people the same
opportunity for involving in the development of the farm. For example, citizens in different
age groups will help farmers to have food production activities, while the young children and
handicap people will help to do the food process, e.g. classifying products into different
levels, labelling products of jams, preparing sample products as gifts, etc. Figure 4.9 shows
the children and handicap people participate in the Caetshage farm of food processing
activities.

60.00% 55.56%

50.00%

40.00%
33.33%

30.00%
22.22%
20.00%

10.00%
0% 0%
0.00%
Food production: I Food process: I Food distribution: I Waste Others
plant them. clean and package am responsible for management: I
them. deliverying compost the
wastes.

Figure 4.10: The farming activities people participate on Caetshage farm

According to the answers from the respondents, it finds out that the citizens’ participation of
the activities compared to those who do not participate activities on the farm is in a half-half
percentage.

For the half of people who participate in the activities, they normally involve in one or more
activities. There are over 55% answers that they involved in the production activities, which is
that they help farmers to grow vegetables and fruits. The rest about 22% of people
participate in the food process activities, and over 30% of them have other different activities
Once a I
week sometime
22% s enjoy it
Others 11%
33%

Twice a
week
11%

Twice a I always
month enjoy it
34% 89%

Figure 4.11: The frequency of people participates Figure 4.12: People’s opinions on participating
in farming activities farming activities
45
(Figure 4.10).

People have different farming activities frequently. One third of people joins the activities
about twice a month, and the other one third of people do not have a certain settled time
(Figure 4.11). However, almost all the people, near 90%, who join the activities considers that
it is meaningful and they enjoy the activities. And the rest 11% of people enjoy the activities
sometimes (Figure 4.12). It shows that Caetshage farm have successfully attracted a number
of people participating in the farming activities.

Others, 22.22%

I have no
interest, 44.44%

It is only my food
resource, 11.11%

I am not asked to
involve in , I have no time,
22.22% 11.11%
Figure 4.13: The reasons of residents who do not take part in the farm activities

However, for the other half of people who do not participate in the activities, their reasons for
not involving activities are that they have no interest, which accounts for over 40% of the
total amount; that they do not have enough time and some of them think they are not
invited to. This result shows that the farm still need to work on the advertising to attract more
local residents to participate the activities.

Generally speaking, residents with different backgrounds are welcomed to join the farming
activities and they enjoy the activities overall. It can be seen that the Caetshage farm provides
the open opportunities for people to participate in farming activities, which shows the
equality on the social aspect.

4.3 Procedural Sustainability—Stakeholder Analysis

4.3.1 The identification of related stakeholders
During the development of Caetshage farm, different stakeholders have been involved in the
entire process. According to Yates, et,al., (2003) the stakeholder analysis starts with the

46
identification of related stakeholders. Four important sectors have been identified:
government, beneficiaries, influencers and providers. About Caetshage farm, from the
initiative phase till now, six large groups can be categorized into four sectors within the
Culemborg local area.

Government: The Culemborg local municipality

Local Culemborg municipality is the owner and the decision maker of the urban farm. The
government plays an important role in the entire process. At the initial phase, the
government listened to the ideas of different groups of people and weighed the balance of
advantages and disadvantages of all the alternatives. And they finally made the decision of
developing an urban farm on this location. They help to hire the farmers and seek for the
sponsors. According to the farmers, the local municipality helps them apply the subsidies
from EU at the beginning, to help them overcome the initial time. The government has
extremely high level power, but their interests on the urban farm do not as high as the power.

Beneficiaries: Local residents / Foundation

Local residents are the most beneficiaries in the entire process. The development of
Caetshage farm is to provide more local production to the residents. Thus, local residents as
the main subject group, their opinions and suggestions are the most important ones need to
refer.

Foundation is the other beneficiary in the entire process. The foundation represents the
interests of residents living in Eva-Lanxmeer. And they keep a cooperation with the farm as
well.

So in a word, the beneficiaries are the group of stakeholders who have a strong interest on
the development of urban farm, but they do not have power to manipulate the project.

Influencers: Public interest groups / other commercial stakeholders

Public interest groups include the primary schools and institution who make full use of the
urban farm. The public interest groups mainly work with the farm from the service
perspective.

And the other stakeholders refer to the local supermarkets and other stores. They keep a
business cooperation with the farmers, so that both of them could earn their economic
profits.

Generally speaking, the influencers plays their role in all the stakeholders to gain the benefits.
The mutual cooperation achieves a win-win model to expand the sustainable economic circle.
Their power in developing the urban farm is relatively low, and but they do have a lot interest
in the development process.

Providers: Farmers.

47
Farmers as the most important stakeholder plays an important and unreplaceable role in the
urban farm. They are chargers who are responsible for all the production activities, process
activities, selling the products, organizing educational events, touring the visitors, negotiating
business, etc. The development of Caetshage farm cannot live without the farmers’ works. As
the one and only provider in the centre of Culemborg, farmers holds the local urban
agriculture resources but burden a lot of pressures from the stakeholders of the other three
sectors as well. They are in an absolute high power and high interest box.

Figure 4.14: The Stakeholders power-interest matrix of Caetshage farm

4.3.2 The interconnections between stakeholders

Different stakeholders have different functions in any project. And the stakeholders’
interconnections stimulate the development of project (Connelly, Markey, et al., 2011).
Caetshage farm as a project, its development cannot live without the cooperation between
different sectors of stakeholder. Based on the information collected from fieldwork, the
cooperation that mostly affect the development of the farm can be concluded into three
categories.

a. The cooperation between farmers and the local government

The farmers’ cooperation with government is tight and close.

The government meet with the farmers normally twice a year. The meetings help government
to keep up the pace of development of urban farm, in order to knowing the development
goals and the obstacles to prepare for certain events. Supervise and guide the development
of the urban farm towards the planning objective enhance the relationship between them.

48
The farmers consider themselves to develop a diversity farm, which not only embodied on
the products, but also the involved stakeholders, the different cooperation models and so on.

b. The cooperation models

As service business has become one of the most important income method, two cooperation
models has been carried out. One is the non-profit cooperation with schools and handicap
institutions, the other one is commercial cooperation model.

The non-profit cooperation model is that the farmers collaborate with local primary schools
and welfare institutes. The cooperation with schools are executed regularly. Every Thursday,
primary schools will bring students studying the knowledge about nature on the farm. They
also join the activities of production and processing. In return, the farmers provide amount of
products to school. The cooperation with handicap people is organized by welfare institutes.
The institutes pay for the farmers to provide handicap people with working opportunities.
The amount of money the institutes cost is compensated from governments or the handicap
people’s parents.

And the other is a commercial business model. The farmers send their products to local
supermarket or grocery stores. The cooperation could provide several advantages. First,
speaking from the farmers on one hand, can promote their products through the sale stores
and raise their reputations. On the other hand, it is another income source for the farmers.
Second, regarding from the local stores, the products from the farm is an alternative import
source.

c. The cooperation with residents

The farm is open for the residents. They can go to the farm and park freely, but within a
particular time limitation. The citizens not only could involve in the activities equally, but they
could also take part in the other activities on the condition of several rules. Due to the
consideration for the workload of the farm and keeping the environment clean, the farmers
have a set of rules for people who intend to hold activities e.g. ceremony, group parties,
visiting issues, etc. on the farm. For example, the park as a part of the farm land, it is open for
all the citizens to have a leisure time. But there are rules for the opening time for citizens in
order to preventing the loss of livestock. If someone intends to hold a private party, it is not
allowed either. Only the group requisition is considered.

The residents also provide their feedback to the farmers, either on the development of the
farm, or on the products from the farm. For example, based on the answers from
questionnaires, most of the residents have strong suggestions that the farm and the farm
stores should last for a longer time. Because some of the residents consider that time
confliction between the farm opening time and their working period has caused them losing
plenty of opportunities to get in touch with the nature or buying daily fresh fruits and
vegetables.

49
 5. Case Study in China

50
 This chapter is mainly discussed about the Sanyuanli community case in Beijing. Similarly, it
discussed first from the local resources, introducing the location and surrounding
environment. Then, the following sections are demonstrated the sustainability from the
referred indicators of environmental, economic and social perspective of view, along with
stakeholder analysis.

5.1 The Local Context

Sanyuanli community is located in the southeast of 3rd Ring road, which is one of the bustling
area of the city. Speaking from administrative level, it is one of nine sub residents community
of Zuojiazhuang (左家庄). Zuojiazhuang is the basic government body that administrates nine
communities within an area about 4.17 km2, holding with more than 67000 inhabitants. The
density has reached over 16000 people per km2. Sanyuanli community as one of the oldest
neighborhood, consisting of different age groups of people and most of them are native
citizens in Beijing. The aged people take a great percentage in this community and there is a
kindergarten and a primary school nearby.

Figure 5.1: The administrative area of Sanyuanli

The Sanyuanli community sets with two main roads – the 3rd ring road and airport express
road (orange line in Figure 5.1). There is also a metro line running through the area, which

51
provide a convenient transportation condition. Outside the area, the lands are under business
uses as different international hotels, offices and squares are surrounded.

Within the Sanyuanli community, there is a big market store where provides food resources.
The neighbourhood is old constructed in 1970s when the planning of the land use is not
efficient. There are large and scattered unused patches of land. Sanyuanli community garden
is developed based on the idea of making full use of these unused area and try to promot
the movement of community garden as the new urban agriculture practice needed in China.

The Sanyuanli community garden is initiated by JCEF (Jeune Chambre économique française3).
JCEF is a French youth organization that conduct movements on global scale. In the case of
Sanyuanli community garden, a group of young people from JCEF Green Commission
consider the Sanyuanli community is a perfect location due to the geo location, resources,
and the enthusiasm of residents.

Sanyuanli community garden is an official and registered project in Zuojiazhuang

government offices. It is a government procurement projects, which is referred to the
procurement of goods or services on behalf of the public sector (Han, 2010). Sanyuanli
community garden is a project that initiator commences with a responsibility for the
operation and implementation of the project.

5.2 Substantive Sustainability

5.2.1 Environmental sustainability
Energy resources

a. The supply of energies

Sanyuanli community garden selected a quiet place in the whole residents’ area. The
community is an old neighbourhood that there are unused field. It is a waste of land that
leave these fields doing nothing. To improve the efficient of land use, the community garden
occupies the lands by using seedling plots to raise the plants. Due to administrative reasons,
it cannot be changed for planting directly from ground. The community garden is set in the
open space where there are no greenhouses established. Thus, the energy is mostly
concerned receiving from sunlight. (Figure 5.2 shows the appearances of Sanyuanli
community garden.)

Due to the community garden is located in front of the residents’ buildings, the distance of
the buildings and the height of buildings decide the sunlight that gardens can receive. As the
initiator mentioned in the interview that they gradually find out the deficiency of the location.
It lacks of sunlight because the location is not good enough that the shadows of the
buildings and arbours block the sunlight to provide for the plants and the area is constantly
in a wet condition, which furtherly has influences on the growth of plants.

3
http://www.jcef.fr/index.aspx

52
Figure 5.2: Sanyuanli Community garden actual appearance

b. water resource

The water resource is the other important sector. The water resources for the community
garden are from three ways.

The first way, which is also the main resource, comes from public pipes. In the Sanyuanli
community, there is a property management agency that is responsible for the maintenance
of public green space. They normally use the public pipes to irrigate the green space. The
community garden has taken the advantage of this using the public pipes to water the plants,
as it is a way of avoiding the charge. It has become the main resource to water the
community garden.

The second resource is from the rain harvest water. The summer in Beijing has plenty of rain
water. But due to the limitations of infrastructures in the community, the project initiators
simply guided the residents use bins and barrels to harvest water for the agriculture use.

The third resource is from the residents. This part of water resource does not account for the
main supplier for the plants.

c. The fertilizer resource

The fertilizers are also the responsibility of the participants. Currently, at the beginning phase,
the fertilizers are bought from the markets, with the money supplied by the sponsors. To start
the projects and have a function of training residents, the supply of fertilizers could help the
first batch of products. It helps residents to know more about the use of fertilizers.

Part of fertilizers now are also provided by residents themselves. They compost the organic
waste by conducting Bokashi composting method. With accessible bins and ferments, the
residents are able to compost the fertilizers in the community garden and use it for the plants
they grow.

53
Products quality and quantity

Residents are satisfied by the products they produced by themselves. Due to the plot plant,
the soil is not as thick as natural ground. The community garden cannot grow deep-rooted
plants, only shallow-rooted plant can survive, such as carrots, onions, radish, spinach,
coriander, rapeseed, Chinese chives and string beans.
The quality of the products fully depends on the energy and nutrition the plants receive.
From the respondents of residents, majority of them, over 80%, confirm that the quality of
products from community gardens are better than the products in other selling sectors, such
as supermarkets, and grocery stores (Figure 5.3). Only few people, around 17% think there is
not big differences between them.

There's no
much 10-20%
differences, 25%
16.67%

Below 10%
75%
The quality
is better,
83.33%

Figure 5.3: Residents’ perception on the products Figure 5.4: The quantity coverage of residents’
from community garden needs

However, the quantity of the community garden products is limited (Figure 5.4). The quantity
of products only covers 20% of residents’ needs at most. About 75% of participants
estimated that the production amount could only cover 10%, the rest 25% of people think it
could fulfil their demands 10%~20%. All the participants still depend on the other food
resources like supermarkets, and open markets. Residents admitted that the amount of
products from community garden could not use as a main course, but only use as some side
dishes.
When asked about the preferred food resources, most respondents choose the products
from the community garden. Apart from this, the market in Sanyuanli is also a popular food
resource in the neighbourhood (Figure 5.5). Despite of the deficiency of insufficient amount,
the products from community garden is most favoured among all the food resources. It is
because people value the safety and reliability of food products, as the food security is one of
the most concerned issues currently in China. About half of the people also consider the
importance of accessibility, as the reason of preferring community garden food products
(Figure 5.6).

54
 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

From the community Easily accessible 50%

66.67%
garden
Choices diversity 33.33%
From supermarkets 33.33% Fresh & Healthy 33.33%
From other grocery Safe & reliable 66.67%
0%
store Attractive price 16.67%
From other open Good package 0%
50%
markets
Ready to eat 0%
others 0% Others 0%

Figure 5.5: The preferred food resources in Figure 5.6: The reasons that people purchase
Sanyuanli neighbourhood from their preferable food resources

Waste treatment method

The residents are also responsible for the composting of the organic waste. But in Sanyuanli
community garden, without enough land space, the composting is mostly done by residents
at home. And the composting products are not used as fertilizers but as enzyme, which is
mainly for the utility of dish washing and odour cleaning. According to the trainers, the
residents suggest this way of composting due to the reason of efficiency and easy to do. The
process is quite simple. First they find and clean some glass bottles. And then fill in water and
mix with brown sugar properly. The final step is to put in the organic waste and close the
bottle tightly. The ratio of composting materials: water, sugar and organic waste for enzyme
is 10:1:3. And it must leave some air in the bottle. The composting may last around 3 months.
During the period, it needs to release the gases slowly once a while. This way not only can
treat the waste efficiently but also it won’t cause any composting smell. And this method
does not require the separation of organic waste as it is suitable for any kinds of organic
waste.

Overall, the energy resources for food production is not in a full circular loop yet. The
conditions for the current development of the community garden are simple and basic, which
the material flow is going simply and directly. It currently could not form a circular
metabolism, but the material flows are in a low impact as much as possible.

5.2.2 Economic vitality

Cost and benefit

At the start of the project, Sanyuanli community garden received the financial support from
sponsors. And most of the money is used for purchasing the soils, planting plots, seeds and
fertilizers. However, the products produced from the community garden do not for sale. They
consume by themselves or give to other neighbours. Thus, the incomes for that community
garden is very limited after the cutting off of the sponsors at the beginning phase. But to

55
keep running the community garden, the financial demands come from the crowd funding
which people participate in the community garden. They will keep up the demands of
fertilizers and seeds, which accounts for the most cost. The economic perspective of view, the
community garden does not form into a recycled loop, but a simple linear path with crowd
funding to cost. The community garden currently is too small to revenue from it, which has a
great potential to develop from the economic aspect.

However, the community garden is non-profit project and its purpose is to start such
community garden movement in China. Because of this, the community garden does not
have economic benefits but provide a new model for the other communities to start the
urban agriculture.

Service scope

The very limited residents in the communities, mainly the people who participated in the
community garden project. As reviewed by the citizens, the community garden is only for
their use. The products are also only for the people who grow them. When there is an extra
amount, they will give to other neighbours but the service scope will not exceed the
boundary of community.

Figure 5.7: Service scope of Sanyuanli community garden

From Figure 5.7, the solid circle is where the food products of the community garden serve
for, while the dashed circle indicates the area of the community garden influences. It can be
seen that the food products are served in the limited area of neighbourhood while the
influence of the community garden could spread further till the surrounded primary school
and markets.

56
Overall, from the economic perspective of view, the community garden could only feed up
the people who are participate in the community garden. Strictly speaking, the food process
and food delivery phases do not exist in community garden, as the project is limited in the
small area of Sanyuanli neighbourhood. The economic financial cycle has not been
formulated yet because there are no financial benefits come into the community. However,
such urban agriculture movement could have a social influence. Because there is a plenty of
lands unused, the potential for the development of such community garden could have a
promising economic benefits in the future.

5.2.3 Social equity

Consumer groups

As demonstrated above, the Below 3500 8500~12000

consumers are limited in the 13% 17%
participants of Sanyuanli
community garden. After
discussed with the local
residents and learnt from the
questionnaire samples, it is
shown that all the involved 6000~8500
20%
residents are workers aging
around 35 to 55. Almost all
the participants at least obtain
a Bachelor degree, and three 3500~6000
50%
of them have the Master
degree. The group of people
also earn the income averagely Figure 5.8: The income level of consumers in Sanyuanli community
6000 RMB per month4 (Figure garden
5.8). In 2015, the average
income in Beijing is 7086 RMB per month5. It can be seen that the participants’ income level
in Sanyuanli community garden is generally lower than the average level of Beijing.

The activities

The activities that happen in Sanyuanli community garden are open to residents. Training
activities are open to all the residents. Those people who are interested in how the plants are
growing or how to start their own planting could have signed for the training class. These
always attracts more than 30 residents attending training sessions at one time. Sometimes
the children from primary school also come to visit and learn from the community garden.
The purpose of training sessions and education activities is to raise residents’ awareness of

4
6000 RMB is approximately 800 EUR, under the calculation of EUR/RMB currency exchange 1:7.5.
5
Source: http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/zxfb/201606/t20160603_351994.html . Approximately 945 EUR.

57
this form of urban agriculture practice and start the urban agriculture movement in the
community scales.

However, compared with training and education activities, the local food system activities
that happen in the community garden are not in an equal chance. It is not socially equal for
the residents who participate the activities in local food system. They have to sign up for
whether to participate in the community garden at the beginning. And once the participants
are selected, they are the people who are daily responsible for running and maintaining the
community garden. If other people would like to join the work of community garden, the
person has to be approved by the other participants. Thus, the access to the community
garden activities is not equal enough, which limits the opportunities for most residents who
are interested in joining the activities.

90%
80%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% 40% 40%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 0%
0%
Food production: Food process: I Food Waste I did all the work Others
I plant them. clean and distribution: I am management: I by myself
package them. responsible for compost the
deliverying wastes.

Figure 5.9: The farming activities people participate in Sanyuanli community garden

For the participants, they take the whole responsibilities of community garden together.
There will be a detailed to do list for the participants and each of the households will take
turns of all the works. For example, from the interview of a resident, the residents explain that
they will contact with each other and decide who and what to take care of the community
garden. Normally, there will be one or two persons every other day to take care of the plants.
Among all the participants, most of them have the farming activities of food production
(Figure 5.9). While there are few people having other farming activities, waste management,
etc. as well.

According to the questionnaire samples, the frequency of participants having the farming
activities is different. About 40% of people have the farming activities in the community
garden once a week, and the others goes to the community garden several times a month.
And another 20% people do not have a fixed time (Figure 5.10). However, all the people who


Respondents are allowed to have more than one answers which leads to over 100% in total.

58
participate in the community garden enjoy themselves in the farming activities (Figure 5.11).
60% of them expressed their opinions of enjoyments constantly while the rest 40% of them
enjoys sometimes.

Others
20%
I
Once a sometime
week s enjoy it
40% 40%

Several I always
times a enjoy it
month 60%
20% Twice a
month
20%

Figure 5.10: The frequency of people participates Figure 5.11: People’s opinions on participating
in farming activities farming activities

Overall, the social equity is limited in the training some education activities. Not all the
residents could take part in the farming activities in the community garden. The participants
who take part in the farming activities need to be signed up for it. The farming activities
mainly concentrated in the food production, which participants quite enjoy of it.

5.3 Procedural Sustainability—Stakeholder Analysis

5.3.1 The related stakeholders
Procedural sustainability is discussed from stakeholder analysis to reveal the relationship of
stakeholders. Normally, the stakeholders still can be examined from the four sectors, namely,
government, beneficiaries, providers and influencers. However, in this project, there are no
specific influencers involved from other fields as the initiators and government have
considered the feasibility of the project from professional and practical perspectives.

Government

The local government is Zuojiazhuang government, which is the basic branch of Beijing
government. Its purpose is to conduct their power by approving development projects. Local
government is mainly responsible for the administration of community projects, in order to
investigate to ascertain whether these proposed projects are legal and suitable for
development within Chinese context. They have the ultimate power of approving or aborting
a project. In starting such a community garden project in Sanyuanli, Zuojiazhuang
government has revealed the most interest in practising urban agriculture, as it is a new way

59
of combining urban greening and infrastructure at the community level. The government
plays the role of approval in order to find out whether the project is appropriate and legal for
urban development.

Beneficiaries: Residents / Public sector primary schools

The residents are the best beneficiaries among all the stakeholders. It also benefits the public
interest sectors such as the children in primary schools. The community garden initiates the
movement for urban agriculture in community scale. They could directly receive the benefits
either from the education or from substantive level. However, though their opinions of such
projects will be considered, they are in a passive position to express themselves. Thus, the
residents do not have enough high power among all the stakeholders but they are highly
interested.

Figure 5.12: The Stakeholders power-interest matrix of Sanyuanli community garden

Provider: The JCEF Green Commission

The providers are mainly played by the initiators from JCEF Green Commission. The JCEF
provides the financial support for the project. As the initiator of the project, the commission
is responsible for providing the initial financing resources for the commencement. They
contact with local companies, who can provide the basic substantive materials for the
development of community garden, such as seeds and soils.

60
5.3.2 The interconnection between stakeholders
a. The cooperation between project initiator and governments

The local government is the authority of approving all different projects. Sanyuanli
community garden as a “bottom-up” project is proposed by the initiators from JCEF Green
Commission. In commencing the project, the initiator should submit a project proposal to the
local government, in this case Zuojiazhuang office. Zuojiazhuang office study the project
proposal and give the suggestions to the initiators to make it suitable within Chinese
development circumstances. For example, when asked about the land use of the community
garden, one of the officers who works in the Zuojiazhuang government mentioned that it will
not be possible for the project to use the ground directly. As listed in Chinese law, the use of
public space in a community should receive over half of the residents’ permission in the
community and also have the approval signed by the Green Management Office, to allow for
its use. Mostly, in old and constructed communities, the reuse of public space does not easily
happen. However, in the new communities, land for community gardens has to be planned
during the designing phase.

The project will be registered on a record in the government as soon as approval is given.
Once the project is approved by the local government, it needs to be followed up every year.
The follow up investigation is also conducted by a third party, as one of the government
procurement projects. Sanyuanli community garden has not been followed up yet, as the
project has not reached one year since commencement.

b. The cooperation between project initiators and residents: the education/ trainee model

As the project has been formed in a new shape, the school children will come and have a tour
of the community garden, which provides a new way for them to connect with nature.

The trainee sessions are the other cooperation between the project initiator and residents.
The trainee sessions are held every month, discussing the events of how to provide seed for
the plants, how to prevent pests, how to compost the wastes, etc. The trainee sessions
welcome all the residents who are interested in gaining the knowledge of community
gardens. There are also some education sessions held for the young children in Zuojiazhuang
primary school. The initiators and the residents work together to guide a tour for the young
children introducing them to nature and the environment. It has achieved some preliminary
results in which the children have gained understood the concept of voluntarily participation
in growing plants.

Overall, the stakeholders’ relationships are clear. Government plays a powerful role in the
process to decide whether to approve the implementation of projects. The responsible
organizations are influencers who have impacts on government decisions. With enough
financial supports from providers, they on one hand carry out the projects under the
instruction of government, whereas on the other hand, bring benefits to the residents to
meet their interests.

61
 6. The Comparisons of Two
Case Study

62
In this chapter, through answering all the research questions, the performance of two urban
agriculture practices in local sustainability can be discussed. In order to have these two
practices to be compared, the characteristics of each urban agriculture case will be
summarized, and concluded with the similarities and differences between them. At last but
not least, the lessons of both cases will be illustrated with each other and their contribution
to urban planning will be discussed as well.

6.1 What are the impacts of the Dutch urban farm on local
sustainability?
Urban farms have seen several trials around the country. Caetshage farm as one of these
trials and is a popular case for research study. It has been chosen for this study because it
represents the main features of urban farms in the Netherlands. From the data analysis
conducted in previous chapter, the characteristics of this urban farm can be summarized into
the following points.

6.1.1 A complicated circle of metabolism

One of the characteristics of the Caetshage farm, on the regards to environmental aspects, is
the establishment of a circular metabolism flow of food production. In the entire metabolism
process, there are three main producing sectors, i.e. the growth food plants, the maintenance
of landscape plants and the cultivation of livestock. Through these three sectors, a circular
system of energy and nutrition is created. These three sectors not only absorb energy and
nutrition inputs but also act as convertors to transform the resources into these uses for the
other sectors. They complement existing inputs to close the loop on the farm.

Generally, it can be concluded that the circular metabolism on the Caetshage farm cannot
leave without the well management of resources. The resource management is to handle
energies and materials by transformation, consumption or disposal of resources (Agudelo-
Vera, Mels, et al., 2012), which has been applied well on this case. From the Figure 6.1, it can
be seen that all the inputs including water, energies are mainly from outside the Caetshage
farm. They are devoted into the food production field and the landscape field. The
classification of the food products on the farm is a key element as a way of resource
management to contribute to the sustainability. It cascades the quality of food production.
The energies and materials out from the food production are all transformed into different
usages, aiming to recycle the use resource. It is intended to reduce the amount of inputs. As
it is shown in the figure, the food production is the only output. The less amount of other
residual waste produced, the lower harm of output will impact on the environment.

However, the farm has not achieved self-sufficiency yet. The large amount of energy
resources and part of nutrition still depend on outside providers. This is where development
on the farm’s needs to occur in order to reduce the inflow of energy. This rests on two points,
first, this could be achieved by raising the proportion of farm income generated by the
energy sector. Energy is one of the most important sectors in food production, with vast
quantities of energy necessary for both food storage and greenhouses. Greater financial
investment is needed therefore to improve the infrastructure providing energy and increase

63
the efficiency of energy intensive sectors within the urban farms. Second regards the proper
treatment of the energy sector and ensures that usage is strictly controlled. This requires
more attention to be paid to saving the energy, with appropriate use wherever possible.

Figure 6.1: The metabolism flow of Caetshage farm

6.1.2 The diversity of development

The other characteristic of Caetshage farm is diversity. This can be categorised as both a
principle for the development of, as well as the identity of Caetshage farm. The diversity is
evident in a number of different aspects, notably variety of food produce, engagement
outside the farm, inter-industry cooperation and diversification of functions.

The variety of food products.

The farm’s production is not limited to producing only fresh vegetables or fruits. They also
have ornamental plants and dairy productions. Over 100 varieties of vegetable and fruits
species are produced, with the option for both unprocessed processed food productions.
This gives residents a range of an options to access healthy, fresh food production in
different forms.

The collaboration with tertiary industry

A collaboration with tertiary industry that only depends on the profits of food production
could not support the Caetshage farm for long. The business of cooperating with the service
industry has become a way for promoting the brand of Caetshage farm. Through cooperation
with local schools, the farm has attracted children and handicap people to get involved. The
commercial cooperation also provides an alternative way to spread the farm’s production and

64
build the farm’s brand. Such cooperation models have also diversified the farm’s income
streams. The service industry has become the main financial resources after food production.
Such diverse financial resources provide a multi-development function of the farm and
spread the risk associated with any one stream.

The farm’s diverse functions.

Caetshage farm not only has the function of food production, but also serves as a landscape
function, service function, aesthetic function, and leisure function for the residents. As a result,
it could be considered to increase the wellbeing of the residents of Caetshage. The
diversification of functions also enhances the economic independence of the farm. If there
was unexpected emergency, the urban farm could be more resilience. For example, if there
was low production of a specific kind of vegetable due to unexpected weather condition the
diverse financial resources could prevent a critical shortfall in income. It is this resilience that
characteristic of what an urban farm should possess.

However, such diverse function also adds an additional pressure on the farmers. They not
only have to arrange the production tasks but also need to deal with service issues. If the
workload exceeds the endurance of the farmers, it could result in a decreased quality of food
production, which is an important factor in the viability of such urban farms.

Additionally, such diversity is the way for promoting the brand of the farm and reducing the
risks of a particular aspects. For example, the variety could avoid a low production of a kind
of vegetable due to unexpected weather condition. The diverse financial resources could
prevent the short income, the different people participating could ensure that there are
enough human resources available for farming activities.

6.1.3 An open opportunity for forming a community

The opportunity for all the residents to participate helps to develop a community, specifically,
the interest-base community. Interest-base community help to gather people with similar
interest who have a tighter personal connectedness (Alaimo, Reischl, et al., 2010). This makes
it possible to build strong communities, creating community members who are engaged,
participate and feel capable of working through problems, supported by strong social
networks (Connelly, Markey, et al., 2011). The open reception for the residents of Culemborg
to get involved in the urban farm’s activities has provided such an opportunity to build up
their community. The relationship between residents and other group of people has changed
noticeably, especially with regards the bridging and linking of social capital.

The bridging social capitals mainly happen among the people who are interested in the
farming activities. As it is demonstrated in the research results, people from different
background and age groups are involved self-willingly. The bridging social capital is reflected
on the farmers and the residents. They have formulated a working relationship with the
residents through cooperative farming activities and business relationship through food
products trading. The relationship is also reflected on the residents from different
background. There have been more interactions through the farming activities.

65
When considering the linking social capital, this is mainly achieved through the interaction of
residents and handicapped people. As residents learned about the difficulties suffered by
these people they paid more attention to them, with handicapped people benefitting
through connection with the social networks. This helps to develop social relationships and
form a bond between people that reduced class divergence between different groups.

To summarize, the Dutch urban farm mainly contributes to the local sustainability by
improving the metabolism from environmental aspects, having diverse functions from
economic aspects and establishing open and equal participation opportunities from social
aspects. The circular metabolism lowers the inputs and outputs for the urban farm and
maximize the utility of all the materials. The diversity of the functions and collaborations
could enhance the resilience of the development of the urban farm. Meanwhile, the open
opportunities for the citizens could increase the social capitals within the community, which
would further raise the level of social cohesion. Overall, the Caetshage farm has positive
impacts on the local sustainability.

6.2 What are the impacts of the Chinese community garden

on local sustainability?
Sanyuanli Community Gardens is a movement of urban agricultural practice in China with an
aim to use unused urban areas to grow food. These gardens are part of a formal project that
has been approved by the local government, however, their structure is representative of
many currently informal cases and hence provides a reference to the future cases. The word
that best describes the Chinese community garden is ‘simple’, and this is evident in several
aspects of urban metabolism, social relationship and stakeholder cooperation.

6.2.1 The simple circle of metabolism

The circle of material flow is rather simple. The figure below shows the metabolism flow in
Sanyuanli community garden. Within the community garden there exists only the products-
waste circle. The organic waste undergoes only a simple treatment through onsite
composting, mostly converting wastes into enzyme and fertilizers through the application of
the Bokashi composting method.

There are two reasons that these community gardens have such a simple sustainability circle.

First, is the size limitation of the community gardens. The community gardens usually occupy
land that was previously underutilised or inefficiently used, using raised beds as growing
spaces. This restricts the both the number of plants species and volume of production. These
characteristics however result in a very low demand for both energy and fertilizer, and a
limited stream of organic waste output.

66
Second, is the lack of local infrastructure for waste treatment in the community. The design
and administration of land use regulation within the community means that residents are not
allowed to change the use of land without prior approval from the residents’ committee and
local government. This is inclusive of more permanent infrastructure for waste treatment
within community gardens. Currently, residents use simple plastic boxes to compost organic
waste with the small scale of existing community gardens making this a manageable solution.
However, organic waste management should be taken into consideration when considering
expansion or new project development to ensure that proper infrastructure is available, a
factor crucial when considering the scaling up of this movement.

Figure 6.2: The matebolism flow of Sanyuanli community garden

6.2.2 The simple form of a particular community

The establishment of a community is also another characteristic of Sanyuanli Community
Gardens. Unlike urban farms, participation in the community garden is not open to all the
residents, with limited membership creating a predefined community between participants.
Sanyuanli Community Gardens are not an allotment garden where each household is only
responsible for their own plot but it is a community garden in the sense that all the
participators take collective responsibility for the plot. Such community gardens help build a
particular interest-based community within a group of people. There are a number of
advantages and disadvantages resulting from the creation of a social network in such a way.

One of the advantages of a community garden is that people can make full use of spaces and
take care of the growing plants, rather than individual responsibility which may cause the
problems with inefficient land use.

The second advantage is that the people working in the community garden communicate
more with each other and therefore it is easier to develop social capital within the group. The
initial development of the community garden involved a discussion amongst the residents.
These discussions stimulate the establishment of social networks, especially through the

67
establishment of bonding social capital and bridging social networks. Bonding social capital
is created when a family in the community garden project develop tighter relationships
among themselves by communicating in the garden. Bridging social capital develops
between the participating residents. Together, they determine roles of responsibility and
decide the future development of the community garden, which stimulates a close
neighbourhood relationship regardless of pre-existing social identities.

However, this relationship development is restricted to a particular group. For those who are
interested but do not participate in the community garden project it is hard to get involved.
Such a structure therefore hinders the broader social network development of the
community. This can be seen, in part, however to result from the community garden’s limited
size, with limited land preventing the community network including all residents.

6.2.3 The simple cooperation model

The simple cooperation model stems from the limited number of stakeholders, with
cooperation between the local government, residents and initiators.

The development of urban agriculture practices in a community is considered a government

procurement project. Therefore, the local government is the absolute decision maker who is
ultimately responsible for the project’s approval. It then assigns the project to a third party to
construct and implement. The initiator in Sanyuanli community garden also as the project
implementer works under the instruction of government and maintain a simple collaboration
with the residents, by providing them with providers, providing farming opportunities or even
educational activities.

To summarize, the Sanyuanli community garden as a pilot case in China reveals some of
advantages. First, from the environmental aspect, the community garden increases the
efficiency of unused land and help to establish a circular metabolism in the neighbourhood.
All the energies and materials, including wastes, go into the process turn into new products.
Second, it forms an interest-based community which makes the people involved has a tighter
relationship with each other. Thirdly, it stimulates the cooperation with local stakeholders,
including local government, citizens and schools.

However, the case also reveals some weaknesses that can be concluded as simple. The
participators are only allowed the citizens who sign up for, which makes the community
simple and excludes the chances for the others’ participation. The simplicity of cooperation
with stakeholders is vulnerable when providers cut off the resources, for instance. But overall,
though the impacts on sustainability are in a simplicity form, Sanyuanli community garden
has contribute to the use of resources and social cohesions in the neighbourhood scale. It
suggests potential impacts on the local sustainability will be made if more community
gardens projects such as Sanyuanli will be developed.

68
6.3 What are the similarities and differences of the two cases
with respect to local sustainability?
Based on the research questions answered above, a comparison of these two urban
agriculture practices can be found from tables 6.1 to 6.3, shown below. Table 6.1 shows the
divergence of local circumstances within the cases. Table 6.2 compares the substantive
sustainability in two urban agriculture practices. Table 6.3 concludes the participatory
sustainability of the stakeholders’ involvement in two cases.

Table 6.1: The comparison of local resources/circumstances of two cases

Local situation Caetshage farm in Culemborg Sanyuanli community

garden in Beijing
Density 900 people / km2 7000 people / km2
Size of urban agriculture 5 ha (2 ha for food production, 3 10 m2 and still in expansion
area ha for landscape)
Previous land uses Community garden Unused community lands
Transport condition Different transport types: Close to the main road.
railway, waterway and high road.
Educational resources Primary schools surrounded Kindergarten and
Zuojiazhuang primary school
Commercial resources Supermarket in Culemborg Sanyuanli grocery market

Table 6.2: The comparison between two different urban agriculture practices – substantive
sustainability

Substantive Indicators The urban farm of The community

Sustainability Dutch case garden of Chinese
case
Environmental Energy resources • Large requirements. • Small
health • Depend on natural requirements.
energy and electricity • Depend on natural
supply. energy
Products quality and • Good quality with • Good quality
quantity strict classification. • Insufficient
• Sufficient quantity quantity
Waste treatment • Bokashi waste treating • Bokashi waste
method method on the farm. treating method at
• Used as fertilizer. home.
• Produced as
fertilizers and
enzyme.
Economic Costs and benefits • Farmers have full • Fully depend on
vitality responsibility. the involved
• Cooperative residents.
partnership with local
supermarket.
Service scope • Culemborg city scale • Sanyuanli

69
 community scale
Social Equity Consumer groups • Residents in the whole • Participants
Culemborg. maintaining the
community
garden.
The activities • Farming activities are • Farming activities
open to all groups of are limited to the
people, including residents who
children, students, signed up to
elder people and participate.
handicap people. • Trainee activities
• Other activities have are open to all the
rules regulated. residents and
students from
primary school.

Table 6.3: The comparison between two different urban agriculture practices – procedural sustainability

Participatory Indicators The urban farm The community garden

sustainability
Stakeholders Government The Culemborg local The Zuojiazhuang local
government government
Beneficiaries Residents and foundation Residents and schools
Influencers Schools NGOs
Providers Farmers Sponsors
Cooperation Business Between farmers and
cooperation supermarket
Non-profit Between farmers and Between NGOs and schools
cooperation handicap people Between NGOs and residents
Between farmers and schools

6.3.1 The similarities

From the tables listed above, it can be seen that there are a number of consistent themes
present between both urban agriculture practices which contribute to the performance of
local sustainability. These similarities can be summarized into two points.

Firstly, both cases emphasise to the role that the formulation of a circular metabolism has on
local sustainability. Environmentally speaking, these metabolism cycles reduce the raw
material flow with the higher the metabolism cycle, the less materials used. Economically
speaking, such a circular metabolism increases the efficiency of resources use. This can not
only lower the financial cost of purchasing raw materials but can also result in high returns
from production. These circular flows are achieved through closed waste treatment cycles.
Both cases use the Bokashi method for the organic waste composting which allows a simple
method for creating usable materials from waste products. Overall, with regards to
environmental and economic sustainability, these two urban agriculture practices have
contributed to local sustainability through relatively closed circular metabolisms.

70
Secondly, there are similarities in the prioritisation of social equity. The two urban agriculture
practices help to improve bridging social capital through the involvement of the community
in the urban agriculture practices. Activities such as farming and educational activities provide
residents with equal chances for communication. This improves the relationship between
different groups of people, not only the residents in the neighbourhood but also the people
in different social levels and abilities.

Generally speaking, the urban agriculture practices have positive influence on the
development of local sustainability achieved through closed material cycles and outreach into
the community.

6.3.2 The differences

Though the two urban agriculture practices have proved their contribution to local
sustainability, their contribution to substantive and participatory sustainability differs.

Environmentally speaking, the metabolism cycle of the two cases performs quite differently.
As the scale of the urban farm is relatively larger than that of the community garden,
different kinds of production methods are applied, with different agriculture products
available. The urban farm integrates and cascades resources such that all the materials are
circulated in production activities and landscape activities. In the community garden, on the
other hand, due to the limitation of size, resources use and reuse is also very limited as there
only exists a single cycle of production and waste treatment. Such comparison reveals how
the scale of urban agriculture practices influences local sustainability with the urban farm
formulating a sustainability circle with multiple small loops while the community garden’s
circle is simple and direct.

Though similarities can be identified between the creation of bridging social relationships in
the community, the way in which social equity is addressed by the urban farm and the
community garden differs. The urban farm is open to all the residents living in the city which
results in different kinds of people gathering on the farm. Within this environment, different
social classes of people are able to communicate with each other which improves linking
social capital through the shared task of volunteering in the farming activities. However, in
the community garden, emphasis is placed on the development of bonding social capital.
Since a community garden is open to a limited group of households, who then form a close
community across neighbourhoods, the capacity for linking social capital to occur is more
limited. However, such a structure enables the exchange of opinions and organization of
activities, which increases the involvement of each participant in the farming activities and
help to consolidate or build social capital.

Differences also exist with regards stakeholders’ cooperation as well. Both cases work with
non-profit organizations such as schools and NGOs to influence students and other
important people to take part or recognise the role of urban agriculture. However, the case in
the Netherlands also has business cooperation with other commercial sectors, which
contributes financially to the urban farm’s development. The scale of Sanyuanli community
gardens however means that the households are the primary beneficiaries of the products
grown on the farm.

71
In other words, both of the cases have achieved a circular metabolism, in a complicate or a
simplicity form. However, the differences between the two cases regarding local sustainability
lie in their service scale. The urban farm develops in diversity and is fully open to the
residents, while the community garden is simple and close to a limited group at the
neighbourhood scale.

6.4 What lessons can be learnt from the two urban cases?
Caetshage farm in the Netherlands developed from a community garden and it therefore
hold experiences that could help shape the development of the Sanyuanli community garden
in China. The primary experiences to be learned from the Dutch case is the diversification of
incomes. The benefit of diversification to the community garden is that it could have more
cooperation opportunities for the development. This can be explained in a few points.

Firstly, cooperation with commercial sectors helps to both support the project economically
but also diversify risk. The community garden in China has not yet started developing a
method for raising the yield of food production or working with local markets. Financial
support is secured from the initiators’ sponsorship and the participators themselves. However,
such financial incomes cannot support the development of the community garden in the
long term.

Secondly, the cooperation with service sectors can promote outside interest. Sanyuanli
community gardens could cooperate with service industries by organizing tour guides for
other communities and instructing them how to start their own community garden. By
branding and advertising the community garden they could promote the development of
urban agriculture in new urban areas.

On the other hand, though the Chinese case is in its infancy, there still exist things that the
Dutch case can learn.

The organization of the residents’ involvement in farming activities is the main area of
improvement. Currently, farming activities are voluntarily which means that the
communication between residents may be limited, with most people only communicating
with the farmers. Similarly, because of the voluntary and somewhat detached nature of the
farm from everyday life, some people are not aware of the possibility to get involved in the
farming activities at all. Thus, the Chinese experience of organizing residents to get involved
in activities can be applied in Caetshage farm. The farmers could regularly organize farming
activities or trainee sessions so that the residents could participate together at the same time.
This could first improve the opportunities for communication among residents because
residents could meet more people then when they were independently volunteering.
Secondly, such regular organization could raise people’s interest to participate in the farming
works and disseminate the basic knowledge of how to do farm work.

72
From all above, it can be seen that both cases have strengths and weaknesses. But it is good
to be learnt the strengths from different cases and remedy the weakness on the condition of
taking the local contexts into consideration.

73
 7. Conclusions and
Recommendations

74
7.1 Conclusions
Globally, the booming development of urban agricultural practices around the world reflects
an awareness that it stimulates sustainable development at the local level. Based on the
circumstances of the different cities, different urban agricultural practices have different local
sustainability performances. Realizing the influence of different urban agricultural practices in
local sustainability could provide a reference for other cities in their future development.

Using the theoretical framework and selected indicators listed in this paper, an analysis of the
impact of urban agricultural practices on local sustainability can be examined. This framework
can be applied to different urban agriculture practices, with this thesis applying the
framework to two different urban agriculture practices in The Netherlands and China. By
studying their similarities and differences it can be seen that urban farms and community
gardens have different local sustainability characteristics, though they share the same
fundamental objectives.

7.1.1 Conclusions for the Dutch case

The Dutch urban farm contributes to the local sustainability in a way of raising the
environmental circular metabolism and increasing the social cohesion in the community. It is
implemented by forming a diverse and open model of urban farm.

The diversity of the urban farm is reflected on different aspects, especially on the
environmental perspective with a circular metabolism. With different planting methods, they
raise the yield of food production. They also use different methods to process the food
production and reduce the amount of waste. Such diversity keeps the environmental
metabolism in a close loop as much as possible and provide the positive influence on the
surroundings. It proves the theory of Connelly, et al., (2011) in the literature review that the
local sustainability is more environment-centred (Connelly, Markey, et al., 2011).

Meanwhile, when speaking of increasing social cohesion, it is reflected on two points. On one
hand, due to the location of the urban farm, all the citizens from local city areas are welcome
to participate in the activities on the urban farm. It initially provides the condition of place-
based community. However, with further interactions, diverse social groups of people who
are interested in the urban farming naturally lead to an interest-based community. On the
other hand, the kinds of business operations happen on the urban farm are also diverse. The
involvement of stakeholders in the urban farm are from different social groups. The diverse
interactions among people increase the social capital, which further reinforces the level of
social cohesion.

7.1.2 Conclusions for the Chinese case

On the contrary to the Dutch case, the Chinese community garden is a simple and closed
model. This means that that once the responsible participants are involved, the members do
not easily change. It does not link social relationships very well between different groups of

75
people, but it has enhanced the relationships within the participating groups. Due to the size
limitation of community gardens, it can also contribute at the local level of sustainability with
a simple metabolism circle. Although, the involvement of schools is executed simply, it has
influenced the participating children by instilling a sense of environmental protection.

Not only from social scale, the performance from the environmental aspect is also simple.
Though the community garden is merely close the loop with the help of different external
input, the circular metabolism provides the fertilizer to the community garden, in order to
maximize the use value of food waste.

So conclusively speaking, on a fundamental scale therefore local sustainability is achieved,

however the wider effects on the community are more moderate.

7.1.3 The General Conclusion

Even though the two practices have display different characteristics and play differently in
local sustainability, both urban agricultural practices have contributed to local sustainability
by formulating a circular metabolism. Both of the cases have use resources efficiently and
maximize the value of all the inputs. Additionally, they also create a space for residents to
enhance social cohesion. Conclusively, the both cases not only provide an alternative way of
accessing food production, but also contribute to local sustainability as well.

7.2 Recommendations
7.2.1 Recommendations for the Netherlands
Based on the previous conclusions about the urban agriculture practices in local sustainability,
there are several recommendations for the two countries on their development of urban
agriculture in the future.

Recommendations for the Netherlands

Urban agriculture in the Netherlands has developed into a booming enterprise (van der
Schans, 2010). From the Caetshage farm, it can be seen that the urban farm can have a
significant benefit for local food systems sustainably. However, there are several
recommendations for the improvement of urban farms:

For the farmers:

• Before the construction of an urban farm, examine the local circumstances and design an
achievable metabolism circle.

• Build a proper farm identity and have target group appropriate advertisements.

For the planners and government:

76
• Have a plan of different functional urban farms, e.g. service-function and production-
function urban farms working separately in order to reduce the burden of one particular
urban farm.

• The number of farmers should be hired and adjusted based on the size of the urban farm
and workload.

For citizens:

• Get involved in the urban agriculture activities actively.

7.2.2 Recommendations for China

China’s accelerated economic development has stimulated the high requirements of
environmental management. In recent years, the authorities have proposed several new
principles which are currently under a trial in different cities. These new experiments may
influence the development of urban agriculture in the future.

For example, the Sponge city movement has been promoted in China in recent years. It has
become one of the popular themes in urban planning and landscape designing projects. The
core principle of the Sponge city is to have low impact development and formulate a circular
metabolism, in order to save resources for the future. It requires the proper integrated
collaboration of the natural environment and infrastructure. Speaking from this level, urban
agriculture could fulfil the requirements of a Sponge city.

Additionally, in February, the national government of China has promoted a new planning
policy that tears down the boundary walls of the community (Liu, X., 2016). This means that
Chinese neighbourhoods will no longer be established within a restricted area but
constructed openly with public spaces. In this way, land use is more integrated and less
isolated. This raises efficiency and endows multi-functionality to land use. Thus, the policy
could stimulate the development of urban agriculture through the creation of shared land.
One vision possible within this new framework is the assistance in developing an
interconnected local food network at a city scale, which may provide a chance for urban
farms to emerge within the city. From a personal perspective, this is a promising future for
the development of urban agriculture.

Even though the policy could be positive on the development of urban agriculture, there is
still a long way to go before having a ubiquitous urban agriculture practice in China. The case
of Sanyuanli community garden which is a reference for the current state of development of
China’s urban agriculture has a number of potential improvements. Based on China’s current
development, there are several recommendations for this situation:

For the government:

• Encourage the development of community gardens in old neighbourhoods with proper

incentives where necessary.

• Set strict regulations of different urban agriculture practices for development.

77
• Propose articles to legalize different urban agriculture practices.

• Keep abreast of residents’ opinions.

For planners/designers:

• Invest in infrastructure to meet the requirements of a circular metabolism for a

community gardens.

• Take urban agriculture practices into account during the planning phase and at the
beginning of the construction of a new neighbourhood.

• Popularize urban agriculture knowledge to raise the awareness of sustainable

development.

• Promote new urban agriculture practices and enhance current practices to reinforce the
local food system at the city scale.

For citizens:

• State their opinions to related authorities positively.

• Follow the regulations to establish proper urban agriculture practices.

• Increase the awareness or knowledge of urban agriculture.

78
Bibliography

79
Alaimo, K., Reischl, T. M. and Allen, J. O. 2010. Community gardening, Neighborhood meetings,
and Social capital. Journal of Community Psychology, 38 (4), pp. 497-514.

Bauermeister, M., Swain, S. and Rilla, E., 2010. Marin county community garden needs
assessment. California: University of California Cooperative Extension-Marin. Available at:
http://ucanr.edu/sites/MarinMG/Community_Service_Projects/Marin_Community_Gardens
/Marin_County_Community_Garden_Needs_Assessment/ .

Bernard, H. (unpublished) 2014. Sanyuanli community garden project proposal.

Binder, C. R., Feola, G. and Steinberger, J. K. 2010. Considering the normative, systemic and
procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30 (2), pp. 71-81.

Bohn, K. and Viloen, A. 2011. The Edible City: Envisioning the Continuous Productive Urban
Landscape (CPUL). Field Journal, 4 (1), pp. 149-161. Available at: http://www.field-
journal.org/uploads/file/2011%20Volume%204/10%20The%20Edible%20City%20Katrin%2
0Bohn%20and%20Andre%20Viljoen.pdf .

Bradly, L. and Baldwin, K. 2012. How to Organize a Community Garden. North Carolina Sate
Universtiy: North Carolina Coperative Extension. Available at:
http://content.ces.ncsu.edu/how-to-organize-a-community-garden .

Broekhof, S. M. and van de Valk, A. 2012. Chapter 32 Planning and the quest for sustainable
food systems: explorations of unknown territory in planning research. In: A. Viljoen and J.
S. C. Wiskerke eds., 2012. Sustainable food planning: evolving theory and practice.
Wageningen: Wageningen Academic. pp. 393-404.

Budge, T. and Slade, C., 2009. Integrating Land Use Planning and Community Food Security.
Melbourne: La Trobe University. [Accessed 2015].

Cai, J. and Yang, Z. 2008. Developing China's urban agriculture by learning from international
experiences. Geographical Research, 27 (2), pp. 362-374.

Campbell, M., 2004. Building a Common Table: the role for planning in community food
systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23 (4), pp. 341-355.

Cao, E., Hou, X., Li, G., Huang, Q., et al., 2011. Effect of combination bacteria on soil
physicochemical properties and soil microbial activity by pot tomato experiments. Ecology
and Environmental Science, 20 (5), pp. 875-880.

Cao, L. and Zhang, L. 2006. The industrial form research on the sustainable development of
urban agriculture in Shanghai. Chinese Agriculture Science Bulletin, 22 (1), pp. 400-404.

Clavin, A. A., 2011. Realising ecological sustainability in community gardens: a capability

approach. Local Environment, 16 (10), pp. 945-962.

80
Connelly, S., Markey, S. and Roseland, M. 2011. Bridging sustainability and the social economy:
Achieving community transformation through local food initiatives. Critical Social Policy,
31 (2), pp. 308-324.

Creswell, J. W., 2009. Research design: Quanlitative, Quantitative, and Mixed methods
approaches. 3rd. London: Sage.

Dale, A., Ling, C. and Newman, L. 2010. Community Vitality: The Role of Community-Level
Resilience Adaptation and Innovation in Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 2 (1), pp.
215-231.

del Rio, P. and Burguillo, M. 2008. Assessing the impact of renewable energy deployment on
local sustainability: towards a theoretical framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 12 (5), pp. 1325-1344.

Dubbeling, M., 2013. Lingking cities on urban agriculture and urban food systems.
<http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Text%20city%20food%20systems.pdf> [Accessed
2015].

Energy-cities, 2013. 9. EVA-Lanxmeer (Culemborg - NL). Available at: http://energy-

cities.eu/IMG/pdf/Sustainable_Districts_ADEME1_EVA-Lanxmeer.pdf [Accessed 2015].

EVA-Lanxmeer, 2015. Ontwerp stedenbouwkundig plan. Available at: http://www.eva-

lanxmeer.nl/over/ontstaan/ontwerp-stedenbouwkundig-plan [Accessed 2015].

Feenstra, G., 1997. Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, 12 (1), pp. 28-35.

Feenstra, G., 2002. Creating space for sustainable food systems: lessons from the field.
Agriculture and Human Values, 19 (2), pp. 99-106.

Firth, C., Maye, D. and Pearson, D. 2011. Developing "community" in community gardens. Local
Environment, 16 (6), pp. 555-568.

FSN, 2014. Food security network. Available at: http://www.foodsecuritynews.com/index.html

[Accessed 2015].

Geertje, 2015. Boerderij 't Geertje'. Available at: http://www.hetgeertje.nl/ [Accessed 2015].

Goodman, D. and Goodman, M. K. 2009. Alternative Food Networks. pp. 1-13. Available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1484156/Alternative_Food_Networks .

Han, J., 2010. A comparison analysis of three models of NGO involving government
procurement in China.
http://www.cctb.net/llyj/xswtyj/zdjs/201001/P020130613372159488013.pdf. Beijing:
Central Compilation and Translation Bureau. Available at:
http://www.cctb.net/llyj/xswtyj/zdjs/201001/P020130613372159488013.pdf .

81
Hinrichs, C. and Kremer, K. 2002. Social inclusion in a midwest local food system project.
Journal of Poverty, 6 (1), pp. 65-87.

Holland, L., 2004. Diversity and Connections in Community Gardens: a contribution to local
sustainability. Local Environment, 9 (3), pp. 285-305.

Holman, N., 2009. Incorporating local sustainability indicators into structures of local
governance: a review of the literature. Local Environment, 14 (4), pp. 365-375.

Holtslag, W., (unpublished) Planning for (local) food systems: Understanding the development
of local food chains in the Dutch context. Master of Science. Wageningen: Wageningen
University.

Jaroz, L., 2008. The City in the Country: Growing Alternative Food Networks in Metropolitan
Areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 24 (3), pp. 231-244.

Kingsley, J. and Townsend, M. 2006. 'Dig in' to Social Capital: Community gardens as
mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban Policy and Research, 24 (4),
pp. 525-537.

Kumar, R., 2014. Research methodology: a step by step guide for beginners. 4th edition. Britan:
Sage publication.

Kuo, F. and Sullivan, W. 2001. Aggression and violence in the inner city: Impacts of
environment via mental fatigue. Environment & Behavior, 33 (4), pp. 543-571.

Levenston, M., 2013. Netherlands’s Report: Urban agriculture beneficial to society. Available at:
http://www.cityfarmer.info/2013/10/09/netherlandss-report-urban-agriculture-beneficial-
to-society/ [Accessed 2015].

Linn, K., 2007. Building commons and community. Oakland: New Village Press.

Liu, X., 2016. China State Council on further strengthening urban planning and construction
management6
(In Chinese: 中共中央 国务院关于进一步加强城市规划建设管理工作的若干意见).
Available at: http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-02/21/c_1118109546.htm [Accessed
2016].

Macias, T., 2008. Working toward a just, equitable, and local food system: the social impact of
community-based agriculture. Social Science Quarterly, 89 (5), pp. 1086-1011.

Mees, C. and Stone, E. 2012. Chapter 35 Food, homes and gardens: public community gardens
potential for contributing to a more sustainable city. In: A. Viljoen and J. S. C. Wiskerke
eds., 2012. Sustainable food planning: evolving theory and practice. Wageningen:
Wageningen academic. pp. 431-452.

6
English is translated by the author.

82
Morgan, K., 2010. Feeding the city: the challenge of urban food planning. International
Planning Studies, 14 (4), pp. 341-348. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563471003642852 .

Mubvami, T. and Mushamba, S. 2006. Integration of agriculture in urban land use planning.
Integration of agriculture in urban land use planning. 2006. Cities Farming for the Future;
Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities. RUAF foundation. Available at:
http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Integration%20in%20urban%20land%20use%20pla
nning.pdf.

OCED, 2007. A bigger picture. In: A. Gurria ed., 2007. Human capital. OECD. pp. 102-105.
Available at: https://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf.

Pollan, M., 2008. Farmer in Chief. Available at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html [Accessed 2015].

Pothukuchi, K., 2004. Community food assessment: A first step in planning for community food
security. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23 (4), pp. 356-377.

Qu, X. and Jiao, L. 2013. Research progress of community supported agriculture in China.
Guangdong Agriculture Science, (9), pp. 214-217.

Rong, W., (unpublished) The development of urban agriculture situation, problems and
countermeasures. Jingzhou: Yangtze University.

RUAF foundation, 2015. Urban agriculture: what and why? Available at:
http://www.ruaf.org/urban-agriculture-what-and-why [Accessed 2016].

Selman, P., 2001. Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning. Planning Theory and
Practice, 2 (1), pp. 13-30.

Sjauw, A., 2015. Urban agriculture. Available at:

http://www.urbangreenbluegrids.com/agriculture/ [Accessed 2015].

Srinivas, H., 2015. Frequently Asked Questions about Community Sustainability. Available at:
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/la21/sustfaq.html [Accessed 2015].

Tansey, G. and Worsley, T., 1995. The food system: a guide. Routledge.

Turner, B., 2011. Embodied connections: sustainability, food systems and community gardens.
Local Environment, 16 (6), pp. 509-522.

UN, 2010. Urban Environment Food. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/Istanbul+5/72.pdf .

van der Schans, J., 2010. Urban agriculture in the Netherlands. Urban Agriculture Magazine, pp.
40-42. Available at:
http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/UA%20Magazine%2024%20sept2010web%2040-
42.pdf [Accessed 2016].

83
van Timmeren, A., Röling, W. and Kaptein, M., eds., 2004. Sustainable Implant and EVA Centre,
Culemborg, a hub for Sustainable Development, [The 21th Conference on Passive and
Low Energy Architecture.]. Eindhoven, Sep, 2004. pp. 1-6.

Veen, E., 2015. Community gardens in urban areas: a critical reflection on the extent to which
they strengthen social cohesion and provide alternative food. PhD. Wageningen:
Wageningen University.

Viljoen, A., 2005. CPULs: Continuous productive urban landscapes. 1st edition. UK: Elsevier.

Viljoen, A. and Bohn, K., 2014. Second Nature Urban Agriculture: Designing productive cities.
London: Routledge.

Wahba, S., 2013. Urban agriculture: findings from four cities case studies. 80759), Washington:
World Bank. Available at:
http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Worldbank%20report%20on%20urban%20agricult
ure.pdf [Accessed 2015].

Wang, K., 2013a, (unpublished) Introducing Food Re-localisation to China. Master of Science.
Wageningen: Wageningen University.

Wang, Z., 2013b, (unpublished) Gardens of the east and west: New parth towards sustainable
local food systen in Beijing and Amsterdam. Master of Science. Wageningen: Wageningen
University.

Watson, M., June,4th, 2015. What Is an Urban Farm? Available at:

http://localfoods.about.com/od/localfoodsglossary/g/What-Is-An-Urban-Farm.htm
[Accessed 2016].

Wilson, D. C., 2007. Development drivers for waste management. Waste Management &
Research, 25 pp. 198-207.

Yates, H. and Jochum, V., 2003. It’s who you know that counts. The role of the voluntary sector
in the development of social capital in rural areas. London: NCVO Publications.

Yin, R., 2009. Case study research desgin and methods. 4th edition. USA: Sage Publications.

84
Appendix

85
 1: Questionnaires
Part I. Basic information

1. What is your age?

A. <18 D. 45-60

B. 18-29 E. >60

C. 30-44

2. What is your gender?

A. Female B. Male

3. What is your current occupation?

A. Students C. Retired

B. At Work

4. What is your highest education level?

A. Master or higher degree (University) C. High school degree (MBO)

B. Bachelor degree (HBO) D. lower than high school degree (< MBO)

5. What is your monthly income level?

A. I have no incomes. D. 2000-3000 EUR (6000-8500 RMB)

B. Less than 1000 EUR (less than 3500 RMB) E. 3000-5000 EUR (8500-12000 RMB)

C. 1000-2000 EUR (3500-6000 RMB) F. Over 5000 EUR (Over 12000 RMB)

Part II. Involvement in the community garden

6. Do you involved in the activities in the urban farm (community garden)?

A. Yes (skip 7) B. No (go to 7 only)

7. Why do you not involve in the activities of the urban farm (community garden)?

86
(You can have more than one choice, then go to 12)

A. I have no time. D. I only regard it as one of my food resources.

B. I have no interest. E. Other reasons: _______.

C. I am not asked to involve in.

8. What is the reason that you involved in the activities of the urban farm (community garden)?

(You can have more than one choice)

A. It is my work. D. It is the way where my interest lies.

B. It sometimes is a requirement from my work. E. It is the way how I make new friends.

C. It is the way how I spend my leisure time. F. Other reasons_______.

9. What kind of activities do you usually involved in the activities of the urban farm (community
gardens)? (You can have more than one choice)

A. Food production: I plant D. Waste management: I deal with the food

vegetables/fruits. / I harvest them. waste to benefit the community garden.

B. Food process: I clean and package E. Other activities: _________ (e.g. educate
vegetables/fruits. children, special celebration, guidance of visitors,
etc.)
C. Food distribution: I am responsible for
delivering vegetables to the households.

10. How often do you involved in the activities in the urban farm?

A. Everyday D. Twice a week

B. Once a week E. Twice a month

C. Once a month F. Others_______

11. Do you enjoy involving in the activities in the community gardens?

A. I always enjoy it. C. I hardly enjoy it.

B. I sometimes enjoy it. D. I never enjoy it.

87
Part III. Consumption from the community garden

12. Do you purchase the fresh vegetable produced from the urban farm?

A. Yes (skip 14) B. No (skip 13)

13a. How much amount do you think it covers the needs of vegetables/fruits in your life?

A. 100% E. 60%-70% I. 20%-30%

B. 90%-100% F. 50%-60% J. 10%-20%

C. 80%-90% G. 40%-50% K. Below 10%

D. 70%-80% H. 30%-40% L. 0

13b. The rest I purchase ______.

A. from supermarket C. from other open markets

B. from other grocery store D. Others________.

14. I normally purchase from _________.

A. from supermarkets C. from other open markets

B. from other grocery store D. others _________.

15a. I prefer to purchase from _________.

A. from the urban farm D. from other open markets

B. from supermarkets E. others _________.

C. from other grocery store

15b. Because the resource(s) is/are more _______.

A. Easily accessible E. Attractive price

B. Choices diversity F. Good package
C. C. Fresh and healthy G. Ready to eat
D. Safe and reliable H. Others _____________

88
16. Compared with the vegetables you purchase from 13b, what do you think the quality of the
vegetables/fruits produced in the urban farm?

A. It is better. D. I don’t know

B. It is worse. E. Others _______.

C. There’s not much differences.

17. Overall, do you think the quality of fresh vegetables/fruits produced in the urban farm
matches the prices?

A. No, high price but low quality. E. Yes, high price matches good quality.

B. No, low price but high quality. F. I don’t pay for them, because I plant them.

C. Yes, low price matches low quality. G. It’s hard to say

D. Yes, reasonable price matches reasonable H. Others __________.

quality.

18. I would advise the urban farm to _______

A. Improve the quality, keep current price. D. Keep current quality and price.

B. Lower the price, keep current quality. E. Others ________.

C. Improve the quality and the price.

Part IV. Suggestion for the urban farm

19. Do you think the waste from the urban farm have been treated well?

A. Yes, I know it is also used as fertilizer in C. No, I don’t think it treated well.
the urban farm / community garden.
D. I’m not sure.
B. Yes, but I don’t know where it goes.
E. Others _______.

20. Do you think community garden changed your lifestyle?

(You can have more than one choice)

89
A. Yes, I feel eating healthier.

B. Yes, I save more money

C. Yes, I feel it is more convenient.

D. Yes, other reasons________

E. No, I always live like this.

F. No, I don’t feel much differences.

G. No, other reasons________.

21. Please give three tops for current urban farm (community garden).

(What three benefits do you think the urban farm /community garden can provide?)

22. Please give three tips for the development of the urban farm (community garden) in the future.

(What three aspects do you think the urban farm / community garden need to be improved mostly?)

(Chinese version only:

23. Do you think community garden should be widely promoted and institutionalized in China?)

90
 2: Interview list
Objective NL (Eva-Lanxmeer) CN (Sanyuanli)7
Economy  What kind of vegetable/fruits do you  都种哪些果蔬产品？
produce?  果蔬产品定价吗？
 What are the price level of these  如果定价价格是怎样的？
products compared with other  面向群体是谁？
resources?  对小区的经济发展有起到作用吗？
 Who are the buyers of these products?  这些收入会用于何处？
 What is the economic contribution to the
development of Culemborg?
 How much is your yearly income?
 How do you deal with these income?
Waste management  Is there a model of treatment referring  垃圾是同普通垃圾一起处理？
to?  还是雇佣专门的人进行单独处理？
 What kind of techs has been applied?  是否有专门的处理方式？
 How are wastes produced in community  用到了什么技术？
garden treated?  是一个循环过程吗?
 Is it a circular process?  大概循环利用率是百分之多少？
 About ___% they are reused。

Amount  The amount of producing veg/fruits.  产量怎么样？

 How many people have been benefit?  大概有多少人受益？
 占百分之多少？

Activities  What kind of activities there is?  都开设一些怎样的活动？

 Production? Process? Distribution?  生产加工运输管理？
Waste treatment?  或是教育，参观，庆典？
 Or other education? Leisure time?  居民对这些活动的评价是怎样的？
Visiting/introducing? Celebration?  有没有发生过居民间不和谐的情况？
 How people feel about these activities?  平时种植工作都是小区居民吗？
 Those people who work in the  有外聘人员吗？
community garden are citizens?  平时的工作管理是怎样的？
 Or there is also someone come from
other places/companies?
 How do you normally do the
management?

Administrative  What is your normal administrative  在开始项目时是否有矛盾？

process?  是否有和当地有关部门联系过？
 Are there some rules/policies that people  他们的态度是怎样的？
could refer to?  (是否可以给一下他们的联系方式？)
 Effective? Efficient? Equity?

7
The same questions with English and Chinese translation

91
Stakeholders  What is the role of residents?  居民的作用/地位是怎样的？
 What is the role of you?  你们的作用/地位是怎样的？
 What will you do when citizens have  你们与居委会的关系？
some new ideas/suggestions?  当地物业的作用/地位？
 Or they would like to initiate something  你们与物业的关系是怎样的？
new?  开始时遇到过什么样的问题？
 What is the role of government in the  你们是怎样克服的？
whole process?

Sponsors  Who are the sponsors?  谁赞助？

 What resources they provide?  都能提供哪方面的优势？
 Where are the sponsors come from?  是否需要权威的认可和批准？
 What aspects they help with?

Suggestions for the  What develop do you think will be?  现在面积大吗？
future  Could you provide me several  群众参与度怎样？
suggestions about how do you think the  你觉得这种模式在中国发展有前景
community garden in Eva-Lanxmeer 吗？
would develop?  如果要大规模或者规范化发展，阻碍
是什么？
 你的建议/观点是什么？

92