Changing places through Urban Agriculture

VIVIANE GOMES MEDEIROS

Changing places through Urban Agriculture

Tracking possibilities for improvement on quality of the living environment of
the residents of the Dichterhof through the use of urban agriculture

URBAN DYNAMICS PROGRAMME

THESIS MODULE
VIVIANE GOMES MEDEIROS
ALMERE, THE NETHERLANDS
JANUARY 2014

I.

Preface and acknowledgements

In my experience in the Netherlands, I could broaden my knowledge a lot, personally and

academically speaking. I am very grateful to all the people I could have contact with, the
institutions and persons that supported my studies and work, and all of those I crossed paths with
somehow, that taught me something.
First, I would like to thank the CNPq (National Counsel of Technological and Scientific
Development), who granted me the opportunity to study and to have enriching experiences
abroad.
Studying at CAH Vilentum University of Applied Sciences brought me new points of view on
several subjects, and one of these is sustainability and sustainable development. Those were
brought up gradually, and the team always stimulates the students to think for themselves.
Moreover, the experience and opportunity to have an internship at the Amsterdam Academy of
Architecture brought me even more insight on bringing together the over-explored urban
environment, and the underdeveloped countryside. The research that took place there was about
searching for opportunities for urban agriculture in the city, and how the relation between this
practice and the urban environment was farer and farer over time.
This study represents an attempt to apply in an existing environment the research made so far,
and all the knowledge received through all this time through the supporters. What better location
to do it than one you are familiar with? Being a resident and having planning/design-related
studies makes you want start changes of your own living environment, and by living in it, it is
possible to affirm you know and you are part of it.
There is some hope that this project can be useful for the wellness of the people it was addressed
to, not necessarily as completely realized, but as inspiration towards a greener, sustainable
future.
Hence, I would like to thank each one of the respondents for their cooperation, and the ones that
made possible the realization of this thesis.

II.

Summary

This study is focused on the city of Almere, the newest city of The Netherlands, located in the
province of Flevoland. In a scenario of global search for sustainability and disconnection of the
urban dweller with production activities and nature in general, this study is part of a continuous
search for improvements in the living environments, which brings several benefits for the socalled urban dwellers. It has the aim to contribute to the improvement on aspects of quality of
living environment of the residents of the Dichterhof and direct surroundings, using urban
agriculture as approach, from the spatial planning and design point of view. By explaining the
techniques with its benefits and disadvantages, and performing an analysis of the space and the
population, it was found that urban agriculture can be a tool not only to tackle issues of lack of
social cohesion, but also to make the building more compatible with the environment it is
inserted into. The suggestions were given in the way of two scenarios, one with a bottom up and
another with a top down approach, giving alternative solutions to the ones willing to realize it.
Keywords: urban agriculture; residents; sustainability; quality of the living environment.

III.

Table of contents

1.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.

Methodology: ....................................................................................................................................... 4

3.

Conceptual framework ....................................................................................................................... 6

3.1

- Presenting the area ...................................................................................................................... 6

3.2

- Opportunities for green spaces in the area .................................................................................. 9

3.3

- Defining Urban Agriculture ...................................................................................................... 11

3.4 - Defining the techniques .................................................................................................................. 14

3.4.1. - Composting ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.4.2 - Livestock shelters ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.4.3. - Hydroponic and aquaponic systems ....................................................................................... 15
3.4.4. - Greenhouse technologies ........................................................................................................ 17
3.4.5. - Raised beds ............................................................................................................................. 18
3.4.6. - Soft planters ............................................................................................................................ 19
3.4.7. - Rigid containers ...................................................................................................................... 20
3.4.8. - Hanging planters .................................................................................................................... 21
4.

Analysis and results .......................................................................................................................... 24

4.1

- Results from the questionnaire ................................................................................................. 25

4.1.1 - About the sample and the questionnaire .................................................................................. 25

4.1.2 - Results ...................................................................................................................................... 26
4.2
5.

SWOT analysis ........................................................................................................................ 31

Conclusion and recommendations ................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Discussion and general considerations .......................................................................................... 32
5.2 Top down vs Bottom up ................................................................................................................. 34
5.3 Possibilities for intervention .......................................................................................................... 36
5.3.1. - Scenario 01 ............................................................................................................................. 36
5.3.2. - Scenario 02 ............................................................................................................................. 38
5.4 Final remarks ................................................................................................................................. 40
5.5 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 41
5.5.1. - To the residents ....................................................................................................................... 41
5.5.2. - To the investors ....................................................................................................................... 41
5.5.3. - To who wishes to continue this study ...................................................................................... 41

6.

Bibliographic references ................................................................................................................... 42

7.

Annexes .............................................................................................................................................. 44

Annex 1 Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................ 44

1. Introduction
In the past decades, it was raised an awareness of how people perceived their own living
environment, and the capability of this environment to offer a good way of living. In addition,
the emergence of movements that aims for the shift for a slower pace of living, avoiding a
stressful and too busy way of life, together with the sustainability as an objective pursued by
many places, gave way to a continuous search for improvements in the living environment.
These aspects helped emphasizing the importance of the quality of life a place can offer. A place
doesnt necessarily have to mean a building, being allowed to take bigger proportions, like a
district. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines place like a specific area or region of
the world: a particular city, a country; a building or area that is used for a particular purpose; a
building, part of a building, or area that is used for shelter.
In this study, the chosen place is located in the city of Almere, the newest city of The
Netherlands, in the province of Flevoland. Existing officially from 1976, and having now
approximately 193,000 inhabitants, Almere is a fast growing city, with plans to double its size
and population, creating new jobs, homes and opportunities by 2030. What is important to notice
about this city is that it has a sustainable, green character, basing its development on it, always
including nature in the living environment, like stated by one of the Almere Principles, a set of
principles for sustainable urban development.
More specifically, this study will focus on the housing building Dichterhof, located on the central
region of Almere. Being a resident of the area, I could state some issues, like the lack of social
cohesion between the residents, which I believe can be attributed to the absence of a common
space and/or a common activity. In addition, this part of the city and its direct surroundings can
be considered gray or can give this impression, which can bring some discomfort, in terms of
climate or aesthetics, and can also contradict one principle to the development of Almere, to
combine city and nature. This is part of a set of principles that can serve as guidance to those
who wish to perform interventions in the city, known as the Almere Principles.
Having in mind the presented context, two aspects can be highlighted:

the lack of social cohesion, probably because of the deficiency in providing a common
space to the residents of the Dichterhof;
1

the will to match the characteristics of this area with the characteristic (green and
sustainable) development of the city;

Accordingly with the cited above, one tool that can help tackle those issues, or at least minimize,
is urban agriculture. The benefits of practicing urban agriculture can go beyond the ecological
realm, influencing on matters of health, social and economic issues, like recreational space,
economic diversity and community cohesion and well-being.
Thus, this study has the aim to discover in what ways the use of this tool can bring an improved
level of quality of life in the selected area. In the cited scenario of search for sustainability, in
addition to the disconnection of the urban dweller with production activities and nature in
general, this study is relevant to a continuous search for improvements in the living
environments, which brings several benefits for the so-called urban dwellers. For that purpose,
the main research question was defined as follows:
In what ways urban agriculture can be a tool to the improvement on quality of life of the
residents of Dichterhof and its direct surroundings?
o What opportunities this specific area offers to the performing of urban
agriculture?
o Which types of urban agriculture practice are appropriate to the needs of the area?
o How can these initiatives be implemented?
The outcome of this study consists in recommendations towards improvement. This approach
was treated from a spatial planning perspective, by evaluating the potential benefits of urban
agriculture as a tool, having a plan in the format of indications of how it should work in the
chosen scale, where are the propitious points and specific typologies of practice. No specificity
regarding plant species, and building and covering materials, were dealt with, just design ideas
and where it fits in the chosen location. Therefore, the primary target group to whom the final
recommendations are going to be addressed to is composed by the residents of the housing
building Dichterhof, because they can also enjoy the benefits. Secondary target groups can be
both the municipality and the company that manages the building, Ymere.
Though there are two main bibliographic references being used as basis (PHILIPS, 2013)
(Gorgolewski, 2011) for study cases and best practices of urban agriculture and its related
2

techniques, no evidence was found of an individual application in this building, and the
information regarding its residents was obtained by a publication called Sociale Atlas van
Almere, and from questionnaire applied among the residents.
In the next chapter, it can be found the methodology used to perform this study, described in
steps.
Chapter number 3 presents the area and its features, and some concepts, such as urban
agriculture, not so known or not entirely understood, with a general idea of the techniques.
Hence, in this chapter is presented a conceptual framework.
The forthcoming chapter starts with a presentation of the target group and its characteristics,
narrowing down from the information obtained from the Sociale Atlas van Almere to the results
from the questionnaire applied. Moreover, it presents the SWOT (identification of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis performed on the data found.
Once the data was analyzed, it was possible to elaborate suggestions and recommendations in the
format of a plan, showing what would be the propitious places and practices for this area, which
will be commented in the conclusion about its positive and negative aspects. Therefore, the
outcome can be techniques and a design that corresponds to the target groups needs.

2. Methodology:
This study consists in a qualitative research, with an open-ended question, given it has the
possibility of a number of statements and answers at the end. All of the steps are related and
dependent on each other.
The first step consisted in determining the area of intervention, having in mind the purpose of
this study, and the approach chosen. Hence, the area chosen is demarked by the building limits,
towards the best interest of the residents.
To do that, awareness of the particularities of the area is needed, such as what are the
characteristics of the residents and some characteristics of the area, like land use and use of the
plot. The survey for the characteristics of the residents was made through the use of data like the
Sociale Atlas of Almere which can give an idea of the target group and what can be the role of
the resident in the intended improvements. Still, since this publication deals with a whole area
(area number 201, like shown in the image 2), in which the building is inserted, there was an
urge to narrow down the needs of those specific residents of the housing building Dichterhof.
Hence, a questionnaire was made among the residents (it can be found in annex 1), and the
outcome was essential to the performing of this study. The questions were related to the
following issues:

Personal characteristics, such as gender, age range, number of residents at the apartment:
these would have an idea of the characteristics of the residents that are going to use that
space. A lot of kids in the building require a different space than a building with only
college students;

Classification of acquaintance and measurement of level of knowledge regarding the

neighbors: these questions are asked to have awareness on the level of social cohesion of
the residents. One of the questions is regarding block, and other, regarding the whole
building, so it can help locating the shared spaces in the final design, so there is one
common point between the blocks, for example.

Personal opinion on the importance of green spaces, recreational and interaction spaces:
to raise awareness of how likely that population is to care for a space and make use of it,
if it is necessary;
4

Suggestions on green spaces: to involve the residents in the process of making their own
living environment;

Once acquired, the data was organized in a way it makes possible to understand clearly what are
the population needs and the deficiencies of the area. To that, adds the research for techniques of
urban agriculture, to understand the characteristics of those techniques and how they relate to the
potential green space to be suggested to the area in study. How can it be adapted to the reality
and needs of the residents of the area? For example, a hypothesis is that urban farming in a large
scale wouldnt be a possibility, because of the lack of space, but maybe the use of roofs for
climbing plants may be.
Finally, through the making of a SWOT analysis, the data acquired so far could be matched and
adapted. This step is about recognizing the best opportunities that the area can offer to the
activity of urban agriculture, and suggest activities based on the previous step and the technical
knowledge regarding types of this practice. The final result should be organized in a plan view to
show also the relation between the recommendations and the existing use of the area.
The conclusion should contain statements about how the suggested activities are meeting the
main objective set, which is to improve the quality of life of the area and to bring it closer to the
conceptual urban development of the city of Almere, green and sustainable.

3. Conceptual framework
3.1- Presenting the area
This study will focus on the housing building Dichterhof, located on the central region of
Almere. The latter is the newest city of The Netherlands, in the province of Flevoland.

Image 1 - Map of the Netherlands, with the province of Flevoland in evidence

Source: http://www.amsterdam.info/netherlands/provinces/flevoland/

Existing officially from 1976, and having now approximately 193,000 inhabitants, Almere is a
fast growing city, with plans to double its size and population, creating new jobs, homes and
opportunities by 2030. Its green character generated a will to take the city to become an icon for
sustainable development, being encouraged by the managers of this city. Hence, the municipality
encourages ecological, social and economical sustainable growth through the Almere Principles,
a set of guidelines. Those are important to guide and served as basis to the planned intervention,
and are defined as follows:

Cultivate diversity;

Connect place and context;

Combine city and nature;

Anticipate change;

Continue innovation;

Design healthy system;

Empower people to make the city.

The city is divided in six main districts, with the development of in and further areas in process
of planning, like Oosterwold, now predominantly rural area with intended organic and selfsufficient development. The map below shows the six districts, with administrative divisions,
according to the Sociale Atlas van Almere.

Image 2 - Map of the city of Almere, with administrative division of districts

Source: Sociale Atlas van Almere, 2012

The building in study is located in Almere Stad, the city center that is seen as citys retail and
leisure hub, according to website of the municipality. In the map above, it can be found in the
area 201, where is also the Central Station, and the shopping street.
When looking at the map below, it is possible to see that this area is not completely in
accordance with the principles of the city. Though the surroundings areas present green
infrastructure integrated with the built environment, this area seems to show grayer, concrete
parts. One might wonder why there is a need for green spaces in the urban environment. Because
of the challenge to adopt an adequate sustainable development, many cities are raising awareness
of the need of urban green spaces, defined as public and private open spaces in urban areas,
primarily covered by vegetation [], and that offer the possibility not only to offer ecosystem

services, but also social, health and even economic benefits like to increase property value (Haq,
2011).

Image 3 - Map of the area, showing the difference between this and the surrouding areas
Source: ArcGIS

Zooming in, the image below presents an aerial view of the territory delimited by the building,
which is composted by the blocks and a parking lot at the center. The blocks in which the
questionnaires were applied are the two at the bottom part of the image. Besides from the
function of parking lot, the central part of this building has the trash bin, which has to be
removed once or twice a week, therefore requires access to the waste truck.

Image 4 - Aerial view of the Dichterhof

Source: Google Earth

Image 5 - General view of one of the blocks of the building Dichterhof

Image 6 - Picture from facade with entrance

Image 7 - Picture from the

facade with balconies

3.2- Opportunities for green spaces in the area

By making a preliminary analysis of the area, some spaces can be pointed as opportunity to the
insertion of the green in the infra-structure. This can help answer the first sub-question of this
study, defined as what opportunities this specific area offer to the performing of urban
agriculture?
9

Image 8 - Aerial view of the building, showing areas 01 (central) and 02 (roof)
Source: Adapted image from Google Earth

One of the opportunities seen in this space relies on the attribution of the central area as a shared
outdoor space. According to Marcus (2003), this kind of space is different than public and
private, because it is neither open to the general public nor owned by a single individual.
Therefore, the author classifies it as shared outdoor space, a communal space bounded by
dwellings, and finds in the use of these unexplored spaces the opportunity to create a sense of
community, feeling of security, sense of responsibility and ownership, what would help to tackle
some of the cited issues regarding this building and its residents. Though this space is now used
as parking lot, it was observed that it is rarely completely fulfilled. Moreover, it is important to
highlight that the collect of waste is made using the same space. The idea, however, is not to use
this entire space, and is rather adapt to use part of it to the insertion of green, and still maintain
the functions it has now, which will be further explained in the upcoming chapters.
Another suggestion would be to use the roof of the building, and to do that, there are many ways.
It can be green with sod or grass planted, without access to the entire population, for matters of
climate comfort (image 09). Another option is to have vegetables, flowers, climbing plants, and
it can either be planted directly in a prepared layer of soil (image 10) or in pots and containers
(image 11). These approaches will be further explained in the following sections.

10

From the left to the right: Image 9 - Simple green roof; Image 10 - Green roof with soil and plants;
Image 11 - Green roof with containers filled with soil.
Source image 9: http://www.inspirationgreen.com/green-roofs-in-the-country.html
Source image 10: http://thinking-in-practice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/NYRoofFarming.jpg
Source image 11: http://www.inspirationgreen.com/green-roofs-in-the-country.html

Moreover, each apartment has its own balcony, which also represents a good space to the
insertion of the green, but in a more private environment. In addition, the building has external
circulation that gives access to the front door of each apartment, which has great potential to
integrate the green into the building and have aesthetical impact in the faade of the building.

Image 12 - Picture from the balconies in the Dichterhof

Image 13 - Circulation corridors in the building

Finally, the faades of the building offer some potential to the insertion of initiatives as vertical garden,
for example. Some potential was said because most of the walls have windows, not representing a blind
faade, a clean surface where a complete green wall can be built upon.

3.3 - Defining Urban Agriculture

One very complete definition of urban agriculture was given by Smit (1996) in the book Food,
Jobs and Sustainable Cities, which is given as follows:

11

an industry that produces, processes, and markets food, fuel and other outputs, largely in response
to the daily demand of consumer within a town, city, or metropolis, on many types a privately and
publicly held land and water bodies found throughout intra-urban and peri-urban areas. Typically
urban agriculture applies intensive production methods, frequently using and reusing natural
resources and urban wastes, to yield a diverse array of land-, water-, and air-based fauna and flora,
contributing to the food security, health, livelihood, and environment of the individual, household, and
community.

From this definition, it is possible to see that the practice of urban agriculture goes beyond one
planting vegetables in its own garden, and have several ways of being done, though Smits
definition makes reference to a large and intense production.
Gorgolewski (2011) shows that changing a place through the use of urban agriculture can be
done in several scales, and even through simple actions. The image on the left shows a planning
in a bigger scale, comprehending a bigger territory with several functions. It is the Parc
Downsview Park, consisting of a former industrial property in Canada, intended now to be a
place for exploration, innovation and development of mixed-use sustainable neighborhoods. The
image on the right side shows the Agro-housing, a building in China that is more building
integrated, in a smaller scale, but that also has urban agriculture as focus.

From the left to the right: Image 14 - Plan for Parc Downsview Park, in Canada;
Image 15 - Elevation of Agro-housing, in China
Source image 14: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/03/downsview-park-station-connect-spadina-subway-go
Source image 15: http://www.ecofriend.com/agro-housing-time-for-us-to-go-grazing-the-fields.html

Thus, it is not necessary to adopt an intensive approach, especially in a building with limited
space, like the current case. Regarding that, Hough (2003) recommends for residential property,
(the category that matches the most with the current case) the smallest personal scale for food
growing in terms of human-labor intensive processes. It means that it would require effort from
the citizens, which can only be discovered through the questionnaire that will have its results
12

explained in the further topics. Some of the benefits of the practice of urban agriculture,
presented by the same author, can be seen in the image 16. From this image, it is possible to
identify the elements that could help tackle the issues cited for this building: community
cohesion and well-being, recreational. Not to mention all the other benefits urban agriculture can
produce, that would be certainly be good for the community, like personal psychological
benefits, air quality, hydrologic functions, among others.

Image 16 - Benefits of Urban agriculture

Source: HOUGH, 1995.

De Graaf adopted an approach to categorize some types of urban agriculture, emphasizing what
are its needs from the urban environment, building a demand and supply matrix, and a matrix for
promising types of urban agriculture, to be presented further. He performs also a mapping in the
city of Rotterdam, indicating where are the most propitious places to the realization of each type
of techniques presented, making comments about each technique and its particularity. This study
will adopt a similar approach, but in a different scale, limited to the building boundary.
According to Gorgolewski (2011), the traditional production methods were dependent on vast
rural land and heavy machine, not compatible with the city built environment. Therefore, some

13

techniques of urban agriculture that are more adapted to the built environment are described,
based on the definitions presented by the same author.

3.4 - Defining the techniques

Cultivation and the rearing of livestock within urban areas in and around buildings and on small,
scattered sites requires a very different set of processes, tools, components and systems. Urban food
production is usually small in scale [] and makes use of urban waste spaces such as vacant lots,
roofs, walls, and balconies. It must incorporate readily available resources.

3.4.1. - Composting
According to the Ministry of Environment of Brazil,
composting is a technique for recycling organic residues,
transforming it in fertilizer. It is a biological process that
speeds up the decomposition of organic waste, and its a form
of recovering the nutrients from organic residue and takes it
back to the natural cycle, enriching the soil.
Yet, the making of compost in outlying landfill is not so
adequate to the built and dense environment, considered
sometimes malodorous and inconvenient. To solve that issue,
equipment with more compact shape is arising, fitting better
Image 17 - Equipment for composting
Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

scope in the urban scenario (image 17).

Positive aspects

Negative aspects

Cycle closing and new destination for Requires big effort and time;
organic waste;

It doesnt work in cold and dry weather;

Equipment doesnt require a lot of space, Can be malodorous.

unlike landfill;
Resulting fertilizer can be used to grow
green, because compost is rich in nutrients.

14

3.4.2 - Livestock shelters

To fit in the urban setting, livestock creation
is more adaptable to the raising of small
animals, like chicken, rabbits, or beekeeping.
Chickens can be raised to give eggs and/or to
be consumed.
In some places, this practice is not allowed in
the urban environment. However, the policy
controlling this kind of activity changes with
time, and beekeeping is more accepted
Image 18 - Livestock shelter
Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

currently. To that, adds the innovation of

livestock shelters, which makes this practice
easier (image 18).

Positive aspects

Negative aspects

Can be used for consumption of the own May not be allowed by land policy in the
animal or its products;

area;

Provide access to fresh food: eggs, Requires some effort;

chicken meat;

Animals may not adapt to a busy area like

the city center;
Requires space.

3.4.3. - Hydroponic and aquaponic systems

Hydroponics refers to the cultivation without soil as nutrient source. A solution shallow enough
provides nutrients to the roots still allowing it the access to oxygen. Though it is less human
labor intensive, some solutions require technology and electricity to keep working. Some
solutions like the one shown in the picture below (19) are simpler, coming from recycled
materials, but still require energy to work.
Aquaponics as technique seems to be a more complex technique, that requires the formation of a
system between crops, and animals, like shrimps and fish, which would also be yield for
consume.

15

Aquaponics is an extension of hydroponics but with animals, usually fish, added into the
cycle of food production.[]aquaponics is based on age-old knowledge about the waste
of domesticated animals containing many of the nutrients required to grow plants. In
aquaponic systems, an artificial symbiosis is maintained between fish grown for
consumption - and crops.

Image 19 - Scheme of hydroponics technique

Source: Carrot City

Image 20 - Scheme for aquaponics technique

Source: http://www.aquaponicssystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Aquaponics-System.jpg

16

Positive aspects

Negative aspects

Can be less human-labor intensive;

Requires electricity to work;

Hydroponics can form an independent, Aquaponics can be a complex system and

compact system and can be easily built;
Aesthetically pleasing;

require space;
Initial cost and maintenance;

3.4.4. - Greenhouse technologies

Greenhouses are glass houses that have its own micro-climate inside, used to grow vegetables
inside, in a propitious environment. It can be inserted either into or on top of buildings, and
advances in technology are opening the way to innovation, creating light weighted structures.

Image 21 - A greenhouse, from the outside

Image 22 - View from the inside of a greenhouse

Source image 21:http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/images/greenhouse.jpg

Source image 22: http://www.homejelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/easy_start_greenhouse.jpg

Positive aspects

Negative aspects

No limitations to grow green during the Requires space and infra-structure;

Requires energy;

seasons;
Controlled

environment

that

increases High initial cost and maintenance costs;

productivity and ensures plant health;

Provide access to fresh food
Aesthetically pleasing and attractive;

17

3.4.5. - Raised beds

Raised beds can be manually made from simple materials and are commonly used when there is
no intention to plant in the ground, normally when it is a brownfield.
Advantages: can be handmade, meaning that the population itself can build it; dont require soil
in the ground, but movable containers filled with it, therefore can be inserted everywhere; can
have a lot of shapes, designs, colors, making the garden fun and joyful;
Raised beds can be used to create gardens with greater accessibility by bringing the plants closer to
people. [] The reuse of materials, accessibility, modularity, and aesthetics they can offer, are being
fully explored. The raised bed illustrates well how many traditional components of urban agriculture
are being adapted to enhance their role in urban contexts.

Image 23 - Scheme for raised beds construction

Source: http://images.taunton.com/enewsletters/vg/kg08-raised-beds-09.jpg

18

Positive aspects
Contained,

accessible,

Negative aspects
portable

and

movable production;
New soil on contaminated or non-existing
soil areas;
Can be manually made;

No controlled environment, like green

house: not all seasons are growing
seasons;
Needs lots of soil fill, especially if it is
deep;

Aesthetically pleasing and attractive.

3.4.6. - Soft planters
When a permanent approach is not possible, a temporary one can be the answer. Soft planters are
low cost alternatives to the practice of urban agriculture. It consists in the use of low cost
material, like bags, to compose the containers for the soil and plants, like an initiative in London
that used removable polypropylene bags filled with soil to cultivate plants and vegetables. As a
temporary initiative, this can be a good start to a space that doesnt contain green spaces yet. The
images below show how it would look like.

Image 24 - Soft planters

Source images 24 and 25: Gorgolewski, 2011

Image 25 - Scheme for soft planters

19

Positive aspects

Negative aspects

Temporary intervention, can be used as a

Degradable material for the containers, has

test;

to be replaced with time;

Doesnt require costly initial investment;

Needs fill of soil for the containers;

Movable and adaptable.

Weather dependent for production.

3.4.7. - Rigid containers

Different from the soft planters, rigid containers have a solid structure, yet are still movable. Can
be pots, jars, containers made from recycled material (as shown in images 26 and 27), as long as
it is profound enough to contain the necessary layer of soil and have a drain mechanism. The
image 28 shows planters for olive trees and herbs, in Lisbon, Portugal, and exemplify that these
containers can be colorful and the differentiated design can be special and bring people closer to
nature, because it also offers sitting places.

From the left to the right: Image 26 - Jars as rigid containers

Image 27 - Wooden structure as rigid container

20

Image 28 - Rigid containers with multiple uses

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

Positive aspects

Negative aspects

Can have several different types of design;

Needs soil fill;

Non dependent on soil;

Needs initial investment for infra-structure,

Can be integrated to other functions (image

28)

though it can be made from recycled

material, like wooden boxes;

3.4.8. - Hanging planters

Vertical surfaces can be exploited to combine food production with other benefits such as shade, air
purification, and aesthetics. The climbing grapevine is perhaps the ultimate example of vertical
cultivation that also provides shade and greenery.

Vertical gardening can acquire several shapes, but the difference is that it can save a lot of space from the
area of intervention. The systems can be composed by modules to create a complete wall, for example, or
individual, smaller scale interventions. The modules can be found for sale in ready models, just needs
installation, like the MEWU (show in the image 29).
An alternative approach is to make use of modules made from soft fabric, which can be breathable,
recyclable and/or made from recycled material. The design is variable, but the result can be seen in
images 30 and 31, representing respectively, the BacSac system, produced in France, and Wooly Pockets,
handmade in Phoenix and Los Angeles.

21

Edible walls are essentially a subset of the green wall

concept. Hanging containers detach the growing medium from
the ground, and they reinvent the wall as a productive surface.
The placement of hanging containers in relation to the sun []
help to make formerly unused spaces productive and bolster
health. [] Hanging containers are a key instrument for
making all three dimensions of a building floor, roof, and
wall productive.

Image 29 - Mobile Edible Wall Unit

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

Image 30 - Left side: scheme for Woolly Pockets; Right side: BacSacs
Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

22

Image 31 - Woolly Pockets installed in a schoolyard

Source: Gorgolewski, 2011

Positive aspects

Negative aspects

Saves space by making vertical gardening;

Needs initial investment, though it can be

Access to fresh production;

Aesthetically pleasant and attractive;

manually made from recycled materials;

Production of smaller crops;

23

4. Analysis and results

According to the Sociale Atlas van Almere, the area 201 has 4.046 residents. The average
resident has between 25-34 years and more than half of the citizens of this area has single as
marital status, differing from the mean of Almere, which has a better distribution for family
with kids also.
From the 2.185 houses, just a small percentage presents a detached tipology, because the
majority (95%) is formed by multi-story buildings, for residential, commercial use, or mixed use.
The area presents a population density of 137 residents per ha.
This area is characterized for having a lot of retail and business services. At the date of the
publication, it had 865 companies, almost half of it established for more than 6 years.
Generally speaking, it has good access to basic services and facilities, given the Central Station
is located in this area, and there is a hospital nearby, not to mention all the stores that
characterizes this area as commercial and can attend a lot of needs, like the supermarkets and
retails, gyms, among others. Like shown in the image 32, taken from the Sociale Atlas van
Almere, the distances to facilities are rarely longer than 500m (translating to English, the
categories, respectively, are: community center, healthcare center, childcare, recreational
options, and convenience store).

Image 32 - Distance to facilities

Source: Sociale Atlas of Almere

The map below shows the location of the bigger green public spaces in relation to the building
Dichterhof. The area number 01 is the Koningin Beatrixpark, and it is 1,4km away from the
building, marked in red in the image. From the same location, area number 02 distances 850

24

meters and the area number 03, the Lumirepark, also 1,4km. The central station, Almere
Centrum, was marked in pink for matters of orientation.

4.1- Results from the questionnaire

4.1.1

- About the sample and the questionnaire

The data that was just presented was narrowed down to the residents of the Dichterhof only,
through the making of a questionnaire. The objective of the questionnaire applied was not only to
know more about specific characteristics of the residents of the building Dichterhof, but also to
know their opinion and suggestions to a greener environment. Hence, it was important to have a
response considering the whole population, estimated in approximately 170 persons for the two
blocks indicated in the image 33.

25

Image 33 - Indication from the blocks where the questionnaire was applied

However, for limitations of time and availability, the possibility was to work with a small sample
of 30 persons, meaning that the respondents represent approximately 18% of the total population.
As much as it seems little quantity, to apply this questionnaire among the residents initiated a
social process already, and can and its encouraged to be continued through other studies. In
addition, their insight was very useful for this research. Hence, some notes were taken about the
application.
Generally, the residents were receptive, and showed availability to answer the questionnaire,
though most of them showed preference to keep the questions and deliver the questions at a later
time.
New data helped emphasize the importance of this research: a mother that recently moved into
the building compared her former place of living - full of green spaces and recreational spaces
for her children to play with the building in study, which has no recreational space. During the
conversation, she was willing to know more about her neighbors and about the people living in
the building.
4.1.2

- Results

From the 30 respondents, 18 are female, and 12 are male. Only the first options of age ranges
were marked among the respondents, with the majority of the respondent sample (70%) between
18 and 24 years old. Since the sample is small and the questionnaires were applied more or less
in a random way, this information is probably not dominant, and doesnt represent the
characteristic of age and sex for all the other residents in the building. Hence, it was not
considered an essential factor of decision to the design to be further presented.
26

For a matter of information about the social cohesion in the building, two questions asked
referred to how acquainted the person is with the other residents of the persons own block, and
after, with the other residents of the whole building. The results are given in the images 34 and
35, below.

From the left to the right: Image 34 - Graph of acquaintance with block neighbors
Image 35 - Graph of acquaintance with building neighbors

As expected, there were few respondents that claimed to have high level of acquaintance with the
neighbors, confirming the need for a shared space. When asked about the importance of spaces
for recreation and interaction, the results presents a positive outlook, with more than 75% of the
answerers giving some to high importance, as can be seen in the table 01.
Importance of shared spaces
Valid

Frequency

Percent

Not important at all

10,0

Not much important

13,3

12

40,0

Very important

11

36,7

Total

30

100,0

Somewhat
important

Table 1 - Importance of shared spaces, according to the respondents

When asking about the importance of green spaces, there was an attempt to create options of
answer in scale, to know approximately the level of interest of the residents in using and caring
for the possible spaces as well. A positive aspect is that there were four possible answers, and the
first one was I would not like to have green spaces in the building, and any respondent chose
this alternative, showing some level of receptivity to the introduction of the green.
27

Image 36 - Importance of green spaces, according to the respondents

The last two questions were related in two different ways. First, it was possible to find a
classification based on the combined answers: the bigger the score in the graph presented in
image 37, more interested and open the residents show themselves to initiatives of greening the
building. High scores means that the person responded positive answers, for example, an score 8
means that the respondent chose alternatives considering shared spaces for recreation and
interaction as very important and that the person would really wish to have green spaces at the
building, and would be willing to use and care for it actively.

Image 37 - Combination of two variables, generating a third one, "green shared spaces"

Secondly, the image 38 shows the relation between the choices on the two last cited questions. It
can be seen in this image that the ones that considered shared spaces very important had more
attitude towards having and maintaining a green space, what could be expected. On the other
hand, there is an amount of people that probably do not see a green space as opportunity to
28

recreation and interaction, given not much importance was given at the same time there is
willingness to have and maintain a green space.

Image 38 - Importance of shared spaces vs importance of green spaces

One of the most important contributions of the residents to this study relies on the suggestions,
on the expression of which types of green they would like to have in the space, because after all,
it is their living environment. The result is a product of a multiple choice question, meaning the
answerers could choose more than one of the existing options suggested, chose to give no
suggestion at all or to tip one that was not in the list. The result was balanced, varied, and
positive, because it shows acceptance to variety of techniques. The other suggestions given were
to have green spaces with seats, a green roof, plants and tree ways, to stimulate green balconies,
scented plants, and lawn. There were considered in the final design in this study, in a possible
extent.

29

Suggestions
Responses
Percent of
N
Suggestions

Percent

Cases

more trees

17

21,8%

56,7%

flower jars

18

23,1%

60,0%

fruits and veggies

16

20,5%

53,3%

climbing plants

19

24,4%

63,3%

no suggestions

5,1%

13,3%

other suggestions

5,1%

13,3%

78

100,0%

260,0%

Total
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Table 2 - Suggestions for greening the building

Moreover, the last question involved the will to have feedback on the results of this study, and
the responses showed interest from the part of the residents, 70% had a positive answer.

30

4.2 SWOT analysis

According to Berry (2013), the letters on S.W.O.T means Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats, and making an analysis this type can make possible to have insight on its own
potential. It can be applied to a business, to an area, to a society, among others. The first two are
internal aspects, and can be changed and/or influenced. Opportunities and Threats are external
factors, and non-changeable.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Located in a new city that aims for

sustainable development;
Area offers basic services: good place
to live;
Location in the center of the city, well
active and full of movement;
Building with big surface for
intervention: roof, walls, ground (the
space available is more vertical and
aerial than the ground itself);
Building accessible to people with
physical disabilities;
Companies are part of the social scope
(established for more than 6 years);

Opportunities

Green spaces in the area lack: shelter

for cold seasons and indoor activities;
Area doesnt offer variety of leisure
activities;
Gray area in the middle of the icon
city for sustainability;
Multi-story building, like the majority
in the area, which means less space for
gardening;
Building doesnt offer shared space for
interaction and/or recreation;
Area within building limits offers
almost no soil on the ground;

Threats

Serve as inspiration to the rest of the

city;
Produce to sell, for profit;
The municipality of Almere search for
and encourages green attitudes;
Include companies in the initiative, and
ask for support;

Area is too busy, activities would have

to be isolated or protected;
Climate variations and shortage of
sunlight;
Policy definitions for specific types of
urban agriculture;

Table 3 - SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis was made in a multi-level way, from the bigger scale (city and area), to the
building, then to societal aspects.

31

5 Conclusion and recommendations

5.1 Discussion and general considerations
Based on what has been presented so far, which types of urban agriculture practice are
appropriate to the needs of the area?
De Graaf presents two important matrixes. The first one (image 39) consists in matching the
urban needs to the agricultural supply and vice versa, emphasizing the choice for this tool to
tackle the issues presented in this area. By looking what one environment needs, and what the
other environment has to offer, one might see urban agriculture as solution or softening to
several problems.

Image 39 - Matrix of supply and demand of agriculture and the city, by De Graaf
Source: De Graaf, 2012

32

In matters of space, like stated in the SWOT analysis, there is enough surface for greening the
building, but most of it is not directly in the ground, for example the roof and the facades. Hence,
techniques that require a lot of space are not the ideal for this location, such as greenhouse, the
aquaponics system, livestock shelter, and the traditional and simple way of composting, in
outlying landfill. The two latter techniques can also generate problems because those are not
attractive to the urban environment and sometimes can generate olfactory discomfort.
Another issue to be considered is the consumption of electric energy. Greenhouse, aquaponics
and hydroponics generally needs energy, and though it is not always excessive use of energy, it
would require investment in the infra-structure of the building. The second matrix presented by
De Graaf presents two of the techniques discussed here (hydroponics and aquaponics),
classifying it like more building integrated, capital and energy intensive, in relation to two other
categories that require more space and are more soil bound.

Image 40 - Classification of four types of urban agriculture techniques, according to De Graaf

Source: De Graaf, 2012

It is important to highlight also the importance of having a shelter. Though some might consider
the existence of a shelter or a garden house to be privatization of public (or in this case,
common) space, this kind of structure provides storage and community gathering, not to mention
refuge in bad weather. (Mees et al., 2012) To this particular case, it adds up the need to raise

33

social cohesion and a space like that would offer the possibility of bringing people together in a
shared covered space.
Moreover, is seen as opportunity to involve the companies, since more than half of the existing
ones are established for an extensive time, and are part of the social ambit and are familiar to the
residents. Hence, to ask for support in this kind of initiative, in the form of capital investment of
material for construction of the infra-structure is possible and would integrate the initiative with
its context.

5.2 Top down vs Bottom up

Because of its opportunistic character urban agriculture is resistant to top down planning.
However planning can play a role in identifying opportunities for individual practices and,
secondly, assessing their role in the functioning of the city as a whole []. The mapping of
opportunities is a way of investigating to what extent urban agriculture can benefit the city,
what its scale and impact could amount to. By making the benefits apparent and tangible it
can create a context in which the urban agriculture that is most beneficial to the city is
recognized as such and can be stimulated.

De Graaf, 2012
Having the above statement in mind, it is possible to confirm the benefits of taking the first step
for the community, by planning and suggesting solutions and improvements for a location. To
combine this part of the city with a sustainable development and to make it serve as inspiration
and is here reaffirmed as a future goal. But whos to make the first step towards realization? How
these initiatives are supposed to be implemented?
In one side, there is the will to adopt a bottom-up approach, in accordance with another of the
Almere Principles, to empower people to make the city. On the other hand, the space has some
potential, but requires financial investment to improve this potential that can only be required
from the managers or from public bodies like the municipality, from their participation and
interest in greening the city.
Therefore, to have alternative solutions, two scenarios were created. These are not two opposite
situations, and are rather to be seen as steps towards a greener future. One can start investing

34

money and expecting intensive production and regular use of this new space, or can see how it
works in scenario one, and plan further expansion and/or intensification of activities.
Note: For the next pages (about the scenarios), to create a cohesive panel, the subtitles and
sources of the images were placed in this page.
Images of scenario 01:
Image 41 - Zoning map of the building with no structural modifications
Image 42 Soft planters to grow tomatoes
Source: http://haxnicks.blogspot.nl/2010/04/more-tips-on-tomato-growing-in-patio.html
Image 43 Rigid containers that can be used in the circulation
Source: http://plant-zone.blogspot.nl/2012/06/balcony-garden.html
Image 44 More option on soft planters that can be used
Source: http://www.gardenbeet.com/76-261-home/vegetable-patio-planter-soft-green-sage.jpg
Image 45 Picture of an existing initiative in the Dichterhof
Image 46 Examples of plants in the balcony
Source: http://insideurbangreen.typepad.com/.a/6a00e39824809288330120a5c36a91970c-500pi

Images of scenario 02:

Image 47 Zoning map of the building, with some modifications in the area
Image 48 Example of how an arbor can be in this location
Source: http://www.cipavinil.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/caramanch%C3%A3o-decorado.jpg
Image 49 Green wall modules that can be used outside of the stairwell
Source: http://inhabitat.com/elt-easy-green-living-wall-systems/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/eltezgreen5.jpg
Image 50 Compact equipment for composting
Source: Gorgolewski, 2011
Image 51 Containers in the green roof
Source: http://www.nycgovparks.org/greening/sustainable-parks/green-roofs
Image 52 Compact model of hydroponics technique
Source: http://hubpages.com/hub/Getting-Started-Hydroponics-Gardening-Basics

35

5.3 Possibilities for intervention

5.3.1. - Scenario 01
Keywords: Flexible, temporary, experiment
[] a community garden has to be and remain flexible in its layouts in order to
provide a privately usable public open space for diverse groups of residents over
time, i.e. for gardeners of various cultural backgrounds and preferences as well as
for different social and economic requirements.
Mees et al., 2012
This scenario considers the gradual insertion of green initiatives in the building, adopting
techniques that are temporary and adaptable to the structure that the building has now. It is made
for the residents, and can be implemented by the residents. To maintain a flexible layout and to
enable the residents to make the space reflect their own identity is wanted in this case, point of
view supported by Mees et al., in the quotation above.
The following techniques were chosen to be more adapted to the characteristic of this scenario:

Soft planters;

Rigid containers;

Hanging planters.

In addition, in substitution to the traditional greenhouses, that were already commented to be

energy intensive, with high initial and maintenance cost, there are simpler versions with more or
less the same objective, called cold frames. Those are defined as smaller boxes, with the
objective of keeping the heat and extending the growing season. It is possible, hence, to have this
kind of technique in this scenario, because it can be made by the residents, with recycled
materials.
Image 41shows a zoning of how the area of the building is divided now. It can be seen the
remaining area that is not used for one of the functions in the zoning is not extensive, and most
of it includes walking paths that cant be occupied. Hence, with no modification in the structure
of the building area, the opportunities for intervention are less bound to the ground. That is to say
that the areas in this scenario that are most likely to be used are the balconies (not common area),

36

the circulation (one existing initiative is shown in image 45), in addition to the area marked on
the map.

37

5.3.2. - Scenario 02
Keywords: fixed, intensive, shift
The approach chosen for this scenario is more recommended to higher investments. The choices
are more fixed than temporary, and some modifications in the structure of the building are
necessary.
One of the adaptations is to have access and check the loading capacity of the roof, to make it
green. This was one of the suggestions of the residents as well, and can bring benefits for thermal
comfort, not to mention it can be used as recreational space.
Moreover, this scenario must create an intensive green environment, not only to be used by the
residents, but to have its benefits enjoyed by the viewers and passers in the center of the city. It
may serve as inspiration to adopt green initiatives in their own living environment.
The following techniques were chosen to be more adapted to the characteristic of this scenario:

Composters, by the use of equipment;

Hydroponics system;

Green roof;

Hanging planters, by vertical garden modules;

Those were chosen because of its cost of acquisition and need for maintenance, that with support
from the proper institutions (public or private) can ensure a more intensive use of the space,
enhancing the benefits of having green initiatives in the building, like the use of composters to
have a natural treatment of organic waste.
The image shows a plan of the Dichterhof, if some interventions in the structure of the building
were realized, such as the use of the roof for greening, intensively or extensively. Moreover, the
images give an idea of some of the solutions suggested.
The plan already contains explanations on which areas to intervene, like the roof, and to take part
of the parking lot (rarely completely filled), and there is also the suggestion to built an arbor to
serve as shelter.

38

39

5.4 Final remarks

In this study, there was an attempt to make an analysis to make greening the building more
feasible, through analyzing the available space and literature, and by having as guidance the
following research question and sub-questions:
In what ways urban agriculture can be a tool to the improvement on quality of life of the
residents of Dichterhof and its direct surroundings?
o What opportunities this specific area offers to the performing of urban
agriculture?
o Which types of urban agriculture practice are appropriate to the needs of the area?
o How can these initiatives be implemented?
By answering the sub-questions gradually, it could be found the answer to the main research
question. It was emphasized, during the course of this study, the various benefits that the practice
of urban agriculture can bring to a community. However, literature alone would not form an
applicable and realistic solution to a specific place, like is the case here. Together with the
analysis of the space and the research for the interests and needs of the residents, it could be
found that the space has potential to improve the quality of the living environment of this
building by the use of urban agriculture. This can be done by offering the possibility to the
residents to really use this space, by creating infra-structure, or allowing them to create for
themselves, which was emphasized during the recommendations with the creation of two
scenarios as alternative solutions to the demarcated problem. The result reached is that this tool
can be used not only to the goal of raising social cohesion among the residents, but also to:

provide wellness to the residents through the making of a green space;

connect the building with the surroundings through the involvement of companies and
other residents of the area in this initiative;

green the building and offer the possibility of cycle closing, match the building with the
sustainable development of the city;

provide contact with biodiversity and education about techniques of urban agriculture;

make the building serve as inspiration to further initiatives.

40

5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1. - To the residents
Through this study, it was seen that the building offers potential to modification, and to have a
green initiatives is not only a matter of high investments, it can also be bottom-up, make it
yourself initiatives. To be able to execute it, it is recommended to perform further research,
especially to what it comes to types of plants that can be raised in every season, how to make
containers from recycled or low cost material, how to make your environment more and more
sustainable. Information like that is easily reachable and available on the internet. If one puts
one jar next to the front door, and/or in the balcony, the faade will look different already.
5.5.2. - To the investors
It was exposed here also the benefits of investing in the building, whether the investment comes
from the public or private sphere, because it is probable that the benefits are for everyone. It is
recommended to support this kind of initiatives, after knowing who is performing it, and
knowing the interest of the residents in using and making the space.
5.5.3. - To who wishes to continue this study
It is recommended firstly to attempt to have the opinion on the whole population of residents, to
have insight on their opinion, if possible through the realization of a brainstorm. By bringing the
residents together can raise more interest on this kind of initiative.
Moreover, another really important move would be to make an event that would perform a
temporary use of the space, like in scenario 01, to show the residents that this is possible.

41

6 Bibliographic references
Almere Principles. Municipality of Almere. Cited in: <http://www.almere.nl/bestuur/almereprinciples/>. Accessed in: 18 Oct. 2013.
Berry, T. SWOT analysis. Available in: <http://articles.bplans.com/business/how-to-performswot-analysis/116>. Cited in: 31 dec. 2013.
Building green. Image on the cover. Available in: <http://www.jjduffy.com/chicago-greensustainable-construction>. Cited in: 06 jan. 2013.

Cold Frames. Available in: <http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/coldframes>.

Cited in: 4 jan. 2013.
Composting. Available in: <http://www.livestrong.com/article/193315-pros-cons-ofcomposting/>. Cited in: 3 jan. 2013.
Data about Almere. Available in: <http://english.almere.nl/the-city-of-almere/>. Cited in: 16 dec.
2013.
Definition of composting. Available in: <http://www.mma.gov.br/responsabilidadesocioambiental/producao-e-consumo-sustentavel/saco-e-um-saco/item/7594>. Cited in: 03 jan.
2013.
De Graaf, P.A. Room for urban agriculture in Rotterdam: defining the spatial opportunities for
urban agriculture within the industrialised city. In: Viljoen, A.; Wiskerke, J. 2012: Sustainable
Food Planning: Evolving Theory And Practice.
Gorgolewski, M.; Komisar, J.; Nasr, J. 2011: Carrot City: creating places for urban agriculture.
New York: Monacelli Press.
Greenhouse benefits. Available in: <http://www.ehow.com/about_5105789_benefitsgreenhouse.html>. Cited in: 3 jan. 2013.
Green Roofs. Available in: <http://www.inspirationgreen.com/green-roofs-in-the-country.html>.
Cited in: 02 jan. 2013.
Haq, S.M.A. 2011: Urban Green Spaces and an Integrative Approach to Sustainable
Environment. Hong Kong: Journal of Environmental Protection.
Hough, M. 1995: Urban Farming. In: Watson, D.; Plattus, A.; Shibley, R. Time-saver Standards
for Urban Design. Minnesota: McGraw-Hill, 2003. p.5.3-1 5.3-10
Hydroponic systems. Available in: <http://www.homehydrosystems.com/hydroponicsystems/systems.html>. Cited in: 3 jan. 2013.
42

Marcus, C.C. 2003: Shared Outdoor Space. In: Watson, D.; Plattus, A.; Shibley, R. Time-saver
Standards for Urban Design. Minnesota: McGraw-Hill, 2003. p.6.9-1 6.9-12.
Mees, C.; Stone, E. Food, homes and gardens: public community gardens potential for
contributing to a more sustainable city. In: Viljoen, A.; Wiskerke, J. 2012: Sustainable Food
Planning: Evolving Theory and Practice.
Municipality of Almere. Sociale Atlas of Almere 2012.
Philips, A. 2013: Designing Urban Agriculture: a complete guide to the planning, design,
construction, maintenance, and management of edible landscapes. Hoboken: Wiley.
Raised beds. Available in: <http://www.vegetablegardener.com/item/9079/the-benefits-of-raisedgarden-beds>. Cited in: 3 jan. 2013.
Smit, J. (2001) Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable cities. Available in:
<http://jacsmit.com/book.html>. Cited in: 23 dec. 2013.
Timmer, V.; Seymoar, N. 2006: The Livable city. Vancouver: International Centre for
Sustainable Cities.

43

7 Annexes
Annex 1 Questionnaire
This survey is being carried out by a student at CAH Vilentum University of Applied Sciences, and also resident of the
Dichterhof. The answers provided will help develop the final graduation assignment, which has as subject the search for
possibilities of improvements on quality of life of the residents of the Dichterhof and its immediate surroundings, with the use of
green.
Questionnaire:

1.
Male

Sex:
Female

2. Age range:
Less than 11
12-17
65-74
3.
1

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

more than 75
How many residents there are at your apartment?
2
3
4
5 or more

4. How acquainted do you consider yourself with the people living in the same block as you?
not acquainted at all
not much
somewhat acquainted
very well acquainted
5. How acquainted do you consider yourself with the people living at the Dichterhof?
not acquainted at all
not much
somewhat acquainted
very well acquainted
6. How important do you consider the existence of shared spaces in the building for recreation and interaction?
not important at all
not much important
somewhat important
very important
7. How would you like to have the presence of green spaces at the Dichterhof?
I would not like to have green spaces in the building
I would not mind having green spaces in the building, but I would not make use of it
I would like to have green spaces at the building
I would really wish there were green spaces at the building, and I would be willing to use and care for it actively
8. What are your suggestions to a potential green space in the Dichterhof? (More than one option can be chosen)
More trees
Flower jars
I would like to cultivate fruits and/or vegetables
Climbing plants
I would not like to give any suggestions
Other: ...
9.
Yes
No

Would you like to know the outcome of this research?

10. If so, would you allow me to write down the number of the apartment where this research was carried?
Yes, number .
No

44