Motivations, Supporting Factors and Challenges for Urban Agriculture in Public Space: Experiences from Oslo

Abstract

In this chapter we present case studies from Oslo (2018–2020), in which we explore ways of integrating urban agriculture in urban public spaces. We collected project initiators’ and managers’ experiences through interviews from eight urban agriculture projects representing a range of typologies, scales, and organizational models, from the city farm to small experimental cultivation projects. The objective is to uncover motivations, organizational issues of urban agriculture in public space, potential well-being impacts for city dwellers, and publicness aspects for a broader community. We find urban agriculture projects’ motivations emphasizing creating social meeting places and learning arenas for cultivation and ecological knowledge. Urban agriculture has also been used as a tool in local urban space development to improve well-being by using urban agriculture in public space to activate and unused space safer, as well as integrating cultivation in green space management in innovative ways. We discuss supporting and challenging factors to succeed with practicing urban agriculture in public space. To ensure accessibility for large and diverse segments of urban populations, we found that perceived publicness of spaces could be increased through deliberate design.

1 Introduction

How do we practice urban agriculture in public space? In this chapter we present case studies from Oslo, in which urban agriculture has been integrated in urban public spaces. We have collected experiences from eight urban agriculture projects of various typologies, scales, and organizational models, from the city farm to small experimental cultivation projects. The projects represent four ways of organizing urban agriculture activities in public space that take aim of being accessible for large and diverse segments of urban populations. In this study we focus on aspects of urban agriculture in public space that can be relevant in the development of socially sustainable compact neighborhoods. We have used Woodcraft and colleagues’ (2012) understanding of social sustainability as bearing on “… the infrastructure to support social and cultural life, social amenities, systems for citizen engagement and space for people and places to evolve” (p. 16). The overall objective of this study was to uncover organizational issues of urban agriculture in public space, potential well-being impacts for city dwellers, and publicness aspects for a broader community.

The existing research on urban agriculture and the multifaceted impact on the well-being of those who participate in it has mainly taken a qualitative approach (for a literature review, see Audate et al., 2019). Research has reported benefits of participation in urban agriculture activities that can relate to quality of life in the city, such as aesthetic and social experience (Hale et al., 2011) and social cohesion (Veen et al., 2016). Urban agriculture has also been connected to learning, eco-literacy (Rogge et al., 2020) and healthy eating (Litt et al., 2015). In a review of quantitative evidence of health impacts of urban agriculture, Tharrey and Darmon (2022) revealed mixed results regarding improved physiological health and physical activity but positive associations between urban agriculture activity and improved mental and social health.

Considering previous research, it seems fruitful to apply a eudemonic understanding of well-being when studying benefits from urban agriculture (see Chap. 1) since many of the benefits reported relate to social interaction, learning, and self-actualization which again relate to the idea of human flourishing. In our research we therefore used the capability approach of Nussbaum (2011) to understand what a good life in the city can entail. Nussbaum draws on the eudemonic traditions for understanding human well-being and opportunity to live a life in dignity. She outlines a set of opportunities, or what she refers to as ‘capabilities’, that can enable people to live a good life. These capabilities include experiencing safety and bodily integrity, possessing the right to political anticipation, and exerting control over one’s own environment. They also encompass feelings of affiliation or belonging, being able to express oneself creatively, engaging with one’s senses, as well as maintaining contact with nature and the living world. Employing the capability approach which acknowledges the importance of such wide range of aspects of everyday life, we could explore the potential of urban agriculture as a public space use that contributes to human well-being in the city.

To uncover the potential of urban agriculture to create inclusive, public meeting places, we analyze the cases in terms of publicness, understood as opportunities for interactions in and with physical space that link people (Tornaghi & Knierbein, 2014). We have used the conceptualization of publicness relevant for urban agriculture in public space by Murphy et al. (2023) (see Chap. 4). Using this conceptualization, we could identify how urban agriculture could support publicness in each case through increasing access and animation in urban space, contributing to social services, producing and distributing food, and building communities to spread cultivation knowledge.

1.1 Context and Objective

During the last decade, there has been an upsurge of urban agriculture projects in Oslo. Based on the knowledge on the potential benefits of urban agriculture activities, the municipality has developed a strategy for urban agriculture (Oslo Kommune, 2019). The strategy has five goals that focus on the capacity of urban agriculture to green the city, local food production, creating meeting places and learning arenas, and contributing to Oslo becoming a cooperating knowledge city (see Chaps. 11 and 12). The municipality operates with ten typologies of urban agriculture projects, from publicly accessible edible parks to therapeutic gardens for institutions (Oslo Kommune, 2022).

The Cultivating Public Space (CPS) project focuses on how urban agriculture can be systematically integrated in urban public spaces, ensuring its accessibility for large and diverse segments of urban populations (see Chap. 1). In this chapter we explored the range of urban agriculture practices experienced in public space in Oslo through interviews and observations. The objective of this case study was to (1) uncover organizational issues of urban agriculture in public space: identifying typologies of public urban agriculture in Oslo and mapping motives, supporting factors, challenges, and visions for practicing urban agriculture within cases representing these typologies, and (2) identify publicness impacts, addressing the potential of urban agriculture for creating inclusive meeting places for the broader community.

2 Methods

2.1 Methodological Approach

We analyzed and collected experiences from eight urban agriculture projects in Oslo. Through interviews with project initiators and managers, we mapped experiences of practicing urban agriculture in public space, both in practical terms and in terms of meaning or benefits to the users or local community. We studied the projects over time through field visits and initial and follow-up interviews a year later with initiators and project managers. This research approach allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of the cases that could give insights into how urban agriculture can be systematically integrated in urban public spaces and ensure accessibility to a wider population.

2.2 Case Selection and Analysis

Our case selection was a collaborative effort with key public, private, and non-governmental stakeholders who were gathered in two workshops, organized by the CPS project partners. With additional conversations with urban agriculture project leaders we got a comprehensive overview of the diverse urban agriculture initiatives in public spaces in Oslo, which were active until June 2018. In total, we considered 20 cases, which we categorized using Lohrberg’s (2019) typologies of urban agriculture and the primary, secondary, and tertiary users’ framework described in Eason (1988) (Appendix 1).

Based on field visits and mapping, we selected cases that were (1) situated in accessible public spaces, (2) within densification areas, and (3) offered collective cultivation/food production. The selection also represented a variety in typologies, scales, and organizational models of public urban agriculture. The cases (Table 6.1, Fig. 6.1) are not an exhaustive overview of all the ways of practicing urban agriculture in public space. Rather, they describe typologies and organizational models visible in the Norwegian context. In our study we therefore found it advantageous to differentiate the broad category of collective food production in urban gardening with which Lohrberg (2019) operates, into four typologies/models: the ‘City Farm;’ Urban agriculture in central public parks the ‘Neighborhood Garden;’ and Innovative Urban Agriculture-Gardens in Public Spaces.

Table 6.1 Selected cases of urban agriculture projects in Oslo 2018–2019

Fig. 6.1

Location of the eight cases in Oslo

All the projects was initiated between 2011 and 2018 and received funding from either a foundation or the municipality’s urban agriculture funding scheme. Some projects even secured financing through funds in support of public art in urban regeneration areas.

We developed our case descriptions and analyses, applying the conceptualization of publicness relevant to urban agriculture in public space (Murphy et al., 2023; see Chap. 4). Our field visits and interviews detailed the cases in terms of location and connectivity, design and amenities, management, and activities. This approach allowed us to assess how urban agriculture activity could support publicness in each case, by increasing access and animation in public space, contributing to municipal services, producing food, and networking communities to spread cultivation knowledge.

2.3 Project Initiators and Managers’ Experiences

From March 2018 till February 2020 we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with project initiators and managers. In the first year, the interviews focused on the background and motivation for the initiative, organizational matters, cooperation with other actors, activities yearly programming and expectations for the coming season. The second year was part evaluation and follow-up and part reflection on the achievements and challenges of the project. Some projects had multiple managers or coordinators whose perspectives could contribute to a deeper understanding of the project. In some projects, new managers took over after the second year, and one project ended after the first year.

We analyzed and transcribed interviews with the project managers, conducting a thematic content analysis on the material (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This helped us identify (1) motives for initiating the projects; (2) supporting factors, or what made it possible; (3) challenges in practicing urban agriculture in public space; and (4) visions or potentials for further development. We discussed and decided what characterized each case on these four topics that were especially relevant for understanding urban agriculture in public space. The interviews with project managers were a source of valuable information to describe the cases in addition to the projects’ web pages. See Appendix 2 for research ethics.

3 Experiences from Oslo

In the following we briefly describe each case and present our findings related to motives, supporting factors, challenges, and visions for practicing urban agriculture in public space based on interviews with initiators or managers’ experiences. Then, for each case we present an overall assessment of publicness relevant to urban agriculture activities (Murphy et al., 2023) to draw possible comparisons across the typologies of urban agriculture projects. In the discussion and concluding section, we address aspects relevant to practicing urban agriculture in public spaces and review lessons learnt.

3.1 City Farm

Losæter is park of the central Oslo redevelopment area, Bjørvika, and represents the ‘city farm’ urban agriculture typology. Table 6.2 provides a description of the case. Pictures 6.1 and 6.2 show the site and its surroundings.

Table 6.2 Case description Losæter representing the city farm typology

Picture 6.1

The social facilities and vegetable bed at Losæter. (Photo: Brooke Porter)

Picture 6.2

The baking house at Losæter. (Photo: Brooke Porter)

3.1.1 Initiating and Managing Urban Agriculture in Public Space

In the following sections, we present our findings derived from interviews with the initiator and the two Losaeter city farmers.

3.1.2 Motives

The project’s main objective was described by the initiator of Losæter, to become an outdoor culture institution in the city. This can be traced back to its genesis as a public artwork, being a part of the regeneration of the waterfront of Oslo. “They aimed to create a ‘cultural institution without walls’ with a focus on intangible cultural heritage. A central emphasis of the art project was the importance of tacit knowledge and skills in crafts, such as the baking of traditional bread and the handling of wood-fired ovens. Losæter was envisioned as a place where these skills could be practiced, preserved, and passed on. This makes knowledge dissemination focusing on cultural heritage another central objective of the project. The activities of cultivating, preparing, and preserving fruits, vegetables, and bread serve as a means to create an arena for arts and creativity. This was also connected to a third objective, participation and empowerment. Losæter wanted to provide meaningful experiences to visitors as active contributors to the various activities. According to the initiator, empowering citizens was an important motive for the project, showing people how they “... can act and influence their environment and the city and their own life” and linked this motive directly to public health.

3.1.3 Supporting Factors

In this project some guiding principles of organization were highlighted as supporting factors. The project’s success was ascribed to the overarching idea of organic development of the place. As the first city farmer described it: “… it’s a strength that we do not have a clear strategy plan, because that is exactly what makes room for things to develop organically based on the people who joins, and wants something, or has the knowledge about something.” Aesthetically, the project strives to keep it “unfinished” with a rougher surface than elsewhere. This intentional aesthetic choice aims at fostering a sense of inclusivity by making people feel they can join and contribute without extensive knowledge or skills. Another guiding principle was making room for experimentation by testing out prototypes such as the initial parcel garden (Herligheten) and a baking house. The initiator pointed out that the process of creating Losæter was unique, in that it allowed for a long-term perspective, to test the response in the population. These guiding principles seemed to affect the expressions of creativity and the activities at Losæter. The second city farmer concluded that less control or rules make people more creative, and he observed that people tend to forget themselves when working in a group and toward a common goal. Although Losæter was open for experimentation and user influence, the cultivation activity was still run by the city farmer securing a high level of professionality, which also seemed to characterize the place and its success.

3.1.4 Challenges

Overall, the initiator and the city farmers mentioned a few challenges with the project. Losæter is a designated public park in the waterfront area in central Oslo, but one may question the perceived publicness of the place. Combining a welcoming public park with a highly professionalized hub for specialized baking and cultivation may be challenging. Losæter did offer activities for a broad spectrum of user (i.e., pupils, youth in vocational training, people with dementia, local immigrant women). Still, both social and physical barriers may exist for entering the park as a visitor and joining the activities. Both the city farmers insisted that the users are diverse and internationally represented. One admitted that it has become a place for engaged young adults that now finally have found their place for cultivation in the city: “I think that also has something to do with the aesthetics out here […] I think it appeals to that group […] not those who are stressed by the fact that it is not so damn nice and that we do not have the signs in order and all that.” The other city farmer pointed to aesthetics as being a potential social barrier that may be present at Losæter, namely, that some people associate graffiti and pallet collars with alternative, social groups. Examples of physical obstacles were no signs directing people to the place, and the main gate was hidden and situated on a heavily trafficked road. One of the city farmers described this as a key to protecting it from the crowds of the neighboring popular waterfront sites and keeping the atmosphere and contrasting aesthetics of the place.

3.1.5 Visions

At Losæter the above-described organic development strategy kept the management from having too clear a vision for the place instead letting it evolve as freely as possible. However, the first city farmer desired to develop the place as a hub for farmers interested in using regenerative farming¹ as a unifier of farming movements, envisioning it as a place where growers from both conventional and organic movements could meet and engage in dialogue. The city farmers also expressed a desire to forge partnerships with local and national arts and culture institutions, such as the Munch Museum and Deichman, Oslo’s main public library.

3.2 Urban Agriculture in Central Public Parks

The typology urban agriculture in central urban parks is exemplified by the case Schous plass/Sofienbergparken described in Table 6.3 and Snippen in Table 6.4. Pictures 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5. show how cultivation areas fit into the two parks.

Table 6.3 Case description of Schous plass and Sofienbergparken, representing the typology urban agriculture in central urban parks

Table 6.4 Case description of Snippen representing the typology urban agriculture in central urban parks

Picture 6.3

Schous plass with cultivation in former flowerbeds around the library. (Photo: Troels Rosenkrantz Fuglsang)

Picture 6.4

Layout of the Sofienbergparken cultivated areas. (Photo: Vebjørn Stafseng)

Picture 6.5

Snippen seen from the street. (Photo: Beata Sirowy)

3.2.1 Initiating and Managing Urban Agriculture in Public Space

In the following, we present our findings on practicing urban agriculture in public space based on interviews with the coordinator of park management and the project coordinator in District Gråunerløkka, the head of the District Grünerløkka Library, and the project coordinator for Snippen at District Gamle Oslo.

3.2.2 Motives

One primary motivation for introducing urban agriculture into the central public park management of the Grünerløkka District was to activate the parks, and thereby enhancing their safety and security. The parks and public squares selected for urban agriculture witnessed significant improvements. Through cultivation, introducing new organized activities, and ensuring the presence of employees, volunteers, and youth employed during the summer. In the Gamle Oslo - Tøyen District, the Snippen Park project wanted urban agriculture to encourage the multicultural community to use public space more actively and in new ways. Participation and empowerment were important motivations. In the words of the Snippen Project coordinator: “…instead of saying that a municipal service tries to fix people’s problems, you support them, you empower them to make possible what they want. And they want green social meeting places.” By engaging local teenagers in green space management, District Grünerløkka also sought to give them essential vocational training, as part of a community scheme against child poverty, and improve their sense of belonging. Finally, cooperation between the green space management and the local library was established to disseminate knowledge on food systems and ecology. The head of the local library, who had been involved in most of the activities of the Schous project, saw dissemination of knowledge as an essential motivation. He also expressed the wish to change the outdoor space through a programming of activities from Spring to Fall and to create a sense of belonging by facilitating encounters across generations and minorities.

3.2.3 Supporting Factors

The success of the establishment of the projects in District Grünerløkka was ascribed to the collaboration across sectors and the public-private partnerships created in the process. Both projects involved a mix of actors from different sectors in the municipality, private enterprises, and volunteers. The head of the local library emphasized the need for careful selection of partners and the reliance on enthusiasts [ildsjeler] or drivers to achieve their goals. The involvement of youth and volunteers in the operation of parks and public spaces underscored the importance of technical expertise, which was instrumental in the projects’ success. This is exemplified by the diverse range of competences needed from the various actors involved in the projects, such as in design, horticulture, social work, and pedagog. According to the District Grünerløkka project coordinator, they involved youth vocational training, “but the final touch [is] done by professionals. And I think it has a lot to say in these public spaces, that it [is] proper, it [is] nicely executed.” According to the project coordinator, District Grünerløkka professionals affiliated with the project provided special competences and library management offered the requird daily support.

Finally, the willingness to test innovative practices seemed to be a key strategy. By innovative practice, we mean new ways of thinking partnerships and collaboration, activating public spaces, and green space maintenance. In the Grünerløkka district, they used existing funding for green space maintenance to cultivate edible instead of ornamentals. At Snippen, they gave volunteers a space to practice vegetable cultivation as well as socialization, while keeping a part of the park lush, publicly accessible and well-kept. These examples all shared a common dimension of multifunctionality in the occupation of public spaces.

3.2.4 Challenges

The projects in Schous plass and Sofienbergparken were described as successful in several ways. Their events were well attended and appreciated, but they would have liked to engage more residents in everyday activities. They describe some instances of lack of appreciation of urban agriculture by the general public. The project coordinator in District Grünerløkka was concerned about people’s perceptions of urban agriculture as “a gimmick” and that public health benefits from cultivation activities were not given the deserved attention. The projects encountered several design-related challenges, with the Snippen project facing obstacles both practically and in communication. The project manager experienced reactions from the public while working in the park, due to the lack of signage identifying their project. “The reaction we got sometimes was ‘you are doing something illegal’ ‘What are you doing?’ ‘This is not yours; you cannot do this.’” The practical challenges were a lack of a tool shed and access to water on the site, which made them have to carry all tools and attached hoses to distant water sources. Furthermore, the design of the planter boxes provided by the municipality (Picture 6.6) proved not to be suited for vegetable growing and was too wide for kindergarten children. Finally, both projects had issues relating to their temporary mandate for using the space for urban agriculture. Schous plass was planned to be transformed into a paved square, but the project initiators kept developing it in line with the project, and the head of the local library argued that they had transformed the square for less than the official plans. The integration of cultivation within Snippen park remained a pilot project lasting for only one season.

Picture 6.6

Voksenenga nærmiljøhage, its facilities, and the see-through fence surrounding it. (Photo: Katinka Evensen)

3.2.5 Visions

The project managers saw potential embedding multifunctional cultivation in public green space. The Grünerløkka project coordinator had ideas for smarter and even more useful ways for managing cultivation activity at a district level, like transforming parts of parks into edible gardens that can also function as school garden. They also wished to implement and expand systems for circularity in practice, such as using surplus from local restaurants for compost. The local public library wished to increase the cultivated area in the surrounding public space: “My plan is actually to expand, because I see the whole lawn on this side [of the square], I would like a field there” (head of local library).

3.3 Neighborhood Garden

The typology neighborhood garden is exemplified by the cases Voksenenga nærmiljøhage, described in Table 6.5, Ellingsrud parsellhage (allotment garden) (Table 6.6) and Dr. Dedichens Drivhus (greenhouse) (Table 6.7). Pictures 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8 show how cultivation areas fit into their public green space.

Table 6.5 Description of the case Voksenenga nærmiljøhage, representing the urban agriculture typology neighborhood garden

Table 6.6 Description of the case Ellingsrud parsellhage (allotment garden), representing the urban agriculture typology neighborhood garden

Table 6.7 Description of the case Dr. Dedichens’ Greenhouse, representing the urban agriculture typology neighborhood garden

Picture 6.7

The Ellingsrud allotment garden and its surroundings. (Photo: Anne Grete Orlien)

Picture 6.8

Interiors of Dr. Dedichens greenhouse, with activity space and cultivation facilities. (Photo: Brooke Porter)

3.3.1 Initiating and Managing Urban Agriculture in Public Space

In the following we present our findings on practicing urban agriculture in public space based on interviews with two project managers and one board member from one of our chosen neighborhood gardens.

3.3.2 Motives

An important objective for all three projects was to become a social meeting place for local residents. The manager in Voksenenga nærmiljøhage pointed at a shortage of social meeting places in the neighborhood beyond all the sports arenas. She clarified that the meeting place function was important: “…it probably really trumps the cultivation itself. Cultivation for us is a tool to achieve more social goals.” The project manager in Ellingsrud Parsellhage also mentioned using urban agriculture to cultivate a culture for creating more open and welcoming common outdoor areas. The neighborhood gardens were described as providing a venue for outdoor activities beyond the home. A goal was to create a pleasant and attractive outdoor space for everyone, including those not interested in cultivation, in order to draw people out of their apartments. The cultivation activity in the family club at Voksenenga Nærmiljøhage was at times secondary to providing an outside home arena where especially minority women appreciated getting outside and meeting others. In Ellingsrud Parsellhage, the motive of activating the place and the green space specifically through urban agriculture activity was deemed important, with the aim of improving neighborhood safety. Meanwhile, at Dr. Dedichens Drivhus, the activation of the place was also utilized for the purpose of conserving historical buildings. Lastly, all three projects had the motive of serving as a supplementary educational arena for schools and kindergartens, welcoming groups of children.

3.3.3 Supporting Factors

Having a coordinator to oversee the neighborhood garden was identified as crucial by all the projects. The role of the coordinator was described as being more than just an administrator, like the Voksenenga project manager who emphasized the importance of having time for conversation and recognizing individuals. Networking and collaboration with various local actors, such as the district administration, the local church, farm, and sports clubs, were cited as important in all three projects. The manager of Voksenenga Nærmiljøhage also stated that their project model was a combination of co-creation/networking and having a coordinator “There are many collaborations here and it is the model I have seen work elsewhere in Europe, that it is co-creation, but also the fact that it is a project manager in a paid position who holds it.” Another supporting factor, particularly described by the managers of Dr. Dedichens Drivhus and Ellingsrud Parsellhage, can be termed as keeping scale and ambitions low. The managers described a situation where they allowed volunteers to freely start small projects within their capacity to ensure implementation.

3.3.4 Challenges

Project representatives from all neighborhood gardens saw organizing volunteers as a critical challenge, that demanded a lot of time from coordinators. It also demanded caring for the volunteers, making their work pleasurable, and ensuring they did not wear themselves out. They all called for a sound system to organize volunteers. While one of the options would have been to be professionally managed by an external organization, the Voksenenga nærmiljøhage manager argued that it would undermine its role as a meeting place for residents in the local community: “…we wish to be a meeting place for local residents, and if we include organizations that are concerned with ecology, organic agriculture, yes, those values, then I think it may be perceived as excluding to the others.” Both Voksenenga Nærmiljøhage and Dr. Dedichens Drivhus worked hard to secure more permanent support for organizing their activities but found a lack of recognition at the district level and felt they were expected to manage on voluntary work. All projects struggled with resources to offer a satisfactory educational program. For instance, Dr. Dedichens Drivhus would have liked to have a pedagogical position to welcome all the schools and kindergartens visiting. In Voksenenga Nærmiljøhage, they cooperated well with the municipality, and they believed that the municipality appreciated their efforts. However, the manager felt that because Voksenenga Nærmiljøhage was a private voluntary organization, neither the Agency for Urban Environment nor the local district administration was willing to assume more financial responsibility. All projects had temporary agreements with the respective landowners, creating uncertainty and difficulties in planning ahead. However, the element of temporality in the projects may have also been one of the reasons for their existence. In Ellingsrud Parsellhage, they had an agreement with the Agency for Urban Environment, and the project manager stated that the collaboration had a degree of reciprocity, in that the municipality had an interest in the place being cared for and maintained.

3.3.5 Visions

The neighborhood gardens we studied all welcomed kindergartens, school classes, and after-school clubs, and in Dr. Dedichens Drivhus and Voksenenga nærmiljøhage, the project managers saw a great potential in receiving even more children if they were not to rely on volunteers only but have a person in a combined pedagogical and administrative position. This also reflects a common wish among the neighborhood gardens: to become publicly funded and be included or part of local public services. Another potential that was expressed was to create a culture for open accessible active outdoor spaces, through cultivation activities. Finally, Dr. Dedichens Drivhus and Ellingsrud parsellhage shared a vision of preserving local history by activating public space through cultivation. Dr. Dedichens Drivhus would like to restore the greenhouse and the historical buildings of a psychiatric hospital to become useful for the community (see more in Swensen et al., 2022). In Ellingsrud parsellhage they planned to expand by establishing a community garden on a derelict cotter’s farm in the urban forest in collaboration with enthusiasts of local history, making it an activity and hiking destination.

3.4 Innovative Urban Agriculture-Gardens in Public Space

Sagenetakhage (rooftop garden) and Grønlands flytende hage (floating garden, the project evolved into Oslo Fjordhage), represent innovative urban agriculture-gardens in public space and are described in Tables 6.8 and 6.9. Pictures 6.9, 6.10, and 6.11 show their design and location within the Oslo public realm.

Table 6.8 Description of the case Sagene rooftop garden, representing the urban agriculture typology “Innovative urban agriculture-garden in public space”

Table 6.9 Description of the case Grønlands flytende hage, representing the urban agriculture typology “Innovative urban agriculture-garden in public space”

Picture 6.9

Cultivation beds on Sagene rooftop garden. (Photo: Janet Rojas)

Picture 6.10

The Grønlands floating garden in its initial location along the river Akerselva. (Photo: Jølin Egner Stokke)

Picture 6.11

The Oslo Fjordhage floating garden on the Oslo waterfront. (Photo: Katinka H. Evensen)

3.4.1 Initiating and Managing Urban Agriculture in Public Space

In the following section, we present our findings on practicing urban agriculture in public space based on interviews with two co-initiators of the rooftop garden and the initiator of the floating garden.

3.4.2 Motives

Albeit different in form and organization, the rooftop and floating garden show some similarities in terms of urban agriculture innovation. Being new and untested in the local context, both projects were motivated by a desire for developing innovative urban garden typologies. In Sagene rooftop garden this motive was centered around the issue of unused space in the city when taking rooftops into account. Inspired by European cities like Paris, they wanted to make cultivated rooftop gardens a reality in Oslo and Norway as well. They also aimed to act as agents in local public space development. In the case of Grønland floating garden, one of the main motives was to make a difference in the urban public space especially in areas considered problematic due to drug use: “I want to use it as a showcase, because not only can we make this place nicer […]. But getting to chat with people, or that there is activity here, can have the ripple effect that makes those who do more shady activities, that they are not chased away, but that they behave properly, that this takes place in civic forms” (Project manager, floating garden). In this way, the goal was to enhance the livability of the area. A transformation process was underway, as part of the waterfront development in Oslo. According to the project leader, this process predominantly benefited major actors and property developers. With this project, they sought to represent non-commercial interests and serve as a productive force in creating a more inclusive space.

The initiator of the floating garden project, a teacher at a local high school, expressed a clear motivation to combine the local urban development impact of the project with his teaching activities. Sagene rooftop garden had no formal connection to schools or kindergartens, but held regular open days. Therefore, developing an educational arena for schools and kindergarten and showcase for food production in the city were common motives. For the floating garden, the goal was to get the students out of the classroom and give them more practical experiences. In Sagene rooftop garden, learning was a key motivation, with information signs and organized events for local children as educational moments.

3.4.3 Supporting Factors

The first common supporting factor in these projects was competence. To succeed in these innovative projects, a variety of competencies seemed needed. At the rooftop garden, multidisciplinarity was a crucial factor: the whole multidisciplinary group of people, that is part of the success […] because we are engineers and have no bearing on cultivation, and those who cultivate, they do not like to work with lawyers and contracts (Co-initiator, Sagene rooftop garden). In both the rooftop and floating gardens cultivation of plants on roofs and water required seeking specialized competences on materials. However, the technical expertise would be insufficient in the end they also needed do it in practice, as the initiator of the floating garden expressed it: “I have learned this quite thoroughly; one should not overestimate people with ‘papers’ in such projects. […] In the world we operate in, hands-on experience is what truly counts, nothing else.”

In the rooftop garden, formal collaborations with prominent actors and entrepreneurs were as crucial as collaboration with local actors. They especially valued their collaboration with the local café and ecological grocery store: “[…] the main reason is to work together in ‘dugnad’ (community work), so that everyone can have fun.” The collaboration with a center for food culture for children nearby was also essential, as it gave them access to the greenhouse. At the floating garden, an important aspect was involving local users of the space, regardless of whether they were considered problematic. By interacting with and involving them, the hope was that they would protect and prevent vandalism of the floating garden and its riverbank neighbor, the wooden boat rental. A third supporting factor is determination, which was visible and necessary to all the cases studied in this project. Still, seeing the list of challenges experienced by these innovative projects, it seems reasonable to give it special attention. The floating garden adopted a “just-do-it” mentality exemplified by dealing with municipality regulations. The project manager described lengthy communications with the municipality about bureaucratic requirements. In the end the pilot raft was launched, and they informed the municipality instead of asking.

3.4.4 Challenges

Some primary challenges for the innovative urban agriculture gardens were related to juridical, technical, and aesthetical issues. In breaking ground, both gardens experienced overwhelming legal requirements to initiating their projects. For the rooftop garden, most of the juridical and technical issues came from the carrying capacity of the rooftop itself. This kind of calculations required qualified experts’ involvement, and formal contracts for insurance issues/reasons. For the floating garden, they found themselves being asked to apply for a building permit, as if they were constructing a permanent structure.

Also connected to issues concerning technical requirements is the aesthetics of an innovative urban agriculture garden. At the rooftop garden, engineers calculated a carrying capacity allowing for certain parts of the rooftop to carry a limited weight. This would allow them to put planter boxes with a lot of space between them spread across the surface. To the project initiator group, this did not meet their esthetical standards, and they had to bring in a landscape architect to draw a design where the weight is spread more evenly. According to them, the fact that the garden is in public space necessitated a certain aesthetics: “I think that Sagene takhage is one of few [rooftop gardens] that are publicly accessible […] so it’s very important that it always looks nice and lush” (Project co-initiator, Sagene rooftop garden).

Another challenge described by both project managers was navigating bureaucracy. Dealing with these technical and legal issues is costly and time-consuming, especially for low-budget, volunteer-based projects. In both projects, they put down hundreds of hours in meetings, inquiries, writing applications, and contract work. A final challenge for both initiatives is collaboration with landowners. The initiators of these projects expected that gardens would be considered valuable in the city and that all relevant actors would be collaborative. The floating garden project spent a lot of time getting the right permissions to use the public space. As for the rooftop garden initiators, it came as a surprise to experience that the members of the board of the housing cooperative (the landowner) were skeptical and had concerns about the garden potentially attracting youth and drug-related problems: “[…] for us it was a great surprise that not everyone was jumping for joy to have a rooftop garden” (Co-initiator, Sagene rooftop garden). The project group selected the space as suitable for a rooftop garden. Still, there was no pre-established connection between the project group and the housing cooperative, which may have given the project less grounding.

3.4.5 Visions

The project managers from both innovative urban agriculture gardens we studied seemed to have a vision of developing rooftop garden and floating school garden as typologies for urban public cultivation of the future. They saw potential in exploiting unused and even unexpected public spaces, like the river and fjord, for areas for urban agriculture activity.

3.5 Assessments of Urban Agriculture’s Contribution to Publicness

Based on Murphy and Grabalov (Chap. 4) we assessed each urban agriculture case’s contribution to publicness. The assessments revealed that the location and design of the cultivation area were decisive in whether the place increased accessibility and the space’s animation. The Sagene rooftop and Ellingsrud neighborhood garden are examples of urban agriculture projects that succeeded in opening the space to a larger public. However, the same two cases and Snippen, only contributed social services to a smaller public. Being a suitable place to offer social services such as educational, vocational, or therapeutic activities may hence need a degree of enclosure or demarcation provided by fences or signs. Only the city farm Losæter was considered producing food to a smaller public, beyond members due to their regular open common meal served. Finally, all, except Snippen, a project for a small group, were considered to have significantly contributed to building communities to spread cultivation knowledge. The comparison across typologies illustrates their various potential in increasing the publicness of urban space.

Table 6.10 Publicness assessment based on Murphy and Grabalov (Chap. 4 of this book), significantly present, reaching a large public, present, reaching a smaller public, implies not present or not reaching beyond members

4 Discussion

This chapter presents the main findings from our case studies in Oslo, exploring various ways of integrating urban agriculture into public spaces. In the following, we discuss experiences across the typologies of urban agriculture (see Table 6.11 for overview of main findings). First, we look at organizational aspects of urban agriculture in public space. Then we discuss the potential impact of urban agriculture on well-being urban agriculture city dwellers in public spaces by summarizing the motivations and experiences from the projects. Finally, we address future potentials for urban agriculture in public space to contribute to publicness and increase social sustainability.

Table 6.11 Motivations, supporting factors and challenges for urban agriculture in public space: experiences from Oslo

4.1 Organizational Aspects of Urban Agriculture in Public Space

The experiences from the Oslo cases offer valuable insights into how to succeed with urban agriculture in public space. First, the importance of co-creation/networking seemed crucial to making the projects happen and keeping them going. The initiators and project managers highlighted collaborations between local government, community, and private stakeholders. Having a coordinator or project manager in a paid position, preferably within the municipality or district, seemed decisive for the longevity of the larger more complex projects like Losæter and Voksenenga nærmiljøhage. Accordingly, another shared experience was that urban agriculture projects need a coordinator of activities, but that they also need to keep room for individual or bottom-up initiatives. The latter was exemplified in Losæter, where their strategy of organic development ensured openness to users’ ideas, and in Dr. Dedichens Drivhus where they recognized the importance of letting the users self-initiate manageable small-scale projects. Finding a balance between professional and local coordinators also seems important to consider and needs to be adapted to the type and goal of the project, be it a learning hub like Losæter or a local meeting place like a neighborhood garden as the main function.

Furthermore, using urban agriculture to develop more innovative green space management practices seemed to offer many opportunities, the District of Grünerløkka being an interesting case. Furthermore, the collaboration between the local library and the green space management in Schous plass, organizing events with free food, and use of play equipment, are examples of reaching a greater audience for disseminating ecological knowledge.

To succeed with practicing urban agriculture in public space seemed to be especially sensitive to physical design and configuration of the space itself. First, it seemed important to effectively communicate that cultivation was going on in the space to legitimize the activity, like in Snippen, and second, to make sure the space was perceived as welcoming for passers-by to enjoy, or invite to participate. Moreover, when integrating urban agriculture in public space, finding a suitable quantity of space to be taken up by urban agriculture seemed important. In Schous plass urban agriculture was added as “something extra” in the public square, while Losæter offered full-scale urban agriculture, completely leaving behind the neat park design and management. Likewise, considering the aesthetics of the cultivation project seemed important, various aesthetics appealing to some user groups, others not, could influence perceived openness and hence accessibility for a large public. Therefore, it seems relevant to communicate through signage or design that the spaces are open for all people’s enjoyment. Furthermore, urban agriculture’s typologies in public spaces varied greatly in dimensions of publicness within one typology, like the neighborhood garden. This demonstrates the variety of locations, design, and organizations possible and their respective consequence in perceived accessibility to the public.

4.2 Urban Agriculture in Public Space for City Dweller’s Well-Being

The motives for initiating the studied urban agriculture projects in Oslo seemed focused on creating green social meeting places and educational arenas for cultivation and ecology (see Table 6.9). Additionally, the motives of activation of place and empowerment seemed to have been an underlying motivation for initiating some of the projects. Below we provide our interpretations of these findings.

Previous practice and research focusing on the benefits of urban agriculture have also highlighted urban agriculture’s potential role as community builder and capacity for being both social and learning arenas (e.g., Hale et al., 2011; Veen et al., 2016). We found that the project initiators and managers across the typologies of urban agriculture studied shared a nuanced understanding of the potential of urban agriculture in public space as social and learning arenas in the city. Using urban agriculture as a means to create a social meeting place was described as an important goal in itself, especially for the neighborhood gardens, while the other typologies of urban agriculture in public space had wider perspectives on the places’ functions as social and learning arenas. Urban agriculture as a learning arena seemed to hold more than learning about cultivation and ecology. The emphasis on cultivation activity in public space as an opportunity for the citizens to have a place to unfold creatively was directly connected to empowerment. This function was expressed as important for the city farm in particular, to offer its users and the city dwellers. Having access to an outdoor space where one can actively shape and create the surroundings is related to the capability “senses,” described by Nussbaum (2011) as being able to use the senses, develop ideas, and produce works.

Finally, the motive of using urban agriculture in public space as a tool in the local urban space development to activate unused or challenging spaces also seemed to be connected to yet another benefit. The project initiators and managers saw urban agriculture activity as an opportunity for citizens to influence their outdoor space’s use and their perceived ownership of it. For example, the city farm and the urban agriculture in central park projects recognize the importance of cultivation activities in facilitating participation among city dwellers, which is linked to the capability described by Nussbaum (2011), having “control over one’s environment.” Hence, we found that the projects seem to recognize benefits related to dimensions of well-being that go beyond using urban agriculture for greening the city, green social meeting places or as arenas for spreading knowledge of ecology.

In summary, we found that the motives or goals for the studied projects correspond with the strategy for urban agriculture in Oslo (Oslo Kommune, 2019). Project initiators and managers saw urban agriculture as a means to create green social meeting places and learning arenas. In contrast, the other goals in the municipality’s strategy, greening the city and increasing local food production, were not given much attention. Food production and greening the city as goals were less prominent as motives among the project managers, although mentioned by the innovative urban agriculture projects we studied. This finding may illustrate how urban agriculture is already established as a tool in urban local space development and explored as a catalyst for social services and educational purposes, and not simply being driven by a wish to grow food and make the city greener.

Production of food as a motive is a debated topic in urban agriculture practice and research (Martin et al., 2016). What role does food production have in urban agriculture in public space? What our findings suggest is that the activity of producing food was mostly the tool for achieving the benefits mentioned above. This can also be explained by the types of gardening we have studied. Having crops in public space, like in the studied cases, is liable to “theft” and sabotage, which could be a challenging. In the sociopolitical context of Oslo, the need to produce food to alleviate food scarcity has not been a priority. However, the recent events like pandemic and war may have caused instability in the food supply chain that can alter this notion.²

4.3 Methodological Considerations and Future Studies

In this study, we followed the development of a selection of urban agriculture projects in public space. The project initiators and managers shared their experiences, their reflections on challenges, and critical issues in organizing urban agriculture in public space. Similarly, the analysis of dimensions of publicness of the projects was conducted by the research team and could have benefitted from being more systematically studied from the perspective of the neighbors and visitors to get a broader picture of these urban agriculture projects’ perceived publicness and accessibility.

5 Conclusions

This case study in Oslo (2018–2020) exemplified several ways of organizing urban agriculture in public space and their accessibility to the urban population. Experiences from eight urban agriculture projects of various typologies, scales, and organizational models, from the city farm to small experimental cultivation projects, were collected. The urban agriculture projects’ motivations emphasized creating social meeting places and learning arenas for cultivation and ecological knowledge. They also utilized urban agriculture as a tool in local urban space development and to improve city dwellers’ well-being by using urban agriculture in public spaces to activate and make unused space safer. They also integrated cultivation in green space management in new and innovative ways. Significant supporting factors for the success of urban agriculture in public space were related to co-creation or wide networks of collaborators, preferably with coordinators employed by the municipality or city district. However, finding the right balance between professional organization and room for users’ initiatives seemed important for social sustainability. The main challenges described by the project managers concerned issues of recognizing urban agriculture as spaces offering social and public services and navigating bureaucracy with innovative uses of public spaces. To ensure accessibility for large and diverse segments of urban populations, we found that perceived publicness of spaces could improve through purposeful design.

5.1 Visions and Potentials for Urban Agriculture in Public Space

The projects initiators and managers had ideas for further development of their projects and saw potential for urban agriculture in public space. Most of the potentials envisioned were related to how to organize urban agriculture in public space. The most prominent potential described by the project managers was to better utilize urban agriculture as part of the local municipal services. They function as both educational arenas and social meeting places and, as such, hold an important function for local environments’ social sustainability. However, for urban agriculture in public spaces to succeed with such functions, it seemed to demand stable leadership and competencies in both social work and cultivation.

The further potential was to expand in size or develop new typologies of urban agriculture in public space and to make urban agriculture a more integrated part of the green space structure as multifunctional gardens. Another idea was to create a system for circularity in practice through collaboration with local restaurants and using their compost. Further, some see the potential of urban agriculture in public space to be a unifying meeting place for various farmer movements from conventional and organic agriculture. On the cultural side, developing a closer collaboration with art and culture institutions was mentioned, as well as using urban agriculture in public space as a means to preserve local cultural heritage buildings. The visions and potentials found among the coordinators interviewed for this study correlate well with the findings of Chap. 8. In that study, some of the same initiatives partook in student-facilitated processes to develop a shared, tangible vision for their initiatives. Additionally, they worked with action plans for how to reach this vision.

The projects included in this study received their funding either from a foundation or the municipality’s budgets and were established, while the Oslo municipal and central government of Norway were developing a strategy for urban agriculture (The Norwegian Ministries, 2021), the impact of which may have resulted in positively influencing the initiatives. The role of the municipal policy in successfully integrating urban agriculture in public space is the focus of Chaps. 11 and 12.

Appendix

1.1 Appendix 1 (Table 6.12)

Table 6.12 Categorization scheme of cases

1.2 Appendix 2

The interviews with the project managers lasted between 45 and 110 minutes and were recorded with the informants’ written consent. They were given the opportunity to read and comment on citations used for this publication. The study was registered and approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) (Reference number 251173).