Peri-urban agriculture : spatially characterisation for urban planning

6th International AESOP-‐Sustainable Food Planning Conference 5‐7 November 2014, Velp/Arnhem, the Netherlands

Esther SANZ SANZ, PHD student esther.sanzsanz@avignon.inra.fr

Claude NAPOLEONE, Bernard HUBERT : thesis advisors CIFRE N° 2012/0608

OUTLINE

1. Context and searching question

2. Approach : methods, case studies

3. First results: PUA cartography

4. Conclusions & discussion

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

Context : New concerns legitimate protection of agricultural

zones in urban planning, but peri-urban agriculture specifies

need to be defined for planning (Vidal et Fleury, 2009)

Searching question : How can peri-urban productive

agriculture be characterized and delimited to be integrated

in urban planning?

• Recurrent trends in literature : how to locate them?

• How to delimit spatial units meaningful to farming practices

and size/nature compatible with urban planning

operational issues?

• AGRI-URBAN PLANNING

Literature review /fieldwork

PUA : 5 parallel and heterogeneous trends identified:

a) Big extensive farms oriented by the production sector logics, and independent to the city; extension strategy (Masero, 2013; Gille, 2002) Sometimes, CAP-allocation oriented and linked to anticipation phenomena (Jouve & Napoléone, 2003; Tolron, 2001)

b) Intensive and specialized high-value production farms, selling either in long or short supply chains, and aware of marketing methods; stable structures (Aubry and Kebir, 2013; Nahmias and Le Caro 2012)

c) Ageing and non-dynamic little/medium farms, non competitive in new context (Buixade, 2009)

d) Pluriactivity and leisure oriented farms, like low-intensive lifestyle and equine services farms (Busck et al, 2008; Vial, 2011)

e) “Independent” farms included in a controlled geographical growing zone -AOC, specially wine- (Peres, 2007; Lees & Dérioz, 1994)

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

Peri-Urban agriculture Spatial Units PUASU

Cropping systems & structures

Urban functions & morphology

+

characterisation + location

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

Hypothesis : peri-urban agriculture dynamics can be identified by the analysis of on-site spatial patterns

Methodology : agronomic and geographical approach combining a double analysis (Deffontaines et al, 2001 and 1995) :

Morphology (landscape spatial patterns)

Geographical fields (space attributes)

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

Approach of agricultural issue :

a) farming areas characterization (landscape structures)

b) socio-economic analysis of farming activities (lands. functions)

c) land use and land cover policy settings (landscape policies)

Case studies : Madrid and Avignon

Methods Remote sensing interpretation :

• Land use changes and spatial pattern analyse from satellite images • Morphological analysis from aerial pictures • Socio-economic and policy settings analysis using SIG data bases

Field surveys: farmers’ strategies and farms transformations

Interviews with farmers, experts and local managers

On-site landscape reading & literature review : geographical fields analyse

AVIGNON (France) dispersed urban area 337Km2

≈200.000 hab. (d=518hab/Km2 )

delimitation criteria: • administrative

boundaries • geographical

boundaries

7

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions 2

1 k

m

34 km

Typologies of agriculture on urban fringe :

(1st results from field work)

How to locate them?

a) Urban agriculture (UA) : farming close to/into the city that endures because situated on a protected –environmental- delimitated area and taking advantage of the proximity

b) Rural agriculture (RA): farming far from the city influence that bases its strategy on agronomic and commercialisation criteria, including urban market-oriented farms benefiting of urban rents

c) Peri-urban agriculture (PUA) : uncertainty farming with varied and often opposed strategies, going from the opportunist big “CAP farms”, to equine services.

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

9

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

2nd ring peri-urban cities

Inner urban area

Agglomeration communting

areas

Peri-urban communting

areas

Rural hinterland

Outer peri-urban villages

Work places concentration

30 min

30 min

Urban agriculture (UA)

Functional urban area

Periurban agriculture (PUA)

Rural agriculture (RA)

Delimitation of agriculture typologies on urban fringe

Ref: Wiel, 1999

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

30 min

30 min

wo

rks

ho

me

per

. rin

g

cen

tre

Delimitation of agriculture typologies on urban fringe

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

: construction of meaningful PUA spatial units

in an area of great uncertainty and diverse dynamics

PUA

PUASU

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

Housing density (dwellings/ha)

Building development (1950-60-70-80-90-2000stoday)

Accesibility (roads)

Environnemental regulations & policies

Altitude , slope, exposure (MNT)

Water access (streams, canal, wells) irrigated and irrigable ! Another picture?

PUASU

Local land use regulations

(PUA spatial units) : variables

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

Farms size and plots distribution

Plots size

Land tenure system Cropland types Equine services localisation

Water access (streams, canal, wells)

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : variables

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : first cartography

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : first cartography

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : danger top

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : danger top

Unit 1 (urban mix) farms: 20-30ha; plots 0,5-4ha mosaic; urban fringe; green houses; fruits, veg., cereals: no link with irrigation; tenancy; houses in lots and scattered clusters longing routes

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : quite danger

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : quite danger

Unit 2 (extensive farms) farms: 30-70ha; plots >10, conc. and scattered; cereals; non-irrigable; ageing owner-farmer; no equine but tourism; some spread houses

Unit 3 (crumbling mix) farms: 20-30ha; spread plots 0,5-4ha; crop diver.: fruit+veg. / vin+cer.; canals but non-irrigated; equine services; some spread houses

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : no danger

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : no danger

Unit 4 (historic veg. belt) farms: 20-30ha; plots 2-10ha narrow and concentrated; hist. veget. fringe; canal irrigation (veg.) et non-irrigat. (cereals); houses longing routes; moderated development

Unit 5 (intensive high-value) farms: 25-70ha; plots 1,5-6ha, ≈alley, bocage and concentrated; well+canal irrigation (fruits) and non-irrigat. (cereals); hist. scattered houses.

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : uncertainty

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : uncertainty

Unit 6 (leisure-oriented) farms: 30-70ha; plots 2-7ha, conc. and scattered; crop diver.; canal irrigation; ageing owner-farmer; equine services; great hist. scattered sprawl

CONCLUSIONS

PUA map has been freehand and intuitively done, according to defined variables.

Systematic delimitation using a statistical model will corroborate results and improve the methodology

have been defined by quantifiable variables

PUASU model could be applied in other urban regions to characterize and locate PUA dynamics

Each conveys specific planning concerns and urgency

landscape planning tools going beyond zoning : proactive public policies?

24

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU

PUASU

PUASU

Somebody interested?

Thank you! esther.sanzsanz@avignon.inra.fr

25

Bibliographie 1/2

• Aubry, C. and Kebir, L. (2013). Shortening food supply chains: A means for maintaining agriculture close

to urban areas? The case of the French metropolitan area of Paris. Food Policy, 41: 85–93.

• Bailey, D., Herzog, F., Augenstein, I., Aviron, S., Billeter, R., Szerencsits, E., & Baudry, J. (2007). Thematic

resolution matters: Indicators of landscape pattern for European agro-ecosystems. Ecological

Indicators, 7(3), 692–709.

• Buixade, I. A. (2009). Les dificultats de manteniment de l’agricultura periurbana. L’exemple de l’horta

de Lleida. Scripta Nova - Revista Electrónica de Geografía Y Ciencias Sociales, 13(284), 1–31

• Busck, A. G., et al (2008). Porous landscapes – The case of Greater Copenhagen. Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening 7: 145- 156.

• Deffontaines J.-P., Thinon P., 2001. Des entités spatiales significatives pour l'activité agricole et pour les

enjeux environnementaux et paysagers : contribution à une agronomie du territoire, Cahiers de

l’environnement de l'INRA, n° 44.

• Deffontaines, J.P., C. Thenail, et J. Baudry, 1995. Agricultural systems and landscape patterns: how can

we build a relationship?. Landscape and Urban Planning n° 31, pp 3-10.

• Gille, F. (2002). 44 % des exploitations dans l’urbain ou le périurbain (Agrete Primeur No. 117).

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Fôret.

• Jouve, A. M. and C. Napoléone (2003). Stratégies des agriculteurs et réorganisations spatiales sous

contrainte de la périurbanité. In Bouleversements fonciers en Méditerranée. Des agricultures sous le

choc de l'urbanisation et des privatisations. Karthala. Paris: 143-172

• Laurent, C., & Thinon, P. (dir). (2005). Agricultures et territoires. Paris: Lavoisier.

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

Bibliographie 2/2

• Lees, C., & Dérioz, P. (1994). Le jardin de la France au péril de la ville

: place et évolution de l’activité

agricole dans le «

Grand Avignon

». Bulletin de l’Association de géographes français, 71(2), 170–180

• Masero, J. (2013). Recul plus marqué des exploitations agricoles en zone urbaine (Agrete Primeur No.

299). Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Fôret.

• Nahmias, P. and Le Caro, Y. (2012). Pour une définition de l’agriculture urbaine

: réciprocité

fonctionnelle et diversité des formes spatiales. Environnement Urbain / Urban Environment, (6): 1–16.

• Pérès, S. (2007). La vigne et la ville: forme urbaine et usage des sols. PhD thesis. Université

Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV

• Tolron, J.-J. (2001). L’agriculture périurbaine: paradigme et paradoxes d’une péri-agriculture. Illustration

en région méditerranéenne. Ingénieries-EAT, (28).

• Vial, C., Aubert, M., & Perrier-Cornet, P. (2011). « Le développement de l’équitation de loisir dans les

territoires ruraux

: entre influences sectorielles et périurbanisation ». Revue d’Économie Régionale &

Urbaine, octobre(3), 549

• Vidal R. and Fleury A., 2009. Aménager les relations entre la ville et l'agriculture. De nouveaux enjeux

territoriaux et une nouvelle approche «agriurbaniste», Urbia n° 8, Université de Lausanne, 127-142

• Wiel, M. (1999). La transition urbaine, ou, Le passage de la ville-

destre

la ville-

e. Sprimont,

Belgique: P. Mardaga.

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : PLU

Searching question Approach Results Conclusions

PUASU (PUA spatial units) : PLU