AgriCultura: Urban Agriculture and the Heritage Potential of Agrarian Landscape [1st ed.] 9783030490119, 9783030490126

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xx
Front Matter ....Pages 1-1
Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban Agricultural Landscape. Experiences, Problems, Perspectives (André Fleury)....Pages 3-16
Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives (Lionella Scazzosi)....Pages 17-44
Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage (Paola Branduini)....Pages 45-62
Front Matter ....Pages 63-63
Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency (María-José Prados, Jesús Santiago Ramos)....Pages 65-78
Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation (Saúl Alcántara Onofre)....Pages 79-96
Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences (Jane Lennon)....Pages 97-114
Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model (Roland Vidal)....Pages 115-131
Urban Agriculture: What About Domestic Gardens? (Hubert Gulinck, Valerie Dewaelheyns, Frederik Lerouge)....Pages 133-144
Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions from England (Raffaella Laviscio)....Pages 145-162
Front Matter ....Pages 163-163
Agriculture and the City of Geneva: The End of a Love Affair? (Joëlle Salomon Cavin, Nelly Niwa)....Pages 165-173
Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges in Montréal and Île Bizard (Sabine Courcier, Gérald Domon)....Pages 175-187
AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning and Management Tools for Different Landscapes (Ana Zazo-Moratalla, Valeri`Paül, Sònia Callau-Berenguer, Josep Montasell-Dorda)....Pages 189-203
Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park (Axel Timpe)....Pages 205-224
La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space by Local Citizens (José Castillo Ruiz, Alberto Matarán Ruiz)....Pages 225-243
AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage (Paola Branduini, Raffaella Laviscio, Lionella Scazzosi)....Pages 245-261

Citation preview

Urban Agriculture

Lionella Scazzosi Paola Branduini  Editors

AgriCultura Urban Agriculture and the Heritage Potential of Agrarian Landscape

1 23

Urban Agriculture Series Editors Christine Aubry, INRA UMR SADAPT, AgroParisTech, Paris, France Éric Duchemin, Institut des Science de l’Environnement, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada Joe Nasr, Centre for Studies in Food Security, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada

The Urban Agriculture Book Series at Springer is for researchers, professionals, policy-makers and practitioners working on agriculture in and near urban areas. Urban agriculture (UA) can serve as a multifunctional resource for resilient food systems and socio-culturally, economically and ecologically sustainable cities. For the Book Series Editors, the main objective of this series is to mobilize and enhance capacities to share UA experiences and research results, compare methodologies and tools, identify technological obstacles, and adapt solutions. By diffusing this knowledge, the aim is to contribute to building the capacity of policy-­ makers, professionals and practitioners in governments, international agencies, civil society, the private sector as well as academia, to effectively incorporate UA in their field of interests. It is also to constitute a global research community to debate the lessons from UA initiatives, to compare approaches, and to supply tools for aiding in the conception and evaluation of various strategies of UA development. The concerned scientific field of this series is large because UA combines agricultural issues with those related to city management and development. Thus this interdisciplinary Book Series brings together environmental sciences, agronomy, urban and regional planning, architecture, landscape design, economics, social sciences, soil sciences, public health and nutrition, recognizing UA’s contribution to meeting society’s basic needs, feeding people, structuring the cities while shaping their development. All these scientific fields are of interest for this Book Series. Books in this Series will analyze UA research and actions; program implementation, urban policies, technological innovations, social and economic development, management of resources (soil/land, water, wastes…) for or by urban agriculture, are all pertinent here. This Book Series includes a mix of edited, coauthored, and single-authored books. These books could be based on research programs, conference papers, or other collective efforts, as well as completed theses or entirely new manuscripts. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11815

Lionella Scazzosi  •  Paola Branduini Editors

AgriCultura Urban Agriculture and the Heritage Potential of Agrarian Landscape

Editors Lionella Scazzosi Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.) Politecnico di Milano Milano, Italy

Paola Branduini Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.) Politecnico di Milano Milano, Italy

ISSN 2197-1730     ISSN 2197-1749 (electronic) Urban Agriculture ISBN 978-3-030-49011-9    ISBN 978-3-030-49012-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Towards a Linkage Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage

Current Scientific Debate and the Aims of This Book Urban agriculture (UA), assumed in the wide sense of urban farming and urban food gardening (COST Action: Urban Agriculture Europe) (Lohrberg et  al. 2016), is nowadays considered essential to improve the quality of life in cities. This practice can contribute to food quality and security, and to economic and recreational activities (by the multifunctional use of agrarian spaces), the environmental quality of landscapes, and community resilience. On the other hand, a large scientific and technical debate at international level (Scazzosi 2018) concerns the awareness of our rural landscape as a cultural heritage and its importance as a resource to be dynamically conserved, enhanced (ICOMOS-IFLA Principles 2017), and used in the perspective of a sustainable future. We recognise the recent concept of sustainability as founded on the four pillars of environment, economy, society, and culture (CEMAT 2003; UNESCO 2010) because of the strategic role assigned to culture and heritage. The current scientific debate about urban agriculture mainly concerns the role of agriculture as food and as an ecological, and social, resource. The literature on landscape architecture considers new landscape design and open space design more than the preservation and enhancement of the characteristics of existing agrarian landscapes (Gorgolewski and Nasr 2011; Philips 2013). Current work about landscapes as a cultural heritage is especially dedicated to identifying general (Palang and Fry 2003) and exceptional (Mitchell et al. 2009) values and to conserve and valorise the urban landscape (Longstreth 2008). The current literature about urban agriculture is devoted to agro-urbanism and to planning and building a new vision that connects city and countryside (Viljoen 2005), as well as improving food access and social justice (Winkler Prins 2017; Pearson et al. 2016; Thornton 2019). This book cuts across the existing literature and aims to fills the gaps. Urban agriculture is presented as a tool for the conservation and valorisation of rural heritage in the urban context through careful management of both buildings and landscapes. Provided are experiences that conjugate the opportunity of knowing and v

vi

Towards a Linkage Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage

enhancing cultural heritage through different forms of urban agriculture. The concept of dynamic conservation is explained as a process looking after the landscape to retain, enhance, and transmit its cultural significance and, at the same time, allowing and guiding its inevitable transformations. Thus, according to circumstances, strategies and actions may include “conservation, repair, innovation, appropriate adaptation and re-use.” Frequently a combination of many of these actions is necessary; always, maintenance and management as long-term perspectives are essential (Action Criteria, B.3) (ICOMOS-IFLA Principles 2017). Underlined are the role of the rural landscape for the urban population and metropolitan areas and the importance of multifunctional activity (Action Criteria, C.4). A specific remark to provide concerns the use of two terms – rural and agrarian – in this book1: the references taken into account are etymological studies, scientific disciplines, as well as some official documents of international organisations (FAO, ICOMOS, IFLA, etc.). In particular, ICOMOS-IFLA Principles 2017 use the term rural as a sort of umbrella for all possible types of landscapes concerned with the production of food and other renewable natural resources (Principles 2017, Definition). This book assumes that the “agrarian” (or “agricultural”) term is related to sedentary productive activities which usually were, have been, and are connected with stable settlements of populations inside or close to villages and cities. In the present book, the authors sometimes also use the term “rural,” emphasising different aspects of food production activities and landscapes and the way of life of the people. The

1  The meaning of world “rural,” from the Late Latin ruralis, an adjective derived from rus ruris “countryside” (Encyclopedia Treccani), is relative to the country and to the society living in it (Merriam Webster dictionary). Rural society has a low ratio of inhabitants to open land, and the most important economic activities are the production of foodstuffs, fibres, and raw materials (Encyclopedia Britannica). It concerns people and place and the way they live (development, economics, planning, settlements) (Agrovoc dictionary for FAO Organization). The European Commission improves rural development (via CAP program 2014–2020), which concerns knowledge transfer, competitiveness, food chain organization, ecosystem preservation and enhancement, resource efficiency, social inclusion, and economic development in rural areas. Concerning rural landscape and cultural heritage, the Rural Landscape Principles (Principles concerning rural landscapes as heritage; Delhi 2017), a recent doctrinal text adopted by the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA), provides a wide definition of “rural landscape” encompassing “terrestrial and aquatic areas co-produced by human–nature interaction used for the production of food and other renewable natural resources, via agriculture, animal husbandry and pastoralism, fishing and aquaculture, forestry, wild food gathering, hunting, and extraction of other resources, such as salt.” “All rural areas” continues to “have cultural meanings attributed to them by people and communities: all rural areas are landscapes.” Agrarian as well as agricultural (mostly diffused), from the Latin word agrarius, adjective, derived from ager agri “field” (Encyclopedia Treccani), is specific to the fields or lands or their tenure, to the characteristic of farmers or their way of life (Merriam Webster). Agricultural sciences are the sciences concerned with food and fibre production and processing (Encyclopedia Britannica). Landscape, structure, policies, and reform are words related to agrarian (Agrovoc dictionary for FAO); the adjective ‘agricultural’ in some expressions can be substituted by farm or farming.

Towards a Linkage Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage

vii

book has an explicit focus on agrarian landscapes related to the urban context, considering all the current possible characteristics of urban dimension in the contemporary world (urban, periurban, and agricultural areas, especially in metropolitan areas). Specificities about urban dimension and heritage related to agricultural practices, landscape, and lifestyle in those areas are underlined. This book intends to focus on the link between urban agriculture and the quality of the agrarian landscapes, on the synergies needed to ensure that urban agriculture can promote the conservation of agrarian heritage, guide the recovery of degraded landscapes, and support the development of landscape quality for all areas, both outstanding, ordinary, or degraded, as well as large, small, or fragmented. The book analyses the conservation and enhancement of agrarian landscapes in territorial policies, in local agricultural policies, and in the governance models of metropolitan areas, underlining potentialities of cultural heritage tangible and intangible permanencies. Several experiences of great significance in European cities and some parts of the world, in both community and entrepreneurial cases, show the cultural potential of urban agriculture. Some globally renowned voices, attentive towards agrarian landscapes as heritage, state the importance of the historical dimension and the legacy of material and immaterial permanencies in reading landscape: the agrarian landscape is considered as a system of tangible and intangible heritage connected by functional, physical, social, and cultural relationships (Scazzosi 2003, 2015; Scazzosi and Branduini 2014). The conservation of the historical features of agricultural landscapes is accompanied by their enhancement: this dynamic process can become an economic resource for the maintenance of sustainable landscapes. The knowledge and techniques coming from “traditional” agriculture as intangible heritage, merged into landscape management and construction, can be an opportunity to implement new sustainable agricultural practices that have a lower environmental impact and high biodiversity, and can contribute to an unconventional scientific, technical, and mechanical progress that re-uses and updates the ancient technical knowledge. Good quality in the maintenance of agricultural landscape and its cultural heritage can become a driving force for tourist opportunities, which improve the awareness and knowledge of visitors about good land management practices. Collaboration between local players, such as farmers, citizens, local associations, public institutions, and stakeholders, can reinforce collective action and the positive effects of good large-scale management. Conservation and enhancement of agrarian landscapes help to reinforce the identity of places and urban communities through their common heritage, reminding us of the role of the countryside and its connection with urban areas, in the history of the city, particularly in metropolitan areas where rapid and deep transformations can cause many social and cultural problems. This book aims to suggest to scholars, local administrations, professionals, and farmers how to reveal and valorise agrarian heritage through productive, social, cultural, and touristic uses (food and services). The acknowledgement of the cultural potential of agriculture is hidden in some initiatives whereas it is more evident and supported by public policies in others. We assume that conservation and enhancement of the urban–agricultural landscape should occur through a process of

viii

Towards a Linkage Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage

co-construction among farmers, citizens, and policy makers. Accordingly, the book is divided in three parts, following the application stages of the co-construction process.

The Structure of the Book The First Part The first part has a methodological character to enlighten the integrated approach between cultural heritage and urban agriculture. “The co-construction of agrarian landscapes,” said André Fleury in his contribution, “consists in responding to agriculture with new urban issues, considering the potential and limits of peri-urban agriculture, with the aim of establishing a sustainable city, improving its resilience and its viability (to reduce poverty, enhance food security), and to reduce the ecological footprint, manage water resources and waste and preventing the risk of major accidents. The agrarian landscape is the result of the co-evolution of territorial forms including more and more rural areas, urban society and local agricultural societies; it results in conceiving a re-farmed city as a new autonomous entity.” Then, he concludes that “environmental and landscape policies cannot be achieved either without farmers input or against them, but necessarily with them; it is the precise meaning of any co-construction.” This text, even if written in 2015, still reveals a remarkable liveliness in the proposal and it has been included because Fleury’s work had an important influence on the emergence of the issues discussed in this book. His theoretical research, based on historical and agronomic studies, is supported by a constant and intense practical activity with direct involvement in the co-construction of the urban-rural policies in Île-de-France, close to Paris: this work has been fundamental in the scientific acknowledgement of the cultural and social role of urban agriculture in the contemporary city. Since the definition of the evolution from periurban to urban agriculture (Donadieu and Fleury 1997), agriculture has been freed from a physical place around the city to be based on cultural, economic, and social relationships, regardless of its geographic position. In that sense, agriculture reestablished the historical commercial and cultural relationships with the city that have shaped it since medieval times, as illustrated step by step by Lionella Scazzosi in the first part of her contribution. This text provides some initial and basic historical tools and references to study and understand urban agriculture over the centuries, especially in Western cities, considering the deep lack of knowledge on this topic despite the large numbers of studies concerning urban history. The aim is to discover the historical variety of spaces, functions, and characteristics of urban agriculture in the cities of the past, because it could highlight some potentialities and give suggestions for the current ‘new era’ of urban agriculture. Scazzosi’s contribution also provides, in its second section, the main methodological topics regarding how and where to recognize today the cultural

Towards a Linkage Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage

ix

potential of urban agriculture, in its tangible permanencies and in its intangible meanings. It illustrates also how these become a resource to improve the urban quality of life and an opportunity to strengthen the local identity. Paola Branduini develops some concepts and suggestions of Fleury on the importance of the mutual involvement of citizens and farmers and analyses the role of the population in UA initiatives and the methods of engagement and participation, using some clear examples. The proposed form of a participatory governance of the urban agricultural heritage could be a continuous and planned commitment of those involved in an urban agriculture initiative (population, farmers, stakeholders, institutions, politicians), could safeguard and maintain agricultural heritage, and could guarantee a tangible heritage over time as well as the transmission of intangible long-term meanings.

The Second Part The second part exemplifies cases wherein recognition of the importance of the urban-agricultural heritage has occurred but has not yet been translated into concrete action with the involvement of the population and the intervention of politics. Such are agricultural landscapes of great cultural significance such as the chinampas of Mexico City described by Saul Alcantara: this huge historic area has seen the constant reduction of available water from 1910 onward, and is limited by the increasing expansion of the city and the economic difficulties of the farmers. This landscape has been protected as a UNESCO site since 1987; further, it is still in use for agricultural production, maintaining traditional agricultural techniques, and is known and partially used for recreational activities by the local population. Thus, the chinampas is a true historic urban agriculture, an example of a site that could have been lost had a sustainable conservation and management policy not been implemented. There are also rural complexes that have shaped and organized the countryside around the city, such as the large cortijos around Seville, as drawn by Maria José Prados and Jesus Santiago, and the grandes fermes d’Île-de-France, such as in Pierrelaye and depicted by Roland Vidal. These complexes have been innovators in agriculture in a pre-mechanization period and have been able to respond to the needs of the city. In the first case, they have been able to resist urban growth processes, and to handle major internal transformations, “surviving with an agricultural activity in a continuous process that has bolstered their ability to provide a wide variety of services and functions” (Prados and Santiago). In the second case, a breakthrough toward non-food production, that is, materials or energy, is needed that can be channelled into agriculture (Vidal). Domestic gardens too have an important part in the preservation and transmission of intangible heritage, concerning the use of plants, cultivation techniques, and herbal knowledge as well as cultural tradition and habits related to single or groups of families or of people. These gardens are a reserve of food supply as well as a

x

Towards a Linkage Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage

concrete and local knowledge resource for the city, as well illustrated by the contributions on Australia by Jane Lennon and on Belgium by Hubert Gulinck, Valerie Dewaelheyns, and Frederik Lerouge. The latter authors state: “As media of expression, experimentation and creativity at individual or household scale, domestic gardens […] deserve to be reconsidered as additional substrates and buffers for food production in urban, peri-urban and residential contexts.” For these, quantitative and qualitative studies should be implemented to include local gardens in counting of the social benefits for a resilient city.

The Third Part The third part discloses cities in which a process of co-construction of the urban-­ agricultural landscape has been initiated or has been going on for years: here policies have recognized the cultural, environmental, and social meanings of urban agriculture. Emblematic of the liveliest and most recent situations is the case of the Vega of Granada and the strenuous defence of agricultural heritage by experts and citizens (Mataran and Castillo). In Milan (Branduini et al.) and Barcelona (Zazo Moratalla et al.), multiple and varied experiences have led in the past two decades to a broad awareness of the role of agriculture in the city, starting from the recognition of its cultural value. Based on the achievement in designating protection of agricultural spaces since the 1990s, groups such as farmers, environmentalists, and civil society hold the key to the future conservation of agricultural landscapes, involving public administration also. The story of Geneva helps us to understand, in the long term, the effects of a dual attitude towards urbanization of agricultural areas and the enhancement of urban– agriculture initiatives (Nelly Niwa and Joelle Solomon Cavin). Two “protected” agricultural areas, at different stages of protection, are Île Bizard in Montreal and Belvedere Agricultural Park in Cologne. The Canadian example is a proposal of management of a “humanized landscape” based on a historical balance between agricultural techniques and high biodiversity: Gerard Domon and Sabine Courcier affirm that its uncertain future could be founded only on stakeholders’ dialogue and interest convergence. The German example of Belvedere Agricultural Park, presented by Axel Timpe, has been made possible through regional landscape policies and the cooperation of several stakeholders: a workshop for designing multifunctional processes was set up to optimise different land use interests. It has become a laboratory for combining the heritage of agricultural land use with the emerging demands and practices of urban landscapes. Finally, Raffaella Laviscio explains the positive results of the long-term English dedication to the conservation of rural landscape and to the transmission of knowledge, specifically from the charitable organisation Historic England. She concludes that “heritage awareness and care can generate income: work on a historical site of high value is not a disadvantage but an opportunity to increase revenue.” Moreover,

Towards a Linkage Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage

xi

“regeneration has several benefits improving the perceptions of local areas, increasing civic pride and sense of identity, improving social interaction, increasing community safety, enhancing the landscape.” The positive results encourage the defence of agricultural heritage: what emerges is that only through the sense of belonging, attached to these landscapes, can people protect them from urban encroachment.

Some Transversal Lines Many transversal lines can be found in the contributions provided by the book, such as these. Following the suggestions given by Scazzosi, several papers highlight the continuity of the relationship between city and agricultural activity between past and present. In the contributions about Granada, Seville, Paris, Belgium, and Mexico City and in major Australian cities, continuity consisted mainly in fresh horticultural production for self-consumption and for selling in the city markets. The historical analysis of those cities implies that the role of urban agriculture was multifunctional in the past as well, and that it included recreational activities, food security, and water purification as well as urban agriculture as it is required to be today. The importance of equally recognizing and enhancing the tangible and intangible heritage aspects of agricultural activities and landscapes as integral parts of the cultural heritage is underlined by the authors in European examples (Mataran, Castillo, Vidal, Laviscio) as well as in worldwide examples (Lennon and Alcantara Onofre). Heritage is perceived as a resource for a more sustainable life, not as a passive remnant of the past. As a final and relevant remark, many authors are directly involved in safeguarding and defending urban agricultural heritage (Mataran, Castillo, Zazo Moratalla, Callau Berenguer) as well as in conservation and enhancement projects (Branduini, Scazzosi, Timpe) and in political initiatives supporting public institutions (Scazzosi). They carry forward several battles for recognizing the value of this heritage with passion and dedication; their scientific activity is based on action-research, through which they test out the problems of the territory and are committed to finding solutions, immersing themselves in continuous dialogue and exchange with the population and stakeholders, becoming spokespersons of culture and expertise, but also immersing themselves in a commitment shared with other people. It is a characteristic of academics who work on the so-called third mission and of professionals who connect scientific with professional activity. A cross-disciplinary attitude is their driving force, and research-action in the research method they apply.

xii

Towards a Linkage Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage

Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.) Politecnico di Milano Milano, Italy

Lionella Scazzosi [email protected] Paola Branduini [email protected]



References CEMAT. (2003). European rural heritage observation guide. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Donadieu, P., & Fleury, A. (1997). De l’agriculture péri-urbaine à l’agriculture urbaine. Le Courrier de l’environnement, 31, 45–61. Gorgolewski, M., & Nasr, J. (2011). Carrot City: creating places for urban agriculture. New York: Monacelli Press. ICOMOS-IFLA. (2017). Principles concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage. ICOMOS Doctrinal text, Delhi 2017) (in English, French, Spanish, Chinese; Available from www.worldrurallandscapes.org and from ICOMOS website). Lohrberg, F., Lička, L., Scazzosi, L., & Timpe, A. (Eds.). (2016). Urban agriculture Europe. Berlin: Jovis. Longstreth, R. (2008). Cultural landscapes: balancing nature and heritage in preservation practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mitchell, N., Rossler, M., & Tricaud, J.-M. (2009). World heritage cultural landscapes: a handbook for conservation and management (World heritage papers, vol 26, UNESCO). Paris: World Heritage Centre, UNESCO. Palang, H., & Fry, G. (Eds.). (2003). Landscape interfaces. Cultural heritage in changing landscapes. Berlin: Springer. Pearson, C., Pilgrim, S., & Pretty, J. (2016). Urban agriculture: diverse activities and benefits for city society. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. Philips, A. (2013). Designing urban agriculture: a complete guide to the planning, design, construction, maintenance and management of edible landscapes. Hoboken: Wiley. Scazzosi, L. (2003). Le paysage, un document et un monument/the landscape: A record and a monument. In: “Naturopa” (Europe Council’s Journal n. 99/2003 (pp. 30–31). Memory of the heritage/Memoire du patrimoine (English and French) Scazzosi, L. (2015). Preservare la machina agraria. Per una lettura e una valutazione del paesaggio rurale storico. In P. Cornaglia & M. A. Giusti (Eds.), Il risveglio del giardino. Dall’hortus al paesaggio, studi esperienze, confronti (pp. 318–331). Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi Editore. Scazzosi, L. (2018). Rural landscape as heritage: reasons for and implications of “Principles concerning rural landscapes as heritage ICOMOS-IFLA 2017.”. Built Heritage, 3, 39–52. Scazzosi, L., & Branduini, P. (2014). Paesaggio e fabbricati rurali. Suggerimenti per la progettazione e la valutazione paesaggistica (Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo). Sant’Arcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli Editore. Thornton, A. (Ed.). (2019). Urban food democracy and governance in north and south. (International political economy series). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. UNESCO. (2010). The power of culture for sustainability. Paris Viljoen, A. (2005). Continuous productive urban landscapes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Winkler Prins, A. (2017). Global urban agriculture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Contents

Part I Unraveling Cultural Potential of Urban Agriculture 1 Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban Agricultural Landscape. Experiences, Problems, Perspectives������������������������������������������������������    3 André Fleury 2 Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   17 Lionella Scazzosi 3 Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage��������������������������������������������������������   45 Paola Branduini Part II Landscape at Risk, Landscape as Opportunity 4 Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency��������   65 María-José Prados and Jesús Santiago Ramos 5 Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation������������������������������������������������������������   79 Saúl Alcántara Onofre 6 Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences������������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 Jane Lennon 7 Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 Roland Vidal 8 Urban Agriculture: What About Domestic Gardens?��������������������������  133 Hubert Gulinck, Valerie Dewaelheyns, and Frederik Lerouge

xiii

xiv

Contents

9 Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions from England��������������  145 Raffaella Laviscio Part III The Co-construction of Urban Agricultural Landscape 10 Agriculture and the City of Geneva: The End of a Love Affair?��������  165 Joëlle Salomon Cavin and Nelly Niwa 11 Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges in Montréal and Île Bizard������������������������������  175 Sabine Courcier and Gérald Domon 12 AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning and Management Tools for Different Landscapes ������������������������������������������������������������������������  189 Ana Zazo-Moratalla, Valerià Paül, Sònia Callau-Berenguer, and Josep Montasell-Dorda 13 Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park������������������������������������������������������������  205 Axel Timpe 14 La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space by Local Citizens������������������������������������������  225 José Castillo Ruiz and Alberto Matarán Ruiz 15 AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage ����������������������������  245 Paola Branduini, Raffaella Laviscio, and Lionella Scazzosi

About the Contributors

Saúl  Alcántara  Onofre has the “Architect” bachelor’s degree, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM). He specialized in “Restoration of Monuments and Historic Centers,” CECTI, Florence, Italy. He attended the master’s degree program of “Landscape Architecture,” Universitá di Genova, Italy. He received the “Design” doctoral degree, at UAM.  He is a Titular Professor at UAM, a Titular Member of the Seminario de Cultura Mexicana, and Advisory Member and international past vice-president of the International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ISCCL-ICOMOS-IFLA), an expert on the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) to evaluate ten dossiers site candidates to UNESCO’s World Heritage List, and President of ICOMOS Mexico. He has published three books and about 120 specialized articles. In Mexico, he has accomplished 30 projects of monuments and cultural landscape restoration.  

Paola  Branduini is an Architect and PhD in Rural Engineering. She is research fellow at PaRID (Research and International Documentation for Landscape, Dept. ABC) of Politecnico di Milano where she carries out researches on the issues of knowledge, conservation and landscape management. She organized international training projects on the periurban agricultural landscape, and she took part actively in the COST Action “Urban Agriculture Europe.” She teaches “Landscape as Heritage” at the School of Architecture, Construction Engineering and Urban Planning of Politecnico di Milano. She participates in national and European research programs related to the implementation of the European Landscape Convention. She is a consultant for the French Ministry of Ecological and Solidale Transition (Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire).  

Sonià  Callau-Berenguer is currently heading the Agricultural Areas Unit of Barcelona’s Provincial Council. She has been responsible for economic promotion at the Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat on the outskirts of Barcelona. Her qualifications include Forest Engineer and Agriculture Engineer, and she is currently completing a master’s degree in urban planning from the Architecture Higher Technical School of Barcelona (expected completion in June 2019). In 2006–2007 she worked  

xv

xvi

About the Contributors

as a structural expert with the European Commission (Directorate General of Agriculture) and has been commissioned for her expertise on periurban agriculture at the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECI). José Castillo Ruiz is full professor of History and Art in the University of Granada, a Specialist in Protection of Historical Heritage, and in particular in the urban and territorial dimension of immovable heritage; Director of e-rph (Electronic Journal of Historical Heritage); and main researcher in several I+D+i projects such as the PAGO Project (Agrarian Heritage: the cultural construction of the territory through agricultural activity).  

Sabine Courcier has a University education in both biology and urban planning. She holds a PhD in urban planning from the University of Montréal. As urban planning advisor at the Ville de Montréal’s Service des grands parcs, du verdissement et du Mont-Royal (Large parks, greening, and Mont-Royal Department), a position she has held since 2008, Sabine has been working on implementing the Policy on the Protection and Enhancement of Natural Habitats, as well as on issues related to biodiversity and urban agriculture. She is also lecturer at the University of Québec in Montréal. Previously, she held the positions of research officer at the Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design and of lecturer at the University of Montréal. She has also worked as a research officer for private firms in France.  

Valerie Dewaelheyns Both a bioscience engineer in Land- and Forest Management (KU Leuven, 2007) and a landscape architect (Erasmus University College Brussels, 2012), Valerie Dewaelheyns has an interdisciplinary interest in land use and spatial transformations, landscape and garden design, and in the ways private actors may contribute to common societal goals. Her PhD focuses on the ‘garden complex,’ which is the totality of domestic gardens in a certain region, and its contribution to food security, biodiversity, and adaptation to climate change. She published the book The Powerful Garden: Emerging Views on the Garden Complex together with Hubert Gulinck and Kirsten Bomans. Since January 2013 Valerie has been a researcher at the Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Social Sciences Unit. She is also affiliated with KU Leuven, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences.  

Gérald  Domon is Professor at the School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture at the Université de Montréal. He is Scientific Director of the Chair in Landscape and Environment, and Head of the Research Master’s in City, Territory and Landscape at the same university. He is a specialist in agricultural landscapes and has conducted extensive research on the transformation of rural territories and landscape assessment methods. Author of several books, articles, and research reports on these subjects, he notably directed the book Le paysage humanisé au Québec: New status, new paradigm published by the University at Montréal Press.  

About the Contributors

xvii

André  Fleury is an agronomist and emeritus professor at the National Superior School of Landscape (ENSP) of Versailles. After a teaching and research career in Agronomy at the National Agronomic Institute (now Agroparistech), he was appointed Professor of Urban Agriculture at the ENSP, where he co-hosted the Research Laboratory (LAREP). He participated in the creation of the “Teach and Research Collective in Agriurbanism and Territorial Project" (CERAPT). This research focused on urban agriculture and agriurbanism, considered as an inclusive process of agricultural space and periurban farming strategy in the urban territorial strategy.  

Hubert  Gulinck has a PhD in Agricultural Sciences (1980). He is Professor Emeritus (2013) at the University of Leuven, where since 1989 he has taught courses in Landscape Analysis, Rural Planning, and Land Use Monitoring. He has been active in research in the application of remote sensing in landscape ecology, concepts of planning and management of rural and open spaces, sustainable agriculture, landscape impact studies, domestic gardens, and resilience of land use systems. Until recently he was a member of academic and policy working groups on strategic planning, rural development, and agricultural history. He promoted and co-edited a book on the interfaces of landscape and land use, published in 2018. He is still active in local projects on landscape and agricultural heritage, and in an international network on the preservation of the environmental and cultural values of the Cerrado savannah of Brazil.  

Raffaella  Laviscio is an Architect, PhD, and Adjunct Professor at Politecnico di Milano (Italy) where she carries out research on the protection and enhancement of Cultural Heritage and Landscape in the context of national and international research programs. She is a member of ICOMOS Italia and the ICOMOS-IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ISCCL). She is responsible for the scientific and organizational secretariat of the “World Rural Landscapes Initiative.” She is an expert member of several Landscape Commissions in the Milan metropolitan area. She participated in national and international conferences on the theme of Cultural Heritage and Landscape. She is the author of publications on the issues of knowledge and evaluation of cultural heritage.  

Jane Lennon is an historical geographer with a PhD on cultural landscape conservation from Deakin University. She is an honorary professor at the University of Melbourne in the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, specialising in heritage landscapes. Jane is a founding member of Australia ICOMOS, an elected member of ICCROM 1999–2003, Australian Heritage Commissioner (1998–2004), Australian Heritage Councillor (2004–2008), and Queensland Heritage Council member (2008–2010). She has worked in national park planning and historic site management and as a heritage consultant in Brisbane. She has published extensively, especially on cultural landscapes and their management, and is convenor of the Australian group working on the World Rural Landscapes project of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes.  

xviii

About the Contributors

Frederik Lerouge is a bioscience engineer in Land and Forest Management (KU Leuven, 2005). He has a broad interest in landscape ecology and spatial analysis, and in human–nature interactions, in particular in the framework of transformations within social-ecological systems. He has done research on the potential implementation of ecosystem service concepts in adaptive and resilient spatial planning and is currently completing a PhD on this topic. At present, he is lecturing on data analysis, landscape ecology, and ecosystem services at PXL University College, Hasselt.  

Alberto Matarán Ruiz holds a PhD in Environmental Science in the University of Granada (2005), and from 2003 has been Professor of Regional Planning and Environment at this university. His interest in  local self-­sustainability and social participation is the basis for his research projects around urban and periurban agriculture and the question of food at a bioregional level.  

Josep  Montasell-Dorda is currently retired. He was head of the Baix Llobregat Agrarian Park for 15 years, a technician at the Sustainability and Territory Unit of Barcelona Provincial Council, and a Member of the Catalan Studies Institute, Agroterritori Fundation, and Intervegas Federation. His dedication to periurban farmland preservation, management, and planning has led him to be part of multidisciplinary teams for the drafting of local plans, collaborating on international projects for the preservation, development, and management of agricultural spaces. He has participated as teacher of several degree and master’s programs on regional and urban planning and on landscape at the Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya and Universidad de Girona.  

Nelly  Niwa is an architect and urban planner, director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Sustainability at the University of Lausanne. She completed a doctoral thesis in environment on urban agriculture in Geneva (Switzerland) and Tokyo (Japan). She led the Vaud 2030 research project (www.vaud2030.ch), which proposed a prospective approach to agriculture, and the Volteface collaborative research platform on the social aspects of the energy transition (www.volteface.ch).  

Valerià  Paül has been, since early 2015, Interim Lecturer at the University of Santiago de Compostela. His main research interest are regional planning and management, focussing on open spaces, protected and mountain areas, and development; historical and cultural geography of landscape; agriculture, food, and rural studies; political geography; and tourism (specifically, cultural, natural and rural tourism, and in protected areas). He has participated in a dozen projects earned by public competitive applications, usually working on interdisciplinary rural and regional studies. These projects have been funded by the European Union and the Australian, the Spanish, the Galician and the Catalan governments. He has published more than 20 papers in peer-reviewed journals (classified in JCR SSCI or SCOPUS), and he has presented more than 100 papers at national and international conferences, including several keynote addresses.  

About the Contributors

xix

María-José Prados is a Professor at the University of Seville. She holds a Doctorate in Geography, a Postgraduate Degree in Rural Planning and Ecology from the ITC (NL), and a degree in Regional and Urban Planning from the IAP (SP). She is currently coordinating the project H2020 MSC RISE Planning and Engagement Arenas for Renewable Energy Landscapes (PEARLS) and is lead researcher of the Spanish TERRYER project (Territorial Sustainability of the Low-­Carbon Energy Model: Regions and Renewable Energies). Her research topics include territorial planning and management processes in rural areas of Southern Europe. She is especially interested in new population settlement patterns in the European rural environment with a chain of interlinked factors with urban areas. She also took part on the Spanish Committees of the Cost Actions Urban Agriculture in Europe (TD-1106 UAE) and Renewable Energy and Landscape Quality (TU-1401 RELY).  

Joëlle Salomon Cavin is an urban geographer and senior lecturer in urban geography at the University of Lausanne–Switzerland. She specializes in the study of urban–rural and city–nature relationships analysed in terms of geographic imaginaries and territorial practices. Her research studies revolve around three major topics: the origins and consequences of anti-urbanism, the urban models of conservationists and natural scientists, and the rise of urban agriculture in Switzerland. She has recently edited, with Mary Corcoran, a special issue on Urban Agriculture and Civil Society in Nature and Culture (2018).  

Jesús Santiago Ramos is a lecturer in Human Geography at the Pablo de Olavide University in Seville. He holds a degree in Environmental Sciences and a Doctorate in Human Geography. His main field of work is the study of the relationship between the city and its natural and rural surroundings, both from the perspective of spatial analysis and from the practice of spatial planning. Currently, his work focuses on two topics: the analysis of urban green infrastructures as a source of ecosystem services and a key factor for the improvement of environmental quality in urbanized areas, and the study of territorial heritage – natural and cultural – as a resource for local development.  

Lionella Scazzosi  Architect, PhD in ‘Conservation of Cultural Heritage’ (1991), and Full Professor at Politecnico di Milano (Italy). She is Head of the PaRID Lab (Research and International Documentation for Landscapes, Dept. ABC, Politecnico di Milano), leading research for Public Administrations; and Scientific Director of National and International Research on gardens and landscapes conservation: theory, methodology, strategies, management, and enhancement, recently with special focus on rural landscapes. Since 1998 she has been a consultant for the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage for the development of landscape policies, since 2005 an expert of the Council of Europe for the European Landscape Convention (Florence 2000), and since 2007 a member of the ICOMOS-IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ISCCL) and responsible for the World Rural Landscapes Initiative. She is Vice-Chair of the European COST Action

xx

About the Contributors

TD1106 “Urban Agriculture Europe” (2012–2016) and author of more than 160 national and international scientific publications. Axel Timpe Dr.-Ing. is a landscape architect trained at Leibniz Universität Hannover and Centre d’Études Supérieures d’Aménagement in Tours. He started his professional career at lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur in 2003 and has been a research and teaching associate at RWTH Aachen University since 2010. He completed his doctoral degree “Designing Productive Parks – history and current practice of biobased production in European parks” in January 2017. Axel Timpe had a coordinating role in COST Action Urban Agriculture Europe and is coordinating the transdisciplinary national research CoProGrün and Horizon2020 Innovation Action “Productive Green Infrastructure for Post-Industrial Urban Regeneration (proGIreg).” His research focuses on Green Infrastructure functions of Urban Agriculture and Urban Forestry and the potential to co-design and co-­produce these with local stakeholders.  

Roland  Vidal is a research engineer at the National School of Landscape in Versailles (ENSP) with a PhD in Environmental Sciences. He leads the Collective of teaching and research in agriurbanism and territorial project (CERAPT) and is associate researcher at INRA-SADAPT (group proximity). His areas of research and teaching focus on the relationships between city, agriculture, and landscape, a theme he addresses in partnership with the School of Architecture of Versailles and AgroParisTech, where he is an associate professor, and also with other schools of architecture, agronomy, town planning, or landscape, in France, Italy, Mexico, and Tunisia. His publications are available on the CERAPT website: agriurbanisme.fr.  

Ana Zazo-Moratalla has been since 2016 a lecturer at the Universidad del Bío-Bío in Concepción, Chile. Her main line of research is focused on the analysis and definition of territorial innovative models of periurban agricultural systems and the analysis of their mechanisms: management, planning, and governance. She has also focused on the inclusion of these spaces in the urban agri-­food cycle through sustainable, resilient, and democratic agri-food planning. In the professional field she has worked in the architecture and planning sector, collaborating with several companies, governments, and NGOs in Spain, Chile, and Mexico. In the academic field, she has worked in three national competitive research projects, a European COSTACTION network, and several technology transfer projects. In addition, she is the Editor-in-Chief of Urbano, the journal of the Urban and Planning Department at Universidad del Bío-Bío.  

Part I

Unraveling Cultural Potential of Urban Agriculture

Chapter 1

Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban Agricultural Landscape. Experiences, Problems, Perspectives André Fleury

Abstract  Over the years, the model of city growth has been changing: the spreading of suburbs that characterized the period from the 1960s to the 1980s has been replaced by a constellation of urban spots disseminated all over the rural space. Here, “countryside citizens” who had no rural culture but did care about environment and nature have tried to invent new forms of agrarian space. But, although the principle of co-building the periurban agrarian landscape is often admired, territorial governance is hard to implement. Agriculture in periurban and rural crowns adapts to today’s reappearance of a food crisis and the arising of an energy crisis, and, in parallel, continues to shape heritage landscapes as it has been doing for centuries. Some cities have become the context of a new rural agriculture that satisfies the expectations of countryside citizens for closer, shorter, and multifunctional supply networks. These cities are experimenting with new forms of co-costruction of the city: their success in the long term should be achieved only with involvement of the farmers.

This text was written in 2014 and revised in 2015. Even written 5 years ago, this text still reveals a remarkable liveliness in the proposal, and it has been included because Fleury’s work had an important influence on the emergence of the issues discussed in this book. His theoretical research, based on historical and agronomic studies, supported by a constant and intense practical activity with a direct involvement in the co-construction of the urban-rural policies in Île-de-France close to Paris, has been fundamental in the scientific acknowledgement of the cultural and social role of urban agriculture in the contemporary city. A. Fleury (*) Ecole nationale supériere de paysage, Versailles, France © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_1

3

4

A. Fleury

1.1  Introduction For many architects, landscapers, or urban planners called upon to work on the periurban rural area, it is only an urban vacuum, a desert. Ignoring the existing agriculture, they are seduced by the new discourse on urban agriculture and the sustainable city and, lacking skills, do not discuss much with farmers or agronomists. In most Northwest European countries, city dwellers have indeed lost contact with agriculture. If they often declare a desire to rediscover this relationship, they prefer to reinvent it rather than to discuss it with their farmers. In opposition to the quasi-­ ethnological approach of a Raymond Depardon who speaks with tenderness of a vanished agri-culture (Mendras 1967), neo-ruralism dreams of restoring the peasant spirit, the presumed single carrier of the values of sustainable development. It is precisely the discourse of works that have some success, such as “The Peasants’ Response” (Pérez-Vitoria 2010) or films such as “Local Solutions for Global Disorder” (written and directed by Coline Serreau, 2010). The great omission of these seductive discourses on peasant agriculture is that they postulate more or less explicitly a demographic decline whereas the world population has just passed 7 billion inhabitants, to reach probably 9 billion in 2050. The title of this chapter states first that the agrarian landscape is an essential component of periurban landscape identity; its age in Europe, which is often that of centuries, is evidence of the sustainability that farmers have given to their farming systems, and second, that co-construction is a major operating concept which reminds the world of the city (elected representatives, associations, inhabitants) that it must share, with farmers, any transformation of their contribution to green development. The current urban vision of agriculture often tends to lock it up in the local market by praising the proximity or the past, by a narrowly patrimonial vision, and excluding modernity. To demonstrate its insufficiency, it is only a question of thinking of Lombardy farmland or large farms in Île-de-France, of the World Heritage vineyards of Porto or Saint-Emilion: these farming systems sell their products successfully on the world market while belonging to the local agrarian history and landscape. They are still economically relevant because they have never ceased to evolve, nor to continually transform their relationship with space and society, much to the annoyance of nostalgic peasant society.1

1  It is thanks to the adaptability of farmers that there is hardly any waste on the great cereal plateaux of Île-de-France, recalled Michel Caffin, president of the regional Chamber of Agriculture.

1  Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban…

5

1.2  A  Question Becoming Common in Europe: The Change of Concepts of Urban Territory 1.2.1  U  rban Dynamics Have Brought the Open Space Back into the City Forms of urbanization changed dramatically after the Second World War. Until then, the city progressed gradually on its rural fringes by disrupting the rural system. The result was an amorphous space, mixing urban amenities that were detrimental to the precarious housing of poor people. Little by little, urban dynamism restructured this space into an urban system. After 1960, the new modes of communication (physical transport and telecommunications) gave birth to a new form of polycentric city, leading to the crumbling of rural areas. Although the central city has maintained its major political, heritage, and economic functions, the peripheral urban islets have had varied fates. Some remain on a regional scale, such as new cities created in many European metropolitan areas (Île-de-France, Randstad, Greater London, etc.), and others participate in the new global network organization (major airports, technopoles, etc.), in the way that the major railway stations and the major seaports have done since the nineteenth century. In these metropolitan regions, urban management tries to counter the risk of coalescence of all these urban cores by separating the rural spaces in detached voids. This concept of the territory leads them to impose their authority on large peripheral rural complexes: the agricultural or forest area can exceed only the urbanized or urbanizable surface. Thus, the Montréal metropolitain region (Quebec, Canada) created in 1998 is more than 50% agricultural; the Île-de-France region, which in 1994 had already involved about 1500 km2 of rural space in its Green Belt, now integrates all the regional open spaces (about 9000 km2) in its territorial reflection. These open spaces, where agriculture or forests remain producers of food or industrial goods, timber, or energy, are mobilized in the urban context under their multifunctionality. They reinforce the resilience of the urban territory through contemporary socioeconomic changes. By giving city dwellers the visual contact of living agriculture, this mix of spaces makes it possible to renew the city–agriculture relationships as they existed so long as cities were peopled by the rural exodus from the countryside; at that time, agricultural culture was maintained among urban dwellers thanks to the village networks of kinship and acquaintance. This diversity also makes it possible to restore the habitability of urban fringes, whereas they are still often the place of resolution of urban disenfranchise, the habitat of the poorest without territorial belonging to necessary but harmful activities. A new urban culture of the mixed space appears attentive in defending the green landscape of its territory, renewing what had induced the urbanistic innovations of E. Howard in 1898, inventor of the Garden Cities, and the multifunctionality of agriculture.

6

A. Fleury

1.2.2  Urban Declination of Periurban Rural Areas These new points of view make the social production of periurban rural space unsuitable for the needs of the contemporary city. This urban qualifier, therefore, posits as a principle the need to conceive a rethinking of the systems of nature, agriculture, or forestry through new paradigms. It expresses the essence of the city’s takeover of its open spaces. 1.2.2.1  Nature and the Urban Forest In the 1960s, we became aware of the fragility of natural ecosystems in the face of socioeconomic development. This feeling followed the affirmation that Nature has rights and that as such, humans must protect it. Hence, activities suspected of disturbing nature were condemned: not only the methods of modern agriculture but also the recycling of urban waste, the proximity of infrastructure, etc. However, in contrast to agriculture and forest areas, which are managed by local inhabitants, in the city, nature is known only through mental representations carried by the city dweller: true nature, the wild nature, can exist only far from the city unless put in an absolute state of protection. In fact, the urban project could, at the very least, accept being excluded from areas of ecological interest, which the city dweller would refuse in the name of his own desires: “I want to see, feel nature, immerse myself in it, etc.,” “I do not want a barrier between me and nature.”2 Urban nature is therefore a compromise, a set of mental representations: it must suggest the true nature, while being a kind of nature (quality of the surface water, biodiversity, etc.), be a typical nature, but not a nature that does not ring true. It is driven by landscape design, is inspired by ecological concepts (biodiversity, etc.)3, and uses the tools of ecological engineering. A similar ambiguity also permeates the policy of the Regional Natural Parks in Europe, shared between the objective of protection and that of cultural and recreational use. In Europe, this concept of urban nature has gradually spread to the periurban forest, whereas it was traditionally multifunctional, featuring many ancient trades and hunting by the aristocrats in past times.4 These uses are now giving way to another recreational and cultural multifunctionality, or of environmental utility. At the same time, the fossil fuel crisis could be radically changing the global energy sector. In this urban forest, city use is often in a state of degradation; also, it is necessary to invent the technical management of a sustainable urban forest, to define the criteria of appopriate state evaluation, and to set up education in and concerning the  Blanche Rivière, thesis, Ecole d’architecture Paris Malaquais, 2000.  Jeu de mots pédagogique d’Olivier Turquin, associate professor University Joseph Fourier, Grenoble. 4  Landscapers have adopted as a landscape motif the forest structure in long alleys, formerly designed for hunting with hounds. 2 3

1  Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban…

7

forest. The urban forest is now part of urban nature as a common cultural asset. As a corollary, it has lost its economic self-reliance and now requires public funding. 1.2.2.2  Urban Agriculture From roughly the 1980s–1990s urban planning documents of big cities also reconsidered the periurban agricultural area; for example, the Île-de-France in 1994 described the green and landscape belt as agricultural and forested areas close to its dense urban core. This picture led Fleury and Donadieu (1997) to classify agriculture as urban, the local issue of which became not only the reduction of production, evaluated elsewhere in other contexts, but the quality of the transversal setting of life. This paradigm has been recently enriched by integrating social goals (education, insertion, recreation); it gives a new value to the geographic proximity of the production area as well as the artisanal processing activity. But given the transformations of urban culture, the city no longer understands conventional farming, that practiced by the majority of farmers, and tends to substitute its own representations, such as the so-called organic or ecological farming system. There is, thus, a profound change in the concept of a city that now includes open spaces that are cultivated or of a natural fabric. It led to the imagining of a new concept, agri-urbanism (Fleury 2001). The stake of the agri-urbanism is thus, beyond a reconciliation of the townspeople and the farmers to formalize the basis of a partnership project of redefinition of urban space.

1.3  T  he Origin of Co-construction: Recognition of the Multifunctionality of Agriculture by the Planners To develop the long dialectical process of co-construction, it was first necessary for the city to recognize, beyond mere crop or animal production, the multifunctionality of its agriculture and, consequently, to rediscover respect for the agricultural functionality of its space and the specific identity of farmers and their necessary autonomy.

1.3.1  The Main Registers of Agricultural Multifunctionality 1.3.1.1  The Food Register The supply area of cities was local by necessity until the advent of modern logistic systems (ocean navigation, railways, air cargo) and preservation (refrigeration), which enabled supply to expand to become national, continental, and global. Urban dwellers then saw their range of choices widen and often preferred products from

8

A. Fleury

more favored terroirs (wines, fruits and vegetables, flowers), as the distance was no longer an obstacle to freshness. As a corollary, qualification systems have developed (AOC, IGP, etc.). In the northern cities, many traditional production systems whose quality is too uncertain because of the vagaries of the climate have diminished or disappeared: no one has regretted the disappearance of the Île-de-France wine! New social concepts of consumption are now giving a new lease to local production by invoking these conditions: –– For the consumer: properties in subjective questions concerning food quality and safety in different aspects (shorter interval between harvesting and consumption, distribution in the short chain) and the prestige of the local product and its qualification as a raw or organic product –– For the elected representatives, the appearance of greater security of supply, which is, once again, in part illusory However, long chains, organized around wholesale or central purchasing markets, and the ready-made meals industry remain dominant, the major challenge for many families being the reduction of domestic work time. 1.3.1.2  The Cultural Register The rural atmosphere of the countryside has long been appreciated by city dwellers. As soon as the accessibility of the countryside became easier, they built their country houses or summer residences there. Whether for residence or the exercise of certain pleasures, from golf to a simple walk, the rural setting remains an essential component of the desire of city living. But no one should forget that the rural landscape is the urban gaze on the footprint of agricultural systems on space or that of peasant work. Landscape is, in essence, in perpetual transformation as a result of the socioeconomic and technical evolution of agriculture. Several processes operate in the construction of the relationship between the city and rural landscapes: (1) “patrimonialisation” (heritage making), the way society looks on its own history, restoring the interest of city residents for the rural landscape; (2) “artialisation” (Roger 1997), the sensitive and aesthetic translation of these landscapes, as practiced by many landscapers; and (3) marketing advertising that relies heavily on the urban imagination. These relationships are at the root of rural tourism. However, these processes too often deny the necessary modernity of agriculture in terms of occupation of space or systems of culture because the takeover by local elected representatives or developers of cultivated areas is not accompanied by sufficient understanding of agriculture5. In the same way, too many educational farms broadcast a discourse foreign to that of real agriculture.

5  Some quotes received from elected officials: «real agriculture is no more nature»; or: «we want agriculture, but not the one of our neighborhoods…».

1  Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban…

9

1.3.1.3  The Environmental Register It comes in many ways. First, spaces subject to risks of natural origin (flood or fire) or human causes (industry, logistics sites, etc.) are therefore of zero or low habitability. Agriculture can exploit them by adapting its cropping systems; flooding also promotes biodiversity. The recycling of urban waste is a centuries-old agricultural practice of fertility management. At the beginning of the twentieth century, any big city had sewage fields dedicated to horticulture. These practices are now less and less accepted by the urban world both because of a long neglect of effluent quality but also a more and more fundamentalist reading of the precautionary principle (fear of pollution). Management alternatives are either in situ treatment techniques that are still poorly accepted, such as incineration, or the somewhat hypocritical shifting of it beyond territorial boundaries; and the Île-de-France, which prohibits the agricultural use of any urban compost, except exporting it to neighbouring regions where farmers are beginning to fear the eventual dequalification of their production. Finally, in contrast to other forms of use of space whose immediate utility for the city makes it easier to accept nuisances (areas of activity generating employment and fiscal resources, housing areas, infrastructure of transport systems, etc.), those of agricultural activity are often poorly accepted. Last, it must be remembered that it is from its new experience of nature rather than its agricultural memory, ossified since the end of the rural exodus, that the city invented an agriculture supposed to better answer their questions, based on the naive belief that natural agriculture is safer. Nowadays, the demographic crisis imposes the need for increasing food resources in a context of regression. Also, we must constantly further the debate of legitimacy of agriculture in metropolitan areas and accept that farmers, in their current socioeconomic reality, have the capacity to produce social goods at the same time as agricultural goods. It is thanks to the recognition of the “multifunctionality” of agriculture that its presence is better accepted.

1.3.2  T  he Reactions of Farmers Facing the New Role That Society Assigns Them Farmers are economic agents who have a production apparatus used to meet their objectives and those of the family, an essential component in European agriculture. Entrepreneurs by nature, farmers are at the forefront of these events: –– The diversification of markets resulting from urban changes. So, they do not expect public policies to take the initiative and want to be active; on the other hand, they expect the latter to facilitate their efforts and, first of all, to free agriculture from urban constraints (traffic, incivility, land insecurity).

10

A. Fleury

–– The global agro-food market. Farmers often must relocate to escape the disturbances of the urban neighbourhood and seek expansion of their operation to reduce their production costs. Farmers often combine several trades in family activity systems, such as part-­ time nonagricultural activities, social incomes, and agricultural or nonagricultural service activities. This practice gives agriculture a great capacity for adaptation and, correlatively, a strong resilience to economic or social uncertainties. 1.3.2.1  The Agricultural Commodity Chain Between Local and Global Some agricultural production stands between local and global, such as that of many quality products (wines, oils, etc.) whose labelled production (AOC, PGI, etc.) is local but with markets defined on an international scale. It is also agriculture producing agro-industrial products or fresh products to be processed (canning). This agricultural sector practices large-scale industrial farming6 which, being historically based in the great European plains, has created the great rural landscapes. Its agroeconomic performance allows it a major role in meeting the food challenges posed by global population growth. The production apparatus (farm buildings and land) is defined at a local level, but their markets are at the higher level of other network forms (the commercial system surrounding wholesale markets, collection centres, and seeds). Farmers who practice large-scale cultivation hold large farms and seek to increase their economic efficiency by expanding in different ways, even if they are relocating. The other face of agricultural production is that of agriculture oriented towards local markets. Long consubstantial to the city, this phase lost importance until it found a new meaning through the vogue of proximity and local development. As a result, its economic activity is more visible for locally elected representatives: cities are now more concerned with asserting a special relationship with their local agriculture. Its activities fall under the various registers already mentioned, including so-called farmer products for landscape restoration. The added value of this agriculture comes less from its production than from its distribution forms. 1.3.2.2  Farms Between Specialization and Diversification Periurban farmers are developing complex systems of activity whose immense diversity comes from the interaction of farming family strategies with socioeconomic contexts. Preempting the current recommendation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), these farmers have already introduced a second job in their company. These new activities are carried out either by trained family 6  Agriculture system with high economic efficiency in labor and capital, but extensive in its relation to the land. Its study has largely contributed to modern agronomic thinking.

1  Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban…

11

members or by specialized employees hired on a part-time basis7: this can be farm tourism, processing and sale on the farm (charcuterie, bakery, wine, etc.), or introducing new activities. The farm market can also be supplied by other diversified farms. The lesser of these diversifications is not the professional activity of members of the family practiced outside or on specific trades; thus, non-farmer family members are seen to be providing diversification activities. These changes do not necessarily lead to the total specialization of the players, but rather to the dual ownership of agricultural enterprises in the local and global markets. It is also found that, in tourist areas, many businesses have been created by farm families. However, diversification on the farm comes up against jurisdictional limits. Local micronetworking is often a preferred route: for example, in the Île-de-France area, cereal growers create a diversified on-farm fresh market that they supply only partially, preferring to open them to the products of a specialized agriculture (market gardening, arboriculture, breeding, etc.). These farm-gate markets involve regional processors from whom they buy back the final product for sale on the farm. The contemporary recognition of the multifunctionality of agriculture by developers means that farmers have to diversify their activity and income. The definition of urban agriculture is clear in terms of market, but that of an urban farmer is much less so. One can even hesitate on the agricultural identity of the activity; the diachronic analysis of the definition of agriculture by the French Rural Code reveals a continuous semantic extension (the producer selling on the local markets to recover costs; are owners of rural lodgings farmers?)8. At the same time, the registration of the agricultural enterprise at different scales of space and in different trades is a strong element of its resilience, if the urban planning of open spaces allows it. It is also the guarantee of the durability of agrarian landscapes.

1.4  T  he Co-construction of the Periurban Agrarian Landscape in Europe As a corollary, new, more proactive public policies are needed to avoid the spontaneous process of deteriorating agricultural operating conditions, to maintain the production function within these areas and the decision-making autonomy of farms. In particular, they are often subject to new requirements of certain public policies, which reverse the urbanistic approach: because this agriculture within the urban region cannot exist without regulatory protection, these policies consider it legitimate to impact on the farmers’ strategy (impose cropping or marketing systems). The co-construction of the agrarian landscape is, in a way, the co-construction of periurban public policies, not to mention that in the regions of the great European

 Full-time employment in a group of employers.  In France, we usually remember that agricultural production must represent half of the farmer’s income. 7 8

12

A. Fleury

plains, the agriculture of the big markets and that of the local markets are closely intertwined, both spatially and systematically because farmers derive their income by combining these two markets. It must be taken very seriously, because its success requires a good knowledge of agriculture and farmers, which is no longer the case for many locally elected officials and technicians. It is remarkable that agronomists are seldom invited to the development meetings, as the development of Greater Paris has shown. This exemption reminds farmers that they are still largely excluded from the debate even when a project involving agriculture is presented.

1.4.1  T  he European Way to Build Up an Agrarian Landscape in Periurban Areas The concept of agricultural space considered as a component of urban territories has evolved considerably since its invention by utopian urbanists, such as Fourrier imagining the new society of the familistère. Howard (1898) gave him concrete content by creating a Garden City model and taking over the Green Belt where he gave a big role to agriculture. It will be a sustainable form if the pressure to urbanize remains contained9: in the future, no one will want to live in a city without agriculture. Although earlier the landscape architect Olmsted had invented the nineteenth-­ century concept of countryside without agriculture, Howard (1898) favored agriculture in the greenbelt. Urban planning largely looked to Nature from the 1960s. It was then that the natural parks were born, at least in Europe, a protection device first for natural, then for cultural, heritage. In France, while the first Parcs Naturels Régionaux (PNR) (circa 1970) were intended to be at the recreational and educational disposal of cities, the position of the Ministry of the Environment became more radical after 1976, by favoring Nature and excluding urban proximity and classical agriculture. By around 1990, agriculture began to be accepted as a component of the urban fabric in different forms. On the one hand, it is about a few tens or hundreds of hectares, such as the Llobregat of Barcelona and other big European cities, largely dedicated to market gardening, with the first idea being to privilege the local market. On the other hand, on the scale of several tens of thousands of hectares (Île-de-­ France, Milan, Montreal, etc.); in this case, it is really a new territorial concept, the agri-urban project in which the city integrates its rural landscape spaces. Thus, the Master Plan of the Île-de-France Region of 1994 defined a green and landscaped belt of 70,000 ha dedicated to the central urban core as an area of relaxation and recreation for the inhabitants. At the same time, the multifunctionality of agriculture as a producer of agricultural goods for the global and local markets and of rural landscape for the local market became recognized. This model is also used in a

9  Public authorities are often powerless to control changes in social behavior (single-parent families, the continued strong attraction of metropolitan areas, illegal immigration, etc.).

1  Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban…

13

scaled-down version in the small towns of this regional green belt: each invests its rural periphery as its own green belt, from which it expects agricultural multifunctionality, and the affirmation of its distinction. A new stage began with a new awareness of the issues of sustainable development prompting the search for the autonomy of the city. These ideas are well illustrated by a Dutch document, the Urban Agriculture Guide (Visser et  al. 2007), intended to explain what is required for an urban-rural district project, based on the experience gained, particularly in several innovative small towns in Groen Hart; this project emphasizes that agricultural land is a rare good that must be protected. This distinction concerns not only local food production and marketing, but also education, recreation, and education, local waste management, local production of building materials, and planning. Thus, the new city of Almere has developed the urban-rural district Agromere, covering about 3000 ha. The view of the rural space is intrinsic: instead of being destroyed by making tabula rasa, the spatial organization of agriculture becomes the structuring of the urban plan. This is also how the Milan Agricultural District Project is defined.

1.4.2  F  rom Fictitious Co-management to Real Co-management: Towards a New Governance Co-management is likely to remain fictitious when, having defined a priori what it means by “agriculture,” the public operator makes his own decisions, preferring to support a few farms that conform to his representation rather than negotiating with farmers. Thus, in the Île-de-France, the PNR of the Haute Vallée de Chevreuse does not recognize how its own cereal farming largely dominates surface management reasoning: (i) that its system of culture refers to sustainable agriculture and (ii) that it is practicing large-scale farming for large markets and is not oriented towards the needs of the inhabitants of its territory. In fact, the PNR does not want to accept that the inhabitants are hardly full-time actors in the park’s territory, because their professional universe is in the Île-de-France (the PNR, in their experience, is the place of their secondary residence or retirement, or their principal residence at the price of commuting movements, etc.) and that the customers of farm sales do not belong to the PNR, which it considers mainly from the recreational point of view. Moreover, public intervention uses mainly subsidy and regulation tools, often badly adapted to the contemporary situation.10 Co-management becomes real if farmers are really involved. This consideration is not to favor farmers in situ, whose strategic project may be other, but is to submit new facilities to a rigorous non-ideological socioeconomic analysis to ensure  A regional farmer, R.G., who partially converted his farm into organic farming, explains in 2009 that his organic wheat is paid € 500/ton and his conventional wheat € 130/ton. Even considering a willingness to pay of the order of 80 tons of local consumers, there is still 300 € of public subsidy (from the region to the EU), an obviously unsustainable practice.

10

14

A. Fleury

economic success without recourse to unlimited public help. In France, the position taken by Terres en Villes wants to link aid to agricultural installation and reception policy to allow a carrier of agri-food or agri-food projects to settle or reorganize in a defined territory with less risk of failure, in contrast to many local authorities, who are hardly conscious of these risks. 1.4.2.1  New Governance Experiences In some European countries, different governance approaches are being tested. The one set up in France by the Terres en Villes network (created in 2000 and comprising 25 cities throughout the country) is exemplary because it is based on city–agriculture parity. Each elementary entity is made up of the city (agglomeration community, or other form of intercommunality), which defines territorial boundaries, and includes agriculture. As a matter of principle, there is no president, but two co-presidents, one from the Chamber of Agriculture and one from the urban communities. This format is obviously a compromise because the territory of the Chamber of Agriculture often lacks relevance in terms of urban functioning and that of the city, often resulting in difficult negotiations between public actors, and has generally been established without considering agriculture. For elected officials, this commitment means (i) sharing planning power and (ii) recognizing that their competence in agriculture is weak or nil. The latent risk is therefore that the local authorities are moving away from a pragmatic attitude; but although sustainable agriculture must be sustainable from an economic and ecological point of view, it must also remain liveable because of the working conditions of the relationship with other inhabitants. However, periurbanization and rural urbanization also signify the shift of municipal majorities and the lesser influence of farmers, to the benefit of the associative world. However, the latter often attributes a societal avant-garde role to itself, particularly in the environmental and agricultural fields, neglecting the farmers’ point of view. Farmers often feel out of step with these powers when the city is too influential, because they carry the burden of economic realism; also, their main stake in any shared governance is to remain in control of the decisions concerning the exploitation and future of farming. This is especially true of large farms, which often have a multi-local location; this is also what allowed Île-de-France to limit the occurrence of wastelands. 1.4.2.2  And the Agrarian Landscape of the Periurban? It is not an exception among all rural landscapes: the first look on its productive systems is from the city. As that upon any landscape, such a gaze can only be valid with sufficient intelligibility: the rural landscape, by nature in continual evolution, is less to be seen than understood. But at the same time the perception of this evolution implies that it is readable: it is the main function of policies of rural landscapes

1  Agricultural and Urban Policies in Europe: The Co-construction of Periurban…

15

as heritage. Many parks, broadly speaking, have a mission of restoration of these signs: built patterns, parcel system, technical systems (ecomuseums of agriculture): this is essential, but it must not derive from the praise of the old system by scorning that of the present and the future. It is also important for heritage landscapes to bring a new agrarian economy of development to today’s people. Agrarian landscape policies still seem too far from real farming. On one hand, they are not always enlightened by the understanding of farming systems; this is, for example, what Branduini (2008)11 regrets, observing that the heritage conservation action of dry stone walls is not accompanied by the explanatory context that motivated their creation. Or, indeed, by many works, notably that by J.P. Deffontaines in France, which show the link between valley farming and altitude farming in the French mountains. On the other hand, they are often imbued with an ideological voluntarism: a number of programs dominated by ecologists dream of afforesting the great plains of open-field cereals, as we are currently seeing in Île-de-France or in the plain of Milan, and such projects often obtain regional or European support despite the farmers’ reserve.

1.5  In Conclusion The co-construction of agrarian landscapes consists in responding to agriculture with new urban issues, considering the potential and limits of periurban agriculture, with the aim of establishing a sustainable city, improving its resilience and its viability (reduce poverty, enhance food security), to reduce the ecological footprint, manage water resources and waste, and prevent the risk of major accidents. The agrarian landscape is the result of the co-evolution of territorial forms including more and more rural areas, urban society, and local agricultural societies: it results in conceiving a re-farmed city as a new autonomous entity. This project does not have to make a choice between two constraining systems: periurban and that oriented towards the city. The agriculture of the city cannot be cut off from other agriculture because resources and agricultural production must be shared in a world of increasingly precarious food and energy production balance. As a corollary of this division, agricultural production can no longer be a matter of free competition. However, periurban farms are often dual owned, local and global. Cities remain uneven from the aspect of soils and climate: greenhouse production in Île-de-France because of proximity is in contradiction with the requirement of quality and energy balance. It is remarkable that agriculture in Île-de-France or Milan maintains, in fact, the most ecologically adapted species. The concepts of food autonomy still excessively bear the mark of their origin in the dry tropics (Florida and California in America, the Mediterranean in Europe).

11

 Speech at the 2007 conference in Nanterre devoted to periurban agriculture.

16

A. Fleury

Finally, it must be stressed with great emphasis that environmental and landscape policies cannot be achieved either without farmers or against them, but necessarily with them: this is the exact meaning of any co-construction.

References Branduini P. (2008). La prise en compte du paysage dans les stratégies des agriculteurs du périurbain milanais. In Fleury A. (dir.) Vers des projets de territoires, vol. 2 des actes du colloque Les agricultures périurbaines, un enjeu pour la ville. © ENSP, Université de Nanterre. Fleury, A. (2001). CR des Entretiens du Pradel (“Autour d’Olivier de Serre,” 28–30 septembre 2000). Comptes-rendus de l’Académie d’Agriculture de France. Fleury, A., & Donadieu, P. (1997). De l’agriculture péri-urbaine à l’agriculture urbaine. Le Courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA, 31, 45–61. Howard, E. (1898). Garden cities of tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein. Mendras, H. (1967). La fin des paysans, innovations et changement dans l’agriculture française. Paris: S.E.D.E.I.S. Pérez-Vitoria, S. (2010). La risposte des paysans. Essai. Arles: Actes Sud. Roger, A. (1997). Court traité du paysage. Paris: NRF/Gallimard. Visser, A., Dekking, A., & Jansma, J. (2007). Urban agriculture guide. Urban agriculture in the Netherlands under the magnifying glass. Lelystad: Praktijkonderzoek Plant & Omgeving.

Chapter 2

Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives Lionella Scazzosi

Abstract The phenomenon currently known as “urban agriculture,” inside or around a city, is studied especially for its current characteristics. The historical aspects are scarcely investigated. The history of cities is the subject of enormous scientific interest from many disciplines, and the historical existence of urban agriculture is well documented. However, aspects regarding agricultural local specificities have been overshadowed over the centuries (space characteristics, food production, built structures, productive and social organisation, techniques, cultures, and traditions). The first part of this essay gives a historical excursus to underline the presence and characteristics of urban agriculture and to give some crucial useful documental references (although limited to Western culture). The intent is to contribute to a theoretical and methodological approach to find, understand, and catalogue material heritage (space, hand-built elements, land use, vegetation, harvest) or immaterial (productive organisational models, techniques, harvest types, widespread culture) and to understand the values of past urban agriculture in present-day cities. The second part develops a methodological approach for the dynamic and conscious conservation of the historical permanencies of urban agriculture. The challenge is to conceive them as a resource on which to build a sustainable future (based on the four pillars of sustainability: economical, environmental, societal, cultural) and not as a burden for present-day cities.

2.1  Premise The well-known fresco “Allegoria del Buongoverno e i suoi effetti” (Allegory of good government and its effects), depicted by Ambrogio Lorenzetti in Siena (1338–1339) in the Palazzo Comunale, shows the mutual relationship between a city full of buildings and a countryside attentively worked by farmers and citizens: L. Scazzosi (*) Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_2

17

18

L. Scazzosi

city and countryside are well managed by governors to obtain quality of all the places and for people’s lives (Fig. 2.1). The phenomenon now known as “urban agriculture” is not a new phenomenon in the history of cities. Today it has taken on specific form and characteristics and has been much studied in recent times (Lohrberg et al. 2016), but the historical aspects are scarcely explored or investigated. City history is a subject of enormous literary interest, the fruit of cross-discipline academic study by historians, geographers, archaeologists, urban planners, architects, demographers, economists, sociologists, and healthcare experts. These studies fields have explored the origins of cities over many thousand years and have examined their physical, environmental, and social organization, the economic and production aspects, lifestyles, hygiene and population health, culture and the arts, functional layout and urban architecture, political and institutional organization, and transport, both local and over long distances. Recently published, consolidated bibliographies (De Seta 2017) on these subjects are many and constantly increasing in number. Some academics look at the way cities have changed over the centuries, at least in the West (Giedon 1941; Morini 1963; Benevolo 1975, 1993; De Seta 2017). Studies have defined what a “city” represents, underlining the cohabitation of people, living under a set of laws that stipulate inhabitants’ rights and obligations, as well as a place of settlement. A city is “not only a physical space, but a juridical, economic and social one too” (De Seta 2017:13).

Fig. 2.1  Allegoria del Buongoverno e i suoi effetti (Allegory of good government and its effects). Fresco painted by Ambrogio Lorenzetti, 1338–1339, Palazzo Comunale, Siena. (Source: Wikimedia Commons, Public domain, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/ Ambrogio_Lorenzetti_-_Effects_of_Good_Government_in_the_countryside_-_Google_Art_ Project.jpg)

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

19

Agriculture has a far greater role in city history than has been previously highlighted by studies. It is well known that going back to ancient times cities developed in fertile areas, near rivers and plains where agricultural production could be successful, with the potential of excess production that can be exchanged for other goods. Cities also grew at points where goods had to pass. For most of its history, agriculture has occupied a space on the margins of urban areas, but it has also occupied huge areas of land further away from urbanization and therefore autonomous. The connections have been both spatial and functional. The existence of urban agriculture has been well documented across a variety of academic fields, albeit limited to specific cases or periods. A systemic and complete study of agricultural activity inside and on the margins of cities over centuries is yet to be accomplished, as are the methodologies and sources used to put such a study together. Historical and geographic studies concerning rural and agrarian landscapes (for the use of the terms “rural” and “agrarian,” see the Introduction of this book) underpinning the events at a large geographic scale and embracing all periods of human history [for example: Emanuelsson (2009), for Europe; Bloch (1931), for France; Sereni (1961), for Italy] are extremely useful to understand the general logic, character, organization, and techniques of agriculture and related societies over the centuries. However, such studies do not go into sufficient detail to really understand what is happening in and around the city. There are also studies  – a few  – investigating how cities organized their food supply over the centuries, both over land and by sea (Steel 2008), at large geographical scales. Adding this understanding to that of agricultural organization in and on the edges of the city would create a complete and systematic knowledge of how cities organized their food supply as well as that of the character and role of historical urban agriculture. Studies of urban and territorial history, vast in themselves, have underlined the inextricable bond between city and countryside. However, in explaining what happened inside and on the boundaries of cities, stories of the construction of built spaces and architecture have occupied the lion’s share of attention while agricultural history has been decidedly left in the shade. However, a look at a historical map of a city is enough for it to become clear that areas dedicated to agricultural production have always been ample, with differing characteristics, depending on the century, the location and the urban model, ownership, and social organization of the community and functional settlement, not to mention the political background. A rapid, simplified, partially complete, and necessarily schematized historical excursus is of great use at this point to underline the presence and characteristics of urban agriculture over centuries and as an explanation of the importance of certain sources, as limited to Western culture and countries. This presentation constitutes the first part of this essay. The objective is to lay down the foundation for an understanding of the methodologies used in cataloguing material heritage (space, hand-built elements, soil use, vegetation, harvest) as well as the immaterial (productive organizational models, techniques, types of harvest, cultural spread) of past urban agriculture as it relates to the present-day city and its attributed value. The necessity to read into the heritage

20

L. Scazzosi

aspect of urban agriculture is a relatively new one, which, in part, uses the consolidated methodological approach to historical patrimony as its reference but is also an opportunity to confirm and consolidate more recent, innovative interpretations of the role of cultural heritage in contemporary society. What remains should be seen not as a burden on the present, but rather as a resource with which a sustainable future can be constructed (based on the four pillars of sustainability: economy, environment, society, and culture) (UNESCO 2001 and ONU Agenda 2030, Objective 11). This perception can be achieved through dynamic and conscious conservation that fully makes use of this resource and which can intelligently transform places using the right approach and tools. These themes are developed in the second part of this chapter.

2.2  Urban Agriculture in the Historical City 2.2.1  Origins and Source Materials Sources concerning urban history are vast, varying with the period under study. Using these as reference materials, as well as referring to subject studies, is useful to gain an initial insight into urban agriculture. Hereafter are mentioned just a few of the key points that would be of interest to develop. To study the most ancient periods of the city, archaeological sources used by academics are essential. For medieval periods, sources are many, extremely different, and depending on the disciplines. For the periods following this, especially that of the modern city, historical cartography is a tool with widespread use in geography (Farinelli 2003) and in history of the spatial and functional setup of a city. Added to these are the traditional histographic and geographic archive sources, not forgetting the historical iconography used, as much in the past as up to the present day, by academics investigating each period of the city’s history. In terms of studying urban agriculture, city mapping, a technique that developed especially from the fifteenth century onwards, is a source which, with accurate study, identifies and describes not only space but also characteristics of cultivation, techniques, and tools, both in terms of urban settlement and that on its boundaries: this is particularly relevant and useful when looking at the modern city. A quick browse through the numerous historical maps of European cities available is enough to clearly define the presence of urban agriculture (Morini 1963; Benevolo 1975, 1993; De Seta 1996, 2014, 2017; De Seta and Ossanna Cavadini 2016). The potential contained in such documentation is clear. This documentation may be in graphical symbolism, which for a long time did not require a key (“Legenda”) as figurative drawings indicated points of reference: it allows us to understand not only the use and manmade morphological structure of the ground, but also the types of cultivation and agricultural techniques in place. This premise is certainly true in the case of vine and mixed crop (“cultura promiscua”) cultivation using productive trees as

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

21

tutors for vines to grow, seed sowing and grazing all together in the same fields (Rossi 2017). In many parts of Italy and indeed in Europe, we can find two other important types of cartographical documents. The first one is the Cataster, a detailed Register and Maps of properties of landowners, in use since the eighteenth century by many states to collect taxes. The Cataster describes land, cultivations, buildings, and permanent built structures (such as roads, paths, canals); gives the names of owners, the economic values of land and buildings; provides precise maps, geometric measures, and quantities. The second are military maps, in Italy produced by the various States in which Italy was divided during the nineteenth century and by the Military Geographical Institute (I.G.M.) after unification in 1861. These maps were extremely precise in depicting locations, especially the presence of buildings and built elements (such as stone walls, terraces), permanent cultivation (sown, wood, vines, marsh, isolated trees, ricefields), roads and paths, the irrigation system, etc., as these could be a visual landmark or a opportunity or obstacle for military movements, frequent in the political European context during past centuries. Other iconographic sources, such as paintings and drawings, were widely used to describe agricultural activity, harvests, cultivation techniques, and social and productive organization in the first and most important general historical studies of the agrarian landscape. These are a great indication of their methodological importance (Sereni 1961) for all historical periods: further investigation can be made through such sources to broaden knowledge of urban agriculture. Other iconographic sources such as depictions of cities including those of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-­ century landscape painters (in Italy, the most relevant being Canaletto and Bellotto) have the potential to be further explored. The same goes for photography when, of course, referring to a more recent era.

2.2.2  The Ancient City Archaeological disciplines (which include not only stratigraphical archaeology, but also such specializations as archeobotany, environmental archaeology, landscape archaeology), in their articulation with documented sources, comprise an invaluable bank of knowledge to better understand spatial and operational urban agricultural characteristics in ancient times, meaning present-day evidence of such activity can be verified. Through these documents, it can be seen that many Western cities have never abandoned their ancient founding structure (a good example being Naples), this being typological (codified in Greece by Ippodamo da Mileto, fifth century B.C.). There is often a sort of “chess-board lay-out” with zones for craftsmen, farmers, and soldiers, all linked by the scope of political rights enjoyed (“polis”). This plan organically includes agricultural activities destined to guarantee food supply to the local population. The model was used across Europe but is also evident in other

22

L. Scazzosi

geographic areas (in places such as Mexico City), leading us to believe that the system was a universally adopted functional solution (De Seta 2017: 15). In the centuries in which Roman civilization was at its most flourishing, the city, a densely built-up area, was surrounded by large suburban farms (villa rustica) and production was then brought especially to the city market. These farms were organized in three functional sections (ager, the cultivated area; silva, the wood, for the production of small food products, and wood, as well as its collection; saltus, a semi-wild area for grazing, hunting, vegetable fibers, wild fruits, herbs, etc.). Added to this was the vegetable garden (hortus, where vegetables were grown) and spaces for animals to be kept (beasts of burden as well as animals for food production such as cows, pigs, and sheep and smaller animals such as birds, fish, bees, and frogs), and lodgings for workers (often slaves). Ancient ‘Treaties’ (including that – well known at his epoch and highly detailed – written by Columella, De re rustica, in particular the Introduction and book I) help us to know the organization and characteristics of agricultural land, animal husbandry, and cultivation techniques. This is all to be considered within the medium- to long-range context of food transportation around the entire Mediterranean region. Present-day evidence of this bygone period is ample. Take, for example, within the metropolitan area of Naples, the Campi Flegrei district, with its volcanic lakes whose rising hillsides have been cultivated for centuries, the great examples of artificial morphological structuring of the landscape (embankments, “ciglionamenti”). Here we see the techniques and type of cultivation carried out (vine, fruit orchard, chestnut wood, oak wood, and trained vines, “vite maritata,” etc.) whose roots are Roman and inextricably connect to the present day in terms of both tangible and intangible heritage (Maiuri 1950).

2.2.3  The Medieval City The Medieval city, an entirely European phenomenon that dates back to the middle of the eleventh century in its various forms across the European continent, is composed of built-up areas, cultivated land, and common land for grazing and for shared uses (De Seta 2017: 28). Source interpretation clearly shows the presence of urban agriculture. Walls around cities were both for defense and legal purposes, defining shared living rules inside and outside of such a confine as well as a symbolic emblem of autonomy. They were often in contact with agricultural fields, both inside and outside the demarcation, creating an uninterrupted continuity of spaces and usages. The market was a physical place of exchange and a feature of all European cities of this epoch. The historical iconography, while still falling short of being a precise description of the spaces in question, remains a precious source of information. Study of paintings and drawings can help to identify and understand the characteristics. Marketplaces are clear remnants of the Medieval age, but so too are vegetable gardens and gardens themselves, which can still be discerned in the present-day

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

23

urban layout of many Western historical city centers. A good example of this is in present-day city meadows, stemming from a medieval urban tradition (Panzini 2018a): collective open spaces on the edge of urban contexts, either within or directly adjacent to city walls, which, among their many functions, were also connected to the question of urban agriculture. This phenomenon was extremely widespread in Medieval cities across Europe. The locations were almost always left semi-uncultivated and were used, depending on the occasion, for markets and barter points for rural production, grazing land for local people’s livestock, places for the chaffing of cereals from nearby fields, military training, fairs and festivities, and other entertainment that could border on the transgressive (Panzini 2018b). Today’s cities have often converted these spaces into public gardens, but these can still be used for other activities too, keeping their original function alive. Excellent examples, in Italy, are Prato della Valle in Padova (Fig. 2.2), Parco del Prato in Arezzo, and Campo Marte in Brescia.

2.2.4  The Modern City The modern city (which, according to historical studies, covers a period of time of around three centuries, from the second half of the fifteenth century to the end of the eighteenth or beginning of the nineteenth century, following on from the Medieval period and before the contemporary one) has been amply studied from many aspects and amply documented by contemporary iconography able to create complete topographical representations that were increasingly precise and realistic. This depiction began in the first decades of the fifteenth century, following, as is well known, the discovery of perspective (De Seta 1996). Some representations came about as sufficiently detailed instruments as an answer to economic, commercial, or defensive

Fig. 2.2  Padua, “Prà della Valle”, by Canaletto, 1741–1746, Museo Poldi Pezzoli, Milano. (Source: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_Pra_della_Valle_in_Padova#/media/File:Giovanni_ Antonio_Canal_called_Il_Canaletto_-_Pr%C3%A0_della_Valle_in_Padua_-_Google_Art_ Project.jpg)

24

L. Scazzosi

necessities of the city government. Others were more celebratory in tone (the so-­ called city portraits) and still others even had touristic origins (a good example being that of Rome as support to the Grand Tour or pilgrimage). Added to these are maps of parts of cities, commissioned by private or public bodies for specific reasons, sometimes legal or celebrative. All these sources are fundamental in studying urban agriculture. Certain exemplary cases demonstrate their potential. Here we are talking about some of the largest Italian cities in the modern period, this the result of their primary importance in both the quantitative and qualitative history of urban iconography in Western culture. This situation came about as a result of perspective studies being perfected in Italy and the propulsive role Italian cities had in European history over these centuries. As a consequence, the rest of this section concentrates on some Italian case studies. Taking the example of Rome, modern representations show (De Seta 2005, 2017) a large city surrounded by a solid perimeter wall, inherited from Roman times, with densely built-up areas, churches, and buildings both inside and outside the walled area, complexes connected to the ecclesiastical world and convents, and the mansions (‘villas’) of the most important noble families and high-level religious figures. The representation, denomination, and symbols used on these maps clearly show that vast agricultural areas existed where the term “vignae” is recurrent: this does not only indicate that vine plantations existed there but rather it confirms the presence of an enormous suburban managed agricultural landscape (Roccasecca 1990). Agricultural activity is present in both urban (inside the walls) and suburban contexts (outside the walls) at a notable distance from the center. Studies concerning this historical period of gardens indicate that, in line with the indications of ancient Treaties, such areas were not only for the entertainment of the owner and their guests (“dominica”) but also included a much larger area for cultivation of vegetables and fruit (pars fructuaria) (Campitelli and Cremona 2012). The Gregorian Cataster, the land ownership register realised by the State in 1818, documents the presence of orchards and coppiced woods. The economic and productive function of these types of urban agriculture, which were, to all effects, genuine farms, is yet to be fully and deeply  studied, as is the case for the people and the ways in which agricultural production was distributed: in Rome this was not only limited to its inhabitants (varying, in modern times, from 50,000 to 150,000) but included pilgrims as well, which could substantially swell the total numbers of people in the city. The presence and role of agriculture in Rome is evident from the sequence of the most accurate maps dating from the period (De Seta 2005): Nova Urbis Romae descriptio (1577) by Antoine Lafréry; Nuova pianta, et alzata della città di Roma (1676) by Giovanni Battista Falda. The monumental “Nuova pianta di Roma” in nine volumes (1748), by Giovanni Battista Nolli, clearly shows the enormous quantity of farmed fields both inside and outside Roman walls in great detail, including details of productive characteristics (Figs. 2.3a and 2.3b). In Naples, inside the city walls, great monastic complexes existed that included large areas of cultivated land whose production was not only to support the

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

25

Fig. 2.3a  Roma. “Nuova pianta di Roma”, in nine Volumes (1748), by Giovanni Battista Nolli (source: Wikimedia Commons, Public domain; graphic elaboration: Author, the image has been created by joining the 12 separated sheets of the map. Link to the first sheet: https://it.wikipedia. org/wiki/File:Giovanni_Battista_Nolli-Nuova_Pianta_di_Roma_(1748)_01-12.JPG#/media/ File:Giovanni_Battista_Nolli-Nuova_Pianta_di_Roma_(1748)_01-12.JPG

ecclesiastic community, a fact clearly visible from the first important iconographic documents of the time (Tavola Strozzi, 1472) (Fig. 2.4). Among these is the well-known and vast ancient farm of San Martino, connected to the Carthusiasn monastic abbey known as Vigna di San Martino. This complex still functions to the present day and has kept its historical character: terraced slopes, with vines and fruit trees and a specific hydraulic system; it also upholds a crucial symbolic value for the local population. The Mappa Topografica di Napoli e dei suoi contorni (Topographic map of Naples and its surrounding area), by Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Noja, of 1775 includes huge plots of land around the central city district with graphical representations showing the use of land, techniques and types of cultivation, wooded areas, shrubbery, trees and vines (Marino 2017: 53) (Fig. 2.5). In Milan, a look through cartographic chronology shows agriculture in and around the city, especially near to the ancient walls, as seen in the most important prospective maps of 1572 by Hogenberg (Figs.  2.6a and 2.6b,) and of 1573 by A. Lafrery (Figs. 2.7a and 2.7b); in the more precise maps of 1801 by Marcantonio

26

L. Scazzosi

Fig. 2.3b Rome. Nuova pianta di Roma in nine volumes (1748), by Giovanni Battista Nolli; detail on intra-moenia cultivations. (Source: Wikimedia Commons, Public domain. https://it.wikipedia. org/wiki/File:Giovanni_Battista_Nolli-Nuova_Pianta_di_Roma_(1748)_03-12.JPG#/media/ File:Giovanni_Battista_Nolli-Nuova_Pianta_di_Roma_(1748)_03-12.JPG)

Fig. 2.4 Naples, Tavola Strozzi, 1472 (oil on panel); National Museum “San Martino,” Naples. (Source: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tavola_ Strozzi_-_Napoli.jpg#/media/File:Tavola_Strozzi_-_Napoli.jpg)

Dal Re  (Figs. 2.8a and 2.8b); and in the excellent map  of 1865 by Giovanni Brenna (Figs. 2.9a and 2.9b), the most detailed and precise of all. Historical iconography concerning Milan coming from maps, paintings, drawings, and studies (Reggiori 1947; Vercelloni 1987; Chiappa Mauri 1990; Rumi et al. 1991; Bisi 2011) allow for the reading of many extraurban agricultural area characteristics in the surroundings of the densely populated city. The vegetable garden strip around the city was vast at the end of the sixteenth century (about 580 ha, according to the maps of Hogenberg 1572 and Lafrery 1573) covering the area between the medieval wall and the Spanish occupation wall, and remained in use until the nineteenth century.

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

27

Fig. 2.5 Naples. Mappa Topografica di Napoli e dei suoi contorni (Topographic map of Naples and its surroundings), by Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Noja, 1775, details on cultivation. (Source: Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duca_di_ Noja_-_Mergellina,_Piedigrotta-Torretta.jpg#/media/File:Duca_di_Noja_-_Mergellina,_ Piedigrotta-Torretta.jpg)

Figs. 2.6a and 2.6b Milan. Ville de Milan – Civitates Orbis Terrarum, by Franz Hogenberg, 1572. On the right, detail on intra-moenia cultivation. (Source: Civica Raccolta delle Stampe “Achille Bertarelli,” Castello Sforzesco, Milano)

It was made up of fenced kitchen gardens with low walls or palisades with patches for harvesting or sowing that featured fruit trees, poplars, and vines. This demonstration would have provided essential know-how on their cultivation, which would have been using high poles or low trellises (Gambi and Gozzoli 2009; Bisi

28

L. Scazzosi

Figs. 2.7a and 2.7b Milan. Map of Milan by Antony Lafrery, 1573. On the right: detail on intra-­ moenia cultivation. (Source: Civica Raccolta delle Stampe “Achille Bertarelli,” Castello Sforzesco, Milano)

Figs. 2.8a and 2.8b Milan. Pianta di Milano, by Marcantonio Dal Re, 1801. On the right: detail on intra-moenia cultivations. (Source: Civica Raccolta delle Stampe “Achille Bertarelli,” Castello Sforzesco, Milano)

2011: 61). It is known that the cultivated areas in this zone belonged mostly to monasteries, but there are also narrow strips of cultivated land near the internal canal district of the city (Navigli). The Giovanni Brenna (1866) map (Figs. 2.9a and 2.9b) shows the ample agricultural areas outside the city walls, with symbols indicating the different characteristics, uses, and cultivation that took place, which would have depended on the distance from the city wall itself. The Brenna map, more than those which had preceded it, indicates not only cultivation but also techniques of cultivation, the representations of which are very precise: for example, “trained vines” (vite maritata), as confirmed in various historical documents such as archived texts, paintings, drawings, and photographs (Bisi 2011). A detailed study of the maps, integrated with Cadastre records (which were very accurate in Lombardy thanks to Maps and Registers) as well as other source material, could well prove the existence of shared meadows in Milan too, in addition of

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

29

Figs. 2.9a and 2.9b Milan. Pianta di Milano, by Giovanni Brenna, 1866. On the right: detail on intra-moenia cultivations. (Source: Civica Raccolta delle Stampe “Achille Bertarelli,” Castello Sforzesco, Milano)

the Prato Comune (shared meadow) close to Navigli, known also for its use as a site of conflict (such as duels, or clashes between factions of citizens) (Panzini 2018b). There are several self-evident reasons to have agriculture present on the outskirts of cities. In the case of Milan, the cultivation of small areas of land by local citizens, even if only as a partial source of food (Bisi 2011: 63; Mezzanotte in Bisi 2011: 63), represents a guarantee of nutritional self-sufficiency. For the City government, the wall stands as a defensive external barrier and to grow food inside this barrier should the city require a certain self-sufficiency, be at war or suffering some form of crisis such as fire or natural disaster (as happened in London and Amsterdam), including epidemics or famine, which have even taken place in more recent times (Fig. 2.10). Markets are places of sale for agricultural products, but it must be remembered that fruit and vegetables are quickly perishable. For this reason, they must reach the point of sale as efficiently as possible from nearby places or by efficient transportation. Transport consisted of the use of working stock (oxen, donkeys, mules, horses), which, to ‘work well’, needed specific nutrition, hay, which, in turn, needed to be kept in nearby areas. Working animals would remain the main ‘engine’ of land transport until recent times (the beginning of the twentieth century) (horse-driven tram) (Figs. 2.11a and 2.11b); often the waterway network, faster and more efficient than travelling by land, required the use of animals (horses) to pull the boats along the banks of canals. Animals were also used in the transformation of foodstuffs (an example being certain milling techniques). The locations and function of markets create physical structures of many parts of the built city from the Medieval period right up to the reorganization of cities in the nineteenth century. In Milan both street names and specific aspects of commerce connect the present-day spaces with historical activity, concentrated in specific districts, depending on the type of food: herbs and hay, flour, meat, fish, vegetables, milk and cheese (vie delle Erbe, delle Farine, del Fieno, della Macelleria, delle Oche, del Pesce, degli Ortolani), which reminds us products coming from other areas and cities and their transformation and commerce (Bisi 2014). Via dei

30

L. Scazzosi

Fig. 2.10 Milan. Le vicende di Milano durante la guerra con Federigo I Imperadore. Topografia della città di Milano asseditata dall’Imperatore Federico I nell’anno 1158 (The events of Milan during the war agrainst Emperor Frederick I. Topography of the city of Milan besieged by Emperor Frederick I in the year 1158), by Domenico Aspary, 1788. (Source: Civica Raccolta delle Stampe “Achille Bertarelli,” Castello Sforzesco, Milano)

Figs. 2.11a and 2.11b  Milan. Horse-drawn tram near Sforza Castle in Milan city centre (left) and in Corso Venezia (right), Società Anomima Omnibus, 1890. (Source: Wikimedia Commons, Public domain, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societ%C3%A0_Anonima_degli_Omnibus#/media/ File:Milano,_Castello,_Ghirlanda_03.jpg, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranvia_Milano-Monza#/ media/File:Milano_ippovia_corso_Venezia.jpg)

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

31

Fig. 2.12 Milan. Verziere, open-air market for vegetables, in Milan, year 1920. (Source: Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mercato_del_Verziere_a_Milano_ (anni_1920).jpg)

Bergamini remember us of ‘transhumance’ organisation, moving sheep and goats coming from the Bergamo area, and producing milk, cheese, and other foods (Bisi 2011: 15) (Figs. 2.12 and 2.13). The weekly or periodic open-air markets, which are still taking place in many parts of the city, create a physical bond and maintain the ancient habits and identity of local residents. The same buildings along what were the waterways of the city (Navigli) have kept their characteristics of being former warehouses for foodstuffs (sciostre, meaning stop-offs). The still-existing farmhouses in and around the urban fabric of Milan are material evidence of historical structures. These can be farms without land, all operations taking place inside the building itself or with no agricultural uses there; in other cases, especially where farms are situated on the edge of the city, they have land and have maintained some form of the agricultural operation. Others still are strongly rooted in the periurban sector and keep up some of the traditional form of farming activity, often adding to this with multifunctional agriculturally based operations. What is undoubtedly true is that today these setups have an important function in the organization of urban space and are perceived by people and still create strong links with the local population identity. In the case of Milan, the growth in the value associated with historical rural areas, under way over a number of decades, has both reinforced and changed the role of such areas. They have now become, and are perceived as such by many citizens, as resources in adding to the quality of urban life and certainly not as just useless reminders of a forgotten past (see the paper by Branduini, Laviscio, and Scazzosi in this book).

32

L. Scazzosi

Fig. 2.13  Vendifoglie di granoturco, Serie mestieri di Milano (Corn-leaves vendors, Milan’s crafts series). (Source: Civica Raccolta delle Stampe “Achille Bertarelli,” Castello Sforzesco, Milano)

2.2.5  Today’s City In Europe, the birth of the contemporary city coincides with the rapid growth of industrialization from the mid-eighteenth or from the beginning of the nineteenth century, depending on the case, with the consequent economic, technological, social, political, and territorial changes. Exponential expansion of population and urbanization, improvements in communication connections and technology, which then impacted rural areas as more and more land was required for building, ate up agricultural land both inside the city and on its edges. Areas were reorganized both functionally and in terms of their specialization, which can be seen in the creation of new buildings with precise uses (abbatoir, market, fruit and vegetable wholesaler, etc.). The historical function that city walls had was being lost, which inevitably meant they would be destroyed or re-used, as the history of the garden tells us, being turned into tree-lined avenues for the emerging middle classes to stroll along (Acidini Luchinat et al., eds 1997). This time was also the period of the construction of the first public parks (Panzini 1993), which took advantage of the agricultural spaces inside the walls. The first public gardens in Milan were laid out on an area that had belonged to a monastery and then became public. It was designed and created inside the walls, expanding on the walkway at “Bastioni di Porta Venezia,” which had already transformed the role that the walls built during the Spanish occupation had had in the city (Reggiori 1947). The first organic Urban Plan of Milan City (1884, the “Beruto” plan) (Fig. 2.14.) clearly expresses the requests and trends afoot in the contemporary city where there is, by now, a substantial division between city and countryside and the elimination of agricultural activity in the densely built world of the city (Rozzi 1992; Boriani and Rossari 1992).

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

33

Fig. 2.14. Milan. Piano Regolatore edilizio e di ampliamento della Città di Milano, by Cesare Beruto, 1884. (Source: Civica Raccolta delle Stampe “Achille Bertarelli,” Castello Sforzesco, Milano)

The history of urban planning (Choay  1965; Benevolo 1975, 1993 and other many studies) shows that from this moment, agricultural spaces and activities inside the city boundary rapidly diminished. Cities are now places for industrial activity and residential construction, which are ever expanding into the surrounding area, killing off agricultural work and settling in previously satellite settlements such as

34

L. Scazzosi

hamlets or villages. The physical, but also social and cultural, separation between city and country has become stronger than ever. With the recent creation of metropolises and even megalopolises, whose territorial design tends to be policentric or circular, questions are being asked about whether we can still really talk about “cities” as they have been defined until now, that is, shared communal spaces (De Seta 2017). What is clear is that the relationship between countryside and food supply has taken on hitherto unseen characteristics and organisational systems (Donadieu 1998).

2.3  Cultural Heritage of Urban Agriculture as a Resource 2.3.1  T  he Growing Interest in the Historical Dimension of Urban Agriculture and Its Landscape The great metropolises and megalopolises of today are built on top of and inside historical rural landscapes, as iconographic maps and documents clearly prove. Open spaces – some vast, some less so – gobbled up by increasingly dense construction on its edges and inside semiurban areas, have, of course, an agricultural origin. Such agricultural landscapes are now fragmented and may even be abandoned or significantly underused. The largest areas have often been transformed by modern agricultural techniques, losing some tangible traces of their past characteristics and of knowledge and practices from locally used traditional agricultural techniques (Yokohari et  al. 1994; Antrop 2005; Marini et  al. 2011). However, tangible and intangible evidence of their history survives, admittedly in differing levels and features, meaning those who wish to and are able to investigate can certainly find such evidence. All spaces are a sort of palympseste of tangible permanences. Many livelihoods are defined by the new relationship with the city (Fleury – see the text in this book; Lohrberg et al. 2016), in the context of contemporary urban structure and social requests (Scazzosi 2016), and they have to be considered a resource within the renewed growing interest for rural landscapes. The present-day city–countryside relationship has generated a new interest in rural landscapes in the urban population, as evidenced by the increase in both tourism and recreational use of rural space and the demand for food produced on these lands (short chain production). In addition, the awareness of the possible role of the rural landscape in the sustainability of cities is increasing. By offering different services such as space accessible to the public, this function contributes to regulating the relationship between built and not-built areas and food security with a multifunctional role – economic, productive as well as in ecosystem services (Lohrberg et al. 2016). Interest in cultural heritage around agricultural activity is now much higher, both for tangible (products and locations) and intangible (traditional techniques and cultivation uses, cultural meanings and traditions specifically connected to each place) (Pungetti and Kruse 2010; Antrop 2012;  Scazzosi 2015, 2018b;  Branduini et  al.

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

35

2016). This interest also takes on an expression of memory and urban identity for those living in metropolitan areas (Shama 1996; Claval 2004; Roca et  al. 2011; Scazzosi 2016). Interest in traditional rural landscape grows as more and more of it is destroyed, in terms of both harvests and the physical reduction of space used in this way (Claval 2004; Antrop 2005). The phenomenon of growing interest for inherited features – together with their gradual destruction – are common factors in the creation of historical heritage concept and policies in general. It has strong roots at least from the nineteenth century. At the beginning, the interest was mainly in single buildings (palaces, religious buildings, castles and fortifications), then in groups of buildings (urban centers, town centers, small settlements), then for historic gardens and, more recently, linear elements such as canals and historical roads (Cameron and Rössler 2013; Scazzosi 2018b). The progressive enlargement of the concept of heritage and related values is evident in reading the sequence of international principle documents (from Charters of Athens 1931, Venice 1964, Krakow 2000,  till the most recent ICOMOS documents): from the limited identification of historical and artistic values to taking into consideration identity and documental values; the understanding, over and above the single heritage property in itself, of its context; and the right to attention not only of outstanding heritage sites but also historical elements considered of local importance and spread around territories, creating specificity of sites. Value attribution is a highly complex and specifically articulated process (Choay 1992; Accettura 2013; Vecco 2010). This change in interest shown towards historical heritage is a recent occurrence in terms of its systematic study of landscape and, more specifically, the rural landscape of which the urban agricultural landscape is a part. This change has been seen within the great conceptual and operative shift of landscape understanding (Council of Europe 2000; Scazzosi 2003; Luginbühl 2012).

2.3.2  U  rban Agriculture and Heritage: Details of a Methodological Approach The consolidated methodology for the steps towards historical heritage protection – as well as that of landscape in general, where the approach is concerned with historical aspects – has a variety of European and global reference points: European Landscape Convention 2000; its official Guidelines 2008 and UNESCO  WHC Guidelines 2017-last updating  (Council of Europe 2000, 2008; UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2017; Mitchell et al. 2010). These resources provide a valid reference point for rural landscapes and urban agriculture. The Principles Concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage (ICOMOS-IFLA 2017) summarizes a reflection that has proven roots; many disciplines and approaches have contributed to the text definition (Scazzosi 2018b). In that document, within the various categories of “rural landscape” (a large umbrella term to indicate activity and

36

L. Scazzosi

landscape related to food production), the rural landscape of “urban” agriculture is also included: “Consider the interconnections between rural and urban landscapes. Rural landscapes are a resource for urban inhabitants’ quality of life (recreation, food quality and quantity, firewood, water and clean air quality, food gardening, etc.) in all metropolitan areas of the world. Urban areas can provide economic opportunities for rural landscape products and integrate other activities such as recreation, education, farm guest houses, all popular with citizens (multi-functionality). Cooperation between rural, peri-urban, and urban inhabitants should be actively encouraged and practiced, both in sharing knowledge of rural landscape heritage and the responsibilities for their management” (Principles 2017, C.4). In this framework, the historical heritage that urban agriculture presents to us has certain methodological problems concerning all phases of the process on which actions are defined: identification, knowledge, definition, and operative strategy. These points are related to history, physical collocation, and present-day users and stakeholders (farmers and citizens in particular). The main methodological steps coming using and elaborating the international references are summarized here. Specificities related both to urban agriculture heritage and landscapes are put in evidence. Description and assessment are the first knowledge steps: –– ‘Knowledge, namely ‘identification and description’ of specific tangible and intangible characteristics –– ‘Cultural value assessment,’ assigned to places and their components by interested parties and people/population concerned, both local and nonlocal, historically settled, and consolidated or recently created –– ‘Quality assessment,’ that is, quality problem identification, highlighting strength, weakness, opportunities, and threats using methods such as SWOT analysis and further evolution of the system The learning activity to see and understand the historical dimension of today’s landscapes means identifying, understanding, and characterising their historical dimensions, not only studying lost past landscapes (synchronic analysis versus diachronic analysis), using historical, geographic, and archaeological disciplines and, importantly, carefully mapping their results. To evaluate the conservation status (integrity is the concept usually used: UNESCO-WHC Guidelines 2017), indicators could be: well preserved, partially preserved, strongly compromised, or destroyed, considering its tangible elements, intangible components and attributed  values, uses, and – also in the case of urban agriculture landscapes – its “historic functional system” (Scazzosi 2016, 2018a). The operational steps are definition of quality objectives and identification of landscape policy instruments for the different types of possible action:  dynamic conservation, repair, innovation, adaptive, and appropriate transformation. Some steps could be one-off interventions, but maintenance and long-term management are always to be considered for an effective strategy. Usually landscape strategy is a combination of conservation, innovation, and requalification: certain features and places must be protected, others should be requalified where elements/parts are

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

37

degraded, others should be intentionally adapted and innovated. Valorisation is a complementary action, aiming to involve people and stakeholders in an active role.

2.3.3  Urban Agriculture and Heritage: Scope and Permanence In the case of urban agriculture, knowledge is a question of historical understanding of how food was supplied over past centuries and how much of this process is still present in today’s urban fabric. The field of interest includes genuine agrarian areas, and the places and processes of food production, but also intangible evidence connected to these places inside and outside the city and its historical territory. It concerns huge areas and fragments of land as well: both outstanding and ordinary places, well maintained as well as transformed, degraded, or abandoned. Included are physical elements and their permanence over time (from the simple shape of a field to buildings to ground usage, cultivation types, botanical species, woods, vegetable gardens, animal husbandry, and all the way to “public meadows”); and the techniques and practices that created such landscapes and their economic, social, environmental, and cultural character (cultivation uses, environmental knowledge, usages). Usually, interpretation and attribution of the historical meaning of a site comes more from local inhabitants rather than from academic experts. In any case, for all rural landscapes as for landscapes of urban agriculture, farmers are crucial knowledge depositories (oral documents). Cultural significance is also established through aesthetic value, which, in Europe, has been one of the prime movers for protection policy (see legislation concerning the so-called natural beauty of landscapes at the beginning of the twentieth century in Italy, France, and Germany) (Scazzosi 1999). Urban agriculture functionally connects to tangible and intangible historical evidence of supply systems, transport, and food trading to and within the city (markets, transport networks such as canals and roads, stockage sites, expertise and knowledge concerning food preservation, cultural events such as fairs and festivals); these matters can be considered subjects of interest for historical studies but do not constitute urban agriculture activity and landscape and its tangible and intangible features stricto sensu. The reference period in recognizing cultural interest in historical heritage covers all past centuries, without emphasising any one in particular. It should come up to the contemporary city, which, by its expansion, destroys large areas of space and historical practice inside and on the edge of the historical city itself. This designation can be considered a general criterion that varies from city to city depending on its urban transformation.

38

L. Scazzosi

2.4  Urban Agriculture and Heritage: Dynamism and Inertia Dynamism and inertia are the specific characteristics of landscape, rural landscape, and the agrarian urban landscape also. They are specific also to the heritage concept and values and life of people related to them. It is important to underline this specificity because of the effects on the definition of an active and pro-active strategy to maintain agrarian urban heritage as a resource for the future. One type of dynamism/inertia is physical, related to agrarian urban landscapes. Another type of dynamism/inertia pertains to rural heritage and the life of people. To go further into detail, first, a key characteristic of all rural landscapes is their continuous dynamism and, at the same time, their inertia (Lebeau 1969; Sereni 1961; Antrop 2005) and resilience. Rural landscapes have been modified over centuries by humans in relationship with their environmental characteristics and the social, cultural, and political history of their populations. They have been managed and are still managed day by day by public and private parties living there or involved in their evolution (farmers, owners, technicians, public administrations, politicians, cultural and environmental associations, citizens, tourists). These stakeholders may or may not be local. Agrarian urban landscapes, considered as part of rural landscapes, are no different. A rural landscape is – indirectly – among the landscape categories defined by the World Heritage Centre in 1992 for the implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972), even if it is not explicitly mentioned (Tricaud 2013). In particular: “The second category is the organically evolved landscape. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features.” In the second category, there is a subcategory: “continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time, it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.” Permanence of historical tangible and intangible features, an active role in contemporary society, and an ongoing evolutionary process are the main characteristics of all rural landscapes, and these criteria are also valid for urban agriculture landscapes. In reality, all rural landscapes have a long history and are a palimpsest of tangible and intangible traces of the land’s inevitable dynamics, which is related to cyclical, temporary, or exceptional changes, related to natural laws and rural activity, to both agriculture and livestock (culture rotations, seasonal variations, botanical species evolution, human innovation related to animal uses, production techniques, technical skills and practices, cultural traditions of the people). At the same time inertia and resilience have had the same importance: over the centuries, humans have preferred to reuse and additionally work inherited rural spaces, adapting them to new environmental, social, technical, and functional requirements rather than radically and deeply changing them, because of the amount of work, time, money, techniques,

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

39

social and cultural effort, and commitments required by the changes; and because the good results of some practices over the centuries. Rural landscapes resulting from urban agrarian activity are not conceptually different: the specificity is related to the city spaces inside and around the cities where historically urban agriculture has been developed, the proximity of the citizens, the closeness of the relationship with urban marketplaces, and the ways of transport. Dynamism remains the main character of places, and at the same time inertia and resilience contribute to create current tangible permanence  and have the same importance. The permanence of “traditional” ways of living is an abstract concept. It is not necessary and, indeed, impossible and anti-historical to maintain in every case of rural landscape: in the case of urban agriculture, the proximity of farmers with the city and citizens implies inevitable changes to farmers’ lifestyles. At the same time, farmers usually transmit and protect traditional knowledges and values. The consequence, in terms of strategies and types of action, concerns the impossibility of the idea of heritage conservation and transmission conceived as stopping and freezing the dynamics of the heritage. At the same time, it suggests a change in approach, valorising and using dynamism and inertia in a pro-active attitude, and refusing to see the preservation idea only as a ‘duty.’

2.5  Urban Agriculture and Heritage: Towards an Action Strategy 2.5.1  From Dynamic Conservation to Heritage as a Resource In the conceptual framework, urban agricultural heritage could contribute to clarifying and experimenting with theoretical approaches for all landscapes. Heritage can – and should – be conceived as a resource to create sustainable places and ways of life for the population of metropolitan areas (both citizens and farmers), considering the four pillars of the sustainability concept: economy, environment, society, and culture (UNESCO 2001). The action of conservation is a dynamic process: rural landscape created by urban agriculture is subject to changes which, within certain limits, have to be accepted under the condition that they can be guided and oriented to be “appropriate” (Scazzosi 2011; Council of Europe 2008, I.5). Innovation and requalification actions to realise landscape quality objectives, and management procedures, have similar conditions. The heritage dimension of urban agriculture could be a resource for the contemporary challenges concerning metropolitan areas that include climate change, territorial changes connected with rapid, frantic, and disordered urbanisation, quality of environmental and ecosystem services, quality of food in terms of health but also of tastes and smells, short distribution chain, self-production by citizens, possible

40

L. Scazzosi

forms of food self-sufficiency for large areas, the physical and mental health of the populations, and care of soil quality and quantity. The heritage dimension of urban agriculture can be a resource because it provides new ideas, new knowledge, and new physical spaces, including knowledge of technical solutions that have been tried and tested, day by day, over centuries, learning from both positive and negative results. This consideration could be useful for many contemporary problems such as water scarcity, integration of different types of cultivation, and husbandry and cultivation techniques in the same area. Banks of biodiversity, for example, related to ancient botanical species and varieties that are not in use in industrialised agriculture, can be useful to find solutions to new problems such as resistance to phytopathogens, as is also true for animal species. Heritage provides areas to articulate and diversify the context of metropolitan lifestyles and locations towards a more sustainable way of life for all inhabitants. This diversity provides new places for recreational activities, in a perspective of multifunctionality, creating new types of public park scattered within agrarian areas and using historical structures and patterns such as buildings, fields, water and canals, and tree spacing as alignements and groups. Elements to reinforce the culture and identity of people, related to the memory and the identity of agricultural places and populations, are also involved, which is relevant in new migration from other countries or from far-off countrysides or cities of the same country, taking advantage of economic and social proposals, solutions, and support in term of inclusivity.

2.5.2  I nvolvement of the People as a Condition for Effective Strategies Preservation of the heritage dimension of rural landscapes requires farmers to remain active and live in rural areas, as much as possible; this requirement implies there is a good quality of life, in terms of economic revenues and public services, as well as in the social aspects of their role. The role of inhabitants in such areas must also be emphasised because of the great numbers of people living and transforming rural landscapes day by day, together with public institutions and private stakeholder activities. For urban agriculture landscapes, more than for other rural landscapes, the relationship between citizens and farmers is crucial, in terms of mutual understanding of desires and needs, vision and conditions. Involvement of both is critical in all steps of the process of understanding, evaluating, and defining quality objectives, strategies, and actions in both exceptional, one-off circumstances and in everyday management activities. Working on rural landscapes requires a transdisciplinary attitude whose goal is to encourage all parties to participate in the decisional and implementation process with peer dignity and the potential to bring skills and information to the project, and

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

41

this need is also true for urban agricultural landscapes. Such an attitude is recognized as a strategic right and duty in Europe: European Landscape Convention 2000; Faro Convention 2005 (Council of Europe 2000, 2005) as well as at world level: ICOMOS Delhi Declaration on Heritage and Democracy 2017  (ICOMOS 2017) and underlined in the Principles Text concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage (ICOMOS-IFLA 2017). Experts are involved with farmers and citizens and all other stakeholders as active agents for the construction of the future of sustainable metropolises, in both a bottom-up format and top-down action. The text of Paola Branduini and the case studies presented in this book demonstrate this process.

References Accettura, B. (2013). I beni culturali tra ordinamento europeo e ordinamenti nazionali. Aedon Rivista di arti e diritto on line, 2. Acidini Luchinat, C., Galletti, G., & Giusti, M. A. (Eds.) (1997). Il giardino e le mura. Ai confini tra natura e storia. Firenze: Edifir. Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21–34. Antrop, M. (2012). Intrinsic values of landscapes. In T. Papayannis & P. Howard (Eds.), Reclaiming the Greek landscape (pp. 31–42). Athens: Me-INA. Benevolo, L. (1975). Storia della città. Bari-Roma: Laterza (English translation: The History of the City, 1980. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Benevolo, L. (1993). La città nella storia d’Europa. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Bisi, L. (2011). Nutrire Milano. Storia e paesaggio dell’alimentazione in città. Milano: Skira. Bisi, L. (2014). La Piazza imbandita. Mercati storici lombardi tra XVIII e XX secolo. Milano: Skira. Bloch, M. (1931). Les caractères originaux de l’Histoire rurale française. Oslo (I edition); Paris: Colin (2 Edition). Boriani, M., & Rossari, A. (Eds.). (1992). La Milano del Piano Beruto (1884–1889) (Vol. 2). Milano: Guerini e associati. Branduini, P., Laviscio, R., Scazzosi, L., Supuka, J., & Toth, A. (2016). Urban agriculture and cultural heritage: A historical and spatial relationship. In F. Lohrberg, L. Licka, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timpe (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 138–147). Berlin: Jovis. Cameron, C., & Rössler, M. (2013). Many voices, one vision: The early years of the world heritage convention. London: Routledge. Campitelli, A., & Cremona, A. (2012). Atlante storico delle ville e dei giardini di Roma. Milano: Jaca Book. Chiappa Mauri, L. (1990). Paesaggi rurali di Lombardia. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Choay, F. (1965). L’urbanisme. Utopie et réalités. Paris: Edition du Seuil. Choay, F. (1992). L’allegorie du patrimoine. Paris: Edition du Seuil. Claval, P. (2004). The languages of rural landscapes. In H.  Palang, H.  Soovali, M.  Antrop, & G. Setten (Eds.), European rural landscapes: Persistence and change in a globalising environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Council of Europe. (2000). European landscape convention, Florence, 2000. Council of Europe. (2005). Convention on the value of cultural heritage for society. Faro Convention. Council of Europe. (2008). Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the guidelines for the implementation of the European landscape convention. Adopted 6th Febrary 2008.

42

L. Scazzosi

De Seta, C. (Ed.). (1996). Città d’Europa. Iconografia e vedutismo dal XV al XIX secolo. Napoli: Electa. De Seta, C. (Ed.). (2005). Imago Urbis Romae. Napoli: Electa. De Seta, C. (Ed). (2014). L’immagine della città europea. Dal Rinascimento al Secolo dei Lumi. Exhibition catalogue, Venezia, Museo Correr, February–May 2014. Milano: Skira. De Seta, C. (2017). La città. Da Babilonia alla Smart City. Milano: Rizzoli. De Seta, C., & Ossanna Cavadini, N. (Eds.). (2016). Imago Urbis. La memoria del luogo attraverso la cartografia dal Rinascimento al Romanticismo/The memory of place in carthography from the Renaissance to Romanticism. Exhibition catalogue, Chiasso, Switzerland, M.A.X. Museum, February–May 2016). Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale. Donadieu, P. (1998). Campagnes urbaines. Paris: Actes Sud. Emanuelsson, U. (2009). The rural landscapes of Europe. How man has shaped European nature. Stockholm: Forskningsrådet Formas. Farinelli, F. (2003). Geografia. Un’introduzione ai modelli del mondo. Torino: Einaudi. Gambi, L., & Gozzoli, M. C. (2009). Le città nella storia d’Italia. Milano. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Giedon, S. (1941). Space, time and architecture. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press. ICOMOS. (2017). Delhi declaration on heritage and democracy. ICOMOS-IFLA. (2017). Principles concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage. ICOMOS Doctrinal text, Delhi 2017) (in English, French, Spanish, Chinese; Available from www.worldrurallandscapes.org and from ICOMOS website). Lebeau, R. (1969). Les grands types de structure agraire dans le monde. Paris: Éd Masson, 1969; Armand Colin 2011 (7th ed.) Lohrberg, F., Licka, L., Scazzosi, L., & Timple, A. (Eds.). (2016). Urban agriculture Europe. Berlin: Jovis. Luginbühl, Y. (2012). La mise en scène du monde, Construction du paysage européen. Paris: Éditions du CRNS. Maiuri, A. (1950). Passeggiate Campane. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Rusconi Libri. Marini, L., Klimek, S., & Battisti, A. (2011). Mitigating the impacts of decline of traditional farming on mountain landscapes and biodiversity: A case study in the European Alps. Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 258–267. Marino, A. (2017). Il Sistema delle ville Medicee e il legame tra giardino e paesaggio agrario. In C. Acidini & A. Griffo (Eds.), L’immagine dei giardini e delle ville medicee nelle lunette attribuite a Giusto Utens (pp. 39–53). Firenze: Polistampa. Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., & Tricaud, P.-M. (Eds.). (2010). World heritage cultural landscapes. A handbook for conservation and management (World Heritage Papers, n. 26). Paris: UNESCO. Morini, M. (1963). Atlante di Storia dell’Urbanistica (dalla preistoria all’inizio del secolo XX). Milano: Hoepli. Panzini, F. (1993). Per i piaceri del popolo. L’evoluzione del giardino pubblico in Europa dalle origini al XX secolo. Bologna: Zanichelli. Panzini, F. (Ed.). (2018a). Prati urbani. I prati collettivi nel paesaggio della città/City meadows. Community fields in urban landscapes. Treviso: Fondazione Benetton Studi e ricerche. Panzini, F. (2018b). Prati di città. Per una storia dei prati civici/Urban meadows. Towards a history of community fields. In F.  Panzini (Ed.), Prati urbani. I prati collettivi nel paesaggio della città/City meadows. Community fields in urban landscapes (pp. 11–37). Treviso: Fondazione Benetton Studi e ricerche. Pungetti, G., & Kruse, A. (Eds.). (2010). European culture expressed in agricultural landscapes. Perspectives from the Eucaland project. Roma: Palombi Editore. Reggiori, F. (1947). Milano 1800–1943. Milano: Edizioni del Milione. Roca, Z., Claval, P., & Agnew, J. (Eds.). (2011). Landscapes, identities, development. Farnham/ Burlington: Ashgate.

2  Urban Agriculture as Heritage: Methodological Issues and Perspectives

43

Roccasecca, P. (1990). Ricerca sul lessico di parchi e giardini. Roma: Multigrafica. Rossi, M. (2017). Paesaggio, cartografia e cura dei luoghi. I simboli della vite e del tratturo/Landscape, cartography and care of places representing vineyards and trackways. In P. Boschiero, L. Latini, & S. Zanon (Eds.), Curare la terra/Caring for the Land. Luoghi, pratiche, esperienze/Places, practices, experiences (pp. 191–209). Treviso: Fondazione Benetton Studi e ricerche. Rozzi, R. (Ed.). (1992). La Milano del Piano Beruto (1884–1889) (Vol. 1). Milano: Guerini e associati. Rumi, G., Buratti, A.  C., & Cova, A. (Eds.). (1991). Milano nell’Unità Nazionale 1860–1898. Milano: CARIPLO. Scazzosi, L. (1999). Paesaggio, Paysage, Paisaje, Landscape, Landschaft, Landschap, Krajobraz … Landscape policies in Europe and in the United States: A cross-reading. In L. Scazzosi (Ed.), Politiche e culture del paesaggio. Esperienze internazionali a confronto/Landscape policies and cultures. New comparisons (pp. 17–36; 158–170), Ministry for Cultural and Environmental Heritage. Roma: Gangemi. Scazzosi, L. (2003). Landscape and cultural landscape: European landscape convention and UNESCO policy. In UNESCO (Ed.), Cultural landscapes: The challenge of conservation (World Heritage Papers 7) (pp. 55–59). Paris: UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/en/series/7/. Scazzosi, L. (2011). Limits to transformation in places’ identity: Theoretical and methodogical questions. In Z. Roca, P. Claval, & J. Agnew (Eds.), Landscapes, identities and development (pp. 9–24). Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate. Scazzosi, L. (2015). Preservare la machina agraria. Per una lettura e una valutazione del paesaggio rurale storico. In P. Cornaglia & M. A. Giusti (Eds.), Il risveglio del giardino. Dall’hortus al paesaggio, studi esperienze, confronti (pp. 318–331). Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi Editore. Scazzosi, L. (2016). Urban agriculture for Europe’s metropolitan areas: Barcelona, Dublin, Geneva, Milan, Ruhr, Sofia, and Warsaw. In F. Lohrberg, L. Licka, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timple (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 214–217). Berlin: Jovis. Scazzosi, L. (2018a). Landscapes as system of tangible and intangible relationships. Small theoretical and methodological introduction to read and evaluate rural landscape as heritage. In E.  Rosina & L.  Scazzosi (Eds.), The conservation and enhancement of built and landscape heritage. PoliScript: Milan. Scazzosi, L. (2018b). Rural landscape as heritage: Reasons for and implications of “Principles Concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage ICOMOS-IFLA 2017”. Built Heritage, 3, 39–52. https://www.built-heritage.net/issue-7-content. Sereni, E. (1961). Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano. Bari: Laterza; Histoire du Paysage rural italien. Paris: Les Temps Modernes Julliard (1964) (transl. L. Gross); History of the Italian Agricultural Landscape. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1997) (Trans. Burr Litchfield). Shama, S. (1996). Landscape and memory. London: Vintage Books. Steel, C. (2008). Hungry City. How food shapes our lives. London: Random House. Tricaud, P.-M. (2013). Agricultural landscapes in a World Heritage context. World Heritage, 69, 62–65. UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention, WHC), Paris, 1972. https://whc.unesco.org/en/ conventiontext/ UNESCO. (2001). Universal declaration on cultural diversity. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html UNESCO, World Heritage Committee. (2017). The operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention (last edition, provisions concerning Cultural Landscapes were introduced in the 1992 edition). https://whc.unesco.org/document/163852

44

L. Scazzosi

Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 1, 321–324. Vercelloni, V. (1987). Atlante storico di Milano, Città di Lombardia. Milano: Officina d’Arte Grafica Lucini. Yokohari, M., Brown, R. D., & Takeuchi, K. (1994). A framework for the conservation of rural ecological landscapes in the urban fringe area in Japan. Landscape Urban Plan, 29, 103–116.

Chapter 3

Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage Paola Branduini

Abstract  Involvement of the people in heritage protection and valorisation is in many contexts very active and dynamic. This role is consolidated by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005) and the Council of Europe Faro Convention on the Value of Heritage for Society. Urban agriculture initiatives are an opportunity to preserve and enhance agricultural heritage in the urban context. The two terms, engagement and participation, even if they have the same goal hide a different approach. Citizen engagement is a formal top-down approach, usually initiated by the institution. Conversely, citizen participation is an informal process, started by the citizens. Engagement is the way people preserve and defend their cultural heritage, whereas participation is the common way for people to collaborate with an urban agriculture initiative. The disadvantages and benefits are discussed by means of some European examples, analyzing engagement and participation approach in urban agricultural initiatives related to cultural heritage. In a process of people’s involvement, is it possible to combine the quality of expert intervention with the vigour of citizen self-­ organisation? How can we merge a top-down and bottom-up approach in the long term? The two tactics can live together in the participatory governance of cultural heritage approach, as suggested by the European Union (UE), and be extended to our agricultural heritage.

3.1  Introduction Urban agriculture (UA) is above all recognised for its ecological and social value (Breuste et al. 2020), but few studies highlight the cultural link and the cultural potential that UA possesses. Numerous studies highlight the role of agriculture P. Branduini (*) Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_3

45

46

P. Branduini

in protecting heritage and cultural identity (Fairclough 2010), landscape maintenance, and community empowerment (Warner 1987; Hynes 1996; Armstrong 2000; Glover 2003; Wakefield et al. 2007). The rural landscape is indeed a cultural asset on which memory and collective identity are based (Del Mastro 2005; Emiliani 1989; De Marchi 2000). Preserving and maintaining the landscape, and promoting sustainable agriculture, are not only economic and environmental imperatives but also social and cultural concerns. The ICOMOS-IFLA Principles concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage, presented in Scazzosi’s essay, underline this.1 Some studies have also begun to highlight the benefits that agricultural heritage brings to the city (Branduini et al. 2016; Pölling et al. 2016), derived from the presence of farm buildings and fields cultivated by long-standing family enterprises. Despite being incorporated by urbanisation, these enterprises have continued to produce local cultivation varieties, according to traditional cultivation techniques, and maintaining the customs of rural culture. It is a tangible and intangible heritage that persists in many European cities, although regrettably not always recognised and valued. This heritage still influences the character of intraurban or periurban agricultural landscapes through the historical physical features (geomorphological structure, irrigation systems, road links, settlement form), historical traditions, or social and cultural techniques and customs still in use (rituals, recipes, cultivation techniques, crop varieties) (Branduini et al. 2016). These characteristics influence people’s perception of a place, the meanings and values attributed by local people and the sense of belonging they generate in a community (Scazzosi and Branduini 2014). People’s involvement in heritage protection and valorisation is in many contexts very active and dynamic, but it is worth distinguishing the ways in which it takes place through the two terms of engagement and participation. They have the same goal, that is, improving public service deliveries and policy projects, but a different approach. Citizen engagement requires an active, intentional dialogue between citizens and public decision makers; it is a formal top-down approach, usually initiated by the institution. Citizen participation is an informal process, starting from the citizens. Engagement2 is the way people preserve and defend cultural heritage, whereas participation3 is the common way for people to start collaborating with an urban agriculture initiative. We illustrate here how engagement and participation are delineated in cultural heritage preservation and in urban agriculture initiatives and how they interact.

1  World Rural Landscapes Principles are a set of guidelines launched by the ICOMOS-IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes to strengthen global cooperation on the study, management and protection of rural landscapes. http://www.worldrurallandscapes.org 2  Engagement from English Oxford dictionary: “an arrangement to do something or go somewhere at a fixed time; the action of engaging or being engaged.” 3  Participate: “Be involved; take part”, from Oxford English dictionary from latin partecipare, pars capere.

3  Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage

47

3.2  F  rom Engagement to Participation in Cultural Heritage Preservation The importance of people’s engagement in, or rather its commitment to, safeguarding the cultural heritage is universally appreciated. At the international level, the ICOMOS Stockholm Declaration (1998) recognised “the right of everyone to partake freely in the cultural life of the community.” The UNESCO followed with the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO 2005), and the Council of Europe pointed this out with the Faro Convention on the Value of Heritage for Society4 (Council of Europe 2005). Article 2 of the Faro Convention defines a heritage community as “people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations.” In Art. 12, it highlights the importance of sharing responsibility for cultural heritage and public participation, so it encourages everyone first to “participate in the process of identification, study, interpretation, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural heritage”; in that sense, “public reflection and debate on the opportunities and challenges which the cultural heritage represents” are also stimulated. Then, the Convention defines the actors engaged and “recognises the role of voluntary organisations both as partners in activities and as constructive critics of cultural heritage policies” and encourages “improving access to the heritage, especially among young people and the disadvantaged, in order to raise awareness about its value, the need to maintain and preserve it, and the benefits which may be derived from it.” An awareness-raising process is recognizable in the nomination progression in the World Heritage List: the recording of a cultural landscape as an UNESCO site leading to the identity of the community is being built around the idea of heritage, which acquires meaning when a community defends and protects it (Dezio and Marino 2016). The candidacy process itself promotes cohesion within the communities; similarly, the construction of an eco-museum, thanks to the production of a parish map, favours unity and stability (Branduini et al. 2017). At the European level, more recently (2017) the policy briefs relating to the findings of the Interreg program “Policy Learning Platform on environment and resource efficiency,” state: “Citizen participation in the protection of cultural heritage helps to increase awareness about the value of cultural heritage as a shared resource. It empowers communities and fosters community cohesion. Increasingly, EU funded

4  Concerning the “engagement” definition, the Faro convention recognizes “that every person has a right to engage with the cultural heritage of their choice, while respecting the rights and freedoms of others, as an aspect of the right to freely participate in cultural life as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and guaranteed by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)”; concerning the “involvement” definition, “the need to involve everyone in society in the ongoing process of defining and managing cultural heritage” is declared.

48

P. Branduini

programmes encourage a people-centred approach, and citizen participation is also supported by Interreg Europe” (2017).5 Moreover, in 2018, a working group of experts from member States of the EU Commission (open method consultation working group of member states’ experts, OMC WG) encouraged the approach of “participatory governance of cultural heritage” as an innovative and creative process, not finalized at the quantitative results but focusing on the continuous and ongoing procedure of involving stakeholders in processes commonly reserved for and run by the experts, officials, and politicians.6 The results of a survey on 26 member states and 47 best practises show that there is a need for boosting public interest and building relationships; flexibility and support for projects; improving staff competence; and training. Other lessons learned include that the process is part of the result; bottom-up and top-down approaches are complementary; participation and transparency are vital in all phases; and tangible, intangible, and digital heritage should be connected. In fact, with the new millennium, the ways of building policies have changed, from a top-down approach to ever greater integration with bottom-up approaches. Similarly, the services of professionals and experts are no longer provided by agencies but are co-produced with users. “Traditional conceptions of service planning and management are now outdated and need to be revised to account for coproduction as an integrating mechanism and an incentive for resource mobilization—a potential that is still greatly underestimated” (Bovaird 2007): we are definitely moving toward a co-construction of the project, as underlined by Fleury in his paper. This concept can also be applied to policies to safeguard cultural heritage, even if “notwithstanding some excellent, innovative work in this area, conservation practice in the built historic environment still remains largely an expert, professional domain: a field in which specialist practitioners and decision-makers consult with local people and (sometimes) facilitate their involvement” as Chitty explains (2017). Practical experience, however, is fundamental to gaining awareness of tangible heritage, just as participation in events allows an understanding of what is meant by intangible heritage. Known experiences are mainly in the field of archaeology7 but are more and more frequent in landscape archaeology8 (Delgado Anés and Martìn Civantos 2019). Although “conservation is the management of continuity” (Jokilehto 1999), heritage management is more effective if it is planned in the long term, so practical experience is also desirable.

5  Interreg Europe (2017) Citizen engagement in the protection of cultural heritage. A policy brief from the Policy Learning Platform on environment and resource efficiency. 6  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1efe98ad-437b-11e8a9f4-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 7  It refers to the long tradition about the archaeological campus in France, Spain, England, and Italy organized by Universities and private Associations for scholars and high school students. 8  University of Padua, Spring school.

3  Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage

49

If the role of museum institutions is moving from “being a provider of experience and content, to becoming a facilitator of experiences around content” (Radice 2014), is, therefore, this the role of urban agriculture and urban farmers for cultural heritage?

3.3  Participation in Urban Agriculture Initiatives Many forms of urban agriculture, especially gardening, are born through participation as a spontaneous response to the care of abandoned areas and the desire to create a community (Šmid Hribar et al. 2018). In them, a certain attention is shown to the cultural heritage, to the preexisting material, and to the agricultural traditions (Branduini et al. 2016). Many experiences start from an informal appropriation of spaces, for example, in the allotment gardens in Austria and Germany. In many cases, legal regulation takes place following the practice, and in many European countries “allotment gardening is still in the tradition of largely informal urban practices” (Lorbek and Martinsen 2015). “The development of the legislative framework, which remains vague in its contradiction of informal practices, demonstrates that negotiation between allotment gardeners’ organizations and the planning authorities is an ongoing process from which to learn lessons” (Lorbek and Martinsen 2015). The legalization and formalization of urban agriculture initiatives start from a participatory approach: some experiences are legitimized by the recognition of their cultural role (Branduini 2016). There is less literature on this. Participation promotes recognition, regeneration, and maintenance, and finally legitimacy in the face of policies. It is the way to guarantee the transmission of cultural heritage. The institutionalisation of UA in urban planning strategies should also give thought to the delegation of autonomous governance over spaces suitable for UA. Institutionalising urban agriculture initiatives, and giving them autonomy, enhances placemaking strategy. Placemaking inspires people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every community. Strengthening the connection between people and the places they share, placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm to maximize shared value. More than just promoting better urban design, placemaking facilitates creative patterns of use, paying particular attention to the physical, cultural, and social identities that define a place and support its ongoing evolution. Placemaking through active and collective processes that arrange spaces with food as personal and culturally embedded practice, UA can transform spaces into distinctive places. Thus, UA can have an important placemaking function (Koopmans et al. 2017). If we look at alternative food networks, “a shared participation in the territory of resilience” (Mazzocchi et  al. 2017) is placemaking.

50

P. Branduini

Our hypothesis is that engagement and participation are both essential: the integration of the engagement approach on the cultural heritage and the participatory approach on urban agriculture are desirable and recommended to promote placemaking and the resilience of populations. So, first, questions arise about the effects on tangible and intangible heritage and the way they are managed. Second, more questions come up about the role of the different actors (experts, community, landscapers, and architects): are they just one of the stakeholders or are they “part of the heritage discourse”? (Chitty 2017). Finally, we ask how these forms contribute to the resilience of the community, to the permanence of the urban agricultural heritage, and finally to placemaking. The questions are discussed through some examples of people’s involvement in urban agriculture initiatives (in Lombardy, Andalucia, and England) where the effects on the cultural heritage will be analysed, in particular the agricultural landscapes, the actors involved, and the methods of interaction, trying to understand how citizen engagement and participation are intertwined. The conclusions are dedicated to proposing a joint form of engagement and participation as a continuous interaction, not just preventive and programmed conservation (Della Torre 2010) but a participatory management to meet the society’s changing needs.

3.4  D  isseminating the Value of Agrarian Landscape Preservation Here we present two cases of people engagement  in landscape preservation, led mainly by institutions.

3.4.1  Water Meadows Along Ticino Valley and in England The Ticino Park, located in the Milanese metropolitan area, has dedicated 30 years to safeguard the traditional agricultural landscape, in particular the winter irrigation of the meadows (winter water meadows, in the Milanese area called marcite). A dozen of farmers were invited to maintain this traditional technique in reaction to the demand for change of cultivation, consolidation of fields, and cutting down vegetation, which has been impacting the industrial agricultural landscape of the Po plain. The everyday activity of agriculture officers has created a network of personal contacts, especially among farmers, through accurate work of control and collaboration. In that humus, since 2015, a specific project of people engagement has been undertaken: collective meetings and a theoretical-practical refresher course have been organised. Brochures on “Good Agricultural Practice” techniques have been prepared, and a traveling exhibition that illustrates the historical, cultural, environmental, and agronomic values of the winter meadows and its current sustainability has been set up. Abandoned water meadows have been restored, involving

3  Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage

51

architects, masons, agronomists, and farmers, as well as students and citizens. A cycling route to discover the water meadows and a thematic map, for local use and from the nearby city of Milan9, has been created in collaboration with the University.10 The effects of the project on the tangible heritage have been the maintenance of the historical landscape structure (fields, trees, canals) together with, recently, the increase of the winter irrigated meadows (also thanks to European funding for the Life Biosource project11), in agreement with the Park’s territorial plan and using Good Agricultural Practices. During the course, the farmers began to get acquainted and exchange ideas on techniques, problems, and solutions adopted. The role of the expert has been the catalyst of a process of engagement and acquisition of farmers’ awareness in safeguarding the heritage. Even if a contribution of about 500.00  EUR/ha per year has been given to farmers to maintain or reactivate the traditional agricultural practice (winter irrigation), the sum was rather stimulus than exhaustive, not covering the full cost of carrying on with the traditional agricultural practice (Figs. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).

Fig. 3.1  Course for drowner (sluice-men, water men) (photo: Paola Branduini, 2019)

 The information is downloadable at https://ente.parcoticino.it/   Politecnico di Milano  – Dept. of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (DABC) 11  http://ticinobiosource.it/progetto/ 9

10

Fig. 3.2  A water meadow restored and functioning during wintertime: the snow melts because of the continuous flux of warm water (photo: Paola Branduini, 2019)

Fig. 3.3  Institution, farmers, and experts with university student discussing the future of water meadows (photo: Paola Branduini, 2019)

3  Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage

53

Even in England, the ancient technique of winter irrigation is still alive: here it is used to facilitate an early growth of forage for animals, especially sheep. Today, that practice is present only in some areas, including periurban areas such as Salisbury where the local associations of citizens12 encouraged by experts keep it alive. The effect on tangible assets is the maintenance of 40 ha of water meadow, while the outcome on the intangible heritage is the dissemination of the technique through public events. The role of the experts is as personally involved facilitator; citizens participate for the pleasure of being together, to carry out an activity in the open air, but above all to carry out a useful activity for the society.

3.4.2  Irrigation Canals on Sierra Nevada From 2014, the MEMOlab laboratory of Granada University13 has organized a series of events and activities to make the population aware of the conservation of irrigation canals in the Sierra Nevada, which are partly or completely unused. The initiative has alternated conferences on their historical, geological, environmental, and agronomic value to practical activity of canal cleaning and excavation. The meetings triggered dialogue among seven irrigation communities and local and regional institutions (around 20, including Sierra Nevada National Park) and fostered knowledge among the various volunteers (citizens of Granada, university students). The material effects on the landscape were primarily the reactivation of 22 km of unused canals and the ordinary maintenance of 45 km, to which the re-­ enactment of the intangible assets, such as irrigation techniques, was added. The university was the promoter of the experience together with the local administration (Figs. 3.4 and 3.5). How do these actions contribute to the resilience of the community? And to the permanence or resilience of the urban agricultural heritage? The quality of the interventions is high, as guided and controlled by the expert. They have produced a remarkable result in terms of linear or square meters of meadows and canals restored and brought back into operation. The initiatives are effective because they involve many people, spreading knowledge about the meaning and value of tangible and intangible heritage at different ages and layers of the population. They have a practical result in terms of low-cost heritage maintenance. But how sustainable in the long term are they? When the expert who catalyses the attention, organizes events, and keeps the interest alive is absent or less available, the initiative diminishes and then weakens. A fragile point of the initiatives is that the event organization relies on the expert’s availability and energies, on their involvement, and the availability of

 The Harnham Water Meadows Trust https://www.salisburywatermeadows.org.uk/  https://blogs.ugr.es/memolab/. The research group is headed by prof. Josè Maria Martin Civantos of the University of Granada.

12 13

54

P. Branduini

Figs. 3.4 and 3.5  Irrigation canals excavation workshop in Lugros, on Sierra Nevada, Granada. The canals have been documented since the eleventh century and were used for recharging groundwater (photos: Lara Delgado Anés, 2019)

research projects that finance them. The resilience of the initiative is low, because it depends on the enthusiasm and vigour of a small group of people.

3.5  Partaking in the Restoration of Agricultural Heritage Here we present two cases where local participation operated in disclosing, restoring, and communicating tangible agricultural heritage.

3.5.1  Sant’Ambrogio Farm in Milan Cascina Sant’Ambrogio is located in the Forlanini Park in the East of Milan. An horticultural farm throughout the nineteenth century, it used to host 20 families and provided the Verziere vegetable market behind the Duomo until the 1930s, then the market on Marinai d’Italia square and then the wholesale market until its closure following the retirement of its last tenants, the Gorlini Brothers. Since 2012, the CasciNet association has informally occupied the farm and engaged in a social project related to agriculture, art, work, and culture. Its members have restored the

3  Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage

55

Figs. 3.4 and 3.5 (continued)

remains of the medieval chapel enclosed in the farm, with ancient frescoes, as part of the rich heritage and identity of the site. A community garden established beside the farm combines sustainable cultural practices with artistic projects. The farm is considered a center where coworking spaces, children’s spaces, craft workshops, and cultural events can flourish. Recently, a “CareerBuilder” workshop using recycled materials was planned to serve as a center for creative welding and carpentry workshops on the farm. In 2014, after the expression of interest “Sedicicascine,” the Association signed a 3-year contract with the Municipality of Milan for the use of the farm and land; in 2016, it formalized the constitution of an agricultural social entrepreneurship to obtain a 30-year concession, as part of the new long-term contract fine-tuned by the Municipality, which commits the tenant to the ordinary and extraordinary maintenance of the agricultural building.

56

P. Branduini

Fig. 3.6  Cascina Sant’Ambrogio visit during a cultural tour by bicycle: the association rediscovered a medieval fresco in the abside church, used for a century as an ice keeper (photo: Paola Branduini, 2019) (See also Fig. 15.6)

Agricultural activity from the fourteenth century is still present, evolving from self-consumption, to local market sale, to wholesale, and back to self-consumption and solidarity generation: from family to community self-production and consumption. The commitment to preserve and enhance the historical permanence has fostered openness to citizenship and has enabled the Municipality to recognize the social role and legalize it with a new, long-term agrarian contract (Figs.  3.6 and 3.7).14

3.5.2  Miraflores Farm in Seville Miraflores Farm, in the periurban area of Seville, is surrounded by social housing. In 1983, the Association ProParque Educativo de Miraflores took over the management of the abandoned vegetable fields and the rest of the ancient structures, the twelfth-century farm buildings, restoring a bridge, an olive mill, a well, and a pool dating back to the seventeenth century. The initiative was started by the inhabitants of social housing facing the park (the former abandoned farm) when they asked for the help of the municipality of Seville. They organized school workshops for restoring agricultural buildings; they transformed the agricultural fields into allotment gardens and educational gardens for children and adults. They are now organising many educational activities for all ages concerning horticultural practice and functioning of irrigation canals and waterwheels, as inherited from Arabian culture.15 The effect on tangible heritage is evident: the recovery of artefacts, the improving of space quality, the geometric and tidy parcelling of uniform plots, as well as the  https://cascinet.it/   The reference huertos-de-ocio/

14 15

website

is

https://huertalasmoreras.wordpress.com/huertos-de-ocio/

3  Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage

57

Fig. 3.7  Agri-nursery in Cascina Sant’Ambrogio (photo: Paola Branduini, 2019)

variety of local fruit, vegetables, and ornamental plants provide a high scenic quality; many traditional events, such as the tomato harvest, have followed to keep the agricultural celebratory customs alive. The university “Pablo the Olavide” in Seville has set itself as a mediator, with expertise and institutional knowledge (Figs. 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10).16 How does this form contribute to the resilience of the community and to the permanencies of urban agricultural heritage? These participative initiatives started from the population and evolved step by step in various and numerous forms: the expert intervenes and collaborates but is not the engine of the initiative. In this sense he can lose control of the process and the quality of the intervention can take an unplanned drift. The quality of the heritage is more a recovery than a restoration: in the latter, the attention to historical matter is guaranteed by a scrupulous process to avoid any loss. The expert planning (Della Torre 2018) can be undermined and overruled by the user’s choices. On the other hand, the initiative can go forward by itself, without an expert as a mediator, because a collaborative fabric can function autonomously. The needs are discussed among the participants in a continuous exchange among promoters. They

  The research group watch?v=pAWJjVXRY58

16

of

Professor

Raul

Puente Asuero.

https://www.youtube.com/

58

P. Branduini

Fig. 3.8  The Miraflores allotment gardens, and in the background the Miraflores farm restored by the ProParque Educativo de Miraflores association (photo: Paola Branduini, 2015) Fig. 3.9 The noria restored by the association, the ancient system for preleveling water by horse force (photo: Paola Branduini, 2015)

3  Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage

59

Fig. 3.10  Children from neighbourhood schools and residence playing and learning horticultural technic (photo: Paola Branduini, 2015)

live together in a place, which they know very well, they live there in every season, and so they are able to find appropriate solutions together: this strategy improves placemaking. The continually adaptive solutions are more resilient.

3.6  C  onclusion. Towards Participatory Governance of Urban Agricultural Heritage In a process of people’s involvement, how then it is possible to combine the quality of expert intervention with the vigour of citizen self-organisation? How can we combine the top-down and bottom-up approach in the long term? Both approaches are valid and offer the safeguarding and promotion of an urban agricultural heritage. Framing an ongoing commitment that involves the intervention of experts and stakeholders is the most important step forward in the collaboration between a population and experts.

60

P. Branduini

Table 3.1  Suggestions for adopting a participatory governance  (adapted from the original document of EU commission, 2018) Preliminary questions to check the institution’s/professional’s readiness to change Whether civil society/stakeholders have shown an interest; if there is a positive attitude to cooperation, a common initial understanding, a professional openness to knowledge of all types; and if public benefit is the primary aim Suggestions to institutions and professionals Create the pre-conditions by “providing information on legal conditions and opportunities, identifying stakeholders, developing a common vision, allocating resources, and creating an environment or opportunity where knowledge can be shared, and participants can learn from each other.” Fostering communication and transparency, attracting interest and interaction between the history of (agri)cultural heritage and the personal stories of stakeholders, highlighting that common good means common responsibility, affirming the professionals’ role in public opinion, and paying attention to agendas and the need for compromise Ensure sustainability by monitoring and evaluating the process, strengthening intrinsic motivation to adopt this approach, promoting the benefits for the community Suggestions to politicians and policy makers Reaching out to a wide range of stakeholders is essential for building a sound basis for sustainable planning and action for cultural heritage. There are good practices in this respect, but the first step is recognition and prioritisation of the need for this method of working Foster the recognition of cultural heritage as a common good, a shared resource, and a driver of sustainable development together with the continuous advancement of synergies among different stakeholders and with other sectors Taking advantage of existing and upcoming cultural heritage-related initiatives and funding programmes at national and EU levels with a view to further developing their potential for participatory governance Develop a clear and comprehensive policy framework

To do so, the expert group of the EU commission on cultural heritage propose in 2018 precise steps to check the attitude towards participatory governance of cultural heritage: it talks to institutions and professionals on one side, and to politicians and policy makers on the other side. These steps could be applied also to UA activities (see Table 3.1). In addition to the expert group suggestions, we include some proposals to the stakeholders and civil society to take advantage from their energy and passion and guide their action. They should be ready to listen to the experts and build up workshops and courses for transmitting agricultural heritage maintenance techniques (canals, hatches, terraces, hedges, alignment) and ordinary maintenance of rural buildings (chimney and drainpipes cleaning), so to transmit the permanence of tangible heritage through the intangible heritage. They should search for, recognise, and enhance historical tangible traces in the places where they work, in gardening or farming areas; where the traces are less visible or recognisable they can be connected to the agricultural legacy through commemorative events and tradition to keep alive the memory of places (cf. Branduini et  al. on ‘AgriCultura in Milan,’ in this book). The events should be

3  Engagement, Participation, and Governance of the Urban Agricultural Heritage

61

promoted by the civil association but also involve institutions, experts, and informing politicians to keep their attention alive. This does not limit the people’s scope while allowing stakeholders to re-discuss their needs, with expert presence and authority sharing. A participatory governance allows the renegotiation of needs and expectations in the case of administrative changes. It is a question of accepting an openness to dialogue on the part of all the actors involved: experts who think they have given the indications and then leave, a population whose thinking can change at will according to the needs that emerge without consulting each other, and an administration that plans to adopt its strategies without consulting the population, re-­discussing on the basis of a memorandum. The cultural and agricultural heritage can be used as a beneficiary of the positive impact of the urban agricultural initiative. For the sake of sustainable management, the time has come for a collaboration with the conservation and management of the future.

References Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New  York: Implications for health promotion and community development. Health and Place, 6, 319–327. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 846–860. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x. Branduini, P. (2016). Il patrimonio rurale nutre la città. Economia e società regionale, 34(2), 44–54. Branduini, P., Laviscio, R., Scazzosi, L., Supuka, J., & Toth, A. (2016). Urban agriculture and cultural heritage: An historical and spatial relationship. In F. Lohrberg, L. Licka, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timpe (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 138–147). Berlin: Jovis. Branduini, P., Laviscio, R., & Colombo, F. C. (2017). Landscape maps: Knowledge and management tools for cultural heritage. In R. Riva (Ed.), Ecomuseum and cultural landscapes. State of the art and future prospect (pp. 252–260). Sant’Arcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli. Breuste, J.H., Artmann, M., Ioja, C., Qureshi, S. (Eds.) (2020) Making Green Cities Concepts, Challenges and Practice, Springer. Chitty, G. (2017). Introduction. Engaging conservation: Practising conservation in communities. In G. Chitty (Ed.), Heritage, conservation and communities. Engagement, participation and capacity building. London/New York: Routledge. De Marchi, G. (Ed.). (2000), Assessorato al Territorio Programmazione e Ambiente della regione Emilia-Romagna. Laboratorio di urbanistica – Studi per la legge regionale. Bologna: Regione Emilia-Romagna. Del Mastro, E. (2005). La tutela del paesaggio rurale: tendenze evolutive a livello nazionale e comunitario. Aedon Rivista di arti e diritto on line, 2. https://doi.org/10.7390/20080. Delgado Anés, L., & Martìn Civantos, J. M. (2019). The legal framework of cultural landscapes in Andalusia (Spain): Limits and possibilities of public participation from an archaeological perspective. PCA – European journal of postclassical archaeologies, 9, 269–290. Della Torre, S. (2010). Conservazione programmata: i risvolti economici di un cambio di paradigma. Il Capitale Culturale, 1, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.13138/2039-2362/30. Della Torre, S. (2018). The management process for built cultural heritage: Preventive systems and decision making. In K. Van Balen & A. Vandesande (Eds.), Innovative built heritage models: Edited contributions to the international conference on innovative built heritage models

62

P. Branduini

and preventive systems (CHANGES 2017), 6–8 February 2017, Leuven, Belgium. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Balkema – Taylor and Francis Group. Dezio, C., & Marino, D. (2016). The role of local community for resilience of agrarian cultural landscape. In Proceedings of the Congress “Sustainability of territories in the context of global changes” (pp. 305–310), 1st AMSR congress and 23rd APDR congress, 30th–31st May 2016, Marrakech (Morocco). Emiliani, A. (1989). L’immagine del lavoro. In A.  Emiliani (Ed.), L’innovazione conservativa. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale. European Union. (2018). Participatory governance of cultural heritage. Report of the OMC working group of member states’, European Agenda for Culture, Work plan for culture 2015–2018. Fairclough, G. (2010). Complexity and contingency: Classifying the influence of agriculture on European landscapes. In G. Pungetti & A. Kruse (Eds.), European culture expressed in agricultural landscape: Perspectives from the Eucaland project. Rome: Palombi. Glover, T. D. (2003). The story of the Queen Anne memorial garden: Resisting a dominant cultural narrative. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(2), 190–212. Hynes, H.  P. (1996). A patch of Eden: America’s Inner-City gardeners. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Interreg Europe. (2017). Citizen engagement in the protection of cultural heritage. A policy brief from the Policy Learning Platform on environment and resource efficiency. Jokilehto, J. (1999). A history of architectural conservation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Koopmans, M. E., Keech, D., Sovová, L., & Reed, M. (2017). Urban agriculture and place-­making: Narratives about place and space in Ghent, Brno and Bristol. Moravian Geographical Reports, 25(3), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2017-0014. Lorbek, M., & Martinsen, M. (2015). Allotment garden dwellings: Exploring tradition and legal framework. Urbani izziv, 26, S98–S113. https://doi.org/10.5379/ urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-supplement-007. Mazzocchi, C., Filippini, R., & Corsi, S. (2017). Participation in Alternative Food Networks (AFNs): A resource for territorial resilience. The Territorial Agricultural Resilience Index (TARI) for planning, AESOP 2018. Re-imagining sustainable food planning, building ­resourcefulness: food movements, insurgent planning and heterodox economics. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the AESOP Sustainable Food Planning group. Pölling, B., Alfranca, O., Alves, E., Andersson, G., Branduini, P., Egloff Lea, D., Giacchè, G., Heller, A., Herkstroter, K., Kemper, D., Koleva, G., Lorleberg, W., Mendez-Moreira, P., Miguel, A., Neves, L., Paulen, O., Pickard, D., Prados Maria, J., Recasens, X., Ronchi, B., Sponberger, A., Timpe, A., Torquati, B., Willen van der Schans, J., Weissinger, H., & Wydler, H. (2016). Creating added value: Societal benefits of urban agriculture. In F. Lohrberg, L. Licka, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timpe (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 92–100). Berlin: Jovis. Radice, S. (2014). Designing for audience participation within museums: Operative insights from “Everyday History”. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 6(3), 77–84. https:// doi.org/10.18848/1835-2014/CGP/v06i03/44457. Scazzosi, L., & Branduini, P. (2014). Paesaggio e fabbricati rurali. Suggerimenti per la progettazione e la valutazione paesaggistica. Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo. Sant’Arcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli. Šmid Hribar, M., Poljak Istenič, S., Kozina, J., & Kumer, P. (Eds.). (2018). The good practices catalogue on participatory urban agriculture. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, Založba ZRC. Wakefield, S., Yeudl, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92–101. Warner, S. B. (1987). To dwell is to garden. A history of Boston’s community gardens with portraits and reflections of Boston’s gardeners in a portfolio by Hansi Durlack. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Part II

Landscape at Risk, Landscape as Opportunity

Chapter 4

Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency María-José Prados and Jesús Santiago Ramos

Abstract  This chapter focuses on the role of urban agriculture as a multifunctional component of urban and metropolitan areas. Although agricultural land on the periphery of the city is often regarded as no more than a blank canvas for urban development, it offers important benefits to the urban system. In this sense, urban agriculture should be viewed as a significant component of territorial heritage that plays a major role in both the preservation of the cultural landscape and in the configuration of the urban green infrastructure. In this context, the multifunctional character of urban agriculture can be considered a key factor in its  resiliency, increasing its chances of withstanding such processes as urban sprawl, road infrastructure expansion, and land speculation. The connection between the economic, cultural and environmental dimensions of urban agriculture and their relationship with the process of territorial development are analysed in the Seville urban area. The chapter focuses on two latifundia as case studies, the cortijos of Gambogaz and El Alamillo, as they provide relevant examples of multifunctional urban agriculture located in the vicinity of the city of Seville. By way of conclusion, some reflections are provided on how to integrate urban agriculture into planning strategies to improve its resiliency.

4.1  Introduction. Territorial Heritage in Urban Agriculture The resurgence of urban agriculture is a paradox in the evolution of modern-day European cities. Today’s city emerged from a transformation of the medieval periphery in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. Up to the eighteenth century, the city had had an ongoing dialogue with its periphery. Urban agriculture had thrived inside civil and religious buildings in historical cities in the Mediterranean basin, although M.-J. Prados (*) University of Seville, Seville, Spain e-mail: [email protected] J. S. Ramos Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_4

65

66

M.-J. Prados and J. S. Ramos

even more had also existed outside the walled enclosure (Valor and Romero 1998). Until the mid-eighteenth century, many of these farmlands had belonged to the nobility and the clergy, in spite of which the cortijos, the haciendas, the mansions and the monasteries were regarded as landmarks with connections to citizens and cities. Insofar as Mediterranean cities are concerned, the transformation of urban uses and functions after the Industrial Revolution was a turbulent and tempestuous affair, on the one hand because the changes took place in only a third of the time of similar changes in cities in northern and western Europe and, on the other hand, because the way that they took place significantly changed the morphology and functionality that these cities had possessed during the Middle Ages and the Modern Era. These transformations were to have clear repercussions for agricultural areas both inside and outside the city walls, with urban expansion swallowing up orchards and farms and replacing them with residential and industrial zones. In many cases, the agricultural activities that managed to survive did so  thanks to a lack of any lucrative propositions, which enabled traditional forms of land occupation to survive. However, despite doubtlessly being affected by the construction of infrastructure, the segregation of plots, which were interspersed among residential, industrial, or services usages, and the process of agricultural intensification, urban agriculture has not disappeared and has remained resilient in consolidated urban environments (Renes 2010). On a wider scale, urban agriculture today should be conceived as part of the modern city’s functions. This concept incorporates the principles of rural and agricultural multifunctionality advocated at the end of the twentieth century in the framework of the Reformed Common Agricultural Policy, and builds upon them by adapting new functions to new demands (Lohrberg et  al. 2016b). One important demand made by city dwellers is for agricultural plots to produce locally-farmed fresh food for their consumption and that these areas should be used for recreation, leisure and cultural enrichment. Urban agriculture is multifunctional because of its important role in halting the spread of built-up areas and infrastructure, suggesting the need to review the previously-held concept of agriculture and its role in the urban open space system (Lohrberg et al. 2016a). This chapter describes the resiliency of urban agriculture from the perspective of territorial heritage. The usual aesthetic or cultural vision of heritage elements may disregard their constructive capacity in a territory. The concept of territorial heritage corrects this skewed view and embraces the cultural and natural elements that the population sees as part of its heritage (Ortega 1998). Heritage elements cannot be divided into those constructed by humans and those constructed by nature and do not need to be designated as heritage assets by the public administrations to be valued; it is enough for citizens to identify them as such (Ortega 2000; Ruiz 2001). The territorial heritage of urban agriculture acknowledges all the elements with a natural or a cultural value and they are, therefore, active participants in the territory’s spatial configuration (Feria 2010). These natural and cultural components are inseparable, and it is, precisely, their interrelationship that contributes to the resiliency of urban agriculture.

4  Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency

67

Moreover, their interdependency with natural resources makes them very important for the preservation of extraordinarily significant environmental values. In Mediterranean cities, where the surrounding territory has historically been modelled by the hand of man and agriculture is at the heart of the cultural landscape, areas of farmland are usually at the core of green belts. As they lack other first-order natural assets, farmlands are, to a certain extent, the grasslands and woodlands of the peri-urban environment of many central and southern European cities (Fairclough and Turner 2010). The environmental role of urban agriculture is further enhanced by the close links that exist between farmland and the cultural assets which remain in the urbanised territory. From the perspective of this chapter, urban agriculture resiliency is explained by the survival of elements of cultural and natural territorial heritage. Thus, the approach adopted here includes the relationship between urban agriculture and cultural landscapes, between territorial assets and urban green infrastructure. The two examples chosen as study cases are good illustrations of these links: two latifundia in the Seville flood plain on the banks of the Guadalquivir River, the cortijos of Gambogaz and El Alamillo. Seville stands in a river valley transformed by agriculture throughout history (Fig. 4.1). The relationship of these two large agricultural estates with urban planning in the metropolitan area has been shaped by their proximity to the city and their long history. These facets are evidence of their resiliency in the face of urban growth processes and proof of their capacity for adaptation in an unfavourable urban context. The key factor of these areas is the strength of the

Fig. 4.1  Seville: topographic map, end of nineteenth century. The map is oriented towards the east, not the north, a typical feature of the cartographic representations of Seville. (Source: Institute of Statistics and Cartography of Andalusia)

68

M.-J. Prados and J. S. Ramos

cultural and natural components. This strength forms the basis for a new approach to urban agriculture functions in Seville metropolitan area's territorial heritage and the cultural landscape.

4.2  Objectives and Methodology The purpose of this paper is to substantiate the interdependency relationships among agricultural territorial heritage assets as explanatory factors of urban agriculture resiliency. The power of these heritage assets is their capacity to adapt to the environment and, despite changes and alterations, their tendency to survive over time as witnesses to a territory’s history. Farm operations  are totally dependent upon humans and, therefore, also upon the cultural component of agricultural activity. This dependency relationship determines that the most valuable agricultural areas from the heritage point-of-view are precisely those where a harmonious balance has been struck between agriculture’s productive side and the preservation of the territory’s natural features. This is even more true, perhaps, when this balance is the outcome of a historical cultural construction of the landscape. The difficulty lies, in the first instance, in finding in an urbanised environment the asset or set of assets, cultural or natural, that can be considered agricultural territorial heritage and enables their broader consideration in the complex urban map. The ability to anticipate how heritage assets can help construct and functionally organise the landscape must be recognised at the same time as their endurance and their interdependency relationship with historical urban transformation processes is confirmed (Eizaguirre 2000). This understanding is the starting point for urban agriculture resiliency. The methodology adopted here enables potential heritage resources to be identified, evaluated and noted from the perspective of compared dynamics, thus allowing a synchronous reading of the heritage assets and their role in constructing the territory. In this way, these elements can be assessed for their valorisation and their contribution to the permanence of urban agriculture over time can be analysed. The methodological tools used are field studies, historical maps, aerial photographs, cadastral property maps of agricultural land and land use maps, the analysis of which enables occupation patterns and models to be traced, with their regularity over time interpreted as a cultural feature. In other words, the responses that individuals propose as the solution for the same problems must always be the same, irrespective of the point in history or the tools at hand, so they can result in cultural constructions that follow an identical model (Prados and Vahí 2012). Table 4.1 links the analysed heritage assets in the two case studies: the Gambogaz (Fig. 4.2) and the El Alamillo (Fig. 4.3) cortijos. The working scale is the same as that of the old latifundia connected with each of these cortijos on the Guadalquivir River’s right bank. This area has always had a large natural component related to the river’s dynamics and has been a major cultural component from the  time  that the city of Seville was constructed in such a way as  to contend with flooding.

4  Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency

69

Table 4.1  List of heritage assets and associated functions Heritage asset Residential architecture

Typology Farmhouses: cortijo and hacienda Gañanía (farm workers’ house)

Production architecture

Mill tower Silo Barn Irrigation ditches Waterwheel Watermill Cañada (droveway) Cordel (pastoral roadway) Vereda (cattle trail) Colada (track between pastures) River channels

Hydraulic infrastructure

Road network: historical roads and cattle tracks

River system Open space with natural vegetation Public open space

Cropland

Riparian forest and other river bank vegetation Remnant natural areas Park

Commercial agriculture Orchards Urban community gardens

Urban function Catering/hotel business Cultural Historical memory Socialisation Economic Cultural Education Connectivity Cultural Accessibility Connectivity Recreational activities Connectivity Biodiversity Connectivity Biodiversity Recreational activities Socialisation Biodiversity Economic Socialisation Biodiversity

Source: prepared by the authors

The cultural component is currently marked by the appropriation of the space for agriculture and urban and infrastructure development. Its natural dimension is selfevident: the environmental and ecological values of the river derive from its position as the main natural corridor in the Seville metropolitan area, a highly anthropised territorial setting. The analysed heritage assets are the residential, productive and leisure buildings; the water, road and green infrastructure networks, and the nonbuilt-up areas used for agriculture. When elements such as these are included in Mediterranean cities, there is a tendency for priority to be given to their cultural value and, on occasion, they have great architectural and artistic importance. However, in this case analysis they are important for structuring and connecting agricultural space and for their natural value. Thus, the elements of the road network, the system of irrigation ditches and the water network must be considered in two different ways: as constructive elements of cultural value and as elements of ecological connection in the open space system.

70

M.-J. Prados and J. S. Ramos

Fig. 4.2 The cortijo of Gambogaz. From left to right: gañanías (farm workers’ houses), multifunctional facilities, manger, silo, workshop, tower. (Source: prepared by authors)

Fig. 4.3 The cortijo of El Alamillo. From left to right: main building, multifunctional areas (exterior view), multifunctional area (interior view), acequia (irrigation ditch), orange tree grove, riparian vegetation. (Source: prepared by authors)

4  Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency

71

Farms that combine both cultural and natural values provide a broader range of functions and this enables them to survive over time as structural elements. A high level of interrelationship that combines a wide range of sociocultural, environmental and recreational functions in a single space can guarantee farms greater sustainability when, for example, the financial performance of crops is not sufficient to halt or resist pressures from urbanisation. Thus, adopting an analytical perspective that accepts and integrates the multidimensional nature of latifundia is essential for understanding their complexity as well as the factors that determine their resiliency.

4.3  The Structural Cultural Functions of Urban Agriculture The cultural function of urban agriculture is related to its ability to structure the territory and shape the landscape and to its contribution to explaining the city’s cultural construction process throughout history. The two examples chosen for this chapter are highly significant in these respects. Historical and cultural interpretation shows that the Gambogaz and El Alamillo cortijos can be traced back as far as the Middle Ages. The interpretation of these two locations is built upon an amalgam of archaeological remains, notarial deeds of assignment, sale or renting of lands and literary references in the works of Miguel de Cervantes and Lope de Vega. These documents reveal four landmarks that are keys to their understanding. The first of these corresponds to mediaeval times. References to the two cortijos allude to their being among the properties distributed to Castilian nobles after the conquest of Seville by King Alfonso X the Wise in the thirteenth century. The cortijo of Gambogaz was a Muslim farmstead given to the Chapter of Seville Cathedral and, by the fifteenth century, had formed part of the lands owned by the Santa María de las Cuevas Monastery (Fig. 4.4). El Alamillo was ceded to the City Council and fulfilled diverse functions: as land rented out to offset the city’s expenses; as a wood of poplar trees to stave off flooding from the Guadalquivir River; as a fishing reserve; as a network of ancient roads similar to the St James Way, and even as an area of the city’s outskirts for illicit activities (Cervantes 1615; Vv.Aa. 2009). The second landmark event did not occur until the Modern Era. As a result of the Spanish disentailment process, agricultural properties ceased to form part of ecclesiastical, noble and civil estates and could be purchased by the bourgeoisie. In contrast to the previous land distribution, when large agricultural spreads had been assigned to single ecclesiastical communities or noble families, during disentailment, extensive properties were divided up to enable the agricultural bourgeoisie’s new estates to incorporate the most productive agricultural plots. The estate owners introduced new crops, agricultural machinery and, above all, modern irrigation techniques. The agricultural bourgeoisie spearheaded an intensive agricultural production model that replaced traditional crops with mechanically-harvested crops. In the mid-nineteenth century, the cortijo of Gambogaz pioneered the introduction of steam-driven mechanical harvesters and threshing machines in Spain (Vázquez 1989), changing the traditional landscape of olive groves, vineyards and cereal crops.

72

M.-J. Prados and J. S. Ramos

Fig. 4.4  Historical map of Seville and its surroundings in 1747: 1, Seville; 2, Santa María de las Cuevas Monastery (later a ceramics factory); 3, Ancient Roman city of Italica. (Source: Archives of the Seville Cathedral, in Caballos et al. 1999:-55)

Meanwhile, the cortijo of El Alamillo was the outcome of combining small farms and small orange groves into a 300 ha. estate (Vv.Aa. 2009). The third landmark event was the change in crops. First there was the introduction of industrial crops, such as corn, sunflower and sugar beet, and, later, of vegetables and fruit trees. Aerial photographs from the end of the 1970s show that unirrigated agricultural landscapes still persisted in the two cortijos at the time,

4  Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency

73

along with odd smatterings of fruit trees and meadow woodlands in El Alamillo. This picture has changed during the past 50 years and today irrigated agriculture can be found in both areas, with large patches given over to citrus fruits and some remnants of the fluvial woodlands. In contrast, changes in the agricultural landscape have had barely any effect on the rural habitat and the old road network, which both bear witness to earlier landscapes or have evolved and adapted to new production demands. Both the siting of the two cortijo farm buildings on slight promontories, which in the past protected them from flooding by the Guadalquivir, and their structuring role in the road network linking the city of Seville and the towns and villages of the Vega, the flood meadow, help us to understand why they have endured. As a result, the farm buildings are perhaps the most visible elements and those that are best identified as territorial heritage assets. The Gambogaz olive press tower has been listed as a national Cultural Heritage Site and corroborates the historical documents that mention the extensive olive groves that were part of the cortijo (Andalusian Historical Heritage Institute 2015). Notwithstanding, other extremely interesting heritage assets have not been listed as Cultural Heritage Sites, such as grain silos, stables and the buildings used to house the farm hands; these elements are evidence of the profusion of cereal crops, the abundance of dairy herds, and the importance of the seasonal workforce, respectively. Other more recent heritage elements respond to the adaptation of the cortijo to new crops and include workshops, machine shops, weighing scales, storerooms for chemical products, old sheds and barns converted for processing vegetables, etc. Finally, it is also possible to find heritage elements linked to irrigation techniques in the cortijo of El Alamillo, including such items as wells, waterwheels and acequias (irrigation ditches). The fourth key is the Guadalquivir River, essential for explaining the historical evolution of both study cases because of its connection to irrigation and its role in binding the territory together. In the past three centuries, the Guadalquivir has been subjected to large-scale civil works to change its course between Seville and the river mouth. The so-called cuts made since the eighteenth century to defeat the river’s meanders were carried out to facilitate river navigation and protect the city from flooding. The last of these was the Cartuja Cut in 1982, which splits the agricultural lands on the right bank of the Guadalquivir and isolates the El Alamillo and Gambogaz cortijos from each other (Fig. 4.5). The land on the left bank is called the Isle of La Cartuja and was the venue for the 1992 Universal Exhibition, which entailed the occupation of some 400 ha. of cropland for urban uses. The only open area that survived was, precisely, the cortijo of El Alamillo, which was converted into an urban park. On the right bank, some of the lands of El Alamillo remained along with the Gambogaz cortijo, which was not affected by this cut, meaning that the farm buildings and the farmlands were not separated. The progressive subdivision of the territory as a result of rerouting the river, development of road and irrigation infrastructure and the encroachment of urban uses has determined that the latifundia that had previously formed a continuous agricultural landscape began to function as a set of fragmented spaces embedded in a patchwork of uses in which urban activities took centre stage (Fig. 4.6). In this context, the heritage, the environmental and landscape values of both the river and

74

M.-J. Prados and J. S. Ramos

Fig. 4.5  Landscape changes in the study area: 1, Gambogaz; 2, El Alamillo. (Source: prepared by the authors with images supplied by the Institute of Statistics and Cartography of Andalusia)

Fig. 4.6  Land use change in the study area. (Source: prepared by the authors with information from the Land Use/Land Cover Map of Andalusia 1:25.000, Department of Environment and Planning, Regional Government of Andalusia)

the remaining agricultural spaces, are strengthened, as they are conferred special interest as components of the urban green infrastructure (European Environment Agency 2011).

4.4  Urban Agriculture as a Component of Green Infrastructure El Alamillo and Gambogaz are good examples of the way that urban agriculture can contribute new functions to today’s city through its integration into the urban green infrastructure or open space system (Timpe et al. 2016). One of the key factors for

4  Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency

75

assessing the environmental value of urban agriculture is the intensity of the changes that human beings make to the natural environment through crop growing  techniques. Traditional agricultural practices maintain a certain degree of ecological balance (Hough 1998), whereas commercial agriculture causes a greater break in the interrelationship between the natural environment and the way that it is managed. In this respect, Gambogaz clearly represents an example of the latter, whereas El Alamillo, in its current role as a public space that is, essentially, non-productive, enables more environmentally-friendly techniques to be adopted in the still uncleared old orange groves. In this space, the urban biodiversity support function takes precedence over crop yield. Located in a highly anthropised environment where hardly any intact natural spaces are to be found, El Alamillo and Gambogaz are good examples of the connection between agriculture and nature by way of their relationship with the Guadalquivir River. Excluding urban agriculture, the nearest natural areas of significance are more than 15 km from the city. The river and its main tributaries act as connectors  between the green spaces in and around the city and several of these peripheral natural areas. Agricultural areas with links to the riverbanks become extremely important and stand out as strategic elements in the configuration of the open space system. In this context, croplands not only represent the continuity of the traditional landscape, but also take on their own environmental functions (Lovell 2010) and boost the ecological functionality of the river itself. The Guadalquivir River’s environmental value is demonstrated by the regional regulations for nature protection. The peri-urban stretch of the river is part of the Lower Guadalquivir nature area and has been catalogued as a Special Conservation Area (in Spanish, ZEC) by the environmental administration. As such, it is a candidate for inclusion in the region’s Natura 2000 network. In particular, the Lower Guadalquivir “fulfils an essential function as an eco-corridor, maintaining the river ecosystem in a favourable state of preservation and, therefore, benefitting the good state of preservation of the habitats of which it is composed and the species that it is home to” (Decree 113/2015, Regional Government of Andalucía). These regulations state that this environment is the habitat of 175 species of birds, 7 of fish, and 1 reptile and 1 mammal species included in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC). The remaining large non-urbanised open spaces surrounding the river course, as is the case of Gambogaz and El Alamillo, and above all, the survival of vegetation along the river banks and in other areas near the river, are major proof of the significant function of the river for biodiversity in the most urbanised sector of the metropolitan area of Seville. As an additional function, agricultural crops and riverbank vegetation contribute to regulating the local microclimate through evapotranspiration, thus also improving urban air quality and acting as carbon sinks that contribute to climate change mitigation. This environmental role is perfectly evidenced in El Alamillo as a public park integrated into the Seville metropolitan open space system. In the case of Gambogaz, its agricultural activity is almost exclusively commercial and, as it is also privately owned, its environmental role is somewhat less significant. Perhaps these circumstances explain why many urban agricultural spaces do not invite environmental respect on the same level as do other open spaces, and why, for the same

76

M.-J. Prados and J. S. Ramos

reason, they do not have a clear place in the design of urban green infrastructures. From the planning aspect, this lack of a clear definition reflects the uneasy fit of many varied examples of urban agriculture in the design of today’s city, explaining why they are relegated to the role of residual spaces or, to a certain extent, territorial voids that are extremely vulnerable to urban sprawl. The consideration of Gambogaz and El Alamillo as components of the local green infrastructure lends weight to one key aspect, connectivity between open spaces. Heritage elements linked to water use (ditches, channels, etc.) and the road networks in these areas are potential resources that, if addressed correctly, could improve the functional interconnection of these spaces. In addition, the connection of the two areas by the Guadalquivir river course facilitates their physical and functional connection with other urban open areas associated with the river and their full integration into the metropolitan green infrastructure.

4.5  T  erritorial Heritage as a Key to the Endurance of Urban Agriculture Agricultural spaces are decisive for constructing the modern city and for the inhabitants’ quality of life. The ability of these spaces to shape the city throughout history is comparable to the capacity of artificial structures and agricultural activity itself to significantly alter spaces today. At the current time, it is necessary to enhance the productive coexistence of built-up and agricultural spaces as complementary components of the urban system. This chapter has been developed by insisting upon urban agriculture’s status as a component of a city’s territorial heritage. The integrated vision of the cultural and natural dimensions of the two cases studied, Gambogaz and El Alamillo, enables them to be recognised as highly valuable heritage assets, both for the city of Seville and for its metropolitan surroundings. The historical and cultural analysis clearly shows that they have been important for the city since medieval times, with a constant presence of agriculture on the banks of the Guadalquivir River. Civil infrastructure projects to change the course of the river and move it away from the historical site of the city have led to deep changes in the structure and organisation of Seville as well as exploitation of the two cortijos. However, this has not been a barrier to current environmental functionality being, essentially, a product of their relationship with the river via the permanence of riverbank vegetation, which is a platform for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. The importance of cultural and natural functions cannot be separated from the current multifunctional status of urban agriculture. This multifunctionality is habitually associated with citizen initiatives and public projects to develop agricultural activities in a consolidated urban context (e.g., community gardens). Paradoxically, these same functions can already be found in agricultural spaces on the peripheries of urban and metropolitan areas, although such peri-urban agriculture often ends

4  Urban Agriculture and Territorial Heritage: Keys to Resiliency

77

up being marginalised as an urban void, a blank canvas on which projects for buildings and infrastructure can be formulated. In this context, the endurance of the Gambogaz and El Alamillo cortijos over time can be seen not only in their resistance to urban growth processes, but also in their managing of major internal transformations, surviving as an agricultural activity in a continuous adaptation process that has bolstered their ability to provide a wide variety of services and functions. Under this focus, it can be stated that it is this diversity of functions that has made it possible to maintain and reinforce the presence of agriculture. They are an example of resiliency and serve as an example of how intervention on urban land in favour of agriculture should be extended to take agriculture on urban peripheries into consideration. For this, it is essential to adopt a new interpretation of these peripheral spaces underpinned by their nature of territorial heritage assets. The role played by planning is vital in this respect. Urban development plans should explicitly recognise both the nature of urban agriculture as heritage and its active role in the physical configuration and functioning of our cities. This is, of course, a change in perspective with respect to the most usual urban practices in Mediterranean cities, but it can be approached through the consideration of these spaces as components of green infrastructure systems. In other respects, in relation to agricultural spaces on the urban periphery, attention should be paid not only to the urban or municipal scale, but also to the metropolitan dimension of today’s city. In this way, many territorial functions derive from the role of peri-urban agricultural spaces as transitional areas between what is strictly urban and what is open countryside; in this context, the integration of agriculture’s natural and cultural facets is much more apparent. It is most likely that on this scale, where urban agriculture resiliency is growing in the face of progressive encroachment by urban uses, it can function as a mechanism to contain urban sprawl and provide new urban developments with some structure. This function has traditionally been associated with green belts, but it is one that agriculture can occupy in contexts where there is a lesser presence of large natural areas or green spaces.

References Andalusian Historical Heritage Institute. (2015). Base de Datos del Patrimonio Cultural [online database]. Retrieved from: http://www.iaph.es/patrimonio-inmueble-andalucia/resumen. do?id=i19548 Caballos, A., Martín, J., & Rodríguez, J. (1999). Itálica Arqueológica. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, Consejeria de Cultura, Fundación El Monte. Cervantes, M. (1615). El Rufián dichoso (p. 1984). Madrid: Cátedra. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Consolidated version 01/01/2007). European Parliament of the European Union, Council of the European Union. Decree 113/2015 of 17 March 2015, by which the Special Areas of Conservation belonging to the Watershed Guadalete-Barbate and certain Special Areas of Conservation belonging to the Guadalquivir River Basin are declared. Department of Environment and Spatial Planning, Regional Government of Andalusia.

78

M.-J. Prados and J. S. Ramos

Eizaguirre, X. (2000). El territorio como arquitectura. De la geografía a la arquitectura del territorio. DAU Debats d’arquitectura i urbanisme: revista de la Demarcació de Lleida del COAC, 12, 56–65. European Environment Agency. (2011). Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Fairclough, G., & Turner, S. (2010). Constructing a Eucaland project classification. In G. Pugnetti & A. Kruse (Eds.), European culture expressed in agricultural landscapes: Perspectives from Eucaland project (pp. 124–148). Rome: Palombi Editori. Feria, J.  M. (2010). Patrimonio territorial y desarrollo sostenible: un estudio comparativo en Iberoamérica y España. Estudios Geográficos, 71(268), 129–159. Hough, M. (1998). Naturaleza y ciudad. Planificación urbana y procesos ecológicos. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili. Lohrberg, F., Licka, L., Scazzosi, L., & Timple, A. (Eds.). (2016a). Urban agriculture Europe. Berlin: Jovis. Lohrberg, F., et al. (2016b). Urban agriculture goes Brussels: Urban agriculture as a tool for the Europe 2020 strategy. In F. Lohrberg, L. Licka, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timple (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 208–213). Berlin: Jovis. Lovell, S.  T. (2010). Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability, 2, 2499–2522. Ortega, J. (1998). El patrimonio territorial: El territorio como recurso cultural y económico. Ciudades: Revista del Instituto de Urbanística de la Universidad de Valladolid, 4, 33–48. Ortega, J. (2000). El paisaje como construcción. El patrimonio territorial. DAU Debats d’arquitectura i urbanisme: revista de la Demarcació de Lleida del COAC, 12, 36–46. Prados, M. J., & Vahí, A. (2012). A territorial analysis of the agricultural heritage in Andalusia. In J.  M. Feria (Ed.), Territorial heritage and development (pp.  81–103). London: Taylor & Francis. Renes, H. (2010). Landscapes of agricultural specialization; a forgotten theme in historical landscape research and management. Tájökológiai Lapok Special Issue, 25–42. Ruiz, E. (2001). Patrimonio Rural y Políticas Europeas. Lurralde: Investigación y espacio, 24, 305–314. Timpe, A., Cieszewska, A., Supuka, J., & Attila, T. (2016). Urban agriculture goes green infrastructure. In F. Lohrberg, L. Licka, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timple (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 208–213). Berlin: Jovis. Valor, M., & Romero, C. (Eds.). (1998). Sevilla Extramuros: la huella de la historia en el sector oriental de la ciudad. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento de Sevilla y Universidad de Sevilla. Vázquez, I. (1989). Gambogaz: Cuna de la burguesía y de la mecanización agraria. In F. Olmedo & J. Rubiales (Eds.), Historia de la Cartuja de Sevilla (pp. 277–289). Sevilla: Caja San Fernando. Vv. Aa. (2009). Cortijos, haciendas y lagares. Arquitectura de las grandes explotaciones agrarias en Andalucía. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía.

Chapter 5

Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation Saúl Alcántara Onofre

Abstract A chinampa is a floating or fixed garden formed artificially, either by dumping earth in a designated area near the shore of a lake until a small islet is formed, or by making a sort of raft of logs, rushes, and similar materials, on which earth and compost is then laid, until the raft gradually sinks and touches bottom. Its history, since the first data recollection made by the Spaniards during the invasion by Cortez and some priests who were the first historians, describes the construction of a chinampa and the cultivation techniques using almácigos (seed beds) to create little sprouts. This purpose of this procedure was the propagation of various products to be harvested on the mainland or other places and of agricultural produce. Blooming with vegetables or flowers, these mobile or static structures in the shape of islets are made of extremely fertile swampy soil. These crops usually are planted on different chinampas situated very close to one another, limited by water channels. The current landscape takes us back in time to Mexico-Tenochtitlan. The number of chinampas diminished following the systematic drying up of the lake and the uncontrollable growth of the urban area of Mexico City.

5.1  Introduction This chapter presents the evolution of the chinampa cultivation system in the Basin of Mexico and how the chinampa landscape is an example of historical continuity in urban agriculture. A chinampa is a floating or fixed productive garden formed artificially either by dumping earth in a designated area near the shore of a lake of Xochimilco (flower field) until a small islet is formed, or by making a sort of raft of logs, rushes, and similar materials, on which earth and compost is then laid, until the raft gradually sinks and touches the bottom. S. Alcántara Onofre (*) Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Azcapotzalco, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_5

79

80

S. Alcántara Onofre

Planted with vegetables or flowers, these mobile or static structures in the shape of islets are made of extremely fertile swampy soil. These crops are usually planted on different chinampas situated very close to one another, limited by water channels. The rural landscape created takes us back in time to an ancient era before the arrival of the Spanish invaders. Currently, the number of chinampas has been diminishing for two reasons: the systematic drying up of the lake area in the Basin of Mexico and the uncontrollable growth of the urban area of Mexico City. Even so, that this remarkable cultivation method has prevailed is an example of the continuity of the pre-Hispanic agricultural system reaching to the twenty-first century. This essay also portrays a historical analysis as it represents the first data collection made by the Spaniards during the invasion by Hernán Cortez (Medellín, Badajoz, 1485 – Castilleja de la Cuesta, Sevilla, 1547) and some priests’ chronicles that can be considered the first historians. Various opinions have been stated about the initial origin of the chinampas, its capability of motion, and its versatility as a means of transportation along the city canals up to the beginning of the twentieth century. Several opinions are presented to illustrate this debated topic. Even though the chronicles about chinampas are related to the period of the Aztec dominance, the precedent inhabitants had already established this cultivation. Furthermore, this paper describes the construction of a chinampa and the cultivation techniques utilizing almácigos (seed beds or nursery plants) to create little sprouts; this procedure had the purpose of propagation of different sorts of products to be harvested on the mainland or in different places, also differing between agricultural products and ornamental plants. The Xochimilco municipality has the only vestige of the chinampa era and a part of the World Heritage Site. However, this paper points out the beginning of Xochimilco as a tourist attraction and entertainment area for young people, but it is not a production centre of floral and agricultural products for the city as it was in the previous centuries in the chaotic urban planning of Mexico City.

5.2  Mexico-Tenochtitlan: A Lacustrine Landscape The Aztecs were the last of a long list of migrant groups who settled in the Basin of Mexico, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, leaving Mexico-Tenochtitlan as the last of all the pre-Hispanic cities that had existed in the Basin. Before the foundation of the Aztec city, the Aztecs had lived 2 years in Iztacalco (house where salt is processed), earlier passing to a small island, where they found a nopal cardón (Opuntia streptacantha) upon a stone, topped by an eagle (Clavijero 1853a: 60). The Mexicans named the city Mexico-Tenochtitlan (Tenochtitlan means place where there is a nopal on the top of a stone) and started to build the sanctuary of Huitzilopochtli or Mexitli, their guardian deity.

5  Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation

81

The ancient city of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, established by the Aztecs on a small island in the middle of the lake area of the Basin of Mexico, according to tradition in 1325 under their first huey tlatoani or emperor Tenoch, offered an excellent means of defence and food supply, thanks among other things to the existence of the chinampa agricultural system, which overcomes the inconveniences of a swampy terrain always threatened by the possibility of flooding.

5.2.1  The Aztec Agricultural Pattern The word chinampa is descended from the Náhuatl (Aztec, or ancient Mexican language) “chinamitl,” which means reed boundary or hedge, or a fence with sticks or intertwined reeds; the Spaniards called them camellones or sementeras. In general, they were of large proportions, so that the holder or chinampero (person who cultivates chinampa) could build his dwelling in the central and most solid area. The original meaning of chinampan (in the fence or fenced land) refers to the sticks placed around a floating piece of land built as a raft, focused on the production of the almácigos, little germination compartments that functioned as special earth beds, which permit maximum use of available space. Here the seeds germinate and the plants start to grow rapidly, to generate many different harvests, principally vegetables and flowers (Figs. 5.1 and 5.2). A characteristic of the chinampa cultivation system is that channels located between the artificial islets serve not only as circulation passages but also for the provision of water. This arrangement results in an extraordinarily fertile and highly productive agricultural pattern, and it generates a rural landscape that is unique in the Basin of Mexico, both inside the Lakes of Xochimilco and Chalco (on the edge of the lake), and in the countryside of the vice-royalty city. For the success of the chinampa harvest, the use of aquatic vegetation as fertilizers or other organic composts makes intense production possible year after year, given a favourable climate and a consistent soil humidity through continuous irrigation. Shelter against the elements such as winds, frost, and overexposure to sunlight were taken into consideration by building a roof made of petate (tulle leaves, “Typha latifolia” matting), or laying hay on the top of the almácigos area to provide individual care to each plant. The great productivity of the chinampas was complemented by easy transportation of cultivated products by water along the main channels. The most important was the Canal de la Viga, which connected Lakes Xochimilco, Mexico-Tenochtitlan, and Texcoco (on the cliffs of jarilla, “Barkleyanthus salicifolius”): that water route provided direct access for vegetables and flowers to the centre of Mexico City. Chronicles of Spanish invaders mention that hundreds of canoes or piraguas loaded with maize (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), calabash (Lagenaria siceraria), chia (Salvia hispanica), and other vegetables and flowers produced in the chinampas of Xochimilco arriving daily at the Aztec marketplace, Mexico-­ Tenochtitlan, and Tlatelolco (terrace or rounded land mound).

Fig. 5.1  Chinampero man selecting the mud from the channel to manufacture the almácigo seedlings or nursery. (Photo: Saúl Alcántara)

Fig. 5.2  Chinampero man building the almácigo seedlings or nursery. (Photo: Saúl Alcántara)

5  Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation

83

5.2.2  The Chinampa Land in the Basin of Mexico The need for chinampas was the result of the geography and hydrology of the landscape and the history of the Aztecs. They called this territory Anahuac (the word Anáhuac means “by the water,” and it seems that from this name the words Anahuatlaca or Nahuatlaca were formed and used to refer to the cultivated nations settled along the margins of the lagoon of Mexico); that is, the total area of the Basin of Mexico, because its main cities were founded in the small isles along the margin of two main lagoons. Over the years, the name was used to refer to the land, which during the viceroy age was known as New Spain. At the end of the sixteenth century, with the commerce from hunting on the areas settled on the margin of the lagoon, they could acquire all they needed. But where their efforts went further was in the construction of floating orchards, or chinampas, which they made from an embankment of rocks and mud from the lagoon. The chinampas were used to cultivate corn, capsicum, beans, and squashes (Clavijero 1853a: 60). The chronicler Fernando de Alva Ixtlixochitl (Mexico, 1578–1650) provides a detailed description of the districts that were devoted to the chinampa agriculture. The huey Tlatoani Izcohuatzin asked the Texcocan ruler Nezahualcoyotzin for the grace of their lives, which he granted. And he ordered that from then on they would offer him some recognition or tribute which was known as the royal census of Texcoco, “chinampanacatla callacuilli,” which means the tribute of the chinampanecas, which includes the following cities, towns, and places: Mexico-­ Tenuchtitlan, Xolteco, Tlacopan, who were the heads of their respective kingdoms; Azcaputzalco, Tenayocan, Tepotzotan, Quauhtitlan, Toltitlan, Ecatépec, Axoctitlan, Coyohuacan, Xochimilco, and Iquexomatitlan, each of whom gave offerings of jewellery and pieces of gold and all the vegetables, flowers, fish, and birds growing in these parts of the lagoon (De Alva Ixtlixochitl 1997: 187). So, the tlatoani or emperor Montezuma came back to his city and ordered the cities and villages of the chinampa, which used to pay this form of taxation to the kings of Texcoco, were no longer held to do so (De Alva Ixtlixochitl 1997: 187). The Texcoco ruler Netzahualcoyotl (Texcoco, 1402–1472), exacted severe contributions from the Aztecs. In 1521, the chinampanecas villages of Xochimilco, Cuitlahuac, Mizquic, Ixtapalapan, and Mexicatzinco (De Sahagún 1981: 63) helped the Mexicans and Tlatelolcas to fight against the Spaniards. All these cultures were witnessing the transformation from a water civilization into one that sees the ideal city without floods and the position of religious ideals over the pagan indigenous temples.

84

S. Alcántara Onofre

5.3  Chinampa, the Ancient Urban Agriculture Fray Juan de Torquemada (Torquemada, 1557  – México, 1624), missionary and Spanish historian, wrote on the fragility of the chinampa-based agriculture. Although floods destroyed these cultivations, droughts rarely affected them. Torquemada mentions that the natives, “[…] with little effort, cultivate and collect their corn, because all these are camellones, other-wise known as chinampas, which are furrows built on the water surrounded by ditches, thereby eliminating any risk” (De Torquemada 1995: 168). The zone regarded as the core of the chinampa horticulture was the Xochimilco and Chalco municipality. Additionally, in the bay of Texcoco Lake, there were other chinampa zones, around island settlements, and on dry land, in Huizilopochco, which nowadays is Churubusco, and Iztapalapa. The methods and procedures used to make the chinampas have been described as follows: “they do their farming…fetching grass in canoes from dry land, throwing them into the water until they are about four to five feet thick, and rise about one and a half foot above the water, being between eight and twelve feet wide. The natives make farms out of several of them, travel in their canoes, and grow herbs and profit in a way that has not been seen before” (De Vargas Machuca 1892: 48–49). Additionally, Father Fray Alonso Ponce described the chinampas, stating that they are built in the water, stacking many alternated layers of reed and mud from the same lagoon, and making them at times very narrow… leaving a channel between two chinampas rising 2 feet or less above the water and carrying ears of corn that grow very large because they get water directly from the lagoon without the need for rainwater. They also make seedbeds of corn in their chinampas, producing young plants to be later transplanted according to a common practice on the land (Ponce 1873). The plant nurseries that Father Fray Alonso Ponce describes were made in movable sections that measured between 20 and 30 ft in length, with whichever width was desired, built on the water over aquatic grass, rush, and reed, in which they made the nursery of their vegetables… to be transplanted later elsewhere; they tie them with ropes to take them from one place to another in the lagoon (Ojea 1897: 3). Father Alonso Ponce saw for himself the corn growing in the chinampas of Xochimilco in 1585. The Aztecs, during their quest for a final place in which to settle in the Basin of Mexico, cultivated vegetables in the chinampas of Xaltocan, and once settled in Mexico-Tenochtitlan, they kept on doing so in the numerous chinampas they built. The same thing happened with the inhabitants of the nearby kingdoms, during the biggest stage of expansion, in their efforts to claim these plots in the Basin swamps. Pedro Armillas locates this from the fourteenth century to the sixteenth century (Armillas 1971). Francisco Javier Clavijero described the chinampas as mobile isles or floating gardens where plants grew and were later transplanted to the fixed chinampas. When the Spaniards arrived, the natives could not be controlled and the chinampas

5  Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation

85

zones were not possible to have as registered land, so that the Spaniards ordered all the floating gardens to be fixed to the bottom of the lagoons with ahuejotes trees (Salix bonplandiana var. fastigiata André), tree that represents the god Tezcatlipoca, “giver of life,” “owner of the fence and the joint,” “men creator,” and “principal god,” which would grow roots into the bottom of the lake, thereby giving permanence to all the mobile chinampas or lacustrine orchards (Fig. 5.3). According to the laws by the tlatoani or emperor Nezahualcóyotl, they also condemned thieves of the sementeras or chinampas to death, declaring that it was enough to steal seven ears of corn for this rule to be applied. Also, the owner of the field had the right to enslave whosoever stole a certain number of ears of corn or took away from another’s field a certain number of useful plants (Clavijero 1853a: 161). The importance of chinampas is further evidenced by the great care taken in developing shelters for garden workers. On the fields of corn in the chinampas they used to build a kind of stick turret, where a man, protected from the sun and the rain, watched and hunted, with the sling, the birds that went there to damage the chinampas. Even now there are similar turrets in the Spanish fields because of the abundance of birds (Clavijero 1853a: 161). They also built barns, some of which were so large they could contain 5000 to 6000 or more fanegas or big sacks of corn. At the end of the sixteenth century there were similar barns in some places quite distant from the capital. Some of them are

Fig. 5.3  Main channel with chinampas and ahuejote trees (Salix bonplandiana). (Photo: Saúl Alcántara)

86

S. Alcántara Onofre

so ancient they seem to have been built before the Conquest. As one expert once told me, the seeds are preserved better in this way than in the barns made following the European style (Clavijero 1853a: 168).

5.3.1  T  he Mexico-Tenochtitlan Landscape During and After the Spanish Invasion The Basin of Mexico was surrounded by beautiful green mountains, whose circumference, measured from the lower mounts, is greater than 120  miles or 193  km (Clavijero 1853a: 2). The larger lagoon within this Basin contained freshwater and the minor one held brackish water. The two lagoons were connected through a large channel. The water that flowed from the mountains into the brackish water lagoon was located in the lowest part of the Basin; thus, the Mexico-Tenochtitlan was constantly flooded, not only in pre-Hispanic time, but also during the Spanish domination. The main problem confronted by the ancient Mexicans was the lack of land on which to build their houses, because the Mexico-Tenochtitlan Island did not have enough earth for all the inhabitants. They rectified this situation by extending those parts of the island, where the water was shallow, by reclaiming land with alternate beds of reeds and mud taken from the bottom of the lagoon. This was the same technique used to create the chinampas. As the inhabited islands were enlarged, other lands were created to sustain wildlife for hunting and gathering, whereas other chinampas served as extensive gardens. In 1520, Hernán Cortez entered the city via the causeway of Iztapalapa, which led directly to the Aztec metropolis from the southeast. To put it in terms of an invader, what surprised the Spaniards most about Temistitlan or Mexico-Tenochtitlan, and about other towns around the lakes, was their placement as well as the surrounding mountain rural landscape and the vast flat areas occupied by the two main lakes of Texcoco and Xochimilco. As Cortez himself narrates: “They are divided by a small cuadrillera (old Span. for cordillera) with very steep hills and these lakes come together in a strait in the plain, which forms between these hills and the high sierras. This City has many plazas, where there is a continuous market and business of buying and selling. It has another plaza as large as two times the Salamanca City, all enclosed by portals, where every day there are above seventy thousand souls buying and selling. There is an alley of herbalists, where there are all the medicinal roots and herbs that can be found in the land… and the honey of plants that in the other islands are called maguey, which is much better than syrup, and from these plants, they make sugar and wine, which they sell as well. They sell much maize in grain and bread, which much excels, in the island as on the mainland” (Cortés 1960: 78). Montezuma’s kingdom built great buildings, both within and outside the city, and surrounded them with gardens and forest; some of them survived many years

5  Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation

87

after the Spaniard invasion. Today the sacred groves of Chapultepec persist, as do a few other landscape vestiges of that period. Hernán Cortez and Bernal Díaz del Castillo (Medina del Campo, Valladolid, 1492 – Guatemala, 1585) mention that the huey tlatloani or emperor Montezuma was reflected also in the greatness and splendour of his palaces, his houses of leisure, and his parks, gardens, and chinampas. The historian and Jesuit priest Francisco Javier Clavijero (Veracruz, 1731  – Bologna, Italy, 1787) mentioned that these “have been conserved by the viceroys for their pleasure […] the Spaniards, after the conquest ceased caring for the royal gardens, laid waste to the forests and reduced the land to such a state, that at this day the magnificence of that king could not be believed were it not for the testimony of those that annihilated [his regime]” (Clavijero 1853b: 100). The new city was laid down following a regular grid plan. In the new streets, some of the original channels were kept while others were filled in with the debris of the vanquished city. Where the channels were retained, the streets were called water streets. On the outskirts, beyond the limits of the Spanish Renaissance city, however, nearly all streets developed irregular patterns, in such a way that the Mexicans were forced to adapt in strange ways to be able to subsist. A proffered alternative was a chinampa. As Lake Texcoco was saline, the soil used in the chinampas was useless for the cultivation of vegetables and flowers; nonetheless, with constant washing with water from the lake itself, these salts were partly flushed away, permitting cultivation at reasonably productive levels. The naturalist and German explorer Alexander von Humboldt (Berlin 1769–1859) mentions that some of these artificial islands in the Lake of Chalco were towed with ropes or maneuvered with long poles, in a sort of punting technique, from one place to another with great ease, as one would move a canoe (De Humboldt 1966: 39). The period after the conquest saw much continuity, and also many changes. For instance, as Javier Clavijero described, the ancient type of chinampa could now be moved around the lagoon. The mobile islands were the nurseries where the plants were grown in chapín, which is a cube of earth wherein grows a plant, to be later transplanted to the inland chinampas (Figs. 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6).

5.3.2  T  he Crops in the Chinampas, Between Ancient Mexico and a New European Culture In the chinampas, the variety of corn (Zea mays) grown was also modified. At present, the cultivated variety in the chinampas and wetlands of the ancient lacustrine zones is the chalqueño, named after the Chalco municipality. According to Teresa Rojas among other specialists, initially, the type of corn was of the conical races or “corn of the hill,” as it is known in the area of Xochimilco and the tuxpeño (Rojas 1983: 172).

88

S. Alcántara Onofre

Fig. 5.4  Buckets of earth or ‘chapines’ with conchita (Echeveria secunda), ready to transplant. (Photo: Saúl Alcántara)

Fig. 5.5  Chinampero man showing bucket of soil or ‘chapín’ with sedum plant (Sedum praealtum). (Photo: Saúl Alcántara)

5  Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation

89

Fig. 5.6  Almácigo or seedlings or nursery in chinampa. (Photo: Saúl Alcántara)

Some plant cultivation, spicy chilli for instance, withered away with the years. In their legendary migration to Mexico-Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs had sowed the chilchotl, probably the green chilli (Capsicum annuum), in the chinampas of Xaltocan. It could also have been the tornachile, as the chilli of irrigable lands, which has a green lemon colour, and was still cultivated in the Iztacalco chinampas in 1826. European culture introduced a new economy, new issues of political control, and new religious perspectives. All these contributed to large changes. Two major series of events should be highlighted to understand the history of the chinampas: the drying up of the lakes, and the introduction of European plants, such as vegetables, including flowers. Some major transformations resulted from the introduction of plants from Europe after the sixteenth century. The great majority of vegetables, flowers, and spices introduced by the Spaniards, immediately after the invasion and during the vice-royalty, were incorporated into the chinampas and cultivated according to this technique.

90

S. Alcántara Onofre

With the arrival of the European culture and their techniques and botanical knowledge, the floating gardens were enriched by the cultivation of the new imported flowers from distant lands. Flowers or xóchitls grew together with their relatives from Asia and Europe, dahlias (Dahlia coccinea Cav.), various types of roses, irises (Iris spuria), gladiolas (Gladiolus spp.), poppies (Papaver rhoeas L.), and water lilies (Nymphaea spp.) the current symbol of Xochimilco; white lily (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms), jasmines (Philadelphus mexicanus Schl.), carnations (Dianthus caryophyllus L.), and many more, which compete with the American flowers in the gardens of Mexico. The poppy was a key cultivar in the chinampas areas. These beautiful flowers were sought after for many years to help communicate with the spiritual world, until its consumption was prohibited for its high content of noxious alkaloids. On the other hand, at the present time, cultivation of the traditional wallflower flowers cloud el aleli (Matthiola incana L.), dead flower cempoalxóchitl (Tagetes erecta L.), paintbrush (Centaurea cyanus L.), and peas (Pisum sativum L.) continues production today in the chinampas. The European plants, which were adopted by the chinamperos, presented the incorporation of species that had different values: botanical, religious, social, and commercial. These plants offered producers more possible combinations and options, because of the capacity for adaptation of these plants to prevailing environmental conditions, means of production, and regional demands, especially for Mexico City marketplaces. Some popular European vegetables in the sixteenth century, in particular the cucumber (Cucumis sativa L.), the lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), and cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.), were fully incorporated into chinampas production (Wellhausen et al. 1951: 172). The commercial native plants and the species that came from Europe (fast-­ growing plants and ornamental plants) were also gradually integrated into the agricultural system from the sixteenth century.

5.4  Current Chinampa Landscape The draining process of the lakes from the sixteenth century by the Spanish invasion continues to the present day, with extraction of water through illegal wells. This systematic drainage and drying of the lacustrine zone has resulted in the modification of the traditional chinampa techniques, as well as the uses of the rural landscape. Ancient corn varieties are still cultivated in the areas of Chalco, Xochimilco, or in small agricultural pockets, which can be found in Mexicaltzingo, Iztapalapa, and Tláhuac. However, corn is no longer cultivated in chinampas but in fields with a plough and tractor. These are alien techniques that were introduced as a consequence of the evolution of the chinampa-based agriculture in Mexico, in a drying environment. The consequence of this has been the development of salty and

5  Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation

91

impoverished soils, as well as the necessity to use fertilizers, mainly cow manure, but also chemicals, and the proliferation of plagues unknown or infrequent until that time. This is the result of a slow process of change. In the first years of the twentieth century, corn was grown together with beans and chillies. The chinamperos from San Luis and Mizquic remember growing corn with beans or with the uauhzontle (Chenopodium nuttalliae) in the same chinampa. Today chilli is cultivated on a small scale in the chinampas and in the hills, and transplanted during the appropriate season from the mud nurseries in the chinampas to the fields. We may conclude that the chinampa tradition continues to survive, in spite of the Spaniards draining the Basin of Mexico. Yet, its significance has changed completely. Originally it had been the source of all cereal, fruit, vegetables, and flowers for the Aztecs, permitting the expansion of their cities around the lakes of the Basin. Mesoamerican vegetables were still important after corn, dominating the chinampa-agrarian landscape during the viceroy-ship in the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. Vegetable species such as uauhtli (Amaranthus sp.) and chía (Salvia hispanica), which were mainly used to elaborate masa or flour and were widely used in the pre-­ Hispanic world and for a period during the viceroy-ship, did not lose their importance until the twenty-first century. Some chinampas, in Xochimilco and Chalco, were especially devoted to flowers, and the introduction of foreign flowers may have contributed to obscuring cultural memories linked to native flowers. The recent period of growth of Mexico City has brought a new phase of development, with the abandonment of all but a few scattered plots of traditional vegetables, and a further specialization of Xochimilco and Chalco. However, this change may have contributed to the survival of the chinampas as an indigenous agricultural system. It is remarkable that these days Xochimilco stands out for two kinds of cultivation: the production of bedding plants to be later transplanted on the mainland, filling a significant economic role, and production of flowers important for both economic and symbolic reasons (Fig. 5.7).

5.5  Preservation of This Heritage: Urban Agriculture Five hundred years later, chinampas still provide part of the vegetables and flowers that Mexico City consumes. In recent years, however, areas of chinampa production have been reduced alarmingly. From the sixteenth century onwards, the diminishing of the chinampa production system has been associated, first, with the invaders’ policy to dry up the lakes for two reasons: first, to protect their palaces, monasteries, or convents that were being built; and second, the invaders’ greed to obtain more building territory for different purposes. Nowadays, this reduction is related to the gigantic spread of the city that has invaded agricultural areas in Xochimilco and Chalco.

92

S. Alcántara Onofre

Fig. 5.7  A typical chinampa and nursery with germinating plants. (Photo: Saúl Alcántara)

Furthermore, at the end of 1910, the water springs that used to feed lakes were redirected for use of the inhabitants of Mexico City, leaving the chinampas above ground and dry. Another issue we have to consider is the attraction of cultivators to find more stable jobs in the city. Consequently, a considerable number of productive chinampas have been abandoned, forming a sadly desolate rural landscape. The growth of the city has created new nonagricultural jobs in urban services and industry, which have been occupied principally by inhabitants of the rural areas. In consequence, certain actions are required for the conservation and rehabilitation of sites where chinampa cultivation practices still take place. Planned protective management of the 11,138 ha of surviving chinampas (of which 390 are public property) might well include raised water levels, water decontamination, and land regulation ownership, recovery of the ancient cultivation systems, safeguarding the environment and the historic and artistic heritage they represent. This collection of streets, houses, churches, plazas, and parks represent approximately 200 blocks of urban area. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared this urban area Xochimilco; in 1987, the main chinampa town was named a World Heritage Site. The lacustrine landscape of Xochimilco constitutes the only reminder of traditional pre-Hispanic land use in the lagoons of the Mexico City Basin. In the midst of a network of small canals, on the edge of the residual lake of Xochimilco (the southern arm of the great drained lake of Texcoco), some chinampas or ‘floating

5  Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation

93

gardens’ can still be found. Parts of this half-natural, half-artificial landscape are now an ‘ecological reserve.’1 Currently, 20% of the chinampa area still productive. Thus, it is important to include a Xochimilco in the World Heritage At-Risk List, because its integrity has been changed; the urban sprawl of the metropolitan area of Mexico City has grown far beyond the island once occupied by the capital, filling almost the entire basin and engulfing entirely the remains of the chinampas of Xochimilco. Unquestionably, all these changes have affected their structure and the functional integrity of the traditional system of agricultural production in Xochimilco. The integrity of Xochimilco is vulnerable to threats deriving from the geomorphological conditions of the place. Development pressures, changes to land use, abandonment, and pollution are the principal threats. On the other hand, the conditions of authenticity of the chinampas are based on the combination of environmental factors and human creativity to create an exceptional agricultural system. The human-made islands in the shallow lake are one of the most productive and sustainable agricultural systems in the world. This productivity, both in the number of crops that the chinampas produce per year and in the efficiency per unit of sown area, explains the great ability of this work-intensive system to survive throughout the centuries. The chinampa system is greatly threatened by the introduction of new agricultural technology, excessive groundwater extraction in the area, abandonment, development pressures, and pollution. Sustainable conservation and management policies should be implemented to ensure that the conditions of the chinampa system are not further eroded.2 Thanks to the chinampa system, the rural landscape of Xochimilco is unique and holds a very special place in relationship to other horticultural systems developed in different regions of our planet. In earlier times, the Lakes Xochimilco and Chalco were one considerably larger water body but were separated by a dike that also served as a causeway (used by Hernán Cortez in his first incursion in the Basin of Mexico). The Chalco portion started slowly drying up around the beginning of the last century because of constant draining and rerouting the mountain springs to Mexico City, as mentioned earlier. Intensive cultivation in the artificial gardens was originally based on a strict division of labour within the extended family. Since the introduction of cattle and the plough represented no advantage for agriculture in Xochimilco, in this region the great hacienda or ranch systems did not prosper. Only a few small farms with limited numbers of cattle, together with dryland agricultural produce, were able to survive so long as the original indigenous population and their unique agricultural methods were the main factor shaping the landscape. Yet, nowadays Xochimilco still is, because of the great beauty of its rural landscape, one of the favourite recreation areas for the inhabitants of the big city. One can still find small flatboats painted with bright colours and covered with garlands

 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/412 [accessed 18 March 2019].  http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/412 [accessed 18 March 2019].

1 2

94

S. Alcántara Onofre

made with fresh flowers that can be hired for excursions along the existing channels. On Sundays and holidays, such as the March festivities in which “the most beautiful flower of the community” is elected, the canals are seen filled with boats loaded with visitors and musicians, all gay and noisy. The urban layout of Xochimilco changed little during the centuries of Spanish domination. In the centre lies the ancient Renaissance church, commanding the main square of the town, with its great trees and green areas; on the sides of the square one finds government buildings, a covered market, and a few other lesser constructions. Around this central nucleus the city spreads uniformly, forming a grid pattern which earlier included only a few blocks, but now has grown to absorb the surrounding communities, each with its own traditions and its own local church. A few vice-royalty houses still survive. Some have a second floor, but most have only a ground floor surrounding a central patio, which gives access to all the rooms. As the visitor walks away from the centre of the town and goes into the indigenous quarters, the street gets narrower and finally ends up as a path among the dwellings, passing over a few bridges, and ending, suddenly, at the edge of a channel. It can be said that after the invasion there were no more drastic external changes in the landscape, apart from the slow fall of the water level of the lakes; in those times, Xochimilco presented a very characteristic agricultural landscape, which owed its appearance almost exclusively to the hand of man. The lakes of Xochimilco and Chalco were nourished by a great number of water springs from the southeast portion of the Basin; nevertheless, three unfortunate decisions definitely changed the water landscape during the presidential period of Porfirio Díaz, at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. In the first place, the drainage works for the Basin of Mexico were completed in 1900, and second, the decision was made to dry up the remaining lakes. In the third event, the project of piping the water from the springs of Cerro de la Estrella for human use in Mexico City began, in 1903. All these facts just mentioned provoked the slow but generalized fall in surface and aquifer water levels in the Basin as a whole. The result of the new drainage and piping system for the water was evident: the total elimination of water traffic on the Canal de la Viga, and the main causeway for the movement of the chinampa products to the city. According to Elizabeth Schilling, in spite of the existence of “Regulation for the Conservation and Keeping of Lake Xochimilco” (before 1938), the water levels of the canal have continued falling and the artificial islet has emerged increasingly from the water. With such low water levels, the fertilization and watering practices of the traditional methods are gradually being abandoned (Schilling 1983). In this way, one can observe the slow extinction of the last of the five lakes of the Basin, and by extension its canals. If something is not done soon to check this sad situation, the chinampas will in little time be dry, their soil will be ready for other urban uses instead of that of agriculture, and the dead canals will signify the end of an era of the Aztec cultivation system. New land use forms will be introduced, and these ancient indigenous landscapes will disappear, to be replaced by the grim

5  Urban Agriculture and Landscape in Mexico City Between History and Innovation

95

Fig. 5.8  Present lacustrine landscape in Xochimilco with trajinera. (Photo: Saúl Alcántara)

parody of the monstrous and uncontrollable sprawl of the Mexico City urban region (Fig. 5.8).

References Armillas, P. (1971). Jardines en los pantanos. In T. Rojas Rabiela (Ed.), La agricultura chinampera (pp. 159–172). México: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. Clavijero, F. J. (1853a). Historia Antigua de México. Libro I. México: Navarro. Clavijero, F. J. (1853b). Historia Antigua de México. Libro III. México: Navarro. Cortés, H. (1960). Cartas de Relación. México: Editorial Porrúa. De Alva Ixtlixochitl, F. (1997). Obras Históricas. México: Biblioteca Nezahualcóyotl. De Humboldt, A. (1966). Ensayo político sobre el reino de nueva España. México: Sepan Cuentos. De Sahagún, B. (1981). Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España. México: Editorial Porrúa. De Torquemada, F. J. (1995). Monarquía Indiana. Madrid, España. (Originally published in 1723). De Vargas Machuca, B. (1892). B.  Milicia y Descripción de las Indias. Madrid: Librería de Victoriano Suárez. (originally published in 1599). Ojea, F. (1897). Libro tercero dela historia religiosa de la provincia de México de la orden de Santo Domingo. México. Ponce, A. (1873). Relación breve y verdadera de algunas cosas de las muchas que sucedieron al Padre Alonso Ponce en las provincias de la Nueva España. España, Libro 13, Cáp. 32. (Originally published in 1723). Rojas, R.  T. (1983). La agricultura chinampera (pp. 172). México: Editorial Universidad Autónoma Chapingo.

96

S. Alcántara Onofre

Schilling, E. (1983). Los “jardines flotantes” de Xochimilco. In T. Rojas Rabiela (Ed.), La agricultura chinampera (pp. 71–88). México: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. Wellhausen, E. J., Roberts, L. M., & Hernández, E. X. (1951). Razas de maíz en México, su origen, características y distribución. México: Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería.

Chapter 6

Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences Jane Lennon

Abstract  The major cities of Australia were established as ports, as gateways for each British colony, in the first half of the nineteenth century. Food was grown nearby to supply people and their stock. This pattern persisted until the rapid growth of these cities after WWII.  From this time, local government planning schemes developed and protected open space in urban areas, but not always the agricultural land use. Australia has historically concentrated on increasing the productivity and competitiveness of agriculture rather than managing land use change. Apart from a few planning and environmental regulations to protect some of the rich alluvial valleys or sand plains from urban expansion, the use of land has been subject to minimal governance or strategic direction. This attitude contrasts with Europe where the aesthetic and cultural heritage is a central objective as well as continuing the food supply. Intangible heritage is illustrated by place names and traditional farmers within the urban areas, agricultural shows, and backyard and communal vegetable gardens, but often the tangible heritage of agricultural field patterns, their fences and structures, have been destroyed. This chapter discusses the tangible and intangible heritage in Australia and examines some of the issues involved in heritage listing and the protection of agricultural land.

6.1  Introduction I love a sunburnt country, A land of sweeping plains, Of ragged mountain ranges, Of droughts and flooding rains…

Dorothea Mackeller’s poem My Country evokes the typical image of settled Australia and its agriculture on the sweeping plains. However, urban agriculture has been a feature of Australia since its European settlement. This chapter examines the development of continuity and pressures on urban and periurban areas in cities as J. Lennon (*) University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_6

97

98

J. Lennon

defined by national statistical divisions. Urban agriculture in Australia may be regarded as embracing both periurban smallholdings and urban spaces, especially household backyards.

6.2  History of Urban Agriculture in Australia Australia is the driest continent in the world (excluding Antarctica), so effective rainfall (where rainfall exceeds evaporation) is extremely important, along with suitable soil, in determining where agriculture occurs. The vegetation clothing the landscape has been forged by fire as Aborigines used this tool for 60,000 years to ‘care for country’ by burning a mosaic of small areas to ensure food resources (Gammage 2011). The only constant in landscapes is change. Ecosystems are constantly responding to natural drivers such as drought, fire, and flood. Agriculture had urban beginnings as it was established beside streams, usually on fertile alluvial soils near the original landing sites of the colonists, but as the cities grew, these plots provided food in the suburbs (Gaynor 2006). European colonisation brought a more pervasive change with hoofed stock, land clearing, building towns and cities, damming rivers, and establishing an increasingly mechanised and industrialised agriculture. In settlements from Sydney Cove in New South Wales in 1788 as a convict outpost of the British Empire, farming had very humble beginnings: 7 horses, 7 cattle, 29 sheep, 74 pigs, 5 rabbits, 18 turkeys, 29 geese, 35 ducks, and 209 fowl. Farming was initiated at Port Jackson in Farm Cove, now the site of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. In 1790, Governor Arthur Phillip assigned land to the ex-convict James Ruse at Rose Hill (now Parramatta) to establish farming on a larger scale. This first land grant, known as ‘Experiment Farm,’ was the location of Australia’s first wheat farm. By 1860, after only 70 years of European farming settlement, 1.2 million acres (or 480,000 ha) was already under crop, and livestock numbers had increased to 25 million head (ABS 2012). ‘Pastoralism,’ which refers to grazing cattle and sheep on large land areas, was the force that extended modern settlement across rural Australia from 1815 (Pearson and Lennon 2010). Australia’s rural landscape in the better watered areas of the coasts and inland slopes was one of large colonial estates and squatters’ stations, often with small village style settlements for the workers located near the main homestead. These estates were subdivided in the 1860s, 1890s, and 1920s for closer settlement in smaller farm allotments, often 640 acres, and this size farm formed the main unit in the closer settled rural landscape in the twentieth century. During the past 150 years, the rural landscapes of southeast and southwest Australia have largely been defined by a mix of cereal cropping, livestock and dairy farming, and commercial forestry in native and plantation forests. Until the late 1980s, most of the small towns and regional centres depended on these industries for their viability (Race et al. 2011). The urban fringes of many towns and cities, although not widely recognised as ‘food bowls’ or ‘salad bowls,’ have been historically an important source of food,

6  Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences

99

especially perishable foods from market gardens. These gardens fed the growing populations and until the 1930s many of these market gardeners were Chinese men who came in the 1850s gold rush.

6.3  The Periurban Scene Today Australia’s most productive agricultural lands include periurban lands located on the fringe of the major built-up areas of cities and characterised as having nonurban zoning, lower population density, and larger plot sizes than suburban areas (Aslin et al. 2004). The primary motive for land ownership in these areas may be changing from production to lifestyle values. The term periurbanisation describes these changing rural lands and is defined as the process of increasing population and associated infrastructure such as road building, water supplies, fencing, and housing in the Australian rural areas (MacLeod and Kearney 2011). The process has given rise to three new categories of land use: 1. Production agriculture • Large areas remain devoted to traditional agriculture: dominant agricultural activities are financially viable. • Adoption of new technologies and farm aggregation are critical to increasing productivity and viability. • Land values are generally determined by potential for agricultural production; off-farm income supplements farm income to maintain family welfare. 2. Amenity agriculture • Areas on the periphery of cities, large towns, and near the coast. • Often concentrated in areas where farms are small and not financially viable. • Off-farm income is critical to family welfare whereas agricultural income is supplementary. • Large changes in farm ownership with both amalgamation and subdivision occurring at the same time: a process termed churning. • Land values are generally determined by their amenity values. 3. Mixed urban/rural agriculture • Proliferation of small blocks around cities and large towns. • Agriculture as a hobby and often irrelevant as a major source of income. • Essentially ‘residential’ areas with increasing population and high turnover. Periurban agriculture accounts for approximately 3 % of total agricultural land use in Australia but is responsible for 25% of the total gross value of economic production. Approximately 47% of highly perishable vegetables (such as lettuce, tomatoes, mushrooms) are produced in the food bowls of the major state capitals, as well as eggs, chickens, and perishable fruits such as berries (Carey et al. 2015). Farming

100

J. Lennon

on Melbourne’s urban fringe produces 40% to 50% of Victoria’s vegetables, contributing an estimated $1.3–$1.6 billion to Victoria’s economy and generating more than 6000 jobs (Ismail 2015: 3). In New South Wales, 20% of the total vegetable production and 80% to 100% of all perishable vegetables are produced in the Sydney region on 1052 farms with an average size of 1.9 ha (Malcolm and Fahd 2008). However, more than 50% of Sydney’s identified vegetable growing enterprises are in the Southern and North West Growth Centres, which are areas planned for urban subdivision. As cities and towns expand, the areas at the fringe compete with agricultural lands. This competition is illustrated by the following data from a study into periurban growth by Mewett et al. (2013: 23–24). The value of agricultural commodities produced (VACP) as a proportion of the State total is often many times higher than the equivalent proportion of land area used for agriculture (Table  6.1). The Melbourne region, for example, had only 2% of the total area of Victoria’s agricultural holdings in 2010–2011, but this area produced 10.3% ($1.2  billion) of the State’s VACP (Table 6.1). As urban areas expand, agricultural production may intensify, with a shift to higher-yielding or higher-value production; for example, a move from grazing to intensive horticulture. Less intensive agricultural activities may relocate or decline. Horticulture accounts for a much higher proportion of VACP for capital city statistical divisions than for the corresponding states as a whole (Table  6.2). Periurban farmers often benefit from being close to a larger, wealthier consumer base and a larger labour market. However, they can be negatively affected by restrictions on farm activities such as noise, odour, stock movements, and the use of agricultural sprays. There is a complex relationship between the process of urban growth and the consequent changes in the area of agricultural land and agricultural intensification Table 6.1  Value of agricultural commodities produced (VCAP) in state capital city statistical divisions and the area of agricultural holdings VACP as percent (%) of Statistical division (SD) the state Sydney (New South 6.4 Wales) Melbourne (Victoria) 10.3 Brisbane (Queensland) 4.3 Adelaide (South 3.3 Australia) Perth (Western 7.6 Australia) Greater Hobart 3.6 (Tasmania) Darwin (Northern 13.4 Territory) Data source: ABS (2012)

Area of agricultural holdings as percent (%) of state 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.5 0.6

6  Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences

101

Table 6.2  Horticulture as proportion of VACP for capital city statistical divisions and states: horticulture includes cut flowers and turf, fruits, and vegetables Statistical division Sydney (New South Wales) Melbourne (Victoria) Brisbane (Queensland) Adelaide (South Australia) Perth (Western Australia) Greater Hobart (Tasmania) Darwin (Northern Territory)

Horticulture as proportion of VACP for SD 47.3

Horticulture as proportion of VACP for state 11.9

62.0 50.7 92.3

22.5 23.7 20.5

61.0

14.5

49.5

30.1

79.1

23.6

Data source: ABS (2012)

in capital city regions. For example, in Sydney between 2009–2010 and 2010–2011, both the area under agriculture and the number of agricultural businesses declined by 13% and 11%, respectively, whereas population increased. In contrast, in the Adelaide region, the area under agriculture and the number of agricultural businesses increased by 18% and 2% over the same period, with an increase in population of more than 9000 people. The changes in area under agriculture reflect the dynamic nature of land use change in response to environmental, social, and economic factors. However, Mewett et al. (2013) cannot confidently say which land uses were converted from or to agriculture. Since settlement, coastal horticultural areas have progressively shrunk and are continuing to shrink because of urban expansion. Figure 6.1 highlights the ongoing pressure on rich near-urban agricultural land. Irrespective of where horticulture occurs in Australia, it is under extreme pressure from alternative uses of productive landscapes. Horticultural production relies heavily on fertilisers, and there is considerable global pressure on sources and costs of nitrogen and phosphorus. Horticulture is also reliant on the regular movement of food from farm to point of sale, so it is highly vulnerable because of Australia’s heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels. An interruption to availability of motor fuel could cause urban shortages of chilled and frozen foods within 7 days and of dry food within 9 days (D’Occhio and Alders 2014). Land use intensification is also evident in urban and rural–residential expansion at the fringe of major cities and other areas of population growth. This change generally involves a move from of broadacre agricultural land uses, an increase in population, and changes to community composition and to the structure of the local economy. Land parcel subdivision is also part of this process. An Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) analysis of land parcel subdivision in Australia between 2007 and 2008 shows periurban locations where land parcel subdivision has occurred

102

J. Lennon

Fig. 6.1  Agricultural intensification in capital city regions. (Source: D’Occhio and Alders 2014)

(Fig. 6.2). These locations are concentrated around mainland capitals and are widespread across eastern New South Wales, southwestern Western Australia, Victoria, and coastal Queensland. The analysis identifies 2007 land parcels subdivided into 10 or more new land parcels sized between 4,000 and 80,000 square metres (m2) and excludes any nonresidential developments (such as industrial).

6.4  M  anaging Urban Land Use Change Through Regulatory Planning Land use change is central to current debates in Australia about agriculture, food and fibre security, forestry, water management, mining, climate change mitigation and adaptation, population, urban expansion, biodiversity protection, community development, and landscape aesthetics (Mewett et al. 2013). Apart from a few planning and environmental regulations, land use in Australia historically has been subject to minimal governance or strategic direction, in contrast to Europe. The European Landscape Convention has resulted in a deep aesthetic and cultural heritage appreciation as the central objective, with a balance of recreation opportunities, tourism, a clean and healthy environment, and high-quality produce all being priorities. Throughout Australia, the current planning system does not prioritise agriculture as a land use so that urban sprawl into farmland continues relatively unchecked.

6  Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences

103

Fig. 6.2  Major periurban land parcel subdivision, February 2007 to February 2008. (Source: Sustainable Australia Report 2013: 259)

Instead, planning tends to focus on whichever use has the greatest economic value, and that is housing for a growing population (Cordell et al. 2016). State Governments are responsible for urban planning within their regions but strategies to incorporate more ‘agriculturally sensitive’ urban designs are mostly being undertaken at a local level, rather than by the State and Federal governments. Metropolitan planning strategies reveal a growing focus on food production in urban areas. Melbourne’s latest planning strategy, Plan Melbourne (2017), emphasised the need to use undeveloped urban land for food production, enhancement of food production within Melbourne city and its nonurban areas, as well as the protection of high-quality agricultural land in and around Melbourne for food production. The State of Queensland has taken the lead in recognising the importance of urban agriculture. The “South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009–2031” has provisions that support ‘initiatives that increase access to fresh food in urban environments, including provision of space for fresh food markets and community gardens’ and ‘conserve agricultural land for food production, provide spaces for urban agriculture such as community gardens and enable access to fresh, quality, seasonal local produce.’ The 2010–2011 Queensland floods and the susceptibility of the city to disruptions to its food supply caused by extreme weather events have contributed to this strategic priority.

104

J. Lennon

Perth’s “Directions 2031 and Beyond” does not go any further than identifying the importance of local food production and the need to protect agricultural land on the urban fringe. Its strategies give precedence to urban housing development ahead of developing areas for local food production, although it proposes that ‘greenfield’ sites need redevelopment to create a ‘connected city form’ as populations increase (Ismail 2015). Sydney planning has identified the positive role of periurban agriculture in increasing accessibility to fresh, local produce and improving local food security. However, it has not expanded on this to reflect the provisions set out in Melbourne or Queensland’s planning strategies. South Australia’s founding system of systematic survey and sale of land has been maintained along with the principle of concentration. This practice has culminated in the establishment of a formal urban growth boundary to contain the growth of metropolitan Adelaide in 2002, character preservation legislation introduced to protect McLaren Vale and the Barossa Valley from housing subdivisions in 2011 (Character Preservation Acts, 2011), and legislation to protect the Environment and Food Production Areas surrounding Adelaide in 2016 (Planning, Infrastructure and Development Act, 2016).

6.5  Domestic Household Food Gardens Despite a long history of growing food in Australian suburbs (Gaynor 2006), Australia’s high level of urbanisation means that most people experience limited connections to farming, resulting in a significant disconnection between their food production and consumption. This change would appear to have resulted in a loss of respect for food with resultant waste, declining support for rural communities, and lower intakes in agricultural and food technology training programs (Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council 2010). Over past decades suburban gardens have ceased to be major sites of food production, but in the last few years, with droughts and water restrictions, there has been renewed interest in the quality, provenance, freshness, and price of food, driving a companion interest in Australians growing their own food at home or in community gardens. One in two Australian households report growing food – including fruit, vegetables, herbs, nuts, or eggs – either at home or via a community garden (ABS 2011 Census), which equates to 4.7 million households in Australia growing food. South Australian, Tasmanian, and Victorian households are most likely to be growing some of their own food, whereas those in the Northern Territory are the least likely to be involved with food gardening. Yet despite this high penetration of food gardening, yields are relatively low and there is a high turnover of participation (Wise 2014). Health, taste, and cost savings are the greatest drivers for households to grow their own food. Perceptions of food gardening as requiring much time and space present a key barrier to developing greater participation in home food gardening.

6  Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences

105

Opportunities outside the backyard exist with community gardens, and shared spaces in retirement villages and nursing homes, providing social benefits to participants (Wise 2014). Despite more Australians living in apartments and areas with no garden, there has been a surge of interest in growing food at home, at a community garden or through schools. Importantly, a cornerstone of most school gardening programs is to include families via after-school programs, cooking demonstrations, holiday watering programs, and other activities. Community gardens are spaces open to the community to grow food for their personal use and often created on vacant blocks, undeveloped land, and, in some cases, public parkland and rooftops. Although community gardening remains less popular than growing food at home, the Australian City Farms and Community Gardens Network listed at least 600 community gardens, and there were hundreds of edible school gardens in place in 2018. School gardening programs are increasingly popular, with several programs in operation in hundreds of schools across the country (Wise 2014). Apathy resulting from attitudes that buying food is easier than growing it, that food production takes place in rural areas, and that Australia has enjoyed strong food security to date, along with the idea that local food production is misaligned with visions of a desirable city (as reflected in many local government regulations and legislation), poses potential barriers to developing broader community support for local food gardening. These ideas are slowly changing with the ongoing debate about the nature of sustainable, liveable, and resilient cities in the face of global challenges such as climate change (Head and Muir 2007). An example of this evolving picture of a desirable urban landscape can be found within Melbourne’s Moreland City Council at the CERES Environment Park, which has provided a physical space for local food gardening and fostered community acceptance of the concept. CERES is a not-for-profit organisation located on 4  ha of rehabilitated landfill in East Brunswick, in inner-north Melbourne, which aims to deliver environmental education to surrounding communities (Fig. 6.3). Through its two market gardens, CERES administers commercial market gardens as well as community plots (Wise 2014). Local food production also has social and environmental value. Home food gardeners share produce through a church or other community organisation, and have used home-grown produce as a means to connect with neighbours or other community members (Kortright and Wakefield 2010). Local food production minimises transport emissions and builds food system resilience by shortening food supply chains, which can be vulnerable to disruptions including fuel shortages, extreme weather events, local transport network failures, and economic crises (Gosh 2010). Reduced food waste also represents environmental benefits from reduced greenhouse gases emitted from food waste sent to landfills (Baker and Denniss 2011). Australian food gardeners tend to be driven not by food insecurity but by health and financial concerns, and by taste. It is difficult to precisely quantify the benefits of growing your own food, but there is evidence that this endeavour positively influences dietary habits and many Australian households attribute exercise and financial rewards to growing their own food.

106

J. Lennon

Fig. 6.3  CERES community garden, Brunswick. (Source: https://ceres.org.au)

6.6  Tangible Heritage Values From the beginning of the convict colony, food had to be produced, and in the later colonies, food was produced along the waterways of the first settlements. Some of these areas remain as public open space, as with Farm Cove in Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens and the Brisbane convict gardens in Brisbane City Botanic Gardens and New Farm Park. These spaces have been developed during the past 100 years as public gardens, but current visitor interpretation acknowledges their agricultural heritage. These places are also listed on State Heritage Registers to protect their assessed heritage values. However, most heritage registers in all States and the Commonwealth emphasise built environments with historic structures, aesthetic values, and social values. Nature conservation including urban tree habitat is also highly valued in urban areas, and many local governments have significant tree registers. Streamside reserves now protect the riparian edges that once grew crops, and some of these are also neighbourhood parks. But it is the mosaic of small landholdings on the edges of towns and cities that have hidden heritage value, both historic and social, and many of these values are intangible, conserved in street names that give clues to the origins of the original farmers. Some of these places are listed on the NSW Heritage Register: Brush Farm, Eastwood; Cecil Hills Farm, Cecil Hills; Clear Oaks Farm House, Richmond; Glenfield Farm, Casula; Fairlight Homestead and Fernhill, Mulgoa; Chinese Market Gardens 1–39 Bunnerong Road, La Perouse; and Toomevara Lane Chinese Market Garden, Kogarah. In addition, the settlers usurped the original Aboriginal inhabitants who made seasonal use of these lands and waterways, and some of their scar trees and middens remain.

6  Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences

107

Governor Macquarie established the towns of Windsor, Richmond, Ebenezer, Pitt Town, and Castlereagh on the Hawkesbury River, later to be known as the ‘Macquarie Towns’ to provide fresh food for the Sydney population in the early 1800s, but they have been depleted by urban subdivision. The current periurban zones of the cities were also the location of grand colonial estates such as those along the Nepean River: Regentsville, now surrounded by suburban development, or Werribee Park southwest of Melbourne. Woodlands Homestead, erected in 1843, is located within the Woodlands Historic Park covering 820  ha adjacent to the Melbourne airport.

6.7  Intangible Heritage Values Urban agriculture has intrinsic economic, environmental, and social values, and it has many forms. These values are not understood at all levels of the community, particularly by decision makers. Table 6.3 demonstrates the continuum of forms of urban agriculture and the dominant values and benefits of each form, although these are often interconnected. The Sydney Region’s agriculture contributes to Sydney’s social capital by providing people from many parts of the world with the opportunity to establish a new life, particularly since the end of the Second World War. Between 80% and 90% of market gardeners in the region are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Parker and Jarecki 2003). These people have contributed significantly to the dynamic and evolving food and wine culture of Sydney and introduced technological innovation with the arrival of organic production in 1965, the emergence of modern Asian cuisine in 1976, the local cheese revolution of the 1980s, fresh produce providors servicing Sydney’s top restaurants since 1986, and Sydney’s first food festival in 1998 (Knowd et al. 2005). The role of Sydney’s ‘food bowl’ has been elevated beyond a mere supplier to be a significant contributor to the cultural life of the city. There are more than 1500 farms with at least two farmers from more than 50 nationalities, mainly Lebanese, Maltese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Chinese, and many are first generation in Australia for more than 30  years. Traditional farms include orchards, cut flowers, turf or poultry farms, Asian and traditional market gardens; they also grow these crops in hydroponics, greenhouses, igloos, and poly houses (James 2016). Recreation and rural amenity benefits from landscapes provide open space and the opportunity for people to connect or reconnect with themselves, others, the land, and associated vegetation whether natural or cultivated. Local agriculture is an important component of health-based organisations such as the Hawkesbury Community Health Service’s Hawkesbury Food Program, which works with the local community and organisations to improve nutrition, food safety, and food security, and to promote sustainable agriculture. Tourism and direct visitor access to farms is an integrating force setting the scene for new relationships between

108

J. Lennon

Table 6.3  The continuum of urban agriculture in the Sydney Region and associated values/ benefits Forms of urban agriculture Backyard

Social

Community and communal gardens Rooftop School/agriculture plots Historical Lifestyle/hobby

Enterprsing

Boutique/cottage/niche Farm gate Agri-tourism

Production

Equine - Recreation - Stud service/training Floodplain - Market gardens - Dairy - Turf - Orchards - Fodder crops Flood free - Market gardens - Dairy - Orchards - Fodder crops and agro-forestry

Controlled environment/high technology - Greenhouse horticulture - Nurseries - Poultry - Fixed pad dairies - Mushrooms - Protected cronin

Source: Knowd et al. (2005: 4)

Values/benefits Recreation, human health in all dimensions, seed banks, supplementary food supply Social cohesion through cooperative endeavour, education, food access, food equity, productive use of communal land Corporate involvement, worker well-being, efficient use of space Education, connection with farming practices and culture. Heritage, conservation and collection of artefacts, repository, education, research Environmental management, recreation, diversity of lifestyle, supplemental incomes, niche production, smallscale production Diversity, rural open space, small business, specialty production Money remains locally; 80% profit from 20% of farm sales, reconnecting with community, visitor experiences, education, alternative distribution channel, new markets. Income diversification; interindustry leverage (hospitality, tourism, agriculture); home-farm-based valueadded agribusiness; producer-consumer relationship benefits Recreation; landscape visual aesthetics; bloodstock industry; horse culture and history Money multiplier for support industries. Intergeneration equity; food security; greatest inherent sustainability [soils and soil cycles, water access, landform, biodiversity (riparian, wetlands)]; water effluent and green recyclables Hydrological systems, micro- and macro-climate effects, sequestration of urban wastes, green belts, aesthetic contribution to rural commons Retention of a natural resource to meet future and perhaps yet unknown needs and considerations (e.g., as result of global warming), and technologies such as nanotechnology; sustainable urban agriculture as a natural resource management (NRM) instrument, particularly when land use is matched to agricultural suitability; community cultural diversity [people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CLDB)]; carbon credits Money multiplier for support industries, e.g., mushrooms fresh perishable foods grown close to market; emissions reduced by shorter transport; high productivity and efficiency; controlled waste, pesticide, water, and energy systems

6  Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences

109

agriculture and other industries, between farmers and other businesses, and with consumers. Interdependence builds through these relationships and raises awareness about food and other primary production, farming culture and practices, and regional quality. These social values are part of the heritage. Other environmental benefits of locally produced food include reducing the cost of transport of that food from paddock to plate and therefore reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Rising fuel costs are a contentious issue in the Sydney market, and these issues have generated activism such as the locavore movement. Water reuse in agriculture in the Sydney Region is estimated to potentially save as much as 32 billion litres river water per year (DIPNR 2004). The conserved water can be used for environmental flow purposes in the Hawkesbury Nepean River system. Local agriculture is an important buffer zone around some waterways and the repository of remnant pre-European habitats (Knowd et al. 2005).

6.8  Heritage and Sustainability James has argued that “the prevailing heritage discourses threaten the position of market gardens as part of the city’s past, as antiquated forms of cultural tradition…memorialising these farms as registers of past land use practices in South West Sydney …that will inevitably pass” (James 2016: 186). The heritage discourse fails to acknowledge the social value that these farms and farmers represent as ongoing ways of life within the city that provide fresh food and employment. If cultural values in land are reduced to aestheticised and depoliticised artefacts of difference, they will always be considered marginal to urban growth. Within Sydney’s urban planning the definition of sustainability relates to conventional models of urban development such as housing and transport and neglects practices such as market gardening. There are token references to ‘rural and resource lands’ but no consultation with the farmers. By arranging cultural and environmental values in land separately, the dominant sustainability and heritage discourses fail to recognise ways in which these values are interrelated in practices such as market gardening (James 2016: 187). As an ongoing and dynamic practice, market gardening is an historical tradition that continues to enrich the city culturally, environmentally, and economically. Market gardening is part of the living heritage. The official acknowledgement of the heritage of migrant places and practices brings into view the (dis)continuity of histories and traditions shared by all Australians, who are all descended from migrants (AHC 1995). Australia has an intertwining of different histories highlighting shared histories, and “the embodied tradition of market gardening illustrates the place of diverse groups within, rather than outside of, the nationalised narrative of citizenship and belonging” (James 2016: 187).

110

J. Lennon

6.9  Risks/Threats Food production competes for land with urban expansion, equestrian pursuits, sporting activities, hobby farmers, and lifestylers as well as other rural activities. These competing demands increase land values. Competition for urban land is a major barrier to urban agriculture in Australia. Figure  6.4 shows the farmland at Runcorn, Brisbane surrounded by encroaching suburbia; Fig. 6.5 provides detail of the crops at Warrigal Farm, Runcorn, which find a ready market at local shops. Rapid urban population growth and a trend in Australia for horizontal rather than vertical city expansion are leading to more land in and around cities being used for housing. Urban planners need to consider food production capacity as an essential component of urban development planning and a way to assist in creating a more resilient urban food system, which can be done by ensuring that adequate space is provided for food production and that both funding and support are available for existing initiatives that localise food production. Biosecurity risks can be reduced through stronger regulations, such as the introduction of permits requiring that urban farmers receive the training needed to minimize risks associated with biosecurity and soil contamination (Ismail 2015). Even when market gardens have heritage listing there are still threats, as the Teng family is experiencing as the last Chinese gardeners in La Perouse (www.abc.net. au/news/rural/2015-08-05/chinese-market-garden/6672130) (Fig. 6.6). Operated by first- and second-generation migrants, Sydney’s farms represent multifaceted cultural, economic, and environmental value in the land, which is largely invisible to city planners and neglected in any vision for the city’s growth. The South West Growth Centre aims for 160,000 new homes, but this area has 42% of Sydney’s vegetable growing properties. There were Chinese at Camden in 1900 and now three generations of Chinese extended families, then post World War II

Fig. 6.4  Urban farmland surrounded by suburbia, Runcorn, Brisbane, 2017. (Source: Google Earth)

6  Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences

111

Fig. 6.5  Warrigal Farm, Runcorn, salad vegetable crops, November 2018. (Source: J. Lennon)

Fig. 6.6  Robert Teng and his wife Jin Zheng Wang standing amongst a crop of parsley. (Source: Fiona Pepper)

cultural diversity increased, and the area also has Aboriginal cultural heritage (James 2016). Development poses a significant threat to the multiple users and uses of land in this edge space. As James (2016: 4) has noted of Sydney urban farms, “…lack of planning for them in contemporary metropolitan planning strategies raises critical questions: who are the ‘we’ creating this vision for the city, who is the imagined constituency and what kind of city does this vision suggest?” Melbourne, Brisbane, and Adelaide have planning documents that encourage urban agriculture.

112

J. Lennon

6.10  Opportunities/Challenges There is no typical food gardener, because Australians of all ages, genders, education levels, and political persuasions are growing their own food. Despite this, home and community garden food production is still viewed as the domain of retirees, first-generation migrants, or the ‘green’ affluent minority, but local food production must be seen as able to make a more significant contribution to greater food security and urban resilience as well as the health and well-being of Australians. Research showed strong community support for food gardening programs in schools and aged care facilities, although there is less support for new and existing community gardens in public spaces. Every school should have a garden. Green spaces have positive psychological impacts on students, and growing food is one of the most important things we can teach students. Children are more likely to try vegetables they have grown themselves, particularly as part of a school activity where they are shown ways of preparing them. Community gardening also brings social and mental health benefits and enables newcomers to learn from experienced gardeners (Wise 2014). Urban gardening has a huge potential to address both the consumption of fruit and vegetables and the issues surrounding transport and fuel costs. Australia’s urban centres enjoy relatively fertile soils and appropriate climates for horticulture, compared to inland areas. Despite urbanisation there is still a plentiful supply of available land, not only in backyards and “nature” strips, but in reserves and school grounds currently grassed and mowed by Councils at taxpayer expense using time, labour, and fossil fuels to produce a “crop” that then goes directly to waste. Diverting this land into food production would reduce fossil fuel use as well as increasing local food production. This idea presents an opportunity to develop, measure, and communicate the benefits of sustainable urban landscapes that challenge traditional notions of Australian city and suburban landscapes. Food systems need to be an integral part of the urban design and urban planning process. Government support and funding are required to promote innovative ways to create and use spaces for urban food production, such as vertical farms and green roofs as well as maintaining existing farmland on the edges, and policymakers must provide the necessary support to overcome the barriers preventing success.

6.11  Conclusion Farmers have illustrated their capacity to adapt farms as part of urban growth. They want an understanding of the problems faced by their farms from unplanned urban development and they want different ways of thinking about farming in the city. But there is an apparent ‘diversity blindness’ in prevailing sustainability discourses, and a re-visioning of urban growth must account for the multifaceted nature of these farms as a livelihood in which environmental, economic, and cultural values

6  Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Urban Agriculture: Australia Experiences

113

intersect (James 2016: 174). Urban agriculture is a living heritage. This urban heritage is not well protected in Australia, and heritage site protection is mostly for old colonial farm buildings, with their settings now being suburban housing, and for a few exceptions such as Chinese market gardens. Farming is, and always has been, an ecological process, even more so now that the natural ecology is better understood. We should look at agriculture as a way of nourishing our population, rather than as a way of making money. Backyards and periurban food bowls are one solution already in place so long as city planning strategies recognise and plan for their continuity. We can all contribute to protecting our city food bowls by buying from the producers who farm there, as Michael Pollan (2006) calls it, ‘eating the view,’ our edible heritage.

References ABS. (2011). Census QuickStats. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/ census/2011/quickstat/0. Accessed 8 Aug 2017. ABS. (2012). Farming in Australia. In Year book Australia 2012 (Cat. No. 1301.0.). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. AHC. (1995). Migrant heritage places in Australia. Canberra: Australian Heritage Council. Aslin, H., Kelson, S., Smith, J., & Lesslie, R. (2004). Peri-urban landholders and bio-security issues – A scoping study. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences. Baker, D., & Denniss, R. (2011). Wasteful consumption. In P. W. Newton (Ed.), Urban consumption (pp. 151–158). Collingwood: CSIRO. Carey, R., Sheridan, J., & Larsen, K. (2015). To feed growing cities we need to stop urban sprawl eating up our food supply. The Conversation, 26 October 2015. https://theconversation.com/ to-feed-growing-cities-we-need-to-stop-urban-sprawl-eating-up-our-food-supply-49651. Accessed 23 Jan 2017. Cordell, D., Jacobs, B., & Wynne, L. (2016). Urban sprawl is threatening Sydney’s foodbowl. The Conversation, 25 February 2016. https://theconversation.com/urban-sprawl-is-threateningsydneys-foodbowl-55156. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. D’Occhio, M., & Alders, R. (2014). We need to grow the right food to feed a healthier diet in Australia. The Conversation, 12 August 2014. https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-growthe-right-food-to-feed-a-healthier-diet-in-australia-30355. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. DIPNR. (2004). Meeting the challenges  – Securing Sydney’s water future. Metropolitan Water Plan. Sydney: Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. Gammage, B. (2011). The biggest estate on earth: How aborigines made Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Gaynor, A. (2006). Harvest of the suburbs: An environmental history of growing food in Australian cities. Crawley: University of Western Australia Press. Gosh, S. (2010). Sustainability potential of suburban gardens: Review and new directions. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 17(3), 156–175. Head, L., & Muir, P. (2007). Backyard: Nature and culture in suburban Australia. Wollongong: University of Wollongong Press. Ismail, H. (2015). Localising food production: Urban agriculture in Australia (Future Directions International Strategic Analysis Paper). http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/localising-food-production-urban-agriculture-in-australia. Accessed 12 Jan 2017. James, S. (2016). Farming on the fringe. Peri-urban agriculture, cultural diversity and sustainability in Sydney. Geneva: Springer.

114

J. Lennon

Knowd, I., Mason, D., & Docking, A. (2005). Urban agriculture: The new frontier. City Structure, 23, 1–22. Paper presented at State of Australian Cities, Griffiths University, 30 November–2 December 2005. Retrieved from: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.496.3581&rep=rep1. Kortright, R., & Wakefield, S. (2010). Edible backyards: A qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(1), 39–53. MacLeod, N., & Kearney, F. (2011). Landscapes in transition – Improving the sustainablility of peri-urban growth. http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Oceans/Coasts/LandscapesInTransition. aspx. Accessed 20 Aug 2014. Malcolm, P., & Fahd, R. (2008). Ground truthing of the Sydney vegetable industry in 2008 (Horticulture Australia Ltd Project Number VG07073 (30-06-09)). Richmond: NSW Department of Primary Industries. Mewett, J., Paplinska, J., Kelley, G., Lesslie, R., Pritchard, P., & Atyeo, C. (2013). Towards national reporting on agricultural land use change in Australia. Canberra: ABARES Technical Report 13.06, Department of Agriculture. National Sustainability Council. (2013). Sustainable Australia report 2013: Conversations with the future. Canberra: DSEWPaC. Parker, F., & Jarecki, S. (2003). Transitions at the rural/urban interface: “Moving in”, “moving out” and “staying put”. In State of Australian cities conference, Parramatta, Sydney, Australia. Pearson, M., & Lennon, J. (2010). Pastoral Australia: Fortunes, failures and hard yakka. A historical overview 1788–1967. Collingwood: CSIRO. Pollan, M. (2006). Eat your view. The New  York Times “On the Table” Blog, May 17, 2006. Retrieved from: http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/eat-your-view Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. (2010). Australia and food security in a changing world. Canberra: The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. Race, D., Luck, G., & Black, R. (2011). Patterns, drivers and implications of demographic change in rural landscapes. In G. Luck, R. Digby, & R. Black (Eds.), Demographic change in Australia’s rural landscapes. (pp. 1–22). Dordrecht/Collingwood: Springer/CSIRO. Wise, P. (2014). Grow your own – The potential value and impacts of residential and community food gardening. The Australia Institute Policy Brief, 59, 1–10.

Chapter 7

Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model Roland Vidal

Abstract  The Pierrelaye Plaine was used for a century to purify the sewage of Paris while also giving it value through its efficient use in vegetable production. The main objective was to clean up the Paris agglomeration by evacuating all its wastewater to land spreading. At the same time, the local economy was being built from this input of fertilizer and irrigation that water-based vegetable production particularly needs. The economic success of this Haussmannian project thus reinforced what could be considered today as a model of “sustainable development.” This practice is a historical model of the “multifunctionality” that is expected today of periurban agriculture. More specifically, by transforming waste into a resource and returning what comes from the land back to the land, it was a “circular economy” model that was far more effective than simply treating sewage. When this method became impossible because of the arrival of new pollutants, the practice of vegetable production could have been replaced by non-food production if the Plaine de Pierrelaye had been the subject of a new project as ambitious as that implemented a hundred years earlier. The landscape would thus have kept track of its history instead of becoming amnesic.

7.1  Agriculture of Proximity: An Old History Since the invention of agriculture, man-made food has always been distributed according to a spatial organisation that differentiates local cultures from other, more distant, cultures. The first villages of the Neolithic, at the very beginning of forest farming, were already surrounded by a garden area, reserved for crops that required more care and more careful monitoring. Wheat or barley was grown in clearings created by clearing the forest, further away from the village and moved from year to

R. Vidal (*) Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Paysage, Versailles, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_7

115

116

R. Vidal

year. The quality of the soil, in fact, was decreasing quickly and other clearings had to be made, until the regrowth of the forest restored the fertility of the soil exhausted by the crops that had been planted there (Mazoyer and Roudart 1997). In the garden, on the other hand, the soils were kept fertile thanks to the waste of the village, which was almost entirely biodegradable and rich in organic matter. Local agriculture, which can also be called “urban,” has always maintained a unique relationship with the places of residence. In greater detail, it is the object of more sustained attention because it participates more directly in the living environment of human societies. Spaces thus “gardened” also become places of pleasure, and an aesthetic dimension is added to their productive function that evolves towards garden art that can be found in almost all human societies. Recycling the waste of the city while contributing to the food and improving the living environment of its inhabitants, these are the functions that local agriculture fulfills, almost from its origin. With the evolution of techniques, lifestyles, and ways of inhabiting the territory, these relationships change to take, especially in the nineteenth century, very different forms. However, the coexistence of these three functions continues and is still today the heart of what is called the multifunctionality of urban agriculture, as understood by André Fleury, a professional agriculture maintaining unique functional relationships with the neighboring city (Fleury 1997; Fleury and Donadieu 1997).

7.2  The Horticultural Belt During history, some villages have expanded into cities, especially when the agriculture around them is sufficiently productive to feed a large population. The territory is then consequently organised, but the first logic that differentiated forms of culture according to their distance from dwellings is maintained. Around the city, the land is devoted to crops whose products cannot be transported over great distances. These lands are always fertilised with urban waste, “sludge,” which is collected in the heart of the city and then transported and spread in the fields. This sludge is composed of human excrement, when it is not released into the river or the water table, and manure from the many animals that live in the city, for food (laying hens, dairy cows …) or for transport (oxen, horses …). The whole is a compost of high fertilising value and can reach relatively high prices.1 Their collection and distribution form a specific profession, the boueurs. The land on which the sludge is poured is used to produce the fruits and vegetables that supply the city. They then constitute what is called the horticultural belt (from the Latin hortus, “garden”), often called also the vegetable belt, from the name of the type of culture that one practices there most. As cities grew, so did the belt, and the spatial organisation remains the same, until the advent of the industrial

 30 French cents each ton for sell, following Bailly de Merlieux et al. (1835).

1

7  Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model

117

age, which saw the growth of the largest cities, such as Paris, requiring a completely different organisation.

7.3  The Industrial City The spatial organisation of the medieval town, while it may have enabled a reciprocal beneficial relationship between the city and its local agriculture, was not without its health disadvantages. The presence of animals in the city, the closed circuit in which the management of waste was inscribed, the ignorance of the basic rules of public hygiene, long forgotten since Roman times, led to numerous and often dramatic epidemics. Vegetation contamination, reported by nineteenth-century biologists, if not the only cause, also had its share of responsibility: supply proximity, so sought after today, was far from being the guarantee of a healthy diet. Tuberculosis and cholera were largely transmitted by agricultural products, especially those of the vegetable belt. With industrialisation, which concerned Paris from the end of the eighteenth century, the population began to grow considerably. It was multiplied by eight in the space of 100 years, which represented a unique growth rate in the history of the city....,2 but not in the history of Europe, since London would experience even stronger growth during the same period. Very soon, the vegetable belt was no longer sufficient, neither to supply the city with fresh produce nor to absorb its waste. Another spatial organisation needed to be put in place, and it was, thanks to the development of the railway. First of all, the production and distribution of commodities are organised differently. Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, when the population of Paris passed the milestone of a million inhabitants, some parts of the city were very poorly supplied and food shortages were multiplying in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. The market gardeners were still there, at the gates of Paris, to supply the city, but they were not enough to feed all the inhabitants properly. In addition, the city begins to expand, and the nearest vegetable fields were very coveted. The market gardeners then experienced a first wave of relocation; they no longer seek to deliver in urban markets but in stations located about 15 km away, where the land was much more available. At this time, rail was the most used supply system to the city, the Parisian stations never being located very far from the Halles market, entirely rebuilt and modernised in the middle of the century. The entire food governance of Paris was thus reorganised, according to a logic which, if it does not modify immediately the relationships of proximity between the city and its agriculture, prefigures a decoupling ever more pronounced between production areas and consumption areas (Fleury et al. 2004, pp. 58–63).

 From 550,000 to 4,7 million, following Dupâquier J. and Bardet J-P. (1997, p. 261).

2

118

R. Vidal

7.4  New Management of Urban Waste The increase in inflows obviously corresponds to a proportional increase in outflows. At first, the boueurs continued their work and they also used the train to send their sludge to the new market gardens. They were found again at the beginning of the twentieth century, before the complete disappearance of their mastery. But we can no longer manage the waste of a city of several million inhabitants, including many suburbs, as we did in the past. The last major cholera outbreak, in 1832, killed 18,000 people in Paris in 6  months, or 5% of the population (Le Mée 1998, pp. 379–397). And it was only the peak of an epidemiological situation that was becoming more and more serious. The first thing to do to clean up the city was to channel the waste carrying pathogenic germs to prevent them being dispersed into groundwater … from which drinking water was also drawn. We then resumed a technique that Romans had widely used in ancient cities: the sewers. Paris was not totally lacking, but its embryonic network was far from meeting the needs of the city. Under the leadership of Baron Haussmann, the Paris sewer network grew from 45 to 1000 km in 50 years (Clément and Thomas 2001). In the 1880s, the entire city was sanitised, but at the expense of the Seine, because the evacuation of wastewater is channelled directly into the river, as in Roman times. Nineteenth-century Paris does not have the dimension of Lutetia, but the flow of the Seine had not increased. Moreover, it was irregular, much more than today, and its low water being very low in summer, the sludge discharged from the sewers was spread on the banks emitting nauseating smells, precisely in the season where Guinguettes and water sports are the most popular. Paris had become a healthy city, but at the expense of its downstream suburbs. And we fear again the health consequences that such a system could have, in addition to the discomfort that it generates. The disciples of Pasteur’s school, anxious for public hygiene and now aware of the role of the circulation of pathogens in epidemics, advocated moving the main sewer collector forward to the sea. Because of its expense, such a system could not be implemented, which was undoubtedly preferable for the Bas-Normans, and for the cottagers who would be more and more numerous to appreciate sea bathing.

7.5  The Return of Agriculture in Waste Management In addition to potentially catastrophic health and environmental consequences, the disposal of sewage into the river or into the sea would have been a huge waste. Another system had already been tried: spreading on agricultural land. The performance of this system had proved its worth on these experimental terrains, and it is now in the terms of modern agronomy that the merits were praised, as evidenced by this article published in the Illustration in 1890.

7  Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model

119

The first reason given by the proponents of the agricultural use of this wastewater [sewage] loaded, as it was, with fertilizing materials, is not too loosely presented as a wealth of richness that includes nitrogen, 45 g, phosphoric acid, 14 g, and potash, 17 g, ten times the content of farm manure.3

In journalistic language, one probably exaggerates a little, but eminent agronomists of the nineteenth century, such as Louis de Vilmorin, were also defenders of the system (de Vilmorin 1878). It had to be perfected so as to adapt to the new needs of the city of Paris. The experiments carried out so far had mainly highlighted the agronomic interest of the spreading, but the farmers used the water according to the needs of their crops, and these requirements did not correspond in all seasons to the quantities emitted by the city. There was also a need to improve farming techniques so that the vegetables thus produced did not bring pathogenic germs back to the city. In spreading to meet the needs of the city, and not just the needs of agriculture, the idea was to create a farm owned by the City of Paris, whose production system would be chosen to absorb copious amounts of water. This farm was oriented towards livestock farming by devoting a large part of its land to pastures, a crop capable of withstanding temporary floods. Collaterally, on these farms controlled by the city, farmers would be invited to use the sewage, at their request, for market gardening that will enhance their value. To avoid the risk of contamination, hydraulic engineers and agronomists were asked to develop appropriate cropping systems. For dairy production, which is riskier, it is preferable to raise draft cattle, which were still in high demand at the time. For vegetable production, we developed a culture system on ridges that avoids the contact between water and the edible parts of plants. However, available land for the implementation of the project has yet to be found.

7.6  A Large Project for the Pierrelaye Plaine Although it was not the only territory used for land application, the Pierrelaye Plaine was the main one, with 2000 ha of irrigated land of the 5000 ha that the system used in all.4 The plain responded to several important conditions: –– It is located downstream from Paris, which was an essential condition to allow the flow of water mainly by gravity. –– The soil is sandy and goes down to a great depth, which was well suited to the function of wire-trage that was expected. The waters were indeed to be purified before joining the water table, then the Seine. –– The Paris–Dieppe railway line, opened in 1850, passed by Pierrelaye and could be used to transport the vegetables that would be produced there to Les Halles.

 Article signed by E.R., L’Illustration n. 2473, 19th July 1890.  The other were situated at the end of Seine, in Argenteuil, Achères et Chanteloup.

3 4

120

R. Vidal

Fig. 7.1  At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the wooded moors of the plain of Pierrelaye are transformed into an open landscape by agriculture. (Photo: R. Vidal, 2010)

The City of Paris already had 500 ha of land, previously acquired with the initial objective of establishing a necropolis, which was never completed (Fig. 7.1). So, on these 500  ha, a farm was entirely dedicated to spreading and to cattle breeding: the Ferme de la Haute-Borne. Around it, 1500 ha were also irrigated and cultivated by independent market gardeners. The vegetables were delivered to Pierrelaye station and sold at the Paris market hall, where they were particularly popular at the beginning of the season. The sewage, indeed, arrived on the grounds when it was still lukewarm and thus allowed early harvests at a time of year when the other vegetable lands are still frozen. It is the entire economy of a micro-region that begins to grow which brings prosperity to almost all. In fact, sandy and filtering soils, before being irrigated and enriched by sewage, had only a very low economic value, and this is also one of the reasons that made a success of this business. The waters were brought onto ground which was previously worthless, sand, pebbles, that nobody ever had the audacity to plough for production […]. The yields are fabulous.5

This success lasted until the 1950s, when, according to Michel Phlipponneau (1956), the Plaine de Pierrelaye still supplied 10% of the vegetables consumed in Paris.

 L’Illustration n. 2473, op. cit.

5

7  Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model

121

7.7  The Construction of a New Agricultural Landscape To ensure an optimal flow of the wastewater and a fair distribution between the pensions while avoiding stagnant water where pathogenic germs could develop, the whole terrain was shaped and equipped with more than 500 irrigation mouth systems fed by nearly a hundred kilometers of underground pipes. The system is also punctuated by works of art (Figs. 7.2, 7.3) intended for its regulation and marked with the emblems of the City of Paris, such as the Haute-Borne Farm, whose architectural quality recalls that of the capital itself (Figs. 7.4, 7.5). The plain is said to be “a papal enclave in Seine-et-­Oise” (Phlipponneau 1956), but the inhabitants do not complain so much about it, as economic prosperity is profitable for all. It is therefore a whole landscape that is laid out in the image of this new economic activity, and this evolution was also seen in the village of Pierrelaye, which gradually became a small town marked by many market houses that occupy the main street (Fig. 7.6). It is also a new territorial organisation that is being set up, on the scale of the Paris metropolis and especially on the scale of what we will call now the Paris Region. And in this new organisation, the multifunctionality of local agriculture also changed scale but did not change in nature. With the same logic of mutual benefit, agricultural land always transforms urban waste into resources and continues to supply the city with fresh produce. The railway has simply changed the notion of proximity, because the “freshness” of the products concerned does not depend on the number of kilometers they are transported, but on the number of hours required for transport. But, over the twentieth century, the railway had another consequence: it brought holiday makers to Pierrelaye in search of countryside landscapes; then, after the Second World War, permanent residents attracted by the price of land and the proximity of the train station. From then on, and as market gardening declined, the inhabitants of Pierrelaye became more and more townspeople and less and less farmers. We also can see a resurgence in fears already expressed by the opponents of the spreading system, well before its realisation: “The sewage will poison the

Fig. 7.2  A column of equilibrium in the agricultural landscape of the plain. (Photo: R. Vidal, 2010)

122

R. Vidal

Fig. 7.3  […] and that of the farm of Haute-Borne whose base evokes the work of the Buttes-­ Chaumont rockers. (Photo: R. Vidal, 2010)

earth and the atmosphere, and the establishment of irrigation systems will mark the end of the prosperity of all these charming resorts today so sought after (Fig. 7.7).”6 In fact, irrigation did not mark the end of the prosperity of Pierrelaye, it was the beginning. But the notion of prosperity may not be the same for farmers who take profit from this irrigation and for town-dwellers (Fig. 7.8).

6  Extract from a study carried out by the prefecture of the Seine and published in 1876 (cited by Phlipponneau 1956, p. 490).

7  Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model

123

Fig. 7.4  Postcard showing the Haute-Borne Farm in the early years of its activity. (Source: Coll. part., without editor’s reference, mailed in 1909)

Fig. 7.5 The master building of the Haute-Borne Farm waiting for a new use. (Photo: R. Vidal, 2010)

124

R. Vidal

Fig. 7.6  Recognisable for their height, the carriage doors of the main street of Pierrelaye still recall its market gardening history. (Photo: R. Vidal, 2011)

7.8  Reasons for the Decline of Horticulture Long before the controversies that would emerge at the end of the twentieth century and lead to it being banned, market gardening had begun to dwindle on the Pierrelaye Plaine, leading to a decline in the demographic weight of the agricultural world and, consequently, the marginal influence of farmers in the decisions that would be made. The first cause of the decline was the very one that had earned it prosperity: the railroad. Circulating faster and further afield, the trains bring to the Parisian market even more remote vegetable production with a more favorable climate that will allow them to compete with the primeur of Pierrelaye. In addition, not being subject to the same constraints, the market gardeners of Val-de-Loire or Brittany would be able to benefit from the progress of agricultural mechanisation, mainly designed for

7  Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model

125

Fig. 7.7  The practice of spreading did not prevent the agricultural landscapes of the Pierrelaye plain from being as “charming” as the others. (Photo: R. Vidal, 2010)

Fig. 7.8  Pavillion extensions around Pierrelaye. In the center of the image, the furnaces of the recovery plant are visible. (Photo: R. Vidal, 2011)

126

R. Vidal

flat land. Root crops, on the other hand, do not lend themselves to this, and they do not represent a sufficient economic stake for the development of gear adapted to it. The other cause is the abandonment of the spreading system for sewage treatment plants, including that of Achères commissioned in 1940. Progressively, the plain is no longer used to treat excess water, when the stations are saturated. The rest of the time, it only receives “treated wastewater,” obviously much less rich in organic matter. In the past, the fertilizer quality of sewage had already decreased considerably with the depletion of horses and dairy cows in urban areas, and this decrease affected the productivity of the spreading fields. Agriculture was not abandoned, but it concerned a smaller and smaller number of farmers. It happened on one hand because the spread of Paris has reached Pierrelaye and the agricultural areas have been halved under the pressure of urbanisation, and on the other hand because market gardening, becoming less profitable, is progressively abandoned in favor of cereal crops that require less labor. The plain is at its end when a controversy breaks out over the next few years, and the growing number of new residents are replacing farmers, who, obviously, are becoming fewer and fewer.

7.9  Rational and Emotional7 When the spreading system was put in place, the city, even though industrialised, did not yet use petroleum products or most of the pollutants that became commonplace during the twentieth century. The main risk was the transmission of microbes, and the agronomists of the time had found a way to avoid it. In fact, no health scandal tainted the spreading field technique during its first half-century. But the composition of the sewage evolved, and it was discovered that it contained prohibitive doses of heavy metals and petroleum products, trace metals (MET), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The paradox is that it is by analyzing the sludge of the purification plants that the alternative solution was discovered. The idea then came to check the condition of the soils that had been dumped on for decades, and the analyses led to the conclusion that the land had become unfit for food production.8 From a rational point of view, the market gardening production that had become traditional in Pierrelaye had to stop. But agriculture can produce something other than food, and transition solutions could have been developed with farmers instead of allowing a controversy that eventually led to their downfall. The rational arguments put forward in legal proceedings too often gave way to slogans aimed, above all, at touching the emotional fiber of a population accustomed to associate small-­ scale agriculture with pollution.

 Expressions used by Margorie Bruston (2000).  Study carried out in 1996 by EVS Ile-de-France, SEDE design office, N / REF: YC / VF / 003596–4, written in February 1997, unpublished, cited by Mandinaud (2006, p. 207). 7 8

7  Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model

127

Relayed by the regional and national press, accusations made by local associations made little reference to a scientific reality, which is undoubtedly too complex for readers, and favored more catchy titles reminiscent of criticisms, without foundation, issued in the nineteenth century. Titles such as “Parisian leeks sprinkled with sewage juice”9 or “The dirty liquid from the Paris sewers fertilize the suburbs”10 echo leaflets with slogans such as “Directly from your toilets to your table,” do not hesitate to condemn a system which, at other times, had saved Paris from cholera. It must be said that the crisis of the “mad cow” had marked the spirits and that it had become widespread practice to portray agriculture, often lacking in nuance. In many leaflets and press releases, the City of Paris is also accused of shifting “as usual” its nuisance onto its suburbs … It is a bit of a quick lapse that the system of spreading had left the region of Pierrelaye isolated and economically backward in a logic that was meant to be beneficial for both parties. It is the evolution of urban lifestyles and especially the generalisation of the automobile, which greatly benefits the new townspeople of the plain, but which led to the arrival of new ground pollutants that were completely unpredictable at the time when the system had been put in place (Fig. 7.9).

7.10  The Memory of Places This “counter-publicity of a historical practice” (Mandinaud 2005) has largely contributed to the erasure of the collective memory, and the few farmers who still remember the era of market gardening feel greatly isolated in the middle of a now-­ dominant urban population, which are all the more numerous because the new city, Cergy-Pontoise, has made the plain into a land locked in the urban area of Paris. Most of them have deserted the old spraying fields, which they continue to maintain only thanks to a few increasingly precarious subsidies. In the case of Pierrelaye, it is the city that has polluted agriculture and it is the farmers who have been indicted by the townspeople. If the abandonment of market gardening was unavoidable and new forms of production had to be invented, a project for the plain could have been co-constructed with the collaboration of farmers rather than against them. This is not what is being built today. The Plaine de Pierrelaye is now destined to receive a forest of 1000 ha originally planned on other lands and this forest, if it is born, will permanently erase the memory of places (Fig. 7.10). The old spraying fields are not only the subject of the memories of a few old nostalgic market gardeners, they are also the place where an exceptional model of environmental service rendered by agriculture to the city was realised in full scale. This model is probably obsolete. Nobody wants, today, to experience the smell of

 Le Canard Enchaîné, 2nd June 1999.  Le Parisien, édition du Val-d’Oise, 17th March 1999.

9

10

128

R. Vidal

Fig. 7.9  From one pollution to another. How many heavy metals and oil residues in the thousands of tons of waste that dot the plain? (Photo: R. Vidal, 2011)

sewers again in a suburban countryside that we imagine especially sweet. But what other solution was found to get rid of urban waste? The sewage is today sent to purification plants, but these do not solve the problem of pollution, they only move it. At the outlet of the stations, the effluents are divided into two components: treated wastewater, which is sufficiently clean to be discharged into the environment, and “sludge,” the solid part of the sewage. It is the latter that concentrates the ETM and PAHs, these pollutants that condemned the lands of Pierrelaye. It is not clear what to do with this sludge, whose incineration would have a very negative environmental impact. So, we are asking, again, farmers to mop them up on their land. Most of those farmers in Île-de-France refuse the sludge for fear of seeing their land banned from food production for the same reasons as those of Pierrelaye. So, we export the sludge a little further, in the neighboring areas, where the farmers still accept it … but for how long? Will that ever end up in Africa, as happens to some of our other garbage?

7  Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model

129

Fig. 7.10  The practice of agriculture ensures minimal human presence on the plain. At the bottom of the picture, we notice that uncontrolled dumping is confined along the roads, at least so long as the farmers are there. (Photo: R. Vidal, 2011)

7.11  Circular Economy The notion of urban agriculture has been growing in popularity in recent years. Behind this expression are the most varied ideas, from the most realistic to the most fanatical, such as those who would like the city to become self-sufficient by growing its own food on the roofs or in the urban interstices (Vidal and Fleury 2010). For those who know that the agglomeration of Paris mobilises 3 million ha to supply its population (3000 m2 per person), the question of relationships between the city and its agriculture is obviously put in less unrealistic terms. We are talking about how the relationships between urban and rural world could be reconstructed, in particular by reinventing distribution channels. But the discussion is always about the food that we absorb, never what this becomes after transiting our digestive system. This is one of the major taboos of our contemporary society, which was not the case in the nineteenth century, and we lose, without scruple, a wealth of knowledge that, however, our agricultural system could sorely miss over the coming decades.11 Pierrelaye’s story is erased from our memoirs, whereas it would have been more appropriate to draw inspiration from it to invent our agrarian system of the future. It  «Employer la ville à fumer la plaine, ce serait une réussite certaine. Si notre or est fumier, en revanche, notre fumier est or» [To use the city to fertilize the plain would be a certain success. If our gold is manure, on the other hand, our manure is gold] wrote Victor Hugo (Les Misérables, tome V, livre 2, 1862).

11

130

R. Vidal

would perhaps have been enough to put the same inventiveness today as that which animated, a century earlier, the engineers of Haussmann’s Paris, so that the urban metabolism of our contemporary society does not appear as the “parasite”12 of its own agrarian system. Because solutions exist, especially on the side of non-food production – materials or energy – that can be channeled into agriculture. They are scarcely profitable today but could become so quickly, if they were included in a suitable economy of scale, and if they were considered as an investment of the future intended to preempt the foreseeable cost increase of imported energies. But these projects should be implemented on the right scale, that of the urban region in its broadest sense, and in a strong logic of circular economy: what comes from the Earth must return to the Earth. Above all, the guarantee should be given to farmers that they will no longer be held responsible for any inconvenience that the negative externalities of the city might cause. “We cannot ask farmers today to treat urban waste if we then condemn their activity where they were simply agreeing to serve the community.”13

References Bailly de Merlieux, C.-F., et al. (1835). Maison rustique du XIXe siècle: Encyclopédie d’agriculture pratique (Vol. 1). Paris: La Maison Rustique. Barles, S. (2005). L’invention des déchets urbains: France, 1790–1970. Paris: Champ Vallon. Bruston, M. (2000). La qualité des produits agricoles en champs d’épandage: analyse des controverses [The quality of agricultural products in fields of application: Analysis of the controversies]. Memory realized under the direction of André Fleury, National Agronomic Institute, Paris-Grignon. Clément, A., & Thomas, G. (Eds.). (2001). Atlas du Paris souterrain. Paris: Parigramme. de Vilmorin, H. (1878). Rapport de la première sous-commission chargée d’étudier les procédés de culture horticole à l’aide des eaux d’égout. Paris: Gauthier-Villars. Dupâquier, J., & Bardet, J.-P. (Eds.). (1997). Histoire des populations de l’Europe, t. 1: des origines aux prémices de la révolution démographique. Paris: Fayard. Fleury, A. (Ed.). (1997). Multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture périurbaine. Cahiers de la multifonctionnalité (Vol. 8). Paris: INRA-CEMAGREF-CIRAD. Fleury, A., & Donadieu, P. (1997). De l’agriculture périurbaine à l’agriculture urbaine. Courrier de l’Environnement, 31, 45–61. Fleury, A., Laville, J., Darly, S., & Lenaers, V. (2004). Dynamiques de l’agriculture périurbaine: du local au local. Cahiers Agricultures, 13(1), 58–63. Le Mée, R. (1998). Le choléra et la question des logements insalubres à Paris (1832–1849). Population, 53(1–2), 379–397. Mandinaud, V. (2005). La pollution des sols des champs d’épandage d’eaux usées, contrainte et/ ou ressource pour le développement durable en plaine de Bessancourt-Herblay-Pierrelaye. Développement durable et territoire, 4: “La ville et l’enjeu du développement durable.” https:// doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.1543 Mandinaud, V. (2006). Pollution des sols, pratiques de vigilance et stratégies de surveillance du territoire; éléments d’enquête et d’analyse en plaine de Pierrelaye. In J. Roux (Ed.), Être vigi Expression taken up by Sabine Barles (2005).  Jean-Pierre Radet, President of the Interdepartmental Chamber of Agriculture of Île-de-France, journal Le Parisien, 14 avril 1999.

12 13

7  Sewage Farms in Pierrelaye: Periurban Agriculture Multifunctionality Model

131

lant, l’opérativité discrète de la société du risque (pp. 203–218). Saint-Étienne: Université de Saint-Étienne. Mazoyer, M., & Roudart, L. (1997). Histoire des agricultures du monde. Du Néolithique à la crise contemporaine. Paris: Le Seuil. Phlipponneau, M. (1956). La vie rurale de la Banlieue Parisienne. Paris: Armand Colin. Vidal, R., & Fleury, A. (2010). L’autosuffisance agricole des villes, une vaine utopie? xLa vie des idées. Dossier “Les apories de la ville durable”. ISSN:2105-3030. http://www.laviedesidees. fr/L-autosuffisance-agricole-des.html

Chapter 8

Urban Agriculture: What About Domestic Gardens? Hubert Gulinck, Valerie Dewaelheyns, and Frederik Lerouge

Abstract  In this contribution, domestic gardens are presented as an underrated category of land use. They are ancient expressions of urban agriculture. Food production in domestic gardens is the oldest of multiple lines of cultural evolution throughout time, next to amenity and formal display. In recent decades, many if not most domestic gardens have largely lost their role in food production. However, seen in contemporary perspective, domestic gardens cover substantial parts of urban and periurban spaces, and carry large potential for many cultural and ecosystem services. As media of expression, experimentation, and creativity at an individual or household scale, domestic gardens engender strong sympathies for urban agriculture, and for agriculture in general. They deserve to be reconsidered as additional substrates and buffers for food production in the urban, periurban, and residential context.

8.1  Introduction It is difficult to give urban agriculture a sharp and unique definition (Mougeot 2000). In the literature on this subject we discover a wide range of papers from strictly professional farming in the urban context to growing kitchen herbs on balconies. There are also quite opposite perceptions on urban farming, as relics of rurality – continuing farming despite the urban pressure  – or as de novo food growing in urban sites that have been without rural or agricultural tradition for decades to centuries – all, agriculture thanks to or driven by the urban context. We also find a broad

H. Gulinck (*) University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] V. Dewaelheyns Social Sciences Unit, Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Merelbeke, Belgium F. Lerouge PXL University College, Hasselt, Belgium © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_8

133

134

H. Gulinck et al.

bandwidth of social interpretation of urban agriculture: from private enterprises to communities emerging in a joint new interest. Despite the attention for food production outside the traditional agricultural area (Jarosz 2008; Barthel and Isendahl 2013), there is an interesting age-old category of land use that tends to remain undervalued in research and policy on urban agriculture: domestic gardens (Dewaelheyns et al. 2011; Dewaelheyns 2014). These potentially productive land areas, part of residential developments in suburban and urban areas worldwide, have largely remained unremarked and not well studied for their productivity and impact on food security (Kortright and Wakefield 2011; WinklerPrins 2002). Throughout history, however, food production has been a most important part of gardening worldwide, in both developing (WinklerPrins 2002; Siviero et  al. 2011) and developed (Reyes-Garcia et  al. 2012; Taylor and Lovell 2014) countries. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) still explicitly draws upon home gardens and traditional gardening to improve household food security in African and Asian countries (Marsh 1998; FAO 2012) (Fig. 8.1). Also, recent research highlights gardens as both important for food security and as locations for co-production of knowledge (Cilliers et al. 2018). As such, domestic gardens can be seen as an adaptable and accessible land resource for food production worldwide, holding potential to reduce vulnerability and improve personal food security (Seeth et al. 1998; Buchmann 2009; Barthel and Isendahl 2013; Cilliers et al. 2018). During the past decades food production in domestic gardens has regained attention from policy (Ghosh 2014), for example, in local food system planning (Martinez

Fig. 8.1  In many parts of the world and for many households, gardens remain essential units of food production. Bustani (home gardens) in Lushoto district, Tanzania. (Photo: Hubert Gulinck)

8  Urban Agriculture: What About Domestic Gardens?

135

et al. 2010), food self-provisioning (Marsh 1998; FAO 2012), and research (Kortright and Wakefield 2011; Taylor and Lovell 2014; Cilliers et al. 2018). Some studies, mainly from the US, use scenarios to assess the contribution of private land and residential gardens to the total food production area and food needs (Grewal and Grewal 2012; McClintock et al. 2013). Others discuss food self-provisioning by exploring the motivations of individuals and limitations imposed by policies (Alber and Kohler 2008; Jehlicka et al. 2013). Recently, a number of studies explored the ecosystem service concept in relationship to gardens, or how gardens provide provision, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services (Cabral 2017); Langemeyer and Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2018). So, we do find a range of interesting papers, considering the strategic role of domestic gardens (home gardens, household gardens, private gardens) in relationship to food provision, but in a rather limited number compared to the total number of research papers on urban agriculture. Domestic gardens are systems that should not be strictly distinguished from agriculture in general (Niñez 1987) and from urban agriculture more specifically (Barthel and Isendahl 2013). As discussed in this chapter, domestic gardens collectively possess many characteristics that we tend to find in urban agriculture: not just the linkage to the built environment, but also many functional and cultural characteristics. Domestic gardens have some characteristics, however, that may explain their relative absence in research and policies on urban agriculture. Domestic gardens are spatially secluded units, sometimes even literally behind the façades of buildings. Domestic gardens are private grounds (Kortright and Wakefield 2011) to be kept exempt as much as possible from collective rules and tasks. Gardens essentially exist for recreational land use (Domene and Saurí 2007; Reyes-García et al. 2012), and if there is production, it is for private (family) consumption (Niñez 1987). In policies in general, domestic gardens are hardly noticed. In the decadal sociodemographic surveys in Belgium (the last one in 2001), households were questioned about house characteristics, but not at all about garden characteristics. Also, in land use monitoring or strategic policy domains such as agriculture, spatial planning, and nature conservation, domestic gardens traditionally have been ignored (Dewaelheyns 2014) If we scrutinize domestic gardens in their overall spatial, historical, cultural, and functional contexts, alternative images and perceptions emerge. The reservation to be made is that the following arguments and statements are primarily inspired by information from Belgium and more particularly from its northern region, Flanders, but we are confident that this image resembles to a large degree conditions in other countries. The objective of this paper is to highlight possibilities to interpret domestic gardens in the broader framework of urban agriculture and, more specifically, the cultural dimension of urban agriculture.

136

H. Gulinck et al.

8.2  Domestic Gardens: A Cultural and Historical Perspective This book is about cultural aspects of urban agriculture. So, let us take a cultural look at domestic gardens, first in historical perspective. Culture itself has a broad range of meanings. Often it is restricted to heritage values in a specific territory and community. Other definitions refer to styles of behaviour in a socioeconomic context. But we talk about (urban) agriculture, and ‘agri-culture’ is concerned with soil, climate, plant, animals, and with markets and industries. So, we coin this definition: culture is the dialogue between a community or a society and its environment. Producing food (but also water, energy, materials, etc.) has always been the target of agriculture, the prime interpretation of the dialogue. From agriculture, finer-tuned cultural expressions have emerged, more related to the ‘heritage’ interpretation, such as in farm architecture, historical agrarian landscape types, or rural traditions. Gardens display a specific cultural dialogue. Originally, a garden was a secluded unit of “cultivation” of utility plants: food and medicinal herbs. This secluded character of gardens, contrasting with the much more “open” agriculture, is embedded in the etymology of the word “garden” and of almost all semantically related words: park, compound, hortus (Latin), tuin (Dutch), etc. (Aben et al. 1998; Turner 2005). More specifically, the cultural dialogue consisted in setting nature at man’s hand and cultivating plants and small animals, and in protecting and managing these units against climatic hardship, wildlife, theft, etc. One excellent account of the origin, culture, and history of gardening with details of experimentation, operation, and techniques is given by Huxley (1983). From the deep origin of gardens there are multiple lines of cultural evolution. A first line of evolution, as judged by the quantity and the gloss of publications and magazines, is expressed in the private and public estates, parks and gardens, as displays of sceneries, allegories, and evocations in styles from medieval gardens, monumental baroque gardens, and informal and romantic parks (Toman 2000) to the most modern expressions of garden design. Second, and more importantly in the perspective of this book, the theme of garden has evolved to what is commonly understood by “horticulture” (Halfacre and Barden 1979), as an intensive form of agriculture, for the production of non-staple food, essentially vegetables, and also often at a finer scale and spatial imprint. Horticulture is also and broadly seen as an interface between the larger-scale agricultural production in the rural setting on one hand and the urban environment on the other. The closer to the city, the more agriculture assumes a horticultural mode of production, which suggests that “urban horticulture” should be a useful expansion of urban agriculture (UA) terminology. Historically, it makes sense: looking at pre-industrial town maps in Europe (e.g., “Civitates Orbis Terrarum” of Braun and Hohenberg 1572–1581), we often see a town as a built core with a surrounding horticultural and agricultural belt, still at the inward side of the town walls: this was really “urban agriculture” avant la lettre. A third line of evolution relates gardens spatially and functionally to dwelling units, which brings us to domestic gardens (Niñez 1987). Domestic gardens are as

8  Urban Agriculture: What About Domestic Gardens?

137

old as urban-based civilisations (Doolittle 2004; Turner 2005), and also farms, abbeys, and other more “rural enterprises” had their gardens (Landsberg 2003; Turner 2005). To fully understand the cultural and spatial significance of domestic gardens in European cities, we have to go back one or two centuries, at the times of urban expansion, industrialization, and massive immigration from the rural area to cities. Formerly open urban spaces were rapidly covered, and the urban fabric began to encroach on the surrounding countryside. Rural-born and grown people moved into this unfamiliar world and were packed in unhealthy living environments. In Belgium and in Sweden, gardens were promoted as a strategic instrument with multiple roles (Jakobsson and Dewaelheyns 2018), roles including education (keep labour masses under some domestic control), health (create healthy micro-­ environments for families), and food sovereignty and security. In Belgium, the nineteenth-­century-born housing policy was combined with additional political choices and instruments concerning, among other things, the right to ownership, infrastructure, and planning systems (Van den Broeck et  al. 2010). This specific political culture has had a deep imprint on later policies concerning housing and spatial planning. Urban sprawl, ribbon development, and the periurban character of Flanders are the result of an effort to accommodate this own-house-with-garden culture. Parallel to the promotion of the single-family house with a garden, the phenomenon of “allotment gardens” (Segers and Vanmolle 2011) can be seen as an additional track of the same sociocultural policy in Belgium. So, domestic gardens, to a large degree and in historical perspective, are certainly key elements of “urban agriculture.”

8.3  D  omestic Gardens in a Contemporary Cultural Perspective Currently, we see different important spatial and cultural phenomena. First, there is a substantial degree of urbanisation of Flanders (northern part of Belgium) in a rather sprawled format. In Belgium, the average size of a dwelling unit (the house) is large, and moreover, the garden over house area ratio is also large (Dewaelheyns et al. 2013). According to the Federal statistics office, the average size of new building lots in Flanders was 1113 m2 in 1990 and still 863.6 m2 in 2012, larger than in surrounding countries in comparably urbanised areas. In absence of policy attention for domestic gardens, we were ourselves surprised in finding that in 2008 about 8% of the Flemish territory is actually domestic garden (without the house and other built elements on the parcel) (Dewaelheyns 2014), a cumulative area almost comparable to the area covered by woodland and forest. In 2016, the Flemish garden area has risen to 9% (Van Gossum et al. 2016). About 6% of the statutory farmland is actually in use as “garden” (Verhoeve et al. 2015). Second, a major cultural shift is observed in the domestic gardens. At the present time hard data are missing, but it is clear that gardens in Flanders have largely lost

138

H. Gulinck et al.

their food production role. After WWII the increased welfare, the rise of retail, and altered lifestyles have reduced the necessity for own food provision. Most gardens have shifted from a production to a display and amenity unit (Fig. 8.2). The food security policy argument has faded out, but the deeply imprinted house-with-garden culture, in geographically dispersed mode, has survived (De Decker 2011; Jakobsson and Dewaelheyns 2018). It is with the emergence of new cultures of gardening, quality food, and overall economic and environmental concern that domestic gardens may regain their functional vocation, closer to agriculture in the broad sense. This issue certainly should be taken seriously in the current momentum of urban agriculture (Fig. 8.3). Because of their triviality and their partnership in the transformation of rural landscapes to ‘ordinary’ urban extensions, it may be odd to associate domestic gardens with culture. Surely, domestic gardens show a variety of displays influenced in one way or another by traditions in park and garden art and styles, in agriculture, horticulture, arboriculture, and in cultivation of ornamental plants. But compared to the “grand garden culture,” one may be tempted to judge most of this individual gardening as kitsch, amateurism, and eclecticism, so enforcing an image of triviality.

Fig. 8.2  In Western societies most domestic gardens have become essentially private amenity units allowing for individual cultural expressions. (Photo: Valerie Dewaelheyns)

8  Urban Agriculture: What About Domestic Gardens?

139

Fig. 8.3  Children at play in gardens. Gardens are excellent media of developing culture and a feel for nature. (Photo: Hubert Gulinck)

Seen otherwise, gardens are extremely important in terms of culture. Gardens are microcosms of individual but also collective creativity. Gardens are special in the sense that they allow a continuous and evolving expression of individuals and households of their interpretation of nature, food, leisure, environment, and even art. Gardens are media of experimentation, identity, education, and therapy, and can be considered as one of the most accessible contacts with nature for many people (Dunnett and Qasim 2000; Doolittle 2004; Clayton 2007; Gross and Lane 2007; Crouch et al. 2009; Freeman et al. 2012). Thus, domestic gardens contribute to social culture, even in their private character. Gardens help to maintain and develop what Barthel and Isendahl 2010 call social-ecological memory, as a shared source of resilience (Cilliers et  al. 2018). Home food gardening strengthens contact with nature, with neighbours, offers recreation (Domene and Saurí 2007; Reyes-García et  al. 2012), and contributes to physical and mental health (Francis and Hester 1990; Ousset et al. 1998; Dunnett and Qasim 2000; Nielsen and Hansen 2007). Gardens can positively influence diets (Morton et al. 2008; Smith and Miller 2011) and provide quality food (Calvet-Mir et al. 2012). Growing your own vegetables is a form of education that gives a better understanding of food (Kortright and Wakefield 2011; Ghosh 2014) for the average resident taking food for granted (Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999). It is in domestic gardens that many cultural values find a safe haven. Gardens are media for social learning in children (Laaksoharju et al. 2012), and Mazumdar and Mazumdar (2012) analyse gardens as important places of religion, culture, and memory for immigrants. Gardening keeps bonds to a rural past (Airriess and

140

H. Gulinck et al.

Clawson 1994; Domene and Saurí 2007) and cultural identities, traditional dietary habits, and folk medicinal traditions (e.g. Airriess and Clawson 1994; Head et al. 2004; Graham and Connell 2006; Gladis and Pistrick 2011; Pirker et  al. 2012), influencing the vegetable species grown in the garden. This way, home food gardening also serves in the preservation of old vegetables and rare horticultural crops and also introduces new species (Gladis and Pistrick 2011). Besides a sense of food security, domestic gardens and food gardens in general offer opportunities for their keepers to respond to challenges defined in nature and environmental conservation (Barthel and Isendahl 2013; Dennis and James 2017). Gardens include the provision of habitats for wild pollinators, seed dispersers, and pest regulators (Jansson 2013). Connell (2005) and Lipovská (2013) describe the phenomenon of garden visiting in Great Britain, also popular elsewhere in Europe, contributing to socially shared ideas and a living culture. Likely, domestic gardens, by their sheer existence and their use, help to develop sympathy for the other forms of urban agriculture. The sharing of one’s own produce with neighbours strengthens relationships within communities (WinklerPrins 2002; Ban and Coomes 2004; Kortright and Wakefield 2011). An important remark has to be made, however. In contrast to professional farmers, hobby gardeners often lack a fundamental knowledge of gardening and an understanding of the impact of their actions on the environment. The cumulative outcome of the latter is referred to as the ‘tyranny by small decisions’ by Goddard (2010). Moreover, professional farmers are often strictly regulated (e.g., the use of fertilizers and pesticide) whereas gardeners are not (Dewaelheyns et al. 2013). Summarizing the foregoing, a range of cultural aspects can be found in domestic gardens: –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––

Education Heritage, identity, and traditions Social networks Knowledge systems, socioecological memory Aesthetical aspects Recreation, physical exercise, relaxation; Mental health Status symbol and personal expression

8.4  Inspiration for Research and Policy Systematic regional surveys on domestic gardens are still missing, let alone surveys on the different cultural aspects of gardens. Yet, the stand-alone articles on different cultural aspects of gardens already cited give food for thought on the role of cultural aspects of gardens in the search for a resilient environment and society. The informal circulation of knowledge on gardening between gardeners (family, neighbours,

8  Urban Agriculture: What About Domestic Gardens?

141

friends, …), the cultivation of old varieties and of traditional species from home countries (genetic diversity and stock), a changing attitude and awareness of gardeners towards biodiversity, a reduced dependence on market and retail supply for seeds and food, … These are all interesting phenomena related to resilience in one way or another, deserving more attention from research. In broad cultural perspective and from a resilient aspect, we need more systematic research on these topics: –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––

Formal typology of domestic gardens Social-ecological memory Expression of ethnicity Linkage to regional landscape typological context Evocation of contemporary cultural influences in gardening The cultural distance or proximity of garden owners to (urban) agriculture Environmental impact of garden management (use of fertilizers, pesticides, water) Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation in gardens

Because garden owners express their differing cultural views on nature and aesthetics in their garden, the totality of domestic gardens can be considered as an interface between the civil society and nature, and between the urban and the rural environments (Dewaelheyns 2014; Dewaelheyns et  al. 2015; Dewaelheyns et  al. 2018). This interface expresses in a spatially explicit way a diversity of cultural values, actually culture itself, in the work definition as given in this paper. One of the most fascinating aspects of domestic gardens is that they are multifunctional, combining several functions and services, for example, aesthetics with food production and the provision of pollination. In our modern times, the potential of food production in domestic gardens is insufficiently acknowledged. It is time to reconsider domestic food gardens in the development of food strategies and their strategic role in urban agriculture policies.

References Aben, R., de Wit, S., & de Jong, S. (Eds.). (1998). De omsloten tuin. 010Uitgeverij Mens en Maatschappij. Airriess, C. A., & Clawson, D. L. (1994). Vietnamese market gardens in New Orleans. Geographical Review, 84(1), 16–31. Alber, J., & Kohler, U. (2008). Informal food production in the enlarged European Union. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 113–127. Ban, N., & Coomes, O. T. (2004). Home gardens in Amazonian Peru: Diversity and exchange of planting material. Geographical Review, 94(3), 348–367. Barthel, S., & Isendahl, C. (2013). Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics, 86, 224–234. Barthel, S., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (2010). Social–ecological memory in urban gardens— Retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 255–265.

142

H. Gulinck et al.

Buchmann, C. (2009). Cuban home gardens and their role in social–ecological resilience. Human Ecology, 37(6), 705–721. Cabral, M. (2017). Ecosystem services of allotment and community gardens: A Leipzig, Germany case study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 23, 44–53. Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggelthun, E., & Reyes-Garcia, V. (2012). Beyond food production: ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics, 74(0), 153–160. Cilliers, S. S., Siebert, S. J., Du Toit, M. J., Barthel, S., Mishra, S., Cornelius, S. F., & Davoren, E. (2018). Garden ecosystem services of sub-Saharan Africa and the role of health clinic gardens as social-ecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 294–307. Clayton, S. (2007). Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 215–224. Connell, J. (2005). Managing gardens for visitors in Great-Britain: A story of continuity and change. Tourism Management, 26, 185–201. Crouch, D., Rob, K., & Nigel, T. (2009). Gardens and gardening. In International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 289–293). Oxford: Elsevier. De Decker, P. (2011). A garden of Eden? The promotion of the single-family house with a garden in Belgium before the Second World War. In V. Dewaelheyns, K. Bomans, & H. Gulinck (Eds.), The powerful garden. Emerging views on the garden complex (pp. 27–49). Antwerp: Garant. Dennis, M., & James, P. (2017). Evaluating the relative influence on population health of domestic gardens and green space along a rural-urban gradient. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 343–351. Dewaelheyns, V. (2014). The garden complex in strategic perspective. The case of Flanders. Dissertation presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Bioscience Engineering, KU Leuven. Dewaelheyns, V., Bomans, K., & Gulinck, H. (2011). The powerful garden. Emerging views on the garden complex. Antwerp: Garant. Dewaelheyns, V., Elsen, A., Vandendriessche, H., & Gulinck, H. (2013). Garden management and soil fertility in Flemish domestic gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning, 116, 25–35. Dewaelheyns, V., Kerselaers, E., & Rogge, E. (2015). A toolbox for garden governance. Land Use Policy, 51, 191–205. Dewaelheyns, V., Leinfelder, H., & Gulinck, H. (Eds.). (2018). Challenging the boxes. Interfaces in landscape and land use. Antwerp: Gompel & Svacina. Domene, E., & Saurí, D. (2007). Urbanization and class-produced natures: Vegetable gardens in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region. Geoforum, 38(2), 287–298. Doolittle, W.  E. (2004). Gardens are us, we are nature: Transcending antiquity and modernity. Geographical Review, 94(3), 391–404. Dunnett, N., & Qasim, M. (2000). Perceived benefits to human well-being of urban gardens. Hort Technology, 10, 40–45. FAO (2012). The place of urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) in national food security programmes. Francis, M., & Hester, R. T. J. (1990). The garden as idea, place and action. The meaning of garden. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Freeman, C., Dickinson, K., Porter, S., & van Heezik, Y. (2012). My garden is an expression of me: Exploring householders’ relationships with their gardens. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 135–143. Ghosh, S. (2014). Measuring sustainability performance of local food production in home gardens. Local Environment, 19(1), 1–23. Gladis, T., & Pistrick, K. (2011). Chaerophyllum byzantinum Boiss. and Trachystemon orientalis (L.) G. Don: Recently introduced from Turkish wild flora as new crop species among other interesting findings from immigrant gardens in western Germany. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 58(1), 165–174.

8  Urban Agriculture: What About Domestic Gardens?

143

Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 90–98. Graham, S., & Connell, J. (2006). Nurturing relationships: The gardens of Greek and Vietnamese migrants in Marrickville, Sydney. Australian Geographer, 37(3), 375–393. Grewal, S. S., & Grewal, P. S. (2012). Can cities become self-reliant in food? Cities, 29(1), 1–11. Gross, H., & Lane, N. (2007). Landscapes of the lifespan: Exploring accounts of own gardens and gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 225–241. Halfacre, R., & Barden, J. (1979). Horticulture. New York: McGraw-Hill. Head, L., Muir, P., & Hampel, E. (2004). Australian backyard gardens and the journey of migration. Geographical Review, 94(3), 326–347. Huxley, A. (1983). An illustrated history of gardening. New York: Smithmark. Jakobsson, A., & Dewaelheyns, V. (2018). Contemporary interpretation of the meaning and heritage of early 20th century private gardens: From an historical reflection to a future outlook in planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 30, 210–219. Jansson, Å. (2013). Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 86(0), 285–291. Jarosz, L. (2008). The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in metropolitan areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 231–244. Jehlička, P., Kostelecký, T., & Smith, J. (2013). Food self-provisioning in Czechia: Beyond coping strategy of the poor: A response to Alber and Kohler’s ‘informal food production in the enlarged European Union’ (2008). Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 219–234. Kortright, R., & Wakefield, S. (2011). Edible backyards: A qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(1), 39–53. Laaksoharju, T., Rappe, E., & Kaivola, T. (2012). Garden affordances for social learning, play, and for building nature-child relationship. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11, 195–203. Landsberg, S. (2003). The medieval garden. New York: Thames & Hudson. Langemeyer, J., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2018). In A. Ossola & J. Niemelä (Eds.), Urban biodiversity and ecosystem services. Urban Biodiversity. Lipovská, B. (2013). The fruit of garden tourism may fall over the wall: Small private gardens and tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 114–121. Marsh, R. (1998). Building on traditional gardening to improve household food security. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, 22, 4–14. Martinez, S., Hand, M., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., Vogel, S., Clark, S., Lohr, L., Low, S., & Newman, C. (2010). Local food systems. Concepts, impacts and issues. EER 97, in: USDA (Ed.), Economic research report. United States Department of Agriculture, p. 80. Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2012). Immigrant home gardens: Places of religion, culture, ecology, and family. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105, 258–265. McClintock, N., Cooper, J., & Khandeshi, S. (2013). Assessing the potential contribution of vacant land to urban vegetable production and consumption in Oakland, California. Landscape and Urban Planning, 111, 46–58. Morton, L., Bitto, E., Oakland, M., & Sand, M. (2008). Accessing food resources: Rural and urban patterns of giving and getting food. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(1), 107–119. Mougeot, L. (2000). Urban agriculture: Definition, presence, potentials and risks, and policy channelnges. Environmental Science. Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & Place, 13(4), 839–850. Niñez, V. (1987). Household gardens: Theoretical and policy considerations. Agricultural Systems, 23(3), 167–186. Ousset, P., Nourhashemi, F., Albarede, J., & Vellas, P. (1998). Therapeutic gardens. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 26, 369–372. Pirker, H., Haselmair, R., Kuhn, E., Schunko, C., & Vogl, C. R. (2012). Transformation of traditional knowledge of medicinal plants: The case of Tyroleans (Austria) who migrated to Australia, Brazil and Peru. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8(1), 44.

144

H. Gulinck et al.

Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. (1999). Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of municipal institutions in food systems planning. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 213–224. Reyes-García, V., Aceituno, L., Vila, S., Calvet-Mir, L., Garnatje, T., Jesch, A., Lastra, J. J., Parada, M., Rigat, M., Vallès, J., & Pardo-De-Santayana, M. (2012). Home gardens in three mountain regions of the Iberian Peninsula: Description, motivation for gardening, and gross financial benefits. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 36(2), 249–270. Segers, Y., & Vanmolle, L. (2011). Potatoes, spinach or flowers? In V. Dewaelheyns, K. Bomans, & H. Gulinck (Eds.), The powerful garden. Emerging views on the garden complex (pp. 51–66). Antwerp: Garant. Seeth, H.  T., Chachnov, S., Surinov, A., & Von Braun, J. (1998). Russian poverty: Muddling through economic transition with garden plots. World Development, 26(9), 1611–1624. Siviero, A., Delunardo, T. A., Haverroth, M., de Oliveira, L. C., & Mendonça, Â. M. S. (2011). Cultivo de espécies alimentares em quintais urbanos de Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 25(3), 549–556. Smith, C., & Miller, H. (2011). Accessing the food systems in urban and rural Minnesotan communities. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(6), 492–504. Taylor, J. R., & Lovell, S. T. (2014). Urban home food gardens in the global north: Research traditions and future directions. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(2), 285–305. Toman, R. (2000). Gartenkunst in Europa. Köln: Könemann Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Turner, T. (2005). Garden history. Philosophy and design, 2000 BC–2000 AD. London: Spon Press. Van den Broeck, P., Kuhk, A., & Verachtert, K. (2010). Analyse van het Vlaams Instrumentarium voor Ruimtelijke Planning en Ontwikkeling, werkpakket 10, voortgangsrapport 1 (p.  49). Steunpunt Ruimte en Wonen. Van Gossum, P., et  al. (Eds.). (2016). Natuurrapport  – Aan de slag met ecosysteemdiensten. Bruxelles: Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek. INBO.M. 2016.12342678. Verhoeve, A., Dewaelheyns, V., Kerselaers, E., Rogge, E., & Gulinck, H. (2015). Virtual farmland: Grasping the occupation of agricultural land by non-agricultural land uses. Land Use Policy, 42, 547–556. WinklerPrins, A. G. A. (2002). House-lot gardens in Santarém, Pará, Brazil: Linking rural with urban. Urban Ecosystem, 6(12), 43–65.

Chapter 9

Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions from England Raffaella Laviscio

Abstract  Awareness of the cultural value of the agrarian landscape has grown increasingly in recent years because of urban development pressures. The agrarian heritage involves historical and contemporary values and pertains to tangible elements, to their authenticity and physical permanence in time, but also to intangible components, to the significance attributed by people to techniques and skills that have enabled landscapes to be created, to the relationships that link the different elements in a unique formal and functional system. But how to recognize such a complex heritage? Is cultural heritage recognizable in all agrarian landscapes? What about urban and periurban agrarian landscapes? How to respond to their recent changes ensuring cultural sustainable development? Can urban agriculture enhance agrarian heritage? To investigate these issues, this paper explores the English approach to rural heritage. England, in fact, has a long tradition in landscape studies and recognizes rurality as a key factor of the national identity. The English tools for the recognition of heritage values are analysed, applying them to specific case studies in the London metropolitan area. The discussion suggests successful factors in the conservation of agrarian heritage with the possible contribution of urban agriculture.

9.1  Introduction: Agrarian Landscape as Heritage Throughout many different areas of the world, agrarian landscapes are threatened by huge changes from the pressures of development and increased urban populations, resulting in abandonment of the land, intensive agricultural practices, and the loss of traditional and local knowledge (Yokohari 1994; Antrop 2005; Marini et al. 2011). R. Laviscio (*) Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_9

145

146

R. Laviscio

Paradoxically, interest in agrarian landscape increases as it is being progressively destroyed (Claval 2004; Antrop 2005), as evidenced by growth in tourism and recreational use of rural scenic areas (Buciega et al. 2009; Zasada 2011; Lange et al. 2013; Yang et  al. 2010) and the demand for food products grown on these lands (Mok et al. 2014; Pearson and Hodgkig 2010). Unquestionably, awareness has increased of the role of agrarian landscapes in the sustainability of cities providing accessible open spaces and regulating relationships between built and unbuilt (Paradis et al. 2016; Merson et al. 2009), in citizen food security (Deutsch et al. 2013; Dixon et al. 2007), and in providing cultural services by maintenance of certain agricultural practices and crops, farm buildings, and other agricultural infrastructures (Branduini et al. 2016; Daugstad et al. 2006). Indeed, the cultural dimension of the landscape generated by agriculture is among the oldest recognized factors (Branduini et al. 2016; Laviscio 2014), inherent in the meaning of the word “landscape,” it is further strengthened by the adjective “agrarian” that transforms a generic landscape in “… that form that man, in the course and for the purposes of his agricultural productive activities, consciously and systematically imprints on the natural landscape”1 (Sereni 1961). Agrarian landscapes are highly modified landscapes, in response to natural factors and economic and social needs (Antrop 2005; Luginbühl 2012): the result not of the work of an individual, but of a whole community, not of a programmed and planned project, but of techniques transmitted and improved from generation to generation. Thus, they are an expression of people’s identity and therefore a heritage to be protected and enhanced (Laviscio and Scazzosi 2015; Branduini et al. 2016). As does any landscape, these have a tangible aspect in their material elements, historical value, and permanence over time. There is also an intangible aspect, from the interpretation and meaning attributed by the population to such places, from the techniques and know-how that result from economic and behavioral factors. This aspect lies in the aesthetic value of the landscape, contributing to its identity, reinforcing the “spirit of the place.” Referring to the rural landscape (to which an agrarian landscape belongs), the recent ICOMOS-IFLA Principles Text on Rural Landscapes as Heritage2 states that rural landscape as heritage “Refers to the tangible and intangible heritage of rural areas. Rural landscape as heritage encompasses physical attributes – the productive land itself, morphology, water, infrastructure, vegetation, settlements, rural buildings and centers, vernacular architecture, transport, and trade networks, etc. – as well as wider physical, cultural, and environmental linkages and settings. Rural landscape as heritage also includes associated cultural knowledge, traditions, practices, expressions of local human communities’ identity and belonging, and the cultural values and meanings attributed to those landscapes by past and  Translation in English by R.  Laviscio. Original Italian text: “… quella forma che l’uomo, nel corso ed ai fini delle sue attività produttive agricole, coscientemente e sistematicamente imprime al paesaggio naturale”. 2  Endorsed and adopted, as a doctrinal text, by the General Assembly of ICOMOS in Delhi, December 2017. 1

9  Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions…

147

contemporary people and communities. Rural landscapes as heritage encompass technical, scientific, and practical knowledge, related to human-nature relationships. Rural landscapes as heritage are expressions of social structures and functional organizations, realizing, using and transforming them, in the past and in the present. Rural landscape as heritage encompasses cultural, spiritual, and natural attributes that contribute to the continuation of biocultural diversity. All rural areas can be read as heritage, both outstanding and ordinary, traditional and recently transformed by modernization activities: heritage can be present in different types and degrees and related to many historic periods, as a palimpsest.” Thus, cultural heritage is recognizable in all agrarian landscapes, and also in urban and periurban areas, and its recognition is necessary to guarantee sustainable development, in cultural terms, of these landscapes, which are affected by many changes. As cultural heritage, agrarian landscape should be read as a system of relationships that bind and link the different landscape elements, by building a formal and functional unity (Scazzosi 2018). It is neither a simple knowledge to acquire, nor so widespread, considering that in most cases studies on agrarian landscapes simply refer to land cover (Mucher et al. 2010) or socioeconomic data (Hazeu et al. 2011). England is among of the European countries with the longest and largest tradition in landscape studies (Simensen et  al. 2018), including rural studies. It is a continuous workshop of landscape reading and assessment experience. In particular, the rural heritage is perceived as an authentic expression of the nation (Haigron 2017; Mischi 2009). It is preserved and enhanced through a multiplicity of policies and actions at different levels. This paper, therefore, aims to explore the main methods and tools used in England for the conservation and enhancement of rural heritage and how urban agriculture is supported. Some key questions led the research: are these tools effective for a reading of agrarian landscape in urban and periurban areas also? Are there specific measures to support agricultural continuity, in the forms requested by the new needs of society? On the other hand, can urban agriculture contribute to the maintenance of landscape systems? To answer these questions, the discussion is divided into two parts. The first is aimed at clarifying the English approach to rural heritage, the methods of knowledge, the existing tools for the recognition of values and their conservation; it is therefore a bibliographic study that highlights the keys to the recognition of cultural heritage in agricultural landscapes. A second part makes use of case studies in the London area to give evidence on the problems just expressed; it is based on research and field surveys. Case studies have been chosen in different parts of the London metropolitan area; all of these have a strong relationship with the city, for their proximity but also for the growing pressure of the urban area on the countryside. The cultural heritage of each case study has been investigated by field visits and interviews structured to understand the cultural components depending on tangible and intangible heritage and scenic value, highlighting relationships among them. Interviews have been mainly conducted with the farm manager but also involve

148

R. Laviscio

other people (visitors, other workers). A discussion on the results points out, where possible, the factors that allow the maintenance of the agrarian landscape system and the importance of the contribution of urban agriculture.

9.2  The Conservation of Rural Heritage in England 9.2.1  Organization The framework of the competences related to cultural heritage and landscape in the United Kingdom is quite complex; several bodies, organizations, agencies, and institutions, at different levels, manage the landscape and cultural heritage. At the central level, the main institution responsible for the protection of the landscape was, until 1992, the DoE, Department of Environment. Its scope – initially a very wide one – was substantially reduced in 1992 with the establishment of the Department of National Heritage (DoNH), whose competence concerns the protection of monuments, archaeological sites, and historical parks until then subject to the Ministry of the Environment (DoE). It is supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), which manages agricultural land and all operations that take place on it (80% of the territory). Today, the competences of the Department of Environment and of the Ministry of Agriculture are entrusted to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and the Department of National Heritage is called the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. Many responsibilities are delegated to nongovernmental organizations. These “Quangos” are nongovernmental bodies, appointed directly by the Government, involved in the administrative management of geographically vast areas or problems at a national level, always in a non-institutional way: they are organized with decentralized regional departments and distributed throughout the national territory. Concerning landscape and territory, a large part of the plans, programs, projects, and other instruments with an important role in the design and conservation of the landscape is now drafted by these bodies. Today, Natural England (established in 2006 from the fusion of English Nature and Countryside Agency) is responsible for land management, landscapes, parks, trails and nature reserves, protected sites and species, recreation, and wildlife and habitat conservation, to ensure their protection and improvement. Historic England (officially the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; English Heritage before 2015) is in charge of protecting the historical environment of England by preserving and listing historic buildings, ancient monuments, and rural heritage and advising central and local governments. These two bodies are complementary and have the most authority for the safeguarding of both landscape and built heritage.

9  Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions…

149

9.2.2  Landscape, Heritage, and Rural Heritage. Definitions The European Landscape Convention also defines the reference point regarding the landscape in the UK. According to the general definition of landscape established by the European Landscape Convention,3 Natural England considers landscape as an integrating framework encompassing and embracing the interaction of natural, cultural, and perceptual attributes. Thus, landscape provides a context for people’s lives and is valued by those people. It is an object of continuing change that, at the same time, provides a sense of continuity by linking the past to the present and the future (Fig. 9.1). Landscape is, therefore, the heritage of a place, intended as “all inherited resources which people value for reasons beyond mere utility” (Drury and McPherson 2008). The rural heritage is a strong expression of this concept, formed by people living on and working the land over thousands of years. Included are a great range of heritage assets: landscape settings, settlements patterns, historic buildings, archeological remains, the signs of a complex history of farming regimes, rural industries, economies, and ways of life. However, woodland and rough ground management, field patterns, trees, or hedges are also elements of the English rural system and contribute to understanding agricultural processes, providing opportunities to manage future changes in a better way. Another important element of English rural heritage is the historic estate that combines agricultural land, a designed landscape, and significant buildings. Fig. 9.1  What is landscape (Landscape Character Assessment Guidance, SNH/CA 2004): Natural England, in accordance with ELC, considers landscape as an integrating framework encompassing and embracing the interaction of natural, cultural, and perceptual attributes

 “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Art. 1, ELC, Florence, 2000). 3

150

R. Laviscio

The rural heritage is a living heritage, a place of work and life for many people, and its management requires a strong and wide knowledge of its values.

9.2.3  M  ethods and Tools for the Knowledge and the Conservation of Rural Heritage The first mission of the bodies responsible for the conservation and management of English landscape and rural heritage is, therefore, raising the awareness of the values of this heritage and of the benefits deriving from its conservation at all levels. Conservation does not want to mummify, but rather to guarantee, the enjoyment and sustainable use of this great national resource. The need for widespread knowledge, including all aspects of the landscape and rural heritage (as explained here) led the United Kingdom, some years ago, to develop, at a national level, two methods of knowledge and assessment that are now widely used in the rest of Europe and beyond (Simensen et  al. 2018; Butler and Berglund 2014). On one hand, Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is concerned with landscape geographic and visual aspects; on the other, Historic Landscape Character Assessment (HLC) mainly focuses on the historical and time–depth dimensions. Both methodologies aim to identify the features that give a territory its ‘sense of place,’ pinpointing what makes it different from its neighbouring areas. The first approach derives landscape character from a specific combination of natural factors: geology, landform, rivers and drainage systems, soils, land cover, and cultural/social factors (land use including farm types; settlement pattern; patterns of field enclosure). At a national level, “The Character of England map,” produced in 1996 by the Countryside Commission and English Nature with support from English Heritage, provides a picture of the different landscape characters for the whole of England. A particular emphasis is given to the scenic value of the landscape also, showing how the landscape is seen by people. With this aim, it is important to record aesthetic aspects of landscape character such as scale, enclosure, diversity, texture, form, line, colour, balance, movement, and pattern but also some more subjective factors such as the sense of wildness, sense of security, the quality of light and perceptions of beauty or scenic attractiveness, and the noisiness or tranquillity of the place. The second, proposed by English Heritage, focuses on the understanding and explanation of present-day landscape physical patterns, as well as on the evidence of past human activity and systems. From a time perspective, the interaction between men and places, focusing on a place’s historic character, is analysed. It begins with the systematic identification and description of many of the historic attributes of the contemporary rural and urban landscape. These attributes include aspects of the natural and built environment that have been shaped by human activity in the past (the distribution of woodland and other semi-natural habitats, the form of fields and

9  Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions…

151

their boundaries, the lines of roads, streets, and pathways, and the disposition of buildings in the towns, villages, and countryside). The attributes define Historic Landscape Character Types. Referring in particular to historic farmsteads, the Farmstead Character Assessment help to understand their historic character, significance, and issues for change. Most traditional English farm buildings date from the nineteenth century and only a fraction of them are protected through listing. Most of these form part of farmsteads that include other traditional buildings. These farms make an essential contribution to England’s remarkably varied landscape character and local distinctiveness and are repositories of local crafts, skills, and techniques, in harmony with their surroundings and using traditional materials, often closely related to local geology. The restructuring and diversification of farm businesses and the increasing demand for living and working in rural landscapes determines the need to adapt these buildings to new uses. English Heritage has, therefore, decided to define the methods for their correct reuse to keep their character alive as well as their meaning and relationship with the landscape. Conscious that the preferable use is that of agriculture, English Heritage suggests possibilities of reuse for nonagricultural activities also, based on the adaptability that rural buildings have to accommodate new practices and technologies over time. To define the capacity of a building to maintain a new use, without causing substantial and permanent damage, it is essential to understand the time to which the construction dates, the uses it has and has had over time, the dimensions and shapes of the spaces (and their changes to adapt to the different uses over time), and how its agricultural landscape has changed. The dissemination of such knowledge takes place, first of all, through the guidelines that have the purpose of a better understanding of the landscape character and its sensitivity to change, at a large scale and at the scale of the farm buildings. These guidelines are often developed in collaboration with local authorities to join to local characteristics and to effectively integrate with spatial planning tools. Especially in the case of rural buildings, the guidelines are also communicated through training courses and workshops, practical courses, where expert tutors show how to observe, analyse, hand-measure, draw, and photograph historic buildings. The awareness of the historical and landscape values of historical buildings is achieved through practical experience of investigating and recording a historic building under expert supervision; through the comparison of maps of different periods and the direct observation of both landscape and buildings, people can appreciate, at first hand, the permanencies that make that system a value to be preserved. It should not be forgotten that guidelines are tools aimed at increasing the awareness of rural heritage, but which do not have direct operational impact, as other conservation instruments such as the definition of protected areas or formal obligations that, instead, produce specific management plans. Moreover, the attempt is to shift attention from only outstandingly beautiful landscapes to more typical, but equally important, landscapes.

152

R. Laviscio

9.3  U  rban Agriculture as an Opportunity for Conservation of the Agrarian Building–Landscape Relationship What is the effectiveness of these analytical methodological tools in terms of recognition (and consequent conservation) of the cultural values of the agricultural landscape in relationship to urban and periurban areas? Analysis of some case studies in the area of influence of the city of London may provide some reflections. In these experiences, the greater or lesser degree of continuity in agricultural activity allows a first, although limited, consideration of the support that urban agriculture gives to the conservation of rural heritage (and vice versa). The case studies are analysed with reference to the components of the cultural heritage as defined in the first part of the article (tangible heritage, intangible heritage, and sensorial perception). The analysis evaluates the permanence of cultural heritage, the awareness and involvement of the population in the recognition and conservation of cultural heritage and continuity in agricultural activity.

9.3.1  The Forty Hall Farm, Enfield The Forty Hall Farm is part of a large estate that lies about 1 mile north of the centre of the town of Enfield in former Middlesex, now Greater London. The suburban development of London marks the southern and eastern sides of the Estate; its north and west sides are lapped by London’s Green Belt, which is cut through by the newly constructed M25 motorway about 0.5 mile north of the Estate. Forty Hall Estate is a significant example, within Greater London, of a relatively unaltered seventeenth- and eighteenth-century country estate landscape.4 The estate includes the early seventeenth-century country house with its farm buildings, remnants of a sixteenth-century deer park, seventeenth-century raised walks, a lime avenue and water gardens; eighteenth-century pleasure grounds and ferme ornée; and nineteenth-century tree planting in the picturesque style. Most of the buildings and park are subject to protection by Historic England with different degrees of protection (grade I and grade II); the agrarian landscape is regulated by Natural England (Fig. 9.2). The landscape of the estate is the result of a long process of transformation over at least three centuries and contains relict elements of former landscapes, such as earthworks and buildings, and living elements such as trees and grassland.

4  The historical information summarized here is taken from Broadway Malyan Cultural Heritage, Estate Conservation Management Plan, 1999; Wittrick, A.R., Report On Selected Farm Buildings At Forty Hall London Borough Of Enfield Survey and Historical Description, English heritage, 1996; Enfield Council, Forty Hall Park Management Plan 2007-2022, https://new.enfield.gov.uk/ services/leisure-and-culture/forty-hall-park-management-plan-leisure.pdf

9  Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions…

153

Fig. 9.2  Forty Hall Estate: a complex multifunctional system where urban agriculture sustains cultural heritage through the development of activity compatible with the character of the historic buildings and landscape. Vice versa, cultural heritage sustains urban agriculture by offering a unique landscape, the result of historical, perceptive, and symbolic values. (Photos: Raffaella Laviscio)

The Estate began with the construction, within the great hunting forest of Enfield Chase, of an important medieval manor house, first mentioned circa 1380, which was converted to the Royal Palace of Elsyng circa 1540 (although there is evidence for occupation in the vicinity of the Estate from prehistoric and Roman times). The main transformation dates back to the eighteenth century when Forty Hall was erected for Nicholas Rainton in 1629–1636. The building was remodelled in the early eighteenth century when it took on its current external character as a square, three-storeyed house of light red brick with a green slate roof. The house was originally set in a relatively small plot, consisting of a formal garden to the east and south and a kitchen garden (which still exists) to the west, with an entrance courtyard to the north. Another courtyard was mainly for farmyard buildings and included a barn and stables. Around 1650, the estate was expanded to include the former medieval manor and Tudor royal palace of Elsyng, which stood to the north of the house, along with the deer park attached to the palace. The palace was demolished, and a formal, landscaped park created. A double lime avenue terminating in a circular pond in front of the house was created in the early eighteenth century. The mid-seventeenth-century layout is characterized by the addition of the service areas, originally consisting of a bake house, stable, and coach house. The grounds reached their current form essentially before 1777. The circular pond was transformed into an irregular lake, the formal gardens to the east of the

154

R. Laviscio

house transformed into a pleasure ground, a series of medieval fish ponds at the north end of the park into pond groves, and a ferme orneé (ornamental farm with fields separated by raised walks) developed to the west of the park. The home farm also began development in this period: it is now a collection of eighteenth- to early twentieth-century buildings forming an almost complete example of a vernacular farmstead and is important in its demonstration of the sequence of activity in a developing landscape. The complete complex was constructed, over the centuries, to compactly reproduce all the features of the country greater residences, wherein each part is related to the other by functional and symbolic relationships to guarantee recreation, food consumption, and landscape control. The house and estate were bought by Enfield Council in 1951. The house is now a museum and the park is an open public space. The ancillary buildings host a café attached to the house and the ‘banqueting suite.’ The farm, ferme orneé, and about 160 acres of farmland are now leased to Capel Manor Horticultural College, an education college in London specializing in learning about the environment, and serve as an educational resource for Capel Manor’s students, with a range of partand full-time courses such as horticulture, arboriculture, agriculture, landscaping, and garden design. Additionally, several types of urban agriculture are currently present at Forty Hall Farm, which is a certified organic farm, with a variety of animals, including many rare breeds, an organic commercial vineyard, a community orchard, a market garden, and a farm shop. The primary aim is organic production and the local people’s involvement with educational purposes. Educational activity concerns environmental projects but with special attention paid to the transmission of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage that is offered by the extraordinary landscape of Forty Hall. Thus, for example, the orchard was planted in 2011 on a 1-acre site, alongside Forty Hall’s historic walled garden on the same site as the nineteenth-century orchard, with respect for the ancient parcelling. This demonstration project presents a wide variety of fruit trees and bushes, including heritage varieties that are local to London and Middlesex. It is managed by volunteers who, by learning how to grow fruit, appreciate the heritage of the place. The vineyard is also managed by volunteers; it is a social enterprise with the main aims of people’s involvement and local production. More than 8 acres of land are dedicated to organic lettuce and vegetable production. The majority of the production is sold locally through a veg bag scheme and in the Forty Hall Farm Shop, but the produce also refreshes the menu at the Nice Green Café in Forty Hall, in some way restoring the ancient relationship between the house, its farm buildings, and the surrounding agricultural land. Some farm activity takes place in the historic buildings. Changes to the historical buildings to allow adaptation to new functions are minimal and respectful of the existing pattern. Other projects take place in more modern buildings when not suitable to the historic character of the Estate, but also because of the serious degradation of certain buildings.

9  Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions…

155

The historic parcelling is respected, and traditional techniques are adopted for the maintenance of hedges. Access to the farm is via the historic landscaped parkland of Forty Hall, which acts as a gateway to the wider countryside beyond and allows views over the surrounding agricultural and woodland panorama. It is a very attractive, rolling agricultural perspective, with open fields drained by a criss-cross of watercourses. The impression is of a very rural area even though we are on the edge of the town. Also, the smells and sounds reflect those of an agricultural and natural landscape.

9.3.2  The Woodlands Farm Trust, Welling, Kent The Woodlands Farm Trust is a working city farm that now covers an agricultural area of approximately 82 acres with some 8 acres of associated farmland. It is located on Shooter’s Hill in Welling in southeast London just 10.3 miles from the city centre. The area is surrounded by suburban development. The farm has a long history5 and was created sometime between 1800 and 1830 from a dense forest known as Bushy Lees Wood. Its agrarian landscape, however, is much older, and the small-scale drawing that characterizes it in the first available maps of the area seems to indicate its medieval origin. Some of the more mature hedges at Woodlands Farm are approximately 600 years old, whereas the younger hedging dates from various stages after the clearance of the forest (Fig. 9.3). The shape of the Farm’s perimeter can be dated back to the original boundaries laid down in the clearance of Bushy Lees Wood. In the early twentieth century the outbuildings included a large barn with a clock, stables, and cottages forming a courtyard. Adjacent to the house was a brick-built washhouse, more stables, and a harness room with a granary above. Behind the barn was a cowhouse, pig yard, chaff house, and a brick cart lodge. Nowadays, only the farm house remains of these

Fig. 9.3  Historic landscape of Woodland Farm Trust. The ancient agrarian landscape managed by Woodland Farm trust is rich with hedgerows maintained in a traditional way in compliance with Natural England. (Photos: Raffaella Laviscio) 5  For more information consult the page https://www.thewoodlandsfarmtrust.org/history.html (accessed 30 April 2019).

156

R. Laviscio

ancient buildings, and several recent buildings have been added to adapt the site to new uses. In 1919, the Farm was purchased by the Royal Arsenal Cooperative Society and became known to residents as the Co-op Pig Farm. As well as keeping pigs, the Farm remained a commercial arable farm, producing barley and hay for many more years. In 1983, the Farm was threatened with extinction by plans to build a motorway link across the site and gradually ceased to function. The Farm lay derelict for about 10 years until 1995 when planning permission was sought to build housing on some of the cleared site of the abattoir. Local people fought to save the land, and the Woodlands Farm Trust was founded in 1997 with the aim of regenerating the Farm. Nowadays the agricultural activities include livestock, management of arable fields, and woodland. There is also a local market for products produced on site. The agricultural activity is linked to an educational purpose but also to the promotion of biodiversity and the conservation of heritage, including the farming of typical local breeds of cattle (Gloucester Old Spot Pig, Irish Moiled Cattle, Lleyn Ewe and Lambs, British White Calf) and the permanence of traditional techniques to manage the hedgerows. The traditional maintenance of old hedgerows begins in autumn and continues until March. A dedicated group of farm volunteers carries out this work. Woodlands Farm has about 2.5  km of hedgerows and Natural England pays the costs of maintaining the hedges in the traditional manner. Activities at the farm also include organized educational visits, healthy walks, orienteering, and experience of the countryside as an environmental and cultural heritage feature, discovering, for example, the historical paths and places that witnessed historical events such as the Roman legion march, the Peasants’ Revolt led by Wat Tyler in 1381, from Kent to Smithfield via Blackheath, at least one of Henry VIII’s May Day celebrations in the sixteenth century, and highwaymen plying their trade in the Shooters Hill area in the 1700s. The Farm is also the custodian of anecdotes coming from local people who used to work at Woodlands Farm or knew somebody who did and that attest to the great significance attributed by people to this agrarian landscape. The history of the farm and its landscape is shown also by brochures and historical documents, and photographs are shown in some of the farm buildings. The farm is predominantly run by volunteers, and, therefore, based on people involvement. Continuity in agricultural activities is essential to the conservation of the cultural heritage linked, in this case, more to the open landscape and symbolic values than to the built heritage. The landscape affects the senses through a wider variety of colours, small groups of trees, and especially hedges that delimit irregularly shaped fields; by the sounds and colours related to the presence of flowers and fruits, of wild creatures such as birds, bats, butterflies, frogs, and toads, and, of course, of cows, sheep and pigs plus chickens and ducks. The sensory perception changes during the seasons with the large variety of crops and wild creatures linked to the vegetation.

9  Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions…

157

9.3.3  Halden Place Farmstead, Rolvenden, Kent The Halden Place historical farmstead is situated in Rovelden Kent, about 50 miles from the centre of London in a traditional agricultural landscape. Despite the distance, the area suffers greatly from the pressure of the city; it is a destination for holidays and weekend breaks of the inhabitants of London and increasingly home to people who work in the city. The landscape reflects the typical character of the High Weald, which was, as its name suggests, a huge woodland, a forest, until circa 800 A.D.6 Physical conditions such as highly varied topography, cold, ill-drained soils, and cold winters have always favoured tree growth. Nevertheless, between 1086 and 1346, 50% of the woodland cover was removed by farmers to create the landscape that largely remains intact to this day: small farms characterized by small irregular closes or fields set within a framework of remaining small woodlands. This essentially ancient landscape derives from a once highly integrated and labour-intensive land management system where agriculture and woodland management were in a mutually beneficial economic symbiosis on every farm holding. The layout is therefore medieval and identifiable from the very first maps of the area, which have remained largely unchanged. The heavy soil also leads, with the presence of woods, to the potential for growing high-value horticultural crops, particularly hops, which need the shelter provided by woodland and the large volumes of timber for the hop gardens and to fire the kilns. Halden Place has some of the better and most manageable soil types in the area and was able to support a significant farmstead built in 1742 for the mix of arable, livestock, and hops. The complex contains a range of traditional brick and timber farm buildings last used for agriculture in the mid-1980s. It is constructed entirely of a heavy timber frame with the outer walls clad in weatherboard under a tiled roof. Most of the standing buildings are listed Grade II, including Halden Place farmhouse (mainly eighteenth century); the granary and stable block situated to the east of the house (possibly seventeenth century), with the attached oasthouses dated 1809; and, to the southwest of Halden Place, the Great Barn (listed as eighteenth century) and associated outbuildings (nineteenth century). At Halden Place, hops would have been the major income earner for the farmers of the day, a process that continued until 1995 when agricultural mechanization required different and bigger buildings with the construction of new, modern buildings next to the older ones (which were then removed). Today, historical farm buildings are detached from the land that surrounds them, which is now occupied by a tenant farmer based 15 km away. The buildings host

6  Edwards, R., Lake, J., Historic Farmsteads & Landscape Character in the High Weald AONB, 2007; Oldakre Associates, Settlement form, character and building design within the Parish of Rolvenden, Kent, 2013, https://aurora896blog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/settlement-formcharacter-and-building-design-within-the-parish-of-rolvenden-kent.pdf; Martin, D., Martin, B., Farm Buildings of the Weald 1450–1750, 2006, Great Dunham.

158

R. Laviscio

different activities including a textile conservancy, meetings, events, weddings, small businesses (in other sectors), and the rent of the little paddock for privately owned horses. The buildings have been recently restored with great respect for their original character, applying Historic England guidelines. These days, Halden Place is quite well known as it was in the past. It is mentioned in several documents. and a rather large bibliography is available. Some references link Halden Place to the name of Sir John Guldeford, knight; “the arms of Guldeford still remain, carved in stone, on the stables belonging to the Great Barn.”7 The surrounding land retains its medieval character with a unique patchwork of wood-bound fields and is well maintained. The tenant farmer farms the fields and keeps all the hedges and woods in good condition. The maintenance of the traditional character of the landscape results from specific EU and UK laws and regulations (it is a landscape recognized to be of national importance as conferred in its Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty recognition) but also from a great sense of the place by people who manage and live in it. Today the landscape of Halden Place is one of relatively small scale, slightly undulating, and mostly enclosed within a complex texture characterized by wooded binderies and irregular fields that create a harmonious overall picture. People value the scenic beauty of the landscape: its ancientness and sense of history are enhanced by the presence of historic buildings and the wonderful views. Visitors enjoy the relative sense of tranquillity and intimacy provided by this much appreciated landscape. The farm nearby does not create strong odours, and the sounds of nature, such as wind and birds, can be clearly heard (Figs. 9.4 and 9.5).

9.4  Discussion and Conclusions Case studies show how cultural heritage can be consistent in the agricultural landscape, including urban and periurban areas and its enhancement is recognized as a key factor in promoting agricultural and nonagricultural activities. The presence of both tangible and intangible heritage is noted, in different ways, in all case studies: historical rural buildings are preserved and techniques and traditional know-how (traditional horticultural techniques, typical local products, ancient varieties) inform urban agriculture activities at Forty Hall Farm. At Woodland Farm Trust, built heritage is quite reduced but historical traces are substantial in the open landscape (parcelling, woods, hedgerows). Managed through traditional techniques and symbolic values, these traces have a great relevance for local people; historical rural buildings and their medieval landscape are largely maintained at Halden Place. The knowledge of this cultural heritage can be effectively acquired through the methodologies and tools that Natural England and Historic England have been

7  The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, vol. 7. Originally published by W. Bristow, Canterbury, 1798. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol7/pp183-200

9  Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions…

159

Fig. 9.4  Historic and current maps of Halden Place: the comparison between maps of different periods (1893, 1912, 1939, 2014) allows signs and elements, recognizable in the current landscape palimpsest, to be dated, historical value attributed, and permanent features as well as changes to be evaluated. (Source: AONB High Weald)

Fig. 9.5  Farmhouse at Halden Place: historical buildings are maintained in their original form and materials despite being adapted to other uses than agricultural activity. The traditional roofs used for growing hops are remarkable. (Photo: Raffaella Laviscio)

160

R. Laviscio

developing for some time, even if they require long study: from bibliographic and desk studies, to the analysis of historical cartography, surveys, and on-site interviews. The state of conservation of the analysed case studies, however, demonstrates their effectiveness, even if often supported by the existence of other restrictive measures (protected areas, listed buildings, and specific obligations for the open landscape). These tools emphasize the tangible heritage and the aspect of sensory perception, while the reading of the economic and social processes and the functional system linked to each landscape is not explicitly researched and rather is deduced secondarily (Scazzosi 2018). However, all these methods contribute largely to the spread of landscape awareness. The interviewees have always demonstrated a great knowledge of their history and of their heritage, and all of them show interest in promoting projects of active transmission of their local cultural heritage. Heritage awareness and care can generate income: work on a historical site of high value is not a disadvantage but an opportunity to increase revenue. The maintenance of the historical character of the landscape also increases the scenic value. The continuity of the agricultural function and its adaptation to the needs expressed by the city is certainly a positive factor: it not only contributes to the conservation of the heritage (maintaining traditional cultural landscape, transmitting traditional techniques and crop varieties, adapting historical buildings to new uses that do not require substantial transformation to the existing structure) and to its systemic comprehension (at Forty Hall Farm, agriculture continues to feed the restorative functions to which the residence has been converted, as in the past it fed the family), but also supports the spread of knowledge connected to the location and the growth of awareness by the population by its direct involvement in the maintenance of cultural heritage. This is true of Forty Hall Farm and Woodland Farm Trust where urban agriculture activities are largely based on the involvement of the population (for the cultivation of vegetables and vineyards, the maintenance of hedges, and direct sales of produce); this is not the case of Halden Place where conventional agriculture is separated from the activities established in rural buildings, so that the original, functioning rural system has been disrupted and the population is not directly involved in the maintenance of the rural landscape (even though there is almost complete preservation of formal signs and material permanencies of heritage). An English study on the economic value of cultural heritage (Davies and Clayton 2010) shows how its regeneration has several benefits: improving the perceptions of local areas, increasing civic pride and sense of identity, improving social interaction, increasing community safety, enhancing the landscape. Many of these benefits are also derived from urban agriculture (Löhrberg et al. 2016). Their union can then become a further effective tool for the protection of our rural heritage.

9  Is Urban Agriculture an Opportunity to Preserve Landscape Systems? Suggestions…

161

References Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape Urban Plan, 70, 21–34. Branduini, P., Laviscio, R., Scazzosi, L., Supuka, J., & Tóth, A. (2016). Urban agriculture and cultural heritage: An historical and spatial relationship. In F. Lohrberg, L. Licka, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timpe (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 138–147). Berlin: Jovis. Buciega, A., Pitarch, M.  D., & Esparcia, J. (2009). The context of rural-urban relationships in Finland, France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain. J Environ Pol Plann, 11, 9–27. Butler, A., & Berglund, U. (2014). Landscape character assessment as an approach to understanding public interests within the European landscape convention. Landsc Res, 39(3), 219–236. Claval, P. (2004). The languages of rural landscapes. In H.  Palang, H.  Soovali, M.  Antrop, & G. Setten (Eds.), European rural landscapes: Persistence and change in a globalising environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Daugstad, K., Rønningen, K., & Skar, B. (2006). Agriculture as an upholder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value judgements: a Norwegian perspective in international context. J Rural Stud, 22, 67–81. Davies, J., & Clayton, L. (2010). Heritage counts 2010 England. Swindon: English Heritage. Deutsch, L., Dyball, R., & Steffen, W. (2013). Feeding cities: Food security and ecosystem suport in an urbaninzing world. In T.  Elmqvist, M.  Fragkias, J.  Goodness, B.  Güneralp, P.  J. Marcotullio, R.  I. McDonald, S.  Parnell, M.  Schewenius, M.  Sendstad, C.  Seto, & C.  Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 505–537). Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer. Dixon, J., Omwega, A., Friel, S., Burns, C., Donati, K., & Carlisle, R. (2007). The health equity dimensions of urban food systems. J Urban Health, 84(1), 118–129. Drury, P., & McPherson, A. (2008). Conservation principles policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment. Swindon: English Heritage. Haigron, D. (Ed.). (2017). The English countryside. In: Representations, identities, mutations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hazeu, G.  W., Metzger, M.  J., Mucher, C.  A., Perez-Soba, M., Renetzeder, C., & Andersen, E. (2011). European environmental stratifications and typologies: An overview. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 142, 29–39. Lange, A., Piorr, A., Siebert, R., & Zasada, I. (2013). Spatial differentiation of farm diversification: How rural attractiveness and vicinity to determine farm households’ response to CAP. Land Use Policy, 31, 136–144. Laviscio, R. (2014). Il paesaggio agrario come bene culturale. Spunti per una classificazione volta alla tutela e alla valorizzazione. In G. Bonini & C. Visentin (Eds.), Paesaggi in trasformazione. Teorie e pratiche della ricerca a cinquant’anni dalla Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano di Emilio Sereni (pp. 671–678). Bologna: Editrice Compositori. Laviscio, R., & Scazzosi, L. (2015). Cultural approaches towards a world rural landscape recommendation. In: M. Di Stefano (Ed.), Heritage and landscape as human values. Proceedings of the symposium at the 18th ICOMOS General Assembly, 9–14 November 2014 (pp. 233–240). Florence/Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane. Lohrberg, F., Licka, L., Scazzosi, L., & Timpe, A. (Eds.). (2016). Urban agriculture Europe. Berlin: Jovis. Luginbühl, Y. (2012). La mise en scène du monde, construction du paysage européen. Paris: Éditions du CRNS. Marini, L., Klimek, S., & Battisti, A. (2011). Mitigating the impacts of decline of traditional farming on mountain landscapes and biodiversity: A case study in the European Alps. Environ Sci Policy, 14, 258–267. Merson, J., et al. (2009). Urban expansion and sensitive environments: Assessing the role of agri-­ industries as landscape buffers to the neighbouring Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Barton: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

162

R. Laviscio

Mischi, J. (2009). Englishness and the countryside. How British rural studies address the issue of national identity. In F. Reviron-Piegay (Ed.), Englishness revisited (pp. 109–125). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mok, H. F., Williamson, V. G., Grove, J. R., Burry, K., Barker, S. F., & Hamilton, A. J. (2014). Strawberry fields forever? Urban agriculture in developed countries: A review. Agron Sustain Dev, 34, 21–43. Mücher, C.  A., Klijn, J.  A., Wascher, D.  M., & Schaminée, J.  H. J. (2010). A new European landscape classification (LANMAP): A transparent, flexible and user-oriented methodology to distinguish landscapes. Ecol Indic, 10, 87–103. Paradis, S., Cieszewska, A., Tóth, A., & Šuklje Erjavec, I. (2016). Agriculture in urban space. In F.  Lohrberg, L.  Licka, L.  Scazzosi, & A.  Timple (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 120–125). Berlin: Jovis. Pearson, D., & Hodgkig, K. (2010). The role of community gardens in urban agriculture. In B. Turner, J. Henryks, & D. Pearson (Eds.), Community garden conference. Promoting sustainability, health and inclusion in the city (pp. 88–94). Canberra: Universisty of Canberra. Scazzosi, L. (2018). Landscapes as systems of tangible and intangible relationships. Small theoretical and methodological introduction to read and evaluate rural landscape as heritage. In E.  Rosina & L.  Scazzosi (Eds.), The conservation and enhancement of built and landscape heritage. A new life for the ghost village of Mondonico on Lake Como (pp.  19–40). Milan: PoliScript, Politecnico di Milano. Sereni, E. (1961). Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano. Bari: Laterza [Histoire du Paysage rural italien. Paris, 1964, transl. L. Gross; History of the Italian agricultural landscape. Princeton, 1997, transl. B. Litchfield]. Simensen, T., Halvorsen, R., & Eikstad, L. (2018). Methods for landscape characterization and mapping: A systematic review. Land Use Policy, 75, 557–569. Yang, Z., Cai, J., & Sliuzas, R. (2010). Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China. Habitat Int, 34, 374–385. Yokohari, M., Brown, R. D., & Takeuchi, K. (1994). A framework for the conservation of rural ecological landscapes in the urban fringe area in Japan. Landscape Urban Plan, 29, 103–116. Zasada, I. (2011). Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture. A review of societal demands and the provision of goods services by farming. Land Use Policy, 28, 639–648.

Part III

The Co-construction of Urban Agricultural Landscape

Chapter 10

Agriculture and the City of Geneva: The End of a Love Affair? Joëlle Salomon Cavin and Nelly Niwa

Abstract  The Geneva region is mostly known for its urban character, but it also has a significant rural dimension because about half its territory is indeed dedicated to rural activities. Until recently, cultivated areas have resisted urbanisation pressure well thanks to a green ring and to specific federal laws. However, the recent changes in Swiss agricultural policy and the development needs of the region have altered this balance between agriculture and urbanisation. Within the new Master Plan of the Geneva Canton, agricultural spaces are considered as areas of future urbanisation. This situation endangers local agriculture that might lose some of its best market garden areas situated in the expanded urban centre. At the same time, the Geneva Canton is developing various strategies to strengthen the links with its agriculture.

10.1  Introduction As are many metropolitan regions, Geneva is known for its urban dimensions. However, this extremely dense and compact city is situated in the center of a large agricultural landscape. Half the territory of the canton of Geneva is still devoted to agriculture (Salomon Cavin and Mumenthaler 2016). Agriculture is having difficult times in Geneva. As rural landscape and a farming area, it has been protected until recent years, both as part of federal policy (subsidies, protection of agricultural land) (Bourdin et al. 2008) and in the context of the Geneva urban region (preservation of the green belt). This protection is now significantly challenged by the development needs of the city of Geneva. The farmlands on the edges of town are virtually the only lands available for the development of compact urbanisation. In the years to come, it is clear that some farming areas will disappear. The current situation is indeed perilous but might produce the conditions for a redefinition of the relationships between agriculture and the city.

J. Salomon Cavin (*) · N. Niwa University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_10

165

166

J. Salomon Cavin and N. Niwa

10.2  T  raditional Protection of Agriculture and Agricultural Landscapes 10.2.1  At the Federal Scale It is worth noticing that in Switzerland, the self-sufficiency question has had a strong impact on the principles of spatial planning. In 1937, the unstable international situation, dependence on the importation of food, and the memory of privation led the authorities to organize a special program of supplies and stocks of food. In practical terms, the Wahlen program took into consideration two aspects: the food needs of the population and the availability of land (Cogato Lanza 2009). Based on the ratio of these two elements, a register of the different cultivable lands was made in every town. The limit of every area was then put on the allotment map of the town and thus can be considered as a direct integration of food planning into spatial planning. It had an important impact on the planning of urban limits by making the distinction between buildable and non-buildable areas. As required by the federal law on spatial planning, the country should maintain a sufficient land basis to produce food in case of the interruption of supply. The plan sectoriel des surfaces d’assolement is a tool that was designed in 1992 to maintain a minimal area of production for the country (Jean Ruegg 2016). This plan set aside areas of good agricultural land to be preserved in the country. In practical terms, this plan leads to a veritable competition between agricultural and urban activity, because the good agricultural land is also the land that is the best adapted to urbanisation by geographic, topographic, or climatic factors. This strong historical relationship between agriculture and planning is also linked with the question of urban regulation. Agriculture is one of the main activities of non-built areas and has had an important role in Switzerland in limiting urban sprawl. Historically, there was a real point of convergence between agriculture and urban planning goals and strategies (Jean Ruegg and Salomon Cavin 2008). This convergence turned out to be very efficient in maintaining the distinction between built and non-built areas. Since the federal law on spatial planning was put into practice in 1979, the objectives of planning and agriculture have been shared. The aim of the spatial planning law (Art. 1) is to limit the use of land for reasons other than agriculture. The separation between built and non-built areas provided efficient protection to agricultural land. The protection was strengthened by the aim of the law on agriculture securing the economic viability of agricultural activities: from 1951 onwards, the agricultural law supported farmers’ incomes by guaranteeing the production price (Jean Ruegg 2016). Until 2000, this arrangement was very successful in limiting urban sprawl and construction in agricultural areas. Today, as we see later in this chapter, this win–win strategy is in question.

10  Agriculture and the City of Geneva: The End of a Love Affair?

167

10.2.2  In the Geneva Region Geneva is a good example of how spatial planning can contribute to the preservation of an agricultural landscape. The canton of Geneva has strictly maintained its rural area by supporting its agriculture and by making a clear distinction between the agglomeration and the countryside. Besides the protection of agricultural areas, food production has also been locally supported to increase the self-sufficiency of the region. From 1628 until the nineteenth century, the chambre des blés was in charge of ensuring the security of its people by saving enough grain to meet the needs of the population for 2 to 3 years (Probst et al. 2004). Local crops were bought, and if that was not enough, others were imported. The canton thus supported local agriculture by maintaining prices and guaranteeing to the farmer a buyer for his products. Besides this historical protection of food production, which reinforced agriculture’s legitimacy on the land, agriculture was also supported by the desire to preserve the landscape. Since the 1920s, the importance of expanding urbanisation pushed authorities to take measures to manage Geneva’s territory. Five areas were identified to control future development. The first four were mainly urban areas with different densities. The fifth zone, often called the green belt of Geneva, constituted the rest of the canton and was zoned for rural farms and villas. This ring was clearly designed to protect the agricultural landscape near the city of Geneva by limiting urban pressure. The distinction between these areas has allowed the preservation of the landscape, mainly in the interest of the rich neighbourhood, and has indirectly protected agriculture from being urbanised (Walter 1994). In 1950, the threat of urbanisation on agricultural land led the government to divide the fifth zone into “fifth zone A,” designed for villas, and “fifth zone B,” for agricultural purposes. In addition, in 1957, the law on the urban development of Geneva defined “development zones” that are superimposed on existing construction zones. Its application tends to intensify the construction of housing in the area designated for villas while the agricultural area remains quite stable and preserved. These zoning and densification measures were established long before the legislation at the Federal Scale in 1979. Geneva can thus be considered as a pioneer in Switzerland in planning and protection of agricultural landscape. Rare are the examples in Switzerland where such an agricultural belt could be maintained around the city. The title of this chapter refers to the love between the city and its agricultural landscape. Beyond the joke, it is not unreasonable to assume that only a special attachment of the Genevians to their landscape may explain its current conservation.

168

J. Salomon Cavin and N. Niwa

10.3  The End of Convergence of Interest Until recently, the agricultural landscape of Geneva has been well preserved. This situation illustrates how a good convergence of interests between farming (mainly supported by federal policies) and urban development (the desire to preserve the green belt) can be successful. However, this convergence is currently being challenged.

10.3.1  Changes in Agricultural Federal Policy The preservation of agricultural land in Switzerland remains a strong objective of both agricultural and spatial federal policies. However, and to put it simply, the challenge for the Swiss Confederation is now continuing to support agriculture with restricted funds. One fundamental change is that the price of agricultural production is no longer guaranteed. Henceforth, the incomes of farmers are now divided between the (sale of) production, direct payments (for instance, for environmental services), and the possibility of other activities (food transformation, rural tourism, direct selling). In Switzerland, the definition of a multifunctional agriculture corresponds indeed to the necessity to find new incomes for farmers (Barjolle 2008). In a context in which incomes are no longer guaranteed, the agricultural lands in the periurban areas are particularly at risk where the pressure on the agricultural areas is highest.

10.3.2  T  he Problematic Situation of the Agricultural Landscape in Geneva At the same time, the protection of agricultural areas in the periurban fringe of the city of Geneva is significantly challenged by developmental needs (Salomon Cavin and Mumenthaler 2016). The new urban planning strategy is putting into question the unconditional support that has been given to the agricultural landscape until recently. In the master plan of 2001, some agricultural areas are identified as development areas, and thus their transformation into development areas is planned. A major problem with the canton of Geneva is currently a shortage of homes and offices. Relatively few homes have been built in recent decades despite strong economic growth, and 200,000 new inhabitants are expected by 2030. The “freezing” of the agricultural area as a green belt is not foreign to this shortage because as yet urbanised pockets in the Geneva region are rare. Until recent years, neighbouring France (in the departments of Ain and Haute Savoie) served as a “weir” to urbanisation in Geneva. In other words, the canton of Geneva has been

10  Agriculture and the City of Geneva: The End of a Love Affair?

169

able to preserve this vast agricultural area by shifting its urbanisation to the other side of the border. But the situation has changed. The French part of the urban region can no longer absorb the Geneva development. Some parts of the agricultural zone in Geneva are henceforth also identified as areas of development necessary for urbanisation. In the next 30 years, estimated agricultural area loss will be 2500 hectares (ha) (mainly situated in the canton of Geneva). The arguments to justify this loss of agricultural land are consistent: to build a more sustainable and compact city, the lands on the direct outskirts of the city are preferred. The problematic “weighing of interests” and the different parties involved in the relationship between the city and its agriculture are well illustrated by the “Cherpines” project situated in an agricultural area in the immediate vicinity of the city, 5  km from the center of Geneva. The perimeter totals just under 58  ha. Historically, it is composed of an alluvial plain covered with meadows and open fields. The objectives of the master plan for this area are to create a mixed development with housing, activities, and public facilities. This development is planned to be connected with the public transportation network. The local governments consider the transformation of the agricultural area as a project of general interest, this area being one of the few spaces available to meet, in the mid-term, the demand for housing, facilities, and activities for the city. However, the opponents question the sustainability of a plan that destroys the most dynamic urban farming areas and also the best agricultural soil of the region. Particularly at risk is the largest cardoon farm of the region as well as an initiative of community-supported agriculture. The opponents claim “No to the concrete jungle” (Fig. 10.1). The periurban agricultural landscape of Geneva is subjected to unprecedented urban pressure because of changes in the agricultural policy and because of the urban developmental needs. The unconditional protection of the agricultural landscape is seriously challenged. Is this the end of the love affair? Probably not, if we think about the intense discussions that caused the development project of the Cherpines. The population of Geneva eventually voted on this project and it is only with a narrow majority that it was finally accepted.

10.4  Risks but Opportunities Too The current situation is indeed perilous for agriculture but is also full of opportunities. It is particularly the opportunity to renew a relationship between city and agriculture that was, in effect, unbalanced in the sense that the farming actors were never integrated in the discussion related to the preservation of the agricultural landscape, a one-sided love in some ways. It is worth noticing that agricultural economy was completely undervalued in this spatial strategy of protection. In common features of Western culture, agriculture was seen more as a beautiful backdrop than as a place of production. This

170

J. Salomon Cavin and N. Niwa

Fig. 10.1 Placard against the urbanisation of agricultural land around Geneva. (Source: Exem 2011)

10  Agriculture and the City of Geneva: The End of a Love Affair?

171

denial is what Augustin Berque calls “the forclosure” of agricultural work (Berque 2005). Agriculture as a production is currently less and less foreclosed. Parallel to the projects of urbanisation of the agricultural area, the canton of Geneva is developing its support to agricultural production. The cantonal government has reinforced its ambitions towards agriculture and created new instruments to promote farming and local food production. The Agricultural Promotion Act of 2004 stipulates that the law has a particular aim to foster links between town and countryside, in a closer perspective. It also defines the “food sovereignty” principle that gives priority to local and socially fair food production (Schweizer and Mumenthaler 2017). A good example of this support is the creation of a local label, Genève région Terre Avenir (Fig. 10.2), which certifies local food products. The state of Geneva owns and manages the label. The cantonal government also supports initiatives, such as community-supported agriculture, that improve the relationship between local farmers and urban dwellers. Further, the strong integration of agriculture planning has begun through the agglomeration project at different levels including urban planning, landscape management, biodiversity management, and supply chain management. The point here is that agriculture is named as one of the strategic objectives of the agglomeration project in Geneva. Till recently, in other similar projects in Switzerland, agriculture

Fig. 10.2  The logo of the label for local food products on a package of Geneva lentils

172

J. Salomon Cavin and N. Niwa

was never addressed directly remaining integrated into the category of nature and landscape but not considered in its economic dimension. As part of the agglomeration project, two main objectives are related to agriculture. The first is to enhance and promote the products of local agriculture and the second to preserve and enhance agricultural areas. An “urban agricultural project”has been included in the second phase of a town project since 2012. It is a good indicator of the emergence of a proactive approach on the part of those affected by agriculture and also of genuine concern for the integration of agriculture in the urban project. This urban agricultural project also responds to strong popular demand for urban recreation and high-quality food.

10.5  Conclusions: The Beginning of a New (Love) Story? Agriculture is undergoing difficulties in Geneva. It has been protected until recent years, both as part of federal policy (subsidies, protection of agricultural land) and in the context of the Geneva urban region (protection of the green belt). This protection is significantly challenged now by the development needs of the city of Geneva. The farmlands on the edges of town are virtually the only lands available for the development of compact urbanisation. It is clear that some farming areas will disappear in the years to come. But this period is also the one of a renewed relationship between Geneva and its agriculture. The relationship that existed until recently was based on a one-sided love. The agricultural zone of Geneva was conserved because the urbanites desired to preserve their periurban landscape. Agriculture was foreclosed behind the landscape it produced. The current situation is indeed perilous but provides the possibility of a dialogue among the concerned parties: farmers, planners, environmentalists, urbanites. Together, they reflect a common project: the project of urban agriculture (Salomon Cavin and Niwa 2011).

References Barjolle, D. (2008). L’agriculture dans son nouveau rôle. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes. Berque, A. (2005). La forclusion du travail médial. L’Espace géographique, 34(1), 81–90. Bourdin, D., Ruegg, J., & Salomon Cavin, J. (2008). De l’agriculture périurbaine au projet de ville-campagne: quels enjeux pour la Suisse? In A. Fleury (Ed.), Vers des projets de territoires, vol. 2 des actes du colloque Les agricultures périurbaines, un enjeu pour la ville. Paris: ENSP, Université de Nanterre. Cogato Lanza, E. (2009). La bataille des champs. Agronomie et planification du sol Suisse dans les années 1940. Les experts de la Reconstruction, Figures et stratégies de l’élite technique dans l’Europe d’après, 1945, 74–90.

10  Agriculture and the City of Geneva: The End of a Love Affair?

173

Probst, V., Santschi, C., Oberwiler, E., Berguer, F., Zumkeller, D., & Csillagi, J. (2004). Entre la chèvre et le chou: (a)ménagements agricoles. Genève: Archives d’Etat. Ruegg, J. (2016). Le plan sectoriel des surfaces d’assolement est-il au service de la lutte contre l’étalement urbain? Discussion autour de quelques enjeux actuels. Tracés, 12, 25–30. Ruegg, J., & Salomon Cavin, J. (2008). Maîtriser l’étalement urbain: de la stratégie agricole au pas de deux ville-campagne. In Campagne-ville: le pas de deux (pp. 147–156). PPUR. Retrieved from https://serval.unil.ch/notice/serval:BIB_B940C2E37768. Salomon Cavin, J., & Mumenthaler, C. (2016). Agriculture integrated into urban planning? A challenge. In F. Lohrberg, L. Licka, & L. Scazzosi (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 158–163). Berlin: Jovis. Salomon Cavin, J., & Niwa, N. (2011). Introduction: Agriculture urbaine en Suisse: au-delà des paradoxes. Urbia, 12, 5–16. Schweizer, R., & Mumenthaler, C. (2017). Agriculture urbaine et souveraineté alimentaire à Genève (Suisse), machines à consentement ou moteurs d’hybridation du référentiel agricole dominant? VertigO – la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement, 17(3). https://doi. org/10.4000/vertigo.18759. Walter, F. (1994). La Suisse urbaine, 1750–1950. Carouge-Genève: Ed. Zoé.

Chapter 11

Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges in Montréal and Île Bizard Sabine Courcier and Gérald Domon

Abstract  Already practiced by the Iroquoians before the arrival of Europeans, agriculture spread widely over Montreal Island throughout the nineteenth century, before starting to decline with the urbanization of the twentieth century. Despite the quality of the soil and the favorable climate, only an area of 2047  ha located in western Montreal is declared a permanent agricultural zone today. However, despite or because of this sharp decline, the craze for urban agriculture has proved very important in recent years. In the wake of a vast public consultation on urban agriculture held in 2012, the actions undertaken to support it, and the desire to increase protected natural areas, the City has put forward a project of man-made landscape on Île Bizard (northwest of Montreal). By obtaining the status of a man-made landscape (category V protected area), it would be a matter of ensuring the enhancement of biodiversity and the countryside landscape. However, the project is slow to grow. It faces difficulties inherent in both the protection status and the territory itself. More generally, the project faces the difficulty of reconciling the divergent interests of the actors. Dialogue and convergence of interests are the keywords for the continuation of the project.

11.1  Introduction Urban agriculture has become increasingly popular in recent years in Montréal, as evidenced by the mobilization of local groups, media coverage, and government initiatives. An enabling context for the emergence of such projects as the L’Île-­Bizard man-made landscape, on the fringes of the urban agglomeration of S. Courcier (*) Service des grands parcs, du Mont-Royal et des sports, Ville de Montréal, Québec, Canada e-mail: [email protected] G. Domon Service des grands parcs, du Mont-Royal et des sports, Ville de Montréal, Québec, Canada Université de Montréal, Ville de Montréal, Québec, Canada © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_11

175

176

S. Courcier and G. Domon

Montréal, does indeed exist. The project itself is aimed at reconciling biodiversity conservation and agricultural development in the context of a newly introduced category of protected areas in Québec. Its implementation, however, is impeded by different challenges as urban agriculture questions the relationship between the city and agriculture and the man-made landscape raises the question of the place of agriculture in a protected area. Although the farmland of the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal (CMM), that is Montréal’s regional level, covers more than half its area (58%), the urban agglomeration of Montréal has only 4% of its area in the permanent agricultural zone, that is, the zone strictly dedicated to agriculture under the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles, hereafter referred to as the Act on the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities (LPTAA). In the first part of this paper, we see how close was the relationship between agriculture and the city until recently, how it has gradually waned during the twentieth century, and how some are trying to rekindle it today. In the second part, we detail the significant mobilization for urban agriculture in recent years, particularly the public consultation organized in 2012 by the Office de consultation publique de Montréal (OCPM 2012). Finally, we address the special case of the L’Île-Bizard man-made landscape project and the challenges it poses. All in all, the aim is to better understand how this project fits in Montréal’s agricultural history and how it can help maintain its ecological and cultural heritage, on the one hand, and the quality of its landscapes, on the other.

11.2  F  rom Montréal’s Agricultural Past to Urban Agriculture As in most cities, agricultural practices have had a major role in the initial development of Montréal. Although pastoral landscapes and old buildings do bear witness to this past, agriculture is still present in Montréal today, albeit in a slightly different form.

11.2.1  T  he First Agricultural Activities on the Island of Montréal It is a little-known fact that agriculture was practiced in Québec well before the arrival of the Europeans. Indeed, the Iroquois lived in the Montréal area between the years 1000 and 1535, and, in the sixteenth century, almost 10,000 of these people were growing corn in the valley of the St. Lawrence River and were therefore the first farmers on its shores. When Jacques Cartier, who is regarded as the “discoverer of Canada,” coasted on the island that nowadays bears the name of Montréal, he

11  Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges…

177

found “plowed and beautiful” lands, those of the Iroquois who ingeniously cultivated the so-called Three Sisters, namely, squash, corn, and beans, three perfectly complementary crops (L’Autre Montréal 2009). The first settlers on the Island of Montréal needed to quickly clear and cultivate the land to survive. In the seventeenth century, the Sulpicians, the Island’s seigneurs since 1663, opened the territory to settlement by dividing it with parallel lines forming long rectangles of land they called côtes. Each of these rectangular plots was made up of a set of contiguous, steep, and narrow lands: a road, an uphill slope, and paths across the fields. As early as 1702, a total of 25 such côtes was open to settlement. The plots covered the entire shore of the St. Lawrence River, as well as the Island’s central and eastern parts. These côtes form the Island’s founding routes. In the eighteenth century, the territory as a whole was conceded and dedicated mostly to agriculture. Meanwhile, in the northwestern territory of Montréal, the seigneury of Île Bizard opened to settlement from 1735 (Ville de Montréal 2012).

11.2.2  T  he Development and Fall of Agriculture: The Permanent Agricultural Zone Agricultural production increased on the Island of Montréal in the nineteenth century, only to begin to decline with the approach of the twentieth century. In that time, production evolved, responding to markets and the modernization of agriculture, which became more specialized (Castonguay 2011). This decline in agricultural production was obviously tied to population increases and urbanization spurts on the Island, which, especially from the middle of the twentieth century onwards, led to the gradual disappearance of agricultural land uses. Today, only the western part of Montréal, including the west of Île Bizard, still has an area of 2047 hectares decreed as a permanent agricultural zone by the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (CPTAQ). The lands of the Montréal agricultural zone have high potential for agriculture, and the climate is among the best in Québec for crop production as the frost-free season is the longest there. In 2014, the permanent agricultural zone of the urban agglomeration of Montréal was home to a dozen producers: several market gardeners; two producers of such field crops as grain crops and pulses; McGill University’s experimental farm; a horse breeder and wine grower; as well as nonagricultural activities such as residences, golf courses, the Ecomuseum zoo, and the Morgan Arboretum (Ville de Montréal 2015a, b). All these places form an important eco-agrotourism pole. In 2009, an agricultural business incubator was established in Île Bizard to promote the development of new projects. In 2015, “Cultiver l’espoir” was launched on a farmland owned by the Ville de Montréal (hereafter referred to as the City). It is an urban farming initiative that grows organic root vegetables, sells 45% of the produce in grocery stores, and distributes 55% of it to food banks which, in turn, serve 60,000 Montrealers in need. Organic farm D3-Pierres manages the crops through its

178

S. Courcier and G. Domon

social reintegration program. D3-Pierres also manages the Cap-Saint-Jacques Nature Park Ecological Farm at the periphery of the agricultural zone. The agricultural zone thus reflects both long-established traditional activities (such as McGill University and some producers who have taken over from their parents) and new initiatives representative of this new urban agricultural movement.

11.2.3  S  ubsistence Gardening and Urban Agriculture Development Although field crops have gradually disappeared as a result of urban development, especially from the late nineteenth century into the twentieth century, gardens have expanded on small urban spaces. Agriculture was ‘back in town’ in a different way, with gardening being spearheaded as a means to improve food security for the population, especially during the two world wars and the crisis of the 1930s. In 1938, Brother Marie-Victorin launched the school gardens with the intent to promote direct contact with the land. During World War II, the government encouraged citizens to “plant a Victory Garden to win the war.” Thereafter, the municipal program of community gardens was set up in 1975, which was initially intended for the temporary use of abandoned spaces. However, as they were met with success and the benefits of gardening activities grew in importance, most of the existing community gardens were sustained and new ones were created. The City counted 94 community gardens in 2016, covering about 30 hectares (ha) and hosting more than 12,000 gardeners. In the 1990s, as gardening drew a great deal of interest and available plots were lacking in community gardens, many collective gardens emerged. Montréal has also witnessed the development of such significant production activities as Lufa Farms, who launched their activities in 2011. It is regarded as the first commercial greenhouse in the world operating on an industrial facility’s rooftop. Given the success of this project, two more greenhouses were built in 2013 and 2017. At the same time, many Montréalers were introduced to gardening in backyards, on rooftops, or on balconies, and it is estimated that 42% of Montréalers practiced urban agriculture in 2013, an activity that “involves growing fruits, fresh herbs and vegetables in cities” (Ville de Montréal 2013). When the community gardens program was implemented, gardening was mostly seen as a hobby. The context has since changed a great deal. Economic conditions and environmental concerns have indeed turned gardening into an economic and social necessity for some and a new lifestyle meeting environmental concerns for others. Nowadays, urban agriculture in Montréal is all these citizens, community, and business activities in the permanent agricultural zone and the central districts. Speaking of urban agriculture underlies the importance and diversity of practices, even if for some producers urban agriculture has nothing to do with agriculture but is merely the “hobby” of urban people.

11  Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges…

179

11.3  The “Right of Initiative” in Urban Agriculture Given the diversity of projects implemented in urban agriculture, some 20 Montréal organizations have joined the Working Group on Urban Agricultural (GTAU) in 2011 in recognition of existing practices and to optimize achievements.

11.3.1  The Public Consultation of 2012 Under the “Right of Initiative” laid down in the Montréal Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, the GTAU filed a petition on November 15, 2011 at the City’s Direction du greffe requesting that the City holds a public consultation on “the state of urban agriculture in Montréal.” This request was accepted, and the City’s Executive Committee commissioned the OCPM to hold the consultation. Reflecting the interest of Montréalers for urban agriculture, it was the first time since the introduction of the “Right of Initiative” that such a request led to a public consultation. The OCPM then organized various consultation activities from April to June 2012 (exhibitions, conferences, public consultations, hearing briefs, etc.) that attracted nearly 1500 people. However, some of the Island of Montréal’s “conventional” farmers and owners in the agricultural zone were among the absentees because they did not feel concerned by this urban agricultural movement. The OCPM received 103 briefs, a significant number for such a consultation. In its report, which was made public in the fall of 2012, it stressed the importance of urban agriculture initiatives and the movement’s extent in these terms: “The Commission is convinced that urban agriculture in Montréal is neither a marginal or temporary phenomenon” (OCPM 2012, p. 83). It outlined more than 20 recommendations referring to a variety of issues (information, coordination, financing, planning, regulation, communication, management, etc.) and specific spots in the city. The implementation of all the recommendations involves a group of municipal and external stakeholders. Several recommendations relate specifically to the development of the permanent agricultural zone. The OCPM recommends in particular that the City continues working on the man-made landscape project (ibid.: p. 106).

11.3.2  F  rom Public Consultation to the Creation of a Food Policy Council The City has welcomed and acted upon the OCPM report in different ways. It first appointed, in early 2013, the Division du développement durable as its formal channel for urban agriculture, a request that was made long ago by citizen groups. In turn, the aforementioned division set up a project monitoring committee on urban agriculture with representatives of the City and outside organizations.

180

S. Courcier and G. Domon

Montréal pursued its actions in the heart of the city (community gardens and support to some collective gardens) and in the periphery thereof (man-made landscape and the educational farm of Cap-Saint-Jacques in particular), as well as in the Botanical Garden. The City has also been involved in new initiatives. In the fall of 2012, for instance, it launched a planning process for the development of the Plan de développement de la zone agricole (PDZA), which was adopted in 2015, in line with the CMM Plan métropolitain d’aménagement et de développement (PMAD). The PMAD, in effect since March 2012, requests from regional county municipalities and cities to increase land areas under cultivation by 6%, while conserving 17% of the territory in protected natural habitats. In accordance with the PMAD, the recently adopted Schéma d’aménagement et de développement de l’agglomération montréalaise (SAD) highlights the same goals of land recultivation and the increase of protected land areas (Ville de Montréal 2015a, b). The man-made landscape project referred to in the next section fits with both goals. After the adoption of these plans (PMAD, PDZA, SAD), significant commitments were made. In 2015, Montreal signed the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. The mobilization of several organizations dedicated to urban agriculture and food security has led to a new stage in the fall of 2018, with the creation of a food policy council, making Montréal the world’s first francophone city to take this important step.

11.4  Î le Bizard Quality Landscapes and the Man-Made Landscape Project Île Bizard is located northwest of Montréal in L’Île-Bizard–Sainte-Geneviève, one of the city’s 19 boroughs. The west of the island, as already mentioned, is located in the permanent agricultural zone and is a remarkable region both for its biodiversity and for its agricultural and heritage landscapes. It boasts a variety of natural and man-made habitats, as well as typical woodland-type landscapes (Figs.  11.1 and 11.2).

11.4.1  A Territory with Rich Natural and Cultural Heritage In terms of biodiversity, the west of Île Bizard is composed of a mosaic of spaces that is unique in Montréal as it offers diversified living environments. The shores of Lake of Two Mountains and the Rivière des Prairies, which have remained very natural, have large floodplains filled with silver maples (riparian wetlands), particularly rich for wildlife. The inland networks of streams, marshes, and swamps are connected to the Rivière des Prairies and Lake of Two Mountains, and their ecological integrity has been preserved: these areas provide high-quality feeding and

11  Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges…

181

Fig. 11.1  West part of l’Île Bizard and the lake of the two mountains, Montréal. (Source: Claude Duchaine, Air Imex)

Fig. 11.2  Mosaic of natural and anthropogenic habitats. (Source: Claude Duchaine, Air Imex)

182

S. Courcier and G. Domon

breeding grounds for wildlife. The alternating cultivated fields and uncultivated areas, with several succession stages (herbaceous plants, shrubs, trees) separated by wooded areas that vary in size (including a large mature sugar maple grove), stonewalls, and hedges, do support rich wildlife and represent interesting wildlife movement corridors (Fig. 11.3). Several species at risk have been identified. Until the mid-twentieth century, Île Bizard as a whole was chiefly agricultural. Agricultural activity then fell steadily, following the same trend as in the Montréal area. The adoption of the Act on the Preservation of Agricultural Land, and the maintaining of the permanent agricultural zone in the west of the island in the 1990s, helped protect this sector from fast-growing urbanization. Although at the turn of the century farming relied on a couple of farmers only, new producers have settled in in recent years. And today, Île Bizard is home to a couple of market gardeners, two crop producers, and an agribusiness incubator welcoming eight project leaders. Even if promising new initiatives have developed, farming remains fragile and should be encouraged. Although urbanization has erased most traces of the early seigneurial system everywhere else, the agricultural zone remains marked by seigneurial ranged lots identified by hedges and stonewalls. Also, it is amazing to see how it is still similar

Fig. 11.3  Hedge and stonewall. (Source: Sabine Courcier)

11  Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges…

183

to the 1807 original plans (SPHIBSG 2008). The result is an exceptional country landscape reflecting human activities that have developed over the centuries in harmony with nature. By way of example, the inventory of stonewalls in the agricultural zone that the City conducted in the fall of 2009 has revealed the importance of the stonewall network (almost 50 km of walls) and its overall very good conservation. It represents not only a rich historical, tangible, and intangible heritage, but an ecological and scenic heritage as well. Furthermore, the west of the island is marked by a built heritage of interest: farmhouses and agricultural buildings, and such heritage items as a one-room schoolhouse, wayside crosses, and country cottages. This territory has a significant educational potential indeed, both for its past and its agriculture, nature, heritage, and landscapes. It bears witness to the early human activities in the Montréal countryside.

11.4.2  M  an-Made Landscape: A Lever for Promoting Heritage and Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture The west of Île Bizard forms a unique country pole that both citizens and the government want to protect and enhance. Thus, the Policy on the Protection and Enhancement of Natural Habitats, which aims to increase protected areas and make them publicly available (Ville de Montréal 2004), has marked the boundaries of an eco-territory for Île Bizard, that is, an area where there are opportunities to protect natural habitats. Furthermore, the latest Land Use Planning and Development Plan (SAD) identifies the man-made landscape in its section on territories of interest and mentions, in its action plan, the further steps to achieve this status. The Natural Heritage Conservation Act defines the man-made landscape as “an area established to protect the biodiversity of an inhabited area of water or land whose landscape and natural features have been shaped over time by human activities in harmony with nature and present outstanding intrinsic qualities the conservation of which depends to a large extent on the continuation of the practices that originally shaped them” (RSQ, chapter C-61.01, 2002, c. 74, s. 2.). The man-made landscape is a Category V protected area under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area management categories. Environmentally friendly human activities are encouraged. This status applies mainly on private land and is partly inspired by European examples such as the French regional nature parks. The L’Île-Bizard man-made landscape is an innovative sustainable development project that is part of a multifunctional vision of agriculture. This is a project for, by, and with the owners and residents of Ile Bizard. It revolves around four main guidelines: ensure the long-term survival of farming activities and promote their vitality; understand, protect, and enhance biodiversity; understand, protect, enhance and publicize the  natural and cultural heritage; and, last, maintain and develop

184

S. Courcier and G. Domon

sustainable recreation, tourist, and educational activities. These guidelines are supported by specific projects such as the construction of a pedestrian path for viewing the territory and development of an agro-tourist route. Furthermore, current efforts surrounding the PDZA development support directly the man-made landscape project by setting it within the framework of the agglomeration’s agricultural zone and by identifying it as a priority project. This is another way to establish its interest, to promote it, and to mobilize partners.

11.4.3  The Project Challenges The man-made landscape project witnessed significant progress in 2014 with a favorable political climate. At a public meeting in June, citizens largely expressed support for the project. Subsequently, the submission of an application for recognition, its approval by the City’s governing body, and its transmission to the Québec Government represent major milestones. Also, the mention of the project in the Land Use Planning and Development Plan (SAD) confirms the City’s commitment to see it happen. Its implementation, however, is facing difficulties intrinsic with the protection status and the territory itself, especially in a difficult context of reduced public spending at all government levels. In terms of status, it should be first noted that even though the concept was introduced in 2002, that is close to 20 years ago, no territory has so far been granted the man-made landscape status, despite the many efforts led by the Gaspé group Estran Paysage Humanisé, a pioneer in this type of protection process (Côté and Gerardin 2009). Many questions are left unanswered about the conditions for granting this status and the implementation of such projects. Many barriers to progress still remain. Indeed, only a few paragraphs of the Natural Heritage Conservation Act define the man-made landscape status, but no implementation guide has yet been developed. Thus, the designation process is complex (Courcier and Domon 2009), especially as the benefits for homeowners are not particularly obvious, and some seem to see only new strains in sight if this status were to be granted. Even more so, perhaps, the man-made landscape status, which is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, and the Fight against Climate Change (MELCC), is not the subject of any implementation program or associated budget, the Ministry’s support being very sporadic and limited. Ultimately, this status, which could be a powerful tool for the creation of a new form of land use development, especially in southern Québec, remains unknown, misunderstood, and poorly supported by the responsible department. Furthermore, the City can hardly engage in development and animation projects that will weigh down its management budget. It must thus imagine a stewardship process for the man-made landscape that will make it financially independent. With regard to the territory itself, the implementation of the L’Île-Bizard man-­ made landscape project has come up against several difficulties, mostly as it is looked down on by owners. Indeed, the project confirms the maintenance of a

11  Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges…

185

permanent agricultural zone, whereas owners wish to benefit from urban development pressures so that the territory is rezoned, which will enable them to sell their land to property developers. More generally, and confirming certain constraints inherent to the status, many owners do not see the point of being in a protected area. Some agricultural producers perceive drawbacks even more, including those resulting from the introduction of stricter regulations, for more demanding in terms of environmentally friendly farming practices. Moreover, for those owners who practice a so-called “conventional” agriculture, the benefits for the development of an agro-­tourist route seem very relative. Finally, it remains difficult to find, for those owners who rely on the rezoning and residential development of their farmland, assets that can offset the gains that would result from such a development, especially in the absence of financial support from the department responsible for the man-made landscape status. All in all, it seems that, in an urban and periurban context, recognition of the multifunctional nature of agriculture, such as that which underlies the man-made landscape project, arouses quite divergent reactions. Thus, the Ile Bizard urban population and some agricultural producers are very supportive while others are opposed, resulting in different perceptions and expectations of agriculture, a form of mutual misunderstanding and conflicting uses. On the one hand, townspeople require an agriculture that is clean, noiseless, and not smelly, and an agricultural space that can become a place of recreation. On the other hand, farmers consider their territory as a work space and some do not want to accommodate walkers on their land. They also consider that the heritage and landscape qualities of the area – the woodland-type landscapes – are not adapted to efficient farming practices. It is therefore a question of farmers needing to realize they have helped preserve a remarkable landscape and that they are located in town, or rather that the city has “caught” them up, or townspeople having chosen to live on the edge of an agricultural area must accept the constraints imposed by farmers. Even if a better dialogue were to be established, the question raised by the L’Île-Bizard man-made landscape project remains: To what extent and under what conditions is it possible, in a context marked by urbanization pressures, to ensure the preservation of the traditional forms of farming which, although they do not fully meet the needs of urban people, have, however, helped maintain a rich natural and cultural heritage? Different questions arise about the possible contradiction between the four guidelines of the project: how can we meet the requirements of creating a protected area in which the protection of biodiversity dominates, while wishing to boost agriculture and enhance heritage? Therefore, and conversely, should urban agriculture bet primarily on its new forms (gardening on rooftops, balconies, or parking lots), apparently better adapted to the current socioeconomic and demographic situation, even if that means accepting the loss of historic attributes and a rich natural and cultural heritage? A compromise might be possible, first by promoting dialogue between the urban population and farmers so that there is a better understanding of the challenges on both sides, and by reserving areas for “conventional” farming and multifunctional agriculture.

186

S. Courcier and G. Domon

11.5  Conclusion and Outlook Although spurts of urbanization have erased most traces of agriculture almost everywhere in Montréal, there remain, in the West Island, farmlands that are important witnesses of the city’s agricultural past and which have an undeniable heritage value. Thus, not only does agriculture remain present in the territory, but it is renewed in the city through new forms, such as commercial greenhouses on the rooftops of industrial buildings, production of vegetables on balconies, and beehives on institutional buildings. In this regard, the public consultation on urban agriculture has helped highlight the importance of the Montréal initiatives in this area today and assert its place in the coming years in the city. In addition to contributing to the recognition of the diversity of stakeholders involved in urban agriculture, the consultation has also forced the City to make new commitments and renew them in its new Land Use Planning and Development Plan. The recent creation of the Food Policy Council marks a major step in affirming the importance of urban agriculture for Montréal. The context is thus very favorable for the emergence of such projects as the L’Île-Bizard man-made landscape. Obtaining this protection status would help maintain and boost the agricultural zone while ensuring the long-term protection of biodiversity. This status would also protect heritage, to help recognize and publicize outstanding quality landscapes and the established harmony between man and nature. It would give high visibility to specific projects and the overall approach. Last, it would consolidate a process involving public and private partners and promote the coordination of different government partners’ actions on the ground. However, obstacles to the development of the man-made landscape are real, such as the difficulty of reconciling different guidelines (agriculture, biodiversity, heritage, recreation) and the poor government support for the project and the resistance of actors on the field. The project faces the challenge of reconciling the expectations of the different stakeholders while meeting the requirements of the creation of a protected area. Landowners are also afraid that they will not benefit from the man-­ made landscape. The project is therefore faced with a recurring issue in the process of protecting heritage or landscapes. Thus, if the relevance of such protection is widely agreed upon, reaching a fair distribution of costs and benefits is filled with challenges. In these circumstances, collaboration with all involved stakeholders needs to be pursued to find a winning solution for the majority and make the most of the City’s will to move forward with the man-made landscape. Dialogue and convergence of interests are the keywords for continuation of the project.

11  Recognizing the Multifunctional Nature of Agriculture: Stakes and Challenges…

187

References Castonguay, S. (2011). Agriculture on the Montréal plain, 1850-1950: Urban market and metropolitan hinterland. In S. Castonguay & M. Dagenais (Eds.), Metropolitan natures. environmental histories of Montréal (pp. 187–210). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Côté, J.-C., & Gerardin, V. (2009). Le paysage humanisé comme projet d’une société menacée. In G.  Domon (Ed.), Le paysage humanisé au Québec, nouveau statut, nouveau paradigme (pp. 319–350). Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Courcier, S., & Domon, G. (2009). Le statut de paysage humanisé au Québec. In G. Domon (Ed.), Le paysage humanisé au Québec, nouveau statut, nouveau paradigme (pp. 21–57). Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal. L’Autre Montréal. (2009). Culture et jardins: l’agriculture urbaine à Montréal. OCPM. (2012). État de l’agriculture urbaine à Montréal, Rapport de consultation publique. Société patrimoine et histoire de l’île Bizard et Sainte-Geneviève (SPHIBSG). (2008). Aux confins de Montréal: L’île Bizard des origines à nos jours. Ville de Montréal. (2004). Policy on the protection and enhancement of natural habitats. ville. montreal.qc.ca/grandsparcs. Ville de Montréal. (2012). État de l’agriculture urbaine. Retrieved from: ville.montreal.qc.ca/ agriculture. Ville de Montréal. (2013). Sondage auprès de la population de l’Île de Montréal sur l’agriculture urbaine, Firme BIP. Retrieved from: ville.montreal.qc.ca/agriculture. Ville de Montréal. (2015a). Schéma d’aménagement et de développement de l’agglomération montréalaise. Retrieved from: ville.montreal.qc.ca/schema. Ville de Montréal. (2015b). Plan de développement de la zone agricole.

Chapter 12

AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning and  Management Tools for Different Landscapes Ana Zazo-Moratalla, Valerià Paül, Sònia Callau-Berenguer, and Josep Montasell-Dorda

Abstract  Agricultural lands in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (MAB) are exposed to enormous urban pressures. Until recently, no single global study has attempted to describe the heterogeneous landscapes (agrarian and non-agrarian) of the Barcelona region in any official way. Since 2007, work has been underway on compiling an official Metropolitan Landscape Catalogue. This Landscape Catalogue is conceived normatively as a useful tool for the planning and management of the landscape from the spatial planning perspective. In recent decades, “territorial conflicts” have emerged related to periurban agriculture. Several strategies and instruments have the common aims of preserving its agrarian units of landscape from the urban process, planning and consolidating this goal through management criteria. Three experiences are explained extensively: the Agricultural Park of Sabadell (Sabadell), Gallecs (Molllet del Vallés) and the Agrarian Park of Baix Llobregat (14 municipalities of the Baix Llobregat District).

A. Zazo-Moratalla (*) Universidad del Bío-Bío, Concepción, Chile e-mail: [email protected] V. Paül Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, España S. Callau-Berenguer · J. Montasell-Dorda Diputació de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_12

189

190

A. Zazo-Moratalla et al.

12.1  T  he Agrarian Landscape in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona If the first significant effect of a city on its surroundings consists in the generation of periurban agrarian belts with diverse geometries and patterns, the second is its progressive encroachment along that line. Agricultural lands in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (MAB) are exposed to enormous urban pressures. From 1955 to the present, agricultural land has shrunk by 39%. The historical orchards of Barcelona are now located under a complex urban fabric, but a second periurban agrarian (horticultural) belt, with a metropolitan nature, still exists. Shaped during the nineteenth century, it arose from the food requirements of an industrial city with an increasing demand for commodities (Tort et al. 2009). In spite of urban pressures (Paül and Tonts 2005; Paül 2010) and its legal uncertainty (Sabaté 2000, 2003; Llop 2003; Mata 2004; Jornet 2006), agrarian land in the metropolitan area of Barcelona is now composed of 10,000 hectares (ha) of irrigated land, 42,000 ha of dry land, and more than 174,000 ha of forest. In general, it can be asserted that half of its surface is forest, and the other half is shared between cultivated land (25%) and urban areas (25%). The 52,000 ha of agrarian land in the MAB have a strong territorial specialization and diversity of crops: wine counties in the Alt Penedés and Garraf, traditional suppliers of vegetable and fruits in the Baix Llobregat and Maresme, production of flowers and ornamental plants in the Maresme, and cereals and livestock in the Eastern and Western Vallés (Montasell 2006). Barcelona does not depend on foreign food markets only; rather, it maintains its own metropolitan agricultural production. The city has a strong urban market that can be traced back to the Middle Ages, and the region has a richly diverse physical geography and a highly differentiated pattern of agricultural production that dates back centuries. Despite the successive phases of urbanization at the MAB, its surroundings still significantly maintain its agrarian patterns and, ultimately, its agrarian landscapes. These landscapes should be considered not quantitatively but qualitatively, based on a triple foundation: location, identity, and formal variety (Paül 2006a). 1. Location: The MAB is an active and wide-ranging region subjected to multiple stress factors and conspicuous urban growth. Currently, these lands represent “opportunities” in multiple dimensions. 2. Identity: The agrarian landscapes represent cultural references of the first order in the MAB, to the point that the idea of “landscape” in some districts is directly associated with a particular type of agricultural landscape. 3. Formal variety: The MAB is the result of a long historical process of human colonization, whose scenic keys can be read today both synchronically and diachronically (Fig. 12.1). Until recently, no single global study has attempted to describe the heterogeneous landscapes (agrarian and non-agrarian) of the Barcelona region in any official way. Since 2007, work has been underway on compiling an official Metropolitan

12  AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning…

191

Fig. 12.1  Map of agricultural landscape units of the metropolitan area of Barcelona. (Source: Paül 2006b: 372)

Landscape Catalogue, definitively approved at the end of 2014. This Catalogue forms part of the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe 2000) framework, incorporated into Catalan law by means of Act 8/2005. One of the main aims of the Metropolitan Landscape Catalogue is to define an official map of landscape units that can be considered as ‘global’ units, taking into account a range of attributes that include agricultural, urban, and forestry characteristics (Nogué and Sala 2006). This Landscape Catalogue is conceived normatively as a useful tool for the management of the landscape from the spatial planning perspective (Nogué and Sala 2014). To achieve this, an overall landscape characterization of the region has been based on a wide-ranging consultation process. One interesting outcome of this process is the degree to which agricultural landscapes are valued by local citizens. Indeed, in several landscape units the central element named by those consulted was the agriculture unit, deemed to give the landscape its distinctive character (Fig. 12.2).

12.2  Several Solutions In recent decades, “territorial conflicts” (Nel-lo 2003) have emerged related to periurban agriculture. New spatial and “implanted” functions were usually insensitive to local features, generating “resistance identities” headed by different segments of the population. Farmers represented almost all those active in this role, implying a confirmation or the intention to continue with such activities in the future. To do this they need an appropriately sized, stable, territorial, and agrarian basis. Moreover, this social sector has managed to reconcile defined ad hoc alliances, creating

192

A. Zazo-Moratalla et al.

Fig. 12.2  Official map of the landscape units of the metropolitan area of Barcelona. (Source: Nogué and Sala 2014)

coalitions of interest in favor of preserving agrarian spaces (Nel-lo 2003; Alfama et al. 2007). The defense of these areas has acquired strong support. It is possible to enumerate 13 initiatives for valorization and enhancement of agrarian land in the MAB: these use several strategies and instruments and have the common aims of preserving the agrarian landscape from the urban process, planning and consolidating through management criteria. A first generation of projects, at a local scale, has emerged since the transition to democracy in Spain and the devolution of the competences of agriculture and urban planning to the Catalan Government. Various local municipalities sought to protect agricultural spaces within their boundaries, primarily in response to popular pressure. However, such initiatives proved to be local and intermittent, affecting only small agrarian areas instead of agro-system units. During this period, there was no coordinated attempt to protect and manage agricultural spaces or to design a specific landscape policy for these areas, and the Catalan Government has failed to deliver any type of policy for periurban agriculture (Montasell 2010). As a result, there have been considerable losses, as already explained. A second generation of projects at an agro-unit scale has been established during the past 15 years, following a shift in the planning tools adopted, reducing these losses. Thus, more flexible bodies have been introduced in collaboration with various local government authorities, farmers, and other partners, through the establishment of consortia. This shift in approach is consistent with a new idea of territorial

12  AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning…

193

governance, wherein the key idea is the coordination among all levels of government (vertical coordination), among structures at the same level (horizontal coordination), and with non-institutional stakeholders. The result in the MAB is that agro-system units have developed their own projects, from which new proposals for agricultural management are emerging and urban planning protection for the agrarian soil is archived. Unfortunately, not every experience has been successful, and today there is an uneven geographic distribution of agricultural spaces that are being protected and managed (“realities” in Fig. 12.3), spaces that are in the process of being designated with such a status (“projects”), and spaces calling for protection but where the process has not yet been officially initiated (“hopes”) (Montasell 2010). Broadly speaking, farmers, environmentalists, and civil society in general have taken the initiative in drawing up this map. Local councils and government bodies only become involved when the process is functioning (Paül 2013). To further contextualize the projects just introduced, three experiences are explained in detail here: the Agricultural Park of Sabadell (Sabadell), Gallecs (Mollet del Vallés), and the Agrarian Park of Baix Llobregat (14 municipalities of the Baix Llobregat District). Introductory data are followed by information on territorial conflicts and their origin, followed by analysis of their management bodies,

Fig. 12.3  Agricultural spaces in the metropolitan area of Barcelona: “realities,” “projects,” and “hopes.” (Source: Paül 2013:16)

194

A. Zazo-Moratalla et al.

their planning and management tools, and steps taken to stimulate agriculture. Finally, the consequences for the territory and landscape are analyzed, described by the Landscape Catalogue (Nogué and Sala 2014). Sabadell and Mollet del Vallés are located in the second ring of MAB, in the Vallés Occidental District: both belong to landscape unit 17: Plana del Vallés, which specifically recognizes these two designations. The Baix Llobregat District is located in the first ring of MAB and its landscape belongs to two landscape units, the 10th, Valle Bajo Llobregat, and the 11th, Delta del Llobregat. All these considerations are classified as “realities” in Fig. 12.3 and include both generations of projects explained here: the Agricultural Park of Sabadell belongs to the first generation, and the other two belong to the second.

12.2.1  Sabadell Agricultural Park The Agricultural Park of Sabadell (APS) is a protected agricultural area, with high natural, agricultural, and strategic values. It acts as a physical separation between Sabadell and Terrasa. The area, known as El Rodal, covers 568 ha (18% of Sabadell surface) and is located in the non-development land at the north of the municipality. The park’s approval signified an important operation for the recovery of productive land to the town. The area called an “agricultural park” is mainly allocated to dryland farming, although there is also an intense horticulture and a strong forestry element. Most of the agricultural park land is privately owned (80%). The idea of creating an agricultural park emerged in the early 1980s when the environmental recovery of the suburbs transferred urban pressure to the agricultural space around the city. Urban planning, from the pre-democratic period, had defined an expansionist model ignoring the values and functions of these areas. As a result, there was an intense social movement, headed by local farmers, to change the model of the city. The constant pressure led to the signing of the “Protocolo del Rodal” (1987) by the City Council and the main farmers union (Unió de pagesos); this document committed the City Council to legally protect El Rodal through its classification under urban planning regulations as agricultural and forest land. Since then, civil society has become aware of the importance of this area for the city, not only because of its productive value, but also because of its natural and landscape beauty. In 1993, neighborhood associations in defense of nature and hikers’ groups joined the protocol. This protocol grew from citizens’ participation in roundtables, where diverse issues relating to this agro-forestry land of Vallés were discussed to agree on a new city model. The results were included in the regulations of the new Local Structure Plan1 (1993) (henceforth PGOUS), in which the importance of agricultural and forest lands was legally recognized. The Rodal Office was created to carry out active management of the agro-­forestry area around the city. Its aims were the environmental improvements of the Rodal

 Pla General Metropolitá d’Ordenació de Sabadell (PGMOS).

1

12  AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning…

195

Area (maintenance, forest management, fire prevention, etc.) and public use regulation (road maintenance, signage, etc.). Subsequently, two other agencies were created to manage concrete open spaces. The first, the Ripoll Office, was created in 1996 for the management of the orchards along the River Ripoll, a flood zone with degradation problems. The second office developed a project of heritage restoration, urban leisure, farm management, and environmental recovery. The Agricultural Park of Sabadell, created in 2004 for the management of the area, was classified as an “agricultural park” by the “Comprehensive Plan.” In 2005, this office approved an agricultural management plan and in 2008 started processing a Land Use Plan. Sabadell has adopted different key documents to guide the protection and the management of this agricultural and forestry area. The main spatial tool is the PGOUS (1993), which completely changed the situation of open spaces in Sabadell, shielding 40% of municipal land. The main strategy was to consider half of the undeveloped land as an urban system, which assures direct control of local government land purchases. So, in the urban category, “Agricultural Park” land cannot be sold to non-farm hands, and it can become public land that the Council is forced to manage for agrarian activity. It is, in short, a powerful tool considered a reference regarding its forcefulness and because it arose from negotiations among local administration, farmers, and environmentalist civic organizations. A specific modification of the PGOUS (MPG-54) represents the real start of the planning development of the Agricultural Park (Domingo 2008). It determined the current delimitation of the area, including all the undeveloped land from the northwest of the municipality. Other planning tools that have legally formed the reality of the Agricultural Park are the Master Plan of the Agricultural Park,2 and the Land Use Plan for development and improvement of the Agricultural Park3 (2010). There is also an ordinance4 (2009) approved by the Department of Environment; the area of protection covers the PAS (Freire 2010) as well. Besides the urban planning tools, an agrarian management plan was approved in 2005.5 The main aim of the APS is to ensure the continuity of agriculture and livestock in Sabadell through its economic profitability. In this regard, the park promotes the production of high added-value products while facilitating their distribution in nearby markets. The high added value is achieved by means of European quality standards (e.g., DOP Mongetal del Ganxet), marketing of recognized local quality products (cigró menut), or of products made from local commodities (Sant Juliá bread). In short, the APS makes use of various optimization strategies of the territory for reaching its aims. APS and the Rodal de Sabadell have several values identified by the Catalan Landscape Catalogue (Nogué and Sala 2014). Six major features can be described.

 Pla Director del Parc Agrari.  Pla Especial de desenvolupament i millora del Parc Agrari. 4  Ordenanza de Protección del Rodal de Sabadell. 5  Pla director per a la Gestió i Desenvolupament. 2 3

196

A. Zazo-Moratalla et al.

1. Natural and ecological value: despite not being a legally recognized natural area, it presents an undeniable value that an “agricultural park” aims to embody and promote. 2. Aesthetic value: because of its undulating relief and the high number of contrasting natural patterns, especially through the patchwork of fields and forest. 3. Historical value, because of the amount of isolated rural elements: old farmhouses (masies), such as Can Argelaguet, Can Ustrell, Can Deu, Mas Canals, Can Coniller, Ribatallada, and irrigation infrastructures: water wheels, water wells, channels. Probably the most interesting is the ‘Sèquia Monar’ (Monar irrigation canal). This rural infrastructure was built in the nineteenth–twentieth century to irrigate the orchards located along the Ripoll River. The local name of the hermitage or chapel of St. Julià has been used for the bread baked with local flour. 4. Social value, at a local scale, through the traditional orchards along the Ripoll River, and at a district scale, itineraries and routes to discover the agricultural area. All these are included in the program ‘Vallès Natural.’ 5. Productive value, such as the agro-ecological value of land and the high-quality agrarian commodities that have demonstrated increasing integration into commercial short chains; and promotion of organic commodities and the presence of recognized quality products. 6. Identity: Agro-forestry and undulating landscape, which is more diverse in Sabadell, compared to Gallecs, for example. Sabadell has developed its own policy for agrarian and forestry land, creating some agencies within the municipal council. These agencies rely on an innovative and protective regulatory framework based on a commitment to society. This approach is quite unusual in municipal corporations as they often argue they do not have the means to develop such policies. This experience shows how the real issue is political commitment rather than a resource problem. In Sabadell, the population was greatly concerned about the protection of its open spaces and the council independently searched to reach such preservation, notwithstanding opposition from other levels of power at times (Paül 2008).

12.2.2  Gallecs’ Rural Space (Espai Rural de Gallecs) Gallecs Rural Space is a protected agricultural area, with high natural, agricultural, and landscape value. The total area covers 733 ha, 52 ha of open space; 535 ha is agricultural land. It is located on the northern edge of the Barcelona agglomeration, with 2.5 million inhabitants. It is almost entirely surrounded by urban land, including Barcelona’s agglomeration and several medium-size cities. The main activity in Gallecs’ Rural Space is agriculture. In land use terms, two-thirds of the land is dedicated to extensive agriculture, shaping a rural-dominant landscape, and only one-­ third is forest. Gallecs records show there are 45 farmland users, of whom half are

12  AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning…

197

farmers, mostly on family-run and part-time bases. The average holdings size is about 25 ha. Cereal production is dominant, and traditional crops are very important. The majority of the farmers live within the agricultural areas, which are owned by the Catalan Government. In 1971, the Spanish Ministry of Housing expropriated 1500 ha of agricultural land, situated in the Vallès Plain. The aim was to develop the ACTUR (Plan for urgent urban development) within the area of Santa Maria de Gallecs. The main goal of this urban plan was to meet the demand for new housing, a very important issue in cities such as Barcelona or Madrid. The economic crises at the beginning of the 1970s, and social opposition to the ACTUR project, were among the reasons the project was not executed. As a consequence, the ‘Commission for Gallecs protection’ was created, as a first step for the protection of this agricultural area. The ‘Consortium of Gallecs’ came about through long-term campaigning by civic platforms and public institutions, who determined to protect this agricultural area through a ‘natural areas’ protection. “Place of Natural Interest” status was achieved in 2009, within the framework of a Master Plan passed by the Catalan Government in 2005. The objective was to protect Gallecs from urban and industrial pressures and environmental degradation, to strengthen the area’s function as an open space between the urban fringe and the countryside beyond, and to protect Gallecs from urban and industrial pressures and environmental degradation. Gallecs was seen as an opportunity to preserve local identity and cultural heritage. The “Gallecs Rural Space” is a consortium set up in 2000 and formed by six municipalities and the Catalan Government. The aim of the Consortium (from now on ‘Gallecs’) is to preserve and improve ecological, agricultural and forestry values within the Gallecs’ Rural area. The Regional level is empowered with urban and spatial planning and control and is responsible for the definition of land use and regulation. Consortium management is based on a long-term strategy and management plans, which are reviewed yearly. The Consortium is a flexible body, complex in terms of managing such a varied number of partners, but effective in developing spatial and agricultural policies. Gallecs has adopted different key documents to provide mechanisms for the protection and the management of this agricultural and forestry area. These documents can be classified into two typologies: spatial/urban plans and management plans. The spatial tools are a Master plan (Pla Director Urbanístic de l’ACTUR de Santa Maria de Gallecs, 2005) which establishes strong land protection, and a Land Use Plan, which sets land use regulations and management tools, to preserve open spaces and invigorate agricultural activities according to the environmental function of this area. This plan is to be adopted throughout 2015. In relationship to management plans, Gallecs has adopted several plans for management strategies to guide future action and use, concerning forestry, agriculture, public use, and land ownership: Plan for forest management (2000), Plan for public use regulation (2009), Plan for agricultural management (2001), Plan to support the conversion into organic production (2005), Land and housing uses management plan (foreseen 2015), to regulate public land and housing use within the Gallecs area, and Plan for infrastructures management.

198

A. Zazo-Moratalla et al.

The main goal of Gallecs is to preserve agricultural activity while integrating recreational and ecological services. The main steps to invigorate agriculture are sustainable agriculture and organic production plans. The first supports local and organic production (environmentally friendly agricultural practices or organic production), the creation of a local label to identify Gallecs’ products, and creation of an ‘Agri-shop’ to sell directly to consumers. The second promotes the conversion from conventional production to organic production. The aim is to promote high-­ quality food, food security, good agricultural practices, and good environmental quality by guaranteeing economical sustainability with short supply chains. The ‘Gallecs’ farmers association,’ created in the year 2000, aims at promoting sustainable and high-value agriculture: 29 farmers belong to this association. Several research projects are supported by the consortium aimed at improving the competitiveness of traditional local produce. Of the six values that can be recognized in the landscape of MAB, according to the Landscape Catalogue, all are present in the area of Gallecs: 1. Natural and ecological value, as a connecting element and a recognized area of natural interest by Decree 156/2009; 2. Aesthetic value, because of its undulating relief and the large number of contrasting natural patterns, especially formed by the patchwork of fields and forest; 3. Historical value, because of the amount of isolated rural elements, mostly farmhouses, that remain on its territory; 4. Social value, because of the presence of periurban orchards and greenways at district scale that run along rural and forestry areas; 5. Productive value, as the agro-ecological value of land and the high-quality agrarian commodities that have increasingly greater integration into commercial short chains; the presence of recognized quality products (PDO Mongeta Ganxet, and the ‘Pan de Gallecs’); 6. Identity value, because of the preservation of Vallés agro-forestry mosaic. This landscape has a strong identity for its uniqueness. Rural roads are structured around the fields and serve as scenic routes from which to appreciate the agro-­ forestry mosaic. In conclusion, the action headed by local civic platforms and public institutions of Mollet is intended to preserve, against national interests, a traditional landscape of Vallés that has now practically disappeared in this area. Gallecs is considered to be a redoubtable example in heritage and strongly linked to the agrarian land in this area, a symbol of common identity for the surrounding population, and a historical memory of a landscape and a lifestyle that established the county.

12  AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning…

199

12.2.3  Baix Llobregat Agricultural Park The best example of an “innovative agricultural space” is the Baix Llobregat Agricultural Park (BLAP), which comprises the surviving orchards of the area following years of urban encroachment. Located on the southern edge of the Barcelona conurbation, the Park extends over almost 3000 ha of very fertile farmland in the delta and lower valley of the Llobregat River. The main agricultural produce is vegetables, above all artichokes, lettuce, and chard, most of which are consumed in Metropolitan Barcelona. There are approximately 600 holdings and 1200 farm owners and workers (75% are full-time farmers). The BLAP was created following years of demand by the principal farmers’ union (Unió de Pagesos) for such a protected space. Local farmers had taken the decision some decades earlier not to urbanize their lands, but they required a long-­ term guarantee that they could continue to farm without any threat to their livelihood. The idea of an agrarian park, as an entity to protect the agrarian land that still remained on the irrigated plain, arose within the framework of a broad public debate about a strategic plan that took place in the 1990s under the wing of the Baix Llobregat District Council: this was a negotiated document in which different stakeholders representing diverse interests took up a historical demand from the local agricultural sector. Local politicians accepted the leading role in the protection process which, to that moment, had been a sectorial fight. Agricultural Park status was achieved in 1998, when a consortium of the Unió de Pagesos, the Baix Llobregat District Council, the Barcelona Provincial Council, and 14 municipalities was created. The Catalan Government did not initially grant the body formal recognition, but in 2006, it agreed to join the consortium. This consortium was created with a view to protecting the area as a vibrant agrarian landscape with links to its urban environment (Paül and Haslam Mackenzie 2010, 2013). After a decade, it has shown itself to be a flexible and complex public agency that considers the farmers as the main players, so that strategic decisions are always made in their favor. The BLAP has adopted different key documents to provide mechanisms to guide the protection and the management of this agricultural area (Zazo 2011, 2015). These documents can be classified as a land use plan and a management plan. The spatial tool is a Land Use Plan6 (2004). Work started in 1998 with the goal of delimitating the area to be preserved, but the process was extended for 6 years while different boundaries have followed one after another, reducing the agricultural area through the pressure of some municipalities. The BLAP adopted its own management and development plan (2002), followed by a biannual action plan. The main goal of the BLAP is to furnish the mechanisms that safeguard the competitiveness of the Park’s farms, not only in economic terms but also in terms of broader environment and sociocultural issues. The Park’s main agricultural products are promoted on the urban market by local labeling schemes (e.g., ‘Fresh  Pla Especial de Protecció i Millora.

6

200

A. Zazo-Moratalla et al.

produce of the BLAP’), whereby BLAP guarantees that a product is indeed fresh and produced in the area. Urban consumer promotion includes marketing campaigns and merchandising, inviting local restaurants to cook with local food, and a website informing consumers which commodities are produced by which farmer, where they are located, and where they sell their commodities. BLAP has also promoted seven ‘Farmers’ markets’ within the area, as connection platforms between farmers and consumers. The BLAP has managed to maintain and strengthen the presence of two landscape units that respond to diverse environmental conditions and heterogeneous historical logic, resulting in dominant monoculture crops as well as some mixed plots: Vall Baixa del Llobregat (landscape unit 10) and Delta del Llobregat (landscape unit 11). For the first unit, the values recognized by the Landscape Catalogue are the following: 1. Natural and ecological value: it has a connecting function as open space within the connector Obac-Olérdola. 2. Aesthetic value: highlights the value of fruit crops at the bottom of the valley, contrasting with the mountain ranges and the chromatic rhythms of flowering of the fruit trees. All this forms a very particular landscape in MAB. 3. Historical value: without notable buildings in its floodplain, there is evident hydraulic heritage associated to the two main irrigation channels (Dreta and the Infanta Channel), with a rich range of related infrastructure. 4. Social value: the Llobregat River Park is a large-scale project that can generate connections between the towns on both sides of the valley, promoting social cohesion. 5. Productive value: with a rich agricultural tradition, it is set up to supply Barcelona with fresh fruits. 6. Identity value: agriculture of the valley and the river create identity, although in recent times the relationship of the population with these elements has been largely lost when infrastructure barriers were built between them. In relationship to the values of Unit 11: Delta del Llobregat: 1. Natural and ecological value, qualified as high in some areas of this unit, for example, the irrigation channels that have specific protection under the Land Use Plan of PABL.  This Plan provides preservation to the environmental values within the Park. 2. Aesthetic value is related to the rich rural plots pattern. It has a high diversity of land forms, as the result of the various stages of human colonization, generating a landscape of high quality in a formal stage. 3. Historical value of great importance, the oldest referring to the complex task of colonization of the territory and its transformation into agricultural landscape. Its elements are agricultural plots, the old roads (many winding) and, above all, the farmhouses. 4. Social value, with growing interest in the use of this agricultural area, mainly since the creation of the walkway that connects the right bank of the river with

12  AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning…

201

Cornella. Increasing interest from some municipalities has also led to the development of leisure and social uses of open spaces. 5. Productive value for Gavá asparagus and Prat Artichoke (Sant Boi, Viladecans and El Prat), the most distinctive and idiosyncratic crops. Chard has lately been highly valued in consumer markets nearby. The Prat Chicken is the only poultry with the distinctive quality PGI recognized by the EU. Arrangements are being made to achieve this distinction for the Prat Artichoke. 6. Identity value, as the Delta has “classic” identity landscape references: the river, the fields, the beach, the pines, the lighthouse. However, its powerful territorial transformation and the fact that there has been an enormous social change over the past decades have caused these classical references to lose some of their collective meaning. In recent years, the PABL has been collecting data on agricultural products of the Vall Baixa del Llobregat and Delta del Llobregat, both in terms of social visibility, marketing, or commercialization and to reach local restaurants interested in cooking with local products. There has also been remarkable growth in organic and integrated agriculture, within the framework of local Associations for Vegetable produce protection (ADV) and consumer cooperatives, that move the quality products from PABL to households in the metropolitan area through short supply chains and direct marketing. In short, the PABL arose as a demand from the agrarian sector, but it became a commitment among diverse stakeholders from different levels of government, building up a network of cooperation able to support a shared project. Beyond the rich cultural heritage content in this area, the PABL is perceived as a strategic area for the future of the metropolitan area. The long-term vision consists of the preservation of this space as agricultural land by means of advanced and innovative management tools.

12.3  General Conclusions Collective complicity seems to be substantial for agricultural landscapes in at least two ways. First, the links between the place of production and the consumer constitute essential connections for upholding landscape functionality, especially in periurban areas. Second, only through the feelings attached to these landscapes can people defend them from urban encroachment. Thus, based on the achievements made in designating protected agricultural spaces since the 1990s and the related actions of agriculture invigoration, we can infer that groups such as farmers, environmentalists, and civil society as a whole hold the key to the future conservation of agricultural landscapes. Although agricultural landscapes must be sustained by farmers, the concern of local people is also essential (Paül and McKenzie 2013). Whether this defense is ultimately effective, however, is directly related to agreements with municipalities and other government agencies. Political support seems

202

A. Zazo-Moratalla et al.

to be necessary to achieve any of the formulas for the protection of these spaces. On this basis, the most accurate solution for each territory is chosen using the instruments and strategies most appropriate to the scale of action and the level of conservation needed to achieve protection that is stable over time (Simón et al. 2012). The MAB consists of diverse landscape references that are well established in the social collective imagination in which agricultural landscapes are very important repositories of shared values. These remaining landscapes, therefore, have a high identity value. In this sense, advanced cultural representation has risen around them, with serious proposals for associated planning and management (Nogué and Sala 2014). Returning to the initial question as to whether agriculture has been an inherent part of the cultural perception of the local people, the evidence suggests that it may well be so. This conclusion rests on the concern expressed by local communities and the collective vision of farmers, who in the three experiences described here have contributed to the preservation of periurban agriculture. Furthermore, these projects should be understood as models of planning and management in periurban agricultural landscape, examples of how a social claim becomes institutionalized, translated into planning and management tools, and transformed into direct action to invigorate agriculture. This preservation is a key point in current regional planning because maintaining periurban agriculture is a successful approach to the challenges and threats to the metropolitan area, threats that include urban sprawl, territorial balance, ecological engagement, climate change, impoverishment of biodiversity and landscape variety, and the risks to food security and quality. Hence, although each territory is diverse in geography, agriculture, and, consequently, landscape, the management model of these agrarian and periurban spaces – the Agricultural Park model – could be generalized and transferred to other periurban areas to attain similar results (Zazo 2015).

References Alfama, E., Casademunt, Á., Coll, G., Cruz, H., & Martí, M. (2007). Per una nova cultura del territorii Mobilitzacions i conflictes territorials. Barcelona: Icária. Council of Europe. (2000). European landscape convention. Florence. Domingo, G. (2008). L’ordenació dels espais del sòl no urbanizable periurbà al Vallès Occidental. Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. Freire Trigo, S. (2010). El parque agrario de Sabadell. Contención del crecimiento urbano mediante la recuperación de un espacio agrícola para la ciudadanía. In M. Vázquez & C. Verdaguer (Eds.), El espacio agrícola entre el campo y la ciudad (pp.  211–223). Madrid: Biblioteca Ciudades para un futuro más sostenible. Jornet, S. (2006). La gestión de espacios rurales en transición: los ejemplos de Gallecs y Les Cinc Sénies. In R. Mata & A. Tarroja (Eds.), El paisaje y la gestión del territorio (pp. 569–583). Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona. Llop, C. (2003). De la reserva urbana al proyecto del territorio municipal. Del territorio asediado al territorio libre. In A. Font (Ed.), Planeamiento urbanístico (pp. 151–168). Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.

12  AgroCulture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Diverse Planning…

203

Mata, R. (2004). Agricultura, paisaje y gestión del territorio. Polígonos, 14, 97–137. Montasell, J. M. (2006). El espais agraris de la regió metropolitana de Barcelona. L’Atzavara, 14, Ecosistemes de Catalunya, 73–89. Montasell, J. M. (2010). El parque agrario del Baix Llobregat: un paisaje cultural. Identidades: territorio, cultura, patrimonio, 2, 30–39. Nel-lo, O. (Ed.). (2003). Aquí no! Els conflictes territorials a Catalunya. Barcelona: Empúries. Nogué, J., & Sala, P. (2006). Prototipus de catáleg de paisatge. Bases conceptuals, metodólogiques i procedimentals per elaborar els catalog de paisatge de Catalunya. Olot/Barcelona: Observatori del Paisatge. Nogué, J., & Sala, P. (2014). Catáleg de paisatge. Regió Metropolitana de Barcelona. Barcelona: Observatori del Paisatge. Paül, V. (2006a). L’ordenació dels espais agraris metropolitans. Plans, gestió i conflictes territorials a la regió de Barcelona. Doctoral thesis. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Paül, V. (2006b). Propuesta de unidades de Paisaje agrario de la Región Metropolitana de Barcelona. Polígonos Revista de Geografía, 16, 55–86. Paül, V. (2008). Una nueva ordenación de los espacios abiertos. Instrumentos emergentes de gobernanza de perímetros protegidos de la Barcelona metropolitana. Presentation at the IV Seminario Internacional de la RIDEAL. 26–28 May, Ciudad Iuárez (Mexico). Paül, V. (2010). El cambio de los usos agrarios del suelo en el actual ámbito metropolitano de Barcelona (del siglo XVIII a la actualidad). Investigaciones Geográficas, 53, 145–188. Paül, V. (2013). Agriculture in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: a key issue, multiple landscapes and various solutions. In L. Maldonado (ed.), COST Action urban agriculture Europe: Documentation of 2nd Working group meeting. Castelldefells, Barcelona, 12–15 March 2013. Paül, V., & Haslam McKenzie, F. (2010). Agricultural areas under metropolitan threats: Lessons for Perth from Barcelona. In G. W. Luck, D. Race, & R. Black (Eds.), Demographic change in Australia’s rural landscapes (pp. 125–152). Dordrecht: Springer. Paül, V., & Haslam McKenzie, F. (2013). Peri-urban farmland conservation and development of alternative food networks: Insights from a case-study area in metropolitan Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Land Use Policy, 30(1), 94–105. Paül, V., & Tonts, M. (2005). Containing urban sprawl: Trends in land use and spatial planning in the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona. Journal of Environmental Planning Management, 48(1), 7–35. Sabaté, J. (2000). El Parc Agrari del Baix Llobregat. Area, 8, 251–282. Sabaté, J. (2003). Balance y perspectivas del planeamiento urbanístico municipal. In A. Font (Ed.), Planeamiento urbanístico (pp. 18–204). Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona. Simón, M., Zazo Moratalla, A., & Morán, N. (2012). Nuevos enfoques en la planificación urbanística para proteger los espacios agrarios peri-urbanos. Ciudades, 15, 151–166. Tort, J., Paül, V., & Panareda, J.M. (2009). Del paisaje agrario a paisaje metropolitano: las escalas de la huerta de Barcelona. In F. Pillet, M. del Carmen Cañizares Ruiz & A.R. Ruiz Pulpón (Eds.), Geografía, territorio y paisaje: el estado de la cuestión. Proceedings of the XXI congreso de geógrafos españoles. 27–29 October. Ciudad Real: Universidad Castilla-La Mancha. Zazo Moratalla, A. (2011). El Parque Agrario: Preservación de la actividad agraria en espacios peri-urbanos (El caso del Bajo Llobregat). Territorios en Formación, 1, 211–232. Zazo Moratalla, A. (2015). El Parque Agrario: estructura de preservación de los espacios agrarios en entornos urbanos en un contexto de cambio global. Doctoral thesis. Madrid: Technical University of Madrid.

Chapter 13

Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park Axel Timpe

Abstract The Belvedere Agricultural Park in Cologne is a preservation and improvement strategy for a part of the Cologne Outer Green Belt that has been made possible through regional landscape policies and the cooperation of several stakeholders. This chapter describes the planning process and its results. The first sections address the local project context and process as experienced by the author and by developing theory that allows comparison of the project in a European context in Sect. 13.5. The chapter proposes a ladder of integration between agriculture and park development inspired by the ladder of citizen’s participation. Different models of agricultural parks can be identified in Europe. Some understand such parks only as a protected space for the practice of agriculture. For others, they are a tool to optimise different land use interests by designing for multifunctionality and structuring cooperation between stakeholders. Agricultural parks of this second model can become a laboratory for combining the heritage of agricultural land use with the emerging demands and practices of using urban landscapes. The agricultural park is rediscovered as a testing field for innovative land uses, a function it has always had throughout its history in Europe.

13.1  R  egionale 2010: A Funding Scheme for Qualifying the Development of the Cologne–Bonn Region The German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia faces diverse spatial transformation processes ranging from the post-mining landscapes and shrinking cities of the Ruhr to growing city regions such as Cologne and Bonn. Based on the positive experiences of the IBA Emscher Park (International Building Exhibition) in the 1990s, the state has created the “Regionale” programme. This neologism combines the words “Region” and “Biennale.” Every 2 years a Regionale is attributed to one

A. Timpe (*) RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_13

205

206

A. Timpe

of the state’s regions that receives privileged access to state subsidies for urban, spatial, and ecological development. Projects developed under the aegis of a Regionale by municipalities, intercommunal groups, NGOs, or other organisations are co-financed, generally with 50% cost sharing. Regions have to submit a concept proposal that outlines their development objectives. If a proposal is accepted, then the region may gain Regionale status. Upon acceptance, a managing body, the Regionale Agency, is created to develop regional master plans addressing the main issues for the region’s future and to give them a spatial dimension. A second quality check is ensured by the call for projects: all projects must fit the spatial or thematic framework of the master plan and are classified by the management body in three (A, B, C) levels. Only projects that reach A level receive funding. The projects are subject to an improvement process, as the Regionale Agency advises the project stakeholders and provides intervening external planners, experts, and other aids. The Cologne and Bonn region was assigned the 2010 Regionale. The projects prepared for the “year of presentation,” 2010, revolved around five themes with spatial impact: stadt (city), grün (green), rhein (rhine), kulturelles erbe (cultural heritage), and gärten der technik (gardens of technology). These themes cover the history, present, and future of the region. More information on Regionale 2010 Köln Bonn including detailed information on the project themes and descriptions of the individual projects can be found on the website http://www.regionale2010.de (in German). Although the demand for suburban housing in the region continues to increase, a large number of grün projects are being established to protect and qualify the periurban landscapes. Some of the projects, such as the example “Nordpark Pulheim,” tend to substitute agricultural land with greenbelt development, yet others such as the “Green C” of Bonn started intensive discussion with farmers only after presenting their first ideas. This article describes a third way of qualifying periurban landscapes: cooperation with farmers managing the landscape. The Belvedere Agricultural Park is integrated into the existing green belt system of Cologne and the Regionale 2010 project of enhancing it: regiogrün.

13.2  R  egiogrün: Developing the Historical Green Belts of Cologne Towards a Regional Open Space System The City of Cologne has a long tradition of integrating green space in its development. Regionale 2010 has provided the opportunity to extend this heritage of the Cologne Inner- and Outer Green Belt to connect the regional system with radial lines (Fig. 13.1). The City of Cologne was fortified against attacks from the west under the Prussian government in the nineteenth century. A double system of fortifications with a narrow inner ring and a broad outer ring was created and maintained until the end of World War I.  The Treaty of Versailles caused the fortifications to be

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

207

Fig. 13.1  The initial shape of the Cologne green system as conceived by Fritz Schumacher in 1920–1923 already envisaged regional extensions (north is on the right). (Plan: City of Cologne)

demolished. Following the ideas of Konrad Adenauer, mayor of Cologne from 1917 to 1933 and later first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1963, the City decided to use the liberated space for the development of green belts. On the basis of a planning competition launched in 1919, Fritz Schumacher, director of urban planning of the City of Hamburg, was selected to head a task force for the development of the Cologne green belts from 1920 to 1923. While the inner ring was a combined development of new buildings and architectonic green spaces, the outer green belt was fashioned as park space composed of woodlands, meadows, and water bodies following the principles of the “Volkspark.” Some remains of the Prussian fortifications were conserved, sometimes affected to new uses. The green belt was created as a classic park, but its maintenance also integrates forestal and agricultural principles, such as sheep grazing (Fig. 13.2). At present, the Cologne Outer Green Belt can be considered a cultural heritage in two ways. First, it houses and continues to conserve traces of the Prussian fortifications in the city’s ground plan and in structure remnants. Second, the Cologne Outer Green Belt is one of the most complete and authentic green belts in Germany and can be considered a cultural heritage in itself. Compared to other elements of the rich cultural heritage of Cologne (Roman remains, the Cathedral, etc.) the Cologne Green Belt is perhaps the element that offers the greatest contribution to the quality of life in Cologne and is that most integrated into people’s everyday life.

208

A. Timpe

Fig. 13.2  Grazing sheep help to maintain the meadows of the outer Cologne green belt. (Photo: Axel Timpe)

With the Regionale 2010, the City of Cologne and the neighbouring municipalities were given the opportunity to enhance the outer greenbelt into a regional open space structure that guides urban development and qualifies the periurban landscapes connected with the green belt. Under the project title regiogrün, landscape architect Gerd Aufmkolk conceived a radial structure that uses the outer green belt as starting point for connections into the region. Integrating “everyday landscapes,” which include agriculture, forests, and infrastructural facilities, the regiogrün system cannot be designed as a park like the existing green belt. New forms of qualifying these landscapes had to be explored: regiogrün represents a family of different projects managed by the concerned municipalities and supported by Regionale 2010. As a landscape architect and partner in the lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur planning office, Stuttgart, the author was employed with four of these diverse projects: –– Terra nova: reshaping the remains of open pit mining –– Wahner Heide: providing access and information about the national natural heritage area in the middle of the urban agglomeration –– Forest laboratory: testing the future use of trees in urban and periurban environments –– Belvedere agricultural park: developing the agricultural portion of the green belt without disrupting land use The regiogrün project can be classified as one of the “new territorial concepts” for urban regions mentioned by Fleury in his contribution to the present publication (Chap. 1). The four projects developed within this territorial concept by lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur address all of Fleury’s “urban declinations of peri-urban spaces:” nature (Wahner Heide), forest (forest laboratory), and urban agriculture

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

209

Fig. 13.3  The regiogrün radial green structure for the Cologne region and different projects handled by lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur (regiogrün plan: WGF Landschaft, Nuremberg; projects marked by Axel Timpe)

(Belvedere). They add a fourth dimension born from the region’s industrial history: the reclamation of former mining sites (terra nova). The basic layout of regiogrün and the aforementioned projects are shown in Fig.  13.3. The Belvedere Agricultural Park holds a special position among these projects: because of its location, it is a part of the green belt as well as a transition space towards two of the new radial corridors. This space was until recently perceived as a gap in the classical park design of the outer green belt. The City of Cologne has used the momentum gained through Regionale 2010 and regiogrün to integrate this area into the green belt and the corridors.

13.3  B  elvedere Agricultural Park: Planning Task and Landscape Architecture 13.3.1  Planning Task The Belvedere Agricultural Park represents an area of 300 ha [160 ha agricultural surface, 80 ha forest/woodland, 60 ha settled surface (buildings, gardens, roads)] that is confined on the east by the western edge of the city, a highway on the west,

210

A. Timpe

the studios of the regional broadcasting corporation WDR to the north, and new suburban settlements to the south. The area is situated on the edge of the Rhine’s alluvial terrace and received the name Belvedere for the view of the Cologne Cathedral possible from  this elevation. 75% of the area is owned by the City of Cologne. The agricultural surfaces are cultivated by two farmers. The fertile soil and mild climate of the Cologne lowland bight allow for large land parcels to host the rotation of cash crops, such as sugar beet, wheat, and barley. The centre of the area is occupied by the facilities of the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding, which uses small tracts of the agricultural surface for field tests. The need for area planning and improvement was brought to the city’s attention by the local citizens’ initiative Friends of Belvedere-Park, as the group was worried about encroaching urbanisation. Although the area is property of the City of Cologne and legally protected by its status as agricultural surface in the city’s zoning map, this concern was substantial as proven by the recent settlement extension in the south and an ongoing urbanisation project in the west of the highway ring. Another threat is the enlargement of the television studios north of the Belvedere area. In the reading of the city’s planners the problem of the area is the weak image of the agricultural surfaces as a landscape that cannot easily resist urban extension. This opinion corresponds to the results of Häpke (2012), who comes to the conclusion that in the Ruhr Metropolis, North-Rhine-Westphalia’s second important urban agglomeration, agricultural areas are the less resistant type of open spaces although protected by land use plans in most cases. In the context of the green belt the Belvedere area was perceived as creating north–south discontinuity, while being separated by the highway ring-road from the open agricultural landscape to the west of Cologne. This lack of identity with the green belt and the agricultural areas could have made it easy prey for urbanisation. The strategy of the City of Cologne to counter these developments and to protect the open spaces relies on making the agricultural landscape accessible to people and enabling additional leisure activities such as hiking, cycling, and inline skating. If people are aware of and acknowledge the value added by the Belvedere area, they will act to protect it.

13.3.2  Landscape Architecture To develop the area following these guidelines, the City of Cologne launched a cooperative landscape architectural competition in 2007. Participation was limited to four planning offices: scape Landschaftsarchitekten (Düsseldorf), RMP Stefan Lenzen (Bonn), Lill + Sparla (Cologne), and lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur (Stuttgart). The cooperative character of this competition meant that the City, the farmers, and citizens’ associations were involved in the planning process and had the opportunity to discuss their ideas and the preliminary design proposals with the landscape architects.

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

211

The winning entry by lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur acts upon the maxim “What is, is the great guide as to what ought to be.” (Joseph Spence, 1751). For the landscape architectural approach this means that the attractive landscape for new activities is already there; it only needs to be discovered and experienced by new users. The farmer provides this landscape and has to be enabled to do this in the future: only very few restrictions to the economy of land use should be made. The role of the landscape architect in this context is to showcase the agricultural landscape, to organize access to the landscape, and to coordinate the newly developed activities with all partners. The basic spatial layout of the design (Fig. 13.5) aims to combine the character of the green belt, open meadows framed by woodlands, and the agrarian landscape west of Cologne. The layout is composed of three elements: a wooded frame that protects against the highway, the cultivated fields maintaining their open character, and the estate of the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding that occupies the centre of the park. The Belvedere Park adds a new element to the chain of different subspaces that form the green belt. Depicted in a logo (Fig. 13.4) the agriculture park can be seen as an exclamation mark introducing the agricultural landscape in the green belt (Fig. 13.5). The additional elements of the park are strictly limited to punctiform and linear interventions. The path system is reorganized allowing for the future “beautiful detour” from the green belt connections to a circular field path around Belvedere Park: 1300 m of paths have been newly traced for this reorganisation, and 3500 m are being reconditioned. Flower belts that are maintained by the farmers as part of

Fig. 13.4  The exclamation mark logo (lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur)

212

A. Timpe

Fig. 13.5  Basic spatial layout of the Belvedere Agricultural Park: wooded frame, open fields, and occupied centre (lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur)

agri-environmental measures accompany the main circular path. These flower belts will attract visitors to the fields, but the main showcase on the agricultural landscape is derived from the historic name of the park: three belvederes were created. Each of these lookout towers (Fig. 13.6) is designed to a special theme: –– The Cathedral-lookout: offers the view of the two towers of the Cologne Cathedral –– The landmark-lookout: connects Belvedere Park to the regiogrün corridor, designed to see and be seen –– The field-lookout: with only little elevation, invites the viewer to discover the vastness of the fields

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

213

Fig. 13.6 Belvedere designs: Cathedral-lookout, field-lookout, landmark-lookout (lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur)

By the limited punctiform and linear interventions, the consumption of agricultural surface is reduced as much as possible. To communicate that the fields are also a part of the park, lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur developed the concept of the fourth crop. The classic tripartite crop rotation of sugar beet, wheat, and barley could be enhanced by a fourth culture that would add flowering agricultural plants such as colza, sunflower, phacelia, or crimson clover. A quadripartite rotation in the Belvedere Agricultural Park would allow a quarter of the fields to present themselves in a special aspect every summer. The blooming areas would be shifted every year following the rotation. Different strategies of enhancing the crop rotation were conceived: –– strategy 1: Adding catch crops such as phacelia or crimson clover between the cultivation of barley and sugar beet would be a first step that could not only add aesthetics but would also have positive effects on soil conditions. –– strategy 2:  More catch crops (rapidly maturing crops) could be possible in autumn if spring-barley instead of winter-barley were cultivated. –– strategy 3: A true fourth crop would be introduced if the rotation is lengthened to 4 years and sunflowers or colza, which bring market incomes for the farmers, are cultivated. The fourth crop concept was developed to make the Belvedere Park a special agricultural landscape that attracts visitors not by landscape architectural embellishments, but by the economic activities of the farmers themselves (Figs. 13.7 and 13.8).

214

A. Timpe

Fig. 13.7  Aerial photo of the Belvedere area before the start of the competition (Land NRW) (2019) Datenlizenz Deutschland – Namensnennung – Version 2.0 (www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0))

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

215

Fig. 13.8 Landscape architectural design by lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur (lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur)

216

A. Timpe

13.4  B  elvedere Agricultural Park: A Joint Effort of Many Stakeholders As shown in the previous section, one important decision of the landscape architects in Belvedere Agricultural Park design has been to frame the park. The action of framing can be applied not only to the landscape architectural design but to its role in the park’s planning process as well. The park, which was constructed between June 2012 and July 2014, can be understood as the result of a plural design process as presented by Thering and Chanse (2011). Another term presented in the contribution of André Fleury to the present book that could be applied to the Belvedere Agricultural Park example is co-construction (Chap. 1). In contrast to the bottom-up or top-­down co-construction described by Branduini and Scazzosi (2011), that rely either on self-organising associative initiatives or on institutional planning and cooperation procedures, the Belvedere Agricultural Park is a mixture of both, bottom-up and top-down. Citizens, farmers, and institutions are employed, but only on a singular project basis, not engaged in a comprehensive agricultural strategy for the city or region of Cologne. In this example of co-construction, the designing landscape architect has an active role that none of the other stakeholders employed can fulfil. The landscape architect has a mediatory role between the stakeholder groups that relies on his classic spatial design and planning competence as well as on the ability to structure and moderate a discussion process. Spatial and procedural structures inform each other on equal level. As described here, three main discourses had to be joined to make the agricultural park project possible: the initiative of citizens for the protection of the agricultural greenspaces, the action of the City of Cologne as planning institution, and the financial support of the federal state attributed by the Regionale 2010 programme. The overall financing of the project is 1,485,000 euros: 1,273,000 euros are construction and plantation costs, 171,000 euros planning costs, and 41,000 euros have been spent on the public relations and participation process. For financing, 50% has come from the European Union (ERDF, European Regional Development Fund), 20% from the federal state’s urban improvement programme, and 10% from the national urban improvement programme. The remaining 20% has been the share of the project costs financed by the City of Cologne. The funding application was submitted with the support of the Regionale agency by the City of Cologne in a joint application with the other institutions requesting funding within the regiongrün framework. This procedure documents the integration of multiple projects into a common finance master plan aimed at convincing funding authorities. The planning and realisation of the project includes additional stakeholders that all contribute to the park. In close cooperation with the farmers, lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur has coordinated the parks infrastructure. To optimise the placement of the belvedere towers and road infrastructure, the needs of the farmers for

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

217

cultivation (driveways and axle load limits, storage areas during harvest, ploughing direction of fields, etc.) have been recorded and documented in a plan, along with the planned crop rotations for the coming years. Multifunctional agricultural roads, that allow cyclist and inline skater use, the circulation of agricultural vehicles, and the runoff and infiltration of rainwater, have been conceived and constructed (Figs. 13.9 and 13.10). To realise special elements of the park, additional stakeholders have joined the project. The flower belts alongside the roads (Fig. 13.11) are financed with the support of the Rhenish Foundation for Cultural Landscape. Regional farmers founded this organisation to integrate nature protection and conservation into Rhineland farming practice. Funding is partly guaranteed through impact regulation required under the German nature protection laws. The flower belts are composed of segetal weeds that were historically frequent in the fields of the region but have been reduced by modern agriculture. In the Belvedere Agricultural Park the belts are a contribution to biodiversity and have additionally been coordinated to the landscape architectural design to improve the image of the park. The Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding has contributed to the park with an educational garden (Fig. 13.12) that illustrates the development of plant species for agricultural use. The garden serves for the public relationships of the institute, which wishes to explain its work on genetic resources. Finally, the citizens’ association that instigated the creation of the park follows its construction and actively engages the greater public through information events and guided tours hosted together with the City of Cologne. These tours explain the history of the site, including the remains of the Prussian fortifications and other elements of the cultural landscape.

Fig. 13.9  Multifunctional agricultural roads for skaters, runners, tractors, and others

218

A. Timpe

Fig. 13.10  The newly built combined roads and one of the belvedere towers in autumn 2014. (Photo: Eva Strobel for lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur)

Fig. 13.11  Within the park, fields are bordered by strips of segetal weeds and annual flowers such as corn poppy, cornflower, and chamomile. The information sign for visitors says “Your farmer cares for biodiversity”. (Photo: Axel Timpe)

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

219

Fig. 13.12  Visitors in the educational garden of the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding situated in the centre of the Belvedere Park. (Photo: Axel Timpe)

13.5  Belvedere: An Integrated Agricultural Park? At present, the Belvedere Agricultural Park can be considered a successful planning operation. The park infrastructure has been accomplished, and the citizens as well as city initiators are satisfied with the realisation. Whether the co-construction of a multifunctional landscape that integrates agriculture and leisure activities will be a successful strategy against urbanisation awaits future evaluation. During the construction of the belvedere towers the project has meanwhile been the object of discussions in mass media. These discussions evolved around the postulate that “constructing lookout towers to watch agricultural fields is a waste of public money.” This can be seen as part of a general tendency in some media and popular discussions in Germany questioning public financing, being it European transfers or local projects, in general. The discussion ceased after the construction was completed. What can be evaluated today is the relationship between the initial design proposals and the elements that were put into practice. During the cooperative design process, lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur has established a ladder of integration between agriculture and park development inspired by the ladder of citizen’s participation first introduced by Arnstein in 1969. Applied to agricultural parks, the levels of integration that could be found in similar projects include (from bottom to top of the ladder):

220

A. Timpe

–– Level −1: refusal – farmers consider the park development as a disadvantage for their cultivation work –– Level 0: indifference – farmers work following the general rules of good agricultural practice –– Level +1: multifunctional agriculture – farmers offer special products and services whenever they consider it profitable –– Level +2: cooperation – farmers offer special services for the development of the agricultural park demanded by public institutions –– Level +3: co-construction  – farmers develop and propose their own ideas and services in the development of agricultural parks The idea put forward by lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur during the design process was that the City authorities and the local farmers should leave the existing level 0, skip level +1, which could only be applied to the cash-crop cultivars of the Belvedere area with difficulties, and reach level +2: cooperation with mutual benefit, which meant that the ideas of the flower belts and fourth crop as design elements would have to be realised on the level of cooperation. The creation of the pedagogic garden by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding can even be considered a step towards level +3. To assist in cooperation, a coordination group of the farmers and the Cities institutions had been established and steered by the landscape architects. The flower belts are and will continue to be established alongside roadways and paths, but the fourth crop is only partly put into practice. An increased use of flowering catch crops has been promoted (strategy 1) but extending the rotation with a true fourth crop (strategy 3) has not been possible. The jump from integration level 0 to integration level +2 has been partly achieved. Reasons for this can be found from all sides of cooperation. First, the large area production of cash crops on the fertile soils of Cologne is highly profitable and farmers had little interest in modifying their rotation system for aesthetic reasons. Second, there was lost cooperation, as the City of Cologne, landowner of the Belvedere Park, was not willing to create economic incentive for farmers through decreasing the lease that lies not in the responsibilities of the green space department executing the Belvedere project. Perhaps in a context with different cultivation systems, soil conditions, and a different economic situation of agriculture, the willingness to change cultivation methods and to establish a co-developed entrepreneurial model of farming, which includes park services, may be greater from both the farmer and municipal sides. This experience with the Belvedere Agricultural Park shows two criteria that are decisive for the success of agricultural parks. The first one being a broad consensus on the planning goals; the second one may be called “fitness for context.” The creation of Belvedere Agricultural Park has been possible thanks to the existing agreement between diverse groups of stakeholders. A deeper accord not only on the spatial planning aspects (regiogrün) but on the importance of agriculture as a management tool for periurban landscapes would have perhaps allowed the complete design idea of the fourth crop to come to fruition. In the fields of construction and engineering, “fitness for purpose” is a common criterion used to evaluate design solutions. Swaffield and Deming (2011) propose it

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

221

as a criterion for the evaluation of landscape architectural research as well as being expressed through the subcriteria of credibility, applicability, consistency, and efficiency. The concept for an agricultural park needs more than fitness for purpose: it needs “fitness for context.” It has to be fitted to the natural conditions, agricultural structures, and agricultural economy of a region. The Belvedere Agricultural Park concept has managed to do this on many levels; even the fourth crop concept fitted to the special and rather simple local crop rotation seemed to be very promising, but it turned out to not fully match the important economic criterion. Transferability of this and other principles and planning strategies from Belvedere Agricultural Park to other sites and projects may be given if the transfer assures the fitness to a different context. A possibility for the scientific comparison of agricultural parks from different contexts was provided from 2012 to 2016 by the COST Action Urban Agriculture Europe (COST UAE), a research cooperation of 25 European countries (www. urban-agriculture-europe.org). COST UAE allowed collecting case studies on agricultural parks and other types of urban agriculture from very different local contexts throughout Europe, the Belvedere Agricultural Park being one of the case studies. The case study-oriented Working Groups 2, 3, and 4 of COST UAE, Urban Agriculture and Governance (WG 2), Entrepreneurial Models of Urban Agriculture (WG 3), and Spatial Visions of Urban Agriculture (WG 4) have analysed different dimensions of agricultural parks and other cases, which are presented in the sections “Governance,” “Business,” and “Space” of the book Urban Agriculture Europe (Lohrberg et al. 2015) (Fig. 13.13). The comparison of agricultural parks across Europe shows the different ideas of a park underlying planning activities in the different regions. The representatives of the Parc Agrari du Baix Llobregat in the Spanish region of Catalonia define a park

Fig. 13.13  The transect of Belvedere Agricultural Park show its delimitation by different topographic barriers, the edge of the alluvial terrace in the east, and the highway ring with noise protection barrier in the west, as well as the existing urbanisation in the east and new building areas in the west. (Translated from Timpe 2017, p. 339)

222

A. Timpe

as “a managed space,” and the first and by far most important purpose of their management of the park is to protect and facilitate the practice of agriculture (Montasell 2013). This definition of a park is strongly inspired by the American National Parks born in the nineteenth century. The idea of nature (or even wilderness) protection with reduced visitor activity in a clearly delimited perimeter is transferred to the protection of agriculture by zoning protection perimeters on the different levels of spatial planning. The definition given by the Italian authors Branduini and Scazzosi is “Parks are institutionalised forms of territorial management invented at the end of the 19th century to protect nature. […] Parks generally have a specific managing body.” (Branduini and Scazzosi 2011, p.  43). This definition reflects the same American idea of a park and transfers it to agricultural parks based on the Italian case studies presented in their paper. The Belvedere Agricultural Park is inspired by a different, more European tradition of parks, as a not completely but at least in part voluntarily designed space that is made accessible to visitors and hosts different functions (such as production, leisure, education, representation, aesthetics) that are integrated in the same landscape in an optimised way. This model of a park has been retraced by the author in his PhD dissertation “Designing Productive Parks” (Timpe 2017). It has older roots than the American one and can be found already in the French parks of the seventeenth century with the purpose of optimising seigneurial estates in an economic and aesthetic way, as has been shown by different authors (Farhat 2006). The tradition continues to the landscape parks of the eighteenth century, such as the Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz in Germany that experimented with advanced agricultural and infrastructural techniques and led the way to the ideas of “Landeskultur” and “Landesverschönerung” (Küster and Hoppe 2010, p. 165–187). The idea of the nineteenth century ornamental farm is another example of this tradition line. Only in the second half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century have parks lost most of their agricultural facets and have been in many cases reduced to monofunctional spaces turned towards leisure and some additional surrounding functions (culture, physical activities for health). In recent decades parks have become a tool to reintegrate derelict or contaminated land into the urban fabric (cf. projects of the IBA EmscherPark in the 1990s or Amsterdam’s Westergasfabriek). This practice rediscovered the design of a park as an optimisation strategy integrating the functions of social, cultural, and leisure uses, environmental protection and placemaking/identity building, but neglected the productive function. A deeper analysis of European parks throughout their history, which would lead too far in the present publication, could show that besides integrating and testing advanced forms of land use in agriculture and forestry they have also been spaces of innovation in such domains as hydraulic engineering, construction techniques, and mechanical machinery. In the present situation, as it becomes more and more clear that agricultural land is a scarce resource on the global level, it could be rewarding to (re)discover urban agricultural parks as laboratories for innovation. For this purpose, the idea of agricultural parks has to go beyond protection perimeters for

13  Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park

223

Fig. 13.14  New perspectives on agriculture offered by the Belvedere towers in summer 2014. The Cologne Cathedral can be seen on the horizon. (Photo: Axel Timpe)

agricultural land and address the optimisation potential of park design. The reuse of urban waste by urban agriculture as presented by Roland Vidal in his contribution to the present book (Chap. 7) may be one element of this. The aesthetic dimension is not an added function in this definition of an agricultural park but a fundamental condition to bring the broad attention of society to the tested innovations. Both projects of lohrberg stadtlandschaftsarchitektur in the Cologne Outer Greenbelt, the forest laboratory and the Belvedere Agricultural Park, can be considered as laboratories for land use innovation. Although the forest laboratory experiments with new tree species in an urban context and puts to test the acceptance of short rotation plantations for biomass production, Belvedere Agricultural Park investigates the compatibility of modern cash crop agriculture and other park functions. As a second innovation theme, the park places research on genetic resources in the awareness of the public. More park laboratories throughout Europe are needed to explore the full potential and benefits of urban agriculture within multifunctional urban landscapes (Fig. 13.14). Acknowledgments  The author thanks Thomas Hilker, project-responsible at the green space planning department of the City of Cologne, for the necessary exactness of numbers and statistics and Brianne Lovstrom, University of Alberta, summer student at RWTH Aachen University  in 2012, for proofreading.

224

A. Timpe

References Arnstein, S.  R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225. Branduini, P., & Scazzosi, L. (2011). Les paysages agraires périurbains: vers la coconstruction du territoire. Urbia – Les Cahiers du développement urbain durable, 12, 39–65. Farhat, G. (Ed.). (2006). André Le Notre, fragments d’un paysage culturel – institutions, arts, sciences & techniques. Sceaux: Musée de l’Île-de-France. Häpke, U. (2012). Freiraumverluste und Freiraumschutz im Ruhrgebiet  – common-property: Institutionen als Lösungsansatz? Dortmund: IRPUD. Küster, H., & Hoppe, A. (2010). Das Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz. Landschaft Geschichte. München: Beck. Lohrberg, F., Licka, L., Scazzosi, L., & Timpe, A. (Eds.). (2015). Urban agriculture Europe. Berlin: Jovis. Montasell, J. (2013). Oral presentation of the Parc Agrari del Baix Lllobregat at the 2nd COST UAE working group meeting, March 13. Barcelona/Castelldefels Swaffield, S., & Deming, M. E. (2011). Research strategies in landscape architecture: mapping the terrain. J Landsc Archit, 1, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2011.9723445. Thering, S., & Chanse, V. (2011). The scholarship of transdisciplinary action research – toward a new paradigm for the planning and design professions. Landsc J, 30, 6–18. Timpe, A. (2017). Produktive Parks entwerfen. Geschichte und aktuelle Praxis biologischer Produktion in europäischen Parks. Aachen: RWTH Aachen University. Available online: http:// publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/681932/files/681932.pdf.

Chapter 14

La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space by Local Citizens José Castillo Ruiz and Alberto Matarán Ruiz

Abstract  The Vega of Granada is an agrarian space with important heritage values. As it belongs to the Metropolitan Area of Granada, it is affected by the conflicts of periurban agrarian spaces. However, the active citizenship has developed several actions and projects in the past decades to protect and enhance this area and its heritage values. Within this democratic, free, and independent process, in this paper we focus on the proposal for the declaration of the Vega as a Bien de Interés Cultural (Asset of Cultural Interest – the highest level of protection granted under Spanish Law to a cultural asset). This proposal explicitly viewed the Vega as part of Andalusia’s historic heritage and was based on the principles of a new concept known as Agrarian Heritage. We also look at how local people continue or recover the gradual sustainable coevolution of human society and the agricultural ecosystem in the Vega by adapting the rules of operation that have enabled it to survive the demands of the twenty-first century. Recent interesting initiatives in this direction include the production, sale, and consumption of locally produced goods as fundamental paths towards the participative reconstruction of the Vega.

14.1  Introduction The Vega of Granada is an exceptional agrarian space on either side of the River Genil in the immediate vicinity of the city of Granada. Although its earliest occupation seems to date from the Roman era, the Vega of Granada was developed above all via the sophisticated water supply system created during the Middle Ages when Granada was under Islamic rule (C. 11). This system remains in service today and retains many of its original material and functional features. This water supply system has enabled this area to be cultivated successfully for centuries, during which

J. Castillo Ruiz · A. Matarán Ruiz (*) Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_14

225

226

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

time farming has given rise to many kinds of historical assets, and indeed values, thus converting the Vega into a paradigmatic agrarian heritage space. The drive to declare the Vega of Granada a heritage area is exceptional in that it was not purely an academic or institutional venture, but instead was the result of a grassroots movement, fruit of the coming together of numerous initiatives, studies, proposals, demands, and defence campaigns carried out by individuals and groups from all kinds of backgrounds (environmental groups, residents associations, friends of the railway and the bicycle, university research projects, organic farming initiatives, senior citizens’ associations, educational projects, etc.) over more than two decades, inspired by a shared idea (or dream): the defence of the Vega of Granada.

14.2  T  he Vega of Granada as Cultural Heritage. Identification and Characterization on the Basis of the Principles of Agrarian Heritage The grassroots movement that arose in favour of the defence and recovery of the Vega of Granada could be classified, together with a similar movement in support of the Huerta de Valencia, as one of the most important experiences in Spain in defence of agrarian, and in essence, cultural spaces. This movement united around a platform called “Salvemos la Vega” (Let’s save the Vega), which in 2008 was joined by the powerful educational movement VegaEduca (VegaEduca 2008). For the previous 20 years VegaEduca had been involved in many projects aimed at ensuring the wider recognition and activation of cultural, historical, social, economic, and environmental values in the Vega of Granada, as well as publicly denouncing the wide array of attacks, aggressions, and threats to which the Vega is often subject (the construction of a second ring-road around the city of Granada, the creation of a huge metropolitan leisure park in the southern part of the Vega, the location of the new fairground in an area just outside the city known for its historic orchards and vegetable gardens, etc.) (Castillo Ruiz 2015). Among these initiatives and setting aside all those relating to the production, sale, and consumption of locally produced goods, which we analyse later, we focus here on one issue that we consider particularly important for understanding the heritage status of the Vega. We are referring to the presentation, with the support of more than 20,000 signatures, of an application to the Department of Culture of the Regional Government of Andalusia (the institution responsible for Cultural Heritage in this part of Spain) for the Vega of Granada to be declared a BIC (Bien de Interés Cultural), with the highest level of protection under the category known as Zona Patrimonial (literally, Heritage Zone), the Andalusian classification most closely equivalent to the internationally accepted protected status of Cultural Landscape (Fig. 14.1). Regardless of the protection system implicit in this classification, the declaration of the Vega as a BIC would necessarily involve the creation of a management body known as a Cultural Park, which was one of the main demands

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

227

Fig. 14.1  Presentation of the proposal for the declaration of the Vega of Granada as an Asset of Cultural Interest in the office of the Regional Government of Andalucía in Granada, May 15, 2013. (Photo: José Castillo Ruiz)

throughout this whole process. The acceptance by the general public of the cultural status of an agricultural space was a genuine leap forward in social terms and posed an enormous challenge for the public administration (as we see later with very disappointing results), that was asked to apply the complex system of protection and management involved in cultural landscape status to the Vega of Granada, a system which, despite its complexity, has been perfectly assimilated and accepted in international scientific and legal spheres. Although the system for the protection of cultural heritage in Spain is perfectly equipped to manage the declaration, protection, and management of cultural spaces, including areas of an agrarian nature, by, for example, the aforementioned status of Zona Patrimonial (Verdugo Santos 2005), the application made to the Regional Government of Andalusia by Salvemos la Vega when applying for the Vega of Granada to be declared a BIC was based on the fundamental tenets and principles of the new concept of Agrarian Heritage. Agrarian Heritage is a concept that has yet to be recognized by heritage law at an international level, although a commitment to set up a working group on this concept was stated at the General Assembly of Icomos (International Council on Monuments and Sites) held in Florence in November 2014. The concept has yet to be fully recognized in the scientific field either, and first appeared as a scientific

228

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

proposal within the framework of the Proyecto Pago (R&D + I project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation HAR2010–15809) and was formalized in the Charter of Baeza on Agrarian Heritage (Castillo Ruiz 2013) (https://www. unia.es/explorar-catalogo/item/carta-de-baeza). This research project arose as a response from the academic and scientific community (in that most of the researchers taking part in the project were also participating in Salvemos la Vega in a private capacity) to the need to convince the public administration of the scientific viability and validity of our demands.

14.2.1  Key Features of Agrarian Heritage In recent years the concept of Cultural Heritage has developed in such a way as to enable new kinds of heritage assets (e.g., industrial heritage, heritage of the Modern Movement, and audiovisual heritage) to acquire their own differentiated treatment and status (Martínez Yañez 2011). This change has substantially improved their characterization and protection. Following a similar path, the objective of the Proyecto Pago project was to obtain a similar differentiated treatment for agrarian heritage, which would mean adding “agrarian” to the list of values protected by Cultural Heritage legislation, as happened with other values such as industrial, landscape, and technological. Agrarian Heritage could then be viewed as a new kind of cultural asset (Álvarez Areces 2007) and protected as such. Our demand for the recognition of agrarian heritage goes far beyond a selfish desire to promote our field of research, and is firmly grounded on a wide variety of arguments. The most important is to ensure the appreciation of and respect for agrarian assets. These assets, although having value of enormous importance for everyone (access to food as a fundamental human right, biological and cultural diversity, sustainable development, food sovereignty, organic farming, etc.), have hitherto been largely ignored by public institutions and by society in general. We believe that this recognition should also be extended to all the people who work in the countryside, emphasizing in particular the roles of shepherds and of women. Another reason is to clearly separate and distinguish agrarian assets from other types of assets that until now have tended to appropriate them, resulting in the poor valuation of all things agrarian. One example is food-related industrial heritage (such as sugar factories in the case of Granada), in which the agrarian spaces are just the landscape in which the factories are situated. The ethnological heritage, in which agrarian heritage tends to be obscured within the wide range of protected traditional activities, or rural heritage, does not include urban or semiurban agriculture. One last reason, which we consider very important when concerned with metropolitan areas such as the Vega, is the possibility of protecting agrarian assets within existing mechanisms for the protection of cultural heritage: including them in the declaration of historic cities (or in palaces, monasteries, and other similar types of structure), including agrarian assets and activities in the list of protected assets for town

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

229

and territorial planning, the maintenance of the link between the assets declared as agrarian heritage and the inherent agrarian activity. On the basis of these principles and objectives, the Charter of Baeza on Agrarian Heritage set out a definition of agrarian heritage and established various principles for its protection, planning, management, and promotion (Table 14.1).

14.2.2  The Heritage Values of the Vega of Granada From the perspective of agrarian heritage (the type of heritage we consider most suitable for the heritage classification of the Vega of Granada), the Vega is above all an agrarian space (essentially agricultural, but with some livestock) with a long, historic tradition. In other words, a territory in which there is a wide diversity of assets and values (material and immaterial, natural and cultural), resulting from the agrarian activity that has been conducted in this area since Roman times (Cejudo García and Castillo Ruiz 2010; Ocaña Ocaña 1971; Menor Toribio 2000). Thus, even though the environmental or natural dimension (aquifer, rivers, soils, vegetation, etc.) may be very important, it must be viewed as subordinate to the agrarian activity. The Vega de Granada cannot be identified, defended, or protected by summing together an array of isolated, decontextualized elements (farmhouses, factories, irrigation channels). Instead, it must be viewed from a holistic aspect as a unique, unitary space that has been shaped by farmers and farming and which has endured for many centuries, thus maintaining clear, historic continuity. As a unitary space, it has its own differentiated identity, which means that we should shy away from descriptions of the Vega that have had such negative effects on its recent evolution, such as “metropolitan area” or “periurban area.” Descriptions like these tend to mix and confuse its ancient, heritage-related role with the role it plays within its urban and territorial context. The Vega as a distinct, identifiable unit can be easily recognized and geographically defined through the element around which it has been historically been structured, its water supply system. From this perspective, the Vega of Granada is a unitary space, which coincides geographically with the valley of the River Genil as it flows through the city of Granada and beyond (Fig. 14.2). The Vega is made up of a multitude of assets and values of different kinds created or used by farmers throughout history: the River Genil and its different subsidiaries (with their associated natural, biological, and zoological wealth, especially on their banks); its highly fertile, alluvial soils; the architectural, technical, and spatial remains of the unsuccessful push towards industrialization that took place in relationship to sugar beet in the first half of the twentieth century (sugar factories such as the Genil or San Isidro factories in Granada, that of Nuestro Señor de la Salud in Santa Fe, or that of San Pascual in Pinos Puente are all magnificent examples of the important industrial heritage in the Vega) (Reyes Mesa and Giménez Yanguas 2014; Sánchez Sánchez 2015; Martín Rodríguez 1982); the ubiquitous tobacco curing

230

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

Table 14.1  The seven most important points of the Charter of Baeza 1. Of all the component parts of Agrarian Heritage, the fundamental aspect at its heart is agrarian activity. Thus, all the various aspects involved in its protection (definition, types of assets covered by this concept, legal protection mechanisms and categories, management and dissemination instruments) must be based on the following fundamental principle: agrarian activity must be maintained as a guarantee for the future preservation and continuity of the assets being protected. Agrarian Heritage is therefore a living heritage 2. Agrarian Heritage “can be defined as the group of tangible and intangible, natural and cultural assets generated by and used in farming throughout history. A large number and variety of assets can be considered part of this heritage. According to the traditional classification of heritage assets, the following types of assets could be included: Movable assets (tools, utensils, and equipment used in working the fields and in the transport, storage and production of crops and livestock, and related documents, manuscripts, books); Individual immovable assets (notably individual buildings or structures such as farmhouses, orchards, granaries, agricultural processing centres, enclosures, threshing circles, etc); Groups of immovable assets (landscapes, rural settlements, irrigation systems, specific agricultural ecosystems, drover’s roads, paths); Intangible heritage (language, traditions and beliefs, rituals and festivities, knowledge, gastronomy and food culture, craft techniques, living human treasures); Natural and genetic heritage (local crop varieties, local livestock breeds, seeds, soils, vegetation and related wild animals).” (Castillo Ruiz 2013:32–33). In spite of this diverse range of assets, agrarian heritage is a holistic all-encompassing concept, which derives from its main component, agrarian activity 3. The recognition of agrarian heritage as such means that the main value on which its status and protection is based is cultural. And as such, agrarian activity is a social practice that has made a vital undeniable contribution to human civilization. Nonetheless, this cultural value must be understood from a historic and traditional point of view in that the agrarian activity being preserved is founded on traditional sustainable farming practices today under threat among other reasons, from industrialized high production agriculture 4. In addition to this generic cultural value, agrarian heritage must also acquire and appropriate those higher, more transcendental values and meanings that agriculture, livestock rearing, and forestry have represented and continue to represent for all humankind. These are as follows:  Its crucial and irreplaceable contribution to the feeding of humanity, not only as an essential element of survival, which makes it a fundamental human right, but also its importance as a means of achieving food sovereignty and a healthy, fair, and harmonious way of life  Its harmonious integration into the territory, as manifested in its sustainable and dynamic use of natural resources, respectful adaptation to natural environmental values, and minimal impact on the environmental conditions of a given territory  Its essential identity as part of the relationship between culture and nature, built on the historic process of co-evolution of social and natural systems. This relationship and the sustainable, ecological ways of managing natural resources implicit in it have generated various sustainable agro-systems based on social and collective action and on the ecological approach of farmers and communities that interact with the rural agrarian environment  Its indispensable contribution to biological diversity, as manifested in the genetic heterogeneity of local varieties and autochthonous breeds, and to cultural diversity, as seen, for example, in the large variety of agricultural management systems existing worldwide (continued)

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

231

Table 14.1 (continued) 5. Agrarian activity cannot be defined or bound within the scope of a single asset or even a group of assets, and instead is manifested and takes place within a wider territorial domain. As a result, the procedure for identifying and conserving agrarian heritage must also be of a territorial nature, which means that the legal protection of agrarian assets must be implemented, above all, through territorial instruments such as that for cultural landscape (the most widely accepted at an international level) or others such as the Andalusian heritage zone. However, in the PAGO Project we propose the creation of a specific classification for agrarian assets that we have dubbed “Place of Agrarian Interest”. This would enable us to recognize the singularity of certain agricultural, livestock, farming, and forestry assets 6. The unique and distinct nature of agrarian heritage also requires that any protection mechanism we decide to put in place must include a management system (and body) with territorial, supra-municipal, and inter-administrative dimensions, which can handle, in addition to the protection of the assets declared as such, all the policies necessary for the maintenance and development of agrarian and all other compatible activities within the protected space. It is essential that the agrarian activities in these areas continue to be genuine productive activities 7. To ensure the heritage recognition of agrarian assets, it is also essential to act in other areas such as training, education, dissemination, and raising of social awareness

Fig. 14.2  Overview of Vega de Granada. (Photo: José Castillo Ruiz)

sheds (a legacy of one of the Vega’s most important crops, tobacco (González Ruiz 2004), and other, unmistakable icons of its identity and meaning). It is also important to remember the roads and pathways that structure the Vega and facilitate the interrelationships between its component parts (including the remains of the tram lines) (Castillo Vergara 2003) and the broad network of agricultural paths and tracks that enabled the farmers to get to their plots of land from their

232

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

different places of residence, villages, and cortijos (farmsteads), a clear reflection of the historical division and fragmentation of land ownership in this area. It also has a wide variety and diversity of landscapes (Sánchez del Árbol and Garrido Clavero 2016) in which there is a strong contrast between the Vega and its surrounding area. Another striking feature is the ease with which someone standing in the centre of the Vega can survey its edges and vice versa. This aspect results from its formation as a sedimentary basin surrounded by glaciers and mountains, which enabled the emergence of a wide range of visual perspectives, most notably the view of the Sierra Nevada mountain range containing the highest mountains in the Iberian Peninsula. The Vega is also home to important archaeological remains (Medina Elvira in Atarfe, Cerro de la Encina in Monachil, Torre de Roma in Romilla, etc.); and boasts a diverse and highly significant architectural and urban heritage in its different towns and villages (some of which have been declared BICs such as the Historic Centre of Santa Fe, the Parish Church of la Encarnación in Albolote, the Arabic Baths in Churriana de la Vega, the Tower and Baptistery in las Gabias, the Bridge of the Virgin in Pinos Puente, the Church of Santa Ana in Los Ogíjares, the Arabic baths and the parish church in La Zubia, etc.); the enormous variety and wealth of agrarian architecture (Torices Abarca and Zurita Povedano 2003), as exemplified in its vegetable gardens and cortijos, and many of its typical village houses (Fig. 14.3) (the vegetable gardens include la Huerta del Tamarit, la Huerta del Marqués, la

Fig. 14.3  Traditional rural house in the Vega of Granada. Cortijo de la Mona. Pago de Naujar (Granada). (Photo: José Castillo Ruiz)

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

233

Huerta de San José, la Huerta de los Perejileros and la Huerta Corazón de Jesús in Granada; la Huerta in Cúllar Vega and la Huerta del Marqués in Otura; la Huerta de Nuestra Señora del Pilar in Vegas del Genil and La Huerta Grande and Casa Muharra in La Zubia. Some important cortijos include el Cortijo del Pino in Churriana de la Vega; el Cortijo de la Viña in Cúllar Vega; el Cortijo de la Cartuja, el Cortijo del Rector, el Cortijo de Santa María de la Vega, el Cortijo de Alarcón and el Cortijo del Cobertizo Viejo in Granada; la Casería de Santa Ana, el Cortijo del Alitaje, el Cortijo de Daimuz Alto and el Cortijo de la Marquesa in Pinos Puente; el Cortijo de Santa Teresa in Santa Fe and el Caserío de San Ignacio in Vegas del Genil). In addition to these more obvious tangible assets, the Vega is also bestowed with a number of interesting intangible assets, in terms of its customs, activities, techniques, and knowledge, associated above all with the different forms of agriculture conducted there. It is also known for the exemplary and cathartic presence (with varied and powerful associations scattered throughout the Vega) of the Spanish poet and playwright, Federico García Lorca, whose move to the city, and subsequent permanent return to the family home in Asquerosa (Valderrubio), symbolize very well what the Vega is and what we want it to remain. Of all these heritage assets, the most important is its irrigation system, the feature that defines and articulates the Vega as a functional, living heritage area (Malpica Cuello 1998; Trillo San José 2004; Castillo Martín 2005; García Leal 2014). This system has a high degree of authenticity, as manifested in the historic continuity of its network ever since mediaeval times (C. 11) and in the maintenance of its management and organization system, which in heritage terms would put it on a similar level, for example, as the street system of the Albaicín district of Granada, declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. This irrigation network is still used today and retains many of the ancient systems for collecting and storing the water such as dams, weirs, wells, and springs; and for distributing it such as drainage canals, water-channels, diversion dams, and ditches together with the associated constructions such as watermills, drinking troughs, fountains, and water tanks. The most important and easily identifiable today are the water-channels, which together form an intricate, carefully connected network, and which can be symbolized in the three large waterchannels that take water from the River Genil (the Acequia Gorda del Genil, the Arabuleila, and the Tarramonta), the survival and continued use of which are a guarantee for the future of a living space constructed over centuries of agrarian activity. Although all these individual values and assets are very important, their individual impact pales in comparison with the power of the whole, of the single unit resulting from the overlapping and interrelationship of these different elements, which together make up the territory, site, or place in its entirety, the real most powerful argument in favour of the Vega of Granada as a heritage site, all of which has been maintained and survives today thanks to the agriculture and livestock farming conducted there. The presentation in 2013, with enormous popular support, of the proposal for the Vega of Granada to be officially declared a BIC was a huge advance in the field of Cultural Heritage, as it allowed us to inform large sections of society in Granada and the rest of Andalusia as to the possibilities (and the viability and legitimacy of doing so) of the application of the different protection instruments provided for in

234

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

Cultural Heritage legislation in similar territories with a historic character (it was particularly pleasing to hear thousands of people link agriculture and an agrarian space such as the Vega of Granada with Cultural Heritage, in other words, with culture). The declaration also showed that most of the tangible and intangible values already described for this territory are important references for many members of modern society, who cannot conceive the city of Granada as an independent unit in isolation from its Vega and its agriculture, with all that this implies. However, this proposal has received a frustrating response from politicians and administrative bodies in general since 2013 (and even before its official presentation), a sign of the huge difficulties involved in the implementation of the procedures established (and universally accepted by the scientific and academic community) for the protection of cultural landscapes in the legislation on cultural heritage. It is no longer just a question of the Regional Government of Andalusia not responding to this application or offering in exchange for the declaration of the Vega as a BIC, the application of a new planning instrument known as the Plan Especial de la Vega de Granada (Special Plan for the Vega of Granada) (Zurita Povedano 2015), a document that was rejected and blocked by the people of Granada in 2011 and has now been dusted down and reactivated by the Andalusian administration (as a result of the signing of a controversial and deceptive social and political pact for the Vega de Granada). Instead we are faced above all with a problem of a deep-­ seated lack of confidence (and ignorance, a crucial issue that does not affect other aspects of law such as town planning and environment) as expressed by many institutions and individuals (especially town councils governed by the traditional political parties and farmers’ associations) regarding the capacity and even the legitimacy of using cultural heritage for the protection, planning, management, and dynamization of an agrarian space such as the Vega of Granada. In short, the process of recognition of the Vega of Granada as a Cultural Heritage site has immersed us in what is a very contradictory situation, of which we wish to emphasise the most positive results, above all those related with the enormous social mobilization it has aroused, which has enhanced public knowledge and awareness of the Vega de Granada as a historic agrarian space with values that must be preserved. It has also helped create the social conscience and participation that underpin the magnificent production, sales, and marketing experiences that we now explain.

14.3  T  he Role of Territorial Resistance and of Local Projects in the Historic Vegas The concept of place consciousness (Magnaghi 2011) is closely linked to the spatial relationship people have with the place in which they live. Another perhaps even more essential relationship with the medium is as the source of our food. However, the prevailing model of development and the globalized economic systems try to ignore both of these relationships by generating homogeneous, de-territorialized

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

235

living spaces, and promoting an agro-food model that has nothing to do with the realities of the territory in which the food products are consumed, so destroying many of the material and above all immaterial components of agrarian heritage (Fig. 14.4). The territorial resistance offered by active citizens (those with the greatest place consciousness) is expressed in the form of actions in response to the different forms of de-territorialisation mentioned earlier in the case of the Vega of Granada (above all urban growth, more intensive agriculture, and the construction of infrastructures and megaprojects) at the same time as defending fundamental heritage values (Nel·lo 2006). In the case of food-related resistance (Viertel 2013), apart from the response to certain specific agro-industrial crops (genetically modified, monocultures, biofuels, greenhouses, etc.) and food models (hypermarkets, junk food, school lunches, etc.), numerous local projects are being started up that regenerate the relations between villages and their bioregion by supporting the continuity or reconstruction of peasant agriculture (La Via Campesina) (Calle et  al. 2013) and of localized food systems, a phenomenon that Alberto Magnaghi (2011) refers to as “retro-innovation,” in other words, innovation based on the rules governing traditional systems, which in the case of food have been and remain fundamentally local and peasant, and are therefore based on the biocultural memory (Toledo and Barrera-­ Bassols 2008). In short, these processes determine an everyday recognition of the

Fig. 14.4  Antonio Hurtado, called “el niñillo.” Living treasure of the Vega of Granada. (Photo: José Castillo Ruiz)

236

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

tangible and intangible heritage values that are produced and reproduced through the land care activities inherent in the modus operandi of these local projects, which promote the historical continuity of urban and periurban agriculture. In this sense, we propose the following hypothesis, namely, that in spite of the comings and goings of the different administrations and the successes and failures of civil society in the face of the destruction of fertile land, alternative food processes (which at times are at odds with the conventional agro-food system) are reinforcing local resistance movements, and thereby defending the historic continuity of these forms of agriculture and highlighting the value of an important part of our heritage. In other words, the food question is encouraging contemporary citizens to change their outlook and become involved in this movement, and to recognise the value of the tangible and intangible assets associated with agriculture. At the same time, politically active citizens are using the issue of food sovereignty as an excellent platform on which to base wider campaigns of resistance and transformation. We now look at the specific case of the Vega of Granada, where local projects of this kind are currently being implemented. In this case there are a number of key elements for the analysis of contexts of historic importance that are similar or comparable to the territory we are studying: the exhaustive knowledge of those actively involved, their networks and the grassroots experience1 acquired in relation to the question of food sovereignty, as well as increasing place consciousness and the promotion and dissemination of the heritage that they also represent.

14.4  E  xperiences of the Alternative Agro-Food System in the Vega of Granada: A Heritage Vision As we have repeated on various occasions in this paper, the main premise behind the protection of agrarian spaces must be the maintenance of the agrarian activities implicit in them, in such a way that at the same time as drafting public policies for their preservation and for a form of management that suits their specific characteristics, it is also necessary to articulate development strategies that can deal with the different agrarian crises that beset these places and enable the historic agrarian activity to continue. It is therefore vital to recognize, highlight, and encourage the various projects and actions that care for the territory with particular attention to those directly linked with agrarian activity. The information presented here has been organized on the basis of existing structures and their contribution to the alternative agro-food system that we wish to 1  In an earlier paper (Matarán Ruiz 2013), we defined citizen experiences as “the experiences of direct and normally autonomous intervention and demands by local citizens in peri-urban agrarian spaces. This does not mean that the administration is not involved, in that except in some cases of greater independence, they have (normally dual) relations of collaboration and confrontation with the public authorities”

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

237

construct and develop within the context of the protection of agrarian spaces with heritage value.

14.4.1  Production, Consumption, and Self-Supply Groups These groups are self-managed collectives in which there is a direct relationship between those who produce and those who consume. In some cases, consumers are also involved in production, as we will see. These groups are the most basic, most autonomous nodes of the alternative agro-­ food system. They operate in diverse, sometimes dynamic ways, because of both the possibility of these systems disappearing in a short time (which could easily happen as they lack their own infrastructure) and their rapid growth and stability when they are successful. In the case of Granada, various experiences have been tried over recent years, along different lines. The first is El Encinar, which first appeared 20 years ago as a consumer group and later became an association of producers and consumers, with its own shop in which there are local products and a network of external contacts for those who pay the membership fee. Its activities include training courses, advice services for producers, and a participatory guarantee system (see following). The second example are consumer groups called “como de graná” (My food is from Granada), which developed from the need of a group of farmers from the southern part of the Granada Metropolitan Area to sell their products. A process of Participation, Action, and Research has been conducted with this group since 2012 within the context of the PLANPAIS research project (Matarán Ruiz et al. 2014). In this case, a priori, there was only direct sale and purchase of products using simple, free Internet applications (basically Google Drive and email groups); this kept costs down as there were no intermediaries. Over time, consumers are gradually acquiring a greater role, for example, through the development of a Participatory Guarantee System (called eSPiGa), by financing the harvests or the food for the producers’ animals, or even by helping them with the planting or harvesting by traditional means of the agricultural products cultivated in the Vega. Their link with other structures is also quite diverse, but they provide an interesting example for the development of systems based on trust, such as the Participatory Guarantee Systems (Cuéllar Padilla 2009) between those who produce and those who consume. They can also act as a means for both producers and consumers to access the organic farming networks produced by the alternative agro-­ food system. As we mentioned earlier, these associations do not require complex or costly infrastructure; all they need is a shop or premises with a pair of scales to measure the amounts that each person takes away with them. What they do have in abundance is knowledge, trust, and above all people, often entire families, who are directly involved in the food products (a very wide range) that are produced and

238

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

consumed. This active sector of modern society is enabling, in short, the maintenance of local production systems with a high heritage value at the same time as promoting the values associated with local produce, grown according to traditional agrarian techniques (including local varieties), and even encouraging the exchange of knowledge relative to cultivation methods and times, and recipes.

14.4.2  Associations of Producers and Consumers Producers and consumers form associations, the former as a means of distributing their products and the latter as a way of jointly accessing these and other products. The best example of an association of this kind in Granada is El Encinar, the association we mentioned earlier, which has gradually developed and now has premises with a small storeroom and a refrigerator. In these associations, there are direct links between producers and consumers, although they are not as frequent as in the consumer groups because there is an intermediary. There is only sporadic contact in chance meetings when consumers happen to be in the shop when producers are making their deliveries or when association meetings or activities are being held. The production and sales strategies of these organizations usually include, as one might expect, the local or nearness factor, and in response to the preferences of contemporary society (as happens in the consumer groups), other issues such as local and seasonal varieties are emphasized, as are traditional cultivation methods and even recipes, which are key agrarian heritage values.

14.4.3  Producer Associations These associations are essentially groups of producers who come together to improve their capacity and efficiency in the sale and marketing of their products, although they also use these structures for other purposes, such as exchanging seeds and knowledge, the collective purchase of supplies, or for organizing training courses. There is a wide variety of such associations; the following are some of the most important in the province of Granada. First, the Valle y Vega cooperative, which was formed in 2016 after the merger of El Vergel de la Vega (based in the Vega of Granada) and Ecovalle (based about 20 km further south in the Lecrín Valley) and specializes in online sales of boxes of fruit and vegetables, which are delivered directly to people’s homes or to people who group together to save themselves the transport costs. They also deliver larger bulk orders to shops, restaurants, and canteens of various institutions. They sell fresh, local, organic products produced by people who are members of, or collaborate with, the association. They also sell other fresh foods and food products from the local area and from further afield. Consumers value their experience in the sale

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

239

of a range of products, their capacity to organize the box delivery service, and their participation in other sales projects and networks such as street markets. They have also launched a Participatory Guarantee System. There are few examples of multifunctional approaches in the Vega of Granada, and most of those who farm in this area do not engage in other complementary cultural, tourism, or leisure activities related with its values. However, at the core of virtually all these cooperatives is one of the most innovative experiences in this context, that of El Cortijo del Pino. This producer has not only developed a space for organic agriculture and a point of sale for Valle y Vega, but also offers rural accommodation (four apartments) in part of the building fitted out for this purpose and an environmental education centre in what was once a tobacco curing shed. A second example is Ecológicos de Granada (Granada Organics), which in addition to online sales also has a shop known as the Economato Ecológico where they retail to the public products produced by the association and others produced externally. The shop doubles as a warehouse (it has a refrigerator) and as a place for preparing orders. Finally, there are projects such as HORTOAN (Asociación Hortofrutícola de las Vegas Andaluzas) made up of four or five private producers and volunteers, who sell their products directly in the Eco-markets, in the markets in the Lecrín Valley, and to private individuals. From the beginning one of the priorities of this organization has been the recovery and development of local varieties as an essential distinguishing feature. As one might expect, these associations have also opted for local and seasonal products, thus promoting the continuity of traditional systems of agriculture through the reproduction of the agrarian heritage and also via the exchange of knowledge and information among producers. They are also reactivating an ancient system of sale developed before the green revolution by small family farms (Calle et al. 2010). These associations claim that the interaction is positive in terms of the savings achieved in logistics and sales costs, but they also point out a possible downside, namely the lack of a “human touch,” in the sense that a face-to-face meeting between producers and consumers is a key aspect, not only as a strategy to attract new consumers, but also as a means of building loyalty and trust. They have therefore developed specific methods for passing on heritage values from producers to consumers. In general, they try to promote the place where the product is produced, stressing its importance and organizing visits to the farms. They also highlight the origin and characteristics of the local products on sale and even provide recipes for cooking them, usually but not always according to traditional methods.

14.4.4  Shops There are also a number of shops specializing in  locally produced organic food. These shops base their appeal on nearness, local knowledge, and building long-term relationships with their customers. The buying system is the same as in any

240

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

traditional neighbourhood store, thus promoting social relationships. Some also do home deliveries with a small additional cost for transport. In the city of Granada, there is at least one of these shops in each neighbourhood and several in the surrounding area to the north and south. There are also three shops with close links with the rest of the alternative agro-food system: 1. The first and oldest is Consumo Cuidado, which also organizes home deliveries and catering services when asked to do so. The shop is in the centre of Granada and has a small cold store. 2. The second is the Ecotienda Valle Monachil (Monachil Valley Organic Shop), which is unusual in that it is owned and run by a producer from the nearby village of Monachil, who after s producing local products decided to change to the sales side. He has been relatively successful in both the best-known organic products and in the sale of local varieties. 3. The third shop is the Economato de Granada, which belongs to the Ecológicos de Granada association. This shop combines the direct sale of its products with the sale of other products from nearby or further away that complement the shopping basket of any family wishing to consume organic produce. In these three shops and in some of the others in Granada, local and seasonal production has always been encouraged. At certain times, it is also possible to find local varieties that are not usually available in standard fruit and vegetable shops or supermarkets. This practice helps sustain traditional farming and meets many of the criteria of modern consumers of agrarian products. However, as it is difficult to recognize the names of the producers directly, and as there are no methods for the exchange of knowledge, further promotion of the different aspects of agrarian heritage becomes difficult.

14.4.5  Markets In markets, products are sold directly to the public from retail outlets that are either individually or collectively organized and managed. These markets are usually held fortnightly or monthly and operate in the way that traditional street markets did before they were transformed and supplied by large warehouses with products from all over the world, thus losing much of their essence in terms of the support for local agriculture that had been a characteristic feature of markets throughout history. Some modern markets have special conditions regarding the access, sale, origin, and method of production of the produce they sell, which must be organic, artisan, and local. Those who produce locally can sell their products directly or through their associations, without the need for intermediaries. In Granada there were a number of failed attempts to establish markets of this kind. In the end, one market, the Ecomercado, managed to consolidate its position. This market brings together most of the groups that make up the different centres of alternative agricultural production in the province of Granada, which formed an

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

241

association called the Red Agroecológica Granadina (Granada Organic Farming Network). This market is held once a month and specializes in local, organic produce, accepting a maximum of 10% of products from outside, providing that these products cannot be found in the local area at that time of the year. As in other parts of the alternative agro-food system, the Ecomercado supports the historic continuity of agriculture, at the same time as promoting key aspects of agrarian heritage. Besides the sale of local varieties, which in many cases are sold directly by the people that produce them, they also organize complementary activities very useful for promoting agrarian heritage, including the tasting of local varieties, workshops demonstrating food production and transformation systems, exhibitions with agrarian heritage exhibits or photography exhibitions, and gastronomic activities that promote the exchange of knowledge.

14.5  Conclusions Urban and periurban agriculture are essential features of the agrarian heritage that has become increasingly difficult to appreciate in a spatial context in which urban development takes priority over the protection of territorial values. The recognition and promotion of the importance of agrarian heritage is a wide-­ ranging, far-reaching strategy that can help handle the agrarian crisis, in particular in the most vulnerable, endangered areas such as those bordering cities. The planning proposals arising from innovations in research into heritage and from the agrarian heritage values widely recognized by modern society can provide other ways of managing and protecting agrarian areas, always taking into account the need to maintain the agrarian activity from which they take their name. In view of the inaction and slowness of public institutions to implement the policies to which they have committed themselves in numerous laws, active citizens are creating a wide range of local projects in which the focus is on food as a key issue for linking agriculture with the city through heritage. These projects are facilitating the continuity of urban and periurban agriculture, at the same time as boosting the recognition and promotion of agrarian heritage. They also create greater place consciousness, which may finally force the administrations to act more decisively. The mobilization of large sections of society, increasing awareness, and the day-­ to-­day experiences in the Vega of Granada demonstrate that it is a living territory and therefore has the capacity to retain and reproduce its heritage values in the face of threats from urban development. Although these threats are very real and powerful, civil society can prevent the loss of the heritage values that give the city of Granada its identity and meaning.

242

J. Castillo Ruiz and A. Matarán Ruiz

References Álvarez Areces, M. Á. (2007). Arqueología industrial. El pasado por venir. Gijón: CICEES Colección La Herencia Recuperada. Calle, Á., et al. (2010). Soberanía alimentaria y Agroecología Emergente: la democracia alimentaria. En : Aproximaciones a la Democracia Radical. Coord. Ángel Calle Collado, Editorial Icaria. Calle, Á., Gallar, D., & Candón, J. (2013). Agroecología política: transición social hacia sistemas agroalimentarios. Revista de Economía Crítica, 16, 244–277. Castillo Martín, A. (2005). El acuífero de la Vega de Granada. Ayer y hoy (1966–2004). In J. A. López Jeta et al. (Eds.), Agua, Minería y Medio Ambiente: libro homenaje al profesor Rafael Fernández Rubio. (pp. 161–172). Madrid: Instituto Geológico y Minero de España. Castillo Ruiz, J. (Ed.). (2013). La Carta de Baeza sobre Patrimonio Agrario. Sevilla: UNIA. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/36377. Accessed 12 Mar 2019. Castillo Ruiz, J. (2015). La “bictitis” o la alergia social (¿o es sólo política?) a la protección de los bienes culturales de carácter territorial. Reflexiones y propuestas a partir del caso de la Vega de Granada. In: Castillo Mena, A.R. (ed.) Personas y comunidades: Actas del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Buenas Prácticas en Patrimonio Mundial (29–30 de abril, 1 y 2 de mayo de 2015) (pp. 407–437). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Servicio de Publicaciones. Retrieved from http://eprints.ucm.es/34899. Accessed 12 Mar 2019. Castillo Vergara, A. (2003). Los tranvías de la Vega de Granada. El tranvía de santa Fe, las líneas interurbanas y el ferrocarril aéreo “Durcal-Motril.”. Granada: Proyecto Sur. Cejudo García, E., & Castillo Ruiz, J. (2010). La Vega de Granada. La construcción patrimonial de un espacio agrario. In J. Hermosilla Pla (Ed.), Los regadíos históricos españoles. Paisajes culturales, paisajes sostenibles (pp. 243–284). Valencia: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino. Cuéllar Padilla, M. (2009). Hacia un sistema participativo de garantía para la producción ecológica en Andalucía. Tesis Doctoral. Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba. García Leal, A. (2014). Patrimonio Agrario en la Vega de Granada: los regadíos del río Dílar. E-rph. Revista Electrónica de Patrimonio Histórico, 14, 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.revistadepatrimonio.es/revistas/numero14/concepto/estudios/articulo.php. Accessed 24 Jan 2017. González Ruiz, L. (2004). Origen y desarrollo del cultivo del tabaco en la provincia de Granada (1870–1960). Atrio: Granada. Magnaghi, A. (2011). El Proyecto Local. Barcelona: Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya. Malpica Cuello, A. (1998). Arqueología hidráulica y poblamiento medieval en la Vega de Granada. In Fundamentos de Antropología, vols 6–7. Granada: Diputación Provincial de Granada. Centro de Estudios Etnológicos “Ángel Ganivet”. Martín Rodríguez, M. (1982). Azúcar y descolonización: origen y desenlace de una crisis agraria en la vega de Granada: el Ingenio de San Juan, 1882–1904. Granada: Instituto de Desarrollo Regional. Martínez Yañez, C. (2011). El patrimonio cultural: tendencias y proyecciones sociales y económicas. Estudio internacional y comparado del significado y uso del patrimonio ante los retos del siglo XXI. Madrid: Editorial Académica Española & Lap Lambert Academic Publishing. Matarán Ruiz, A. (2013). Participación social en la protección activa de los espacios agrarios periurbanos: un estado de la cuestión. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 63, 57–79. Matarán Ruiz, A. et al. (2014). Proyectos participativos para la (re)construcción colectiva de la Vega de Granada como territorio agrario periurbano. Revista Scienze del Territorio, 2. Menor Toribio, J. (2000). La Vega de Granada: transformaciones agrarias recientes en un espacio periurbano. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Reyes Mesa, J.  M. & Giménez Yanguas, M. (2014). Miradas desde el ferrocarril del azúcar: paisaje y patri monio industrial en la Vega de Granada. Granada: Axares. Sánchez Sánchez, F. J. (2015). Atarfe: tierra de azúcar y alcohol. Granada: Comares.

14  La Vega de Granada: The Defence of a Paradigmatic Agrarian Heritage Space…

243

Sánchez del Árbol, M. Á. & Garrido Clavero, J. (2016). Valor y valoración del paisaje de la vega de Granada. In: Segarra Lagunes, S., Valenzuela Montes, L. M. & Rosúa Campos, J. L. (coord.). Paisaje CON+TEXTO (pp. 409–430). Granada: Universidad. Toledo, V. M., & Barrera-Bassols, N. (2008). La memoria biocultural: La importancia ecológica de las sabidurías tradicionales. Barcelona: Ed. Icaria. Torices Abarca, N. & Zurita Povedano, E. (2003). Cortijos, haciendas y lagares. Sevilla: Conserjería de Obras Públicas. Trillo San José, C. (2004). Agua, tierra y hombres en Al-Ándalus. La dimensión agrícola del mundo nazarí. Granada: Grupo de Investigación “Toponimia, Historia y Arqueología del Reino de Granada. Verdugo Santos, J. (2005). El territorio como fundamento de una nueva retórica de los bienes culturales, PH, Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 53 94-105. VegaEduca (2008). Disponible en. http://vegaeduca.org/joomla16/. [10 de marzo de 2015]. Viertel, J. (2013). “Más allá que –Votar con el tenedor-: de la conciencia alimentaria a la construcción de movimientos”. En: HOLTGIMÉNEZ, E., ¡Movimientos alimentarios unidos! Estrategias para transformar nuestros sistemas alimentarios (pp. 154-163). Barcelona: Icaria. Zurita Povedano, E. (2015). Evaluación y consecuencias de la planificación sobre la Vega de Granada: un paisaje cultural agrario en peligro. Revista E-rph [en línea], n.º 17, diciembre, pp. 5-28, disponible en: http://www.revistadepatrimonio.es/ [consultada 24 de febrero de 2017].

Chapter 15

AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and Cultural Heritage Paola Branduini, Raffaella Laviscio, and Lionella Scazzosi

Abstract  In the past decade, policy in favour of strengthening the role of urban agriculture implemented by Milanese institutions and the numerous initiatives that have been promoted has also brought benefits to the maintenance of agricultural heritage. Restoration and recovery actions that  followed the agrarian contract renewal avoided collapse of tangible agricultural heritage; the confirmation of agricultural land in urban planning allowed farmers to maintain a good quality of open spaces for citizen and perpetuate the original link between agricultural buildings and their fields, namely, the historical landscape system. The municipal support for network creation among farmers reinforced their role in the society and encouraged their involvement in the transmission of traditional agricultural techniques. Citizens increased the sense of community through revival of agricultural celebrations and the involvement in horticultural activities. The effects of the policies towards agricultural heritage are analysed on a sample of historical farmsteads and agricultural fields owned by Milan municipality. We investigated the permanencies of tangible and intangible heritage, the readability of the historical landscape system and the heritage transmission, and the involvement of the population.

15.1  An Unexpected Increase of UA During the Past 20 Years In the past 20 years, a series of urban agriculture (UA) initiatives, of both urban farming and urban food gardening,1 have taken place in Milan. The increase of such initiatives can be linked to a notable change in the consideration of agriculture and its actors. At the beginning of the year 2000, farmers complained about the difficult 1  According to the definition given by the group of researchers who collaborated on the research “Cost Action Urban Agriculture Europe” 2012–2016 (Lohrberg et al. 2016).

P. Branduini (*) · R. Laviscio · L. Scazzosi Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Scazzosi, P. Branduini (eds.), AgriCultura, Urban Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49012-6_15

245

246

P. Branduini et al.

situation facing land tenure (short-term contracts), with uncontrolled urbanisation on their land, about which they were not informed. This problem was coupled with insufficient consideration of their profession from municipal institutions (Branduini and Sangiorgi 2004). In this century’s first decade, institutions started to listen to the farmers and changed their approach: the land was no longer considered a “white hole” in the urban plan, ready to be filled by urban services, but a productive area and a resource for improving citizen well-being. The institutions undertook initiatives aimed at protecting farmland, strengthening social cohesion, encouraging youth entrepreneurship, and transmitting educational values: many initiatives involved agricultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, such as historic farmsteads, with or without land. In that sense, the institutions have facilitated the implementation of urban agriculture initiatives with different policies, some of which had already been undertaken at the end of the twentieth century (Laviscio et al. 2016a). The foundation of South Agricultural Park of Milan (PASM) was the first tool in Lombardy Region specifically devoted to protect agricultural land and activity (Regional Law 24/1990, then upgraded by Regional Law 16/2007), differently from others areas protected for natural values (rivers, mountains, forest) at that time in Lombardy. It covers 61 municipalities over 47,000 hectares (ha) of land, almost the whole agricultural land in the Milan metropolis (66,461  ha)2: the aims are the increase of the ecological network, the protection of cultural heritage, and the improvement of landscape quality for recreational activities, as stated in the Territorial Plan since 20003 (Laviscio et al. 2016b). The Plan established strategies and rules to maintain agricultural land and activities against the increasing urbanisation dynamics, common in the metropolitan areas of the world. Since its foundation the South Park has protected historical farmsteads and agricultural artefacts, has encouraged farmers to follow environmental friendly practises (an environmental quality label was created), and promoted several projects to connect citizens to agricultural production and landscape, such as guides for local products, for cultural heritage and tourism, and thematic paths for bicycles (Ferraresi 2009). The protection of the land was supported by other institutions through different planning tools. Environmental sustainability, landscape protection, and territorial quality found their place in Lombardy Regional Law (L.R. 12/2005), with the definition of Strategic Agricultural Areas by the Milano Province. With the project of the regional ecological network (DGR n. 10,962 of December 30, 2009), the implementation of the agricultural landscape for environmental purposes began; with the

2  Data survey: January 2015. Metropolitan City Statistical Service: /www.cittametropolitana.mi.it/ statistica/osservatorio_metropolitano/statistiche_demografiche/index.html 3  Arable land in PASM covers 30,000 ha (87% of farmland in the Park): 12,000 ha is devoted to rice and 13,000 ha to corn for cattle feeding; 19 ha are still devoted to permanent meadows and a small part is still maintained with old traditional techniques (water meadows). There are more than 1000 farms. Their ownership is characterized by large public and private landowners: Milan Municipality (61 farms and 550 ha of agricultural land) and Welfare organisations, particularly in the South of Milan, such as Curia Arcivescovile, Golgi Redaelli, Ospedale Maggiore, and Pio Albergo Trivulzio.

15  AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and…

247

Regional Landscape Plan elaboration, criteria and guidelines for agricultural landscapes have been developed. A concrete result of these policies are the numerous Local Parks of Intercommunal Interest (PLIS) promoted by groups of municipalities, by means of the delimitation of the protected area, their opening to the public, and the enhancement of the agricultural, environmental, or cultural character that their identity represents. Moreover, the Milan Urban Plan (2015, then integrated in 2017, now in revision) has declared as not-buildable those agricultural areas previously planned for transformation: these are the buffer areas between the dense urbanization of Milan and the agricultural areas of the South Agricultural Park, which are now confirmed for agricultural and leisure use. Social cohesion has been strengthened by Regional Law “Tools for the competitiveness of enterprises in the Lombardy Region” (L.R. January 23, 2007). Lombardy Region has promoted the creation of agricultural districts, a networks of agricultural enterprises that support high-quality production and preserve the identity of the landscape as a food quality mark and a cultural resource. The agricultural districts in Lombardy now number 22, 4 of which are closely related to the metropolitan area of Milan: the “Neo-rural District of the Three Waters” (DINAMO), the “Milan Agricultural District” (DAM), the “District of rice and frogs” (“Riso e rane”), and the “Agricultural District of the Olona River” (DAVO). In particular, the DAM, formed in 2011, consists of more than 30 farms located in the administrative territory of Milan, which manage about 40% of the agricultural land in the municipality of Milan (cultivated area, 1155 ha).4 The consortium guarantees the farmers presence in political and market-oriented contexts. Starting from the DAM constitution and based on the Regional Strategic Plan, in 2013 the Lombardy Region started the promotion of a framework agreement for territorial development (AQUST) called “Milan Rural Metropolis.” Officially signed in May 2012 by the Region, the Province, the Municipality of Milan, and the DAM, it is a model of governance that pursues the integration of urban and rural development strategy through the exploitation also of agricultural heritage (Bocchi and Borasio 2013). The action plan is divided into seven macro-actions: (1) Development and improvement of the irrigation system; (2) Requalification of the environment; (3) Innovation of agricultural products; (4) Production process; (5) Short supply chain enhancement; (6) Implementation of multifunctionality; and (7) Promotion of rural culture. Farmers are the leading players in this process as an object of the policy and as participants at round table discussions. Youth entrepreneurship in agriculture was encouraged through the support and enhancement of startups based on the link between social and solidarity agriculture and new technologies. An example is the OpenAgri project, an urban innovation project within EU framework research, founded on a farmstead on the outskirts of Milan, Cascina Nosedo: it aims to “develop innovative processes, contribute to food availability, particularly of fresh products, increase food security and improve

 www.agricity.it.

4

248

P. Branduini et al.

eating and regenerating in peri-urban zone of the city by making it a model of social inclusion and innovation.”5 Concerning food gardening, the Milan Municipality fostered the educational value of gardening through the promotion of vegetable gardens in schools (“Micoltivo” project6); they recognized the value of social inclusion through underwriting an agreement for temporary use of abandoned land with associations that had informally previously occupied the areas (“shared gardens” policy and “ColtivaMI”7) (Cognetti and Conti 2014). The 2015 World EXPO, which took place in Milan with the topic “Feeding the planet – Energy for life,” had produced an acceleration of policies and instruments targeted at agriculture and the agrarian landscape from its candidacy in 2007: it reinforced the role of farmers in the construction of new scenarios. The International Urban Food Policy Pact, open to signature on that occasion in Milan and now having reached 207 signatures from cities from all over the world, engaged Milan as a role model in terms of food and agriculture sustainability and led it in 2018 to gain the Guangzhou International Award 2018 for best urban policy.8 For saving agricultural heritage from decay and answering citizen’s expectations, the Municipality of Milan, one of the main landowners in the city, launched a call for proposal (“Sedicicascine”9), open to agricultural and non-agricultural citizens, for the requalification and valorisation of vacant or underused rural buildings. To date, almost half of the farms that answered to the call have found a new use (Laviscio 2018). After that, it provided the renewal of agrarian agreements between Municipality (as owner) and farmers (as land renters) with some crucial innovative elements, in particular: (1) the extension of rental period up to 20 years, in exchange of extraordinary maintenance in charge of the farmers; (2) the possibility to sub-­ locate the unused spaces of the buildings to complementary activities related to agriculture (agritourist, direct sale of local products, pedagogic farm, etc.) (Branduini et al. 2020). The initiative of Milan's  Municipality, in the framework of Parco Sud and Lombardy Region's activities, with citizen's associations and farmer's organisations, encouraged other huge landowners, such as Fondazione Ospedale Maggiore, to renew agrarian agreements with their farmers. The policy and the related initiatives in favour of urban agriculture, implemented by the Milanese institutions in the past decade, have brought a benefit to agricultural heritage but what concrete effects has this policy had on the protection and enhancement of agricultural heritage? More specifically, what results did it have on the conservation and maintenance of tangible heritage and the transmission of

 https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/uia-cities/milan.  All the projects and policy are available at the agricultural portal of municipality of Milan www. agricity.it. 7  Ibidem. 8  http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org. 9  Ibidem. 5 6

15  AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and…

249

intangible heritage? Is the historical landscape system still readable? How has the meaning of heritage been conveyed by the community of citizens? What were the driving forces that favoured AU initiatives in historical heritage? In order to aswer to these questions, we propose to evaluate the Milanese policy starting from the analysis of its effects on the maintenance of the heritage, on the impact of today’s agricultural panorama and on public participation.

15.2  Agricultural Heritage and Its Acknowledgement The concept of cultural heritage has a long history. Some definitions have been elaborated during the twentieth century by several institutional and non-institutional bodies at different levels, such as, at world level, UNESCO, the Council of Europe, and ICOMOS.  Cultural heritage is a complex concept that involves tangible and intangible components, as well as historical and contemporary values (UNESCO 1972). Tangible heritage pertains to the material elements of the agricultural landscape, to their historical authenticity and their physical permanence through time. Intangible heritage pertains to the significance attributed by people to places, to techniques and skills that have enabled the creation of landscapes and to features dictated by economic and behavioural factors (UNESCO 2003; ICOMOS 1994; Council of Europe 2005). In case of landscape, tangible and intangible elements are linked by relationships of different nature forming “landscape systems” with a precise historical functioning (Scazzosi 2011, 2018). Recently, at world level, the ICOMOS-IFLA Principles concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage (2017) (endorsed and adopted, as a doctrinal text, by the General Assembly of ICOMOS in Delhi, December 2017) states among definitions (Part 1, lett. A) that “all rural areas can be read as heritage, both outstanding and ordinary, traditional and recently transformed by modernization: heritage can be present in different types and degrees and related to many historic periods, as a palimpsest.” If all rural landscapes can be read as heritage, this recognition is linked to the attribution of values closely related  to the society that expresses them and that changes over time. Some of the values recognized today are (1) the historical or “document” value, which is a testimony of human or natural history; (2) the integrity value, which refers to the state of conservation, the degree of maintenance, and completeness of an element (English Heritage 2008; Agnoletti 2011; UNESCO Operational Guidelines 2019); (3) the authenticity or permanence value, which refers particularly to the persistence of the original (or better, of the historic systems) over time (ICOMOS Nara Document 1994; UNESCO Operational Guidelines 2019); (4) the identity value (or symbolic value or common value) that refers to the meanings of a place attributed by the people who relate to it, or to whom it figures in their

250

P. Branduini et al.

collective experience (English Heritage 2008); and (5) the use value, linked to the possibility of enjoying the goods (Council of Europe, Faro Convention 2005). The enhancement of cultural heritage implies the ability to maintain and reveal these values and to transmit them. Improving knowledge of the agricultural landscape can contribute to strengthening one’s local identity. The landscape is in fact to be considered not only as an object to be safeguarded and managed, but also as an “indicator” of sustainability and as an instrument for active citizenship, particularly in the educational field (Castiglioni and Varotto 2013). Knowing the historical evolution of the landscape contributes to respecting it; this invites us to stop and listen to its history before intervening to transform it, both as citizens and as professionals. Awareness raising is aimed at a wide audience, a local inhabitant as a casual visitor, of different age groups and cultural interests. Therefore, some Milanese case studies are analysed trying to evaluate the degree of permanence, readability, and recognisability of the heritage. The degree of permanence is defined by these factors: –– Tangible and intangible heritage permanence: (1) the possibility of reading the transformations that took place over time (document value) (How did we intervene on the asset? Are the interventions recognizable and distinguishable from the previous ones?); (2) the evaluation of the conservation status of both tangible (historical buildings, territorial signs) and intangible (agricultural, technical) permanencies (How much of the material has been replaced? How much of their structure has been preserved before the intervention? Are traditional techniques used?); –– Landscape system readability: the possibility to read, both physically and perceptively, the historical landscape system (i.e., the field–farm system) (What is the context of the goods? Which was the one before the intervention?) (Scazzosi and Branduini 2014); –– Heritage transmission: (1) the degree of population involvement and participation in heritage enhancement (identity value) (How do citizens become aware of the heritage value? What meanings do they give it?); (2) The choice of appropriate and compatible heritage use (use value) (Which activities take place? Could it enhance the cultural heritage?) (Branduini 2017). These assessments are related to the policies adopted by the Municipality of Milan, evaluating whether it has had a positive or negative impact. The interpretation of Milanese urban agriculture through the reading of its agricultural heritage led to distinguishing four types of agricultural heritage. A brief description of the typologies highlights the permanence of tangible and intangible heritage, the evidence of the historical landscape system, and the initiatives implemented for the involvement of the public. The research combined various sources such as inspections, interviews with farmers and managers, consultation of social network pages and websites, in addition to the usual bibliographic sources.

15  AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and…

251

15.3  Land and Farms in Milan The survey is dedicated to public land and farmsteads, which were historically strictly dependent, whereas agricultural buildings are placed where the land can be cultivated; during the centuries they reached their historical structure. The fields were used to produce cereals (corn, rice, wheat), fodder crops (maize and grass) for dairy production, and vegetables for both self-consumption and market sale. The farmsteads included from five to ten specialised buildings, organised around a courtyard: they are all considered of “historical interest,” as public buildings more than 70 years old, by the Legislative Decree D. Lgs 42/2004, Italian Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (“Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio”). Today there are farmsteads (1) no longer surrounded by agricultural land and no longer in active production, but they host associations that promote activities for the neighbourhood, such as common places. Other farmhouses maintain their agricultural lands, still producing cereal, forage  (2), and in some cases vegetables  (3). Finally, there are some former agricultural or horticultural areas (4) that have “lost” the farmhouse but maintain the horticultural land use in the form of community gardens. Among the latter, some former health service complexes (a school for “at-risk children” and a psychiatric hospital) save a vegetable garden managed by the local community (Fig. 15.1). Therefore, we propose an interpretation of Milanese urban agriculture through the reading of its agricultural heritage.

Fig. 15.1  Maps with the case studies analysed: farmsteads and horticultural land

252

P. Branduini et al.

15.3.1  Farmsteads Without Land These farmsteads are in the dense urban area and have had no associated land for decades (Cuccagna and Cotica farms), or a few years (Torrette di Trenno farm), as the consequence of consolidated or recent urban projects. The buildings are in a good state of conservation, because of recovery (Cotica farm) and conservative restoration interventions (Cuccagna and Torrette  farms) within the past 10  years. Farmers are no longer present, and buildings are managed by associations of citizens (Delta Ecopolis cooperative for Cotica farm; “Consortium cantiere Cuccagna” Association for Cuccagna farm and “Mare Culturale Urbano”, a social enterprise recognized as an innovative startup, for Torrette farm). They host various activities that always include catering and co-working and are mainly aimed at aggregating the neighbouring community and even the entire city, spreading the culture of sustainability and sociality. Having “lost” the land, they no longer have a historical connection with agricultural land use, but the rural characteristics of buildings, the presence of activities related to agricultural elements (horticultural spaces, vegetable product's market), and the  cultural initiatives related to rural life (traditions, festivals, etc.), maintain and enhance the rural characters of these places and transmit rural symbolic meanings to citizens.

15.3.2  Farmsteads with Arable Land These farmsteads are in the southern area of Milan, on the edge of dense urbanization. Their land has been cultivated by the same family for three generations and produces rice, cereals, and forage (Battivacco and Campazzo farms). The agricultural buildings are still present, in a good state of conservation; some of them retain the original uses, some are unused (Campazzo farm), and others are partially converted to new uses for the public (Battivacco farm  has farmhouses in the former worker’s residence, a multifunctional hall in the former granary, sales point and office in a part of the barn). The farmers contribute to the transmission of agricultural knowledge and traditions through several educational activities (cultivation and cleaning techniques in the Battivacco farm; milking; bread baking and water meadows maintenance techniques), and re-enactment of agricultural traditions (St. Anthony bonfire, with animal blessing). The link between the farmhouse and its fields is still present and clearly readable thanks to the continuity of agricultural use. Farmers organise numerous events in collaboration with the citizens’ associations, created to save the farmhouse and its agricultural land (Parco delle Risaie and Parco del Ticinello): kite festival, concerts, painting competitions, educational walks, and collective bread baking are some of the activities undertaken.

15  AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and…

253

15.3.3  Farmsteads with Arable Land and Vegetable Gardens These farmsteads have traditionally maintained dual use of agricultural land, both cereal/forage and vegetable production. As the previous category, they are located on the urban fringe; they are mainly managed by associations of citizens in collaboration with agricultural enterprises (social and solidarity cooperative in Biblioteca farm, association of social promotion and agricultural social enterprise in St. Ambrogio farm, association of citizens and professional beekeepers in Linterno farm). Agricultural buildings are present, although in different states of conservation, and with some given over to new uses (co-working, residence, offices, multifunctional space for cultural events, sport activities, and other initiatives). Their agricultural activities are totally oriented to the public for initiatives that involve education in continuity with traditional agricultural celebrations (St. Antony bonfire, St. Martin and lanterns celebration) and for the transmission of agricultural technical knowledge (water meadows technique, horticultural activities). Some horticultural practices sought by contemporary society, such as permaculture and organic farming, recover traditional techniques and knowledge. Although the farmstead is dedicated to new uses, the buildings maintain their material agrarian characteristics and the presence of the cultivated fields allows the perception of agricultural continuity: this makes the field–farmstead relationship evident to this day.

15.3.4  Land Without Farmsteads: Community Gardens This land is also located within the urban fabric: former unbuilt areas, from lack of planning or unsolved conflicts (Padova Street vegetable garden, San Faustino garden, Gardens in transit), today are community gardens. Among that group, we can also include horticultural lands once linked to educational or sanitary buildings and not solely dedicated to agriculture (Casa del Sole in Trotter Park and Libero Orto garden in the psychiatric hospital Paolo Pini). From a former state of degradation and abandonment, after the citizens occupied the garden, they are now in good condition. Despite the loss of tangible permanencies in the first three community gardens, the buildings are still present and recently restored in the last two cases (namely in the Casa del Sole). The transmission of intangible heritage is related to horticultural techniques and is not directly conveyed by a farmer but is indirectly recovered through the information exchanged between the citizens of different generations.

254

P. Branduini et al.

15.4  Permanence of Tangible and Intangible Heritage Looking at the past 10 years of urban agriculture in the Municipality of Milan, in several interventions of public farm recovery (with land and without land), a different degree of permanence of the built heritage can be observed. If, in all the cases, the recovery project allows to give the community back a heritage that was in an evident state of abandonment and degradation, this does not always occur in respect of the preexisting matter. An excellent degree of preservation is certainly detectable in Cuccagna, Linterno and St. Ambrogio farms, where restoration intervention is minimal, largely reversible, recognisable, and aimed at revealing the layers left by time on the building. A good state of preservation is also observable in Torrette di Trenno  farm, although there has been extensive substitution because of the poor condition of the buildings, and in Battivacco and Biblioteca  farms, even though some interventions seem to respond to functional needs not always with a completely conservative approach. A low degree of conservation can be found in Cotica farm, where heavy and invasive intervention has erased much of the historical stratification of the building. In the farms with land, with a good degree of conservation of the agricultural plots, the irrigation network, and the riparian vegetation can be recognised: these are examples of the traditional technique of water meadows (meadows irrigated also in wintertime) in Linterno and Campazzo farms, of mixed horticultural hedges of willows and Robinia trees in St. Ambrogio farm, and of the tall rows of Italian poplars that mark the irrigated plot in Campazzo farm (Fig. 15.2-15.3). The intangible heritage, related to traditional techniques and customs, remains with greater evidence in farms with land, where agricultural activity maintains traditional techniques, but adapts its production to contemporary social needs and also offers the city an opportunity for recreation, renewing traditions, and popular festivals. In contrast, on landless farms, new uses, no longer linked to agricultural activity, do not allow this continuity, as is also the case of the gardens. Only in gardens linked to former agricultural buildings (Casa del Sole and psychiatric hospital

Fig. 15.2-15.3  Enhancement of tangible heritage: Torrette di Trenno farm  before and after the building restoration. It has lost agricultural business, but new recreational and cultural activities attract an increasing number of people (left: Paola Branduini, 2010; right: Caterina Zanzi, Conosco un posto, 2016)

15  AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and…

255

Paolo Pini), although the function is no longer directly connected to agriculture, the preservation of the tangible permanence is quite good so that it is possible to read some traces of intangible heritage, such as the ancient variety of pear trees in community gardens (namely Libero Orto). This situation was clearly improved by the recent process of awareness raising by the Municipality towards its land heritage. As mentioned, facing of a lack of self-­ maintenance funds, from about 2010, the Municipality had activated the transfer of restoration costs to the farmer in exchange for long-term agrarian contracts (Branduini et al. 2020). Before 2010, many farms' buildings were in very bad condition with risks of collapse and loss of assets. Long-term contracts have allowed farmers greater stability and security towards the future; furthermore, the coordination of policies between the Region, the Metropolitan area, and the agricultural District (DAM) thanks to the AQUST agreement has allowed farmers to implement a long-term entrepreneurial vision, very different from the short-term prospects they had previously (Branduini et al. 2020). Nevertheless, there is a lack of a general framework that guarantees the quality of individual interventions and limits the arbitrary initiative of farmers, technicians, and technical evaluators (Laviscio 2018). The same is valid in the case of farms without land where recovery takes place by private entrepreneurs or associations. In the case of vegetable gardens without buildings, there is a tendency to recall agricultural traditions, even where there are no material traces of them: the intangible heritage leads to a lack of tangible permanence and becomes a social binder. The Milan policy of community gardens implemented by the local municipalities (Milan Municipality is subdivided into nine small municipalities) has not only supported the work necessary for rearranging the areas but has also promoted many citizens’ initiatives regarding their social and ecological role. Concerning the gardens with pedagogic activities, interventions with private partners for philanthropic purposes (Fondazione Cariplo) was decisive. The Trotter Park was restored thanks to a loan from the Municipality of Milan and the Cariplo foundation. The Paolo Pini psychiatric hospital was not restored, but the Cariplo foundation supported a project for the maintenance of agricultural areas (the ecological corridor project in the Northern Park) against the risk of transformation into a residential area. Citizen participation in community gardens was fundamental to postpone the intervention until it was confirmed as an agricultural area in the new governmental urban plan (PGT Piano di Governo del Territorio). The involvement of the population allowed the recognition and legitimisation of the social value of the vegetable gardens (Branduini 2016).

15.5  Reading the Historical Landscape System Historical landscape system legibility is evident where there is tangible permanence of the agricultural landscape, referring not only to buildings but also canals, tree-­ lined roads, and agricultural activity. It is therefore highly visible in farms with land, even those with vegetable gardens; the landscape system is missing in the farms

256

P. Branduini et al.

Fig. 15.4  Permanence of the historical agrarian landscape system in Linterno farm, perceivable at a glance. (Photo: Paola Branduini)

without land, as well as in vegetable gardens without a farm. As mentioned, in the latter there is a tendency to recall agricultural traditions even where there are no tangible traces: the intangible heritage makes up for the lack of tangible traces (Figs. 15.4, 15.5). Without doubt, the signing of the new agricultural contracts and the signing of the AQUST agreement have assured farmers’ future security, land retention, and building maintenance: therefore, a better legibility of the historical agricultural landscape system is assured. In fact, in landless farms, construction projects on agricultural land (Torrette di Trenno farm) had already been approved before the AQUST agreement was signed. The permanence of the still relevant historical landscape has been decisive in encouraging citizens to defend agricultural buildings and land, explicitly in Linterno and Campazzo farms, facing the threat of land use change by the Municipality during the early 2000s (Branduini 2016).

15.6  Heritage Transmission and Involvement of the Population Almost all urban agriculture initiatives actively involve the population. Almost all these initiatives have activated multiple channels through social networks and on-­ site print distribution. The response of the population is broad and motivated, not

15  AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and…

257

Fig. 15.5 Map with tangible and intangible heritage permanencies of Cascina Linterno. (Elaboration: Authors)

only towards recreational activities but also about civic responsibility, such as the removal of solid waste from degraded areas. All the farms are open to citizens, not only by contract, but also by wish to create an exchange with people even where the farmer is present (Battivacco, Campazzo and Linterno farm). Opening is regulated so as not to disturb agricultural activity. All the farmhouses with or without land, with or without vegetable gardens, become meeting places for the local neighbourhood and promote social inclusion, so as to become a reference point for migrant integration also (Biblioteca farm, San Faustino garden, Trotter park). Some farms without land are even a reference point for the entire city (Cuccagna and Torrette di Trenno farms), through catering and cultural activities. Horticultural activity is a strong social adhesive: it allows experimentation, promotes sociability, transmits technical knowledge, and permits sharing of the fruit of one’s work. In the farmhouses where it is still present (Linterno, St. Ambrogio, and Biblioteca farm), unlike the cereal and forage plots, the vegetable garden brings the citizen closer to the agricultural world and favours the transmission of the values of patience, dedication, rituality, and help, which are integral to the agricultural world (Figs. 15.6-15.7 and 15.8-15.9).

258

P. Branduini et al.

Fig. 15.6-15.7  Enhancement of intangible heritage and transmission/involvement of local people in St. Ambrogio farm (left: Paola Branduini) and Casa del Sole Parco Trotter (right: La città del Sole – Amici del Parco Trotter ODV)

Fig. 15.8-15.9  Enhancement of intangible heritage and transmission/involvement of local people in Libero Orto (left: ilgiardinodegliaromi.org) and Orti di Via Padova (right: Paola Branduini)

The Milan policy certainly favoured the promotion of urban agriculture activities. The calls for the farmhouse assignment provide both farmers and citizens with the opportunity to rent the farmhouses; the policy of shared gardens provides citizens with access to land for vegetable gardens. The Municipality itself encouraged citizens to participate in the decision-making process about the conversion of abandoned areas into horticultural land for social purposes (especially the municipalities that have agricultural areas within them: Municipalities 3, 4, 5, and 7). It should be noted that the Milanese associative fabric is historically very dynamic; furthermore, there is a remarkable philanthropic and welfare tradition at the local and Italian level (the Cariplo foundation and others), which culturally and economically supported such participative initiatives (Cives  – Rice paddies park, Libero Orto, Biblioteca farm).

15  AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and…

259

15.7  Conclusions In the past decade, policy in favour of strengthening the role of urban agriculture implemented by Milanese institutions, and the numerous initiatives that have been promoted, have truly brought benefit to the maintenance of agricultural heritage. Primarily, structural actions to secure the land and the farms have favoured the maintenance of agricultural heritage. This approach has allowed farmers to maintain agricultural activity and integrate income through new entrepreneurial activities, opening more and more to the public. The response of the citizens has been enthusiastic and supported the farmers even before the renewal of the contracts. Farmers became aware of their role in furthering agricultural culture, and this was perceived as a value for citizens, eager to recover and perpetuate the agricultural memory of the city. As well as this, the initiative to legitimize the use of the gardens through temporary contracts has given new impetus to city associations to cultivate, embellish, and take care of degraded spaces in the city; it has brought quality to the urban space and has contributed to cohesion and social inclusion. Tangible agricultural heritage has therefore avoided collapse and the irreversible loss of matter and has been subjected to “satisfactory” conservation and recovery actions; the agricultural use of the soil has persisted and has allowed the maintenance of a good quality of open spaces and the perpetuation of the link between buildings and agricultural fields, namely, the historical landscape system. The permanence of the farmers encourages the passing on of traditional agricultural techniques and allows citizens in search of a bond to agriculture and, more in general, to nature to reinforce their sense of community through traditional agricultural celebrations. The maintenance and formation of new vegetable gardens, although lacking in material permanence and now disconnected from a historical agricultural landscape system, has contributed to strengthening the social role of agricultural activity in the city. These gardens become the bearer of the horticultural memory of the city when the lands outside the city walls were dedicated to vegetable production and these were sold in the Verziere square (beside Duomo) and in the main squares, before the expansion of the past century (see Branduini and Scazzosi in this book). The process of recognising the social and cultural role of agriculture was underway in Milan in the wake of many European metropolises (Scazzosi 2016) but some conflicts, such as land use, had to be solved. The policies launched in the Milan Metropolitan Area and concerning different territorial scales have had an evident effect also on the protection of cultural heritage. Without those policies, the work of farmers and citizens could not have been consolidated and increased as it has been, exponentially, during the past 10 years.

260

P. Branduini et al.

References Agnoletti, M. (Ed.). (2011). Paesaggi Rurali Storici. Per un catalogo nazionale. Bari: Laterza. Bocchi, S., & Borasio, M. (2013). Politiche di sviluppo place-based e distrettualità in agricoltura. Il caso lombardo. Scienze del Territorio, 1, 319–322. Branduini, P. (2016). Il patrimonio rurale nutre la città. Economia e società regionale, 34(2), 44–54. Branduini, P. (2017). La trasmissione della conoscenza del paesaggio agrario: esperienze multimediali dinamiche. Scienze del Territorio, 5, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.13128/ Scienze_Territorio-22244. Branduini, P., & Sangiorgi, F. (2004). Verso la progettazione integrata delle aree agricole periurbane. In Proceedings of the international conference the rural system. A challenge for planning between protection, sustainability and changing management (pp. 568–576). Milan: CLUP. Branduini, P., Perrin, C., Nougarèdes, B., & Colli, E. (2020). Cultural heritage preservation and resilience in urban agriculture through the lens of social justice: A case study in Milan. In A. Thornton (Ed.), Urban food democracy and governance in North and South (pp. 101–122). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17187-2. Castiglioni, B., & Varotto, M. (2013). Paesaggio e Osservatori locali. L’esperienza del Canale di Brenta. Milan: Franco Angeli. Cognetti, F., & Conti, S. (2014). La terra della città. Milano e le sperimentazioni sociali di agricoltura urbana. Scienze del Territorio, 2, 179–194. Council of Europe. (2005). Convention on the value of cultural heritage for society (Faro Convention). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. English Heritage. (2008). Conservation principles, policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment. London: English Heritage. Ferraresi, G. (Ed.). (2009). Produrre e scambiare valore territoriale: dalla città diffusa allo scenario di forma urbis et agri. Firenze: Alinea. ICOMOS. (1994). The Nara document on authenticity. Retrieved from: www.icomos.org/charters/ nara-e.pdf. 05 Dec 2019. ICOMOS-IFLA. (2017). ICOMOS-IFLA principles concerning rural landscapes as heritage. Retrieved from: https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/General_Assemblies/19th_ Delhi_2017/Working_Documents-First_Batch-August_2017/GA2017_6-3-1_ RuralLandscapesPrinciples_EN_final20170730.pdf. 13 Dec 2019. Laviscio, R. (2018). Un punto sulle cascine di Milano. Ananke, 83, 42–45. Laviscio, R., Scazzosi, L., & Branduini, P. (2016a). Milano: città agricola tra riscoperte e nuove prospettive. Agriregionieuropa, 44, 80–85. Laviscio, R., Scazzosi, L., & Branduini, P. (2016b). Milan, an agricultural metropolis: Top down and bottom up initiatives. In F. Lohrberg, L. Lička, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timpe (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe. Berlin: Jovis. Lohrberg, F., Lička, L., Scazzosi, L., & Timpe, A. (Eds.). (2016). Urban agriculture Europe. Berlin: Jovis. Scazzosi, L. (2011). Introduzione. Lombardia. In M. Agnoletti (Ed.), Paesaggi Rurali Storici. Per un catalogo nazionale (pp. 204–206). Bari: Laterza. Scazzosi, L. (2016). Urban agriculture for Europe’s Metropolitan areas: Barcelona, Dublin, Geneva, Milan, Ruhr, Sofia, and Warsaw. In F. Lohrberg, L. Lička, L. Scazzosi, & A. Timpe (Eds.), Urban agriculture Europe (pp. 214–217). Berlin: Jovis. Scazzosi, L. (2018). Landscapes as systems of tangible and intangible relationships. Small theoretical and methodological introduction to read and evaluate Rural Landscape as Heritage. In E.  Rosina & L.  Scazzosi (Eds.), The conservation and enhancement of built and landscape heritage. A new life for the ghost village of Mondonico on Lake Como (pp.  19–40). Milan: PoliScript.

15  AgriCulture in Milan. The Mutual Benefit Between Urban Agriculture and…

261

Scazzosi, L., & Branduini, P. (2014). Paesaggio e fabbricati rurali. Suggerimenti per la progettazione e la valutazione paesaggistica (Ministero per i Beni e delle Attività Culturali). Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli Editore. UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2019). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. Edition July 2019. Retrieved from: https://whc.unesco.org/document/178167. 05 Dec 2019.