Deploying Urban Agricultural System for an Innovative and
Sustainable Urban Renewal
Sarkissian Fanny
1,2,*
, Loyer Teddy
1,†
and Antoni Jean-Philippe
2,‡
1
GéoHabitat Planning Office, 13 rue du Palais, Dijon, France
2
ThéMA Laboratory, University of Burgundy, 4 Bd Gabriel, Dijon, France
Keywords: Urban Agriculture, Decision Support System, Dynamic System, Spatial Modelling, GIS Analysis, Sustainable
City.
Abstract: This article claims to present the interest of a systemic method mobilisation in order to study the urban
agricultural system and to characterise its sustainability. This logical reasoning is based on the principle that
urban agriculture can be a lever for sustainable city, and that this effect requires a frame for planning urban
agriculture projects. Hence, it presents the development prospects of a decision support system, based on an
urban agricultural system, allowing prospective studies for urban agriculture deployment.
1 INTRODUCTION
At international scale, the concept of sustainable city
took a huge turn in 1994, as representatives of many
European cities signed the Aalborg Charter. These
representatives took a major responsibility for the
ecological crisis. They also identified urban
agglomerations as relevant spaces for a more virtuous
strategy in terms of environment and climate. This
strategy needs to be built on social justice, sustainable
economies and viable environment. Since the
definition of these principles, one of the main
innovative and recent propositions is the development
of urban agriculture, as a lever for sustainable city
(Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Lovell, 2010), or even a
genuine project serving food security (Smit et al.,
1997; White, 2010). These current propositions
regarding urban agriculture for the benefit of
sustainable cities are the main subject of this article.
As defined by the Food and Alimentation
Organization of the United Nations, Urban and Peri-
Urban Agriculture (AUP) refers to farming practices
in and around cities that use resources - land, water,
energy, labor - that can also be used for other uses to
meet the needs of the urban population. And
according to the Committee on World Food Security
*
http://thema.univ-fcomte.fr/en/page_personnelle/
fsarkissian
https://www.linkedin.com/in/teddy-loyer-0827b82a/?
originalSubdomain=fr
(2014), “Agriculture and food systems encompass the
entire range of activities involved in the production,
processing, marketing, retail, consumption, and
disposal of goods that originate from agriculture,
including food and non-food products, livestock,
pastoralism, fisheries including aquaculture, and
forestry; and the inputs needed and the outputs
generated at each of these steps. Food systems also
involve a wide range of stakeholders, people and
institutions, as well as the socio-political, economic,
technological and natural environment in which these
activities take place”.
In the case of European cities, which constitute
the privileged space for this research, urban
agriculture is not primarily intended to supply food
products. It acts above all as a vector of sustainability
for territories and populations (Mendes et al., 2008;
Ferreira et al., 2018), and can in theory be associated
with numerous environmental, social and economic
benefits.
These advantages could consolidate and include
in the urban space a real policy of sustainable
development. However, agricultural plots remain
very rare in cities, especially in towns where projects
rarely go beyond the experimental stage. As S. Hagan
humorously points out, it seems that “freeing up or
http://thema.univ-fcomte.fr/en/page_personnelle/
jpantoni
222
Fanny, S., Teddy, L. and Jean-Philippe, A.
Deploying Urban Agricultural System for an Innovative and Sustainable Urban Renewal.
DOI: 10.5220/0010474402220228
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM 2021), pages 222-228
ISBN: 978-989-758-503-6
Copyright
c
2021 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
reclassifying land for urban agriculture requires more
than a desire to hold hands and plant vegetables”
(Viljoen et al., 2005). Therefore, a gap between the
theorical benefits of urban agriculture and its practical
application is emphasized. In this context, it now
seems essential to identify the obstacles explaining
this paradoxical situation, and to determine the
innovations required to remove the current barriers.
Indeed, it has been known for a long time that urban
planners, besieged by various demands, often work
with few resources in an environment leaving them
little time to innovate (Van Veenhuizen, 2001). A
global exploration of this issue would prove to be
extremely useful to gain a better understanding of the
urban agricultural system and to characterize the
potentials it truly offers for the sustainability of
territories. This exploration must be based on specific
objectives in terms of territorial prospective and
support for public decision-making.
The purpose of the research project presented here
is to deploy an urban agricultural system for an
innovative and sustainable urban renewal. Therefore,
the discussions will address methodologies deployed
around urban agriculture, through dynamic systems,
but also thanks to the spatial representation of these
systems. The expected results will then be presented
according to different objectives of characterization
of the potential for sustainability in the urban
agricultural system, through the creation of a decision
support system.
2 METHODOLOGY: A
TRIPARTITE OBJECTIVE
2.1 Highlighting the Borders of Urban
Agriculture
The first step of this research project is to study what
urban agriculture is, to answer the simple question
"what?". Urban agriculture is distinguished by
different objectives: urban planning, economic
development, recreation, health, food security,
environment, social interactions, education. It also
stands out in several forms: farms, specialized farms,
vertical farms, urban farms, collective henhouses,
allotment gardens, family gardens, shared gardens,
community gardens, educational gardens, community
vegetable gardens, back to work gardens, etc. Urban
agriculture is multifunctional and polymorphic
(Ferris et al., 2001; Holland, 2004; E. Duchemin et
al., 2008; Lovell, 2010). This leads to understanding
urban agriculture differently than through a single
definition. Assembling the typologies of E.
Duchemin (2013) and V. Magali (2017) from
ADEME (the French public Environment Agency
and Control of Energy) and field observations, afford
the creation of a new typology. This typology does
not present a unique definition of urban agriculture
space by space, but rather characterizes it according
to 7 criteria: the actors and project leaders, the
economic system, the places, the purposes, the
production supports, the distribution systems, and the
production. As a result, the different shapes observed
in European cities each represent urban agriculture,
but according to different criteria.
However, this typology is not sufficient in itself,
and does not make it possible to represent urban
agriculture in a satisfactory manner. This analytical
approach shows limits because it only allows to study
each urban agriculture project individually, while a
systemic approach would allow to study urban
agriculture as a whole. The systemic approach offers
a global study of all the elements entering into the
ecosystem of urban agriculture and makes it possible
to take an interest in the exchanges caused by urban
agriculture projects. In order to understand the urban
agricultural system, several elements must be taken
into account, such as the actors (farmers, associations,
local authorities, etc.), economic systems (market,
non-market, both), places (wastelands, fields, green
spaces, etc.), objectives (productive, social,
recreational, etc.), upstream services (provision of
land, equipment, support, etc.) and downstream
(places of processing, distribution systems). Other
agricultural systems (rural, peri-urban, export) also
come into play. Therefore, exploring a dynamic
system is a worthwhile path to represent the set of
elements taking action in an urban agricultural
system.
A system is a set of units in mutual
interrelationships (Van Bertalanffy, 1948), organized
according to a goal (de Rosnay, 1995). Its study,
through a systemic approach, makes it possible to go
beyond an analytical approach. The analytical
approach is based on the principles of obviousness,
reductionism, causalism and exhaustiveness. Without
opposing these principles, systemic approach rather
complements the analytical approach by basing itself
on relevance, globalism, teleology, and aggregativity
(Lemoigne, 1994). According to J. de Rosnay (1995),
a systemic approach connects the elements of a
system by focusing on their interactions and effects.
It is based on a global perception. Each element is no
longer studied individually, but rather by considering
the completeness in which it is placed, and
simultaneously. This approach can be linked to
Deploying Urban Agricultural System for an Innovative and Sustainable Urban Renewal
223
Aristotle's principle, stating that the whole is more
than the sum of its parts.
These principles can be applied to the study of
urban agriculture. Indeed, as mentioned previously,
the study of urban agriculture through the
construction of a typology, observing urban
agriculture, project by project, does not allow us to
completely understand urban agriculture. This
analytical approach has limits: urban agriculture can
only be observed fixed in the moment and compared
to the typology created. But by referring to the
presentation of a dynamic system, it answers the
question How?. The field of possibilities expands, to
leave room for a systemic approach observing
agriculture in its entirety, studying all the elements
composing it at the same time. This approach allows
urban agriculture projects to be put into context.
Beyond studying urban agriculture projects
individually, it makes it possible to do so
simultaneously. It allows to study the interactions
between the elements entering into the ecosystem
component of agriculture projects. Coupled with
actors, economic systems, distribution sites, these
projects form an entirety: the urban agricultural
system.
This urban agricultural system has already been
approached by various authors. Artmann and Sartison
(2018) feel the need to approach agriculture as an
ecosystem, in order to be entirely able to develop
urban agriculture to its full potential. Their approach
anticipates both opportunities and threats from urban
agriculture in a multidimensional way. Likewise,
although the literature has extensively studied urban
agriculture projects, Abu Hatab et al. (2019) see a
flaw in the way this topic is studied. Indeed, the
interactions between the different aspects of what
they call urban food systems are hardly analysed.
Based on this inventory, they choose to observe the
urban food system as an entirety, and to include
external factors, such as socioeconomic,
demographic, natural resource, and environmental.
They conclude that taking these factors into account
as a whole would make it possible to avoid isolated
consultations, factor by factor, actor by actor. They
underline the need for research on the interactions
components of an urban food system can have
between them, highlighting the dynamics of this
system which can include feedback loops. Not
studying urban agriculture as a system would make
researchers and governance actors miss some of these
causes and effects.
The idea of observing urban agriculture as a
system is therefore not new, nor the idea of feedback
loops. Thus, urban agriculture can be studied through
a systemic approach, and in a dynamic way. This is
indeed what Rich et al. (2018) propose using a
dynamic system for the deployment of urban
agriculture. They are developing a representation of
the urban farming system in Christchurch, New
Zealand, using the VENSIM modelling tool. Indeed,
VENSIM is an interactive environment simulation
software, allowing the analysis and optimization of
model simulation.
Modelling an urban agricultural system may be a
first lever for its deployment. However, outlining the
sustainability of an urban agricultural system would
be a significant addition.
2.2 Characterizing the Potential for
Sustainability
From the 1980s, different currents emerged and
questioned the relationship between city and nature.
The emergence of models of sustainability called into
question the place of nature in cities, or rather its
absence. More than spaces for relaxation, real spaces
rethinking the ecology of the city would be
introduced, calling into question the entire living
environment in cities. Several principles are proposed
(European Conference on Sustainable Cities and
Towns, 1994), such as building a social justice,
sustainable economies and a viable environment. To
do so, objectives are set: cities should become
multifunctional, turn to sustainable spatial planning
and sustainable urban mobility, fight against
pollution at its source, and rely on its citizens by
involving them in these processes.
However, the notion of sustainability is difficult
to measure. Its definition is not consensual, which
complicates its adaptation in the form of indicators
(Hély & Antoni, 2019). The concept of urban
agriculture is no exception to this ongoing scientific
problem. Tool for food security, service of nature in
the city and the sustainable management of fluxes,
actor of solidarity and social cohesion, tool of citizen
involvement and support for democracy, favourable
instrument for a virtuous economy, benefits in terms
of public health, appreciation of unused or neglected
spaces… These various functions results are mostly
difficult to quantify. Indeed, it would be a question of
concretely translating a concept whose repercussions
seem mainly qualitative.
Armanda, Guinée and Tukker (2019) point out
there is no overall measure making it possible to
assess the environmental impact of urban agriculture.
To achieve such a measurement tool, they believe it
would be necessary to take into account the entire
chain of the production system of urban agriculture.
GISTAM 2021 - 7th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management
224
This may be how the urban agricultural system could
offer a comprehensive study of its sustainability. In
consequence, the indicator to measure the
sustainability of an urban agriculture project does not
exist. However, it would be interesting to look at the
various sustainability indicators already existing, and
to analyse how to combine these indicators to identify
all aspects of urban agriculture. The question to be
asked would not be "is this project sustainable?" but
rather "are the technical, economic and social
characteristics of the urban agricultural system
sustainable?" by responding through the analysis of
the various specific functions it includes.
Azunre et al. (2019) highlight the lack of literature
on measuring the sustainability of urban agriculture.
Thus, they mobilize three indexes. First, the Green
City Index includes 30 indicators. Second, the Global
City Indicators covers aspects of urban life on
economic and social aspects. Third, the Global
Compact Cities Circles of Sustainability includes 28
indicators grouped into four categories: politics,
culture, economics and ecology. Based on these three
indexes, the authors analyse the sustainability of
urban agriculture projects according to different
criteria: fulltime employment, income generation and
gross domestic product, savings and expenditure, tax
revenue, educational functions, civic engagement,
safety and security, gender equality and social equity,
health benefits, recreation, technology and innovation
promotion, management of emissions, water
management, waste management, energy efficiency,
and finally organic farming in percentage of total
agricultural area.
Gómez-Villarino and Ruiz-Garcia (2021) propose
a model making possible to study the urban
agricultural system according to different stages: first,
the spaces virgin of urban agriculture are observed.
Their development is then monitored, regarding
sustainable objectives, and corrective measures are
proposed. Finally, the results obtained make it
possible to present the faults in the urban agricultural
system, but also to highlight the benefits.
In consequence, beyond the need to represent
urban agriculture projects as a whole embodied by a
system, it seems necessary to introduce, into this
dynamic model, the possibility of answering the
question "is this urban agricultural system
sustainable?", through a multi-criteria approach.
2.3 Mapping and Assembling: An
Additional Step
Modelling an urban agricultural system is vital to its
understanding and representation. However, the
essential object of planning is a simple question:
where? Spatializing the model of the urban
agricultural system seems necessary to fully support
the urban development of agriculture in cities. Thus,
the literature presents spatialized modelling methods
for the planning of urban agriculture. La Rosa et al.
(2014) present, for example, a method of sustainable
planning of urban agriculture, using a GIS-based
modelling tool. The interest of this tool is to detect
non-urbanized areas, and to point out those having the
potential to evolve into new forms of urban
agriculture.
This GIS-based modelling principle can be
imported to a dynamic system tool such as VENSIM.
So comes the idea of assembling a dynamic system to
cartography. The objective is to create a single tool,
allowing to bring together both the interest of tools
for representing dynamic systemic models, and the
interest of GIS tools. The creation of such assembling
makes it possible to simplify the use of multiple tools
by reducing their number, and by automatically
introducing spatialized data into the dynamic
systemic model studied.
This method of introducing spatial data into the
VENSIM tool has already been used for various
research. This is the case of Neuwirth (2017) who
uses a software called SimSyn to link VENSIM to
databases, and in this case to rasterized data. This is
also the methodology employed by Wingo et al.
(2017) who developed Open Modelling Environment,
an Open Source System Dynamic allowing to
represent spatially explicit relationships, based on a
stock-flow model. This approach makes it easy to
include spatialized data in a dynamic model, while
simplifying visualization.
These methodologies for introducing spatial data
into a dynamic systemic model could be a response to
the problem of representing an urban agricultural
system.
To summarize, urban agriculture, although often
observed in the literature, is much less observed in a
systemic way. Furthermore, urban agriculture is seen
as one of the levers for the development of sustainable
cities. But to apply these principles in practice,
planning must be able to quantify the sustainability of
urban agriculture projects. Thus, a need to measure
the sustainability of the urban agricultural system of
territories is felt and can be reflected by a GIS
mobilization and the creation of a forward-looking
modelling. These tree axes of research can support the
answers of tree simple yet essential questions: What?
Where? How? This methodology is illustrated in
figure 1.
Deploying Urban Agricultural System for an Innovative and Sustainable Urban Renewal
225
Figure 1: Graphic presentation of the methodology
deployed.
3 A NECESSARY TOOL
MOBILIZATION:
DEVELOPING A DECISION
SUPPORT SYSTEM
A need to support the development of urban
agriculture is felt. Three needs have been identified.
First, urban agriculture must be presented in its
entirety, from the start of the chain upstream to
downstream. For this, the systemic approach is
considered the most relevant, in particular through the
mobilization of a dynamic system modelling software
such as VENSIM. Next, the reason why it is relevant
to reflect on the establishment and operation of urban
agriculture projects is its ability to respond to
sustainability issues. Thus, the spatialized urban
agricultural system must be able to produce a
measurement of its sustainability thanks to relevant
indicators. Finally, the development of urban
agriculture cannot be done without taking spatial data
into account. Knowing how to implement urban
agriculture projects requires taking into account
where they will be. The spatialization of the urban
agricultural system can be achieved through an
assembling that automates the inclusion of spatial
data in the process of modelling this dynamic system.
The systemic approach, the sustainability of urban
agriculture as well as its spatialization are therefore
the three pillars of the research project developed
here.
The reflections presented lead to additional
questions: what adequate tool should be mobilised in
order to deploy the urban agricultural system for an
innovative and sustainable urban renewal? Could the
development of a decision support system to support
actors involved in the development of urban
agriculture be the answer? This decision support
system, bringing together the systemic model, its
spatialization and the measurement of sustainability,
would accomplish three main missions.
Far from thinking of urban agriculture projects on
a theoretical model, the decision support system
would make it possible to observe a specific field of
study. The first mission is to offer a tool making an
inventory of the urban agricultural system already
existing in the territory. Therefore, the functioning of
the urban agricultural system at a precise moment
could be studied, as well as its level of sustainability
according to different indicators.
Once the existing urban agricultural system has
been captured, the decision support system will have
the second task of determining its development
potential. It would make it possible to achieve a
higher level of sustainability, according to various
criteria, such as the distribution of places of urban
agriculture, places of food distribution, or the
assistance and supervision provided by governance,
for example.
Finally, the decision support system will have the
third mission of offering a simulation method
supporting prospective studies. Thanks to the
principle of the feedback loop of dynamic systems, it
would observe how the urban agricultural system
studied could develop according to external input
elements. This would answer various questions such
as "How will the existing urban agricultural system
develop if no planning is in place?", "How will the
urban agricultural system evolve if such a
development or framework is added?". These
different projections will allow actors involved in the
development of urban agriculture to support their
decisions.
4 CONCLUSIONS AND
PROSPECTIVE
The main purpose of this article is to justifie the need
of a modelling and a systemic approach to serve
sustainable cities and urban agriculture. It starts from
the Aalborg Charter highlighting social justice,
sustainable economies and viable environment, and
the development of urban agriculture as a lever for
sustainable cities and food security. Knowing that
planning urban agriculture is not currently achieving
its full potential, this article outlines tree simple but
essential questions - what? where? How? - through
tree strands: the qualification of the urban agricultural
GISTAM 2021 - 7th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management
226
system, the characterization of its potential for
sustainability, and its spatialization.
The qualification of the urban agricultural system
expresses the need of representing urban agriculture
beyond the individual study of projects, taking into
account all the elements involved in urban
agriculture: actors, economic systems, places,
objectives, upstream and downstream services. To
achieve this need, the relationships and interactions
between these elements must be studied. The solution
might be a systemic approach and the representation
of urban agriculture through a dynamic system,
allowing the study of urban agriculture as a whole,
always in movement. In consequence, the urban
agricultural system would need to be observed.
Furthermore, this article examined planning urban
agriculture because of its potential capacity as a lever
for sustainable cities. Therefore, measuring its
sustainable impacts is essential. The literature brough
up in this article highlights the plurality of indicators,
and the difficulty of quantifying a mostly qualitative
concept. The need of assembling measuring tools of
sustainability to a spatialized dynamic model is felt.
Next, the necessity of planning urban agriculture
and detecting places where it could entrench is
formulated. Thus, a GIS-based tool must be
mobilised. In order to simplify the study of urban
agriculture, cartography and representation through a
dynamic model should be assembled. In other word,
a spatialization is required.
Answering these tree strands is seen as a lever for
the deployment of urban agricultural system for an
innovative and sustainable urban renewal. This
purpose can be supported by the development of a
decision support system, assembling a dynamic
system, its spatialization and its sustainability. It
would allow actors of urban agriculture to define the
sustainability of a pre-existing system. But above and
beyond that, it would also need a simulation method
supporting prospective studies. The creation of this
tool represents the main ambition of our future
researches.
REFERENCES
Abu Hatab, A., Cavinato, M. E. R., Lindemer, A., &
Lagerkvist, C.-J., 2019. Urban sprawl, food security
and agricultural systems in developing countries : A
systematic review of the literature. In Cities, 94,
129‑142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.06.001
ADEME, & MAGALI, V., 2017. Agriculture urbaine, quels
enjeux de durabilité ? 24.
Armanda, D. T., Guinée, J. B., & Tukker, A., 2019. The
second green revolution : Innovative urban
agriculture’s contribution to food security and
sustainability – A review. In Global Food Security, 22,
13‑24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.08.002
Artmann, M., & Sartison, K., 2018. The Role of Urban
Agriculture as a Nature-Based Solution : A Review for
Developing a Systemic Assessment Framework. In
Sustainability, 10(6), 1937. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10061937
Azunre, G. A., Amponsah, O., Peprah, C., Takyi, S. A., &
Braimah, I., 2019. A review of the role of urban
agriculture in the sustainable city discourse. In Cities,
93, 104‑119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.04.0
06
Committee on World Food Security., 2014. Principles for
Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food
Systems.
Deelstra, T., & Girardet, H., 2000. Urban agriculture and
sustainable cities. In Growing Cities, Growing Food:
Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, 43‑65.
de Rosnay, J., 1995. Le Macroscope. Vers une vision
globale. Média Diffusion.
Duchemin, E., Wegmuller, F., & Legault, A.-M., 2008.
Urban agriculture : Multi-dimensional tools for social
development in poor neighbourhoods. In Field Actions
Science Reports. The Journal of Field Actions, Vol. 1,
Article Vol. 1. http://journals.openedition.org/facts
reports/113
Duchemin, Eric., 2013. Agriculture urbaine : Aménager et
nourrir la ville. In VertigO.
European Conference on Sustainable Cities and Towns,
1994. Aalborg charter. 8.
Ferreira, A. J. D., Guilherme, R. I. M. M., Ferreira, C. S. S.,
& Oliveira, M. de F. M. L. de., 2018. Urban agriculture,
a tool towards more resilient urban communities? In
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health,
5, 93‑97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.06.004
Ferris, J., Norman, C., & Sempik, J., 2001. People, Land
and Sustainability : Community Gardens and the Social
Dimension of Sustainable Development. In Social
Policy & Administration, 35(5), 559‑568.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.t01-1-00253
Gómez-Villarino, M. T., & Ruiz-Garcia, L., 2021. Adaptive
design model for the integration of urban agriculture in
the sustainable development of cities. A case study in
northern Spain. In Sustainable Cities and Society, 65,
102595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102595
Hély, V., & Antoni, J.-P., 2019. Combining indicators for
decision making in planning issues: A theoretical
approach to perform sustainability assessment. In
Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 844‑854.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.035
Holland, L., 2004. Diversity and connections in community
gardens : A contribution to local sustainability. In Local
Environment, 9(3), 285‑305. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1354983042000219388
La Rosa, D., Barbarossa, L., Privitera, R., & Martinico, F.,
2014. Agriculture and the city : A method for
sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in
urban contexts. In Land Use Policy, 41, 290‑303.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.014
Deploying Urban Agricultural System for an Innovative and Sustainable Urban Renewal
227
Lemoigne, J.-L., 1994. La théorie du système général :
Théorie de la modélisation. FeniXX.
Lovell, S. T., 2010. Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for
Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States. In
Sustainability, 2(8), 2499‑2522. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su2082499
Mendes, W., Balmer, K., Kaethler, T., & Rhoads, A., 2008.
Using Land Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture :
Experiences From Portland and Vancouver. In Journal
of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 435‑449.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802354923
Neuwirth, C., 2017. System dynamics simulations for data-
intensive applications. In Environmental Modelling &
Software, 96, 140‑145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.env
soft.2017.06.017
Rich, K. M., Rich, M., & Dizyee, K., 2018. Participatory
systems approaches for urban and peri-urban
agriculture planning : The role of system dynamics and
spatial group model building. In Agricultural Systems,
160, 110‑123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.
022
Smit, Jac, Ratta A., & Nasr J., 1997. Urban Agriculture,
Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. In Journal of
Nutrition Education, 29(6), 361‑362. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0022-3182(97)70254-1
Van Bertalanffy, L., 1948. General system theory.
Van Veenhuizen, R., 2001. L’intégration de l’agriculture
urbaine et péri-urbaine dans l’urbanisme. In Magazine
de l’agriculture urbaine, 4. https://www.ruaf.org/
sites/default/files/mau04.pdf
Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., & Howe, J. (Éds.)., 2005.
Continuous productive urban landscapes : Designing
urban agriculture for sustainable cities. In Architectural
Press [u.a.].
White, M. M., 2010. Shouldering Responsibility for the
Delivery of Human Rights : A Case Study of the D-
Town Farmers of Detroit. In Race/Ethnicity:
Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 3(2), 189‑211.
Wingo, P., Brookes, A., & Bolte, J., 2017. Modular and
spatially explicit : A novel approach to system
dynamics. In Environmental Modelling & Software, 94,
48‑62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.03.012.
GISTAM 2021 - 7th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management
228