Governance of Urban Agriculture Initiatives:
Insights drawn from European case studies
Charlotte Prové, Denise Kemper, Salma Loudiyi, Cyril Mumenthaler, Sofia Nikolaidou
Towards an Understanding of
Urban Agriculture Governance
Urban Agriculture initiatives can serve manifold
urban purposes, such as greening, food security,
food accessibility, food literacy, job skills training,
employment, and community-building. As Urban
Agriculture occurs in many places, takes many
forms, and involves a diversity of actors, the proces-
ses of Urban Agriculture development create novel
demands on policies, urban planning, and other in-
stitutions. Thus, governance of Urban Agriculture
requires the identification of tools that can orche-
strate creative new strategies for managing the ur-
ban region, employing multiple actors, levels, and
sectors (Healey 2004).
Over the last few years, there has been a growing
consensus that a shift from top-down managerial
‘government’ to more inclusive, adaptive and mul-
tilevel ‘governance’ is essential for the sustainable
management of social-ecological systems, especially
in times of climate and global change (Folke et al.
2005; Mayntz 2006; Pahl-Wostl 2009). However,
the adaptive governance processes that would gua-
rantee a diverse and multipurpose Urban Agricul-
ture in the urban landscape are still weak. This can
be explained by slow and complex political proces-
ses that do not respond immediately (or adequa-
tely) to social change (Healey 2004). Because ini-
tiatives in many cases have a novel quality, they are
often labelled as experiments without the prospect
of mainstreaming within the urban regime. Addi-
tionally, research has only rarely focused explicitly
on Urban Agriculture governance or the practical
reality of implementing such initiatives. As a con-
66 
sequence, a meta-analysis that could embrace the
richness of Urban Agriculture, and inform both in-
itiatives and the public officials who can potentially
support them does not yet exist.
We start with the adaptive governance proposi-
tion above and address how governance princi-
ples can be effectively and efficiently shaped. We
agree with Davidson et al. (2006) that governance
processes will ideally have to be legitimate, trans-
parent, accountable, inclusive, and fair. However,
this approach first requires an exploration of cur-
rent governance processes (Böcher 2008). Through
an analysis of structures and processes (Rijke et al.
2012; Pahl-Wostl 2009), we focus on the practical
reality of initiatives. The following question is then
raised: what are the characteristics of governance
processes within Urban Agriculture initiatives?
An Inclusive Perspective
Drawing on European Cases
While categorizing initiatives remains a somewhat
arbitrary undertaking, an inclusive perspective is
outlined here. This means that, complementary to
the typology described in Chapter 1.2, we are ana-
lysing the emerging initiatives of Urban Agricul-
ture more broadly. As such, initiatives were selec-
ted ranging from guerrilla gardening to local food
strategies implemented by public departments. On
the one hand, efforts initiated at the level of local
government can be very diverse in terms of role,
partnership, products, and services delivered. They
are also usually an important organiser in networks.
Their support could play a significant role in the
sustenance of bottom-up initiatives. On the other
 Stakeholders located in:
Government Civil Society
International level NGOs
National level Non-profit farms/organizations
Regional level Funders
Local government Artists
Government-led organizations (Public & private) Educational institutions
Government-led institutions Religious institutions
Individuals
Volunteers
hand, informal initiatives like guerrilla gardening
provide useful insights into contentious issues such
as access to land, stakeholder involvement, and
project legitimation. We base the analysis of Urban
Agriculture governance on a broad collection of
different initiatives and their stakeholders—rather
than focusing on a narrow typology—and hope
to uncover adaptive governance processes. Figure
2.2.1 below illustrates the diversity of actors (po-
tentially) involved in Urban Agriculture.
Data was collected from twenty-eight different
initiatives throughout Europe from 2013 to 2015
(see map). The authors have brought additional
cases into the analysis to widen the scope of our
survey. The structures and dynamics of each case
were systematically explored and differences and
similarities highlighted. Based on insights drawn
from these cases, we have identified ten governan-
ce characteristics that we assert are essential for the
understanding of Urban Agriculture governance
processes within a European context.
The Diversity of Governance in
Urban Agriculture Initiatives:
Forging a Framework
The governance characteristics are forged into a
conceptual framework with three levels of comple-
xity that impact governance processes: the wider
urban context, external governance characteristics,
and internal governance characteristics. External
governance characteristics comprise partnerships,
legitimation processes, and public policies. Inter-
nal governance characteristics are the initiative’s
objectives, scale, time frame, stakeholders, power
Market
For-profit farming
Farmers‘ associations
Private actors
Entrepreneurs
Funders
Distributors
Vendors
relations, and resources—more specifically, land, 2.2.1
funding, and knowledge. Stakeholders in Urban
The framework is discussed below in more detail, Agriculture initiatives
yet it is worth noting here that there is a dialectical
element to this model. The characteristics outlined
are interdependent and mutually influential. This
means, for instance, that the project objectives will
define to a certain degree which partnerships are
forged. Ideally, these characteristics should be ta-
ken into account simultaneously to fully grasp the
governance processes. The novel aspect of the fra-
mework is that it is comprehensive in its approach.
It can be used as a tool to understand underlying
dynamics and to respond adequately to the specific
requirements for the sustainability of initiatives.
The Urban Context
A few aspects of the context influencing the de-
velopment of Urban Agriculture include the fol-
lowing factors: climate, politics, geography, eco-
nomics, cultural values, and urban-rural linkages.
In our analysis, stark differences between Northern
and Southern Europe emerged. We found generic
differences in societal demands, levels of instituti-
onalization, and overall objectives. Generally spea-
king, in Northern European countries preservation
and development of green spaces are often the most
pressing issues, while in Southern Europe Urban
Agriculture is more often a response to food inse-
curity, poverty, or social exclusion. This underlines
the importance of including the context, as well as
the complexity in developing governance processes
from a general European perspective.
67
 External governance characteristics
-- Partnerships
Geography -- Legitimation Processes Economic
-- Public Policies Situation

Internal governance characteristics

-- Project Objectives
-- Scale
Climate -- Time frame Cultural
-- Stakeholders Values
-- Power Relations
-- Resources
(land, funding, knowlegde)

Political UA Initiative Rural-Urban

Situation Relationships

Urban Context

2.2.2 External Governance Characteristics the provision of land, resources, or infrastruc-

A conceptual framework Different types of stakeholders—operating in the
for Urban Agriculture market, civil society, and government—can instiga-
Governance Processes
te, steer, or manage an initiative. However, few are
successful without the establishment of partners-
hips. We focus here on partnerships with public
actors located in government. Their inclusion can
be crucial for the legitimation or institutionaliza-
tion of the initiative, for acquiring resources, or as
an organiser in the urban network. Four types of
partnerships can be described:
1. Top-down planning initiatives coordinated wi-
thin the local government. These often thrive
on the involvement and efforts of civil society
actors.
2. Top-down initiatives including market or civil
society actors. In these partnerships, the initia-
tive is also located within the government, but
the development process is open and depends
on market and civil society stakeholders. Hen-
ce, the local government becomes a support
mechanism for agricultural activities through
ture.
3. Bottom-up initiatives relying on public actors.
In these partnerships, civil society and market
stakeholders have forged partnerships with pu-
blic actors. Government support is obtained
because the initiatives in turn deliver public
goods and services—e.g., health and educati-
onal services.
4. Bottom-up initiatives without connections to
public stakeholders. The absence of partners-
hips can be explained by lack of need, compe-
ting visions, or a policy framework that does
not allow for public interventions.
Overall, the increasing collaboration between pu-
blic, civil society, and market actors indicates the
blurring of the traditional dichotomy between bot-
tom-up and top-down strategies. These emerging
collaborative structures create synergies and should
therefore be encouraged.
Despite the rapid growth of Urban Agriculture ini-
tiatives and public support, initiatives often have a

68 
reputation as rebellious or subversive (Press and Ar-
nould 2011). This can become problematic when
initiatives are poorly recognized by civil society,
the market, and the government. While the initi-
atives can be very successful within their informal
network of stakeholders, they remain below the
radar and their impact on society is limited. Legi-
timation by formal institutions is thus important
in obtaining support from the broader public, and
moving Urban Agriculture from the margins closer
to the mainstream.
While the attention to Urban Agriculture is gro-
wing among policymakers, the formal adoption in
policy frameworks is typically lacking. In Europe,
Urban Agriculture is generally considered the res-
ponsibility of the local governments, even though
there are opportunities and barriers found on other
policy levels, such as the national or European
level. Since a formal framework is often missing,
support at the local government level has the ten-
dency to be informal, fragmented, and voluntary.
With an appropriate policy framework, initiatives
could become better grounded and secured. The
following supports, if put in place, could impact
positively on Urban Agriculture: modifying the
zoning code (ranging from allowing food growing
activities in certain codes to the adoption of a for-
mal Urban Agriculture land use code); recognizing
Urban Agriculture as a development strategy and
not as a temporary activity; facilitating land access;
proactively protecting farmland; or eliminating res-
trictions that stem from other policy fields. Despite
the multidimensional nature of Urban Agriculture,
there are few cases in which the various policy
fields are collaborating to produce outcomes. Policy
arenas—such as agriculture, spatial planning, social
welfare, environment, health and food planning,
economic development, education, and culture—
can further Urban Agriculture through an intersec-
tional approach.
Internal Governance Characteristics
Internal governance characteristics point out di-
versity in objectives, involved stakeholders, power
relations, scale and time frame of the initiative, and
available resources. This means that they require
different policy assistance and address different pu-
blic agencies or departments; the type of support
they need also varies.
The objectives of initiatives often go beyond food
production. Within the frame of sustainability, Ur-
ban Agriculture is often associated with social and
ecological contributions to the urban system (Nu-
gent 1999). A mere recognition of food production
risks omitting these other potential benefits, and
consequently the opportunity to obtain support
from additional sources—particularly from the
most appropriate institutions and organizations.
However, ways should be found to evaluate the
actual ecological and social contributions of Ur-
ban Agriculture in order to create an interdiscip-
linary and multisector approach. Overall, as initi-
atives mature over time, our cases show that more
emphasis is put on the economic potential of the
initiative, in combination with social goals. Partly
because they grow in size and in experience, these
initiatives can sell surplus produce or offer a series
of services that result in financial contributions.
This can point to one governance strategy in the
development and sustenance of Urban Agriculture.
Initiatives can be very diverse in terms of the size
of the cultivated area and the amount of food pro-
duced, depending on the focus on social or on eco-
nomic goals. However, scale should not be equated
with societal impact. Relatively small initiatives can
be very successful in actively involving people. For
instance, a small community garden on a piece of
vacant land could involve a large proportion of a
neighbourhood, as compared to a larger periurban
entrepreneurial farm that operates more or less in
isolation from its immediate surroundings. It is
therefore important to make a distinction between
size and outreach. Thus, it is good to consider the
types of initiatives that benefit the wider society.
The time frame for an initiative influences its dif-
ferent roles and functions. Broadly speaking, initi-
atives with a temporary or undefined time frame—
such as urban experiments, informal initiatives, or
initiatives on vacant public land—can lack forma-
lity and legitimation, and as a consequence beco-
69
 me uncertain. In addition, the limited duration or
uncertainty about continuation makes it less likely
that stakeholders will risk investing time and re-
sources in the initiative. By contrast, entrepreneu-
rial Urban Agriculture initiatives are usually set up
with an indeterminate time frame, but with clear
future development plans. Arguably, short-term in-
itiatives are more flexible and respond quickly to
local needs of the immediate neighbourhoods, whi-
le longer-term initiatives become more established
and as a result have a potentially greater societal
impact.
Three types of actors are typically involved to dif-
ferent degrees and with different impacts: market,
civil society, and government. They each have their
own role. Currently, the bulk of the work on the
ground is performed by civil society (potentially
evolving into market actors). They play the crucial
role of the pioneer, experimenter, or local champi-
on. However, they are often constrained by resour-
ces that are in the hands of other stakeholders. In
other words, the divergent locations of the people
who take the initiative on the one hand, and the
resources on the other hand are creating situations
of mutual dependencies. The integration of diffe-
rent types of actors can be an asset to obtain the
necessary resources, but it can also make the colla-
boration more complex.
Internally, initiatives differ strongly in the way their
decisions are taken. Different organizational struc-
tures involve different management practices. Ma-
nagerial skills are crucial in hierarchical structures,
while the focus in horizontal structures is on the
facilitation of inclusion and participative processes.
In addition, ownership and responsibility are more
likely to be centralized in hierarchical structures,
while they are more likely to be shared in partici-
pative structures.
Land (public and private), funding, and knowledge
are three crucial resources in the sustenance of Ur-
ban Agriculture initiatives. On the one hand, there
are new initiatives that have to obtain land, and on
the other hand, there are entrepreneurial farms that
reposition themselves in the urban context. In the
first case, land is most often provided by public or
70 
private actors on a temporary basis. Leases are ge-
nerally very complicated to obtain. The purchase
of urban land is in many cases not possible—due
to lack of land or exorbitant land prices—and thus
obtaining a lease becomes the second best option.
However, this entails more uncertainty and depen-
dencies for the initiative. In most cases, urban land
is scarce and very expensive. Publicly owned land
in Urban Agriculture development becomes an
important factor. The involvement of local gover-
nment for safeguarding farmland and addressing
land use barriers in planning and policies is thus
highly encouraged (Mendes et al. 2008). In the case
where the land is owned by the initiative, there is
more flexibility regarding time frame, shape, cont-
ent, and type. Setting up an initiative is costly and
requires (start-up) funding. Application procedu-
res can be non-transparent and complex, and to
date, no clear financing mechanisms have been de-
veloped for Urban Agriculture. Financial support
is also associated with dependencies and insecurity.
For example, some initiatives adjust their objectives
to obtain crucial funding. For instance, an initiati-
ve might not have formulated educational or po-
verty alleviation objectives at first, but as funding
opportunities in these fields emerge, initiatives can
redirect their aims for strategic reasons and thus ch-
ange the nature of the initiative.
The resource of knowledge has different layers—
scientific, lay, and professional—which seem to
operate in different fields. The bulk of the initiati-
ves emanate from civil society; thus, on the ground
primarily lay knowledge circulates, while the inte-
gration of professional and scientific knowledge is
more in the background. Moreover, the latter two
are better integrated into the decision-making pro-
cesses. Lay knowledge is often given on a volun-
tary basis and not valued as such. A claim could be
made for the incorporation of lay knowledge in the
design and planning of local food initiatives (Fonte
2008). Nonetheless, grass-roots initiatives would
be better served if they had the opportunity to draw
on professional and scientific knowledge.
 Governance of the Governance of
Urban Agriculture Initiative Urban Agriculture on an Aggregate Level
Objectives What are the objectives? What are or should be the overall objectives within the governance
context?
Scale What is the cultivated surface and the population outre- What is the available acreage, that can be used and which popula-
ach? tions/social groups are to be targeted?
Time frame What is the timeframe of the initiative? What time frame should be planned for Urban Agriculture?
Stakeholders Who are the stakeholders involved and what is their Who should be the stakeholders involved and what is their backg-
background? round?
Power How are initiatives organized and who takes internal Who is part of the decision-making processes within Urban Agriculture
Relationships decisions? and how are these processes organized?
Resources What resources is the initiative composed of? What resources can the governance context provide?
How is land/space provided/secured? What land/space can be provided/secured? How is land access
How are the necessary funds provided? facilitated?
What kind of knowledge relevant to Urban Within which departments—depending on the overall objectives—can
Agriculture is available? financial support be offered?
What kind of knowledge of Urban Agriculture is taken into account?
What is known on Urban Agriculture within the governance context?
Partnerships Who are the partners? What kind of partnerships are Which partnerships are necessary and should be promoted?
forged?
Legitimation How is the initiative accepted by the different stakehol- To what extent are initiatives embedded in the policy and planning
ders? framework? How are these initiatives understood by the different policy
departments? What is done to promote initiatives among the wider civil
society?
Public Policies What are the policies that (might) affect the initiative? Which public policies are currently hindering or promoting? Which
public policies could be formulated to promote Urban Agriculture?
Wider Context What are the contextual factors affecting the initiative? What are the contextual factors that hinder or promote the support of
Urban Agriculture?

Reflections on the Application
of the Urban Agriculture
Governance Framework
It is remarkable how many initiatives can be found
in Europe, despite the many challenges involved in
coming to grips with Urban Agriculture. Taking a
selection of initiatives throughout Europe as a star-
ting point, we have elaborated on their diversity
and the complex governance responses they entail.
Each of the governance characteristics is only brie-
fly touched upon here and deserves more in-depth
analysis. Here, however, they have been analysed
and compared in one coherent framework. It is a
first attempt to cope with this complexity and can
be deployed to analyse governance processes in Ur-
ban Agriculture development.
Moreover, the framework—as a tool—can be used
strategically by both individual initiatives and pu-
blic actors. The framework stimulates (self-)reflec- 2.2.3
tion, goal- and agenda-setting, and the interaction Application of the Urban
with other initiatives, policy levels, and the wider Agriculture Gover-
nance Framework
overall context. This is especially helpful both in
the initial phases of the projects and in later (re-)
evaluation phases. On the one hand, initiatives need
to be provided with tools to understand their role
and formulate their own position within the field;
on the other hand, enabling policies and planning
processes are needed to support bottom-up initiati-
ves. Figure 2.2.2 illustrates how the framework can
be used, by asking the following questions related
to each of the ten governance characteristics.

71