Bridging the gap towards sustainable agriculture in Almere Oosterwold

(1)

1

Bridging the gap towards sustainable

agriculture in Almere Oosterwold

an interdisciplinary research project

Walter van Dijk (11019395) Dana Kelder (11043652) Martijn Peetoom (11036567)

Eva Varkevisser (11058277)

Interdisciplinary project 2017 Future Planet Studies Supervisor: Donya Danesh Date: 22-12-2017

(2)

2

Abstract

Oosterwold is an area that is being developed bottom up. Additionally, percentages of landscape features that will be present are predetermined. This is mainly because the vision consists of an area that remains its open characteristics. The pioneering developmental methods of Oosterwold provide interesting opportunities for research. In here it is analysed in which respects the environment of Oosterwold can be sustainably managed during the bottom up, urban agricultural placemaking. To examine this topic, disciplinary research on sustainable area development in Oosterwold-Almere is integrated into an interdisciplinary product. The disciplines consist of biology, earth science, technical science and spatial planning. Information from each discipline is combined by means of organisation of concepts and assumptions. The disciplinary topics are integrated and some emerging interdisciplinary concepts are introduced to provide an overview of the relations in a comprehensive causal loop diagram. Furthermore, by analysation of this diagram, system traps are identified and a SWOT analysis is conducted. This analysis shows the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats regarding sustainability of bottom-up land development in Oosterwold. The results indicate that opportunities lie especially in technological innovation and weakness in insufficient knowledge and awareness. Subsequently, the SWOT analysis lead to the realisation of the opportunity of developing an app to allow inhabitants to communicate, offer services, urban farm products. In this way the app contributes to building a community and raising awareness by connecting end users.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

With the world population growing from 7.3 billion to approximately 9.7 billion people in 2050, the increase of the consumption per capita and the decrease of available natural resources, food production has become a relevant issue worldwide (Powlson et al., 2010). The Netherlands is a highly urbanized country and as a result food production is a nearly exclusive rural issue. Moreover, there is a tendency towards a sharp delineation between the urban and rural environments (Jansma et al., 2013). However, urban planners are increasingly interested in maintaining agriculture within and around cities due to food security concerns (Hodgson, Campbell, & Bailkey, 2011). Research has shown that a reintegration of food production in the urban system could mutually contribute to the sustainability of cities and agriculture (Jansma et al., 2013).

In addition, many municipalities express ambitions in relation to sustainability, amongst with circular area development (Evans et al., 2013). Sustainability implies keeping impacts on the environment at an acceptable level that can be maintained over a longer period in the future. Steffen et al. (2015) analysed these levels and described them as planetary boundaries. In their research important parameters consist of atmospheric pollution, biodiversity and biochemical flows of phosphorus and nitrogen. In this research these parameters are adapted to be considered when assessing sustainability of land development in this research.

This paper introduces the case of Oosterwold, In Oosterwold the concepts of sustainability and urban-agriculture are being explored. The main vision of Oosterwold, as described by Peerdeman & van Duin (2013), consists of an open area in which inhabitants have a strong connection with the community. The method that is used to realise this vision consist of bottom up development to increase the community connectedness and predetermined percentages of the land area to fulfil functions such as nature, agriculture and housing to preserve the open character of the area.

Approximately 4,000 ha polder area is being transformed into a rural-urban fringe with a fixed amount of (urban) agriculture (50 %), housing (30 %), infrastructure and ditches and public green (20 %) (Jansma et al., 2013). Instead of large plots of land being allocated to serve a single function, smaller patches of land have to contain a variety of functions. Because this development will be bottom up there is no ‘master plan’ and individual landowners are free to give the land their own design. Both municipalities of Almere and Zeewolde decided to consciously stay away and give the responsibility of the layout of the area in hands of residents and entrepreneurs (Peerdeman & van Duin, 2013).

Research that has already been conducted in the Oosterwold area focuses mainly on the relationship between the existing agriculture and the future houses that will be developed. There is insufficient research on the sustainability of the transition from the current state to the desired developed state and the co-operation between the different initiators. Since there is no blueprint a main challenge is to sustainably manage the environment and the public goods.

The main question that will be answered in this research is ‘’In which respects can the

environment of Oosterwold be sustainably managed during the bottom up, urban agricultural development?’’. To answer this question interdisciplinary insights are required. There are multiple

stakeholders which have different desires in the Oosterwold-area development. This interaction of desires on multiple levels is characteristic for complex systems (Tromp, 2004). To solve complex problems, an interdisciplinary approach is needed because the interacting parts are connected to different disciplines.

In this conducted research the disciplines biology, earth sciences and spatial planning are represented. These disciplines will allow a connection to be made between the social, technical and natural aspects of land development. From the biological perspective biodiversity and ecosystem services as well as methods to conserve them are described. Additionally a relation is made between nature conservation and circular development. Earth science will be divided in two subcategories, agriculture and technology. The first will focus on the possibilities and opportunities for urban

(5)

5

agriculture, as well as how they can be realized. The second will focus on how new technologies can contribute to sustainable development. Many improvements can be achieved with technological development (Xiaofen & Bin, 2010). Therefore, technology is a key factor in the development of a sustainable Oosterwold. The spatial planning discipline investigates how the stakeholders can work together. Additionally the new Dutch Environment law is analysed.

A theoretical framework will provide an overview of the concepts of these different disciplines. The concepts are subsequently organised and combined with interdisciplinary insights in a causal loop diagram. This diagram will be followed by a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis to provide insights in the dynamics of the project. Additionally, the knowledge obtained from the SWOT analysis will be used to create a tool. The focus of the tool will be on the opportunities regarding sustainable development and how they can be realized in Oosterwold. It is meant for the end users, or final inhabitants, of Oosterwold to stimulate the co-creative, co-designed learning process towards sustainable area development.

2. Theoretical Framework

In this section an in depth explanation will be given for some of the key theories and concepts in this research. Additionally, the research problem will be elaborated on. Lastly, the complexity of the problem as well as how the different disciplines in regard to overlapping and contrasting features are integrated will be explained.

2.1 Relevant theories and concepts

2.1.1 Urban agriculture and sustainability

Sustainable urban agriculture

A clear definition of the boundary between urban agriculture and common agriculture is lacking (Mougeot, 2000). Therefore, in this paper urban agriculture is defined as a method of agriculture that connects the urban environment with the rural environment, physically and socially. Physically, a farm has to be located close enough near the urban environment that there is interaction between the residents of the urban area and the farm. This interaction can for instance consist of being located within each other's line of sight and have to agree on changes in the aesthetics of the environment. In other words, the physical resources are shared (van Veenhuizen, 2006). Socially, the consumers and producers have to be connected directly. This connection can take a wide variety of appearances. Workshops can for instance connect consumers to farmers, but also a system in which consumers directly pay farmers a fixed amount of money for a share in the harvest is viable (Sharp et al., 2002).

Tilman et al. (2001) defined agricultural sustainability as having both high yields that can be maintained, even in the face of major shocks, and agricultural practices that have acceptable environmental impacts. In this paper the same definition is used. The environmental impacts can

(6)

6

consist of direct impacts in the local environment, but as well of impacts elsewhere. The direct impacts can be on the local ecosystem or on the people living or working in close proximity. The indirect, or not visible, impact can be caused by importing goods or services from other locations. For instance, impacts of the production of imported feed for cattle should be taken into account when investigating the sustainability of an agricultural system that includes livestock.

2.1.2 The influence of urban agriculture on the existing environment

In order to make Oosterwold the circular area that is envisioned it is of great importance to protect biodiversity, ecosystems services and resilience. These three concepts are highly interconnected.

The influence of urban agriculture on biodiversity, ecosystem services and resilience

Biodiversity is known as the composition, diversity, and structure of plant, and animal communities (Loreau et al., 2001). Biodiversity directly supports ecosystem services and processes, many with direct benefit and value to humans (Mace et al., 2012). Therefore, rapid loss of biodiversity is a global concern (Alvey, 2006). Urbanization is known to be a major threat for biodiversity (McDonald et al., 2008). Increased urbanization will lead to a greater competition for space, making it more difficult to maintain areas supporting high biodiversity. Habitat fragmentation or destruction is one of the primary causes of biodiversity loss (Tilman et al., 2001). In order to safeguard biodiversity in the transition to urban agriculture in Oosterwold it is of great importance to protect the existing ecosystems.

However, urban-agriculture can also contribute to biodiversity conservation and even improvement (Lovell, 2010). Agricultural systems can support a wide range of species, including some native plants. Native species need to be integrated when developing the area so that these systems are able to provide additional ecological benefits such as modifying the urban microclimate by regulating humidity, reducing wind and providing shade (Lovell, 2010). This will be the case in Oosterwold as well, where landowners are responsible to the integration of native species.

Urbanization does not only influence biodiversity but also influences ecosystem services. As the world has undergone rapid urbanization and industrialization over the last fifty years, approximately 60% of ecosystem services have been reduced (Bommarco et al., 2013). Within agricultural systems, ecosystem services are of high importance since research has shown they increase crop production, resilience and protect production values (Bommarco et al., 2013). The most important ecosystem services in urban agriculture systems are pollination, pest control and climate control (Lin et al, 2015). In order to successfully practice agriculture these services need to be present in the Oosterwold area.

Another term used when analysing the importance of ecosystems is resilience. In system thinking, resilience describes the ability of a system to recover after perturbations (Meadows, 2008). When resilience is low the system might not be able to cope with stresses quickly enough and eventually the system might change into a radically different state. This occurs when a tipping point is passed and the system is unable to return to its initial condition (Meadows, 2008). This irreversible change from one ecosystem to another ecosystem is called an ecological regime shift. Ecological regime shift should be avoided at all times. To ensure a resilient system the existing ecosystem services need to be present. Thus, in order to strengthen the resilience in Oosterwold, the ecosystem services need to be safeguarded.

2.1.3 The implementation of urban agriculture

(7)

7

In Oosterwold, the area is being developed in a bottom up way, which is a relatively new concept in urban planning (Batty, 2008). It is also defined as “organic area development, collaborative planning and invitation planning” in other literature. This bottom up area development is mainly focussed on the needs of the future users of the area, this is why these stakeholders are leading in the development of the site instead of large commercial developers or governmental parties (Buitelaar, Kooiman, & Robbe, 2012). Moreover, the role of the local government becomes more facilitating instead of leading and risk carrying. Embracing this method has become increasingly relevant as traditional planning is encountering more and more obstacles in the modern liberal societies (Wagenaar, 2007). One of the main reasons for this is the increased complexity of social systems, defined as the density and dynamics of interactions between different elements involved in traditional planning methods. It is argued that more participatory methods of city planning like bottom up development are more capable of dealing with this complexity because of the increased interactions between the end-users in the planning process (Wagenaar, 2007).

The new rules for development in the Netherlands: “Omgevingswet”

In the Netherlands attention is increasing for these alternative planning methods. The Dutch national government has set themselves to simplifying and combining the rules concerning area development to one all-inclusive law, the so-called “Omgevingswet”, with the main goal to make the procedures of starting development projects easier (Environmental Law) (Rijksoverheid, z.j.). The revision of the environmental law is related to the current law instruments becoming less capable in dealing with present and future area developments resulting from great variety in legal arrangements (Rheiter, 2016).

Other important goals of the new law concern: achieving more integration between goals set for area development and the environment, stimulating sustainable projects and finally giving the local governments more possibilities to create policy focussed on local needs and targets. This new law also includes a number of measures related to more bottom-up planning approaches (Muñoz Gielen, 2014). There is a decrease in the amount of rules and more room is left for initiatives to work and develop in a set framework instead being examined beforehand (Rheiter, 2016).

2.1.4 Technological innovations to overcome challenges

Ecological technology innovation

Implementing a sustainable development of Oosterwold requires the support of technological innovation since many improvements can be made possible with technology (Xiaofen & Bin, 2010). However, in the process of technological innovation the economic bodies must take ecological factors into account. Ecological technology innovation, a new type of innovation system which extensively implements ecology theory in the course of innovation, aims at the balance of environment and society (Xiaofen & Bin, 2010). Moreover, it can lead traditional technology innovation to good interaction and synergy of natural ecology, economy and society (Yin, Liu & Han, 2012). Therefore, ecological technology innovation is of importance for realising the sustainable vision Oosterwold demands.

(8)

8

Research on the different kinds of technical innovations available could provide valuable information on which innovations can contribute the most to a sustainable Oosterwold, enable a more strategic implementation process and offer more guidance for the people developing in Oosterwold. Xiaofen & Bin (2010) argue that research results that had a comprehensive and systematic description about the technological strategy of circular economy do not exist. One of the requirements for technological innovation is resources ecology efficiency (Xiaofen & Bin, 2010). This consists of seeking the ecological efficiency of resources and enhancing the coordination development of technological innovation itself. This requires constantly enhancing the usage rate of substances and energies, reducing waste emission and reducing the adverse effects of production activity on the environment in the activity of technological innovation.

Digital technology

Moreover, digital technology has the potential to identify the challenges of material flows in cities, outline the areas of structural waste, and inform more effective decision-making on how to address the possible challenges and provide systematic solutions (Sukhdev et al. 2017). This theory is of relevance for the case of Oosterwold-Almere since digital technologies are crucial to embed circular economy principles and practices into the everyday functioning of this area. For example, the Internet of Things (IoT) offers endless possibilities, things that were products can become services and information that was impossible to know can now be tracked. This will have impact in the circular economy since IoT introduces the idea that natural resources are used in an effective and sustainable manner. It can contribute to the sustainable vision of Oosterwold as well, whether it being through mobile phones, wearable tech or household objects, the Internet of Things (IoT) will connect the inhabitants/people (Gasiorowski-Denis, 2016). Smart buildings in Oosterwold could be equipped with connected devices such as thermostats, electricity & water meters, lighting controllers or sensors which will enable more efficient management of natural resources (Lambert, 2016)

The movement to optimise a city is known as the smart city concept (Sukhdev et al., 2017). The International Telecommunication Union declare a smart city an “innovative city that uses

information and communication technologies (ICT) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social and environmental aspects”

(Kondepudi, 2014). According to a study released by the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) in 2016, “... the Internet of Things (IoT) has the potential for substantial energy savings and greenhouse

gas emissions reductions if used for energy savings purposes could collectively avoid up to 100 million tons of CO2 emissions and reduce total residential primary energy consumption by as much as 10 percent”.

2.2 Complexity

Complexity seems to be a big mess: it presents itself with worrying characters of unpredictability, inextricable, disorder, ambiguity and insecurities (Tromp, 2004). Research of Tromp (2004) explained complex problems as problems that interact on multiple system levels in which

(9)

9

different (f)actors are involved. In Oosterwold similar processes can be observed. There are different actors involved in the co-creative development since it invites people to come up with ideas how to design the area, including plans with regards to public green, agricultural areas, roads and other common goods. However, different future inhabitants of Oosterwold are going to have different goals and needs for the development of Oosterwold. So, the chosen strategy is one of organic development and this provides unpredictability and insecurity for the development of Oosterwold. In this case consisting of interacting parts that will produce emerging patterns, no single most appropriate solution direction will exist. Therefore, it is important to have an integrative approach and work interdisciplinary when analysing dynamics of the development of Oosterwold. This is essential to find an overarching way in which disciplines can communicate which each other. By connecting multiple perspectives from different disciplines (beta as well as gamma) the complex questions can be more appropriately analysed.

Furthermore, urban areas and agricultural areas are intertwined in Oosterwold. This will make the inhabitants more aware that the mondial international society and economy are closely related with the ecological system that provides us food, energy and natural resources. To analyse the effects of these relations it is important to have an interdisciplinary point of view to overcome disciplinary boundaries. Additionally, the bottom up development of Oosterwold contributes to the complexity of the system. Because end users have to develop their own area in a bottom-up way this will influence their actions and they will have to communicate with their neighbours for the development of shared facilities. This not only increases connectedness within the community, it also improves involvement with development of the whole community.

Due to the complexity of land development in Oosterwold, encountered problems are more difficult to resolve. Reducing the uncertainties poses the risk of losing essential elements of complexity (Morin, 2008). It is therefore important to avoid fixation on altering a single uncertain process, but instead focus on obtaining a broad overview of the functioning of all related processes. In this research multiple disciplinary points of view are integrated in a causal loop diagram that explains the relations between processes that occur in Oosterwold. When analysing this diagram the complex dynamics of the system can be more easily interpreted. Additionally, instead of providing places to intervene in this system, a SWOT analysis is conducted. The main reason being that complex systems can benefit from organic development. It is more valuable to gain insight in the main functioning of the system than it is to try provide solutions for possible problems that might occur in the future. The obtained insight in the system can be used as a tool to guide emerging patterns as they become apparent.

2.3 Research problem

In Oosterwold the role of large land developers is handed over to smaller individuals. This results in a different way of developing for instance infrastructure and public facilities. Additionally, there are guidelines regarding the percentage of land allocated towards a specific function, for example agriculture, housing or nature. However, there are no guidelines regarding sustainability. Because there are certain limits to the influence mankind can have on the environment (Rockström

(10)

10

et al., 2009) it is important to analyze the sustainability of new methods of land development. When developing land with the methods that are used in Oosterwold, many challenges and opportunities regarding sustainability can arise.

Research is lacking on the transition from the current state to the desired developed state and cooperation between the different initiators. One of the main challenges is sustainably managing the area during the bottom up place making. In order to make Oosterwold the circular area policymakers envisioned it is of great importance to investigate the possible strengths and weaknesses of the project regarding sustainability. The main objective in this research is to provide a clear interdisciplinary overview of the current situation in Oosterwold. In order to reach this aim a SWOT analysis will be conducted. The outcomes of this SWOT analysis will be analysed. In addition, we will create a tool for achieving a sustainable managed area. The main research question consists of ‘’In which respects can the environment of Oosterwold be sustainably managed during the

bottom up, urban agricultural placemaking?

Since the complexity of our problem crosses more than one discipline it is important to combine different disciplines in the problem solving approach. It is uncertain what the results of the new method of land development will be on sustainability of created facilities. Additionally, sustainability is a concept that contains many interconnected processes. Therefore it is important to have an interdisciplinary point of view when bridging this knowledge gap.

In this conducted research the following three disciplines will be represented and integrated; biology, earth sciences and spatial planning. These three disciplines will allow a connection to be made between the social, technical and natural aspects of land development and all investigate strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of specific parts of the development regarding sustainability. Together they can reach an integrative approach in assessing the researched area and this will contribute to resulting in an appropriate product.

2.4 Integrated Theoretical Framework

This section will elaborate on the integration technique that is used combine the results of the different disciplinary research. In scientific research the integration of different disciplines has become increasingly important, especially when analysing topic regarding sustainability (Yarime et al., 2012). Since this research inhibits an interdisciplinary approach, elements from all the disciplines need to be included and combined to achieve interdisciplinary research.

The chosen approach for combining disciplinary elements is organisation. This theory identifies commonality in concepts and assumptions, redefines them and organises, arranges or maps the causal links between them (Molloy et al., 2011). The results of the research of the different domains can be better combined when elements share a common terminology. The relevant concepts are chosen other under the umbrella of the goal of achieving a sustainable area development. Due to the complexity of involved processes disciplinary conclusions might be counteracting when combined with other the outcomes of other disciplines, or they might be reinforcing. By combining all the different outcomes of all disciplines different strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats can be more adequately identified.

(11)

11

Figure 1. Overview of main concepts from disciplinary literature reviews; these concept greatly influence the further development of Oosterwold. From left to right the corresponding disciplines are: spatial planning, technology, biology and earth sciences.

Most important central terms are visualised in figure 1. When analysing the definition of agriculture in relation to a sustainable managed area there exist different assumptions between the disciplines. In the earth science research, agriculture in relation to sustainability is all about high and reliable yields, with acceptable environmental impact. On the contrary in the biology discipline, agriculture in relation to sustainability is focussed on nature conservation and ecosystem services. The planning discipline is in between as it is mainly focussed on societal needs, both high/reliable yields and ecosystem services can contribute to that. The technological research is mainly focussed on innovation, energy saving, reduces pollution, so it also includes assumptions from both the Biology research and Earth science research as innovation is driver for an increased yield but also a factor that can take pressure of the ecosystem and enhance conservation. Moreover, technology is linked to the biology discipline since ecological technological innovation takes ecological factors into account. Thus, ecological technological innovation combines biology and technological innovation.

Next, when looking at the relation of the living- and working environment and sustainability the urban agricultural discipline is mainly focussed on the relationship between the the agriculture and the living- and working environment appearing in the form of urban agriculture. Physically they have to be located close enough so that there is a connection between the residential area and the farming area. Socially, the consumers and producers have to be connected directly. The Biology research is again mainly focussed on preservation, ecosystem valuation and biodiversity. Nature should be treated as a stakeholder as it an actor that is possibly damaged by the development of the living and working area. Spatial planning is mainly focussed in dealing with societal needs, a well-developed living environment that offers the possibility to house a great number of people is the

(12)

12

main goal. In the process of achieving this sustainability is an important factor but not the main goal, it's presented as ideological background context. The technological research is mainly focussed on the lifespan and reusability of building materials and improving energy efficiency in the building process and the build area itself, so sustainability is mostly derived from the physical environment.

3. Methods

This section contains the different methods used in this research to answer the research question. Firstly the methods for integrating the different disciplines will be presented, followed by methodology regarding the SWOT analysis along with an indication of the types of data that are used.

3.1 Integration

In order to achieve a successful integration, the roadmap of Molloy et al. (2011) is used (figure 2). Both system-level divides and disciplinary divides need to be considered when trying to achieve a multi/interdisciplinary research, often they coincide and must be dealt with jointly. Furthermore is stated that disciplinary differences must be considered before system level differences given the important theoretical and methodological challenges that disciplinary divides present (Molloy et al., 2011)

(13)

13

Figure 2. Roadmap of Intellectual Steps Required to Bridge Disciplinary and Level Divides (Molloy et al., 2011). This model was used for the integration of the results of the different disciplines.

The left side of the model focuses on the reconciliation of the disciplinary divides. The right side focuses on multi-level research. In this case of this paper only the left side of the model is considered as this research concerns the integration of the different disciplines. The model starts with a focus on the terminology of the different disciplines, the definition and important central terms need to be considered for possible different meanings, this is important to avoid miscommunication. The second step requires one to make explicit the assumptions that exist within the different disciplines. In this paper, these first steps are already discussed in the theoretical framework. The third step involves the bridging of the different disciplines. Two different methods are presented. Firstly, one can decide to acknowledge the differences but not reconcile them, either because it is not necessary for the research question or because one finds them irreconcilable. Second, one may try to reconcile the differences. This may take the form of identifying a single assumption that is held by those with one view of the entity, but not a second body of scholars

(14)

14

studying the entity. Differences between disciplinary theoretical assumptions might be addressed by creation of new assumptions (called bridging assumptions). In this paper reconciliation of the differences in assumptions have resulted in the creation of a causal loop diagram and subsequently an interdisciplinary SWOT analysis.

3.2 SWOT Analysis

Since Oosterwold is still in a developing state the SWOT analysis came forward as an useful tool to provide a clear overview of the current situation in Oosterwold. The SWOT framework is proposed as an analytical tool which should be used to categorize significant factors both internal and external to the project (Ifediora, Idoko & Nzekwe, 2014). This tool can be utilized to gain insight in the complex functioning of the system to guide policy making to the desired direction.

Strengths and Weaknesses are referring to internal matters of the concerning project; strengths are the internal qualities that enables the accomplishment of the development of the project (Ifediora, Idoko & Nzekwe, 2014). Furthermore Strengths are the beneficial aspects of the project or the capabilities of an organization and that tributes or characteristics within the organization that are considered to be important to the execution and ultimate success of the project. Weaknesses focus on the internal infirmity of the project; these are qualities that prevent the successful accomplishment of the project (Ifediora, Idoko & Nzekwe, 2014). These are the factors which do not meet the standard that they should meet. Fortunately weaknesses are controllable and must thus be minimized.

Opportunities and Threats are referring to the external matters that influence the project. Opportunities are factors that are beneficial and present in the environment within the operational field of the project. When recognized and grasped, opportunities will prove helpful in achieving the set goal for the project. Threats are factors in the external environment that jeopardize the possibility of successful achievement of the project. Threats are uncontrollable and unpredictable; they threaten the stability and survivability of the project.

The identification of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats will give a clear overview on the current situation and provide insight in potential future challenges in the Oosterwold area. Both natural and social sciences should contribute to this identification, as they both are part of the system. Therefore, in this research the information from a causal loop diagram based of multiple disciplinary points of view is integrated in an interdisciplinary SWOT analysis.

The information needed to make the SWOT analysis will be provided by meta-research (secondary data). The different outcomes of the disciplinary literature reviews will be integrated and together give shape to the SWOT analysis. This integrating will be achieved by constructing a causal loop diagram. This figure is relevant to the research question as it follows a theory of system thinking introduced by Meadows (2008) that can be used to find system traps. By identifying these system traps new light can be shed on the research problem since these will illustrate how a system might dysfunction or cause problems.

(15)

15

4. Analysis

In this section an overview of the main findings of the different disciplinary results will be presented and analysed using knowledge obtained from several academic publications. Following the results will be integrated and elaborated on as they are joined in a causal loop diagram. This diagram is analysed to identify system traps. Additionally, a SWOT analysis is made to answer the research question.

4.1 Preliminary Findings

Urban agriculture in relation to sustainability

Some opportunities and threats of urban agriculture itself can already be described. It is for instance possible to make use of the relatively high population density near agricultural areas by using nutrients from waste flows as fertilizer. With proper waste management compostable materials can be used locally. A threat that can be identified is conflicts arising from agricultural practices such as handling manure, feed and pesticides (Mougeot, 2000).

Many of the opportunities and threats can be addressed by successful agricultural practices. These practices have to take into account the opinions of all the stakeholders involved. There are many methods of agriculture, but not all of these methods will be successful in or near an urban environment. In general, a “natural” kind of agriculture is expected to be preferred because intensive land utilization often produces sounds and smells that are not desired. Additionally, in order to increase efficiency of the urban environment, waste flows should be used when possible.

Promoting biodiversity and ecosystem services in the bottom-up urban development

In order to make Oosterwold the circular area policymakers envisioned it is of great importance to identify ecosystems services. The biodiversity in urban environments significantly differs from the current existing biodiversity in Oosterwold. In order to be sustainable the integration of urban-agriculture should not lead to ecosystem degradation. Therefore ecosystem valuation is needed. The maintaining of biodiversity is important to support the ecosystem services that are needed to practice agriculture sustainably (Vanbergen, 2013). Since urbanization is likely to increase habitat fragmentation (McDonald et al., 2008) and thereby threaten the biodiversity it is important to facilitate connectivity between habitats (Hanski , 2000).

The strengths of the project consist of improving biodiversity, when the area is developed there could be a way to incorporate flora and fauna in order to safeguard them or improve their existing state. However, when not managed correctly these strengths also have the potential to become weaknesses and result in ecosystem degradation and other undesirable processes. Future policy should include informing initiators on the importance of the maintenance of biodiversity to avoid ecosystem degradation.

Opportunities in technological innovations with an ecological perspective

Technology is important for the development of a sustainable development of Oosterwold since many improvements can be achieved with technology. However, in the process of

(16)

16

technological innovation the economic bodies must take ecological factors into account. In particular, ecological technology innovation aims at the balance of environment and society (Xiaofen & Bin, 2010). This is importance for the realisation of the sustainable vision of Oosterwold since ecological technology innovation could contribute to an increased savings in material and energy costs, a decrease in resource dependence, an improvement in customer interaction and improvement in the usage of longer-lasting products. Opportunities and input are devoted to: technologies that boost the lifespan of materials; processes that feature energy saving, material saving, and reduced or no pollution; research into new materials as alternatives to toxic and polluting materials; resource-renewing technologies to boost energy efficiency, for example those that recover resources from used household electrical appliances, batteries, and computers; and development of forecasting models to determine the correlation among such factors as economic gains, recycling rates, costs for renewing resources and pricing for products.

Digital technology is of relevance for the development of Oosterwold since it can identify the challenges of material flows in the area, outline the areas of structural waste, and inform more effective decision-making on how to address the possible challenges and provide systemic solutions. Moreover, IoT can connect the inhabitants of Oosterwold with household objects. This offers valuable opportunities to manage resources and anticipate ecological disorders.

Challenges and Possibilities of the co-creative, bottom up approach

Bottom up area planning causes a number of challenges and possibilities. Firstly, it can be concluded that this concept presents both opportunities and challenges in achieving a sustainable managed area. A strength can be recognised in improvement in coping with complex issues arising in the modern liberal society. However, there are a few traps that need to be avoided. Since bottom up development needs an existing community, the size of the population might hinder the development of the area and the achievement of more ‘greater’ goals like sustainability.

Next, the new environmental law enhances the functioning of the bottom-up planning process as the new rules that are created favour input from smaller more local initiatives. Only the development of public space and services might be an obstacle when insufficiently accounted for by the inhabitants of Oosterwold. Normally, the municipality provides these spaces and services however in this system the inhabitants are responsible.

Lastly, the stakeholder analysis shows that both the private initiators and local governments have great influence in the progress of the developing of the area, followed by higher governmental agencies that have the power to overrule local issues when contradicting with national matters. When sustainability is a main goal of the initiators and local government, the bottom up development will serve the achievement of this goal. To ensure a sustainably managed area it is important that all the stakeholders are on the same page and feel the urge to include circularity in the Oosterwold area. To successfully ensure this, it is important that the local stakeholders experience the urgency for a sustainably managed area. When this is achievable and all (or most) stakeholders are able to align their goals there is a relatively big chance that the strive for sustainability can be achieved as larger scale technologies can be implemented. However, if stakeholders are not unified in their interest for sustainability or the way they want it to be achieved, only smaller scale technologies and interest can be embraced.

(17)

17

4.2 Causal loop diagram

The main findings are integrated and elaborated on as they are joined in a causal loop diagram. This diagram is a tool to analyse the system. It provides insight in the complexity of the system which allows for the recognition of system traps which will be explained later in this paragraph. The causal loop diagram exist of reinforcing feedback loops and balancing feedback loops. In a reinforcing feedback loop a change in a node goes around the loop to cause a change in that same node in the same direction (S), which causes the loop to grow or decline. In a balancing feedback loop the change is in the opposite direction (O), which causes the loop to balance its behaviour as it seeks equilibrium.

The most important concepts are visible in the causal loop diagram which can be seen in figure 3. Besides the familiar concepts that are elucidated in the theoretical framework a few new concepts can be found in the causal loop diagram, these concepts are notable in the blue boxes: connected end users, awareness and societal needs. The definition of these concepts in this paper is described here.

The concept awareness, specifically awareness of sustainability, refers to the realisation and understanding that we need to sustainably manage our planet’s resources and ecosystems. This is necessary to achieve a sustainable development of Oosterwold. If an inhabitant of Oosterwold obtains environmental awareness, these inhabitants might undertake restorative projects or perform basic tasks like recycling, using reusable bags and investing in clean energy as each step brings improvement. This is highly interlinked with societal needs since sustainable development depends upon participation by the people, and their awareness of the environmental effects of their actions.

Societal needs refer to the existence of certain needs in a community. More specifically,

what the people of Oosterwold, the society, perceive as necessities. If sustainability is not seen as a societal need, it will not be pursued. Awareness that sustainability directly influences the own environment of society can change societal need to include sustainability.

Finally, the concept of connected end users will be explained. For this research end users refers to the people who will eventually inhabit Oosterwold. Because of the bottom up element of the development, these people are also the people that develop the area. Connectedness indicates the sense of community, which increases the likeliness that people will participate in communal projects. This is important for the creation of a sustainable environment as people can encourage each other to participate in initiatives that improve sustainability.

(18)

18

Figure 3. A visual representation of the main findings, in the form of a causal loop diagram. In the diagram ’O’ stands for opposite direction and ‘S’ stands for same direction, which means that if one of the components changes, the influenced component will change in the same or the opposite direction.

4.3 Identifying system traps

In this section the causal loop diagram is analysed to identify system traps. Meadows (2008) introduced a theory of system thinking that can be used to find system traps.

Tragedy of the commons

A dangerous system trap in the development in Almere Oosterwold is known as the tragedy of the commons. The common, defined as community space, is a shared resource. When individuals act independently and in self-interest this might deplete the common. As a result, the whole group's long term interest will be ignored. In Oosterwold, due to the bottom up development, the chosen strategy to govern the commons is community standards. The negative effects of over depleting resources are shared by all the initiators.

A common solution to this trap is privatising the commons, however this is not possible in Oosterwold because the area is developed is a bottom up way. Another solution, to this trap that could be implemented in Oosterwold is to educate the initiators and raise awareness (figure 3).

(19)

19

Seeking the wrong goal

A system trap that can be recognized in the causal loop diagram is seeking wrong goal. Sometimes complex systems suffer from the fact that original goal does not make any sense in the current context. Pursuit of wrong goals will cause the system to function with wrong or insignificant metrics and thereby leaving the illusion of progress.

In Oosterwold sustainability is not a requirement for area development. Additionally, it is not clear how success is measured in Oosterwold. The vision includes an open area in which the inhabitants have a large sense of community (Peerdeman & van Duin, 2013). This can be achieved without the development being sustainable. It mainly depends on the needs of society (figure 3) whether sustainability is pursued.

A solution can be to change the indicators and goals. If a goal is to create a sustainable area, it is important that success is not measured by the work that has been done but rather by the total value that has been created, keeping costs to the environment in account as well.

Policy resistance

Another system trap that needs to be avoided in Oosterwold is policy resistance. Policy resistance occurs when actors in the system have their own different goals. One actor might try to change the functioning of the system in one way, while another might push in another direction. In Oosterwold this problem could emerge because there are many different initiators that all have their own personal goals. When analysing sustainable management of bottom up development it is important that all initiators participate in measures to improve sustainability. If initiators do not participate in a certain measure to improve sustainability, this measure might not have the desired effect.

A common solution to policy resistance is to over-power it (Meadows, 2008). In Almere Oosterwold this is not possible due to the bottom up strategy. Another solution is to harmonize goals (Meadows, 2008). This solution has potential in Oosterwold, because the inhabitants already be connected to a certain extend because of the need to work together in bottom up development. However, sustainable management is not necessarily required to harmonize goals. To guarantee sustainability in Oosterwold and avoid policy resistance it is important the different initiators are aware of the necessity of sustainable management and harmonize their goals appropriately. To ensure this harmonization communication between the different initiators is needed. In the causal loop diagram (figure 3) it is shown that new technologies could play an significant role since they increase the connection between different end-users and thereby increase communication.

4.4 SWOT Analysis

Since the Oosterwold area still is in a developing state it is useful to make a SWOT analysis. The SWOT framework is an analytical tool which should be used to categorize significant environmental factors both internal and external to the system (Ifediora, Idoko & Nzekwe, 2014). For this research the SWOT analysis is of importance since our research objective is to provide a clear interdisciplinary overview of the current situation in Oosterwold and this SWOT analysis will give a clear overview of how Oosterwold can be sustainably managed. The SWOT analysis can be seen in

(20)

20

figure 4 below. It is constructed from processes that were discovered in the analysation of the causal loop diagram. The next chapter will elucidate the interpretation of the SWOT.

Figure 4. A visual representation of the main findings following from the integrated results in the form of a SWOT diagram; a schematic overview of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in sustainably managing the environment of Oosterwold during the bottom up, urban agricultural placemaking.

(21)

21

5. Discussion

5.1 Interpretation of the SWOT analysis

The system traps as described earlier relate to the highlighted parts of the visualisation of the SWOT analysis in figure 5. Firstly, an important strength that is embedded in the development methods of Oosterwold is an improvement of end user interaction. This increased sense of connectedness makes it easier to harmonize goals in the community. This is a solution for the potential system trap of policy resistance. However, even though it is a strength of the developmental method, it should not be taken for granted. On the contrary, if encouraged, connectedness in Oosterwold might grow to be a fundamental characteristic of the community.

A major weakness that can be identified is insufficient knowledge. This arises from the lack of a centrally directed organisation for the area development. All initiators have to develop their land themselves, with their own methods. Compared to large developers, they have inferior experience. This might lead to inefficient utilization of available methods and technologies. Additionally insufficient knowledge of the functioning of the common good might eventually lead to the occurrence of the tragedy of the commons as described earlier in section 4.3.

Besides internal properties of the system, the SWOT analysis contains aspects that externally influence the system, namely opportunities and threats. The main threat relating to the system trap of seeking the wrong goal consists of that sustainability might not be a societal need. If the community does not perceive sustainability as being necessary development will not be sustainable. Similarly to the other threats this should be kept in mind when defining the goal or vision of the development of Oosterwold.

One opportunity in the SWOT analysis relates to all these features of the system. This is technological innovation. Nowadays there is technology all around, when cleverly utilized this technology has potential to achieve large goals. In their pocket, everyone has a connection with all the people from their neighbourhood and an extensive database of knowledge. This technology can be utilized by providing an application that encourages sustainability based on the results from the SWOT analysis and identified system traps. This tool is further discussed in the recommendations section.

(22)

22

Figure 5. The SWOT analysis with the parts that relate to the identified system trap highlighted.

However, it is important to realize that models never give a complete description of reality. The disciplines used in this research were able to tackle a great deal of the problem as they offer a large proportion of knowledge about the environment and the processes within them, physically and socially. However, there are other disciplines needed to tackle the complexity to full extent. For instance economics and politics are not included. Future research should include these disciplines as well to obtain a more complete assessment of this complex system.

Another discussion point is that predictions of the future are never completely certain. Since Oosterwold is not fully developed yet, different strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats might arise in the future. This means that more research should be conducted during the development of Oosterwold if actual knowledge of the functioning of the system is desired.

(23)

23

6. Recommendations

Looking at the co-creative, bottom-up development of Oosterwold, it is recommended that the habitants of Oosterwold build a community, raise awareness and connect end users. These recommendations are derived from the interdisciplinary integration, the causal loop diagram and the SWOT analysis. The outcome of the SWOT analysis showed that opportunities occur in technological innovation and weakness lie in insufficient knowledge and awareness. Moreover, digital innovations can have an positive impacts on sustainability and connectedness by improving connectedness of end users (Mulder, 2007).

Considering this outcome of the SWOT analysis, the system dynamics of the development of Oosterwold can be efficiently improved by creating a mobile app, which empowers the opportunity of technological innovation. It has the possibility to enhance creation of community and awareness of sustainability for the inhabitants and thereby tackling different system traps that might arise due to lacking communication. In the app, services and products can be shared between inhabitants of Oosterwold.

Examples of services can consist of electrician, plumber, pest control or energy. A catchy name for this could be ‘tinder for skills’. Products can be shared between the inhabitants by means of an online marketplace. Inhabitants will be able to more easily share their harvest of urban farm products with the local community. The app can also function as a chat room and make communication quicker and easier of the inhabitants. Furthermore, the app can show an overview of the flora and fauna in Oosterwold and consequently inhabitants can align their planting behaviour to include a wide diversity of species. In this way not every farmer will grow for example only apple or pear trees. An impression of the app is given in the Appendix.

(24)

24

7. Conclusion

In this research an answer to the main research question is examined: ‘’In which respects can the environment of Oosterwold be sustainably managed during the bottom up, urban agricultural development?’’. To accomplish this meta-research is conducted to result in a SWOT analysis which provides a clear overview of the functioning of the bottom up, urban agricultural development of Oosterwold.

The meta-research findings are integrated and elaborated on as they are joined in a causal loop diagram. This causal loop diagram is analysed to identify system traps which consist of tragedy of the commons, seeking the wrong goal and policy resistance. Solutions to overcome the system traps are to educate the initiators, raise awareness and ensure harmonization of goals between the different initiators. The causal loop diagram shows that new technologies could play an significant role since they increase the connection between different end-users and thereby increase communication. This improvement in end-user interaction can be used to tackle the potential system traps. Our recommendation for the inhabitants of Oosterwold is therefore to create a mobile app which offers services, urban products, gives an overview of the flora and fauna and will make communication quicker and easier for the inhabitants of Oosterwold.

All in all, the extent to which Oosterwold will be sustainably managed during the bottom up, urban agriculture development is dependent on the degree on which the inhabitants of Oosterwold take consideration of the system traps. The opportunity of technological innovation can be embraced to connect the inhabitants, improve their interaction and create an Oosterwold that is built on self-organisation.

(25)

25

References

 Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban

Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(4), 195-201.

 Batty, M. (2008). The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science, 319(5864), 769-771.  Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D., & Potts, S. G. (2013). Ecological intensification: harnessing

ecosystem services for food security. Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(4), 230-238.  Buitelaar, E., Kooiman, M. & Robbe, C. (2012). Planeconomie en organische

gebiedsontwikkeling. Den Haag, Netherlands: Sdu uitgevers.

 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016). Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the circular economy

potential. Retrieved from

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthur Foundation_Intelligent_Assets_080216-AUDIO-E.pdf

 Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S., & Theobald, K. (2013). Governing sustainable cities. Taylor & Francis.

 Gasiorowski-Denis, E. (2016) How the Internet of Things will change our lives. International

Organization for Standardization (ISO). Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/news/2016/09/Ref2112.html

 Geng, Y. & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving 'leapfrog development'. International Journal of Sustainable

Development & World Ecology, 15(3), 231-239, DOI: 10.3843/SusDev.15.3:6

 Hanski, I. (2000, January). Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. In Annales Zoologici

Fennici, 37, 271-280

 Heshmati, A. (2015). A Review of the Circular Economy and its Implementation. IZA

Discussion Paper, 9611. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp9611.pdf

 Hodgson, K. Campbell, M. C. & Bailkey, M. (2011). Urban agriculture: Growing healthy, sustainable places. American Planning Association, 563

 Ifediora, C., Idoko, O., & Nzekwe, J. (2014). Organization’s stability and productivity: the role of SWOT analysis an acronym for strength, weakness, opportunities and threat. International

Journal of Innovative and Applied Research, 2(9), 23-32.

 Jansma, J. E., Veen, E. J., Dekking, A. J. G., & Visser, A. J. (2013). Urban Agriculture: How to Create a Natural Connection between the Urban and Rural Environment in Almere Oosterwold. Retrieved from http://www.corp.at/archive/CORP2013_134.pdf

 Kondepudi, S. N. (2014) Smart sustainable cities: An analysis of definitions. The ITU-T Focus

group for smart sustainable cities. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ssc/Documents/Approved_Deliverables/TR-Definitions.docx.

 Lambert, P. (2017) The impact of Digital Innovation on the planet. Digital Transformation,

Technology and innovation. Retrieved from http://digital-me-up.com/2017/05/05/the-impact-of-digital-innovation-on-the-planet/

 Lin, B. B., Philpott, S. M., & Jha, S. (2015). The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity-ecosystem services: challenges and next steps. Basic and applied ecology, 16(3), 289-201.

(26)

26

 Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., ... & Tilman, D. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. science, 294(5543), 804-808.

 Lovell, S. T. (2010). Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability, 2(8), 2499-2522.

 Mace, G. M., Norris, K., & Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in ecology & evolution, 27(1), 19-26.

 McDonald, R. I., Kareiva, P., & Forman, R. T. (2008). The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biological

conservation, 141(6), 1695-1703.

 Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points. Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland, England: The sustainability institute

 Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 77-78.

 Menken, S., & Keestra, M. (Eds.). (2016). An introduction to interdisciplinary research: theory

and practice. Amsterdam University Press.

 Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of

Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259247

 Molloy, J. C., Ployhart, R. E., & Wright, P. M. (2011). The myth of “the” micro-macro divide: Bridging system-level and disciplinary divides. Journal of Management, 37(2), 581-609.  Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity. Hampton Press

 Mougeot, L. J. (2000). Urban agriculture: Definition, presence, potentials and risks, and policy challenges. Cities Feeding People Series, 31

 Mulder, K. F. (2007) Innovation for sustainable development: from environmental design to transition management. Sustainability Science, 2(2), 253-263

 Muñoz Gielen, D. (2014). Uitnodigingsplanologie en organische gebiedsontwikkeling versus het kostenverhaal in de Omgevingswet. Tijdschrift voor Bouwrecht, 11, 1038-1047

 Peerdeman, M. V. & van Duin, C. F. (2013). Intergemeentelijke Structuurvisie Oosterwold.

Milieueffectrapportage

 Person, O., 2015: What is circular economy? − The discourse of circular economy in the Swedish public sector. Master thesis E in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University  Potting, J., Hekkert, M. Worrel, E. & Hanemaaijer, A. (2017). Circular economy: Measuring

innovation in the product chain. Netherlands, The Hague: Netherlands Environmental

Assessment Agency, 2544. Retrieved from

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-circular-economy-measuring- innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf

 Powlson, A. S., & Coll, A. P. (2010). The treatment of diabetic foot infections. Journal of

antimicrobial chemotherapy, 65(3), 3-9. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkq299.

 Rheiter, E. (2016). Uitnodigingsplanologie en de Omgevingswet. Een ambacht en een nieuwe cultuur. Retrieved from

http://theses.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/123456789/2041/BA%20Thesis_Uitnodigingsplano logie%20en%20de%20Omgevingswet_Eric%20Rheiter%2023%20juni%202016%20definitief.p df?sequence=1

(27)

27

 Rijksoverheid. (z.j.). Nieuwe omgevingswet maakt omgevingsrecht eenvoudiger. Requested from

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/omgevingswet/vernieuwing-omgevingsrecht

 Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., ... & Nykvist, B. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and

society, 14(2).

 Sharp, J., Imerman, E., & Peters, G. (2002). Community supported agriculture (CSA): Building community among farmers and non-farmers. Journal of extension, 40(3), 1-6.

 Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., & Folke, C. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). doi: 10.1126/science.1259855.

 Sukhdev, A., Vol, J., Brandt, K. & Yeoman, R. (2017). Cities in the circular economy: The role of digital technology. Retrieved from

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/environment.google/nl//pdf/cities-in-the-circular-economy-the-role-of-digital-technology.pdf

 Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D'Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., ... & Swackhamer, D. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science, 292(5515), 281-284.

 Tromp, C. (2004). Breedbeeld wetenschap. Chapter 6.1 and 6.4. Chapters provided via blackboard.

 Vanbergen, A. J. (2013). Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures on pollinators. Frontiers

in Ecology and the Environment, 11(5), 251-259.

 Van Veenhuizen, R. (Ed.). (2006). Cities farming for the future: Urban agriculture for green

and productive cities. IDRC.

 Viljoen, A. & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2012). Sustainable Food Planning: Evolving Theory and Practice. Wageningen University pub.

 Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. The American Review

of Public Administration, 37(1), 17-50.

 Xiaofen, Z. & Bin, C. (2010). Ecological Orientation of Technological Innovation of Circular Economy. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management (1), Wuhan, China: Wuhan University of Technology Press. 380-384

 Yarime, M., Trencher, G., Mino, T., Scholz, R. W., Olsson, L., Ness, B., ... & Rotmans, J. (2012). Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations. Sustainability

Science, 7(1), 101-113.

 Yin, Y., Liu, S. & Han, Zi. (2012). Research on the Principle Parts of Ecological Technology Innovation for Recycled Economy. Soft Computing in Information Communication

Technology, 161, 365-372

 Zhijun, F. & Nailing, Y. (2007). Putting a circular economy into practice in China. Sustainable

(28)

28

Bridging the gap towards sustainable agriculture in Almere Oosterwold