The edible city: A concept for the sustainable and resilient city during the COVID-19 pandemic?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The edible city: A concept for the sustainable and resilient city during the COVID-19 pandemic? A case study of Andernach and Todmorden Annika Holthaus Department of Human Geography Master’s thesis, 30 HE credits Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Programme in Urban and Regional Planning (120 credits) Spring term 2021 Supervisor: Peter Schmitt
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerability of cities and set a new focus on planning
sustainable and resilient cities. This thesis aims to assess the edible city, where edible plants
are grown in public spaces, in terms of sustainability and resilience during the COVID-19
pandemic and evaluate its contribution to urban sustainability and resilience. Further, it
explores the implications for planning an edible city. As part of this case study, 10 semi-
structured interviews were conducted in two edible cities: Edible City Andernach, Germany
and Incredible Edible Todmorden, England. The results of this study demonstrate that both
edible cities contribute to sustainability, but each is skewed towards one sustainability
dimension. Concerning resilience, the study illustrates that both cases are able to withstand
the pandemic impacts and adapt particularly in their focus sustainability dimension.
However, general resilience is negatively impacted by a stance of waiting-it-out. For
planning an edible city, a combination of a top-down and bottom-up approach is
recommended. In conclusion, this thesis shows that the edible city contributes to urban
sustainability and resilience through the continuing provision of ecosystem services and co-
benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Holthaus, Annika (2021). The edible city: a concept for the sustainable and resilient city
during the COVID-19 pandemic? A case study of Andernach and Todmorden.
Urban and Regional Planning, advanced level, master thesis for master exam in Urban and
Regional Planning, 30 ECTS credits
Supervisor: Peter Schmitt
Language: English
Keywords: sustainability, resilience, nature-based solutions, urban agriculture, edible city,
urban planning.
1
Acknowledgements
I want to thank my supervisor Peter Schmitt for his input and guidance.
To my mother: thank you for giving me strength and practical advice!
Further thanks to all the interview participants that shared their knowledge and opinions with
me and found the time despite the pandemic situation.
Annika, 06.06.2021
2
Table of contents
1. Introduction 6
1.1 Aim and research questions 7
1.2 Structure of the thesis 7
2. Literature review 8
2.1 Planning for sustainable and resilient cities 8
2.2 Nature-based solutions 10
2.2.1 Ecosystem services 12
2.2.2 Co-benefits 12
2.3 Urban agriculture 13
2.4 The edible city 14
2.5 COVID-19 and urban agriculture 16
3. Theoretical framework 17
3.1 Sustainability 17
3.2 Resilience 18
3.3 Limitations of the theoretical framework 19
4. Methodology 20
4.1 Qualitative research and positionality 20
4.2 Qualitative case study 21
4.3 Research process 21
4.3.1 Case selection and propositions 21
4.3.2 Participant selection 23
4.3.3 Data collection 24
4.4 Data processing and analysis 24
4.4.1 Transcription 24
4.4.2 Data analysis 24
4.5 Ethical considerations 25
4.6 Limitations 26
5. Case presentation 27
5.1 The Edible City Andernach 27
5.2 Incredible Edible Todmorden 29
36. Results and analysis 31
6.1 Sustainability and the edible city 31
6.1.1 Economic dimension (provisioning services) 31
6.1.2 Ecological dimension (regulating services) 34
6.1.3 Social dimension (cultural services) 36
6.1.4 Summary 41
6.2 Resilience and the edible city 41
6.2.1 Withstanding: a look into the past 41
6.2.2 Adapting: Dealing with the now 43
6.2.3 Transforming: Envisioning the future 45
7. Discussion 46
7.1 The edible city’s contribution to sustainable and resilient cities during the COVID-19
pandemic 46
7.2 Implications for planning the edible city 49
8. Conclusion 52
9. References 54
10. Appendix 66
4List of tables and images
Table 1. Trinomial framework of indicators for assessing sustainability concerning 18
the edible city based on Artmann and Sartison’s framework for urban agriculture
(2018) and their study on three edible cities (2020).
Table 2. The three categories for analysing resilience. 19
Table 3. Propositions for the three sustainability dimensions. 22
Table 4. List of interviewees. 23
Image 1. Permaculture area in the city-district Andernach-Eich. 28
Image 2. Edible plants in the city centre next to the historic city wall, Andernach. 28
Image 3. High beds in the city centre in Todmorden. 29
Image 4. Pots with spices in a public space in Todmorden. 30
51. Introduction
In the Anthropocene global challenges have emerged that threaten the future of humanity,
such as climate change, urbanization and the depletion of natural resources. While these are
chronic stressors, the COVID-19 pandemic has constituted a sudden shock that has exposed
the vulnerability of cities and brought attention to urban resilience and sustainability.
The concept of nature-based solutions (NbS) has recently gained attention in academia for
supporting urban sustainability and resilience through the reintegration of nature in the urban
fabric (Bush and Doyon, 2019; Dorst et al., 2019; Wendling et al., 2018). NbS have been
utilized by large organizations such as the European Commission (EC) and the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation
Programme the EC invested over 280 million euros (EUcalls, 2021) in the establishment of
guiding principles to mainstream NbS throughout the European Union, making it a priority
investment area (Raymond et al., 2017). A special case of NbS are edible city solutions
(ECS), which involve the integration of edible plants into the urban fabric. One type of ECS
is the edible city, where vegetables, spices and fruits are planted in public spaces for every
citizen to harvest for free. Although the EU plans an “evidence-based integration of ECS into
the long-term urban planning of cities” (EC, 2018), some researchers have concluded that a
practical implementation requires more research on specific NbS and the benefits they
provide in a particular context (Almenar et al., 2021; Frantzeskaki, 2019). While there have
been various studies on community gardens and green infrastructure, the edible city has only
recently entered the academic field and therefore has received little scholarly attention
(Sartison and Artmann, 2020). Previous studies concerning the edible city have focused on
the social dimension, sustainability transformation (Artmann et al., 2020) and sustainable
food systems (Russo et al., 2017; Scharf et al., 2019), but a holistic study of its benefits and
connection to urban sustainability and resilience is yet to be performed.
This thesis argues that the edible city is a valuable concept for urban planning to enhance the
sustainability and resilience of cities. The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a unique situation
in which to explore sustainability and resilience during an actual crisis. A case study approach
based on semi-structured interviews is employed to examine two edible cities in terms of
sustainability and resilience during the pandemic. One of the studied edible cities is
Andernach, Germany, which is managed by the city department for environment using a top-
down approach. The other edible city in this study is a bottom-up initiative called Incredible
Edible Todmorden (IET) in Todmorden, England. Sustainability is assessed through
indicators in a trinomial framework that combines the concept of ecosystem services with
co-benefits in the three dimensions of sustainability (economy, environment and society).
The resilience of the edible city is explored in terms of withstanding, adapting and
transforming in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
61.1 Aim and research questions
This thesis aims to assess the edible city concept in terms of sustainability and resilience
during the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate its contribution to urban sustainability and
resilience. Further, it explores the implications for planning the edible city. The research
questions are as follows:
a) How can the edible city contribute to sustainable and resilient cities during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
a.1) How sustainable is the edible city in Andernach and Todmorden during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
a.2) How resilient is the edible city in Andernach and Todmorden during the COVID-
19 pandemic?
b) What are the implications for planning the edible city?
By answering the research questions, this study seeks to contribute data and knowledge
concerning the edible city and thus add to the EC’s current contribution to ECS. Two cases
are studied to compare different approaches to the edible city and how they have responded
to the current pandemic. The study utilizes an assessment framework for sustainability
developed for urban agriculture (UA) based on ecosystem services and co-benefits and
applies it to the edible city. The suitability of indicators of the framework can be matched
with the acquired empirical data and adjusted to the edible city by either expanding or
limiting the number of indicators. Moreover, the concepts of sustainability and resilience are
highly relevant not only in academia but also in practice, specifically in urban planning.
Therefore, this study aims to inform urban planning by identifying the benefits and
limitations of the edible city and its suitability for planning public green spaces, especially
considering the pandemic and possible future crisis situations. Further, the study aims to
assess whether the concept of the edible city can contribute to more sustainable and resilient
cities.
1.2 Structure of the thesis
This thesis is structured in eight chapters. The following chapter presents the literature on
planning for sustainable and resilient cities and defines urban sustainability and urban
resilience. Further, the connection between NbS, UA and the edible city is described. Finally,
current research on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on UA is explored. Chapter 3
defines the theoretical framework for examining sustainability and resilience, and Chapter 4
describes the research design. In Chapter 5 the two cases in the study are presented along
with a brief background of the pandemic restrictions in each country. Chapter 6 explores the
sustainability and resilience of the edible city based on the empirical data. Chapter 7 presents
the discussion and answers the research questions, and Chapter 8 concludes the thesis.
72. Literature review
As a first step this section demonstrates the importance of cities for future development,
defines urban sustainability and resilience and connects them to urban planning. In the second
step the overarching concept of NbS is defined, and its connection to ecosystem services and
co-benefits is explored, which is necessary for the theoretical advancements in Chapter 3.
Next is a brief look at UA, leading to the edible city as a specific type of UA in the frame of
NbS. By examining previous research on the edible city, a gap in research is demonstrated
regarding the assessment of its benefits and contributions to urban sustainability and
resilience. The last section covers the current research on COVID-19 and UA as the pandemic
is an essential component of this study.
2.1 Planning for sustainable and resilient cities
The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development consists of 17 sustainable
development goals (SDG) for the world. Specifically, SDG 11 “sustainable cities and
communities” identifies the goal to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe,
resilient and sustainable” (UN, 2015). The emphasis is on cities, since the global population
living in urban environments will exceed 68% by 2050 (UN, 2019), and cities are responsible
for up to 70% of global CO2 emissions (EC, 2019). Focusing on urban areas is acknowledged
as an increasingly important factor in achieving sustainability and resilience (Chelleri et al.,
2015; Elmqvist et al., 2019), especially given the rise of global challenges like climate change
and natural disasters that have placed the concepts of sustainability and resilience at the core
of the future planning of cities (Coaffee, 2013; Meerow et al., 2016; Mehmood, 2016).
Elmqvist et al. (2019, p.267) call it the “urban century”. Many cities have established plans
dealing specifically with climate change adaptation and mitigation in response to the
uncertain occurrences of natural disasters, such as extreme floods and heat waves.
Accelerating urbanization aggravates multiple problems, especially in the ecological sphere,
by destroying natural ecosystems and their biodiversity as well as preventing humans to be
in touch with nature (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019). These problems are expected to intensify
in the future, which further emphasizes the importance of planning for sustainable and
resilient cities (Almenar et al., 2021).
Urban sustainability and resilience have gained increasing attention in academia and practice
(Ahern, 2011; Delgado-Ramos and Guibrunet, 2017; Krellenberg and Koch, 2021; Redman,
2014), encompass a multitude of definitions regarding their meaning and measurement and
the terms are sometimes used interchangeably (Elmqvist et al., 2019; Leichenko, 2011;
Meerow et al., 2016). Both concepts are concerned with urban systems, which are described
as complex and adaptive (Folke et al., 2010; Masnavi et al., 2019; Mehmood, 2016). A
system can vary in type and scale; a global economic value chain is considered a system as
much as a local ecological water system. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the
dependence on global systems that impact all scales from global to local. When global food
supply chains faced this sudden shock, citizens were confronted with empty supermarket
shelves. Urban systems are at the core of planning for sustainable and resilient cities, which
8include not only economic and ecological systems but also the social component of humans
living in the cities (Cartalis, 2014). An urban system is not only dependent on higher-scale
systems but consists of multiple subsystems that are interconnected and not easily
distinguishable (Ahern, 2011; Mehmood, 2016). This interdependence of systems makes
cities especially vulnerable to disasters and shocks because the failure of one subsystem can
lead to a greater system failure (Elmqvist et al., 2019). One target for urban planning is
reducing the vulnerability of the city, which can be achieved by combining the long-term
perspective of sustainability with a focus on resilience.
Sustainability is seen as a framework and a normative concept for future development
(Beatley and Newman, 2013; Elmqvist et al., 2019) that meets the needs of the present
without compromising future generations (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987). It is often related to the three pillars environment, economy and society
that act in synergy to enhance quality of life and well-being (Huang et al., 2015, Jong et al.,
2015; Pope et al., 2004). A sustainable city fosters economic growth at the same time as
social stability and ecological preservation (Jong et al., 2015). Sustainability is seen as a
desirable state and as an outcome that can be achieved (Delgado-Ramos and Guibrunet,
2017).
To achieve sustainability the call for resilience as a necessary component has grown (Cartalis,
2014). The COVID-19 pandemic alleviates the substantiality of resilience as uncertainty
became a dominant factor for planning cities (Krellenberg and Koch, 2021). Resilience refers
to systems and their various stable states. If a system is disrupted by an external shock, such
as the COVID-19 pandemic, a desirable outcome is either that it returns to its condition
before the shock or reaches a new stable state by adapting to the changing circumstances
(Beatley and Newman, 2013; Cartalis, 2014; Surjan et al., 2011). Therefore, resilience
encompasses on the one hand the capacity of a system to withstand shocks and on the other
hand the ability to adapt. Compared to the normative nature of sustainability, resilience is an
attribute of a system (Elmqvist et al., 2019).
Cities are built by and for humans (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019). Urban environments are
important for the health, well-being and quality of life of their inhabitants, which are affected
by environmental, social and economic contexts (Almenar et al., 2021). Spatial planning is
an essential component of building sustainable and resilient cities (Cartalis, 2014) because
planning connects societal challenges with the urban environment (Wilkinson, 2012).
Integrating nature in urban areas is often proposed for sustainable development in urban
planning (Bauduceau et al., 2015; Fink, 2016, Maes and Jacobs, 2017). Beatley and Newman
(2013, p.3332) note that “making cities greener will make them more resilient in the long run
ecologically, economically and socially”. One way to meet the target of urban sustainability
and resilience in urban planning is to use so-called nature-based solutions.
92.2 Nature-based solutions
NbS is often used as an umbrella term that includes multiple concepts such as ecosystem
services, green infrastructure and the edible city (Almenar et al., 2021; Dorst et al., 2019,
Lafortezza et al., 2018; Nesshöver et al., 2017). The European Commission (EC, 2015)
defines NbS as “solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective,
simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build
resilience”. The EC draws a clear connection between NbS and sustainability in the form of
environmental, social and economic dimensions and resilience. NbS build on the connection
between nature and its positive outcomes for society (Dorst et al., 2019). Growing
urbanization and densification enhances the pressure on the natural environment, results in
the degradation of urban ecosystems, decreases biodiversity and limits the amount of space
available for green areas in cities (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019; Wendling et al., 2018; Xing
et al., 2017), which are vital for the connection between humans and nature and its positive
benefits for health and well-being (Almenar et al., 2021; Shanahan et al., 2015).
Dorst et al. (2019, p.1) define NbS as “interventions that address social, economic and
environmental sustainability issues simultaneously, thereby presenting a multifunctional,
solution-oriented approach to increasing urban sustainability” and identify four principles of
NbS.
The first principle proposed by Dorst et al. (2019) is the reliance of NbS on nature, which
can take different forms. According to the authors NbS can encompass one single solution or
integrate multiple solutions. Eggermont et al. (2015) identify three types of NbS. The first is
the sustainable use of existing ecosystems, for example fishing grounds. The second type
concerns the restoration of ecosystems such as through reforestation, and the third type of
NbS is the creation of new ecosystems such as green areas in cities. Almenar et al. (2021)
found that only type-3 (created) NbS are found in cities, which underlines that natural
ecosystem have been eliminated from the urban fabric. Using nature in urban planning has
been proven to be more cost efficient than traditional approaches (Faivre et al., 2017;
Lafortezza et al., 2018; Nesshöver et al., 2017) because NbS can be self-sustainable and do
not degenerate in the long-term compared to grey infrastructure. NbS are seen as especially
fruitful in segmented environments such as cities because a single green roof can provide
multiple benefits on a small scale (Dorst et al., 2019; Faivre et al., 2017).
Second, at the core of NbS is their multifunctionality in providing benefits and addressing
urgent social, environmental and economic challenges (Almenar et al., 2021; Cohen-
Shacham et al., 2016; Dorst et al., 2019; Faivre et al., 2017). NbS are solution oriented, which
assumes a given problem (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Almenar et al. (2021) identified 18
challenges for urban sustainability and resilience that are connected to NbS, including
exemplary protection of the environment, enhancing resource efficiency, fostering human
well-being and supporting the local economy. NbS are tied to different SDGs, mainly SDG
3 well-being, SDG 11 sustainable and resilient cities, SDG 13 climate change and SDG 15
protection and restoration of ecosystems (Dushkova and Haase, 2020). NbS provide various
benefits to society, the environment and the economy (Eggermont et al., 2015, Dorst et al.,
102019), which differ for each intervention (Almenar et al., 2021). Planting trees in the city
helps regulate the local microclimate by reducing the heat-island effect, supporting water
capture and decreasing pollution through carbon binding, thus contributing to climate change
mitigation. The trees can further provide food like apples to inhabitants. They also enhance
the aesthetic value and attractiveness of the area. Additionally, trees can provide health
benefits for inhabitants as nature has been found to reduce stress and enable relaxation
(Cabral et al., 2017). As this example demonstrates, NbS provide multiple benefits and
address various challenges simultaneously.
The third principle states that NbS implementation is inherently connected to urban planning
and governance (Dorst et al., 2019). Urban planning deals with challenges by shaping the
physical environment not only in the present but also for the future (Beatley and Newman,
2013). Therefore, it is necessary for planners to employ long-term thinking when intervening
in the environment through establishing plans, programs and designs (Bush and Doyon,
2019). NbS support the development of sustainable and resilient cities, which is a normative
goal for urban planners faced with increasing uncertainty (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Therefore,
NbS are gaining increased attention; for example, the New Urban Agenda, the 100 Resilient
Cities Programme and the EKLIPSE Expert working groups report on the integration of NbS
in planning practice (Raymond et al., 2017). Implementing nature in cities is not a new
concept to planning, and the importance of green spaces for citizens is well known (Maes
and Jacobs, 2017). Urban planning dedicates space for green areas, parks and gardens and
allows for innovative design that considers ecologically sensitive urban development
(Dushkova and Haase, 2020). Many cities have developed or are developing plans
concerning climate change and city greening in which NbS could be integrated, especially
considering the European Union's aim of being CO2-neutral by 2050. Further, urban planning
has the tools to support the implementation of NbS by managing trade-offs and conflicts
through broad stakeholder participation (Bush and Doyon, 2019).
Fourth, NbS are context specific and need a place-based approach to planning (Colléony and
Shwartz, 2019). For implementation, the context is important, not only space specifics, such
as local knowledge and climate, but also orientation in time as long-term benefits of NbS are
less immediately recognizable (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Dorst et al., 2019, Nesshöver et
al., 2017). The noise cancellation of green vegetation might be less effective than a wall, but
the vegetation provides other benefits, such as aesthetic value. Subsequently, NbS benefits
need to be assessed locally.
Critics of NbS see issues in its unquestioned positive relation to sustainability and resilience.
Haase (2017, p.224) questions the role of NbS as being close to a “sustainability fix” as the
EC explicitly describes it as a business model. Further, the renewal of cities through NbS
involve inherent issues, such as gentrification through increased attractiveness and market
value due to the inclusion of nature (Bryson, 2013). Recently, questions have arisen
concerning social justice and who benefits from the implementation of NbS (Kabisch et al.,
2016). Nevertheless, NbS are seen to provide opportunities for sustainable and resilient cities
through two channels: ecosystem services and co-benefit provision (Raymond et al., 2017).
112.2.1 Ecosystem services
NbS are intimately connected to the concept of ecosystem services, which are the benefits
humans derive from ecosystems that address societal challenges (Cohen-Shacham et al.,
2016). These can take the form of provisioning, regulating or cultural services. People in
cities depend on ecosystems for their well-being (Dickinson and Hobbs, 2017; Fedele et al.,
2017), which includes protection, management and restoration of these natural ecosystems
(Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). Ecosystem services are thereby not disconnected from
humans but are inherently influenced by them. The concept is utilized to attribute value to
natural systems and support their protection and restoration, especially in their function of
mitigating climate change and reducing the effects of natural disasters.
The service provided can be tangible and measurable, such as provisioning services that
include resources produced through the ecosystem like food, water and fuel. For example, a
forest delivers wood and sometimes food through berry plants. Trees absorb carbon dioxide
from the air, reduce runoff and cool the surrounding area through shading and evaporation.
These regulating services are less directly experienced by humans, but they have been
measured in cities (Elmqvist et al., 2015). Cultural services are non-material benefits that
include recreational, aesthetic, educational and spiritual benefits linked to health and well-
being (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019; Riechers et al., 2016). Cultural services are inherently
difficult to measure because they rely on subjective opinions and cannot be expressed in
monetary values (Andersson et al., 2015). Compared to the other two services, cultural
services require a human being for production and valuation of the provided ecosystem
service (Chan et al., 2011). As an example, a park provides an important ground for social
interaction, physical activity and observing nature (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013).
Ecosystem services are useful to measure the benefits of NbS (Nesshöver et al., 2017).
Regulating services are important for climate change mitigation and cultural services address
societal challenges; thereby, ecosystem services contribute to urban sustainability and
resilience (Andersson et al., 2015; Fedele et al., 2017; Maes et al., 2019). McPhearson et al.
(2015, p.1) state that the concept of urban ecosystems and their services is not “adequately
integrated into governance and planning for resilience”. Incorporating ecosystem services
with NbS provides the opportunity to integrate both concepts into urban planning (Potschin
et al., 2015; Faivre et al., 2017).
2.2.2 Co-benefits
Next to ecosystem services that are directly derived from the ecosystem by humans, NbS
provide other co-benefits in the economic, social and environmental dimensions (EC, 2015).
Enhancing, restoring and creating ecosystems creates habitats for insects, birds and other
animals. Further, the creation of new systems often encompasses a greater diversity of
species, which enhances biodiversity (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Colléony and Shwartz,
2019; Xing et al., 2017). The sustainable use of ecosystems results in reduced pressure on
land and enhances the efficient use of resources (Almenar et al., 2021; Lafortezza et al., 2018;
12Raymond et al., 2017). Further, the proximity of nature to inhabitants can lead to more
sustainable consumption decisions (Dushkova and Haase, 2020).
NbS have been assessed to be economically beneficial (Elmqvist et al., 2015) because the
loss of an ecosystem results in costs, for example increased cooling costs in the summer
resulting from missing vegetation. The EC describes NbS as explicitly constituting a business
model that fosters economic growth (EC, 2015). Another benefit is the creation of green jobs
to manage and sustain the implemented NbS (Faivre et al., 2017; Maes and Jacobs, 2017;
Raymond et al., 2017). Additionally, NbS enhance the attractiveness and image of places or
entire cities (Dushkova and Haase, 2020) generating a competitive advantage compared to
regions without NbS (Faivre et al., 2017). This increase in the attractiveness of a city can
result in increased prices in residential areas, enhanced tourism and more companies deciding
to locate there.
NbS also provide multiple social co-benefits. Urban parks are important for the health and
well-being of citizens (Maes and Jacobs, 2017; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). They provide
a safe space for social interaction that brings together different ethnic groups, which can help
ameliorate segregation issues (Beatley and Newman, 2013). NbS can foster a sense of place
and influence the image of urban areas (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Urban green areas have been
found to result in lower crime rates as nature reduces stress, provides emotional comfort
(Almenar et al., 2021; Dushkova and Haase, 2020) and positively influences mood, creativity
and inspiration (Beatley and Newman, 2013). Parks enable physical activity and can induce
healthier lifestyles, which contributes to physical health and well-being (ibid.).
There are trade-offs and possible conflicts regarding ecosystem services and co-benefits.
Each NbS provides a different set of benefits (Almenar et al., 2021) focusing on economic,
ecological or social benefits while passively generating benefits in the non-focus dimensions.
NbS for climate adaptation, like those for flood plans, focus on regulating services, but they
provide other services simultaneously, hence the multifunctional character of NbS. A conflict
could develop between building tourism capacity and conserving nature (Colléony and
Shwartz, 2019; Niemelä et al., 2010). Maximizing carbon sequestration through planting
certain plants can reduce the aesthetic value and diversity of a system. The trade-offs affect
the sustainability and resilience of a system, so when implementing NbS as a solution, the
problem needs to be clear.
2.3 Urban agriculture
UA as a form of NbS encompasses growing food a city in the form of plants and animals in,
for example, allotment, community or rooftop gardens (Artmann and Sartison, 2018). The
concept of using urban land for food production has a long history and was prominent in
Germany after World War I in the form of allotment gardens (Deelstra and Girardet, 2001).
Especially in times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, UA has been placed in focus
to develop sustainable cities and food systems. Cities provide the necessary infrastructure for
establishing agriculture, such as low transport costs, accessible workforces and opportunities
13for local product distribution (Hodgson et al., 2011). Produce includes vegetables, fruits,
medicinal herbs, spices, eggs, milk and wool, depending on local conditions and preferences
(Lovell, 2010). UA includes various public and private actors, such as the local government,
NGOs, residents, gardeners, consumers, volunteers, activists, local companies and tourists
(Artmann and Sartison, 2018). Cities, as dense agglomerations of humans, exhibit the
greatest demand for food. Deelstra and Girardet (2001, p.44) found that London contained
12% of Britain’s population, but “requires the equivalent of 40% of Britain’s entire
productive land for its food”. It is estimated that food demand will increase by 110% by 2050
(Langemeyer et al., 2021), which underlines the importance of utilizing urban areas for food
production to counteract the increasing degradation of ecosystems through large-scale
intensive agriculture. Therefore, a stronger integration of UA in urban and regional planning
is necessary to achieve sustainable and resilient cities (ibid.), and the edible city constitutes
one such approach.
2.4 The edible city
The concept of edible cities has gained worldwide attention (Säumel et al., 2019) and recently
appeared in research (Sartison and Artmann, 2020). Under the Horizon 2020 programme the
project “Edible Cities Network Integrating Edible City Solutions for Social Resilient and
Sustainable Productive Cities” (EdiCityNet) was launched with a financial budget of over 11
million euros and the goal of exploring the diversity of edible city solutions and their possible
implementation in specific urban contexts (EC, 2018).
The edible city is the object of this study; it constitutes a special type of NbS and UA as it
implements edible plants in public spaces. Instead of flowers on the sidewalk, vegetables
such as cauliflower are planted, which not only bloom but provide an end-product that is free
for citizens to harvest. It is a new way of planning public space that contributes to a more
“sustainable, liveable and healthy city” (Säumel et al., 2019, p.2). There is yet to be a fixed
definition of the edible city as a concept (Artmann et al., 2020). Kassel and Andernach are
considered the first edible cities in Germany, although one resulted from a bottom-up process
and the other from a top-down process (Sartison and Artmann, 2020). There are differences
in funding and maintenance, which can be public or private, through citizens or the
government, and they can encompass local governmental agencies, residents, NGOs and
local companies.
As a distinct form of NbS the edible city must face societal challenges and provide certain
ecosystem services as well as economic, environmental and social co-benefits to foster urban
sustainability and resilience. Sartison and Artmann (2020) studied three edible cities in terms
of urban sustainability transformation and found that they contribute to different societal
challenges, such as social cohesion, strong local economies, climate change, public health,
food security and biodiversity. Other studies have assessed the provisioning ecosystem
service in connection to food and sustainable food systems (Russo et al., 2017; Scharf et al.,
2019), focused on the social dimension by exploring place attachment and pro-environmental
food consumption (Artmann et al., 2020), and examined challenges in the implementation of
14the edible city (Hajzeri and Kwadwo, 2019; Sartison and Artmann, 2020). Since the edible
city has only recently gained popularity in academia, a holistic picture of ecosystem services
and co-benefits provided by the edible city is still missing. Therefore, the following presents
a comprehensive review of benefits connected to integrating edible plants in the urban fabric
derived from studies on the edible city, edible landscapes and edible green infrastructure.
Producing food in the city supports local food security not only in the quantity but also the
quality of the products (Gulyas and Edmondson, 2021; Langemeyer et al., 2021; Lin et al.,
2015; Säumel et al., 2019). The edible city increases access to high-quality food and supports
environmental justice as the vegetables and fruits are available in public spaces free of charge
for every citizen (Artmann et al., 2020). Further, producing food in proximity to the consumer
reduces transportation costs, packing and processing waste, and the overall carbon footprint,
all of which support climate change mitigation (Säumel et al., 2019; Çelik, 2017). Growing
food in urban areas can support a more sustainable food production system that is not reliant
on global value chains and thus reduces vulnerability to external shocks. The increase in
resilience of local food supplies is particularly important, as the COVID-19 pandemic has
shown. Through harvesting the free fruits and vegetables, citizens can save on food costs or
even generate income through processing and selling the yield (Artmann and Sartison, 2020).
The edible city supports local economic growth by increasing the attractiveness of a city as
well as creating green businesses and jobs (Çelik, 2017; Scharf et al., 2019; Säumel et al.,
2019).
Implementing edible plants in urban space contributes to higher levels of biodiversity than in
conventional urban green spaces (Bohn and Viljoen, 2010; Hajzeri and Kwadwo, 2019).
Additionally, it enhances resource efficiency by recycling organic waste and stormwater for
irrigation (Bohn and Viljoen, 2010). The extension of vegetated land provides habitats for
the surrounding wildlife (Elmqvist et al., 2015), and beehives in the city produce more honey
than in rural areas because urban areas provide a greater diversity of plants (Deelstra and
Girardet, 2001). Every piece of vegetated area in the city helps mitigate climate change by
regulating the local microclimate and binding carbon dioxide (Artmann and Sartison, 2020;
Säumel et al., 2019).
The edible city provides positive social benefits by connecting humans not only with nature
and food but also with each other. Through the provision of food, the edible city supports the
idea of healthy food and increases environmental awareness (Artmann and Sartison, 2020;
Hajzeri and Kwadwo, 2019). The edible spaces educate citizens about different types of
vegetables and fruits and demonstrate their seasonality, thereby exhibit an eco-pedagogical
character (Sartison and Artmann, 2020; Scharf et al., 2019). The pandemic has brought health
into focus for cities and their citizens. Observing and experiencing nature has been shown to
enhance mental health (Artmann et al., 2020). Active gardening enhances physical health and
reduces stress (Breuste and Artmann, 2015; Cabral et al., 2017). Lovell (2010) found that
gardeners have better health conditions than non-gardeners. When edible spaces are
maintained by the community, they enable social interaction, which in turn has a positive
impact on mental health and contributes to social cohesion (Artmann and Sartison, 2018;
Middle et al., 2014). Sartison and Artmann (2020) explored different edible city concepts
15and found that people of various age groups and backgrounds actively participate in the
planting, which shows that the edible spaces support inclusion and participation. Further,
nature in close proximity to urban dwellers can foster place attachment by providing a
physical connection to the edible spaces; it can also inculcate place identity, an emotional
connection demonstrated by lower rates of vandalism and crime in the edible areas (Sartison
and Artmann, 2020; Säumel et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, edible plants in public spaces come with some risks. These mainly concern
contamination (Artmann and Sartison, 2018) because edible plants close to streets are
exposed to a significant amount of pollution, and the soil in a city might contain chemical
contaminants (Russo et al., 2017). Some edible species can cause allergies and immune
reactions, posing health risks for citizens (ibid.). There is also the risk of biological invasion
by non-native species (Lin et al., 2015), which could counteract the goal of ecological
preservation and biodiversity.
2.5 COVID-19 and urban agriculture
The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vulnerability of cities and their inhabitants,
especially by displaying their dependence on global value chains for urban food supplies;
this calls for a new focus on “local food and consumption patterns in order to become more
resilient and in turn more sustainable” (Krellenberg and Koch, 2021, p.202). Pulighe and
Lupia (2020) found that fresh food purchases increased in Germany by 44.2% and in the UK
by 27.5% during the pandemic, underlining the importance of fresh, locally produced food.
The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced daily life for everyone and changed the lifestyles
and behaviours of people throughout the world (Hanzl, 2020). Measures, such as lockdowns
and social distancing have contributed to increasing isolation, depression, anxiety and
decreased well-being, especially in urban environments (Jenkins, 2020; Pouso et al., 2021).
These effects are accelerated due to the large number of single households (Ortiz-Ospina,
2019) and, especially, elderly people who have to deal with anxiety and isolation
(Samuelsson et al., 2020). As a countermeasure many city dwellers have turned to UA, such
as community or backyard gardens (Mejia et al., 2020; Nicola et al., 2020). Toronto (Canada)
has opened new community and allotment gardens for urban citizens to produce food locally
(Stahlbrand and Roberts, 2020). It has been estimated that in Kampala (Uganda) during the
pandemic 65% of the vegetable supply has been provided through urban and peri-urban
agriculture (Samuelsson et al., 2020). Engagement with nature and gardening has been shown
to positively affect mood, decrease loneliness and enhance well-being during the pandemic
(McCunn, 2020; Mejia et al., 2020; Pouso et al., 2021; Theodorou et al., 2021) by providing
connection to the outside world for people who are stuck inside (Weimann et al., 2019).
Further, many people work from home and search for activities in close proximity to their
residence (Hanzl, 2020). Also, an increase in idle time contributes to an increase in UA
(Mejia et al., 2020). Many inhabitants have been hit economically by the pandemic through
loss of jobs, and producing food leads to food cost savings (Mishra and Pattnaik, 2021). UA
can enable entrepreneurial opportunities and create jobs (ibid.). Researchers have called for
16a stronger integration of urban food production in urban planning and policy to increase the
resilience and sustainability of the urban system (McCunn, 2020; Pulighe and Lupia, 2020;
Ugolini et al., 2020), especially considering that the COVID-19 pandemic is probably only
one of many future crises.
3. Theoretical framework
This section elaborates on the concepts of sustainability and resilience in an urban
environment and establishes the indicators used in this study.
3.1 Sustainability
Wu (2014, p.213) defines urban sustainability as “an adaptive process of facilitating and
maintaining a virtual cycle between ecosystem services and human well-being through
concerted ecological, economic and social actions in response to changes within and beyond
the urban landscape”. This study draws on the connection between sustainability, ecosystem
services and co-benefits. Sustainability has been categorized into weak and strong types. In
weak sustainability it is assumed that natural capital can be exchanged with human capital,
and a system is sustainable if the sum of both does not decrease (Huang et al., 2015). In this
view the degeneration of the ecological aspect of a system can be compensated through for
example technological advances. Contrarily, in the perspective of strong sustainability,
which is employed in this study, natural capital is seen as a critical and determining factor of
sustainability. Sustainability in this study is defined as a desired outcome in all three
dimensions (economic, ecological and social) that contribute to the sustainability of the
system.
Because of the ambiguity of the term sustainability there have been multiple approaches to
measuring it. For example, new infrastructure must undergo an environmental impact
assessment (EIA) that identifies social, economic and environmental impacts of a proposal
compared to baseline conditions (Pope et al., 2004). Another example is an objective-led
integrated assessment, where a particular outcome is evaluated based on predefined social,
economic and environmental objectives (ibid.). Common among these methods is the
assessment of the three dimensions of sustainability using criteria such as economic gain,
biodiversity or quality of life (Huang et al., 2015). Important for the evaluation is that
sustainability is more than the sum of the dimensions because they are interconnected and
exhibit synergies (Lee and Kirkpatrick, 2001). Artmann and Sartison (2018) established a
trinomial framework for assessing the sustainability of UA as a NbS by combining the three
ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating and cultural) with the co-benefits in the
dimensions of sustainability (economic, ecological and social). Further, they (2020) assessed
the edible city in Andernach considering sustainable UA, but not only did they keep the
dimensions and ecosystem services separated; they also based their research on only two
interviews and themselves stated that further research is needed to integrate the different
actors. In their concept each dimension and service has different indicators, which in this
study are based on the two previously mentioned works by Artmann and Sartison. Table 1
17illustrates the chosen indicators for this study. The combination of ecosystem services and
co-benefits enables the researcher to generate a holistic view on the edible city concerning
its benefits. Assessing ecosystem services for sustainability is a well-established measure
(Ahern, 2011). But ecosystem services, in focusing on the ecological field, are only
concerned with benefits that are generated by the system itself, while the co-benefits include
the broader influence exerted on other socio-economic and socio-cultural systems in the city,
such as local market benefits and sense of place. Further, Niemelä et al. (2010) note that
ecosystem services alone may encourage an economic view of nature because provisioning
and regulating services in particular are primarily assessed through monetary measures,
neglecting the more intangible services.
Dimension (Service) Indicators
(based on Artmann and Sartison, 2018 and Sartison and
Artmann, 2020)
Economic (Provisioning) Food provision
Good image and media coverage
City marketing and tourism
Income and job creation
Local economy benefits
Ecological (Regulating) Biodiversity
Pollination
Habitat provision
Micro-climate improvement
Social (Cultural) Participation
Social cohesion
Empowerment and pride
Human-nature connection
Aesthetic value
Environmental education
Health
Table 1. Trinomial framework of indicators for assessing sustainability concerning the edible city
based on Artmann and Sartison’s framework for urban agriculture (2018) and their study on three
edible cities (2020).
3.2 Resilience
Complex systems such as cities are inherently vulnerable to external shocks, and they must
deal increasingly with uncertainty about the future (Folke et al., 2010). Urban resilience
defines what path a city will take –recovering, adapting or transforming– in the face of a
sudden disturbance like the COVID-19 pandemic or a chronic stressor such as climate
change. There are two types of resilience; specific resilience regards specific events such as
18floods, whereas general resilience describes the long-term continuation of a system despite
disturbances (Masnavi et al., 2019). The edible city as a NbS is not implemented to counter
any specific threat but to increase general resilience, which is intimately connected to
sustainability. Therefore, there is often a distinction between social resilience, economic
resilience and ecological resilience (Elmqvist et al., 2019; Ribeiro and Goncalves, 2019;
Surjan et al., 2011). While many studies focus on a specific type of resilience, such as social
resilience, this study explores resilience as an attribute of the system that necessarily has to
account for all dimensions. Compared to sustainability, resilience is not inherently good. If a
system has high resilience but has negative outcomes such as urban poverty, it is not desirable
and will be difficult to change (Elmqvist et al., 2019).
Ribeiro and Goncalves (2019) specify four pillars of resilience: resisting, recovering,
adapting and transforming. Resisting refers to maintaining functions during a disturbance.
Resilience of recovery focuses on protecting “the life, propriety and economy” (ibid., p.4).
Resilience as adaptation refers to the ability of a system to learn and respond to changing
conditions (Berkes et al., 2003). Resilience as transformation applies when the disturbance
induces a fundamental shift in the system, for example a shift from intensive agriculture
towards sustainable farming (Folke et al., 2010). This study combines the first two forms into
the category “withstanding” because both do not induce a change in the system. Further, the
study adopts “adapting” and “transforming” as categories of resilience. Therefore, the study
will examine the resilience of the edible city regarding its ability to withstand, adapt and
transform during the COVID-19 pandemic as illustrated in Table 2. Sudden shocks open up
opportunities for change in a system (Ahern, 2011), and therefore the current pandemic offers
an opportunity to explore the sustainability and resilience of an urban subsystem like the
edible city.
Resilience Explanation
Withstanding Maintaining order and functions in face of a disturbance
(Ribeiro and Goncalves, 2019)
Adapting Incremental change of the system to return to the pre-
disturbance state (Redman, 2014).
Transforming Fundamental change of the system towards a new stable
state (Redman, 2014).
Table 2. The three categories for analysing resilience.
3.3 Limitations of the theoretical framework
Sustainability and resilience have been differently defined and conceptualized. Therefore,
this study employs one definition of the two concepts, which means it necessarily neglects
others. By using indicators based on the literature and previous studies on the edible city, this
study does not and cannot account for all possible indicators used to assess sustainability. In
19the analysis a deductive approach using established indicators is applied as well as an
inductive approach to allow new categories to emerge that contribute to the sustainability
assessment and minimize the neglect of other indicators. Further, by assessing not only
ecosystem services but co-benefits as well, this study attempts to establish a holistic picture.
Analysing resilience as an attribute based on the three types (withstanding, adapting and
transforming) can impact the depth of each aspect compared to a focus on one dimension.
Therefore, this study cannot fully cover every aspect that might be of importance, but rather
it makes a selection that can be expanded with more time and resources.
4. Methodology
This section introduces the study design by exploring qualitative research, the positionality
of the researcher and the employment of a case study methodology encompassing all stages
of the research including data collection, processing and analysis. It concludes with an ethical
statement and the limitations of the study.
4.1 Qualitative research and positionality
This study employs a qualitative research approach, which aims for “understanding the nature
of the research problem rather than [...] the quantity of observed characteristics” (Baskarada,
2014, p.1) as is the case in quantitative research. Qualitative research focuses on
understanding processes, describing phenomena and exploring different policy
implementations. According to Mason (2002, p.1) qualitative research is suited to explore
“how things work in a particular context”. This study aims to explore the processes taking
place concerning the edible cities in Andernach and Todmorden in the special circumstance
of a pandemic, considering the implications not only for the edible city itself but also for the
people involved and their perceptions of the situation.
Qualitative research encompasses many different philosophies, such as post-positivism,
interpretivism and a critical approach (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2010). Coming from a
background in physics and natural sciences in my early education followed by economics in
higher studies, I am familiar with a positivist approach to reality, in which reality is external
to the observer and can indeed be measured in numbers. Thus, my position is inherently
influenced, but my studies in urban and regional planning and human geography have
changed my positionality. I do not side with a positivist stance; my understanding of reality
and knowledge is a mixture of post-positivism and constructivism. I acknowledge that there
is a reality that exists and that in the post-positivist perspective can never be accurately
measured (Al-Saadi, 2014). I agree that knowledge about this reality is socially constructed
by individual experiences, values and beliefs (Baxter and Jack, 2008). Therefore, meaning is
subjective, which further influenced the choice of methodology.
204.2 Qualitative case study
Based on my own positionality, this study follows a qualitative case study approach, which
is used to explore a phenomenon, a case, in a specific context and in depth to establish a
holistic picture (Baskarada, 2014; Baxter and Jack, 2008; Schrank and Mayer, 2013). Yin
(2003) proposes four aspects that make the use of a case study design suitable. The first is
that it answers how and why questions, which are presented in Section 1.1. Further, Yin states
that the behaviour of the participants in the study cannot be manipulated, which is ensured
by the social distancing resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. I am not able to actively be
involved in the projects and hence have no direct influence on the participants. Third, Yin
highlights the importance of context. While both projects implement the planting of edible
plants in public spaces, the approaches and inherent conditions underlying them are quite
different, which makes the emphasis on context important. Last, Yin notes that the
boundaries between phenomena and context are not clear and that there should be a focus on
contemporary phenomena. In this study the phenomena and the context are connected
because the emerging pandemic influenced the context and the embedded projects together.
The pandemic is a new, prevailing situation, whose ending is not yet defined. This study
therefore fulfils all conditions for employing a case study design according to Yin (2003).
Further, a two-case study approach was applied, which enhances the reliability of results
(Yin, 2003) and allows for comparison between cases. In multiple case studies the cases are
examined under the same criteria (Schrank and Mayer, 2013), which will be the sustainability
indicators and the three types of resilience outlined in Chapter 3.
To ensure good quality research, I followed Yin’s (2003) six-stage case study process, which
was further modified for qualitative case studies by Baskarada (2014). The process utilizes
set parameters but at the same time allows for flexibility in design, which fits to my post-
positivist positionality. The six stages are plan, design, prepare, collect, analyse and share.
The planning phase connects to the set research questions and literature review in Chapters
1 and 2. The design, prepare, collect and analyse phases are further described in the following
sections.
4.3 Research process
4.3.1 Case selection and propositions
In case study research the unit of analysis is the case, which can be a process, a phenomenon,
a group or the like (Yin, 2003). In this study the unit of analysis is the edible city concept in
Andernach and Todmorden during the COVID-19 pandemic. Case selection can rely on
various parameters that make a case suitable for study, mainly convenience, purpose and
accessibility (Baskarada, 2014). In terms of convenience, while using multiple cases
enhances the reliability of the results (Yin, 2003), more than two cases would not be feasible
for the scope and timeframe of this thesis because as Baskarada (2014, p.5) describes it,
“everything cannot and need not be understood”. The US General Accounting Office (1990,
p.25) describes seven characteristics for purposeful case selection. The categories
“representative”, “cluster” and “special interest” fit this case study. Representative cases are
21chosen because they represent important variations; Andernach utilizes a top-down and
Todmorden a bottom-up approach. Cluster refers to the comparability of different programs:
both cases implement edible spaces. Both cases involve a special interest as they are two of
the first successfully implemented edible areas in public spaces, a relatively new
phenomenon that only recently has become of interest in academic research (Sartison and
Artmann, 2020). Last, Andernach and Todmorden were more easily accessible because of
their well-known status. Both cities are accustomed to requests for interviews, which allows
for good anticipated participation but also requires careful design of the interview questions
to acquire the desired information. Further, I am fluent in German and English, which lowers
possible language barriers. Andernach is close to my hometown, and Todmorden is close to
Manchester; thus, dialects were not an issue in communication.
To guide my data collection and analysis, I followed Yin (2003) to establish propositions,
which can be compared to hypotheses in quantitative research and result from the literature
or the researcher’s conceptions (Baxter and Jack, 2008). They help to determine the necessary
data and the overall scope of the study. In the literature review in Section 2.4 previous studies
have been examined and in Chapter 3 necessary indicators for the analysis of sustainability
and categories of resilience are derived. Theoretical foundations are seen to be highly
relevant for not only guiding the research question but also for the establishment of
propositions (Yin, 2003). While these propositions help guide the researcher, additional
propositions can be included as data is gathered (Baskarada, 2014). I want to emphasize that
the propositions in Table 3 were made at a quite early stage in the research process and
therefore represent rather wide-ranging expected developments for both edible cities during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Propositions for Andernach Todmorden
Sustainability
Economic Decrease in tourism leading to Tourism and donation decrease
dimension less publicity. General leading to financial instability.
economic stability.
Ecological Biodiversity and planting Probably difficulties in
dimension regime maintained due to city maintaining the planters.
management and funding. Decrease in biodiversity.
Social Decrease in social activity at Decrease in gardening activity,
dimension edible spaces in the city and leading to a less active and
the permaculture area. connected community.
Decrease in education and Decrease in education and
learning due to less activity at learning due to less
the edible spaces. participation.
22You can also read
