Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perception and acceptance of agricultural production in and on urban buildings (ZFarming): a qualitative study from Berlin, Germany

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rooftop gardens, rooftop greenhouses and indoor farms (defined as ZFarming) have been established or planned by activists and private companies in Berlin. These projects promise to produce a range of goods that could have positive impacts on the urban setting but also carry a number of risks and uncertainties. In this early innovation phase, the relevant stakeholders’ perceptions and social acceptance of ZFarming represent important preconditions for success or failure of the further diffusion of this practice. We used the framework of acceptance to investigate the stakeholders’ attitudes and to identify the key factors that might hinder or promote the introduction of ZFarming. The results are based on an analysis of 38 qualitative interviews conducted with key stakeholders in Berlin. As the results show, major perceived benefits of ZFarming include improved consumer awareness, education, and the creation of experimental spaces. Stakeholders further perceive opportunities for resource savings, new business models, repurposing of abandoned buildings and improved aesthetics. Major perceived risks are associated with growing techniques that are considered “unnatural”, health risks (due to urban pollutants), conflicts with images of traditional agriculture, the rejection of animal production in urban areas, the risk of projects being too expensive and too complex or being implemented too early, i.e. before the mechanisms are fully understood. The analysis further reveals which contextual factors—political, legal, market-related, spatial or societal—might negatively or positively influence ZFarming acceptance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

RTG:

Rooftop greenhouse

UA:

Urban agriculture

ZFarming:

Zero-acreage farming

References

  • Altieri, M.A., N. Companioni, K. Canizares, C. Murphy, P. Rosset, M. Bourque, and C.I. Nicholls. 1999. The greening of the “barrios”: Urban agriculture for food security in Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values 16(2): 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Planning Association (APA). 2007. Policy guide on community and regional food planning. Washington, DC: APA. http://www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/foodplanning.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2015.

  • Astee, L.Y., and N.T. Kishnani. 2010. Building integrated agriculture: Utilising rooftops for sustainable foodcrop cultivation in Singapore. Journal of Green Building 5(2): 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aubry, C., J. Ramamonjisoa, M.-H. Dabat, J. Rakotoarisoa, J. Rakotondraibe, and L. Rabeharisoa. 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(2): 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, D.R., N. Chávez, E. Allen, and D. Ramirez. 2012. Food sovereignty, urban food access, and food activism: Contemplating the connections through examples from Chicago. Agriculture and Human Values 29(2): 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMELV (German ministry of food, agriculture and consumer protection). 2013. Ökobarometer 2013 (Organic food survey). http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ernaehrung/Oekobarometer_2013. Accessed 18 Aug 2015.

  • Bohn, K., and A. Viljoen. 2010. The edible city: Envisioning the continuous productive urban landscape. Field: A Free Journal for Architecture 4(1): 149–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, B., and M. Purcell. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryld, E. 2003. Potentials, problems, and policy implications for urban agriculture in developing countries. Agriculture and Human Values 20(1): 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplow, T. 2009. Building integrated agriculture: Philosophy and practice. In Urban futures 2030: Urban development and urban lifestyles of the future, ed. Heinrich Böll Foundation, 54–58. Berlin: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerón-Palma, I., E. Sanyé-Mengual, J. Oliver-Solà, J.-I. Montero, and J. Rieradevall. 2012. Barriers and opportunities regarding the implementation of Rooftop Eco. Greenhouses (RTEG) in Mediterranean cities of Europe. Journal of Urban Technology 19(4): 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wilt, J., and T. Dobbelaar. 2005. Agroparks: The concept, the response, the practice. Utrecht: InnovationNetwork.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Zeeuw, H. 2011. Cities, climate change and urban agriculture. Urban Agriculture Magazine 25: 39–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delor, M. 2011. Current state of building-integrated agriculture, its energy benefits and comparison with green roofs—Summary. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield. http://e-futures.group.shef.ac.uk/publications/pdf/103_12%20Milan%20Delor%20summary.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2015.

  • Despommier, D. 2010. The vertical farm: Feeding the world in the 21st century, 1st ed. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dethloff, C. 2004. Akzeptanz und Nicht-Akzeptanz von technischen Produktinnovationen [Acceptance and non-acceptance of technical product innovations]. Berlin: Pabst Science Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubbeling, M. 2011. Integrating urban agriculture in the urban landscape. Urban Agriculture Magazine 25: 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrod, C., and N. Gruda. 2014. Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0273-y. (Online first).

    Google Scholar 

  • Germer, J., J. Sauerborn, F. Asch, J. de Boer, J. Schreiber, G. Weber, and J. Müller. 2011. Skyfarming an ecological innovation to enhance global food security. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety 6(2): 237–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorgolewski, M., J. Komisar, and J. Nasr. 2011. Carrot city: Creating places for urban agriculture. New York: The Monacelli Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2003. Fast food/organic food: Reflexive tastes and the making of “yuppie chow”. Social and Cultural Geography 4(1): 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.-S., K.-R. Kim, G.-H. Lim, J.-W. Kim, and K.-H. Kim. 2015. Influence of airborne dust on the metal concentrations in crop plants cultivated in a rooftop garden in Seoul. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. doi:10.1080/00380768.2015.1028873. (Online first).

    Google Scholar 

  • Komisar, J., J. Nasr, and M. Gorgolewski. 2009. Designing for food and agriculture: Recent explorations at Ryerson University. Open House International 34(2): 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuckartz, U. 2014. Qualitative text analysis. A guide to methods, practice and using software. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kutter, T., S. Tiemann, R. Siebert, and S. Fountas. 2009. The role of communication and co-operation in the adoption of precision farming. Precision Agriculture 12: 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Smith, D., and G. Prain. 2006. Understanding the links between agriculture and health. Focus 13, Brief 13. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucke, D. 1995. Akzeptanz: Legitimität in der ‘Abstimmungsgesellschaft’ [Acceptance: Legitimacy in the ‘Voting Society’]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsini, F., D. Gasperi, L. Marchetti, C. Piovene, S. Draghetti, S. Ramazzotti, G. Bazzocchi, and G. Gianquinto. 2014. Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban agriculture: The potential impact on food and nutrition security, biodiversity and other ecosystem services in the city of Bologna. Food Security 6(6): 781–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Dictionary. 2015. Acceptance. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de/definition/englisch/acceptance. Accessed 18 Aug 2015.

  • Padel, S. 2001. Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis 41(1): 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, O. 2009. London rooftop agriculture: A preliminary estimate of productive potential. Master Thesis. Cardiff : Welsh School of Architecture.

  • Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, V.L., K.S. Fielding, and W.R. Louis. 2014. Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: Testing a social-psychological model. Journal of Environmental Management 137: 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanyé-Mengual, E., I. Cerón-Palma, J. Oliver-Solà, J.I. Montero, and J. Rieradevall. 2013. Environmental analysis of the logistics of agricultural products from roof top greenhouses in Mediterranean urban areas: Life cycle assessment of the logistics of agricultural products. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 93(1): 100–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanyé-Mengual, E., I. Anguelovski, J. Oliver-Solà, J.I. Montero, and J. Rieradevall. 2015a. Resolving differing stakeholder perceptions of urban rooftop farming in Mediterranean cities: Promoting food production as a driver for innovative forms of urban agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9594-y. (Online first).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanyé-Mengual, E., J. Oliver-Solà, J.I. Montero, and J. Rieradevall. 2015b. An environmental and economic life cycle assessment of rooftop greenhouse (RTG) implementation in Barcelona, Spain. Assessing new forms of urban agriculture from the greenhouse structure to the final product level. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20(3): 350–366.

  • Sattler, C., and U.J. Nagel. 2010. Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures—A case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 27(1): 70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Säumel, I., I. Kotsyuk, M. Hölscher, C. Lenkereit, F. Weber, and I. Kowarik. 2012. How healthy is urban horticulture in high traffic areas? Trace metal concentrations in vegetable crops from plantings within inner city neighbourhoods in Berlin, Germany. Environmental Pollution 165: 124–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, R., M. Toogood, and A. Knierim. 2006. Factors affecting european farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46(4): 318–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Specht, K., R. Siebert, I. Hartmann, U.B. Freisinger, M. Sawicka, A. Werner, S. Thomaier, D. Henckel, H. Walk, and A. Dierich. 2014. Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agriculture and Human Values 31(1): 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Specht, K., R. Siebert, S. Thomaier, U.B. Freisinger, M. Sawicka, A. Dierich, D. Henckel, and M. Busse. 2015. Zero-acreage farming in the city of Berlin: An aggregated stakeholder perspective on potential benefits and challenges. Sustainability 7(4): 4511–4523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomaier, S., K. Specht, D. Henckel, A. Dierich, R. Siebert, U.B. Freisinger, and M. Sawicka. 2015. Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-Acreage Farming (ZFarming). Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 30(1): 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. 2004. World population to 2300. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakeland, W., S. Cholette, and K. Venkat. 2012. Food transportation issues and reducing carbon footprint. In Green Technologies in Food Production and Processing, ed. J.I. Boye, and Y. Arcand, 211–236. Boston, MA: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R.V., M.B. Beck, J.W. Hall, R.J. Dawson, and O. Heidrich. 2014. The Energy-water-food nexus: Strategic analysis of technologies for transforming the urban metabolism. Journal of Environmental Management 141: 104–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallgren, C. 2006. Local or global food markets: A comparison of energy use for transport. Local Environment 11(2): 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Economy and society]. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, N.H., D.K.W. Cheong, H. Yan, J. Soh, C.L. Ong, and A. Sia. 2003a. The effects of rooftop garden on energy consumption of a commercial building in Singapore. Energy and Buildings 35(4): 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, N.H., S.F. Tay, R. Wong, C.L. Ong, and A. Sia. 2003b. Life cycle cost analysis of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Building and Environment 38: 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wüste, A., and P. Schmuck. 2013. Social acceptance of bioenergy use and the success factors of communal bioenergy projects. In Sustainable bioenergy production—An integrated approach, ed. H. Ruppert, M. Kappas, and J. Ibendorf, 293–318. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wüstenhagen, R., M. Wolsink, and M.J. Bürer. 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35(5): 2683–2691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the time and effort that the editor Harvey James and the reviewers have taken to comment on our paper and we want to thank them for their useful suggestions concerning our manuscript. We wish to express our greatest thanks to all our interviewees, who shared their knowledge and fruitfully collaborated with us throughout the entire process. Funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (BMBF) has supported this work (funding code FKZ 16I1619). The Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) is institutionally funded by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) and the Ministry for Science, Research and Culture of the State of Brandenburg (MWFK).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374, Müncheberg, Germany

    Kathrin Specht & Rosemarie Siebert

  2. Department for Urban and Regional Planning, Technische Universität Berlin, Hardenbergstraße 40a, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Susanne Thomaier

Authors
  1. Kathrin Specht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosemarie Siebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne Thomaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathrin Specht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Specht, K., Siebert, R. & Thomaier, S. Perception and acceptance of agricultural production in and on urban buildings (ZFarming): a qualitative study from Berlin, Germany. Agric Hum Values 33, 753–769 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9658-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9658-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation