Urban farmingwebdocs.dow.wur.nl/internet/lar/02-MSc/Atelier_2009/... · 2009-12-18 · Urban farming in the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen 3 Preface In the second year of the Master

Urban farming in the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen 1

Urban farming

Student: Wieteke Schotsman


Urban farming

Potentials of mixed farming in the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen

Student : Wieteke Schotsman Registration number : 851025 747 130 Study : Spatial Planning Course : Atelier (LUP-60318) Lecturer : Wim van der Knaap Sinderen, 17 December 2009.


Preface In the second year of the Master Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, students attend the course

‘Atelier’. This course exists out of three phases, each with a different aim and final product. The general

assignment of this course is to design a self-sufficient, resilient energy neutral landscape for the City

Region Arnhem – Nijmegen and thereby solve problems the region has such as mobility and air pollution.

This report is written in the third phase of the course; in this phase, the students get the opportunity to

research individual a specific topic related to their profession. From my profession Spatial Planning, I

decided to research the potential of urban farming in interwoven areas of the City Region Arnhem -

Nijmegen. I would like to thank Mr. W. van der Knaap for his feedback during the research process.

Sinderen, 17 December 2009.

Wieteke Schotsman


Table of contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Starting point ......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Research topic ....................................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Aim and research questions ................................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Approach and methodology................................................................................................................... 9

1.5 Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................................ 11

1.6 Readers guide ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2. Urban farming ........................................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Urban farming ..................................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Land use in the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen............................................................................... 14

2.3 Combinations of urban farming and other forms of land use .............................................................. 14

2.4 Urban farm model ................................................................................................................................ 17

3. Energy perspective .................................................................................................................................... 21

3.1 Reduce ................................................................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Recycle ................................................................................................................................................ 21

3.3 Produce ................................................................................................................................................ 22

3.3.1 Photon farming ............................................................................................................................. 22

3.3.2 Biogas installation ........................................................................................................................ 24

3.4 The urban farm model and the City Region ........................................................................................ 26

4. Integration into the landscape ................................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Landscape quality and appreciation..................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Selection study area City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen ....................................................................... 29

4.3 Integration in the landscape in time and space .................................................................................... 29

5. Reflection urban farm model ..................................................................................................................... 34

References ..................................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix 1 Calculation size of urban farms ................................................................................................. 41

Appendix 2 Calculation mixed form .............................................................................................................. 42

Appendix 3 Calculation for biogas installation ............................................................................................. 43


Summary The last couple of years, urban farming became more popular in the Netherlands. Urban farming gives the

opportunity to connect food production with the urban needs such as care, recreation and waste treatment.

Furthermore, urban farming reduces the physical and psychological distance between consumers and food

production. In this research, the student defines urban farming as “farming in areas at the borders of the

city. The main goal of these companies is still to make profit out of their main activity, farming”. Nowadays

there is still numerous mono-cultural land use in the Netherlands. The main land use forms in the City

Region Arnhem – Nijmegen are different types of agrarian use; 29% of the total surface of the city region

exists out of pastures and again 29% of the total surface exists out of cultivated land (Altena et al., 2009).

Because of expansion of the cities, the mono-cultural land use in the City Region is under pressure. Urban

farming in combination with other forms of land use could be a solution, mono-cultural land use then

changes into multifunctional land use. Several articles mention urban farming in combination with energy

production as a potential combination (Jansen and Jansma, 2009; Visser and Jansma, 2009; Visser et al.,

n.d. and Dekker et al., n.d.). However, none of the authors mentions how energy could be produced at these

farms. Therefore, the aim of this research is to explore the potentials of urban farming in interwoven zones

of the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen in combination with other forms of land use focusing on energy.

These combinations should contribute to the ‘Trias Energetica’ approach and “fit” into the landscape in

time and space. The research aim is translated to the following main research question: “Which forms of

urban farming in combination with another form of land use contributes to the ‘Trias Energetica’ approach

in such a way that it fits into the landscape in time and space”. First, different forms of urban farming were

analyzed and how these forms could be combined with other forms of land use. With the found data, a

potential matrix was formed of all the forms of urban farming in combination with other forms of land use.

Many potential combinations occurred but the student continued the research with a mixed type of urban

farming (dairy cows and arable farming) in combination with the functions recreation, nature, waste

treatment, care and opportunities for offices on the yard. Before this type of urban farm could be confronted

with the ‘Trias Energetica’ approach, a model was developed of the mixed type of urban farming. With this

model, the opportunities for the reduction, recycling or environmental friendly production of energy were

explored. For the urban farm model, the process of winning heat from milk is a good solution to recycle

energy. Two concepts that can be used for environmental friendly production of energy are the photon

concept and a biogas installation. According to the theoretical framework in this research, it is important

that heat produced at the farm, should also be used at the farm because the value of heat quickly decreases.

Electricity can be transported easily to the City Region because this type of energy does not degenerate

quickly. For integration in time and space the student selected a study area within the City Region Arnhem

– Nijmegen. Because the stables of the model urban farm have eccentric façades, they should not be located

near a main road but behind the farmers house. More conditions for integration in the landscape are

mentioned in chapter four of the report. The photon concept and legislation were leading the integration in

the landscape; in 2025 different urban farmers can be producing and selling fuel for electric cars. Of course,

this research was only focused on one type of urban farm in a study area in the City Region. Urban farms

have more potential if they are combined in networks within the City Region, it is wise that these farms


differ in concept. In this way, a varied offer of activities occurs in interesting and dynamic interwoven areas

of the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen. The map and Photoshop’s beneath give an impression of the

integration of the urban farm model into the selected study area and two impressions of the urban farm

model itself.

Map 1 Summary 3D impression of integration of urban farm model in study area (own elaboration)

Photoshop 1 Summary Front side urban farm, stable milk cows and electrolyte tank (own elaboration)

Photoshop 2 Summary Impression new stable concept dairy cows (Courage, 2007 and own elaboration)


1. Introduction This chapter starts with an explanation of the starting point for the third phase of the ‘Atelier’. In this

paragraph, the products of the first and second phase of the ‘Atelier’ are summarized resulting in a new

individual assignment for the third phase. The second paragraph describes the relevance of the research

topic of this individual assignment. The aim, research question and sub-research questions are posed in

paragraph three, followed by the approach and methodology in paragraph four. The theoretical framework

is explained in paragraph five. This chapter ends with a readers guide.

1.1 Starting point The course ‘Atelier’ exists out of three phases, each with a different aim and final product. The general

assignment posed by commissioner’s from the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen and Mr. R. van Etteger on

behalf of Wageningen University, was to design a self-sufficient, resilient energy neutral landscape and

solve problems the City Region has such as mobility and air pollution. In the first phase, students were

asked to analyze the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen with the Matterscape – Powerscape – Mindscape

approach with a focus on energy developed by Mr. M. Jacobs. This approach allows the user to analyze the

landscape in three different realities. When landscape is analyzed in the physical reality, phenomena are

made of matter. The existence of these phenomena is “objective” and therefore only one physical reality

can be described as a system of facts; matterscape. In contrast to physical reality, social reality exists of

norms (expressions of power and mind), this in context with regard to the landscape. These systems of

norms regulate behavior and are created within social groups. Because of the creation in a group many

social realities exist: powerscape. The third category students used to analyze the landscape of the City

Region is the mindscape. Mindscape only exists in the mind of people; each person has its own inner

reality. This inner reality is subjective and made of mental states and threats (Jacobs, 2009 and van Dijk

2005). The final results the students presented were maps of the physical landscape such as land use, water

systems, urbanization but also about were energy was produced in the landscape and methods how to

produce energy. The students who analyzed the landscape with the powerscape approach made a sum of all

the legislation in the City Region and the students who analyzed the mindscape researched how people

perceive sustainable energy. In the second phase of the ‘Atelier’, students formed four new project groups

all with different aims: ‘Urban Autarkic’, ‘Rural Autarkic’, ‘Urban Global’ and ‘Rural Global’. The general

aim of these project groups was to design a self-sufficient, resilient landscape energy neutral landscape

from a different perspective such as ‘Urban Autarkic’ or ‘Rural Global’. At the end of the second phase

students attempted to combine all the results into one report. In this final report students made

recommendations towards the City Region how they could reach a self-sufficient, resilient and energy

neutral landscape (for more information see: Atelier 2009 Sustainable Energy Landscape). The third phase

of the ‘Atelier’ is individual; students get the opportunity to research a specific topic related to their

profession (Spatial Planning, Socio-Spatial Analyzes or Landscape Architecture). The topic should also be

related to the City Region and to the results of the first and second phase (de Waal, 2009).


After brainstorming what could be an interesting topic to connect the results of the first phase with the

scenarios from the second phase, I decided to choose the topic ‘urban farming’. In the following paragraph,

the research topic is explained.

1.2 Research topic As stated in the previous paragraph, the research topic for the individual assignment is ‘urban farming’.

There are many different forms of urban farming at different scale levels in or around a city or village.

Visser et al., (n.d.) defines urban farming (dairy farming, arable farming, horticulture, glasshouse culture,

pomiculture and mixed forms of farming) as farming in, or around a city of village. In this research, the

student defines urban farming as “farming (dairy farming, intensive farming, arable farming, horticulture,

glasshouse culture, pomiculture or mixed forms) in areas at the borders of the city. The main goal of these

companies is still to make profit out of their main activity, farming”. The last couple of years, urban

farming became more popular in the Netherlands (PPO Lelystad, 2006 and van der Schans, 2008). Urban

farming gives the opportunity to connect food production with the urban needs such as (health) care,

recreation and waste treatment. Furthermore, urban farming reduces the physical and psychological

distance between consumers and food production. As a result, the relation between city and countryside

becomes closer (Visser et al., n.d.). Nowadays there is still a lot of mono-cultural land use in the

Netherlands, thus only one function is dominantly using the land. Because of the urbanization in the

Netherlands (VROM, 2006), the pressure on mono-cultural forms of land use, such as agriculture, rises.

The increasing claims from other users ask for development of multiple land use forms. Multiple land use

is when two (or more) functions share the same land or space. Future cities need more acreage in time and

space, as a result cities and countryside become more interwoven. According to map 1, the main land use

forms in the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen are different types of agrarian use, mainly pastures and

cultivated land. Twenty-nine percent of the total surface of the city region is used as pastures; also 29% is

used as cultivated land (Altena et al., 2009). Because of extension of the cities, this mono-cultural land use

is under pressure. In the (future) interwoven areas, urban farming might be a more sustainable solution.

Map 1 Land use in City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen (Altena et al., 2009)


In several articles (Jansen and Jansma, 2009; Visser and Jansma, 2009; Visser et al., n.d. and Dekker et al.,

n.d.) urban farming is described in combination with energy production, however none of these authors

describes exactly how the energy is produced and were it is used. As mentioned before, it is an interesting

thought how to connect urban farms with other forms of land use (multiple land use) and if there is a

possibility to apply the ‘Trias Energetica’ approach on those combinations. The approach allows the user to

consider energy from the perspective of reduction, recycling or production. The ‘Trias Energetica’

approach is extensive explained in paragraph 1.5. Combinations of multiple land use have to “fit” in time

and space into the landscape of the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen.

By choosing ‘urban farming’ as research topic, the student tries to connects two scenarios from the second

phase of the Atelier namely ‘Urban Autarkic’ with ‘Rural Autarkic’ in relation to the City Region Arnhem

– Nijmegen. This research is valuable for commissioners of the City Region because the described process

of urbanization and pressure on mono-cultural land use also occurs in this region. After all, the cities

Arnhem and Nijmegen will grow further to each other and the space in between shrinks (Nijs et al., 2005).

1.3 Aim and research questions The aim of this research is to explore the potentials of urban farming in (future) interwoven zones of the

City Region Arnhem - Nijmegen in combination with other forms of land use (multiple land use). The

focus will be on energy. The combinations should contribute to the ‘Trias Energetica’ approach and “fit”

into the landscape in time and space. The aim can be translated to the following main research question:

“Which forms of urban farming in combination with another form of land use contributes to the ‘Trias

Energetica’ approach in such a way that it fits into the landscape in time and space”

The following sub-research questions are needed to answer the main research question:

1. Which forms of urban farming have potential in the interwoven areas of a city and countryside?

2. Which forms of multiple land use combined with urban farming have potential to be realized?

3. How can a potential combination contribute to the ‘Trias Energetica’ approach?

4. How can a potential combination be integrated into the landscape in time and space?

Because of the time limit, the width of the research topic has to be narrowed down. The process of

narrowing down is visible in the sub-research questions. The first two sub-research questions are stated in

plural while the last two sub-research questions concern just one potential combination. The process of

narrowing down is extensive described in paragraph four.

1.4 Approach and methodology Figure 1 shows the approach that is used to answer the research questions and to achieve the aim. After the

research questions were determined, different forms of urban farming could be distinguished (see also

chapter two). The different forms of urban farming are then confronted with different forms of land use.

The results of possible multiple land use combinations are visualized in a potential matrix. During this

confrontation, already the theoretical framework is applied. In this way, it is secured that the theoretical


framework can be applied on the combination in the next step. Because of the time limit, one potential and

most promising combination is selected to continue the research. The selection of the most promising

combination is made with the help of the potential matrix. The scores of the matrix are determined with an

educated guess of the student. The combination with the highest score is selected. After this step, the

selected combination of multiple land use is confronted with the theoretical framework. The framework

contains the ‘Trias Energetica’ approach combined with the ‘Energy proximity’ concept and the von

Thünen model (see paragraph 1.5). The theoretical framework is set from an energy point of view; during

the confrontation analyzed will be how energy can be reduced, recycled or produced and at which location

this could happen. The confrontation results in concrete examples how the combination could contribute to

the energy question the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen has. The next step is to place the selected

combination into the landscape and try to “fit” this concept in time and space. The City Region has a high

diversion in landscape types, again because of the time limit a selection has to be made. Therefore one

study area is selected. The selected study area should have the following conditions:

� The area is located near a city border;

� The area has the potential to become an interwoven area of city and countryside in the future;

� The area currently has agrarian activities.

After the integration of the concept into the landscape, it becomes clear if the stated aim in the beginning of

the research can be achieved. There will be a reflection in chapter five on how the potential combination

should function into a larger network of urban farms. The research ends with recommendations towards the

City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen considering urban farming.

This research has an explorative methodology. Mostly quantitative methods are used to find sufficient data

(Creswell, 2003). More likely, in this research the student will use secondary research. Secondary research

exists out of data generated by earlier research.

Landscape

Forms of urban farming

Industry

Care

Recreation

Living

Waste treatment

Nature

Potential matrix

AIM

Theoretical framework

RQ

Process of narrowing down potential combinations

Study area

Selection potential

Energy

Figure 1 Approach individual assignment


1.5 Theoretical framework Three principles form the basis for the theoretical framework in this research: the ‘Trias Energetica’

approach, the ‘Energy proximity’ concept and the von Thünen model. The Trias Energetica approach

stresses that the most important thing in energy efficiency is to reduce the need for energy; the concept

exists out of three sections. When after reduction still energy is needed for heat or electricity, renewable

energy and recycle methods should be taken into account as much as possible. The last option (section) of

the approach is the environmental friendly production of energy (Brandsma et al., 2009). The Trias

Energetica approach is visualized in relation to the two other theories in figure 2. The ‘Energy proximity’

concept states that energy, which quickly looses its value, should be produced and used at the same location

(or close by this location). Warmth is a form of energy that quickly looses its value. Electricity looses less

quickly its value and can be transported, fuels do not loose their value during transport. Therefore, fuels do

not have to be used at the same location as were they are produced. The third theory used is the von Thünen

model. Von Thünen (1826) developed a basic analytical model of the relationship between markets,

production and distance. Von Thünen based his model on the agricultural landscape; the costs of

transporting agricultural goods to the central market determined the agricultural land use around a central

point. Von Thünen determined five circles with different agricultural activities around one central point.

The most productive agricultural activities such as market gardening and milk production were located

nearby the central market, this because the products have a high value and were difficult to transport. Less

productive agricultural activities such as extensive livestock farming were located further away from the

central market; the cows could walk themselves to the market (Rodrigue, n.d.).

As figure 2 shows, the different theories can be connected to each other. The connection is made from an

energy point of view; of course the connection can also been made from an agricultural production point of

view. When the von Thünen theory is combined with the Electricity Proximity concept, it can be concluded

that: a high quality product has to be produced nearby the central point were it is used, in this way the loss

of quality is minimal according to the theories. Ideally, heat has to be produced at the same place where it

is used. Transportation of electricity to the market (central point) is easier as heat (also, less energy is lost).

Fuels are easy to transport and do not loose their value. Therefore, fuels can be produced in the most

outside circles of the von Thünen model. The produce section of Trias Energetica can be connected to the

heat

electricity

fuels Reduce

reuse

prod.*

Von Thünen Trias Energetica Electricity Proximity

Figure 2 Connected theories (own elaboration) prod* = produce


pyramid of Energy Proximity; if it is necessary to produce energy, this should be done in an environmental

friendly way and try to produce the energy were it is needed.

The theoretical framework will be applied on the most potential combination of urban farming and other

land use forms (see also figure 1). The theory of von Thünen in combination with the other two theories

can be applied on urban farming because the model was designed for an agricultural landscape. When the

theoretical framework is used, certain conditions arise for urban farming in combination with other forms

of land use and energy:

� Heat produced at urban farms cannot be transported far because it looses quickly value;

� Electricity and fuels produced at urban farms can be transported;

� Before energy is environmental friendly produced, possibilities for reducing or recycling energy

should be taken into account.

1.6 Readers guide After this introduction in the research topic, chapter two explores more about the concept of urban farming.

In this chapter is analyzed which forms of urban farming exists and which forms can be combined with

other forms of land use. At the end of this chapter an urban farm model is described which the research

continuous with. In the third chapter the urban farm model is confronted with the theoretical framework,

this result in respectively three paragraphs about, how to reduce, recycle or produce environmental friendly

energy on the urban farm model. In the fourth chapter is discussed how the urban farm model could be

integrated into the landscape in time and space. This research ends with a reflection on the concept urban

farming and how it can be integrated into the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen. The student poses

recommendations to the board of the City Region for an implementation of urban farms.


2. Urban farming This chapter starts with a clarification of urban farming. In the second paragraph is analyzed which forms

of land use exist in the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen and if these forms can be combined with urban

farming. Paragraph three contains a potential matrix of combinations, based on this matrix one potential

combination is chosen to proceed the research with. In the last paragraph, the combination is formed into an

urban farm model. With this urban farm model as a base, the research is continued.

2.1 Urban farming As described in chapter one, urban farming exists in many different forms and at different scale levels. The

student chooses to describe urban faming in a setting just outside the boundaries of a city, in (future)

interwoven areas of city and countryside. The main goal of these farms is still to make profit from their

main activity, namely farming itself. The second activity on an urban farm is the interaction with the city.

Sometimes the second activity becomes too fast the main activity of the farm and this causes many

difficulties and ethical questions (IJzendoorn, 2006). The student chooses to let the main activity of urban

farming be farming itself because perhaps in the future many farms will have to deal with the upcoming

(food) demands of the city. Therefore, it is interesting to research the potential of an operating farm in

urban settings. Table 1 distinguishes eight forms of urban farming and their conditions to make the main

activity profitable. Of course, these conditions of a profitable farm will change in the future but it is

difficult to predict how they will change. A good example of a change in conditions is the abolition of the

milk quota in 2015. The effects of this abolition are uncertain, probably the milk price will decrease and

farms that produce inefficient have to quit (Berkum, 2008). Furthermore, the “skills” of a farmer influence

the profit a farm makes and also changing farm techniques have sufficient impact. Calculation of the

conditions would be a research on itself, therefore the report ‘Landbouwverkenning Rivierengebied in

Gelderland’ (Werken et al., 2004) is used. The authors of this report have made a prediction about the

amount of farms and animals for the year 2015 in the river landscape. In the report, two sorts of river

landscape are distinguished: East and West, the student chooses to add up the calculations of both types of

river landscapes. Due to adding up the calculations, the numbers become comparable with the categories

and statistics from the Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS). Werken et al. (2004) used statistics from the

year 2002 for their prediction, the source for their prediction is the CBS. To check the reliability of the

prediction for 2015 from Werken et al. (2004), the student has made control calculations with statistics

from the CBS of the year 2002, 2005 and 2008. The control calculations are included in appendix 1.

Concluded can be that the statistics from the CBS of 2002, 2005 and 2008 at some categories of farming

pose the same trend as the calculations of Werken et al. (2004) except for the type arable farming. The

trend over the years 2002, 2005 and 2008 is that the amount of animals increases and also the amount of

agricultural land per farm increases. This can be explained by the fact that many farmers quitted the past

years but the amount of animals and ground stayed the same, only the amount of farms decreased (CBS,

2009). The trend in the report of Werken et al. (2004) is also increasing except for arable farming, the land

use for this type of farming decreases. The statistics of Werken et al. (2004) for the year 2015 are higher

than the statistics of the year 2008 (CBS) except for statistics of arable farming. The statistics of dairy


farming of the CBS are distorted, the CBS includes also the calves and Werken et al. (2004) calculated only

with milk cows. With the control calculations, the student assumes that the prediction of Werken et al.

(2004) for the year 2015 is reasonable. Therefore, these numbers are taken as basic conditions for different

types of urban farming in the year 2015. By taken the basic conditions of 2015 into account, guarantees can

be made that the farmers can live from their main activity. Table 1 shows the conditions for different types

of urban farming in 2015. Unfortunately, Werken et al. (2004) did not made a prediction for the mixed type

of farming; therefore, the student assumed that mixed forms contain 25% less animals than a farm with one

main activity. The calculations for animals and hectares of ground for the mixed form are included in

appendix 2. On a mixed farm combinations exists between different sorts of animals or between animals

and arable farming.

Table 1 Conditions of different types of urban farming 2015 (own elaboration in combination with Werken et al., 2004)

Type Main activity Amount of animals/ farm

Amount of hectares/ farm

Dairy farming Cows ≥ 69 ≥ 53,5 Intensive farming Poultry (laying hens or meat chickens) ≥ 48.535 ≥ 4,8 Intensive farming Pigs (porkers or breeding pigs) ≥ 3.222 ≥ 9,8 Arable farming Crops such as sugar beets, wheat and potatoes - ≥ 15,7 Horticulture Vegetables such as cauliflower, celery and asparagus - ≥ 5,6

Glasshouse culture Vegetables and fruit such as tomatoes, paprika’s and strawberries

- ≥ 2,3

Mixed forms Animals combined with cultivation of grain and potatoes

cows ≥ 52 chickens ≥ 36.201

pigs ≥ 2417

≥ 40,3 ≥ 3,6 ≥ 7,4

Pomiculture Fruit trees and berry plantations - ≥ 11,3

2.2 Land use in the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen The City Region of Arnhem – Nijmegen contains many activities and forms of land use. However, not all

these forms and activities can be combined with urban farming. This paragraph shortly analyzes the

different forms of land use and activities that needs space or place and which can be combined with urban

farming. For this analysis map 1 and own knowledge is used. The results are presented in table 2.

Table 2 Forms of land use in City Region (own elaboration)

Form of land use Activity/ form Recreation Walking, biking, skating, swimming, canoeing, fishing, bird spotting, camping etc. Nature Flood plain areas, rivers, forests, parks, open spaces, etc. Industry Heavy and light (private) industry Port areas Transit of goods Waste treatment Dumping of waste, burning waste, recycling waste, etc. (Health) care Crèche, day-care of (mental) disabled persons, education, doctor, physiotherapy, etc. Housing Living environment Offices Working environment

2.3 Combinations of urban farming and other forms of land use This paragraph contains the combination of urban farming and other forms of land use, which need space

or place. The different sectors are combined in one potential matrix, this matrix shows were possibilities

are for cooperation and thus multiple land use. The matrix is shown in table 3; the vertical axis represents

the different types of urban farming as discussed in table 1. The horizontal axis represents the different

forms of land use as shown in table 2. Based on this matrix one potential and most promising combination

is chosen to continue the research with. The selection of the most promising combination is made based on


the scores presented in table 3. When the potential matrix was filled in, the student already considered the

potential combinations from an energy perspective. By doing this, the chance increases that the theoretical

framework can be applied on the combination. The formulation of the matrix was done by educated guess

of the student. Before an actual implementation, these assumptions have to be tested first.

Table 3 Potential matrix of combinations (own elaboration)

Form Type

Rec

reat

ion

Nat

ure

Indu

stry

Was

te

trea

tmen

t

(Hea

lth)

care

Ho

usi

ng

Offi

ces

Sco

re

Dairy farming ++ ++ - + ++ - - 4 Intensive farming : Poultry 0 - - 0 + - - -3 Intensive farming: Pigs 0 - - 0 + - - -3 Arable farming ++ + - 0 + - + 3 Horticulture + + - - + - - -1 Glasshouse culture 0 - - - + + + 0 Mixed forms ++ ++ - + ++ - + 6 Pomiculture + + - 0 + - - 0 Dairy farming

When dairy farming is combined with recreation, a good opportunity arises (ZLTO, n.d.). Dairy farms own

many hectares of land for grazing cows, spreading manure produced by the animals and for growing crops.

Aside (or through) these fields for instance footpaths can be created or citizens can play the game “farmers

golf1”. The combination with nature is also valued as a good opportunity. Although there are fertile

combinations possible, it is important to take negative effects of nature also into account. There is no

combination foreseen between dairy farming and industry, housing and offices. The last good opportunity

dairy farming has is the combination with (health) care, for instance mentally disabled people can help with

daily jobs on the farm (Zonneveld et al., 2009).

Intensive farming: Poultry & Pigs

These sectors are described as one item because the grading of the two types of urban farming are the same.

The intensive sectors are difficult to combine with other forms of land use because the intensive sectors are

landless unlike other forms of urban farming. Because of this landlessness, no combinations can be made

with nature, industry, housing or offices. The combination with recreation is valued as neutral because

farmers can allow visitors in there stable in a special overview room (Stokkermans, 2006). The

combination between intensive farming and waste treatment is valued neutral; the sectors might cooperate

in a project to produce environmental friendly energy by fermentation of their waste products into a biogas

installation (Wasser, 2004). The combination between intensive farming and care is assigned with one plus.

There are possibilities to start activities such as daycare for children or (mental) disabled persons and

education. The difference between dairy farming and intensive farming at this point is that in dairy farming

the clients can actually work with the animals, in chicken and pig barns this might be difficult because the

1 When the game “farmers golf” is played, the contestants have to use a wooden shoe attached to a stick to pitch the ball into wholes, which are located in the fields behind the farm (also were the cows are grazing) (Farmersgolf, 2006).

Legend Score

++ good opportunity 2 + possible 1 0 neutral 0 - negative -1


setting is more industrial (depending on the size of the farm). Of course, the clients can do all other kinds of

occurring activities.

Arable farming

Arable farming in combination with recreation has great potential, this because farms that practice arable

farming have many hectares of land which could have a multiple use such as footpaths and bike paths at the

headings of the fields. In addition, the combination with nature is assigned as positive because arable

farming can help in creating more biodiversity for instance with borders of herbs in combination with all

kinds of flowers (Dieleman, 2006). If possible, even a combination between arable farming, recreation and

nature can be made: flower borders with a footpath along the fields. The combination with industry and

housing is valued negative. Remarkable is the positive notation of arable farming and offices. Perhaps it is

a good initiative to combine small offices for private companies on the yard. After all, the farms are located

in an interwoven area nearby the city and the traveling distance to the city is not far. The working

environment for employees of these small private companies might improve when they are located in an

rural area (Steenbekkers, 2006). The combination with waste treatment is valued as neutral; it might be

possible to start a cooperation for a biomass installation. The biomass of plants then can be use for

fermentation, although this process has also some negative sites (Wolf et al., n.d.). The combination with

(health) care is for the same reasons as dairy farming marked as good opportunity (Zonneveld et al., 2009).

Horticulture

Farms that practice horticulture have a small amount of hectares. Because of this small surface there are not

a lot of opportunities for possible combinations. The combination with recreation is valued with one plus,

although most of the farms have a small surface they can for instance participate in a bigger bicycle

network. The interaction with nature can be made on small scale, such as stepping stones for (protected)

animals in the area. With all the different sorts of activities on the farm it should be possible to provide all

sorts of (health) care. The interaction with the people can be high because horticulture is labor-intensive

form of agriculture.

Glasshouse culture

Unlike all the other types of urban farming, glasshouse culture could have possible combinations with

housing and offices. The extra heat and electricity generated in the glasshouses can be used in nearby

houses and offices (Programma Kas als Energiebron, 2009). Therefore, the houses and offices have to be

near the glasshouses. It is difficult to combine glasshouse with recreation, although people can visit the

glasshouses and walk for instance an ‘educative route’. Just as on all the other types of urban farming,

(health) care can be realized.

Mixed forms The combination of mixed forms of farming with recreation, nature and (health) care provide good

opportunities for cooperation. Just as with arable farming, recreation and nature perhaps can be combined

on the fields of the farm. Because of the mixed setting, clients which need care have enough opportunities


to anticipate in and around the farm and discover a lot about the different disciplines. Just as the other

forms of urban farming, mixed farming has no potential for a combination with industry. The combination

of waste treatment and mixed forms of urban farming is valued as possible. Mixed farms have manure and

waste products from crops available, together with green waste from the city a biogas installation can be

realized (Dijck, 2006). For this type of farming also counts that it could be interesting to place small office

building on the farm for small private companies. The combination of mixed farming and (health) care is

valued as a good opportunity because there are many different activities just at one yard, many impressions

for the clients.

Pomiculture

Pomiculture does not exceed the other forms of urban farming with the amount of hectares. Therefore,

pomiculture in combination with recreation and nature in small forms might be possible. No combinations

for multiple land use can be made with industry, housing and offices. The combination with waste

treatment is valued as neutral, this because the pruning’s of the trees can be used (in combination with other

pruning’s) in a biomass installation. At this form of agriculture, there is also the possibility for a

combination with care, such as education and day care of (mental) disabled people.

2.4 Urban farm model The scores in the potential matrix show that every form of urban farming has some potential in combination

with other forms of land use or activities that need space in the countryside. Two forms of urban farming

have the most interfaces with other forms of land use or activities namely dairy farming and mixed forms

of farming. The student chooses to proceed this research with the type of urban farming ‘mixed farming’.

Besides that ‘mixed forms of urban farming’ is valued with the highest score there are a few more

advantages of choosing this type instead of dairy farming. First, mixed forms contain animals and crops,

the manure from the animals and the waste of the crops might be converted to energy with the use of a

biogas installation. Further, offices were valued as positive in combination with mixed forms of urban

farming. In this way, the farm can meet the needs of the city by providing a healthy working environment

just outside the city. Further, on the mixed form of urban farming also recreation and/ or nature can be

integrated. Nature has also a positive effect on the working environment. The mixed farm offers many

different jobs; work with the animals and the work on the land. This would be ideal for care because the

farm has the whole year work because of all the different aspects.

In the methodology part of this report the process of narrowing down the research topic is discussed. Thus

far, the research topic is narrowed down to one form of urban farming in combination with other forms of

land use. There are many different forms of mixed farms possible. To make the research topic more

concrete the student created with the help of table 1 a model of a mixed urban farm. With this model (see

textbox 1 on the next page) the research is continued. The model of the urban farm presents an optimal

situation. Of course, the decision to narrow the research topic down causes bias. The student is aware of

this but due the given time for this research it is necessary. As mentioned earlier, there will be a reflection

in chapter five on the urban farm model and how the model could function into a larger network.


Textbox 1 Facts urban farm model (own elaboration)

Before the research continuous, the student provides a description of the urban farm model. This is

necessary because the model has to be confronted with the theoretical framework and has to be integrated

into the landscape in time and space. The description is made based on the students own experience. As

shown in textbox 1, the farm has 60 milk cows and 40 calves. Plan 1 gives an indication of the yard of the

urban farm model. The cows are housed in a stable concept of the future: the “cow garden” (figure 4). In

this “cow garden”, the cows can walk around freely and their natural habitat is as good as possible

approximated. The floor of this stable concept is revolutionary; urine and manure are separated because the

floor is permeable. Because urine and manure are not stored in the same cellar no ammoniac arises which is

better for the environment (Kasteren, 2009). As said the floor is permeable and the urine flows directly to

the underground, at this moment research is conducted how to let the floor have the same principles as a

meadow. In this way, the ammonia in the urine could be transformed to nitrate. The manure of the animals

in the stable is collected with a small robot. This solid manure will be stored in a giant silo. The manure can

be spread over the fields but also easily been used for a biogas installation (Kasteren, 2009). Figure 3

shows the profile of the floor.

Figure 3 Profile of revolutionary floor in the stable (Kasteren, 2009)

Inside the stable are trees, walls of grass and multiple water tanks for the cows. There is also a tractor path

(see figure 4), in this way the farmer can feed the cows. Special about this stable is that during working

hours it is open for visitors. The stable of the milk cows contains in some areas a second floor; from this

Type of urban farm: mixed farm; arable and dairy Sort of animals: Cows (60 milk cows, 40 calves) Milk quota : 510.000 kilogram Land for cultivation : 60 hectare Land for nature : 1,2 hectare Land for recreation : 1,6 hectare Land for allotment garden : 0,3 hectare Crop rotation: grass – maize – grain – sugar beets Buildings: 2 houses (farmer and offices) and

2 stables (cows and calves) Energy: solar panels and biogas installation

drainage pipe

Plan 1 Urban farm model (own elaboration)

separation layer resilient top layer stabilization layer

drainage layer sealing


floor, people can observe the cows. The stable of the calves does not have a second floor, visitors can see

them from the path of the tractor. Figure 4 shows that the construction of the stable exists out of bows, the

construction of the stable on the mixed urban farm will not be with bows but use the construction of a saw

tooth-roof. This construction is also used in the glasshouse sector (Woerkum, 2009). The advantage of

using a glasshouse construction seen from the energy perspective is that on this roof photovoltaic solar cells

can be installed which generate electricity (Visser, 2008). An impression of how the stable could look like

is visualized in the photo collage below.

The farm has 63,1 hectares in own ownership; 26,1 hectares are located around the farm. The other hectares

are located as close as possible to the farm. Most of the hectares are used for cultivation of grass (25

hectare) and maize (15 hectare) as feed for the cows. Grain (10 hectare) is used to improve the fertility of

the ground, the yield is sold. Because the urban farm contains cows, the farm could participate in the

derogation scheme. If the farm participates, 250 kilogram of nitrate (in manure) per hectare can be spread,

if the farm does not participate this is 170 kilogram nitrate/ hectare. Advantage of the derogation scheme is

that more manure may be spread over the land and as a result the yield of the crops increase. The main

condition to participate in the scheme is that at least 70% of the total surface of the cultivated ground

should be covered with grass. Further, once in the four years soil analyses must be made of every parcel

and the farm should have a manure plan (LNV-loket, n.d.). Unfortunately, the urban farm model does not

owns enough ground to make it profitable to participate in the derogation scheme. When 70% of the

cultivated ground should be grassland, this means that at the urban farm 42 hectares is grass. Only 18

hectares is left for maize, grain and sugar beets. The farm needs at least 15 hectares maize as feed for the

cows, thus 3 hectare remains for the arable part of the farm namely the cultivation of sugar beets and grain.

If the farm expands in hectares in the future, the derogation scheme might become interesting. Of course,

when an urban farm only contains dairy cows the derogation scheme is profitable.

Besides ground used for cultivation, 1.2 and 1.6 hectares are used for nature and recreation. These two

functions are combined in a footpath with flower edges through the fields, possible deeper the countryside

Figure 4 Photo collage of the concept ‘Cow Garden’ and a glasshouse construction (Multiple sources: see references)


in. Figure 5 shows an impression of how the combination of functions could look like. This Photoshop was

made for the province of Flevoland but the idea is also applicable on the model farm.

Figure 5 Impression of combined functions in a landscape (Landschapsbeheer Flevoland, 2009)

The urban farm model provides during working days, daycare for six mental disabled persons between the

age of 18 and 50. These persons can help with all the activities, which occur on the farm through the

seasons. In addition, they can work in the allotment garden and learn how to grow their own vegetables.

Besides the stable concepts, there are two buildings on the yard. One is used as house for the farmer and the

other building is used as a small office building. This office building is reserved for small private

organizations, preferably who deal in “green” or “blue” business. Besides the offices, there is also a canteen

for the disabled employees. To provide the farm with energy a biogas installation is installed at the yard

and also photovoltaic solar cells are installed at the roof of the stables. The warmth that is produced in the

biogas installation is used to heathen the two buildings. The produced electricity is also used first on the

farm itself, what is left is sold to the electric company. The farm is well connected to the city; there is a

main road leading to the farm and busses stop in front of the farm. In addition, a bicycle and footpath

network leads to the farm (the footpath continuous on the recreation route besides the fields of the farm).

Besides the farmer himself, three other employees are working at the farm. These employees are trained

and skilled to work with mental disabled people, also they contribute to the normal work on the farm. The

photo collage in figure 6 gives an impression of the urban farm model.

Figure 6 Photo collage impression of the urban farm model (Multiple sources: see references)


3. Energy perspective In this chapter, the theoretical framework is confronted with the urban farm model. During this

confrontation it will be analyzed how energy can be reduced, recycled or produced and at which place this

should happen. The last paragraph scales up the theoretical framework and explores how the urban farm

model could contribute to the energy question in the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen. The following

conditions are taken into account when the theoretical framework was applied:

� Heat produced at urban farms cannot be transported far because it loses value quickly;

� Electricity and fuels produced at urban farms can be transported;

� Before energy is environmental friendly produced, possibilities for reducing or recycling energy

should be taken into account.

3.1 Reduce The reduce section of the Trias Energetica approach has not many potential on the level of the farm.

However, as the conditions state in the first chapter; before energy is environmental friendly produced,

possibilities for reducing or recycling should be taken into account. Energy is needed in the stables and in

the two buildings. In the stables it is hard to reduce the energy use. Machines and devices that use energy

are the milking machine, the automatic manager for cows and the lights. The only device were it is possible

to reduce the need for electricity are the lights. Many companies sell energy saving lights. With the use of a

light-plan an optimal lightening-program can be installed, the lights will only burn when it is needed. With

the use of sensors and an installed program, the farmer can change the lightening hours. During the nights,

only a few lights will shine with a lower brightness (Lely, n.d.). In the two houses, it is possible to reduce

the need for energy by isolating the roofs and walls. In this way, less energy is need to heathen or cool the

house. For the urban farm, it is more interesting to analyze ways to recycle or produce environmental

friendly energy. On a higher scale level than a single urban farm, there are more possibilities to reduce

energy. For instance in the transport of by-products to farms, smart transport lines can save fuel use

(Bruinsma et al., 2009).

3.2 Recycle A process on the urban farm model were energy can be recycled is the process of cooling down the milk.

Heat, which is released to the open air during the process of cooling down the milk in a milk tank, can be

used. Water can be heated with the released heat through a heat exchanger. According to the company

DeLaval (2009), one liter milk is sufficient enough to heathen 0,7 liter of water to a temperature of 50 - 55

degree. Important is to heat the water further to at

least 60 degree with a heating element. Otherwise,

legionella could get into the system (Biewenga et al.,

2009). This heated water can be used in the two

houses and in the stables for cleaning. Figure 7 shows

the process of winning heat from the milk.

Figure 7 Process of winning heat from the milk (DeLaval, 2009)


According to the theoretical framework it is important not to transport heat over a large distance. Therefore,

the heat recovery tank stands near to the milk tank. Warm water from this tank can be transported via

isolated pipes. According to textbox 1 on page 18 of this report, 510.000 kilogram milk is produced at the

farm per year. Paepe (2007) states that 1,03 kilogram milk stands for 1 liter milk. Thus, approximately

495.146 liter milk is produced. This means that 346602 liter of water can be warmed to a temperature of

50 – 55 degree, this are 28.884 liters of warm water a month.

3.3 Produce The urban farm model contains multiple possibilities of producing environmental friendly energy. In this

report, two concepts will be discussed. The first concept is called photon farming and uses photons that can

be collected with solar panels. The second concept uses manure, crops and green waste from the city in a

biogas installation.

3.3.1 Photon farming As described in paragraph 2.4, the roofs of the stables will be covered with solar panels. With these solar

panels, photons can be collected and transformed into electricity. This electricity can be used on the farm

and in the houses; the electricity left can be sold to the power network company. However, this way of

producing environmental friendly electricity is not optimal. This because the electricity has to be delivered

to the network at any time, the farmer cannot control this because there is no possibility to store the

electricity. Therefore, the selected model of urban farming will use the concept “photon farming”. This new

concept is developed by the organizations Courage, Stichting Innovatie Glastuinbouw and

InnovatieNetwerk. The core of the concept is that electricity can be stored at any time in a Vandadium

Redox Battery (VRB) (de Vries and Huizing, 2008). This battery contains a liquid solution ‘electrolyte’,

which can be charged and de-charged. When the solar cells produce more electricity than needed on the

farm, the electricity can be stored in the VRB. When the solar cells are producing less electricity than

needed, the battery can be de-charged and electricity is released. This electricity can be used in the houses

and in the stables (Boer et al., 2008). The major advantage of this system is that the liquid solution can be

transported and used in electric motors. The liquid solution can be used as a fuel for cars, tractors, trucks

etc. When the fuel is used, and the liquid solution is empty of electrons, it can be exchanged with a “full”

fuel. Moreover, the released electricity can also be transported to the electricity network at a good moment,

e.g. when the price for delivered electricity is high. These moments occur for example when the need for

electricity is high and when an electricity company on itself cannot fulfill this need (Boer et al., 2008).

Nowadays it is only possible to store the electricity in the battery and use it on small scale, the electricity

can be used at the farm and what is left can be transit to the power network. Boer et al. (2008) hope that in

the future, the fuel electrolyte can be sold at different farms all over the Netherlands. In this way the farmer

becomes a supplier of a sustainable fuel.

The question remains how the “photon concept” can be applied on the selected model of urban farming and

in which time perspective. At this moment, only one farmer in the Netherlands is installing the concept on

his farm, he hopes that the installation can start at the end of 2009 (Duurzame energie thuis, 2009). The


report of de Boer et al. (2008) gives partly an answer to the question. According to the authors, the concept

can be integrated on farms in the year 2012. In the following years the technique should become more

effective and in the year 2025, everybody could tank the electrolyte fuels by farmers. Figure 8 present the

timeline of the introduction of the concept. Concrete for the urban farm it means that the technology can be

used at small scale to provide the houses and stables from electricity, by overproduction the electricity can

be sold to the network.

The initial costs of the whole installation are estimated at €90.000. It is difficult to predict what the

recovery time of the initial costs are, this because there are many insecurities such as techniques that will

improve in the future which can speed up the process of introduction. The life span of the installation is

approximately thirty to fifty years, this because the solution in the battery does not degenerate (Veth and

Huizing, 2009). Because the implementation of the technique is new on farms, there are insecurities. At this

moment, it is difficult to find a company that produces the VRB in such a way (capacity) that it is

applicable on a farm. A company called CellStrom has almost developed an installation of 10 kW/

100kWh, thus the installation (when fully charged) can deliver for 10 hours electricity of 10 kW

(Duurzame energie thuis, 2009). An installation with this capacity is installed at the first photon farmer in

the Netherlands. Second, the potential of the technique also depends on the subsidies for solar panels. The

policy on these subsidies changed during the years and it is not clear how long the government is going to

subsidize. During the reading of Veth and Huizing at the conference of Courage at 6 November 2009 in

Utrecht, it became clear that the success of the system is mostly depending on the subsidy for solar panels.

Another financial aspect is the price the farmer receives for the electricity delivered to the energy market.

The Dutch energy market consist actually out of three markets, all with different principles; the Amsterdam

Power Exchange (APX) market is a daily market place were electricity supply is traded at hourly basis. The

Over the Counter (OTC) market is based on bilateral contracts. On the third market, the Tennet imbalance

market, producers are free to deliver electricity or not against a benefit based price. According to the report

‘Stroom op maat’ (2007) which was written by a consultancy bureau commissioned by the organization

Courage, the best markets to deliver the energy are the APX- and OTC-markets. It is difficult to calculate

any profit because it is not familiar how many MWh the solar panels are delivering and how much

electricity is left to sell. The following price is given as an indication. On the 4th of December, the average

APX-market price for 1 MWh was € 40.51/ MWh (Power House, 2009). To stimulate the deliverance of

Right now

2012

2015

2020

2025

Stationary use of the redox flow

Consumers tank

electrolyte fuels by farmers

Network of loading

points for electric

transportation

Redox flow for

professional regional transport

Redox flow for transport

on farm

Figure 8 Timeline of introduction of photon concept (de Boer et al., 2008)


sustainable energy to the network, the Dutch government introduced an incentive scheme. This incentive

scheme is called ´SDE’ (translated: Stimulation Sustainable Energy production), the basic scheme depends

on the capacity of the solar panels. In the year 2009 panels of 0,6 kWp - ≤ 15 kWp are compensated with a

basic amount of € 0,526/ kWh, panels of >15 kWp are compensated with a basic amount of € 0,459/ kWh

(SenterNovem, 2009). SenterNovem does not mention anything about applying a VRB in (agricultural)

systems therefore it is difficult to predict what the exact scheme will be for the concept photon farming.

3.3.2 Biogas installation The second way to produce environmental friendly energy on the urban farm model is with the use of a

biogas installation. In this biogas installation, manure of the cows, crops and green waste from the city can

be fermented. A product of this fermentation is biogas, with the help of a cogeneration plant this gas can be

transformed to heat and electricity. The produced heat is partly necessary for the installation itself, to keep

the temperature in the installation stable. The heat that remains can be used at the farm or transferred to

buildings. The produced electricity can be used on the urban farm, but also sold to the power network

company. Furthermore, the electricity can be stored in the VRB installation (de Boer et al., 2008). A

residue of the process is fermented manure; this fermented manure can be spread on the farmland or

processed further to specific fertilizers (SenterNovem, 2006). Figure 9 shows the process in and around a

biogas installation.

Figure 9 The process in and around a biogas installation (SenterNovem, 2006)

Microorganisms in the installation cause the fermentation of the products which results in biogas. The

fermentation takes place in an anaerobe environment. The product biogas exists mainly out of methane (55-

65%) and carbon dioxide (35-40%). The fermentation process dependents on several factors namely

temperature, acidity, carbon/ carbon dioxide ratio, the value of solids and the residence time (SenterNovem,

2006). Biogas installations on most farms are mesophilic; this means that the mass inside the fermentation-

part is heathen to 37 degree to increase the process of forming biogas. The manure and other products stay

for approximately 28 to 50 days inside the installation (Wageningen UR, 2008). The question that remains

now is how the biogas installation can be integrated on the urban farm model. The farm contains 60 cows,

they produce 1.200 m3 manure a year and the calves produce 136 m3 manure a year. Because the manure is

separated from the urine, the student assumes that 60% of the total amount of manure can be used in a

biogas installation. For the urban farm model , it means that this is 1.336 m3 manure per year. Further grass,

maize, grain and sugar beets are cultivated. Seventy percent of the yield of the grass and maize are

necessary as feed for the cows. Grain and sugar beets are sold to the market. Table 4 presents a summary of

the calculation of how many kilogram and cubic meters of the products is available for the biogas

installation. The whole calculation is included in appendix 3.


Table 4 Available tons of products for biogas installation (Multiple sources: see appendix 3 and references)

Per year Total Available for biogas installation A year A month

Cows m3 of manure per cow 1200 720

Calves m3 of manure per calve 136 81,6

Total m3 1336 + 801,6 66,8 Grass kilogram per hectare 250000 75000

Maize kilogram per hectare 6900000 2070000

Total kilogram 7150000 + 2145000 178750

Figure 10 shows the m3 of biogas production per m3 co-product. The red arrow is pointing at the production

of manure, the orange arrow is pointing at the production of grass and the purple arrow is pointing at the

production of maize. As the figure shows, manure has the lowest potential to form biogas. Grass has a

higher production than maize. To increase the production of biogas it is an option to use the green waste

from the city region. The green arrow is pointing at the m3 biogas production of green waste. When the

urban farm model is using green waste coming from the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen another need of

the City Region namely waste treatment is taken into account. A new research should clarify what the

possibilities are from using green waste of the City Region and which network is needed for this

construction.

Figure 10 Cubic meters of biogas production per cubic meter of co-product (Wageningen UR, 2008)

The capacity and potential profit of the biogas installation are difficult to calculate, although the input is

familiar. The input is a small calculation compared to the other things that needed to be calculated. As the

authors of the website Mestverwerking (2008) state, before a reasonable calculation can be made of the

profitability many questions first need to be answered. Answering these questions is, as said, a research on

its own. Research needs to be done about what the expected gas production is, what the transport costs for

co-products are, the increase of manure volume by co-fermentation, if is it possible to get a supply contract

for electricity for several years etc. (Wageningen UR, 2008). Another insecurity, just as with the solar

panels, is the subsidy for biogas installations. According to the article of Oppewal (2006) the success of a

biogas installation depends on subsidies, if these are not sufficient a biogas installation is not profitable.

Similar to the scheme of the solar panels, the organization SenterNovem is responsible for the height of the

scheme for biogas installations. For the year 2009, the scheme for a biogas installation with co-

m3 of biogas production of m3 co-product


fermentation and small combustion is €ct 15,2/ kWh (SenterNovem, 2009). Because of multiple

insecurities, it is not possible to give an indication of the investment. If new research concludes that a

biogas installation for the model of urban farming is not profitable, perhaps the combination of different

urban farms and one biogas installation could be interesting.

3.4 The urban farm model and the City Region Until now, the research focused on how the theoretical framework could be applied on the urban farm

model. Of course, this farm interacts in larger networks of other farms, companies and organizations.

Therefore, also the connection between the urban farm model and the City Region Arnhem - Nijmegen

should be discussed. How can the model of urban farming contribute to the needs of the City Region. The

urban farm model as discussed in chapter two is able to fulfill several needs. First, there is a major energy

demand from the City Region. From the first two phases of the course, it can be concluded that this is a

demand for sustainable energy. The farm produces electricity from biomass and with the use of solar

panels, the electricity that not is used can be transferred via the power network company to neighborhoods

of the nearest city or village. In the future, it might become possible to tank ‘electrolyte’ as a fuel for

electric cars. With the help of solar panels the farmer than can sell this fuel to citizens. Second, the farm is

open for visitors. Parents can take their children to the farm and educate them about agriculture in the

Netherlands. In case of the urban farm model, how dairy and arable farming generates. Furthermore, the

functions recreation and nature are combined at the farm, after visiting the cows visitors can walk through

the field and enjoy the fresh air and space. In this way, the farm fulfills the needs for silence, recreation and

nature for inhabitants of the City Region. Third, people who are mentally disabled get a change to work

with animals and enjoy everything what nature gives. Some say that people who work on a farm are

happier and more relaxed (Vlaander, 2001). Fourth, there is a second house on the farm wherein offices are

realized for small organizations. In this way, the farm provides office rooms and restful working

environment. The question remains how many of these farms should be realized in the City Region and if

they all should have the same structure and main activity. In chapter five, the author of this report reflects

on this question. However, before the reflection, in chapter four is discussed how the urban farm model

could be integrated into the landscape.


Grade attractiveness

Buildings

Vizual influence

None Medium

Buildings

Map 2 Appriciation-map of the Dutch landscape 2006 (Milieu & NatuurCompendium, 2009)

Map 3 Visual influence of urbanization 2005 (Milieu & NatuurCompendium, 2009)

4. Integration into the landscape The final step in this research is to place the urban farm model into the landscape and try to “fit” the model

into time and space. The first paragraph analyzes landscape quality and how people perceive the landscape.

With this information, assumptions can be made of conditions about the physical integration of the urban

farm into the landscape. In the second paragraph, a study area is selected in the City Region Arnhem –

Nijmegen. The third paragraph connects the conditions of the urban farm model to the study area and

describes how the model can be integrated into the landscape in time and space.

4.1 Landscape quality and appreciation Map 2 shows the appreciation of the Dutch landscape for the year 2006. The map is based on two positive

aspects and two negative aspects of the landscape. The two postive aspects are ‘experience of the

naturalness’ and ‘experience of the historic distinctiveness’. The two negative aspects are ‘urbanization’

and ‘horizon pollution’. The importance of the aspects were tested in an enquete under 4.500 Dutch

inhabitans. According to the Milieu & NatuurCompendium the small-scale landscapes with a natural and

historic character are valued the highest. Areas with a lot of urbanization or less naturalness such as the

Flevopolder are valued lower then the small-scale landscapes. The City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen is

valued for appriciation between a 6,5 and 8 (Milieu & NatuurCompendium, 2006). This means that when

the urban farm model is realized in the landscape that the appriciation perhaps can decrease. Map 3

presents the visual influence of urbanization on the landscape. The map is based on two negative aspects

namely ‘experience of horizon pollution’ and ‘experience of urbanization’, these two aspects indicate were

the vizual influence of urbanization is the highest in the Netherlands. The vizual distrubance in the City

Region Arnhem – Nijmegen is none to medium (Milieu & NatuurCompendium, 2005).

Van der Wulp et al. (2008) conducted a research on what effect disturbing elements have on the

appreciation of the landscape by civiliants. The research reviels that the influence of disturbing elements is

related to the size and hight of buildings and the amount of similar buildings in an area (clustering).


Figure 11 shows that business areas are valued as most disturbing elements in the landscape. Besides hight,

size and clustering as disturbing element, location is also an element which influences the effect.

Remarkable is that the disturbance by agricultural buildings the largest spread has in appreciation. Van der

Wulp et al. (2008) explain this with the fact that civiliants see agriculture as a specific element in the

landscape. It is important to take the negative effect of business areas into account for the urban farm

model. This because when the business areas were valued the enquetants looked to the clustering aspect, a

high cluster of buildings was valued as more negative effect for the appriciation of the landscape.

Ekamper et al. (2009) published a report about the spatial integration of stables into the landscape. The

main aim of the report was to inspire entrepreneurs when they wanted to build new stables. The authors

discuss different stable concepts, also the concept the urban farm model has. The authors state that this kind

of stable highly differs from the traditional stables in the landscape. When such a stable is realized, it is

important that the stable is not going to dominate the yard with its appearance (this should be the house of

the farmer). Ekamper et al. (2009) stated the following conditions for a stable such as the stable from the

urban farm model to integrate into the landscape:

� The stable should be located behind the house, if seen from the main road;

� It is important not to locate the stable next to a main road;

� Take care of symmetry in the main shape of the crosscut facades;

� Use only dark collors in the design of the stable;

� The façade material should be used over whole the façade;

� Technical installations should as much as possible be realized inside the stable; if this is not

possible than on the side of the yard (facing the courtyard).

According to the Milieu & NatuurCompendium (2006) and van der Wulp et al. (2008) two more conditions

can be added for integration in the landscape:

� The urban farm must not have the appearance of another urban building, this decreases the

amenities of the landscape;

� The buildings on the yard must not look like one giant cluster.

Spread appreciation

Negative effect

Large

Small

Maize

Horse riding-school

Agricultural buildings

Glasshouses

Business areas

Figure 11 Influence of disturbing landscape elements (Van der Wulp et al. 2008)


4.2 Selection study area City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen As stated in the beginning of this research, the selected study area should have the following conditions:

� The area is located near the city borders;

� The area has the potential to become an interwoven area of city and countryside in the future;

� The area currently has agrarian activities.

The selected area is visualized in map 4. The area is located near South border of the city Nijmegen. The

student chooses this area because it meets all the in advanced set conditions. As map 3 shows, the area is

already located in an interwoven zone. The Northern-border of the study area is the neighborhood Hatert of

the city. The Eastside border is the forest and recreation area Heumensoord. The borders of respectively the

South- and Westside are the village Malden and the Maas Waal Canal. According to maps of Groene Atlas

van Gelderland (site with digital maps of the province Gelderland) and Province Gelderland the

Reconstruction scheme is not applicable in the study area. Furthermore, there are no ecological and

allotment claims in the study area. In addition, the province does not marked the study area as a “problem

area” within the province.

4.3 Integration in the landscape in time and space The question answered in this paragraph is how the urban farm model can be integrated to the study area in

time and space. With this specific concept of urban farming, integration in time depends partly on the

concept of photon farming. Namely, which role the farmer can play in the future for driving electric cars

and tanking ‘electrolyte’. Of course, integration in time depends also on the existing legislation and the

time it takes to apply for a building permit and environmental permit. According to the website of the

municipality Nijmegen the request for a building permit takes two until three months (Gemeente Nijmegen,

n.d.). If there are no specialties about the location were the urban farm is build, the request for an

Map 4 Study area (GoogleMaps, 2009)


environmental permit takes about half a year (Gemeente Nijmen bedrijvenloket, n.d.). Because the stable

concept of the urban farm model is new, it is reasonable to think that both permits will take longer to

acquire.

Furthermore, according to the website de Nieuwe kaart van Nederland,

which shows future legislations for the Netherlands, the only new claim

in the study area (area within the red lines) is nature (light green spaces

shown in map 5). It is not known when and if this new nature should be

realized. The revolutionary floor in the two stables prevents ammoniac

emission; therefore, the student assumes that new nature will not be a

major threat to the realization of the urban farm.

For integration, the student chooses a timeline to 2025. The student assumes that the stable concept can be

realized in 2011/ 2012. Nowadays numerous researches are conducted about stable concepts (Beek, 2009

and Kasteren, 2009). At this moment, one farmer in the Netherlands is experimenting with the concept

‘cow garden’. This experiment is in its first stage, no results can be presented yet (de Vries, 2009).

Moreover, some technical solutions for inside the stable have to be invented; a good example is the small

robot that collects the manure (Pape, 2009). Despite the concept of ‘cow garden’ is still in its first phase,

the student assumes that the concept is quickly sufficient the exploit into practice. The urban farm model

has than one function more, namely a model farm for a sustainable stable concept that other farmers can

visit for inspiration. When the stable concept is integrated into the study area, the conditions posed in

paragraph 4.1 should be taken into account. The stable should not be the “eye-catcher” of the farm but like

a pleasant surprise arise behind the two houses. Important is that people should not get the impression that

the stable is hidden. In the year 2012 the farmer can start to use the VRB and use electrolyte on his farm for

transportation. Forest and water are two elements in the landscape of the study area. Therefore, the yard of

the farm will contain some similar bushes and trees as the surrounding environment. Important is not to

place too many green structure around the yard, people might get the impression that something is hidden.

In addition, the stables need a flow of fresh air for the wellbeing of the cows, too many trees and bushes

can hinder this. The recreation paths can be connected with the paths in the area Heumensoord. In addition,

the paths can start just outside the neighborhood Hatert and guide the walkers alongside the urban farm to

the forest Heumensoord. According to the timeline of the photon concept, in the year 2020 a network of

loading points for electric transportation is realized and in 2025 consumers can tank ‘electrolyte’. A

negative aspect of the photon concept is that the traffic intensity will increase when consumers will tank

electrolyte and therefore the infrastructure needs adjustments. Another point of attention is the visitors that

visit the farm by car, a parking in the area must be realized. The electricity produced by the solar cells and

biogas installation and stored in the VRB can be transferred to the neighborhood Hatert by underground

cables and also to the electricity network. The produced heat is used on the farm itself. The following

Photoshop’s give an impression of the farm in the year 2025 (based on plan 1 on page 18), map 6 and 7

give an impression of integration into the landscape.

Map 5 New nature in study area (deNieuwekaartvanNederland, 2009)


Map 7 3D impression of integration of urban farm model in study area (own elaboration)

Photoshop 1 Impression of front side yard: urban farm, stable milk cows and electrolyte tank (own elaboration)

Map 6 2D impression of integration of urban farm model in study area (own elaboration)


Photoshop 2 Impression of yard: stable of calves and biogas installation (own elaboration)

Photoshop 3 Impression of yard: feed silo’s and biogas installation (own elaboration)

Photoshop 4 Impression of new stable concept dairy cows (Courage, 2007)


Photoshop 5 Impression of new stable concept dairy cows (Courage, 2007 and own elaboration)

Photoshop 6 Impression of footpath around urban farm model (own elaboration)


5. Reflection urban farm model This chapter reflects on how the selected urban farm model should function into a larger network of urban

farms. The chapter ends with recommendations towards the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen considering

urban farming in interwoven zones.

The author of this report thinks that the potential of urban farming in the future metropolitan landscape is

high. Probably two scenarios in the future will occur. First, municipalities grow to each other and multiple

city regions originate. In the regions millions of people live and work, in addition these regions have

important economical functions (Stadsregio’s, 2009). Second, according to Albert Jan Maat, president of

the organization LTO (agricultural organization that represents farmers in the Netherlands); “in the future

many farmers will quite, some farmers will expand their farm to mega farms and the third group of farmers

will search for a niche-market”. This niche-market could be urban farming. Nowadays farmers, which are

located nearby the city, experience the city often as a threat. Farmers could turn these threats into a

opportunity by offering demands inhabitants of the city would like. In this research, there was a lot of

narrowing down of the research topic due to the time limit. Therefore, only one combination of urban

farming is analyzed on how the relation of this farm could be with other forms of land use, the energy

potential and the integration in the landscape. Certainly, there are more potential combinations of urban

farms with other forms of land use, which can fulfill demands of a city. Table 3 in the report shows this

conclusion; diary farming, arable farming but perhaps also pomiculture are forms of agriculture that can be

combined with other functions in the landscape. In addition, these forms of agriculture can provide needs

from inhabitants of the city such as care, nature and recreation. Important to realize is that the potentials of

an urban farm depend on the qualities of the landscape (the area) were they are realized. The student

selected a mixed form of urban farming to work with. The farm contains dairy cows and an arable part.

When the Trias Energetica approach was applied, it appeared that there are several possibilities to reduce,

recycle or produce environmental friendly energy. The solutions in chapter 3 were especially analyzed for

this type of urban farm. It is conceivable that other urban farms have other potentials in combination with

the Trias Energetica approach. One concept that could be applied on every urban farm is the photon

concept. An advance is when every urban farm applies this concept, a network can be developed were

electric car drivers can tank electrolyte. This brings this reflection to the next question, how many urban

farms with what specialization should there be in the City Region Arnhem - Nijmegen and where should

they be located?

It is difficult to predict how many and also what kind of urban farms a city region should contain. Multiple

conditions influence this prediction for instance: the demographics of a municipality and city region,

economics, the surface of a municipality, the current land use, currently existing forms of agriculture and

the already made future plans for the region. The student thinks it is wise not to locate an urban farm based

on the surface a municipality has. Three conditions that at least should influence the location of an urban

farm are demographics, the accessibility of the area and the actual demand by citizens of the city region.

The (future) interwoven area must have the potential for an urban farm in combination with other forms of


land use. Further, the student thinks it wise not to apply only one concept of urban farming in a city region.

There are many potential combinations and these should be explored. An advantage of multiple forms of

urban farming in a city region is that the inhabitants can choose which concept they will visit. In addition,

these urban farms should be combined with different forms of land use, in such a way every urban farm

offers different demands of the inhabitants. Although it would be an accession if all the urban farms have a

different concept, still there should be some small similarities between these farms. For instance in the

visitor rules on the farm, the marketing strategies (same lay-out) and a playing yard for children. In this

way, the farms become recognizable for citizens. It would be wise to connect the urban farms with each

other in a network. In such a way that urban farms can cooperate with each other to provide educative and

recreational routes along the farms. It is important to realize that not all the farms in the whole city region

should become an urban farm. Only the farms that operate at the border of cities (and larger villages).

Furthermore, it is important to realize that the main activity of the urban farm is still farming; the second

activity can be focused on demands from the city.

Recommendations towards the City Region Arnhem – Nijmegen considering urban farming:

� Further research is needed about the demand for urban farms in the city region;

� Determine conditions such as demographics and accessibility for locating urban farms;

� If the photon concept is applied, the range of electric vehicles then also should be a condition for

locating the urban farms;

� Determine specific integration requirements for the appearance of the urban farms. In this way,

urban farms become recognizable for inhabitants;

� Present a timeline for integration of urban farms in time and space, the photon concept could offer

grip in this;

� Make sure that there is enough variety of urban farms which offer different activities (in this way

there are different combinations with different land use);

� Stimulate urban farmers with subsidies to realize sustainable projects such as biogas installations

on the farm;

� Stimulate cooperation between the different urban farmer in such a way that networks occur;

� Enjoy the potentials of urban farming in the City Region!


References Altena, G.J., M. Molina, S. Brandsma, F. Duanyang and S. van Telgen, 2009. Matterscape 1. The physical landscape. Wageningen. Atlas Groen Gelderland, 2009. EHS Streekplan herziening vast gesteld door PS. [Online] Available at: http://geodata2 .prvgld.nl/apps/groengelderland/ [Accessed 7 December 2009]. Atlas Groen Gelderland, 2009. Gebiedsplan natuur en landschap. [ Online] Available at: http://geodata2.p rvgld.nl/apps/groengelderland/ [Accessed 7 December 2009]. Atlas Groen Gelderland, 2009. Probleemgebieden. [Online] Available at: http://geodata2.prvgld.nl/apps/gr oengelderland/ [Accessed 7 December 2009]. Beek, D., 2009. Koeientuin. Koeien binnen toch buiten. [Online] Available at: http://www.boerderij.nl/107800 7/Rundveehouderij/foto-rundveehouderij/Koeientuin-koeien-binnen-en-toch-buiten.htm [Accessed 28 November 2009]. Berkum, S., van., 2008. De internationale zuivelmarkt nu en in de toekomst. Bijdrage aan de studie ‘Melken in de nieuwe realiteit’. [Online] Available at: http://library.wur.nl/way/bestanden/clc/1872422.pdf [Accessed 16 November 2009]. Biewenga, G., G. Remmelink, J. van Middelkoop, W. Ouweltjes and H. Wemmenhove, 2009. Handboek melkveehouderij. [Online] Available at: http://www.verantwoordeveehouderij.nl/index.asp?pzprojecte n/projectkaart.asp?IDProject=233 [Accessed 1 December 2009]. Boer, P.D.M, M. Schreurs and K.J. Braber, 2008. Fotonenboer. Elektriciteit tanken bij de boer in 2025. [Online] Available at: http://www.courage2025.nl/downloads/Fotonenboer.pdf [Accessed 24 November 2009]. Brandsma, S., D. Koens, I. Gkini, J. Myskova, R. Li and W. Schotsman, 2009. A sustainable energy landscape City Region Arnhem – Nijmgen. Urban Autarkic. Wageningen. Bruinsma, B., F. Linnemans and J. Greeve. Naar een energieneutrale zuivelketen (3). Agrotransport op groen gas. [Online] Available at: http://www.courage2025.nl/downloads/Agrotransport.pdf [Accessed 7 December 2009]. CBS, 2009. Land- en tuinbouwcijfers 2009. [Online] Available at: http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/C1A56EC5-9A02-4639-8BDB-6787381ADA7A/0/2009j29pub.pdf [Accessed 20 November 2009]. Courage, 2007. Stroom op maat. [Online] Available at: http://www.innovatienetwerk.org/nl/bibliotheek/rapp orten /338/Stroomopmaat.html [Accessed 3 December 2009]. Creswell, J.W., 2003. Research design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE publications, London. Dekker, G., B. Muskens, J.E. Jansma, A. Visser And A. Dekking, n.d. Landbouwstad. Rondom Communicatie, Utrecht. DeLaval, 2009. Warmteterugwinning. De slimme manier om op energiekosten te besparen. [Website] Available at: http://du.delaval.nl/Products/Milk-Cooling/Heat-Recovery/default.htm [Accessed 26 November 2009]. DeNieuwekaartvanNederland, 2009. Interactieve kaart. [Website] Available at: http://www.kaart.nieuwekaart. nl/? pag e_id=13 [Accessed 4 December 2009]. Dieleman, W.C.J., 2006. Eindrapportage ARB veldbijeenkomsten. [Online] Available at: http://www .randenbeheerbrabant.nl/nieuws/veldbijeenkomsten.pdf [Accessed 17 November 2009]. Dijck, L., van, 2006. Duitstalig België gaat voorop in mestvergisting. Landbouw & Techniek (14 – 18 augustus), p. 42 – 43.


Dijk, T. van, 2005. Conceptualising the challenge of open space preservation in the urban realm. [Online] Available at: http://www.feweb.vu.nl/gis/research/Metroland/publications/docs/Conceptualising%20the %20MetroLand%20challenge.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2009]. Duurzame energie thuis, 2009. Primeur Achterhoekse Fotonenboer: zonne-energie systeem voor melkrobot. [Website] Available at: http://www.duurzameenergiethuis.nl/energie/primeur-achterhoekse-fotonenboer-zonne-energie-systeem-voor-melkrobot-2912.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed %3A+DuurzameEnergieThuis+%28Duurzame+Energie+Thuis%29 [Accessed 24 November 2009]. Ekamper, T., I. Nij Bijvank-van Herel and F. van Unen, 2009. Over stallen gesproken. [Online] Available at: http://edepot.wur.nl/7697 [Accessed 28 November 2009]. Farmersgolf, 2006. Boerengolf. De snelst groeiende buitensport van Nederland. [Website] Available at: http://www.boerengolf.nl/home.php [Accessed 19 November 2009]. Flevolandschap, 2009. Op de kuierlatten. [Website] Available at: http://www.opdekuierlatten.nl/ [Accessed 26 November 2009]. Gemeente Nijmegen, n.d. Aanlegvergunning. [Website] Available at: http://www.nijmegen.nl/digitaleb alie/pdc2.asp?req=toon_product&productid=74 [Accessed 4 December 2009]. Gemeente Nijmegen bedrijvenloket, n.d. Verloop van de procedure bij aanvraag voor een milieuvergunning. [Online] Available at: http://www.nijmegen.nl/gns/index/forms/static/Verloop%20procedure%20aanvra ag% 20milieuvergunning.pdf [Accessed 4 December 2009]. GoogleMaps, 2009. Zoom in Nijmegen. [Website] Available at: http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&tab=wl [Accessed 29 November 2009]. Jacobs, J., 2009. [PowerPoint presented 08-09-2009 at WUR] Matterscape – Powerscape – Mindscape. Jansma, J.E. and Jansen, Y., 2009. Stad zoekt boer. Binnenlands Bestuur 2009 (27 feb.), p. 34 – 35. Kasteren, J., 2009. Cowfortable (2): een nieuw ontwerpprincipe. De koeientuin. [Online] Available at: http://www.courage2025.nl/downloads/koeientuin.pdf [Accessed 21 November 2009]. LEI, 2008. Land- en tuinbouw cijfers. Gekozen optie: 5. Productie / 51. Akkerbouwproducten. [Online] Available at: http://www3.lei.wur.nl/ltc/Classificatie.aspx [Accessed 1 December 2009]. Lely, n.d. LELY L4C. Gestuurd verlichtingssysteem. [Online] Available at: http://www.lely.com/brochures/broch ures_pdf/dairy/lely-l4c-nl.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2009]. LNV-loket, n.d. Derogatie. Voorwaarden voor derogatie. [Website] Available at: http://www.hetlnvloket. nl/portal/page?_pageid=122,1785895&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_document_id=289130&p_node_id=2116637&p_mode=BROWSE [Accessed 4 December 2009]. Maat, A.J., 2009. Toekomstbeelden van een duurzame melkveehouderij. [Pronunciation] Pronunciation during disucussion 6 November 2009, Conferance Courage. Milieu & NatuurCompendium, 2006. Belevingskaart van het Nederlandse landschap. [Website] Available at: http://www.milieuennatuurcompendium.nl/indicatoren/nl1023-Belevingskaart-van-het-Nederlandse-landschap.html?i=12-9 [Accessed 27 November 2009]. Milieu & NatuurCompendium, 2005. Visuele invloed van verstedelijking op het landschap. [Website] Available at: http://www.milieuennatuurcompendium.nl/indicatoren/nl1408-Visuele-invloed-verstedelijking.html?i=12-9 [Accessed 27 November 2009]. Nijs, A.C.M. de, R. Kuiper and L.E.M. Crommetuijn, 2005. Landgebruik in 2030. Een projectie van de Nota Ruimte. [Online] Available at: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/711931010.pdf [Accessed 17 November 2009]. Oppewal, J., 2006. Biogas blijft boer boeien. Toekomst voor slimme combinaties. [Online] Available at: http://www.mestverwerken.wur.nl/Info/Bibliotheek/PDF/Biogas.pdf [Accessed 1 December 2009].


Packo, 2009. Bespaar met de Packo warmteterugwinning. [Online] Available: http://74.125.77.132/search ? q=cach e:-7Sm3Qf7rJkJ :www.pac ko.com/cms/download.dhtml%3Ffilename%3D LEAFL ET_wa rmt et e r u gwinning_NL.pdf,url%3D/cms_files/N-9011-nlFile.pdf+packo+warmteterugwinning&cd =1&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl [Accessed 23 November 2009]. Paepe, R., 2007. Berekening van de netto-uitscheiding van runderen. De bruto N- en P2O5-uitscheiding van runderen. [Online] Available: http://www.vlm.be/SiteCollectionDocuments/Mestbank/Algemeen/DEF_netto-uitscheiding%20runderen.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2009]. Pape, .J., 2009. De koeientuin. Natuurlijk voor de koe, een lust voor het mensen oog. [Pronunciation] Pronunciation during presentation 6 November 2009, Conference Courage. Power House, 2009. Electriciteit verkopen. [Website] Available at: http://www.powerhouse.nl/index.php?optio n=com_co ntent&view=article&id=53&Itemid=63&lang=nl [Accessed 3 December 2009]. PPO Lelystad, 2006. Stad en landbouw. Een vruchtbare combinatie. [Online] Available at: http://library.wur.nl/wasp/bestanden/LUWPUBRD_00354533_A502_001.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2009]. Programma Kas als Energiebron, 2009. Programma kas als energiebron. Innovatieagenda tot en met 2012. [Online] Available at: http://www.kasalsenergiebron.nl/index.php [Accessed 18 November 2009]. Provincie Gelderland, 2009. Beleidskaart landinrichting. Verbetering verkaveling grondgebonden landbouw. [Online] Available at: http://www.gelderland.nl/Documenten/Kaarten_en_cijfers/Landelijk_gebied/B eleidskaart_landinrichting.pdf [Accessed 7 December 2009]. Rodrigue, J.P., n.d. The Geography of Transport Systems. Von Thunen's Regional Land Use Model. [Online] Available at: http://www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch6en/conc6en/vonthunen.html [Accessed 13 November 2009]. Schans, J.W. van der, 2008. [PowerPoint presented 06-11-2008 Rotterdam] Food & The city. Stedelijke voedselstrategien. [Online] Available at: http://www.greenandthecity.nl/assets/files/keuzeprogramma%2 0sprekers/Jan%20Willem%20van%20der%20Schans.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2009]. SenterNovem, 2009. SDE (Stimulering Duurzame Energieproductie). Subsidie biomassa. [Online] Available at: http://www.senternovem.nl/sde/biomassa/subsidiebedragen_2009.asp [Accessed 4 December 2009]. SenterNovem, 2009. SDE (Stimulering Duurzame Energieproductie). Subsidie fotovoltaïsche zonnepanelen. [Online] Available at: http://www.senternovem.nl/sde/zonnepanelen/index.asp [Acccessed 3 December 2009]. SenterNovem, 2006. Duurzame energie in Nederland. Mestvergistingsinstallaties. [Website] Available at: http://www.senternovem.nl/duurzameenergie/de-technieken/mestvergisting/index.asp [Accessed 25 November 2009]. Stadsregio’s, 2009. Stadsregio’s nieuwe stijl. De stadsregio’s: de logica van samenwerking. [Website] Available at: http://www.stadsregios.nl/#pagina=849 [Accessed 1 December 2009]. Steenbekkers, A., C. Simon and V. Veldheer, 2006. Thuis op het platteland. De leefsituatie van het platteland en stad vergeleken. [Online] Available at: http://english.scp.nl/publicaties/boeken/903770 2295/Thuis_ op_het_platt eland.pdf [Accessed 18 November 2009]. Stokkermans, P., 2006. Kippenzichtstal goed voor imago sector. Nieuwe oogst 2006, p. 21. Veth, J., de and H. Huizing. Fotonenboer. Continu groene elektriciteit, ook bij windstilte en bewolking. [Reading 6 November]. OWN NOTES. Visser, A. and J.E. Jansma, 2009. Nieuwsbrief Agromere. [Online] Available at: http://www.agro mere.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/9B133549-63C7-483C-A07D-8326410CC74E/87355/NieuwsbriefAgromere 200907.pdf [Accessed 11 November 2009]. Visser, A., O. van Eijk, A. Kempenaar, J.W. van der Schans, A. van der Valk, H. Wiskerke and D. Stobbelaar, n.d.. Stadslandbouw. [Online] Available at: http://edepot.wur.nl/13967 [Accessed 10 November 2009].


Visser, P., 2008. Elkas zet overtollige warmte om in elektriciteit. [Online] Available at: http://edepot.wu r.nl/12027 [Accessed 21 November 2009]. Vlaander, J., 2001. Zorgen en verzorgd worden. [Online] Available at: http://www.antroposofie.nl/literatuur/a ntroposofische_literatuur/artikelendatabase/ms/gezhzorg/df/motief42-2 [Accessed 27 November 2009]. Vries, C., de, 2009. Nieuwsbrief juli 2009. De eerste koeientuin is open. [Online] Available at: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:k8FiChL_ajEJ:www.innovatienetwerk.org/downloadattachment.php%3Fid%3D27GdmtWgHo0RJsU4HgihNN%26filename%3Dnieuwsbrief_juli_2009.pdf+koeientuin+jacob+noord&cd=6&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl [Accessed 1 December 2009]. Vries, C., de and H. Huizing, 2008. De Fotonenboer komt er aan! Stroomopslag betekent doorbraak voor zonne-energie. [Online] Available at: http://www.courage2025.nl/downloads/Conceptwijzer_Fotonenboer.pdf [Accessed 24 November 2009]. VROM, ministerie van., 2006. Nota Ruimte. Ruimte voor ontwikkeling. [Online] Available at: http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=3410 [Accessed 12 November 2009]. Waal, R. de, 2009. Expectations for the atelier, phase 3, individual part, spatial planning. [Online] Available at: https://portal.wur.nl/Courses/LAR60318_2009_2/Shared%20Documents/091102%20assig nment%20LUP%20phase%203.pdf [Accessed 9 November 2009]. Wageningen UR, 2008. Techniek van mestvergisting. [Website] Available at: http://www.mestverwerken.wur.nl/ [Accessed 25 November 2009]. Wasser, H., 2004. Onderzoek naar de economische haalbaarheid. Van rundvee- en varkensmestvergisting op middelgrote bedrijven middels co-vergisting met kippenmest op slachtkuikenbedrijven. [Online] Available at: http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/Onderzoek%20naar%20de%20economische%20haalbaarheid%20middels%20co-vergisting%20met%20kippenmest%20op%20slachtkuikenbedrijven_tcm24-240771.pdf [Accessed 18 November 2009]. Werken, G van de, H. Havinga, T. Mulder, P. Reijrink and B. Meeuwissen, 2004. Landbouwverkenning Rivierengebied in Gelderland. [Online] Available at: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:h9sJUAmxVg IJ:www.greenportbetuwsebloem.nl/download.asp%3Ffile%3DLANDBOUWVERKENNING.pdf+landbouwverkenning+rivierengebied&cd=1&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl [Accessed 16 November 2009]. Woerkom, M., 2009. Innovatiedag PPP-Agro Advies en melkveeproefbedrijf Zegveld. ‘We zoeken de extremen op’. [Online] Available at: http://www.ppp-agro.nl/Portals/15/Artikel_Agraaf_12_09_2009% 20open%20dag%20zeg veld.pdf [Accessed 21 November 2009]. Wolf, M. de, J. de Haan, n.d. Gewasreseten afvoeren. Utopie of optie? [Online] Available at: http://library.wur.nl/wasp/bestanden/LUWPUBRD_00354472_A502_001.pdf [Accessed 17 November 2009]. Wulp, N., van der, M. Clusters and J. Vreke, 2008. De beleving van storende landschapselementen. Wageningen. IJzendoorn, P. van, 2006. NIEUWSBRIEF WAARDEWERKEN. Lopende projecten. [Online] Available at: http://w ww.waardewerken.nl/Downloads/NieuwsbriefWW01.pdf [Accessed 16 November 2009]. ZLTO, n.d. Agrotoerisme. [Online] Available at: http://www.zlto.nl/nl/25222713-Thema%2527s.ht ml?path=11000029/ [Accessed 17 November 2009]. Zonneveld, R.F.,van, M. Schoone, A. van Diepen, S. Oosting and F. Caron-Flintermand, 2009. Van boerderij naar zorgboerderij. Met welke aanpassingen krijg je als boer te maken? Praktijkervaringen en tips. [Online] Available at: http://edepot.wur.nl/8291 [Accessed 17 November 2009]


1

4 5 6

3

1 2 3

4 5 6

7

2

1, 2, 4 & 5: Kasteren, J., 2009. Cowfortable (2): een nieuw ontwerpprincipe. De koeientuin. [Online] Available at: http://www.courage2025.nl/downloads/koeientuin.pdf [Accessed 21 November 2009]. 3: Available at: http://www.ppp-agro.nl/Portals/15/Artikel_Agraaf_12_09_2009%20open%20dag%20zegvel d.pdf [Accessed 21 November 2009]. 6: Available at: http://documents.plant.wur.nl/wurglas/nrc-elkas.pdf [Accessed 21 November 2009].

1: Available at: http://www.arceau.nl/web/images/projecten/061105/Heesen2.jpg [Accessed 22 November 2009]. 2: Picture from private collection W. Schotsman. 3: Available at: http://www.zorgboeren.nl/zbfoto/818_1.jpg [Accessed 22 November 2009]. 4: Available at: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2757951.jpg [Accessed 22 November 2009]. 5: Available at: http://www.sterrenland.com/downloads/15.jpg [Accessed 22 November 2009]. 6: Available at: http://www.landvanenergie.nl/images/Overzicht%20vergister%202.jpg [Accessed 22 November 2009]. 7: Available at: http://www.agd.nl/upload_mm/1/4/4/1980612501_1999999695_Bieten-Rooien166.jpg [Accessed 23 November 2009].


Appendix 1 Calculation size of urban farms

Agriculture in River landscape (Source: own elaboration in combination with Werken et al., 2004.)

Amount of animals

2002

Amount of animals

2015

Amount of farms

2002

Amount of farms

2015

Average of animals on farm

2002

Average of animals on farm

2015 Hectares

ground 2002 Hectares

ground 2015

Average hectares of ground per farm

2002

Average hectares of ground per farm

2015

Dairy farming 47.402 43.941 794 633 60 69 30.124 33.881 37,9 53,5

Intensive farming (pigs) 319.937 286.747 145 89 2206 3222 1151 868 7,9 9,8 Intensive farming (poultry) 2.844.061 2.620.892 66 54 43092 48535 310 260 4,7 4,8 Arable farming 329 294 6.030 4.606 18,3 15,7 Glasshouse culture 535 499 960 1141 1,8 2,3 Horticulture 144 84 569 474 4,0 5,6 Pomiculture 652 411 5.186 4640 8,0 11,3

Agriculture in River landscape (Source: CBS, 2009) Agriculture in River landscape 2002 2005 2008

Arable farming; total amount of hectares 28525,05 31363,42 30325,93

Arable farming; total amount of farms 2253 1937 1820

Arable farming: average of hectares/ farm 12,66 16,19 16,66

Horticulture; total amount of hectares 7960,69 7647,64 8082,87

Horticulture; total amount of farms 1679 1423 1256

Horticulture; average of hectares/ farm 4,74 5,37 6,44

Glasshouse culture; total amount of hectares 144,22 122,45 141,41

Glasshouse culture; total amount of hectares 856 733 595

Glasshouse culture; average of hectares/ farm 0,17 0,17 0,24

Dairy farming; total amount of dairy cows and youngsters 130576 118616 113498

Dairy farming; total amount of farms 1653 1410 1185

Dairy farming; average of animals/ farm 79 84 96

Intensive farming (pigs); total amount of pigs 179257 190453 179240

Intensive farming (pigs); total amount of farms 436 350 279

Intensive farming (pigs); average of animals/ farm 411 544 642

Intensive farming (poultry); total amount of chickens 2903680 2976373 3171594

Intensive farming (poultry); total amount of farms 124 106 79

Intensive farming (poultry) average animals/ farm 23417 28079 40147


Appendix 2 Calculation mixed form Conditions of different types of urban farming 2015 (Source: own elaboration in combination with Werken et al., 2004)

Type Main activity Amount of animals/ farm

Amount of hectares/ farm

Dairy farming Cows ≥ 69 ≥ 53,5 Intensive farming Poultry (laying hens or meat chickens) ≥ 48.535 ≥ 4,8 Intensive farming Pigs (porkers or breeding pigs) ≥ 3.222 ≥ 9,8 Arable farming Crops such as sugar beets, wheat and potatoes - ≥ 15,7 Horticulture Vegetables such as cauliflower, celery and asparagus - ≥ 5,6

Glasshouse culture Vegetables and fruit such as tomatoes, paprika’s and strawberries

- ≥ 2,3

Mixed forms Animals combined with cultivation of grain and potatoes

cows ≥ 52 chickens ≥ 36.401

pigs ≥ 2417

≥ 40,3 ≥ 3,6 ≥ 7,4

Pomiculture Fruit trees and berry plantations - ≥ 11,3 Calculation amount of animals on mixed form Dairy farming : (69/100)*25 = 17,25; 69-17,25≈ 52 cows Poultry : (48.535/100)*25 = 12133,75; 48.535-12133,75≈ 36.401 chickens Pigs : (3222/100)*25 = 805,5; 3222-805,5≈ 2417 pigs Calculation amount of hectares on mixed from Dairy farming : 53,5/69= 0,775 hectare/ cow; for a mixed form thus 0,775*52= 40,3 hectare Poultry : 4,8/ 48.535= 9,889E-5 hectare/ chicken; for a mixed form thus 9,889E-5*36.401= 3,6 hectare Pigs : 9,8/3.222= 0,003 hectare/ pig; for a mixed form thus 0,003*2417= 7,4 hectare


Appendix 3 Calculation for biogas installation Calculation for biogas installation (Source: own elaboration in combination with Biewenga et al. (2009) and LEI (2008))

Per year Amount Total Available for biogas installation A year A month

Cows (1) m3 of manure per cow 20 60 cows 1200 720

Calves (2) m3 of manure per calve 3,4 40 calves 136 81,6

Total m3

+ 1336 + 801,6 66,8

Grass (3) kilogram per hectare 10.000 25 hectares 250000 75000

Maize (4) kilogram per hectare 460.000 15 hectares 6900000 2070000

Total kilogram + 7150000 + 2145000 178750

References: 1 & 2: Biewenga, G., G. Remmelink, J. van Middelkoop, W. Ouweltjes and H. Wemmenhove, 2009. Handboek melkveehouderij. [Online] Available at: http://www.verantwoordeveehouderij.nl/index.asp?pzprojecten/projectkaart.asp?IDProject=233 [Accessed 1 December 2009]. 3 & 4: LEI, 2008. Land- en tuinbouw cijfers. Gekozen optie: 5. Productie / 51. Akkerbouwproducten. [Online] Available at: http://www3.lei.wur.nl/ltc/Classificatie.aspx [Accessed 1 December 2009].