Keywords

1 Introduction

Urbanization is an important driver of environmental change at different scales (Grimm et al., 2008). It causes habitat loss and fragmentation, over-exploitation of natural resources, pollution and climate change, with effects on human health and well-being (Raworth, 2017; Steffen et al., 2015). In Europe, about 75% of the population lived in urban areas in 2018, expected to reach about 85% by 2050 (UN DESA, 2019). While urban growth increasingly concentrates demands of ecosystem services, this leads in the same time to spatial shift of ecosystem service supply, due to dynamic land use changes, land consumption, and depletion of natural resources in the peri-urban landscape (Eigenbrod et al., 2011). As a consequence, the peri-urban landscape is a hotspot of multiple competing land use interests, like housing development, recreation, food production, and protection of wildlife habitat (Willemen et al., 2008).

Furthermore, urban growth has been identified as a significant factor to diminish productive farmland worldwide (Bren d’Amour et al., 2017). In Europe, more than 75% of all land uptake by urban and other artificial land development between 2000–2012 affected farmland (EEA, 2018). On the other hand, urban and peri-urban agriculture are considered as promising options for local food supply to address challenges of food justice and to promote sustainable development (IPCC, 2019). Thus, the depletion of productive agricultural land by urban growth diminishes opportunities for sustainability transformation and sustainable urban land use development.

To address these challenges, urban growth needs to take into account social, economic, and environmental dimensions to minimizing environmental degradation (UN DESA, 2019). Moreover, to address multifaceted character and to meet the demands of different interests of peri-urbanization processes holistic planning and policy approaches are needed for sustainable management of peri-urban landscapes addressing both socio-economic and spatial aspects (Shaw et al., 2020). Various different strategic spatial planning approaches have been developed in the meanwhile to address these challenges and to promote sustainable land use development in urban areas (Healey, 2006). The conception of Green Infrastructure (GI) is one of the latest thinking about spatial planning approaches contributing to sustainable development and to manage urban growth (Benedict & McMahon, 2002). It is being considered as promising and is increasingly receiving attention to promote the development of resilient cities (IASS, 2013; WBGU, 2016).

GI is understood as a strategically planned network in urban and rural landscapes, designed to deliver multiple ecosystem services (European Commission, 2013). Thus, multifunctionality is one of the core principles of GI planning. Ideally, GI planning aims to develop synergies between different functions that contribute to a number of environmental and social aims, such as biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation, green economy development, and social cohesion (Fig. 16.1).

Fig. 16.1
figure 1

Schematic illustration of the understanding of GI planning as conceptualized. (Adapted from Hansen et al., 2017 and reproduced from Rolf, 2020)

Full size image

Although GI planning is understood as an integrated cross-sectoral spatial planning approach, there are still knowledge gaps when it comes to urban and peri-urban utilizable agricultural land and its potentials to contribute to multifunctionality of GI. On the other hand, this would complement already established knowledge about multifunctionality of urban and peri-urban agriculture on multiple dimensions with regard to the landscape level (e.g. Mougeot, 2006; Piorr et al., 2018). Furthermore, it would build upon conceptions of integrated approaches for agricultural landscapes, such ‘differentiated land use’ (Haber, 1971), ‘diversified farming systems‘(Kremen & Miles, 2012) and multifunctionality as a management tool for sustainable agriculture and rural development (Mander et al., 2007; Renting et al., 2009; Wiggering et al., 2003). Furthermore, it extends the debate about the integration of utilizable agricultural land into urban spatial planning (e.g. Mougeot, 2006; Philips, 2013; Viljoen & Bohn, 2014) by directly relating it to the GI conception.

In this article a developed typology for the integration of multifunctional urban and peri-urban farmland in GI planning will be proposed that can be used for spatial planning to promote sustainable development.

2 Methodological Approach

The development of this typology was based on a two-tiered approach.

The first phase involved an inter- and transdisciplinary approach incorporating 15 stakeholders – researchers and local actors representing different interest sectors – to identify opportunities for multifunctional farmland suitable for GI development (Rolf et al., 2019). The study was conducted in the City of Malmö, Sweden. Malmö’s peri-urban landscape is dominated by agricultural land uses under very different prevailing natural conditions and site specific potentials and constrains, ranging from large scale agricultural land with primary arable land use management to rather heterogeneous farmland with diverse topography including semi natural grassland. By adapting normative scenario techniques from Nassauer and Corry (2004) the different knowledge holders collaboratively developed several ‘desirable farmland characteristics’ based on their valuations and appreciations of different functions and benefits. Out of these, the participants derived ‘strategic objectives’ that represent abstract conclusions of the individual cases, to enable transferability to other regional contexts.

The second phase involved evidence synthesis to reflect current research outcomes and to evaluate potential of urban and peri-urban farmland to tackle major urban challenges and contributing in various ways to the quality of life and human well-being in functional urban areas (Rolf et al., 2020). To assess evidence, a four-box-model was adapted from Moss and Schneider (2000) categorizing confidence of evidence into four classes: established, limited, indirect, and unverified (inconsistent or missing) evidence.

Finally, as a result from these two phases a typology of four different spatial planning strategies has emerged that link peri-urban farmland with GI planning, supporting the development of a multifunctional green space network.

3 Four Ways for Strategic Spatial Planning of a Multifunctional Green Space Network

As an outcome of the first tier, it becomes clear that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution for farmland, but strategic objectives to enhance multifunctionality needs to consider prevailing site conditions and underlying landscape parameters (primary topography, soil, water and micro climate) that define agricultural productivity (Rolf et al., 2019). Essentially, stakeholder agreed on two main strategy strands with four different objectives in total, to assist multifunctionality on highly-productive farmland on the one hand, and to assist multifunctionality on less-productive farmland on the other hand (Fig. 16.2). This study has shown that preferences can vary between different situations, and one and the same stakeholder considered functions more relevant in some places than in others.

Fig. 16.2
figure 2

Overview of the workshop outcomes with suggested strategy strands to assist multifunctionality in peri-urban farmland, with polar area chart used to illustrate the evaluation by the different stakeholders involved (red = urban planning, blue = urban space planning, purple = recreation planning, brown = cultural heritage conservation, green = nature conservation, yellow = agricultural management, blue = water resource management); full segment indicates core function, half segment indicates co-benefits and no segment indicates no benefit. (Based on Rolf et al., 2019)

Full size image

As an outcome of the second phase, the evidence synthesis includes 54 literature findings in total that have been assessed in accordance to the four GI objectives using the four-box-model as summarized in Fig. 16.3 (Rolf et al., 2020). In sum, although this study reveals research gaps that still need to be addressed, there is clear evidence that peri-urban farmland bears potentials to promote economic, social, and environmental benefits.

Fig. 16.3
figure 3

Overview of evidence synthesis, with assessment of confidence of evidence related to potential contribution in an explicit functional urban context using the four-box-model. (Based on Rolf et al., 2020)

Full size image

Finally, as an outcome of this two-tiered approach a typology of four different spatial planning strategies to integrate peri-urban farmland in GI planning emerged, supporting the development of a multifunctional green space network. As an abstraction of reality, these four ways can be understood as ideal types, that intertwine physical, ecological, social, as well as the economic functions, thus, contributing to multifunctional GI. They can stimulate discussion about how GI planning can and should incorporate utilizable agricultural land, especially the agriculturally dominated landscape at the urban fringe and its surroundings.

3.1 The Connecting Way – Multifunctional Farmland Corridors as Links

The connecting way aims to develop ‘multifunctional farmland corridors’ as links within agriculturally dominated green belts or rings at the urban fringe (Fig. 16.4). These, multifunctional farmland corridors function as linear network elements in a highly productive agricultural landscape.

Fig. 16.4
figure 4

Illustration of multifunctional farmland corridors with potential key functions and benefits. (Rolf, 2020)

Full size image

They enhance accessibility of the wider landscape for urban dwellers and contribute to a functional recreational network, offering opportunities for leisure activities, such as walking, cycling, and riding. Accompanying margin strips promote dispersal within the landscape matrix and provide small habitat opportunities for wildlife thereby augmenting urban biodiversity. Furthermore, these multifunctional farmland corridors can be beneficial for farmers, contributing to biological pest control and pollination or prevent soil erosion, while providing farm tracks. Thus, within the agriculturally dominated landscape matrix they coherently and mutually reinforce multiple functions. The involvement of land owners of adjacent properties as well as current track users (farmers, recreational users etc.) is considered to be essential. Thus, infrastructural developments, land consolidation procedures and reparcelling offer a ‘window of opportunity’ or by subsequent integration with the existing farm infrastructure and to synergize effects.

3.2 The Productive Way – Multifunctional Sites for Value Added Farm Production

The productive way is particular suitable for sites of high productivity. It aims to combine GI development with the agricultural production cycle on- site that benefits directly from the site fertility. It combines food production with the inclusion of further social functions, such as recreation, regeneration, and education, into agricultural production, and which offers new farming models and relationships between consumer and producer (Fig. 16.5).

Fig. 16.5
figure 5

Illustration of productive farmland with potential key functions and benefits. (Rolf, 2020)

Full size image

Business models, such as rent-a-field farms or self-picking farms (e.g., fruit, vegetables, flowers) enable an ‘on-field’ experience for citizens in their spare time or at the weekend. Thus, it offers opportunities for alternative business models and new income situations, promoting transition pathways towards sustainable economic growth in the agricultural sector. Hence, the integration of ‘productive farmland’ in spatial planning strategies bears potential to support multiple benefits, contributing to the livability of the urban environment. Furthermore, it does not just offer potentials for cross-sectoral planning, collaboration and cooperation between farmers and urban development authorities, but stimulates networks and active involvement to strengthen relationships between farmers and citizens.

3.3 The Integrated Way – Multifunctional Semi-natural Farmland

Next, the integrated way of ‘multifunctional semi-natural farmland’ takes into account region-specific management practices that are constrained by prevailing environmental conditions (soil, climate, topography) and their geophysical constraints. It can be related to traditional agricultural management of which multiple natural and cultural values have been well investigated all across Europe (Oppermann, 2012). Accordingly, management can be very different, with or without livestock or mixed, leading to different farmland character, ranging from grassland systems, such as meadows and pastures, to agroforestry and cropping systems, like pastoral woodland, orchards, olive groves and other arable systems and may be in some cases also considered as high nature value farmland (Paracchini & Capitani, 2012). Interdependencies between their relevance for biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in these agroecosystems are evident. Because it is well known that peri-urban agricultural landscape has the ability to provide a number of positive externalities to the urban public the integrated way enables to contribute integrated amenities, such as ecological and social-cultural functions and values to the quality of the urban environment (Fig. 16.6). Furthermore, the integration of semi-natural farmland as vital part in urban development, offers opportunities to promote ecosystem stewardship and collaboration, generating and catalyzing new pathways for innovative ecosystem management leading to more sustainable and balanced land use and urban growth. Quantitative analysis suggests significant spatial potential for low-intensity farmland within the peri-urban landscape (Rolf et al., 2018).

Fig. 16.6
figure 6

Illustration of semi-natural farmland with potential key functions and benefits. (Rolf, 2020)

Full size image

3.4 The Adapted Way – Farming Interventions to Develop Multifunctional Sites

The adapted way sheds light on farming management as interventions at sites that have not been under agricultural cultivation previously. Here, agricultural land use is being initiated as a measure to provide new functions and benefits (Fig. 16.7). Low-intensity farming can promote active ecological rehabilitation and restoration for the reparation of ecosystem processes, functions and services and to support the re-establishment of species compositions and community structure (SER, 2004). As such grassland farming systems can contribute to climate change adaption by inner-urban stormwater retention sites, supplementing green river banks and inner-city fields as ventilation corridors and urban cooling. Although empirical studies are limited, interrelations between social-cultural services farms, nature experience and education for urban dwellers, school classes seem promising. Inner-urban grazing management has the potential to add aesthetical and recreational values. In sum, adapted farming may be understood as an intervention to complement or further develop multifunctional GI by providing additional benefits. Adapted farming offers new opportunities for cooperation with farmers and to develop new business models for GI maintenance. Nevertheless, agricultural production is of subordinate relevance at such sites. If farming management is supposed to support functions and provide benefits to the urban people, strong incentives are needed to involve farmers in such interventions.

Fig. 16.7
figure 7

Illustration of adapted farmland with potential key functions and benefits. (Rolf, 2020)

Full size image

4 Conclusions

This article contributes to the conceptual understanding of multifunctionality planning to enhance GI as a strategic spatial planning approach that incorporates peri-urban farmland. It shows that multifunctionality planning needs to consider ecological site characteristics that define landscape conditions. Furthermore, it suggests that multifunctionality can be very different across the whole agricultural landscape matrix. Emerging from the conducted participatory approach involving stakeholders two main aspects can be concluded:

  • Multifunctionality benefits from the landscape context and promotes intertwined functions.

  • The dialog between different stakeholders can be seen as an iterative process that helps to mediate conflicts and to minimize trade-offs, to actively develop synergies resulting into different intertwined functions.

As an outcome of this work, essentially four different spatial planning strategies are proposed that show the ability to link peri-urban farmland with the GI conception, contributing to the development of a multifunctional open space network. These strategies can be used as recommendations to stimulate Green Infrastructure planning for the agriculturally dominated landscape at the urban fringe and its surroundings. Furthermore, it may give impulses on how also inner-urban utilizable agricultural land may be further developed. However, these findings need to be carefully applied and need to be adapted to the local context. More importantly, they need to be negotiated with local stakeholders for acceptance and successful implementation. Thus, these strategies cannot be applied one by one but do offer promising starting points, as they are outcome of a transdisciplinary processes and co-designed in cooperation with different stakeholders including farmers as key actors.