The arable city - University College London · SSS10 Proceedings of the 10th International Space...

SSS10 Proceedings of the 10th International Space syntax Symposium

081

The arable city: Quantifying the potential for urban agriculture in the 21st century metropolis

Paul Osmond University of New South Wales [email protected] Linda Corkery University of New South Wales [email protected]

Sara Wilkinson University of Technology Sidney [email protected] Susan Thompson University of South Wales [email protected] Scott Hawken University of New South Wales [email protected]

Abstract

Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world, with some 90% of the population living in cities. Only 6.1% of Australia’s land mass is considered of arable quality, compared to 17% in the USA. Moreover, the amount of peri-urban land available for food cultivation is diminishing as urban sprawl expands to accommodate a growing population. The advent of ‘industrial’ agriculture in the 19th and 20th centuries marginalised urban agriculture but the past 20 years have seen a resurgence in public and policy interest and activity in numerous cities and countries. The research and data which should underpin such renewed and increased interest and activity, however, remain ad hoc and largely anecdotal. A more informed approach is now both urgent and essential. The growth of cities generates benefits – notably by creating centres of economic development and innovation – but also detriments, by way of sedentary lifestyles and obesity, stress and mental ill-health, crime and loss of community cohesion. There is international evidence that urban agriculture may help reverse these trends through its positive effects on diet, health and wellbeing and the social fabric. In addition, urban agriculture responds to the challenges of climate change, both through mitigation (reducing ‘food miles’ and carbon footprint) and adaptation (substituting for those rural areas where agriculture may no longer be viable). This paper reports on the first stage of a broader project which aims to develop an evidence base for policy, planning and design to facilitate urban agriculture in Australian cities. This stage relates to the identification of available space to support quantification of food production potential. While Sydney is the focus, care is taken to ensure that the final methodology used will be transferable. One way to increase the quantity of agricultural land in built-up areas is to cultivate informal green spaces such as vacant lots, street and railway verges, and also the rooftops of existing buildings. Determining the potential for urban food production requires application of a range of methods to ascertain the location, spatial extent, distribution and ease of access to suitable spaces, including such ‘leftover’ spaces. These methods include remote sensing (LiDAR, satellite and aerial imagery) and field verification, and also space syntax. The main focus of

P Osmond, L Corkery, S Wilkinson, S Thompson & S Hawken The arable city: Quantifying the potential for urban agriculture in the 21st century metropolis

81:1

mailto:[email protected]







this paper is to explore space syntax techniques in relation to their capacity to quantify the accessibility of potential sites, their interrelationships as elements of an urban agriculture network and their integration with the broader city fabric. The longer term objective is to derive a database of potential urban agriculture sites in inner and outer metropolitan regions, categorised in terms of the ease with which local residents can get to individual sites by walking or cycling, the proportion of city dwellers able to easily reach an urban farm, the potential number of users at the local scale, the inter-accessibility of sites at the city-wide scale and the spatial diversity of prospective sites.

Keywords

Planning process, sub-regional plans, integrated urban models, weighted space syntax analysis, planning option testing, rapid urbanisation.

1. Context

An unprecedented 54% of human beings now live in cities, and population growth is projected to add a further 2.5 billion people to the world’s urban inhabitants by 2050 (United Nations, 2014). But while pressures on land, water, energy and other resources have been seen as inevitable by-products of urbanisation (State of the Environment Committee, 2011), the sheer concentration of population and economic activity gives cities enormous leverage in the quest for sustainable development.

Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world, ranked 24th of 211; as at 2014, 89% of Australians lived in cities (World Bank, 2015). Urban growth, densification and sprawl both erode the capacity of urban ecosystems to deliver critical goods and services to city dwellers (Elmqvist et al., 2013), and underpin an increasing disengagement of urbanites from the natural world (Reeve et al., 2013).

Terms such as ‘green infrastructure’ (Benedict and McMahon, 2006) and ‘biophilic urbanism’ (Beatley, 2009), have been coined to describe the policy, planning and design approaches associated with reversing the negative environmental and social impacts of urban development. In this paper, we consider green infrastructure (GI) as it relates to the landscape conditions of a metropolitan region, and subscribe to the following definition offered by the Landscape Institute (UK) (2013):

‘…the network of natural and semi-natural features, green spaces, rivers and lakes that intersperse and connect villages, towns and cities. It is a natural, service-providing infrastructure that is often more cost-effective, more resilient and more capable of meeting social, environmental and economic objectives than “grey” infrastructure’.

The idea of biophilic urbanism encapsulates concepts of GI in which natural features are harnessed to ‘…enhance the performance of constructed assets’ to support ‘urban environments conducive to life’ (Reeve et al, 2013).

Benedict and McMahon (2003) point out that two principles are essential to conceptualising the notion of GI as fundamental to moving towards more sustainable cities: connectivity and context. When we recognise features such as urban forests, street trees, public and private open spaces and green roofs and walls as green infrastructure, we more clearly comprehend their function as vital sources of ecosystem services, for example, providing stormwater management, supplying clean water and good air quality, and enhancing species diversity. These linked connections and contexts facilitate ecological functioning while also providing venues for leisure and recreation activities which contribute to physical and emotional health and protect social and cultural values, along with the benefits of aesthetic delight, enjoyment and social interaction.

To take one increasingly critical example, the link between environmental health and public health is contingent on the decisions we make in the planning and design of metropolitan regions. In appreciating how broadscale landscape planning and localised design support human health, there is newfound understanding and respect for the ecological services delivered by GI elements.


81:2


GI can be delivered at a variety of scales: site or precinct specific or at a metropolitan scale. In this paper our interest is how and where it can be located to optimise people’s access to these important sites, particularly the component of GI which relates to food production. But it is necessary for the GI systems of an urban area to be planned for and created in a comprehensive manner, not merely on a site-by-site basis. Approached in this way, there is a better chance of creating an integrated and system which works effectively across the urban landscape.

Although not reported here, a significant aspect of the broader research project will be to evaluate the capability and suitability of the City’s rooftops to support urban agriculture. Roofs can represent up to 32% of the horizontal surface of built-up areas (Frazer, 2005). Based on criteria such as building location, orientation and height and the pitch and load bearing capacity of the roof, Wilkinson and Reed (2009) estimated 15% of Melbourne CBD office buildings were suitable for green roof retrofit. The Sydney CBD covers 280 hectares (City of Sydney 2014a); applying the above estimates, the CBD contains approximately 90 ha of roof space of which more than 134,000 m2 may be suitable for greening.

2. Urban agriculture and ecosystem services

None other than Jane Jacobs (1969) argued that historically, the supposed gulf between ‘urban’ commerce and industry and ‘rural’ agriculture was arbitrary and artificial; urban agriculture co-evolved with the development of permanent settlements. The introduction of artificial fertilisers and mechanisation of agriculture and rising urban land values following the industrial revolution gradually eroded the tradition of food production in the cities of the developed world, but whether as a survival strategy during hard times (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000) or as a leisure pursuit, urban agriculture has remained a significant economic, social and environmental phenomenon. Moreover, the past two decades have seen a resurgence in public and policy interest and activity in urban agriculture. The research and data which should underpin this growing interest and activity, however, remain ad hoc and largely anecdotal, highlighting the need for a more evidence-based approach.

Broadly, urban agriculture is thought of as farming and food production in or near urban areas, however, there is more to it than that. Butler and Maronek offer a more comprehensive view: ‘A complex system encompassing a spectrum of interests, from a traditional core of activities associated with the production, processing, marketing, distribution, and consumption, to…other benefits and services…(including) recreation and leisure; economic vitality and business entrepreneurship, individual health and well-being; community health and well-being; landscape beautification; and environment restoration and remediation’ (in Knowd et al, 2006, p.3). The ‘environment restoration and remediation’ or physical ecosystem services provided include microclimate improvement, conservation of urban soils, waste and nutrient recycling, water management and biodiversity enhancement (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). The health benefits are discussed below.

3. Urban agriculture and human health

The consumption of a fresh, nutritious and culturally appropriate diet is one of the pillars of healthy living. Fruits and vegetables play an important role in guarding against obesity, which is a serious risk factor for chronic illness including diabetes, heart disease, cancer and depression. The rising rate of chronic disease makes access to a healthy diet more important than ever. In Australia, almost two thirds of adults and 25% of children are overweight or obese (AIHW, 2014). Diets high in fats and sugars, and low in fresh fruit and vegetables, are commonplace, with just eight per cent of Australians eating the recommended amounts of vegetables daily (ibid.).

Easy access to fresh and affordable food is an important component in helping to address low rates of fruit and vegetable consumption. Supermarkets and other fresh food stores in a neighbourhood can influence access, together with locality convenience, variety and the cost of fresh produce (Kent


81:3


and Thompson, 2014). Socio-economic factors also come into play, with poorer residents typically found to have the worst access to supermarkets and healthier foods (ibid.). Urban agriculture has significant health and social benefits and can be commercially driven or part of civic engagement activities. Initiatives range from community gardens and the keeping of small livestock (Blecha and Leitner, 2014) to growing food along streets, in front of public buildings and in private yards and on balconies. Gardening work requires physical exercise and connects participants in meaningful social activities. Increasing the availability of fresh vegetables and fruit can enhance rates of consumption (Alaimo et al., 2008). All are positive for health. Low income and culturally diverse communities can benefit from toiling together in a garden setting. They might share cultivation techniques and cooking tips as a prelude to developing friendships and enhancing social harmony in their neighbourhood (Alaimo et al., 2010; Bartolomei et al. 2003; Armstrong, 2000). Community gardens have also been found to improve poor and destitute neighbourhoods and create local economic opportunities in a range of food related businesses (Dixon et al., 2007). Urban agriculture has wider benefits for planetary health. Not only are garden participants more in tune with the environment (Pollan, 1998), greenhouse gas emissions decline as the distance food has to travel from production site to point of consumption is reduced. Food wastage is less and community resilience to food supply vulnerabilities, in the face of environmental and social challenges, can be enriched (Condon et al., 2010). The built environment is critical in facilitating equitable access to healthy food that is environmentally sustainable. Given the rapid and continuing growth of cities, this is becoming increasingly difficult and ever more pressing. Production potential analyses show that in some cities significant amounts of fresh produce could be grown for local consumption (for example, a review of Detroit’s vacant land by Colasanti et al., 2010). Accordingly, we need to ensure that a range of ways of getting access to healthy food that is close to where it is eaten, affordable and fresh is supported – urban agriculture is a way to do this. 4. Urban agriculture and the Sydney context

Only 6.1% of Australia’s land is arable, compared to 25.7% of land in the UK and 17% in the USA (World Bank, 2015). In most parts of the world, population centres historically have developed close to high quality arable land, so unsurprisingly such areas are frequently the first to concede to urban sprawl. Metropolitan Sydney, as Australia’s largest population centre, is no exception to this pattern – both peri-urban agriculture and those elements of commercial food production (mainly market gardens) persisting closer to the urban core continue to be under threat.

The Sydney metropolitan region extends north and south along the east coast about 175 kilometres, and west to the Blue Mountains about 65 kilometres from the central business district. It covers 12,368 square kilometres and incorporates 43 local government areas (LGAs) with a total residential population (as at 2012) of 4,606,000 (City of Sydney, 2014a). In area, it is one of the largest cities in the world and also one of the least dense of the major world cities. Over the decades, urban development has steadily moved from the coast to the mountains. In that process, many of the agricultural lands that traditionally produced the fresh food for the city have been transformed into low density suburbs. As a result, Sydney’s ‘food bowl’ has dramatically reduced in size. The metropolitan Sydney population is predicted to reach 5 million by 2020, with most of this growth occurring in the northwest and southwest regions of the city—both areas that have traditionally supported agricultural activities.

In recent years, the concept of urban agriculture has entered the urban planning discourse on imagining future scenarios for the development of western Sydney, particularly the peri-urban areas that lie between the urban perimeter and the edge of the Blue Mountains. Knowd et al describe urban agriculture as the ‘new frontier in terms of the geophysical, economic, social and environmental situation in the Sydney basin’ (2006, p.3). Additionally, Merson et al (2010) explore


81:4


the potential for urban agriculture at Sydney’s urban periphery to provide a barrier to the bushfire threat that periodically threatens development near bush landscapes.

Not all urban agriculture takes place at the periphery, however. In the past 5-10 years, food production within middle and inner-ring Sydney suburbs has increased. Knowd et al’s ‘continuum of urban agriculture’ notes these activities range from backyard vegetable plots and community gardens—some on rooftops—to farmgate enterprises and fully ‘controlled environment/high-tech’ industries producing vegetables, mushrooms, and poultry (2006, p.6). Each of these individual activities contributes multiple values and benefits to urban dwellers from the fundamental provision of fresh, better tasting and affordable food, to recreation and social interaction, to multi-million dollar commercial income generation.

The focus of the present study is the City of Sydney, which comprises the CBD and adjacent suburbs (Figure 1). It contains a population of 187,600 within an area of 26.15 km2, giving a density of 7017/km2 (City of Sydney, 2014a), which is high in the Australian context. Public open space within the LGA boundary totals 377 ha, including facilities such as the Royal Botanic Gardens which are managed by other agencies, equivalent to 14.3% of the City’s total land area.

Despite appearances Sydney does not make the commonly accepted benchmark of 24 square metres per resident. More important than this raw district level aggregate, is the useability of green space i.e. the proximity and context of each dwelling or worker to green space. Such metrics are useful starting points when considering the possibility of urban agriculture. In the future many parkland areas may double as productive landscapes integrating both agriculture and recreational uses as multifunctional open spaces.

Figure 1: Sydney City in relation to Greater Sydney. Source: licensed under CC by SA 3.0 via Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_councils.png. The type of green space is therefore significant, with different types of green space performing in different ways. For example even though green space provides regulation and biodiversity services (a golf course for example) its accessibility, and useability, by residents may be minimal or non-


81:5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_councils.png


existent. Table 1 disaggregates the types, numbers and areas of reserves under the control of the City. However, these classifications do not include the ‘leftover’ spaces such as street verges referred to above. Notably, support for urban agriculture – as well as for green roofs and walls and proposals to increase overall vegetation cover by 50% – are articulated in the City’s ambitious Sustainable Sydney 2030 strategy (City of Sydney, 2014b).

Open space type No. Area Proportion of

total open space Definition

Parks >5,000m2 46 151 ha 40%

Typically include areas of turf, trees and garden beds. Often support a variety of functions, including passive recreation and organised sport. Character ranges from Victorian heritage landscapes to more contemporary designs.

Harbour foreshore parks

14 16.2 ha 8% Provide physical access, views or amenity to Sydney Harbour.

Pocket parks 172 24 ha 12% Smaller parks and reserves < 2,000m2. Usually only accommodate a single function.

Civic spaces 39 8 ha 4% Formal public spaces including squares, plazas and malls, or spaces associated with building forecourts. Usually hard surfaced.

Ancillary spaces 40 1.5 ha 1%

Small or lineal open space areas which primarily serve as visual amenity or means of access rather than as a recreation destination.

Open spaces <1,000m2

229 56% Include a variety of open space types.

Table 1: Types, numbers and areas of reserves under City of Sydney control, adapted from Stratcorp Consulting and Clouston Associates (2012). 5. Methods: proximity analysis

Spatial analysis locating residential dwellings in proximity to natural open public green space is therefore a necessary in breaking down the aggregate statistics. Such approaches allow us to visualise where more green space is needed and what types of green space are needed. Although statistics - such as the 377 hectares of open space in the City of Sydney LGA and 23.6 m2 per resident – are useful as a starting point; finer quantitative and qualitative analyses are necessary. Determining the potential for urban food production in the first instance requires application of a range of methods to ascertain the location, spatial extent, distribution and ease of residents’ access to suitable spaces. These methods can include remote sensing and field verification, GIS-based attraction/impedance models and also space syntax techniques. A combination of these methods can be applied to quantify the accessibility of potential sites, their interrelationships as elements of an urban agriculture network and their integration with the broader city fabric. It should also be emphasised that the suitability of particular open spaces for food production is a quite separate issue from accessibility. Simple as-the-crow-flies proximity analysis conducted within a GIS can reveal the unevenness of green space amenity as it relates to dwellings throughout the City of Sydney before topologically explicit analysis – such as that calculated within space syntax or other network analysis software – is conducted.


81:6


The dataset used in these calculations was extracted from City of Sydney’s Floor and Employment Survey (2011) and consisted of every dwelling in the LGA of Sydney and every green public parkland space: from the large parks such as the Royal Botanic Gardens to small pocket parks the size of a residential plot. Distance was calculated from the centroids of the dwellings to the vertex of the nearest parkland using ArcGIS software. Two visualisations were produced: one plotting each dwelling (x-axis) against the distance from green space (y-axis) (Figure 4); and a diagram mapping dwelling locations and colour coding them according to their distance from public green parkland (Figure 5). 6. Methods: space syntax

The core precept of space syntax is that the architectural structuring of space creates the material preconditions for human patterns of movement, encounter and avoidance (Hillier and Hanson, 1984) leading to a methodological focus on strategies to describe configured, inhabited spaces so their underlying social logic can be explained (Bafna, 2003). A term with specific meaning in space syntax is natural movement, ‘the proportion of movement that is determined by the configuration of space itself, rather than by the presence of specific attractors or magnets’ (Hiller et al, 1993). In other words, as explained by Ståhle et al (2005), given the equation: Ai = Σf(Wj, Dij) 1 where Ai is the accessibility of place i to other places j, Wj, is a measure of attraction and Dij is a measure of impedance (such as distance or travel time) between place i and place j, space syntax disregards the attraction term Wj. Thus: Ai = ΣAij = Σf(Dij) 2 Accessibility is typically expressed in terms of metric proximity; in their Place Syntax software tool, Ståhle et al introduce topological proximity (axial line steps) into the formula, as well as re-integrate the attraction variable. In a separate paper titled ‘Park syntax’ (2005) Ståhle identified four major factors which determine green space accessibility: ‘surface area, use values, orientation and range’, where orientation = axial line distance, and range = metric distance. The specific space syntax measures he applies are axial line distance from mapped address points to green space, and area of green space within three axial steps from address points. Whatever their starting point, users typically access public open space via a city’s circulation network – streets and paths. The working hypothesis tested here was that measurement of the degree of integration / segregation of those streets and paths which abut or intersect (and therefore provide direct access to) areas of green space, and the spatial extent of that green space, could potentially help to quantify accessibility to green space at the neighbourhood scale. The ProgeCAD Professional v14 drawing program was used to trace a 0.5m resolution digital aerial photograph to prepare an axial map of the City of Sydney, which was analysed in depthmapX (Varoudis, 2012). The metric used in the analysis was radius-3 (R-3) integration (Hillier, 1996). Two areas were selected for analysis – the suburbs of Surry Hills and Rosebery (Figure 2). Surry Hills is one of the oldest areas of Sydney, characterised by dense built form and a high number of single person and group (as distinct from family) households. Only 1.4% of the 15,300 residents live in detached dwellings, compared to the Australian average of 75%; the majority of residents live in apartments (69.7%) or terrace houses (27.7%). On the other hand, 43.4% of the 8500 residents of Rosebery live in detached houses (most with backyards, see Figure 3) and 50.1% in apartments (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). For each suburb, both the number and the total area of non-contiguous sections of public green space abutting or intersecting each street (axial line) were recorded, together with the R-3 integration value of that street. The integration values of streets not abutting public green space


81:7


were also recorded. Obviously there is no one-to-one mapping, as individual areas of open space may be adjacent to more than one axial line, and individual axial lines may abut more than one area of open space. Rosebery included 65 axial lines and 215 incident spaces; Surry Hills included 264 lines and 269 spaces. The types of public green space were identified from the City of Sydney GIS database, and cover parks, plazas (the thinking being that planter boxes could be retrofitted to hard surfaces), turfed sports grounds and open space ‘not elsewhere classified’, which include street verges and similar spaces.

Figure 2: Axial map of Sydney LGA, showing the suburbs of Surry Hills and Rosebery.


81:8


Figure 3: Public (left) & private open space in the City of Sydney. Source – CoS GIS database. 7. Results: proximity analysis

Figure 4 shows that distance of most dwellings to parkland is less than 400m (the standard walkability metric) indicating that useable green space is within reach of most residential dwellings. Figure 5 is more revealing, showing that pockets of dwellings are situated at the limits of the walkability metric of 400m.

Figure 4: Distance from dwelling to public green space, meters.


81:9


Unsurprisingly these include traditionally industrial and commercial areas such as Rosebery, Alexandria and the Sydney CBD. More surprisingly patches of inaccessibility exist within Glebe, Surry Hills and East Sydney – all considered liveable inner city suburbs.

Figure 5: Dwellings classified by distance to green space.

As the scatter plots show (Figure 6), there is very little correlation between either the number or total area of green spaces and the integration-3 values of the abutting or intersecting streets for either suburb. On the surface, this result seems surprising, and rejects the working hypothesis noted above. Some of the reasons for this include the existence of a small number of large open spaces as well as a multitude of smaller (5m2-50m2) ones – although exclusion of a six hectare park from the Surry Hills dataset did not materially affect the outcomes. Also parks in particular are likely to abut several streets. Lastly, more highly integrated streets, even at neighbourhood (R-3) level, are often


81:10


quite car oriented. Qualitative observations include that non-residential areas of the two suburbs generally have more public space, and the private green space associated with apartment blocks – particularly on sites with several apartment blocks – tend to function as semi-public spaces.

Figure 6: Scatter plots of the number and total area of green spaces abutting or intersecting streets in Rosebery and Surry Hills vs. integration-3.

8. Discussion and conclusions

The main focus of this paper was to explore space syntax techniques in relation to their capacity to quantify the accessibility of potential sites, their interrelationships as elements of an urban agriculture network and their integration with the broader city fabric. The present method is clearly of limited value in this regard. Arguably the axial decomposition of the city and the distribution of open space follow different logics, at least in relation to the selected study sites. However, the creation of the axial map, alongside the City of Sydney’s detailed GIS database, will enable further exploration of the two sets of metrics. This will also inform the comparative investigation of the outer Sydney LGA Blacktown (upper left in Figure 1) in terms of its capacity to support urban agriculture.

Further, place syntax (Ståhle et al, 2005), as discussed in the Introduction, offers a proven approach which may be adopted and adapted for this project.

It is worth restating that the ultimate objective is to derive a database of potential urban agriculture sites in inner and outer metropolitan regions, categorised in terms of the ease with which local residents can get to individual sites by walking or cycling, the proportion of city dwellers able to easily reach a site, the potential number of users at the local scale, the inter-accessibility of sites at


81:11


the city-wide scale and the spatial diversity of prospective sites. In other words, the goal is to provide an evidence base for the planning and design of urban agriculture, to enhance both human and ecosystem health.

References

Abraham, A., Sommerhalder, K. and Abel, T. (2010), ‘Landscape and well-being: a scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments’. In International Journal of Public Health, Vol. 55, p.59-69.

Alaimo, K., Keischl, T. and Ober Allen, J. (2010), ‘Community gardening, neighborhood meetings, and social capital’. In Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 38 (4), p.497-514.

Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R. and Kruger, D. (2008), ‘Fruit and vegetable intake among urban community gardeners’. In Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, Vol. 40, p.94-101.

Armstrong, D. (2000), ‘A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for health promotion and community development’. In Health & Place, Vol. 6, p.319-327.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011), ‘2011 Census QuickStats’. Retrieved 3/2/2015, from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2014), Australia’s health 2014. Australia’s health series no. 14. Cat. no. AUS 178. Canberra: AIHW.

Bafna, S. (2003), ‘Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques’. In Environment and Behavior, Vol. 35(1), p.17-29.

Bartolomei, L., Corkery, L,, Judd, B. and Thompson, S. (2003), A bountiful harvest: Community gardens and neighbourhood renewal in Waterloo, Sydney: NSW Department of Housing & University of NSW.

Beatley, T. (2009), ‘Biophilic urbanism: Inviting nature back to our communities and into our lives’. In William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 34, p.209-238.

Benedict, M. and McMahon, E. (2003), ‘How cities use parks for green infrastructure’. City Parks Forum Briefing Papers, American Planning Association.

Benedict, M. and McMahon, E. (2006), Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities, Washington: Island Press.

Blecha, J. and Leitner, H. (2014), ‘Reimagining the food system, the economy, and urban life: new urban chicken-keepers in US cities’. In Urban Geography, Vol. 35(1), p.86-108.

City of Sydney. (2014a), ‘Sustainable Sydney 2030’. Retrieved 26/01/2015 from http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/sustainable-sydney-2030

City of Sydney. (2014b), ‘The City at a Glance’. Retrieved 23/01/2015 from http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/learn/research-and-statistics/

Colosanti, K., Litjens, C. and Hamm, M. (2010), Growing food in the city: The production potential of Detroit’s vacant land. Detroit: The CS Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems.

Condon, P., Mullinix, K., Fallick, A and Harcourt, M. (2010), ‘Agriculture on the edge: Strategies to abate urban encroachment onto agricultural lands by promoting viable human-scale agriculture as an integral element of urbanization’. In International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, Vol. 8(1-2), p.104-115.

Deelstra, T. and Girardet, H. (2000), ‘Urban agriculture and sustainable cities’. In Bakker, M. Dubbeling, G., Sabel-Koshella, U. and de Zeeuw, H. (eds.), Growing cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, Deutsche Stiftung fur Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Zentralstelle fur Ernahrung und Landwirtschaft, p. 43-66.

Dixon, J., Omwega, A., Friel, S., Burns, C., Donati, K. and Carlisle, R. (2007), ‘The health equity dimensions of urban food systems’. In Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 84(1), p.i118-i129.

Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P., McDonald, R., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., Seto, K. and Wilkinson, C. (2013), Global Urbanisation, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities, Dordrecht: Springer.

Frazer, L. (2005), ‘Paving paradise’. In Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, p.457-462. Grinde, B. and Patil, G. (2009), ‘Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being?’ In

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 6, p.2332-2343. Hillier, B. (1996), Space is the Machine, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984), The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T. and Xu, J. (1993), ‘Natural movement: or, configuration and

attraction in urban pedestrian movement’. In Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 20, p.29-66.

Jacobs, J. (1969), The Economy of Cities, New York: Random House. Kent, J. and THOMPSON, S. (2014), ‘The three domains of urban planning for health and well-being’. In Journal

of Planning Literature, Vol. 29(3), p.239-256.


81:12


Knowd, I, Mason, D. and Docking, A. (2006), ‘Urban agriculture: the new frontier’. In: Proceedings of Planning for Food Seminar, Vancouver, 21 June 2006.

Landscape Institute (2013). Green Infrastructure: An integrated approach to land use. Merson, J., Attwater, R., Ampt, P., Wildman, H., & Chapple, R. (2010), ‘The challenges to urban agriculture in the

Sydney basin and lower Blue Mountains region of Australia’. In International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability Vol. 8(1 & 2), p.72-85.

Norrie, J. 2006, ‘Other cities' open spaces turn Lord Mayor green with envy’. In Sydney Morning Herald, November 6 2006. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/other-cities-open-spaces-turn-lord-mayor-green-with-envy/2006/11/08/1162661756801.html

Pollan, M. (1998), ‘Beyond Wilderness and Lawn’. In Gieseking, J., Mangold, W., Katz, C., Low, S. and Saegert, S (eds.) 2014, The People, Place, and Space Reader, New York: Routledge, p.273-277.

Reeve, A., Hargroves, K., Desha, C., Newman, P., & el-Baghdadi, O. (2013), ‘Biophilic urbanism: harnessing natural elements to enhance the performance of constructed assets’. In: Kajewski, S., Manley, K. and Hampson, K. (eds.), Proceedings of 19th CIB World Building Congress. Brisbane, 5-9 May 2013.

Ståhle, A. (2005), ‘Park syntax - Measuring open space accessibility and smart growth’. In: van Nes, A.(ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Space syntax Symposium, Delft: University of Technology, p.779-780.

Ståhle, A., L. Marcus, et al. (2005). ‘Place syntax - Geographic accessibility with axial lines in GIS’. In: van Nes, A.(ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Space syntax Symposium, Delft: University of Technology, p.131-144

State of the Environment Committee. (2011), Australia State of the Environment 2011. Canberra: Australian Government.

Stratcorp Consulting and Clouston Associates. (2006), Open space and recreation needs study prepared for City of Sydney, Volume 2, Research and Analysis, Sydney: Stratcorp Consulting.

United Nations. (2014), World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

Varoudis, T. (2012), depthmapX - Multi-platform Spatial Network Analysis Software. Retrieved from https://github.com/varoudis/depthmapX

Wilkinson, S. J. and Reed, R. (2009), ‘Green roof retrofit potential in the central business district’. In Property Management, Vol. 27(5), p.284-301.

World Bank. (2015), ‘Arable land (% of land area)’. Retrieved 23/01/2015 from http://data.worldbank.org


81:13

Date post:	08-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

The arable city - University College London · SSS10 Proceedings of the 10th International Space...

Documents