Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Agriculture and the city: A method for sustainable planning of new

forms of agriculture in urban contexts
Daniele La Rosa ∗ , Luca Barbarossa, Riccardo Privitera, Francesco Martinico
Department Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Contemporary cities are threatened by urban development decreasing the overall environmental quality
Received 7 April 2014 and fragmenting natural and agricultural landscapes. As a result of this fragmentation the number of
Received in revised form 14 June 2014 Non Urbanized Areas (NUAs) present in urban contexts is dramatically decreasing. These areas include
Accepted 19 June 2014
cultivated land, Abandoned Farmlands, Grassland, Woods and Shrubs that are often located at the peri-
urban cities’ fringes. Among NUAs, farmlands and other forms of urban and peri-urban agriculture provide
Keywords:
all three major categories of ecosystem services, provisioning, regulating and cultural services. Recently,
Sustainable planning
New Forms of Urban Agriculture (NFUA) have gained increasing attention from researchers for their
Urban agriculture
Suitability modelling
promising multifunctionality. Incorporating NFUA into the urban environment will thus improve the
GIS sustainability of cities, taking advantage of the multiple benefits and services they can provide.
Indicators This paper presents a method for the characterisation of NUAs in terms of their physical, ecological
and social features. These areas are analysed with different criteria and related indicators structured
according to a GIS-based Multi Criteria Suitability Model. The proposed model checks the suitability
of transformation of the NUAs toward NFUA, thereby enhancing their ecological and social function as
well as accessibility and overall connectivity. Different scenarios of spatial configurations for NFUA have
been explored with a sensitivity analysis on the values of used indicators. The method was tested for
the municipality of Catania, south Italy, an urban context characterised by a relevant shortage of public
green spaces and services.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction fragmentation of farmlands (Gallent and Shaw, 2007). These

For decades in many European countries the dynamics of urban
and economic growth have been separated from demographic
development (Kasanko et al., 2006). Despite the decreasing pop-
ulation, urban expansion due to spatial development pressure has
been an impressive driver of very high consumption of land and
agricultural resources. In Europe, at least 2.8% of land experienced
a change in use between 1990 and 2000, including a significant
increase in urban areas (Commission of the European Communities,
2006).
Contemporary cities are often threatened by urban devel-
opment decreasing the overall environmental quality and frag-
menting natural and agricultural landscapes (Olson and Lyson,
1999; Paül and McKenzie, 2010). This is particularly relevant
at the cities’ fringe, where uncontrolled urban development is
often characterised by discontinuous patterns and consequent
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 095 7382523; fax: +39 095 330309.
E-mail address: dlarosa@darc.unict.it (D. La Rosa).
phenomena are particularly relevant in Mediterranean cities,
where the high degree of land-use transitions – a consequence
of urban growth with poor environmental regulations – produce
urban landscapes characterised by a lack of green areas and high
levels of ecological fragmentation (EEA, 2006). The relationship
between the agricultural landscape and the city is reflected in the
particular contemporary peri-urban landscapes, where residen-
tial low-density settlements are intertwined with farmlands that
have been partially modified and reduced by urbanisation. A low-
density settlement has widely become the main landmark of new
metropolitan areas (Munoz, 2003).
As a result of this fragmentation the number of Non Urbanized
Areas (NUAs) present in urban contexts is dramatically decreasing.
These areas include, among others, cultivated land, Abandoned
Farmlands, Grassland, Woods and Shrubs that are often located at
the peri-urban cities’ fringes. They contain a significant amount
of vegetation, often representing the last remnants of nature in
metropolitan areas (La Rosa and Privitera, 2013) and providing
important ecosystem services such as purification of air and water,
mitigation of floods and droughts, re-generation of soil fertility,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.014
0264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303
moderation of temperature extremes and enhancement of land-
scape quality (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Gómez-baggethun
and Barton, 2013; La Rosa and Privitera, 2013). As part of an agricul-
tural and green infrastructure they can contribute to the economic,
socio-ecological, psychological, cultural, and spiritual welfare of the
community (Hubacek and Kronenberg, 2013; La Rosa and Privitera,
2013).
Within NUAs, farmlands and other forms of urban and peri-
urban agriculture provide services. Agriculture supplies all three
major categories of ecosystem services, provisioning, regulating
and cultural services (MEA, 2005). Even if the most tangible services
provided by agriculture are food, fuel and fibre, a number of other
services are also provided, such as maintenance of soil fertility, reg-
ulation of pollinators, pests, pathogens and wildlife, water quality
and supply, greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration
(Swinton et al., 2007). Other cultural services provided by agricul-
tural landscapes include the benefits coming from open space, rural
viewscapes, and cultural heritage related to rural lifestyles.
New Forms of Urban Agriculture (NFUA) have gained increas-
ing attention from researchers for their multifunctionality and
post-productive attitude (Zasada, 2011; Taylor Lovell, 2010).
Urban agriculture practices have been defined as “the growing,
processing, and distribution of food and non-food plant and tree
crops in farmlands that are mainly located on the fringe of an
urban area” (Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010; Mougeot, 2006). Growing
evidence suggests that incorporating NFUA into the urban envi-
ronment will greatly improve the sustainability of cities, taking
advantage of the multiple benefits and services they can provide.
Different types of NFUA can be identified. Urban Farms rep-
resent a partnership of mutual commitment between farms and
communities of supporters which provide a direct link between the
production and consumption of food (Van En, 1995). Community-
supported Agriculture can also provide environmental benefits
due to an environmentally friendly production process as well as
reduced ‘food miles’ thanks to the proximity of production and con-
sumption (Bougherara et al., 2009). Allotment Gardens can provide
other important social values, including active participation in the
management of gardens by social groups such as children and
retired or un-employed adults (Rubino, 2007). Finally, Agricultural
Parks, intended as agroforestry systems (Sturm, 1998), represent
large farmland areas where production along with rural landscape
and wildlife management and protection (Sorace, 2001) and enjoy-
ment, could also provide cultural and aesthetic benefits.
Planners and political decision makers should carefully consider
the role of NFUA in urban contexts, since urban areas are expected
to keep growing in the future and threatening agricultural lands
(European Environmental Agency, 2006). Despite its important role
in contributing to cities’ sustainability, NFUA has been the focus
of few studies and applications with reference to urban planning
strategies aimed at the promotion of ecosystem services provision
and sustainable multifunctional forms of agriculture (Aubry et al.,
2012). A better understanding of the different features of current
NUAs would allow identification of the land uses that are most
suitable to fulfil the multifunctional aims of NFUA (La Rosa and
Privitera, 2013). This requires a method for the characterisation of
these NUAs in terms of their physical, ecological and social features.
This will be useful for proposing suitable changes to current NUAs
land uses as they move toward NFUA.
In this paper, current NUAs located mainly on the urban fringe
were analysed with different criteria and related indicators struc-
tured in a GIS-based Multi Criteria Suitability Model. The proposed
model checks the suitability of transformations of the areas as they
move toward NFUA, thereby enhancing their ecological and social
function as well as accessibility and overall connectivity. Differ-
ent scenarios of spatial configurations of NFUA have been explored
with a sensitivity analysis of the values of used indicators. The
291
method was tested for the municipality of Catania, south Italy, an
urban context characterised by a relevant shortage of public green
spaces and services (Privitera et al., 2013). The study area and used
geo dataset are described in “The study area and available geo-
data set” section. The proposed Multi Criteria Suitability Model is
presented in “Method” section. Results of the model are given in
“Results” section and than discussed in “Discussion” section. Finally
conclusions are summarised in “Conclusions” section.
The study area and available geo-data set
The study area is the municipality of Catania (Fig. 1), one of the
main cities in southern Italy, with an administrative area of 180 km2
and a population of 293,104 (in 2012). The city is the centre of a
large conurbation that represents the largest metropolitan area in
Sicily, a settlement system characterised by extensive urban sprawl
(La Greca et al., 2011). The favourable location of the city along the
coast, well connected to the motorway and railway system and
the presence of a commercial port and busy airport give the city a
strategic role in the region.
Existing settlements have developed around the historical cen-
tre and have grown beyond the city’s administrative borders,
incorporating existing agricultural and fishing villages into one
large metropolitan area. The result is a rather heterogeneous aggre-
gate of settlements. Rich and vital urban fragments are intertwined
with poor and marginal ones, the latter often corresponding with
social housing schemes or illegal settlements. The main city in char-
acterised by a shortage of public spaces and services, especially
green spaces. Currently the amount of public green space is about
3 m2 /inhabitant much less than the minimum amount stipulated by
national legislation which is 9 m2 /inhabitant (Privitera et al., 2013).
Many NUAs are located at the fringe of the city, especially Aban-
doned Farmlands, farmlands and lava fields formed by ancient lava
flows from Mount Etna. For some of the existing NUAs, the pro-
posal of a new land-use Masterplan defines a set of new land-uses,
including urban agriculture. However, this provision has been made
without considering specific criteria to determine which areas are
most suitable for NFUA.
In the current study, all GIS elaborations were based on a spatial
layer of NUAs, obtained mainly by Urban Atlas land-use layer (EEA,
2010). For the city of Catania, this layer had an average scale of detail
of 1:12,000. Urban Atlas layers are based on the land-use classifi-
cation of a SPOT 5 image (resolution 2.5 m). However, to update
and check the Urban Atlas land-use layer, a visual inspection of
high-resolution (0.25 cm per pixel) regional orthophotos (Regione
Sicilia, 2009) and recent Google Maps images was performed. In
order to make possible its updating, Urban Atlas land-use layer
was spatially adjusted with 150 control points to match the Ital-
ian national geo-referencing system of the regional orthophotos.
Finally, the census data tracts from the 2001 national census were
available as a polygonal shapefile.
Method
Multi Criteria Suitability Model
The interaction between GIS and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis
is well established and studied, especially for land suitability spa-
tial modelling (Carver, 1991; Thill, 1999; Chakhar and Mousseau,
2008): GIS provides a full set of techniques and solutions for spa-
tial decisions while Multi Criteria, Decision Analysis is a tool for
solving problems characterised by multiple alternatives, which
provides a method for designing, evaluating and prioritising deci-
sions (Malzcewski, 2007).
292 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303
Fig. 1. The municipality of Catania (Italy) and current land uses.
Within Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, problems with mul-
tiple attributes are decision analysis models assumed to have a
predetermined and/or limited number of alternatives. Therefore
they are and referred to as discrete decision problems (Hwang and
Yoon, 1981). The solution to this type of problem is a selection
process as opposed to a design process, because there might be
several solutions depending on the values of considered attributes
and a predetermined number of solutions. This type of problem
involves use of geo-referenced spatial data, the decision maker’s
preferences and a set of evaluation criteria represented as map lay-
ers or attributes (Malczewski, 2004). Examples of multi-attribute
approaches for land suitability analysis include landscape and nat-
ural habitat planning (Ahrenz and Kantelhardt, 2009; Prato, 2000;
Store and Kangas, 2001), watershed planning and management
(Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2011), agricultural suitability (Chen
et al., 2010), environmental and urban planning (Feick and Hall,
2002) and participatory planning (Feick and Hall, 2002; Kyem,
2004).
As stated in the introduction, the proposed method checks the
suitability of land-use transformations of existing Non Urbanized
Areas toward new forms of agriculture. It is structured into a Multi
Criteria Suitability Model aimed to produce different scenarios of
New Forms of Urban Agriculture (NFUA).
Criteria are intended as standards of judgment or rules on the
basis of which alternative decisions can be evaluated and ordered
according to their desirability (Malzcewski, 2007). In the pro-
posed model, criteria are structured as attributes that the NUAs
must have in order to change their current land-use toward a
NFUA. Attributes were derived from a literature review and anal-
ysis of spatial and physical features of existing NUAs and express
both explicit and implicit spatial criteria (Malzcewski, 2007). Each
attribute is described by an indicator calculated in GIS. The combi-
nation of criteria is then used in the Multi Criteria Suitability Model
to identify different configurations of areas suitable for NFUA.
The model comprises two main phases: the first defines a pri-
mary set of NUAs potentially suitable for NFUA; the second phase
identifies which of the NUAs selected in the first phase are most
suitable for NFUA according defined suitability criteria. Finally, spa-
tial configurations for these new land uses are proposed.
The preliminary step in developing the model was to define the
categories of NFUA to be used as new land uses for NUAs. Accord-
ing to a literature review and existing experiences, the following
typologies were defined.
- Urban Farms. These represent the primary form of urban and
multi-functional agriculture (Aubry et al., 2012) and are charac-
terised by the production of fresh products. They clean up the city
by recycling waste (Mougeot, 2005), provide landscape and socio-
educational functions (Ba and Moustier, 2010) and contribute to
urban employment and reduction of inequalities (Dubbeling et al.,
2010). Urban Farms are often run according to a Community Sup-
ported Agriculture (CSA) model (Wells and Gradwell, 2001) and
can be of varying sizes, starting from a minimum size of 0.8 Ha,
and providing fifty shares (2–4 people) of products per hectare
(Van En, 1995).
- Allotment Gardens. These are places for leisure and integration of
older people and socially deprived groups (Rubino, 2007) where
gardening is the main activity. The minimum plot area can vary
from 50–100 m2 to 200–400 m2 (Rubino, 2007). According to
National Society of Allotment Gardens and Leisure Gardeners
Limited (no date) a single plot of about 250 m2 can provide food
for four people per year.
- Agricultural Parks. These are large farmland areas where pro-
ductive uses (usually organic farming) are implemented along
with rural landscape protection and enjoyment. These parks are
an innovative and scalable model that facilitates land access for
beginning and immigrant farmers, local food provision for diverse
communities, natural conservation, public education and job
training opportunities. In France, sizes vary from 10 to 10,000 Ha
(Donadieu, 1998). Other examples include Sunol AgPark in the
USA (7 Ha) and Parco Agricolo Sud Milano in Italy (46,000 Ha).
These typologies encompass different management and prop-
erty structures: from communal based management of public lands
in Community/Allotment Gardens, to a regional or provincial man-
agement of private farms in Agricultural Parks. Other managements
include collective farming or other forms of cooperation among
single farmers or land owners.
 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303
The first phase of the model analyses the existing NUAs in order
to find a primary set of areas to be assessed for new NFUA. This
phase considers as its main criterion the compatibility of a transi-
tion from a current land-use toward one listed above as defining an
NFUA. In the study area, the following cases have been observed.
- Farmlands and Abandoned Farmlands are always considered
compatible with transition toward all NFUA. This condition
assumes that soils and physical characteristics of these areas are
suitable for an agricultural use and they would be conserved in
case of transformations toward NFUA.
- Bare Soils are considered compatible as long as they are contigu-
ous with existing farmlands. This condition assumes that Bare Soil
can be transformed into an NFUA if it is geographically contiguous
to other agricultural land uses. This might make the transfor-
mations more feasible from an economic point of view, because
they would take place in areas that are contiguous to existing
farmlands.
- Woods and Shrubs are considered compatible if tree land cover
is below 20%. This condition assumes that patches of Woods
and Shrubs with low presence of trees provide a low contribute
in terms of evapotranspiration and biodiversity (La Rosa and
Privitera, 2013) and thus might be converted into NFUA through
removing existing trees and/or planting new crops. On the con-
trary, patches with higher tree land cover might be more suitable
for other forms of green spaces (i.e. urban parks) where existing
trees might be maintained and/or integrated with small foresta-
tion interventions or other equipments.
- Lava fields are considered incompatible because agricultural land
uses are not be appropriate on this type of land.
- Public urban greenspaces are considered incompatible as trans-
formations would significantly alter the current layout of these
areas and their function for public leisure.
According to the above criteria, two indicators are used in this
phase to check the compatibility of existing Bare Soil, Woods and
Shrubs with transformation into NFUA These are Contiguity to Farm-
lands and Trees Land Cover, respectively.
Contiguity to Farmlands (CO F)
This indicator verifies the existence of contiguity between
patches of Bare Soils and Farmlands. Operationally, this indicator is
calculated using a spatial join function of GIS between the layers of
Bare Soils and Farmlands land uses. A new binary attribute (CO F)
was added to the Bare Soils layer and calculated as “Y” for patches
with contiguity or “N” on the contrary.
Trees Land Cover (TLC)
This indicator evaluates the percentage of tree land cover for
patches belonging to Wood and Shrub land-use category. Trees
Land Covers is visually identified and digitised by interpreting
orthophotos taken in the late spring of 2007. A detailed extraction
of land cover features was possible thanks to the high resolution of
these orthophotos (0.25 m), enabling the identification of individ-
ual trees. The choice for a manual approach to land cover was due
to the high knowledge of the area by the operator that undertook
the visual inspection: this allowed to have a fast (2 working days)
and accurate (>90%) tree extraction. TLC is then calculated as the
percentage between the surface covered by trees and the area of
the single patch.
After calculation of the two indicators, GIS spatial queries based
on values of indicators are performed to identify the primary set of
suitable NUAs.
The second phase is aimed at better characterising existing NUAs
and addressing them to the most suitable NFUA. The suitability
analysis considers the criteria of patch size, accessibility by people,
293
presence of tree land cover and contiguity to farmlands. For each
NFUA, proposed criteria follow the conditions listed below:
- Urban Farms: size ranking from 5000 to 20,000 m2 and accessibil-
ity by 2000 inhabitants for every 1 Ha of land, within a pedestrian
distance buffer of 500 m. Considering that 1 Ha of land can pro-
duce food for 200 people – 50 shares of food for four people
(Van En, 1995) –, the condition of 2000 inhabitants per hectare
would ensure the economic feasibility of Urban Farms, even if
only 10% of the population would be interested in purchasing
products. Moreover, a minimum percentage of tree land cover
is required as an indicator of agricultural productive potential of
current Farmlands patches.
- Allotment Gardens: maximum patch size of 5000 m2 and acces-
sibility of 100 inhabitants for every 1000 m2 of land within a
pedestrian distance buffer of 250 m. Considering that 1000 m2
of land can be used by 20 people – 1 lot of 50 m2 for one person
(NSALG no date) –, the condition of 100 inhabitants per 1000 m2
ensures accessibility to Allotment Gardens because they are
mainly provided for older people and socially deprived groups.
Moreover, the above mentioned criteria of Contiguity to Farm-
lands and percentage of Tree Land Cover are required.
- Agricultural Parks: minimum patch size of 20,000 m2 to allow
productive uses and other functions (landscape protection and
leisure). Moreover, the contiguity of NUAs to existing farmlands
was required for ensure economic feasibility and accessibility.
Finally, a minimum percentage of tree land cover is required as
an indicator of agricultural productive potential for Abandoned
Farmlands (mainly citrus fruits or olive trees).
Table 1 shows all possible transitions from current land uses of
NUAs (Farmlands, Abandoned Farmlands, Woods and Shrubs, Bare
Soil) to NFUA (Urban Farms, Allotment Gardens, Agricultural Park).
The same table also reports the indicators for the suitability crite-
ria introduced above. Each transition is considered to be suitable
if a patch of NUAs presents defined values of indicators. For exam-
ple, in order to be suitable as an Urban Farm, a patch of Farmland
must be between 2000 and 5000 m2 , and there must be more than
2000 people living in a buffer of 500 m from the patch. Some tran-
sitions (i.e. Farmlands to Allotment Gardens, Woods and Shrubs to
Agricultural Parks, Bare Soils to Allotment Gardens) are considered
unsuitable because they would deeply modify the existing agri-
cultural activities (Farmlands), alter the existing physical features
of more natural patches (Woods and Shrubs) or need too large an
investment for their implementation (Bare Soils).
All these criteria are represented by one or more spatial indi-
cators that are calculated with GIS. All indicators are numerically
expressed as attributes of each patch of NUAs in a GIS vector layer.
The following indicators have been used.
Size (A), records the area of the single patch of NUA.
Proximity to residential areas (PR Res), accounts for the total num-
ber of people that can access each NUA. The indicator is weighted
with patch size, as the larger a patch is, the greater its influence
in attracting people. Two distance thresholds are fixed: 500 m for
Urban Farm and 250 m for Allotment Gardens: this distinction is set
as Allotment Gardens usually require a shorter distance from resi-
dential areas then Urban Farms (Bendt et al., 2013). Operationally,
this indicator is calculated using GIS functions of overlay analysis
and spatial join. First, the number of people inside each buffer from
the NUA is derived by a census data layer. Second, a geographical
intersection of census tracts and buffer area is performed to esti-
mate the population potentially having access to the patch. Finally,
the indicator is calculated as the ratio between the total population
estimated in the buffer area and the patch size.
294 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

Table 1
Possible transition between current land use and NFUA with relative criteria and indicators.

Current land uses New Forms of Indicators

Urban Agriculture

Size (A), m2 Proximity to Contiguity to Trees Land

residential Farmlands Cover (TLC)
areas (PR Res) (CO F)

Urban Farms 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000 / /

Farmlands inhab. within
500 m buffer
for each 1 ha of
land

Allotment Gardens Not suitable transition

Agricultural Park >20,000 / Yes /

Urban Farms 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000 >30%

Abandoned
inhab. within
Farmlands
500 m buffer
for each 1 ha of
land

Allotment Gardens <5000 Min 100 inhab. /

within 250 m
buffer for each
0.1 ha of land

Agricultural Park >20,000 / Yes >50%

Woods Urban Farms 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000 /

and inhab. within
Shrubs 500 m buffer
for each 1 ha of
land

Allotment Gardens <5000 Min 100 inhab. /

within 250 m
buffer for each
0.1 ha of land

Agricultural Park Not suitable transition

Urban Farms 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000 /

Bare
inhab. within
Soils
500 m buffer
for each 1 ha of
land

Allotment Gardens Not suitable transition

Agricultural Park >20,000 / / /

Trees Land Cover (TLC) is calculated for Woods and Shrubs and
Abandoned Farmlands land-use categories as already reported in
the first phase of the methodology. The tree land cover represents
in the first case the natural or semi-natural vegetation, while in the
second case it represents the last remnants of agricultural trees
once present in patches of abandoned farmland.
Contiguity to Farmlands (CO F) is calculated for Bare Soil as reported
in the first phase of the method.
Sensitivity and scenarios analysis for New Forms of Urban
Agriculture
Different scenarios for NFUA – in terms of types of NFUA and
relative number of patches – depend on the values of indicators.
By fixing different value thresholds for indicators, the number of
occurrences for each NFUA will vary according to the threshold
used (Chen et al., 2010). Sensitivity analysis is generally aimed at
understanding how the variation in the output of a model can be
apportioned, qualitatively or quantitatively, to different sources of
variation, and how the model depends upon the information that
has been used (Saltelli et al., 2000). To understand how different
scenarios can be produced by changing indicator thresholds, a sen-
sitivity analysis was carried out. By changing values of indicators
and fixing different thresholds it is possible to explore the change
in number and types of resulting NFUA, as well as their spatial
configurations.
For each transition from current land-use to a NFUA, a number
of finite combinations of threshold values are explored in order to
understand whether one indicator is more influential than another
or to find out within which range of values the number of resultant
patches of NFUA remains stable.
Three planning scenarios were tested. The first one is the Mixed
Land Use Scenario (S1), aimed at minimising the variation in resul-
tant occurrences of the three different NFUA and thus producing a
more differentiated spatial configuration. This scenario is obtained
by finding the values of indicators that minimise the standard devi-
ation of the number of patches of Urban Farms, Agricultural Parks,
Allotment Gardens and Farmlands.
This condition is expressed by
Min (Std Dev (#UF, #AP, #AG, #F),
where #UF, #AP, #AG, #F are the number of occurrences respec-
tively for Urban Farms, Agricultural Parks, Allotment Gardens and
Farmlands; Std Dev is the standard deviation of the number of
occurrences of all kind of NFUA.
The second scenario is Max Urban Agriculture (S2) that max-
imises the number of occurrences of Urban Farms and Allotment
 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303 295

Fig. 2. Current NUAs in Catania Municipality (left) and suitable NUAs after the application of the first phase of the Multi Criteria Suitability Model (right).

Gardens, as these NFUA are more related to forms of urban agricul-
ture. S2 was obtained with the condition
Max (#UF + #AG).
The third scenario is Max Agriculture (S3). It maximises the number
of occurrences of Farmlands and Agricultural Park. The condition
required was
Max (#F + #AP).
As can be seen, S1 and S3 scenarios are defined not only from
NFUA but also current patches of Farmlands.
Operationally, scenarios are produced by iteratively changing
values of indicators with GIS multi-attributes structured queries.
The ArcGis Model Builder environment was used to parameter
these values and structure the queries. Each query resulted in a
number of occurrences for all NFUA.
set” section, the current land uses of these areas are Farmlands,
Abandoned Farmlands, Bare Soils, Lava Fields and Woods & Shrubs.
The first phase of the Multi Criteria Suitability Model assesses
the suitability of current land-use of NUAs to transformations into
NFUA. Within the existing patches of NUAs (Fig. 2, left) 127 are suit-
able: 43 of Farmlands, 57 of Abandoned Farmlands, 23 of Woods and
Shrubs and 4 of Bare Soils (Fig. 2, right). These patches represent the
first set of NUAs to be used as NFUA. Even if the main characterising
element is the relevant variation in size of these patches (with rela-
tive high standard deviation), it is interesting to see how very large
patches (more than 5 Ha) are also present in the area, considering
that all patches are generally close to dense urban fabric boundaries
or to the city centre.
The second phase of the Multi Criteria Suitability Model
produces a spatial configuration of NFUA as the result of applica-
tion of the suitability criteria and relative attributes and indicators

Table 2
Results
Type and number of occurrences of NFUA for each considered transition.

The available land-use map shows that 201 patches of NUAs Current land uses New Forms of Number of resulted
are present (Fig. 2, left) in the study area of the municipality of Urban Agriculture patches
Catania. As introduced in “The study area and available geo-data Farmlands Urban Farms 11
(43) Agricultural Park 18

Urban Farms 5
Abandoned
Allotment Gardens 2
Farmlands (57)
Agricultural Park 1

Woods and Urban Farms 9

Shrubs (23) Allotment Gardens 1

Bare Soils Urban Farms 0

(4) Agricultural Park 4

Table 3
Total number of patches for each NFUA type.

New Forms of Urban Number of %

Agriculture resulting patches

Urban Farms 25 20
Allotment Gardens 3 2
Agricultural Park 23 18
Other current land uses 76 60
(Farmlands, Abandoned
Farmlands)
Fig. 3. Suitable NUAs after the application of the second phase of the Multi Criteria
Total 127 100
Suitability Model and relative New Forms of Urban Agriculture.
296 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

as reported in Table 1. Fig. 3 and Tables 2 and 3 show the type and
number of obtained NFUA. The most common NFUA is Agricultural
Park (27 patches), also according to the wide area covered by many
of the existing NUAs, followed by Urban Farms (20 patches) and a
few Allotment Gardens (2 patches).
Not all the NUAs were suitable to be transformed into NFUA
according to proposed suitability criteria: among the 127 suitable
NUAs, 65 patches (Farmlands and Abandoned Farmlands) did not
change their land-use after application of the Suitability Model. This
can be seen in Fig. 3, where the unsuitable NUAs are reported with
a simple black outline.
The three alternative scenarios were tested with the sensi-
tivity and scenario analysis to produce varying configurations in
terms of the number of involved patches and their spatial local-
isation. Table 4 reports the indicator thresholds for the three
scenarios under consideration, Table 5 summarises the number and

Table 4
Values of indicators for the three proposed scenarios.

Current land Prospected Scenarios Indicators

uses land uses

Size (A), m2 Proximity to residential areas Contiguity to Trees Land

(PR Res) Farmlands (CO F) Cover (TLC)

S1 6000 < A < 20,000 Min 1000 inhab. within 500 m / /

Urban Farms buffer for each 1 ha of land

Farmlands S2 4000 < A < 20,000 Min 500 inhab. within 500 m
buffer for each 1 ha of land

S3 5000 < A < 10,000 Min 2000 inhab. within 500 m

buffer for each 1 ha of land

S1 >20,000 / Yes /
Agricultural Park
S2 >20,000

S3 >10,000

S1 6000 < A < 20,000 Min 1000 inhab. within 500 m >50%
Urban Farms buffer for each 1 ha of land

S2 6000 < A < 20,000 Min 1000 inhab. within 500 m >20%
buffer for each 1 ha of land
Abandoned Farmlands
S3 6000 < A < 10,000 Min 2000 inhab. within 500 m >20%
buffer for each 1 ha of land

S1 <6000 Min 50 inhab. within 250 m /

Allotment Gardens buffer for each 1 ha of land

S2 <6000 Min 50 inhab. within 250 m

buffer for each 1 ha of land

S3 <5000 Min 50 inhab. within 250 m

buffer for each 1 ha of land

S1 >20,000 / Yes >50%

Agricultural Park
S2 >20,000 >50%

S3 >10,000 >20%

S1 6000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000 inhab. within 500 m / /

Urban Farms buffer for each 1 ha of land

Woods and Shrubs S2 6000 < A < 20,000 Min 1000 inhab. within 500 m
buffer for each 1 ha of land

S3 6000 < A < 20,000 Min 1000 inhab. within 500 m

buffer for each 1 ha of land

S1 <6000 Min 100 inhab. within 250 m / /

Allotment Gardens buffer for each 1 ha of land

S2 <6000 Min 100 inhab. within 250 m

buffer for each 1 ha of land

S3 <6000 Min 100 inhab. within 250 m

buffer for each 1 ha of land

S1 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000 inhab. within 500 m / /

Urban Farms buffer for each 1 ha of land

Bare Soils S2 5000 < A < 20,000 Min 2000 inhab. within 500 m
buffer for each 1 ha of land

S3 5000 < A < 10,000 Min 2000 inhab. within 500 m

buffer for each 1 ha of land

S1 >20,000 / / /
Agricultural Park
S2 >20,000

S3 >10,000
 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303 297

Fig. 4. Spatial configurations of New Forms of Urban Agriculture for the four proposed planning Scenarios.

typologies of NFUA for each scenario, while Fig. 4 shows the rela- Table 5
Number of patches for each NFUA in the 3 proposed Scenario.
tive maps of the spatial configurations of NFUA. Results indicate an
overall similarity among the three scenarios, but the total number NFUA Scenario 1 (mix Scenario 2 Scenario 3 (max
of patches of NFUA recorded a higher variation, ranking from 52 land-use) (max urban agriculture)
agriculture)
(Scenario 3) to 66 (Scenario 2).
As introduced in “Method” section, configurations of NFUA Urban Farms 26 36 17
obtained from the Multi Criteria Suitability Model were dependent Allotment Gardens 7 7 3
Agricultural Park 23 23 32
on the criteria used, indicators applied to describe these criteria
Total NFUA 56 66 52
and consequently the values of indicators. The influence of each Other current land uses 71 61 75
indicator was different for each land-use transition considered in (Farmlands,
Table 1. Abandoned Farmlands)
Overall, the most influential indicators in determining the num- Total 127 127 127
ber of occurrences of the different NFUA were Size (A) and Tree Land
Cover (TLC), while less significant was the Proximity to Residential
Areas (PR Res). The contiguity condition described by indicator of
Contiguity to Farmlands (CO F) was not significant as the condition considering a PR Res value of 2000 inhabitants, the number of resul-
was very often verified. For all transitions, Tables 6–9 report the tant Urban Farms drops from 24 to 17 when introducing values of
changes in numbers of occurrences when changing thresholds of A between 4000 and 20,000 m2 . Only 11 Urban Farms resulted for
indicators and their combinations. values of A between 5000 and 2000 m2 . From Farmlands to Agri-
From Farmlands to Urban farms, indicator A was most influ- cultural Park, the only active indicator was A, as the requested
ential. As can be seen in Table 6, the inclusion of a size criterion condition of contiguity to current Farmlands is always verified.
reduces the number of resultant occurrences of Urban Farms much This means there are no isolated patches of Farmlands in the
more than the inclusion of the indicator of PR Res. For example, municipality.
298 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

Table 6
Sensitivity analysis of indicators values for transitions from current Farmlands.

Current land Prospected A, m2 # PR Res, Number # A and PR Res # A and PR Res #

uses land uses of inhab.
within 500 m
buffer for each
1 ha of land

5000 < A < 20,000 15 >2000 24 5000 < A < 20,000 11 5000 < A < 20,000 15
and and
Urban Farms PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 500

4000 < A < 20,000 21 >1000 32 4000 < A < 20,000 17 5000 < A < 20,000 15
Farmlands
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 1000

4000 < A < 10,000 15 >3000 19 4000 < A < 10,000 12 5000 < A < 20,000 11
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000

6000 < A < 20,000 14 >4000 13 6000 < A < 10,000 11 5000 < A < 20,000 8
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 3000

6000 < A < 10,000 8 >5000 11 6000 < A < 10,000 6 5000 < A < 20,000 4
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 4000

>10,000 m2 24 / / / / / /

Agricultural Park >15,000 m 2

18
2
>20,000 m 15

>25,000 m2 15

From Abandoned Farmlands to Urban Farms, the most influen-
tial indicators were TLC and A. Table 7 shows that considering a
PR Res value of 2000 inhabitants, the occurrences of Urban Farms
decreased from 32 to 10 for values of A from 5000 to 20,000 m2
and values of TLC > 15%. Setting the TLC as >40%, the number of
Urban Farms occurrence drops to three. No change in occurrences
was reported when setting TLC between 20 and 30%. From Aban-
doned Farmlands to Allotment Gardens, the influence of A was very
high (Table 7). Considering a PR Res value of 100 inhabitants, the
occurrences of Allotment Gardens decreased from 11 to 3 when
introducing values of A below 20,000 m2 . However, it can be noted
that PR Res values higher than 50 also reduced the occurrences
of Allotment Gardens. In transitions from Abandoned Farmlands to
Agricultural Parks, the TLC indicator proved very influential, pro-
ducing a significant reduction in occurrences. Table 7 shows that
Agricultural Parks reduced from 12 (values of A > 20,000) to 4
(TLC > 10%) or even 1 (TLC > 40%).
From Woods and Shrubs to both Urban Farms and Allotment Gar-
dens, again the most influential indicator was A (Table 8). Sensitivity
analysis showed a reduction of occurrences from 17 to 9 for Urban
Farms (5000 < A < 20,000 and PR Res > 2000) and from 6 to 1 for Allot-
ment Gardens (A < 5000 and PR Res > 100). For these transitions, the
condition expressed by PR Res was always verified.
Finally, transitions from Bare Soils were very limited (Table 9).
No Urban Farms resulted from all considered indicator thresholds,
while four occurrences resulted for Agricultural Parks. This was
mainly due to the low number of current Bare Soil areas and their
overall large size (minimum size of 50,000 m2 ) that severely limited
the number of suitable areas for Urban Farms or Agricultural Park.
Discussion
Urban agriculture and sustainable urban planning
Literature about urban agriculture includes many studies con-
cerning a wide range of functions and benefits provided by growing
food in urban and peri-urban areas (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000;
Taylor Lovell, 2010). Prospective NFUA in urban contexts repre-
sents a useful alternative for urban and landscape planners aimed
at supporting agricultural activities and providing green areas with
limited costs for public administrations.
Areas for urban agriculture can be planned and designed in dif-
ferent forms and to different scales to contribute to biodiversity
conservation and provide a massive range of ecological benefits
for urban residents (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). The integration
of urban agriculture into densely populated areas might greatly
extend opportunities for mixing food production with social, cul-
tural and recreational functions of urban green spaces (Taylor
Lovell, 2010).
To be a feasible alternative in cities and cohabit with other urban
land uses, urban agriculture should include ecological and cul-
tural functions in addition to the direct benefits of food production
(Taylor Lovell, 2010). Recent literature about urban sustaina-
bility is increasingly acknowledging that a transition of agriculture
into strong multifunctionality generates many benefits for society
(Wilson, 2008; Knickel and Renting, 2002; Zasada, 2011), thanks to
the localisation of farms near or inside dense urban areas and the
consequent easier transfer of benefit from the agriculture activities
to urban environment (Deelstra et al., 2001).
Therefore the challenge for urban planning is creation of
an urban environment that includes a wide range of functions
including urban agriculture and other typologies of green spaces
for leisure, biodiversity protection and recreation (La Rosa and
Privitera, 2013). This environment has to be designed according to
the specific features of geographical contexts (Hough, 2004). How-
ever, integration of urban agriculture in land-use planning has been
seldom considered in top-down urban planning and urban agricul-
ture practices have often been implemented from the bottom-up
and spontaneously (Taylor Lovell, 2010). This research aims to ori-
ent land-use planning toward choosing which typologies of New
Forms of Urban Agriculture can be used and where they can be
located.
Method and results
Although the proposed Multi Attribute Suitability Model is
based on a pre-defined set of categories of NFUA, namely Urban
Farms, Allotment Gardens, Agricultural Parks, these categories are
Table 7
Sensitivity analysis of indicators values for transitions from current Abandoned Farmlands.

Current land Prospected A, m2 # PR Res, Number # TLC, % # A and PR Res # A and PR Res # A and PR Res #
uses land uses of inhab. within and TLC and TLC and TLC
500*/250** m
buffer for each
1 ha of land *for
UF **for AG

5000 < A < 20,000 26 >2000 32 >15% 17 5000 < A < 20,000 10 5000 < A < 20,000 5 5000 < A < 20,000 5
and and and
Urban Farms PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000
and TLC > 15% and TLC > 30% and TLC > 30%

4000 < A < 20,000 28 >1000 46 >20% 16 5000 < A < 20,000 8 4000 < A < 20,000 6 5000 < A < 20,000 6
and and and
Abandoned Farmlands
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 1000
and TLC > 20% and TLC > 30% and TLC > 30%

4000 < A < 10,000 16 >3000 25 >25% 13 5000 < A < 20,000 5 4000 < A < 10,000 4 5000 < A < 20,000 4

D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

and and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 3000
and TLC > 25% and TLC > 30% and TLC > 30%

6000 < A < 20,000 21 >4000 19 >30% 13 5000 < A < 20,000 5 6000 < A < 20,000 4 5000 < A < 20,000 3
and and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 4000
and TLC > 30% and TLC > 30% and TLC > 30%

6000 < A < 10,000 9 >5000 10 >40% 8 5000 < A < 20,000 3 6000 < A < 10,000 2 5000 < A < 20,000 1
and and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 5000
and TLC > 40% and TLC > 30% and TLC > 30%

A < 3000 1 >50 27 / / A < 3000 and 1 A < 5000 and 2 / /

PR Res > 100 PR Res > 50
Allotment Gardens
A < 4000 1 >100 11 / / A < 4000 and 1 A < 5000 and 2 / /
PR Res > 100 PR Res > 100

A < 5000 3 >200 4 / / A < 5000 and 3 A < 5000 and 1 / /

PR Res > 100 PR Res > 200

A < 6000 8 >250 2 / / A < 6000 and 3 A < 5000 and 1 / /

PR Res > 100 PR Res > 250

A > 10,000 15 / / >30% 4 A > 10,000 and 1 A > 20,000 and 4 / /

TLC > 50% TLC > 10%
Agricultural Parka
A > 15,000 13 >40% 2 A > 15,000 and 1 A > 20,000 and 2 / /
TLC > 50% TLC > 20%

A > 20,000 12 >50% 1 A > 20,000 and 1 A > 20,000 and 1 / /

TLC > 50% TLC > 40%

A > 25,000 11 >60% 1 A > 25,000 and 1 A > 20,000 and 1 / /

TLC > 50% TLC > 50%
a
For the transition AB > AP the condition of Contiguity to farmlands is always requested.

299
300 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303

Table 8
Sensitivity analysis of indicators values for transitions from current Woods and Shrubs.

Current land Prospected A, m2 # PR Res, Number # A and PR Res # A and PR Res #

uses land uses of inhab. within and
500*/250** m
buffer for each
1 ha of land *for
UF ** for AG

5000 < A < 20,000 9 >2000 17 5000 < A < 20,000 9 5000 < A < 20,000 9
and and
Urban Farms PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000

4000 < A < 20,000 9 >1000 21 4000 < A < 20,000 9 5000 < A < 20,000 9
Woods and Shrubs
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 1000

4000 < A < 10,000 4 >3000 10 4000 < A < 10,000 4 5000 < A < 20,000 8
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 3000

6000 < A < 20,000 9 >4000 8 6000 < A < 20,000 9 5000 < A < 20,000 6
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 4000

6000 < A < 10,000 4 >5000 7 6000 < A < 10,000 4 5000 < A < 20,000 5
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 5000

A < 3000 0 >100 6 A < 3000 and 1 A < 5000 and 1

PR Res > 100 PR Res > 100
Allotment Gardens
A < 4000 1 >50 15 A < 4000 and 1 A < 5000 and 1
PR Res > 100 PR Res > 50

A < 5000 1 >200 1 A < 5000 and 1 A < 5000 and 1

PR Res > 100 PR Res > 200

A < 6000 1 >250 1 A < 6000 and 1 A < 5000 and 1

PR Res > 100 PR Res > 250

not general ones, rather they encompass typologies of urban
agriculture that have been widely adopted for urban areas in Euro-
pean countries and especially in Mediterranean areas (Privitera
et al., 2013). Other geographical contexts or planning scales might
require different categories of NFUA, such as domestic gardens
(Cameron et al., 2012), educational or social farms (Canavari et al.,
2011; Zasada, 2011), and thus different criteria and indicators
should be chosen for the suitability model. However, if different
categories of NFUA are used, the proposed Multi Attribute Suitabil-
ity Model can be still applied without any limitation, taking care of

Table 9
Sensitivity analysis of indicators values for transitions from current Bare Soils.

Current land Prospected A, m2 # PR Res, Number # A and PR Res # A and PR Res #

uses land uses of inhab. and
within 500 m
buffer for each
1 ha of land

5000 < A < 20,000 0 >2000 1 5000 < A < 20,000 0 5000 < A < 20,000 0
and and
Urban Farms PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 2000

4000 < A < 20,000 0 >1000 2 4000 < A < 20,000 0 5000 < A < 20,000 0
Bare Soils
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 1000

4000 < A < 10,000 0 >3000 0 4000 < A < 10,000 0 5000 < A < 20,000 0
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 3000

6000 < A < 20,000 0 >4000 0 6000 < A < 20,000 0 5000 < A < 20,000 0
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 4000

6000 < A < 10,000 0 >5000 0 6000 < A < 10,000 0 5000 < A < 20,000 0
and and
PR Res > 2000 PR Res > 5000

A > 20,000 4 / / / / / /

Agricultural Park A > 10,000 4

A > 15,000 4

A > 30,000 4
 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303 301

calibrating indicators in a way that is appropriate to the geograph- different stakeholders (Redwood, 2009). Moreover, raising pub-
ical context under exam. lic awareness can be a crucial step in increasing civic welfare and
Section “Method” introduced the criteria that defined the con- promoting long-term sustainability (Lyson, 2004).
ditions that a current NUA should have in order to be suitable for an
NFUA, expressed with specific values of indicators. In the suitability
Planning outcomes
model no weights have been applied to these criteria as they reflect
required conditions for their suitability. Unlike other GIS suitability
The proposed method offers a spatial tool for urban planners to
problems that output suitability maps from the weighted sum of
understand how and where urban agriculture can act as a buffer
input layers, this approach resulted in the selection of existing areas
against urban development (Aubry et al., 2012). The method also
that have particular attributes that satisfy the requested criteria.
produces scenarios with a differentiated number of areas: this
This means conditions expressed by the criteria represent an ideal
might be useful for small local municipalities that have restricted
point of the decision.
financial resources to develop projects for green areas and there-
The different influence of criteria on the selection of NFUA was
fore have to define priorities for the implementation of new green
explored through sensitivity analysis. As noted in “Results” section,
spaces.
not all criteria had the same influence in determining the number of
Regarding integrating NFUA with other green spaces in the
NFUA. We found that the influence of indicators was always strictly
city, an interesting outcome might include connection of NFUA
linked to the physical features of the NUAs (size, location in the
into an agricultural greenway network. Greenways are one of the
urban context and tree cover). For this reason, it would be difficult
most powerful and widespread environmental tools used at urban,
to extrapolate general considerations about the influence of criteria
metropolitan and regional scales. They counteract ecological frag-
in other geographical contexts.
mentation and integrate urban development, nature conservation
The entire suitability model relies heavily on the quality of
and public health promotion (Ahern, 1995; Fábos and Ryan, 2006)
land-use data. For this reason accurate identification of land-use
and help linking rural and urban spaces along the rural–urban
categories is a preliminary and crucial step. In the examined case
interface through linear systems (Walmsley, 2006). Greenways are
this was done thanks to the high resolution of available orthophotos
planned, designed and managed at different scales and for multiple
(see section “The study area and available geo-data set”). How-
purposes, including providing ecosystem services such as purifi-
ever one strength of the method is the limited quantity of geo-data
cation of air and water, mitigation of floods, climate regulation,
(land-use map, orthophotos, census data) needed for application of
generation and renewal of soil fertility, accessibility to open spaces
the suitability model, thus allowing its replicability to other geo-
and intellectual stimulation.
graphical areas.
Applying the greenway approach would develop a network of
With regard to the results obtained, although small in number,
urban agricultural areas throughout the city (Viljoen et al., 2005),
existing patches of NUAs present an overall medium-large size. This
connecting NFUA to existing green spaces and other agricultural
is partly due to their peri-urban location, resulting in few patches
areas. Patches of NFUA linked each other through a network of
having the best size to be transformed into Allotment Gardens. Urban
connections would be integrated with other functions including
Farms were the most frequent NFUA identified as suitable in this
local parks and other space for leisure. These connections might
study because they matched the most frequently occurring patch
improve not only accessibility to agricultural areas, but also to the
size. We also found that proximity to residential areas was not a sig-
entire urban environment.
nificant indicator in dense urban contexts, as almost all patches can
One important aspect not covered in this paper deals with the
be accessed by many people living within a buffer distance of about
property of the land that will change its land-use according to the
250–500 m. The results also showed that Scenario 2 (Urban Agricul-
new scenario of NFUA. This issue is directly linked to the economic
ture) involved the most patches: this was due to the high number of
feasibility of the proposed scenarios, as direct public acquisitions
NUAs suitable for Urban Farms (more than half of involved patches
of land are often economically unsustainable for local administra-
in the scenario).
tion and face resistance from private landowners (Bengston et al.,
Improvements in the method might include additional criteria
2004). The issue of economic feasibility could be addressed through
and indicators such as terrain morphology, land ownership, frag-
incentive-based approaches for protecting open space (Maruani
mentation of farmland plots and mixed uses within NFUA. The
and Amit-Cohen, 2007). From this perspective, Transfer of Develop-
land’s soil features might be considered to more specifically address
ment Rights programs can be used to obtain economic benefits for
which crops might be more suitable for Urban Farms or Agricultural
different stakeholders, including landowners of areas designated
Parks. An interesting advance in the research might also be to evalu-
for NFUAs, developers of parcels to be developed within these areas,
ate the increase of ecosystem services resulting from transitions of
and local administrations that may implement NFUAs with no or
existing NUAs to NFUA (La Rosa and Privitera, 2013): particularly,
limited financial efforts (Martinico et al., 2014).
the evaluation of regulating ecosystem services such as storm water
regulation (Freshwater Society, 2013) and cooling functionality of
existing NUAs (Qiu et al., 2013) would be an useful way to better Conclusions
characterise existing NUAs and thus producing a more a diversified
spatial configuration of NFUAs able to increase city adaptation and The study introduces a method to check the suitability of land-
mitigation to climate change issues affecting urban environments use transitions of current Non Urbanized Areas to New Forms of
(Lwasa et al., 2013). In this direction, additional criteria for the eval- Urban Agriculture, and proposes scenarios for new spatial config-
uation of such regulating services will require a more precise and urations of NFUA to increase the provision of urban ecosystem
differentiated identification of land covers (e.g. tree/shrubs species services such as food production in urban contexts and access
and types of cultivars/groves). to green spaces. The suitability of transitions of NUAs to NFUA
Important inputs in decision making about NFUA can also come have been checked with a GIS-based Multi Criteria Suitability
from participatory processes and civic engagement in an urban Model and relative spatial indicators. The model produces sce-
society (Goldberger, 2011). The involvement of different social sub- narios for NFUA that integrate urban agriculture in the city and
jects in decision making can clarify the interests of citizens better, provide useful information for urban planning polices aimed at
gaining local knowledge about the geographical context through reaching a multifunctional and sustainable land-use for current
customised data collection and improving the dialogue between urban open spaces. Moreover, the introduction of NFUA might be
302 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303
a useful planning strategy to protect existing productive farmland
from urban development pressures. Finally, the proposed scenarios
might enhance the overall quality of the urban landscape, support
climate change adaptation policies and increase the economic value
of land as contributing toward a more liveable and healthy urban
environment.
References
Ahern, J., 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape Urban Plan. 33,
131–155.
Ahrenz, H., Kantelhardt, J., 2009. Accounting for farmers’ production responses
to environmental restrictions within landscape planning. Land Use Policy 26,
925–934.
Aubry, C., Ramamonjisoab, J., Dabatc, M.H., Rakotoarisoad, J., Rakotondraibee, J.,
Rabeharisoaf, L., 2012. Urban agriculture and land use in cities: an approach with
the multi-functionality and sustainability concepts in the case of Antananarivo
(Madagascar). Land Use Policy 29, 429–439.
Ba, A., Moustier, P., 2010. La perception de l’agriculture de proximité par les residents
de Dakar. Rev. Econ. Region. Urbain. 5, 913–936.
Bendt, P., Barthel, S., Colding, J., 2013. Civic greening and environmental learning in
public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape Urban Plan. 109, 18–30.
Bengston, D.N., Fletcher, J.O., Nelson, K.C., 2004. Public policies for managing urban
growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in
the United States. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 271–286.
Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29,
293–301.
Bougherara, D., Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N., 2009. Buy local, pollute less: what drives
households to join a community supported farm? Ecol. Econ. 68, 1488–1495.
Cameron, R.W.F., Blanuša, T., Taylor, J.E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A.J., Henricot, B.,
Thompson, K., 2012. The domestic garden – its contribution to urban green
infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 129–137.
Canavari, M., Huffaker, C., Mari, R., Ragazzi, D., Spadoni, R., 2011. Educational farms
in the Emilia-Romagna region: their role in food habit education. In: Sidali, K.L.,
Spiller, A., Schulze, B. (Eds.), Food, Agri-Culture and Tourism – Linking Local
Gastronomy and Rural Tourism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Springer, Hei-
delberg, pp. 73–91.
Carver, S.J., 1991. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical informa-
tion systems. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 5 (3), 321–339.
Chakhar, S., Mousseau, V., 2008. Spatial multicriteria decision making. In: Shehkar,
S., Xiong, H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of GIS. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 747–753.
Chen, Y., Yu, J.S., Khan, S., 2010. Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights
in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environ. Modell. Softw. 25, 1582–1591.
Chen, H., Wood, M.D., Linstead, C., Maltby, E., 2011. Uncertainty analysis in a GIS-
based multi-criteria analysis tool for river catchment management. Environ.
Modell. Softw. 26, 395–405.
Commission of the European Communities, 2006. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protec-
tion, Available from: www.ec.europa.eu/environment/soil
Deelstra, T., Girardet, H., 2000. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In: Bakker,
N., Dubbeling, M., Gundel, S., Sabel-Koschela, U., de Zeeuw, H. (Eds.), Growing
Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. Deutsche Stiftung
fur Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Feldafing, pp. 43–65.
Deelstra, T., Boyd, D., van den Biggelaar, M., 2001. Multifunctional land use—an
opportunity for promoting urban agriculture in Europe. Urban Agric. 4, 33–35.
Donadieu, P., 1998. Le Campagnes Urbaines. Actes Sud, Arles.
Dubbeling, M., de Zeeuw, H., van Veenhuizen, R., 2010. Cities, Poverty and Food:
Multi-Stakeholder Policy and Planning in Urban Agriculture. Practical Action,
pp. 192.
European Environmental Agency, 2006. Urban Sprawl in Europe: The Ignored Chal-
lenge. Report 10, EEA, Copenhagen.
European Environmental Agency, 2010. Urban Atlas, Available from:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas (accessed
02.02.14).
Fábos, J.G., Ryan, R.L., 2006. An introduction to greenway planning around the world.
Landscape Urban Plan. 76, 1–6.
Feick, R.D., Hall, B.G., 2002. Balancing consensus and conflict with a GIS-based mul-
tiparticipant, multi-criteria decision support tool. GeoJournal 53, 391–406.
Freshwater Society, 2013. Urban Agriculture as a Green Stormwater Man-
agement Strategy, Available from: http://www.arboretum.umn.edu/
UserFiles/File/2012%20Clean%20Water%20Summit/Freshwater%20Urban%20
Ag%20White%20Paper%20Final.pdf (accessed 02.02.14).
Gallent, N., Shaw, D., 2007. Spatial planning, area action plans and the rural next
urban fringe. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 50, 617–638.
Goldberger, J.R., 2011. Conventionalization, civic engagement, and the sustainability
of organic agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 27, 288–296.
Gómez-baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services
for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245.
Hough, M., 2004. Cities and Natural Process: A Basis for Sustainability. Routledge,
New York.
Hubacek, K., Kronenberg, J., 2013. Synthesizing different perspectives on the value
of urban ecosystem services. Landscape Urban Plan. 109 (1), 1–6.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Appli-
cations. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Kasanko, M., Barredo, J.I., Lavalle, C., McCormick, N., Demicheli, L., Sagris, V., Brezger,
A., 2006. Are European cities becoming dispersed? A comparative analysis of 15
European urban areas. Landscape Urban Plan. 77, 111–130.
Knickel, K., Renting, H., 2002. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of
multifunctionality and rural development. Sociol. Ruralis. 40, 512–528.
Kyem, P.A.K., 2004. On intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: the
search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. Ann.
Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94, 37–57.
La Greca, P., Barbarossa, L., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Martinico, F., 2011. The density
dilemma. A proposal for introducing smart growth principles in a sprawling
settlements within Catania Metropolitan Area. Cities 28, 527–535.
La Rosa, D., Privitera, R., 2013. Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-use
planning of agricultural and green infrastructure in urban context. Landscape
Urban Plan. 109, 94–106.
Lyson, A., 2004. Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. Tufts
University Press, Medford.
Lwasa, S., Mugagga, F., Wahab, B., Simon, D., Connors, J., Griffith, C., 2013.
Urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry: transcending poverty allevi-
ation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Urban Clim. 7, 92–106,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.007.
Malczewski, J., 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview.
Prog. Plan. 62, 3–65.
Malzcewski, J., 2007. GIS based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the liter-
ature. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 20, 703–726.
Maruani, T., Amit-Cohen, I., 2007. Open space planning models: a review of
approaches and methods. Landscape Urban Plan. 81, 1–13.
Martinico, F., La Rosa, D., Privitera, R., 2014. Green Oriented Urban Development for
urban ecosystem services provision in a medium sized city in Southern Italy.
iForest, http://dx.doi.org/10.3832/ifor1171-007.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Bio-
diversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Mougeot, L.J.A., 2005. Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions
of Urban Agriculture. IDRC, Earthscan, London, pp. 286.
Mougeot, L.J.A., 2006. Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable
Development. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
Munoz, F., 2003. Lock living: urban sprawl in Mediterranean cities. Cities 20 (6),
381–385.
National Society of Allotment Gardens and Leisure Gardeners Limited (no date). Cre-
ating a new allotment site. Available from: http://www.nsalg.org.uk/ (accessed
21.02.13).
Olson, R.K., Lyson, T.A., 1999. Under the Blade: The Conversion of Agricultural Land-
scapes. Westview Press, Boulder.
Paül, V., McKenzie, F.H., 2010. Agricultural areas under metropolitan threats: lessons
for Perth from Barcelona. In: Luck, G.W., Black, R., Race, D. (Eds.), Demographic
Change in Australia’s Rural Landscapes – Implications for Society and the Envi-
ronment. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 125–152.
Prato, T., 2000. Multiple attribute evaluation of landscape management. J. Environ.
Manage. 60, 325–337.
Privitera, R., Martinico, F., La Rosa, D., Pappalardo, V., 2013. The role of non-urbanized
areas for designing an Urban Green Infrastructure. Nordic Journal of Architec-
tural Research 2, 157–186.
Qiu, G., Li, H.-Y., Zhang, O.-T., Chen, W., Liang, X.-J., Li, X.-Z., 2013. Effects of evapo-
transpiration on mitigation of urban temperature by vegetation and urban
agriculture. J. Integr. Agric. 12, 1307–1315.
Regione Sicilia, 2009. Volo fotogrammetrico, lidar, ortofoto e cartografia, Avail-
able from: http://www.sitr.regione.sicilia.it/images/docs/volo sicilia digit.pdf
(accessed 02.02.14).
Redwood, M., 2009. Agriculture in Urban Planning—Generating Livelihoods and Food
Security. Earthscan, London.
Rubino, A., 2007. The allotment gardens of the Ile de France: a tool for social devel-
opment. J. Mediterr. Ecol. 8, 67–75.
Saltelli, A., Chan, K., Scott, M., 2000. Sensitivity Analysis, Probability and Statistics
Series. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sorace, A., 2001. Value to wildlife of urban-agricultural parks: a case study from
Rome urban area. Environ. Manage. 4, 547–560.
Store, R., Kangas, J., 2001. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert
knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape Urban Plan.
55, 79–93.
Sturm, H.J., 1998. Development and dynamics of agricultural parks in West Africa. In:
Kirby, K.J., Watkins, C. (Eds.), The ecological history of European forests: based
on presentations given at the International conference on advances in forest and
woodland history. University of Nottingham, September 1996, pp. 25–32.
Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., Hamilton, S.K., 2007. Ecosystem services and
agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol. Econ.
64, 245–252.
Taylor Lovell, S., 2010. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use
planning in the United States. Sustain 2, 2499–2522.
Thill, J.C., 1999. Multicriteria Decision-making and Analysis: A Geographic Informa-
tion Sciences Approach. Ashgate, New York.
Van En, R., 1995. Eating for your community: towards agriculture supported com-
munity. Context (Fall) 42, 29–31.
Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., Howe, J., 2005. CPULS: Continuous Productive Urban
Landscapes—Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Walmsley, A., 2006. Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century.
Landscape Urban Plan. 76, 252–290.
 D. La Rosa et al. / Land Use Policy 41 (2014) 290–303 303

Wang, X., Yu, S., Huang, G.H., 2004. Land allocation based on integrated GIS opti-
mization modeling at a watershed level. Landscape Urban Plan. 66, 61–74.
Wells, B.L., Gradwell, S., 2001. Gender and resource management: community sup-
ported agriculture as caring-practice. Agric. Hum. Values 18, 107–119.
Wilson, G.A., 2008. From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-
level multifunctional transitional pathways. J. Rural Stud. 24, 367–383.
Zasada, I., 2011. Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal
demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy
28, 639–648.
Zezza, A., Tasciotti, L., 2010. Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security:
empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy 35,
265–273.