Community gardening is a current global phenomenon and the general purposes of these horticultural areas in cities are to provide food but also for food security needs. Other ecosystem services, such as improving people’s quality of life, the urban environment and social relations, are also often underlined. Despite the increasing phenomenon of urban community gardens, planning guidelines concerning specific objectives are still needed. Literature underlines five principal aims in setting up urban community gardening, and we suggest “Cultural values” as an additional one. Moreover, we propose a set of 12 basic indicators to support the best choice for the six aims. We also discuss the importance of these indicators which come within three broad categories: A) environmental parameters: morphology, soil, sunlight, water supply, biodiversity value; B) risk factors due to urban pollution, which needs to be investigated further: local pollution linked to urban traffic, local pollution derived from previous activities on the site; C) accessibility and social context: accessibility, schools, community centres, green areas. Since each parameter has a different influence in relation to the various identified aims, we suggest their relative weights, which have to be considered in the different cases, and their needed minimum values. Last of all, we apply the proposed evaluation criteria in several municipal areas of Rome. Our data show that these indicators can easily be applied in selecting the best solutions for this type of urban planning.

Caneva, G., Cicinelli, E., Scolastri, A., Bartoli, F. (2020). Guidelines for urban community gardening: Proposal of preliminary indicators for several ecosystem services (Rome, Italy). URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING, 56, 126866 [10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126866].

Guidelines for urban community gardening: Proposal of preliminary indicators for several ecosystem services (Rome, Italy)

Caneva, G.;Cicinelli, E.;Scolastri, A.;Bartoli, F.
2020-01-01

Abstract

Community gardening is a current global phenomenon and the general purposes of these horticultural areas in cities are to provide food but also for food security needs. Other ecosystem services, such as improving people’s quality of life, the urban environment and social relations, are also often underlined. Despite the increasing phenomenon of urban community gardens, planning guidelines concerning specific objectives are still needed. Literature underlines five principal aims in setting up urban community gardening, and we suggest “Cultural values” as an additional one. Moreover, we propose a set of 12 basic indicators to support the best choice for the six aims. We also discuss the importance of these indicators which come within three broad categories: A) environmental parameters: morphology, soil, sunlight, water supply, biodiversity value; B) risk factors due to urban pollution, which needs to be investigated further: local pollution linked to urban traffic, local pollution derived from previous activities on the site; C) accessibility and social context: accessibility, schools, community centres, green areas. Since each parameter has a different influence in relation to the various identified aims, we suggest their relative weights, which have to be considered in the different cases, and their needed minimum values. Last of all, we apply the proposed evaluation criteria in several municipal areas of Rome. Our data show that these indicators can easily be applied in selecting the best solutions for this type of urban planning.
2020
Caneva, G., Cicinelli, E., Scolastri, A., Bartoli, F. (2020). Guidelines for urban community gardening: Proposal of preliminary indicators for several ecosystem services (Rome, Italy). URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING, 56, 126866 [10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126866].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11590/375968
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 23
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact