Pathways for Cleaner, Greener, Healthier Cities: What Is the Role of Urban Agriculture in the Circular Economy of Two Nordic Cities?

By inergency On Feb 1, 2024

[ad_1]

1. Introduction

The last decade was marked by high volatility and different shocks, from the aftermath of a global financial crisis and its political and socio-economic fallout to the more recent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian-Ukraine war. The next 10 years are foreseen to be just as unpredictable, if not more, with several megatrends, such as demographic changes, technological developments, and the transition toward climate neutrality, expected to assume even greater importance.

In this context, cities are major hubs with a prominent role in the world’s energy and resource consumption and carbon emissions. In 2018, cities were already consuming around 70% of global resources and energy, producing over 70% of all greenhouse gases, and creating more than 70% of global waste [1]. Considering the projections pointing to 70% of the global population living in urban areas by 2050 [2], these numbers are expected to rise, emphasizing the urgency to transform urban dysfunctional ecosystems, in which natural resources are distributed, used, and disposed within the prevalent linear “take-make-dispose” economy, into more sustainable, resilient, and circular approaches [3].

Since linear, industrial agri-food systems are at the center of the socio-ecological crisis [4,5], and the role played by cities in the global transition toward more sustainable food production, consumption, and waste systems will only increase in forthcoming years, it is important to debate how to re-conceptualize urban food provision toward more closed loop paradigms and align it to sustainable development [6,7]. In this discussion, concepts like circular economy (C-E) and urban agriculture (UA) are worth addressing.

Given this background, the aim of this paper was to explore and discuss evidence concerning the potential impacts of UA activities in the transition to more resilient circular cities.

UA has been gaining importance as a strategy to tackle some of the social, economic, and environmental challenges cities face today [8,9]. Proponents of UA argue that it can promote agri-food sustainability and food security while delivering various ecosystem services with positive impacts, ranging from health benefits to the promotion of social inclusion [9,10,11], as well as supporting circular practices—such as regenerative techniques, pollution reduction, waste recycling, and efficient resource utilization [12,13]. Nevertheless, the literature also mentions drawbacks related to excessive resource consumption [14] and potential environmental contamination [15].

In reimagining cities’ role in the worldwide shift toward sustainable food production, consumption, and waste management systems, it seems therefore pertinent to discuss the role of a circular approach in cities. Considering the systemic, transformative nature of the C-E concept [16,17], change appears dependent on overcoming challenges of technological and economic nature, as well as socio-cultural factors. Nevertheless, the pathway is unclear, and different urban centers are facing different challenges when considering transitioning to a more circular UA paradigm.

Drawing on a case study analysis inspired by the recent literature [18,19,20], this study dives into two Nordic cases: Campus NMBU, in Ås Municipality in Norway, and two community gardens—“World Gardens” and “Brabrand Fællesgartneriet”—in Aarhus Municipality in Denmark. These cases demonstrate how different technologies can transform waste into resources for UA and thus are suitable to explore the following research questions:

What are the barriers that impact the successful implementation of C-E practices in the context of UA?
How are those barriers challenging cities in transitioning from linear, industrial agri-food systems to more circular and sustainable food production models? And how have innovative solutions been facilitating this transition?

The Nordic region has been highlighted for its strong commitment to cooperation and leadership in climate action, along with sharing similarities in planning systems and practices [21,22,23,24]. These similar commitments not only imply a potential for insightful findings, but also offer a chance for significant comparisons, given the similar systems in place. Despite employing different strategies and technologies, both examples have harnessed the potential of UA to contribute to closing the resource loop in cities. Therefore, the exploration of practical applications of C-E principles in UA, made available through the analysis of these cases, offered valuable insights into the different pathways in the pursuit of more regenerative and resource-efficient food systems in cities, as well as the main challenges linked to regulatory issues, social acceptance of waste, high investment costs, and limited recognition of its indirect impacts.

5. Discussion

Cities play a crucial role in spearheading the global transition toward more sustainable food production, consumption, and waste management systems, highlighting the interconnectedness of urban development, sustainable lifestyles, and responsible production and consumption within the sustainable development discussion [6,7,37]. While the definition, purposes, functions, and impacts of UA are still subject of discussion in the literature, its successful realization seems contingent on adopting circular practices encompassing resource limitation, regenerative approaches, and waste recycling [5,29,33]. In this context, the Nordic case studies provided the empirical context for identifying, reviewing, and discussing the barriers that hinder the effective implementation of C-E practices at the city level within the context of UA. Table 3 summarizes the main barriers the case studies faced in implementing circular systems through UA.

As the case studies feature some of the most recent research on the intersection between C-E and UA, the findings and recommendations to address the different barriers can be seen as a springboard for a broader discussion on the impact of UA activities within a C-E approach. In that context, Table 4 adds to that, stressing how different UA activities that took place in the case studies actively fostered C-E strategies.

Overall, when considering UA, the context and the specific circumstances of each location matter. Factors such as social and historical elements of the local environment play a crucial role in determining the diverse forms of UA and circular practices used [22,121]. In the Nordic examples analyzed, there appears to exist a noteworthy emphasis on sustainability, as well as an inclination toward fostering resilient urban ecosystems [22]. Aarhus, in particular, is renowned as a ‘lab’ for UA [81]. However, these cases also face significant challenges due to the region’s climatic conditions, particularly long and harsh winters. These challenges can explain the focus on experimentation with technologies and activities, such as the use of bubble greenhouses in Ås and polytunnels in Aarhus, aimed at extending the UA season throughout the year.

Another important aspect of embracing UA is the need to re-conceptualize cities’ role in food provision under the inspiration of circular and regenerative principles and practices. By designing city food provision and UA systems with C-E regenerative cycles in mind, cities can experience numerous benefits from closing the urban resource loop [57]. However, achieving this transformation faces challenges due to existing components of the linear, take-make-disposal economy that reinforce barriers. These barriers encompass technological, economic, cultural/social, and institutional limitations, as demonstrated in both case studies.

Despite the existence of innovative technological developments that support and promote various UA activities across all aspects of the C-E strategies (i.e., 3R: reduce, reuse, recycle/recover), implementing these solutions requires further experimentation, namely large-scale testing [63,122]. When examining the case studies, it becomes apparent that their success can be attributed to their relatively small and localized scale. From a waste management perspective, there are significant challenges in reorganizing existing sanitation systems, as this requires substantial transformations in various urban systems and involves multiple stakeholders, including municipalities. Additionally, the transition from centralized to decentralized sanitation systems raises technical security concerns, particularly regarding the safety handling of biogas produced by anaerobic digestion (as seen in the Ås example). The encouragement of local research and case studies becomes crucial to identifying context-specific barriers and developing policy solutions to overcome these challenges.

Implementing technologic solutions also requires validation regarding their efficiency, positive environmental impacts, and economic viability [123,124]. On the economic front, it is of note that while the technologies tested in Campus Ås led to the development of GREENergy, it remains a potential marketable solution with uncertain prospects once the SIEUGreen project concludes, as the novelty of transforming waste into resources requires systemic changes and poses risks to investors. This aspect highlights how investment costs for some UA technologies and difficulties accessing financial support limit implementation. Additionally, competition from food produced in larger supply chains and the lack of robust business cases for circular resource models pose obstacles [98], as evidenced by the lack of commercial motivation in Aarhus. Moreover, the indirect economic impacts of UA, such as the beneficial effects on health, local economy, social inclusion, and poverty reduction [125,126], are often overlooked. This aspect was noticeable in non-commercially driven UA examples of Aarhus, in which UA directly competed with residential and commercial interests.

Even when the direct economic potential is limited, UA can yield valuable social and health benefits [9,10,108]. These advantages are also evident in the case studies, particularly in Aarhus, where urban gardens play a significant role. These gardens foster diverse social connections; promote knowledge about sustainable production and consumption, especially among vulnerable communities; and contribute to improving mental health. While technological progress, innovation, and the development of a business case for UA are all important aspects, the profound societal impact these activities can offer should not be neglected, as well as their impact on C-E implementation. Positive health impacts of UA, such as increased access to fresh and locally grown food, are often underestimated, hindering efforts to align UA with C-E principles of sustainability, reduced external resource dependency, and the development of C-E business models. Furthermore, UA’s social inclusion opportunities are not adequately acknowledged, undermining the establishment of C-E practices that emphasize inclusivity and community participation. The example of Aarhus underscores this challenge, as it illustrates the tension between UA and other urban functions. This aspect jeopardizes C-E practices in UA and emphasizes the crucial need to balance conflicting interests to implement sustainable initiatives successfully.

However, it is also important to note that behavior and cultural barriers have a profound impact when fostering a closed-loop approach to UA and C-E, particularly in overcoming prejudices against waste as a resource. This aspect was observed in Ås [112] and especially in Aarhus. Further studies, such as those conduced in Brabrand Fællesgartneriet on the safe use of biowaste [113], along with communication of these findings to the community and the involvement of various key stakeholders to ensure the success of activities through participation, need to be further explored as a means to dispel these misconceptions [39,114].

Existing research and the case studies presented in this study emphasize how government interventions shape UA and the central role of local governance in fostering closed loops in cities. One of the critical challenges is overcoming the siloed development of planning policies and encouraging collaborations within the urban innovation ecosystem. The Taste Aarhus Program provides a valuable example of minimizing this challenge. Supporting UA initiatives in schools, as well as rehabilitation and community centers, the program enhances cooperation across different sectors of the municipality [81]. The transition to a circular UA seems, therefore, to benefit from structural changes and the establishment of supportive conditions by local and national governments [127]. This includes monitoring environmental impacts, establishing sound regulatory frameworks, promoting knowledge exchange and demystifying C-E processes, fostering collaboration among urban and regional actors, and showcasing successful examples to develop a compelling business case for UA.

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to explore the role of UA in promoting the circularity of resources at the city level. By integrating UA and C-E, it explored practical applications of C-E principles in UA, offering novel insights when creating more regenerative and resource-efficient food systems in cities. Grounding the investigation in real-world case studies enabled the uncovering of different challenges cities face in transitioning to sustainable and resilient food production and waste systems. The Aarhus and Campus Ås case studies offered a Nordic perspective that could serve as a model for similar cities. The research unveiled distinct barriers within each case study: Campus Ås faced several technological challenges, while Aarhus grappled with social acceptance and urban planning obstacles. Nevertheless, both cases also shared common and comparable barriers. Despite the presence of innovative technologies capable of supporting various facets of circular UA, further testing and validation seem required to evaluate their efficiency and environmental impacts. Financial barriers, such as high investment costs and the absence of a robust business case, pose significant hurdles to full-scale implementation. Regulatory challenges and the need to foster social acceptance and awareness of the value of waste were also underscored.

The findings suggest that achieving a transition to circular UA hinges on the necessity for structural changes and favorable conditions. These conditions can be cultivated through government intervention, encompassing actions such as environmental impact monitoring, regulatory development, knowledge sharing, collaboration among stakeholders, and showcasing successful examples.

Several challenges and complexities should also be highlighted when conducting case studies on UA and C-E initiatives. Data availability and comparability limited the initial choice of case studies and implied extensive efforts to gather relevant information from various sources. Employing a restricted set of case studies also advises caution regarding the potential for generalizing the main findings and conclusions. However, this perceived limitation underscores the importance of conducting additional research in similar contexts and possible applicability to other geographies [22] and paves the way for further investigations. A more extensive analysis could encompass a broader range of cities to serve as inspiration and provide valuable insights on the role of UA in the transition to cleaner, greener, healthier, and overall circular cities.

Overall, the study adopted a multi-dimensional approach, combining circular economy principles with UA through practical case studies, providing essential lessons for cities aiming to enhance sustainability and resilience in their food systems. Therefore, from an analytical standpoint, the findings offer insights for policymakers, facilitating the understanding of urban C-E pathways when viewed through the lens of UA. This understanding can lead to better alignment of policy interventions. For other stakeholders, this research provides inspirational stories and signals regarding market interest in various technologies and circular activities. Finally, the findings are relevant for academia as this work contributes to the ongoing discussion surrounding the advantages and limitations of UA and the contributions of the C-E approach to achieving several SDGs.

[ad_2]