Deploying Urban Agricultural System for an Innovative and

Sustainable Urban Renewal

Sarkissian Fanny

1,2,*

, Loyer Teddy

1,†

and Antoni Jean-Philippe

2,‡

GéoHabitat Planning Office, 13 rue du Palais, Dijon, France

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

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

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