Negotiating the imaginary of urban agriculture in urban regeneration : the case of the 'test site Rotterdam'

(1)

1 | P a g e

NEGOTIATING THE IMAGINARY OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

IN URBAN REGENERATION

THE CASE OF THE ‘TEST SITE ROTTERDAM’

Supervisor Prof. Dr. M. Kaika Second reader Prof. Dr. J. de Vries Date Amsterdam, August 2019 Word count 18.792

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences

at the University of Amsterdam in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science in Urban and

Regional Planning

In the Department of Graduate School of Social Sciences

by

Loreto Rocco Silva 10657983

(2)

2 | P a g e Statement of Originality

This document is written by student Loreto Rocco Silva who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

(3)

3 | P a g e

NEGOTIATING

THE IMAGINARY

OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

IN URBAN REGENERATION

THE CASE OF THE

TEST SITE ROTTERDAM

Picture: Dakakker rooftop farm Rotterdam. Source: author

(4)

4 | P a g e

Does the local really serve as a site of empowerment in the new global age, or do contemporary discourse of globalization/localization in fact conceal a harsher reality of institutional deregulation, regulatory downgrading, and intensifying zero-sum interspatial competition?

(5)

5 | P a g e

Abstract

The provision and management of urban green spaces appear to be less often a top priority of municipal budgets. As a result of both complex localized challenges and the efforts to redefine state-society relations in urban development, cities are increasingly working towards more experimental co-production models for the management of green space. Locating possible unused sites for cooperative civil society initiatives promoting urban agriculture (UA) has been seen as an effective way to engage user-centered and user-driven development and address issues of collective interest (e.g., Classens, 2015). Whether or not these rights and responsibilities (under)taken by non-state actors have long-lasting effects for sustainable development is however, a subject of much debate in critical urban studies (Tornaghi 2014). The aim of this research has therefore been to try and address UA projects as particular types of neoliberal projects by taking as its starting point the current debate on the ‘green turn’ in sustainable urban regeneration. Drawing on a single-case study, with an in-depth analysis of the mobilization of UA initiatives for temporary use development of derelict buildings and sites facilitated by municipal financial incentives in the Rotterdam Central District area, the research asked the following question: How are Urban Agriculture (UA) projects mobilized as imaginaries for

place-making and place-keeping in the context of neoliberal urban restructuring and regeneration? The findings demonstrate

that through networked management arrangements based on negotiation between user-interest, UA is effective in redefining and politicizing collective forms of user engagementand addressing the multi-functionality of green spaces. These projects exist, however simultaneously as political imaginaries as their use-value has to be continuously re-negotiated against the district’s continued dominant institutional paths of economic-growth led policies. One of the inherent contradictions of neo-liberalization identified in UA as a form of co-management for green space in the present case study exemplifies the dichotomy between public and private interests that counteracts more cooperative ways of green space management. In this manner, preventing a more robust approach to participative, sustainability-open policy, and the valorization of green spaces. The core argument of this research that the management dynamics of UA stress the need to foster both better horizontal connections between departments of local authority and vertical relationships between these initiatives and city administrations, as well as models that allow municipalities to calculate the values of green spaces in a more integrated way hence considering sustainable urban development as a complex and conflict-oriented negotiation process.

Keywords: urban agriculture, long-term green space management, right to the city, entrepreneurial urban governance, sustainability fix, user-centered development

(6)

6 | P a g e

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 A new wave of ‘urban green’ ?

Under contemporary conditions of urbanization and pressing environmental issues, urban greening is increasingly being emphasized in development agendas worldwide (e.g. Caves & Wagner, 2018; Williams et al., 2017; Atkinson et al., 2014). However, green open spaces are under pressure within the planning paradigm of urban growth and densification in which adequate planning and management to ensure their long-term viability is not always self-evident (e.g. Davies & Lafortezza, 2017; Kabisch et al., 2016). Set against a backdrop of budgetary cuts and new modes of regulation, local authorities are increasingly in search of new, collaborative forms and practices to achieve high-quality open space and effective green (Buijs et al., 2019). In this context, collective food production activities known as Urban Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as UA) are attracting increasing interest in the Global North to solve a wide range of urban issues besides enhancing food quality and affordability (Burke, 2010): from improvising waste management (Girardet, 2005) to providing thriving public space and increase community cohesion (Classens, 2015).

On the surface, it seems like UA can serve as a form of multifunctional land use whilst simultaneously encouraging public participation in the management of urban open spaces. The trend so far, however, is that they emerge in derelict sites in a more or less unplanned and temporary manner encouraged by a context of a ‘watching stage’ in urban development (Andres, 2011); rather than being recognized as an integral part of urban planning and design (Checker, 2011; McClintock et al., 2018). Seen in this light, there is increasing concern that the dominant positive narrative on UA embodies an overwhelming instrumental approach to governance by perceiving UA as a valuable goal in itself –consequently overlooking its underlying nature, objectives and impact (Prové et al., 2016). It is possible to identify a seeming more critical camp of social scientist who increasingly doubts the transformative potential of these practices due to their contradictory entanglement with neo-liberalized forms of capital accumulation in the city (e.g. LaCroix, 2010; McClintock, 2013, 2015). Although some research has been carried out on UA as a socio-spatial phenomenon in the Global North, much uncertainty still exists in the literature about the particular dynamics linking UA – as a collective practice – to the celebratory and post-political sustainability discourse, however. From a more critical geography perspective – ‘’dedicated to supporting a right to the city’’, citing Marcuse (2009) – Tornaghi (2014) argues that there is need for a re-conceptualization of UA which is able to expose and explore the ‘’on-the-ground’’ political realities which means engaging with questions of participatory arrangements. Within this area of inquiry, there are some key questions to address such as: what role does UA play in the various attempts to regain control over the

means of social life and urban (green) space and in the arguments dismantling the welfare state; and what are the specific policy challenges raised by UA (Tornaghi, 2014: 562)? As argued by McClintock (2013), under contemporary

processes of urban densification spurred on by entrepreneurial policies, UA should be understood as neither radical nor neoliberal, but, rather, Janus-faced: ‘’Contradictory processes of capital both create opportunities for urban

(8)

8 | P a g e agriculture and impose obstacles to its expansion’’ (2013:148, emphasis added). Starting from this premise, the process of how and where UA arises and how its impact is to be assessed appears to deserve further consideration to better fathom the ongoing, and internally contradictory process of market-driven socio-spatial transformation.

Given the above controversy and knowledge gap, the aim of this study is to critically discusses the mobilization of UA as a strategy for the long-term management of urban green spaces through an in-depth examination of one redevelopment project in the Dutch inner-city of Rotterdam. More specifically, the focus will be on the temporary bottom-up development of three former post-war derelict urban spaces in 2012 which have been re-purposed for green space and UA: a rooftop-farm on top of a modernist office building from the reconstruction period, a park in a former storage place and a roof park in a former railway viaduct, both providing space for an urban garden and fruit orchards. This green landscape, however, still forms part of a temporary test site in which bottom-up initiatives steered urban development – as a result of highly complex development process encompassing various plans for large-scale development which were put on hold due to the global economic crisis (Engberink & Miedema, 2001). Starting from the work of Cretella & Buenger (2016) who argue in their analysis on the discourse developed around food and UA by policymakers in the city of Rotterdam that a marketing strategy around food and sustainability is strategically mobilized as part of a creative city politics to foster competition and city-branding, this study asks the following: How are Urban Agriculture (UA) projects mobilized as imaginaries for place-making and place-keeping in the context of neoliberal urban regeneration and urban restructuring, in the case of the Test Site Rotterdam?

1.2 Thesis outline

The structure of this thesis is as follows. With the aim to critically scrutinize the role that UA projects play in contemporary greening attempts in urban (re)developing areas and to expose the socio-political dynamics which are embedded into them, Chapter 2 first engages with debates on the changing role of governance in the contemporary search for a sustainable urban form and the examination of UA as a contested practice within this broader debate by theoretically grounding it as ‘new urban imaginaries of nature‘ in contemporary urban regeneration and redevelopment. Thereupon, a conceptual framework is provided which brings the theoretical dimensions together for the purpose of analysis. In line with the theoretical discussion, Chapter 3 will then go on to a brief introduction into the case study to situate the problem statement in chapter 4 both theoretically and empirically. Having set out the theoretical foundation and aims of this research, Chapter 5 is concerned with the methodological considerations and limitations of this study. The subsequent Chapter 6 analyses the results and includes a discussion of the findings. Finally, the conclusion in

Chapter 7 gives a short synthesis of the results, (policy) recommendations and includes the implications of the findings

(9)

9 | P a g e

Chapter 2 - Debates, Theoretical & Conceptual Background

2.1 Theoretical Preliminaries: The Neo-liberalization of Urban (Green) Spaces

A large and growing body of literature has investigated the often, what we can now refer to as, unimposing and entirely hegemonic logic of neo-liberalization shaping the urban environment of Western and non-Western states alike (e.g., Heynen et al., 2007; Baeten, 2012; Taşan-Kok, 2012). Understood as an internally contradictory and path-dependent process rather than an end-state ideology (‘neoliberalism’), Harvey (2005: 159) describes the neoliberal political-economic hegemony as a ‘’spatiotemporally variable process which rejects government interventions in the market

with the primary goal of expanding conditions of capital accumulation’’. In one of the first attempts to conceptually

outline the developmental tendencies, institutional dynamics, and diverse socio-spatial effects, Brenner and Theodore (2002) refer to the ‘neo-liberalization of urban space’ – or ‘neoliberal localization’ – as a destructive creation. Spurred by the believe that societies could only be recovered from the crisis through the subsequent retrenchment – i.e. ‘rolling-back’ – from traditional socio-environmental duties and the ‘rolling-out’ of municipal services by prioritizing efficiency, commodification, and the rule of capital (Peck & Tickell, 2002; Hubbard & Hall, 1998), substantial savings in public spending and privatization would then be the best solution to clean up the financial situation and ensure economic growth (Peck & Tickell, 2002; Peck, Theodore, & Brenner, 2009; Jessop, 2002). The ‘’productivist rationality’’ of the entrepreneurial market economy planning approach (Lefebvre, 1996:132) implies that ‘’the viability of all strategies of capital accumulation, modes of state regulation and forms of socio-political mobilization has come to depend crucially upon the ability to produce, appropriate, organize, restructure and control social space’’ (Brenner, 1997:1, emphasis added). Hence, implicitly writing-down the more non-planned, ‘spontaneous’ spaces in which lived experience plays a central role. This alternation in the ways spaces are mobilized in urban regeneration goes together with a ‘shadow state apparatus’ in which the social actors in the arena of governing from both the economy and civil society have widely increased (e.g. Lovering, 2007; Moulaert et al., 2005).

Against this background, and in conjunction with the aims of this study, one expression of these new modes of regulation implies the changes in the production of urban green space development – referring to diverse forms of managed1_{green open spaces as collective environmental resources (Roy, 2008). This implies the spaces traditionally} associated with the public realm such as public green open spaces, parks and newer forms of urban greenery such as

1_{The terms managed is deliberately used here to distinguish from unmanaged, more natural forms of green space, such as nature reserves and}

corridors along river banks (e.g. Comber, Brunsdon & Green, 2008) with the aim to highlight the high-level of direct use-values of formal and culturally shaped forms of green spaces such as parks.

(10)

10 | P a g e green roofs (Haaland & van den Bosch, 2015). A variety of definitions of the term neo-liberalization of the urban environment have been suggested, for the purpose of discussing UA as a growing and contested place-making and place-keeping practice in current times of rolled-out neoliberalism (Peck and Tickell, 2002), Roy ‘s (2011: 88) definition of the neo-liberalization of the urban environment which describes it as a process of ‘’state retrenchment from and privatization (in the hand of for-profit businesses) and commodification and marketization of green open spaces’’. The underlying question is what consequences will this elemental shift in the neoliberal political economies have for the production of urban green spaces in urban regeneration and what role UA as a socio-spatial practice mobilized within the neoliberal project itself plays therein? To this end, reorientation tendencies of urban policies associated with the neo-liberalization of the urban environment and green space production which mark the broader theoretical context of this study will be outlined. The reader should bear in mind that a full discussion of the privatization of public (green) spaces or starting out with a clear definition of ideal forms of public and green spaces, and participation in decision making processes lies beyond the scope and aim of this study. However, by analyzing UA as a possible strategy to provide and maintain green space in a bottom-up manner, this study examines – based on empirical research – how these issues are possibly being expressed ‘’on the ground’’ in contemporary urban regeneration.

2.2 The ‘Green Turn’ in the Entrepreneurial City: Towards a Hegemonic Consensus-building approach? Widely discussed in the literature on the relationship between urban neo-liberalization and urban policies is the acknowledgement that globalizing forces and competitive pressures have propelled state authorities to increasingly adopt entrepreneurial approaches to urban restructuring (e.g. Margalit & Alfasi, 2016). In recent years, urban scholars have been contributing to a renewed engagement with the symbolic and material practices as part of justified governmental branding strategies to stimulate capital investment for social, spatial, and financial side benefits for the public (Holt, 2006; Wherry, 2011; Margalit & Alfasi, 2016). ‘Glocalization’, as a spatial development strategy performed by the state, is has been linked to innovative strategies aimed to enhance locally specific economic assets to enhance inter-urban competition (Jessop, 2008). As argued by critical geographical scholars in this regard, local policy in the context of the entrepreneurial city is characterized by two ambivalent tendencies: on the one hand, pressing local environmental, social and economic concerns demand locally specific policy ‘solutions’; on the other hand, there is a growing reliance on prescribed ‘’policies that work’’ (Peck, 2011) characterized by a rational global scan for forms of best practice that can be molded to local conditions and expectations in order to revalorize urban space to safeguard capital growth (e.g. McCann & Ward, 2011; Peck & Theodore, 2010; Peck & Tickell, 2002).

Applied to the context of urban regeneration, this mode of ‘globalism’ (Lovering, 2007) has driven a shared vision on the re-making of urban spaces as ‘’more attractive, socially inclusive, aesthetically harmonious and environmentally sustainable’’ (Lovering, 2007: 344). This ‘green turn’ (Tornaghi, 2014: 560) has led to the increasing recognition that enhancing abundant green, public open spaces in cities hold a competitive advantage in a global

(11)

11 | P a g e economy – promoting job growth, and attracting creative residents as well as national and international visitors. Within this rationale, urban policies towards the provision of public ownership in public infrastructure such as public parks and other green open spaces – traditionally falling under the state’s legitimacy – have been worn away through marketization (Wu, 2003). Considered in light of these competitive requirement of a clean-green city image, Brand (2017) argues that the performance of city administrations to engage with urban environmental problems operates on the level of strategic economic interests to the demands of the neo-liberalized city. Closely entwined with Harvey’s (1985) notion of ‘rationale landscapes’ in which places under capitalism function as centers of accumulation, is the recapitalization of urban green space in which urban entrepreneurialism has modified its function and vision.

There have been a number of studies involving the discusion on the contemporary commodifying drive and the optimization of land for economic benefit due to the increasing competition between cities in a global economy (e.g. Jessop, 2019; Eizenberg et al., 2016; Musterd & Kovács, 2013; Cronin, 2008). In line with the increased focus on sustainable development in the current era of urban restructuring, the incorporation of sustainability preoccupations constitutes the dominant narrative in the process of place branding (Brand, 2007; Finn & McCormick, 2011; Tenemos & McCann; 2012). Following Kavaratzis (2004), the aim of ‘place branding’ is twofold: on the one hand, it is understood as ‘the means to achieving competitive advantage in order to increase inward investment and tourism’; on the other hand, it is also understood for achieving community development, reinforcing local identity and identification of the 2_{citizens with the place (Kavaratizis, 2004: 70). This ‘performative’ dimensions of policy (Lovering, 2007) emphasizes} the visual since ‘’‘positive visual evidence’ is necessary in order to regain public confidence in a city so as to attract potential investment and development’’ (Trueman, et al., 2014). In this regard, studies can be found which articulate the practice of branding from a positive perspective on overcoming negative perceptions of a place. At the same time, a significant number of studies have emerged that adopt a more critical stand by problematizing its social and urban effects such as homogenizing views of cities (Harvey, 2005) – new signings as an instrument by urban elites to legitimize their own strategic decision making in the wider context of the hegemonic project of neoliberal urban governance (Colomb, 2011).

Set against this backdrop, urban scholars have started to look more critically at how discourses, practices and policies of the sustainable compact city concept – that is, advocacy of high-density, mixed-use urban form with the aim to reduce urban sprawl (e.g. Leffers & Ballamingle, 2013 – draw on ‘’the selective incorporation of ecological goals in the greening of urban governance […] at the expense of broader social and ecological goals’’ (While et al., 2004: 551) – seeking to ‘’both position cities favorably in competitive place-marketing and to address the material political

(12)

12 | P a g e economic circumstances structuring urban development’’ (Walker, 2015: 165). Faced with severe constraints on their resources substantiated by an entrepreneurial ethos, governments have a strong advocacy for a compact city development agenda in which the provision of urban green is considered key for the realization of sustainable urban development, where governments often realize a ‘sustainability fix’ in which discourses, practices and policies on sustainability are selectively mobilized in such a manner as to render the concept non-threatening to urban redevelopment, inward investment, and growth promotion (While, Jonaes and Gibss, 2004).A central line of discussion with regard to this phase of roll-out neoliberalism (Peck & Tickle, 2002) concerns the emergence of new forms of governance that place a focus on policies rather than politics – resulting in a consensus frame on sustainability and the production of urban space (e.g. Kenis et al., 2016). As such, bringing about a profound tendency towards a post-political condition in which the hegemony of neoliberalism and capital production is being secured without contestation (e.g. Bettini, 2013; Swyngedouw, 2007). Within the urban regeneration literature, this had led to critiques on uncritical examinations of discourses such as ‘collaboration’. As Elwood (2002: 123) argues in this regard: ‘’The emergence of a discourse of collaboration […] has the potential to depoliticize urban governance practices and effectively discipline community organizations into forms of participation that are more manageable for the state’’.

The compact-city concept within an entrepreneurial governance framework can thus be regarded as a depoliticizing concept where a focus on consensus reinforces existing power relations trying to preserve the status quo of growth-oriented (Swyngedouw & Kaika, 2014), best-practice driven (Evans et al., 2016) and socio-spatially selective (Béal, 2015; Kenis & Lievens, 2017) urban strategies with the aim to enhance competitiveness and improve the image of the place rather than perceiving environmental or social improvements as a valuable goal in itself (O’Neill & Gibbs, 2013). Since urban green space production within an entrepreneurial governance framework is not immediately considered profitable, it has been argued that it is undermined in intensification policies or discursively mobilized within a market-based model directly or indirectly profiting from the performance of the development in which the (public) green space is part (Cain, 2014; Davison, 2013). In other words, trivializing the direct use value of the urban fabric by maximizing quantifiable and commodifiable exchange values – thus, adopting a simplistic approach to the valorization of urban environments and the complex socio-political landscape hidden behind environmental and social issues (Nogaard, 2010). Lang & Rothenberg (2017) suggest a more tentative look at hidden sustainability fixes to highly celebrated public park developments projects and management models such as the High Line Park, a re-purposed elevated freight rail line in New York which was under the threat of demolition. Although much positive attention has been given to the project in terms of bottom-up participation and alternative management and design – both in the public discourse as well as in in the urban planning literature – Lang & Rothenberg’s (2017) research found that the catalyzation of economic growth played a key role in the development more concerned with boosting real estate values and tourism instead of being truly beneficial for the local community and the environment, resulting in ‘’ a development

(13)

13 | P a g e authorities apply place-marketing often as a top-down strategy in conjunction with a small selection of stakeholders – thereby excluding the needs and wishes of citizens in the decision-making process forcing them to market-based participation (Kavaratzis, 2008). Efforts to make cities ‘’just green enough’’ (Wolch et al., 2014) through commodified and homogenized spaces by safeguarding the ideology of growth as a public benefit for all rather than endeavoring a more meaningful and question-oriented dialogue over what sustainable development entails (While et al., 2004), challenge its transformative potential.

2.3 Governance-beyond-the-state and the Rise of Civil Society: (re)-politicizing user-centered development? A key contemporary debate in planning theory has to do with the question whether the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in the contemporary form of neo-liberalization provide an opening for more progressive appropriations of urban space, or whether neoliberal agendas will further lock themselves into the institutional structures of urban policy (e.g. Brenner & Theodore, 2002). With the aim to understand the variety of ways in which the ideology of neoliberalism is mobilized by capital in ‘sustainable’ urban regeneration, a number of critical scholars have moved beyond dominant reductionist approaches of economic determinism3_{by acknowledging the local political} struggles – micro-politics – through which these structuring forces and power-dynamics are being restored. ‘Actually-existing-sustainabilities’ (Krueger & Agyeman, 2005) in urban regeneration implies that ‘’there is a need to understand sustainability as a grounded phenomenon, situated in places and performed by actors and institutions, rather than as a formalized ideal’’ (Evans & Jones, 2008 : 1421). Important to reiterate in this line of discussion is the difference between deliberate government efforts to enliven the economic and cultural character of cities or places through marketing influences – ‘placemaking’ – and the more bottom-up, organic and incremental people-centered approach (Martin, 2003) – ‘place-making’ – with a greater emphasis on urban politics and participation of civil society4_{and deeply} embedded in the logic and practice of social struggle (Moualert et al., 2007).

This duality is itself situated within a wider conflict in the literature, in which the underlying question is a political economy one with a focus on social change, empowerment and the idea of ‘right to the city’ – that is, the right to participation and appropriation of urban space and to the oeuvre: ‘’the right to freedom, to individualization in

3_{See Lovering (2007) for further elaboration on the two dominant theories, namely, Normative Neoliberalism and Regulation theory, that underpin}

current policy thinking on urban regeneration.

4_{Whilst recognizing that ‘civil society’ is by no means a homogenous or unproblematic term, as a working definition used here, it is seen as the}

actors outside the state and/or the market but who work within it, in order to support, reinforce and/or challenge it , ‘’assembled for collective good or defense of interest’’ (Heynen et al., 2007), such as community-based non-profits producing and managing urban green spaces (Roy, 2010).

(14)

14 | P a g e socialization, to habitat and to inhabit’’ (Lefebvre, 1996: 174). Commenting on the participation and appropriation aspect, Harvey (2008:23) argues: ‘’ The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common right rather than an individual right since the transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of urbanization. The freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is … one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights’’. What becomes clear is that it is not merely the right to the existing city – but rather the right to the direction of actions in the future vision of the city (Marcuse, 2009). Turning our attention to the production of urban green space, we can argue that having a say in how to shape urban green space is an expression of having the right to appropriate and change how these spaces develop (Harvey, 2008; Purcell & Tyman, 2015).

The idea of the right to the city, originally formulated by Henri Lefebvre in 1968, has attracted much attention in recent years. It is argued that neo-liberalization has ‘’greatly diminished the scope and effectiveness of participatory democracy’’ (Harvey, 2009: 86). Brenner et al. (2012) argue that some narratives frame the right to the city not necessarily as city-bounded, but as part of a broad movement to create ‘’cities for people, not for profit’’ (Brenner et al., 2012). Thus, on the one hand, the increasing focus on the participation of civil society and local communities is argued to provide new, alternative opportunities to market-led and competition-oriented neoliberal politics (Moulaert et al., 2007) for its associated with human endeavor which starts from the networked processes of place and the representation of the user’s perceived space (Schemelzkopf, 2002, drawing on Lefebvre, 1991). Purcell (2003: 578) adds that ‘’the right to appropriate is the right to define and produce urban space primarily to

maximize its use value over and above its exchange value’’. As Mitchell (1995: 115) observed ‘’ by claiming space in

public, by creating public spaces, social groups themselves become public […] but a city that prioritizes exchange values more than likely considers it advantageous to keep certain groups invisible, ‘’nonpublic’’.

On a more critical note, it is argued that the outsourcing to non-profits to fill in the gap created by state retrenchment tends to promote community as a compensatory for lacks within this market mechanism (Jessop, 2002). As such, the temporary transfer of responsibility in the context of neoliberal restructuring of urban governance can lead to complex and contradictory outcomes that may both serve the neoliberal agenda whilst at the same time foster an emancipatory one (Elwood, 2004). Turning our attention to the bottom-up making of urban green spaces which is mostly practiced by the non-profit sector and volunteering citizens, this creates some ambiguities. On the one hand, it seems plausible that user (civic) engagement is needed to tackle diversified and complex demands such as urban greenery. On the other hand, however, questions still exist as to what extent the rising important of civic initiatives and the delegation of power and ability to shape the urban environment means in the long-term. In short, is their life-span limited to the neoliberal crisis and various deadlocks in moments of weak-planning – where the boundaries between

(15)

15 | P a g e legal and illegal, and formal and informal activities are unclear (Andres, 2012) – or does it address greater institutional configurations?

Previous studies (e.g. Attoh, 2011) have reported that the right to a green city remains a fuzzy concept and it is not clear how it might address current problems of uneven or unjust urban development. Following Dempsey & Burton (2012) who argue that more attention needs to be drawn to the long-term management – i.e. ‘place-keeping’ – of such spaces to address the spatial-temporal dynamics embedded into them, the continuous management process needs to be seen as an integral part of place-making, in which ‘’the ongoing process of place-keeping maintains and

enhances the product of place-making as a valued, sustainable and high-quality place within a particular local context’’ (Dempsey & Burton, 2012: 14). In doing so, place-keeping encompasses a user-centered management model –

consisting of both physical and non-physical dimensions – fundamentally differing from the market-centered management model as it start from the civic spirit, not structured according to market principles of profitability and competitive management but rather have a direct interest in the quality of the lived spaces5_{and related commodities} predominantly for their use value and is focused on how the user space performs and meets user’s needs – thereby, more responsive to the local context (Magalhães & Carmona, 2019). This means that the way in which governance is carried out is more closely tied to horizontal linkages – both formal and informal – with the public and private sector instead of hierarchical (the state) or market (private sector) modes of governance. Starting from a user-centered model to the long-term management of urban (open) green space, the interrelated dimensions – coordination, regulation,

maintenance and resources – display the complexity of actors involved in the place-keeping process. The starting

point for how a position is acquired and sustained in the development process is based upon building community capacity in order to act collectively. Such cooperation could start with building local skills to enhance stakeholder involvement and inclusive partnership (ibid). Fundamental to all of this is the need for underlying collective motivation which may arise from specific issues or locality of interest (Hafer & Ran, 2016). Acknowledging the highly fragmented and complex socio-political context in which place-keeping takes place in urban regeneration, Dempsey & Burton (2011) highlight the importance of a monitoring process in place which is crucial in constituting political will and institutional change. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the differences in the key dimensions between market-centered management model and a user-market-centered management model of long-term open (public) space management (Magalhães & Carmona, 2009).

(16)

16 | P a g e

Interrelated dimensions of

long-term management Market-centered model

Delegation, value for money and profitability, contract relationship, overlap provision-use, separation client-contractor, overlap public and private.

User-centered model

Delegation, civic spirit, co-production of services, overlap provision-use, overlap public-community, overlap client-contractor

Coordination

of interventions

- Contract specification - Partnership design

- Compact* agreement and partnership design

- Contract specification - Stakeholder engagement

Regulation

of uses and conflicts between uses)

- Contract enforcement

- Partnership performance management

- Contract enforcement - Partnership design - Institutional support - Capacity building

Maintenance

routines - Overlap delivery-use - Separation client-contractor - Outcome specification

- Contract drafting - Standards setting - Institutional support - Local x general standards New investments into and

ongoing resourcing in (public) green space

- Alternative sources

- Value for money and competition - Stakeholder identification and involvement - Vested interests

- Alternative sources

- Stakeholder identification and involvement

- Commitment - Local knowledge - Capacity building

Table 1. The differences in the key dimensions between a market-centered management model and a user-centered management

model of long-term open (public) space management. Adapted from de Magalhães & Carmona (2009).

Note: *Compacts are agreements between local authorities and local service users setting out agreed objectives for those services, how users can get involved in service decision and how progress is to be monitored (de Magalhães & Carmona, 2009).

(17)

17 | P a g e 2.4 Promoting UA as place-making and place-keeping: creating performative ‘urban imaginaries of nature’ Understanding the mobilization of UA in new urban regeneration projects as a particular strategy for place-making and place-keeping under a neoliberal governance regime offers a conceptual basis for analyzing how new6_{imaginaries of} urban natures become central in legitimizing neoliberal urban projects as idealized forms of sustainable urban development (Keil & Boudrea, 2006). Thus far, a considerable amount of literature has been published on UA as a place-based practice – increasingly recognized as a multifunctional practice with its combination of social and environmental aspects (e.g. Duchemin et al., 2008). A recurring feature, however, encompasses temporary appearances as bottom-up designed practice, emerging in derelict sites and challenging current forms of urban land use (Tornaghi, 2014). Following Tappert et al. (2018), these spaces can be referred to as ‘‘contested spaces’7_{in the} contemporary compact city approach as UA as a form of urban green space, compete with other land uses such as housing or commerce. It is argued that UA provide an undeniable value for urban (re) development in the compact sustainable city due to their substantial exchange value as a form of cultural capital, despite the fact that there is nothing intrinsically cultural about these manifestations. In short, it can be stated that (a specific symbolic and material construct of) nature is mobilized as a cultural artifact, ‘’ready to be reinserted into the urban by way of symbolic action’’ (Keil & Graham (1998:195, cited in Huber & Currie, 2012). To support this claim, recent empirical studies carried out by Walker (2016) have shown that local states pursue a sustainability fix by accounting for UA practices in terms of economic development and competitiveness as the primary goal of sustainability – thus trivializing the social and ecological importance. Tappert et al. (2018) show how the incompatibility of UA with the requirements of urban sustainability policies is associated with a dualistic understanding within the political debate of these spaces between public and private; UA spaces found to be considered to have a more private impact on an individual or group level rather than contributing to the common wealth.

From the theoretical perspective developed in the previous paragraph, UA projects can be perceived both as spaces of spatial (re)appropriation with the potential to cultivate new forms about cooperative management relations and collaboration (Nikolaidou et al., 2016) and as a form of a neoliberal ‘greenwashing’ development strategy. In line with MacClintock’s (2014) neoliberal/radical Janus-face argument, civil society participation in greening projects represents, on the one hand, new forms of spatial politics in which UA can be perceived as a radical project of decommodification by means of having a direct interest in the quality of the green spaces primary for their use value

6_{The term ‘new’, as a opposed to former expressions of UA, refers to the changed political economic context in which UA can be}

perceived as a new form of urban (green space) management.

7_{See Bell et al. (2016) for an elaborated overview of the development history and changing function and place of urban agriculture}

(18)

18 | P a g e (as a community or productive space) – thus not to maximize economic returns or investment in or surrounding the space. On the other, more critical, hand, however, they may reflect the devolution of responsibilities for maintaining (public) space to civil society and nonprofits who often lack the resources and as a strategy of entrepreneurial governance. As such, it constitutes a contested practice that is continually negotiated and (re)defined by different actors and interests (Hirschberg et al., 2012). Taking this ambiguity as a starting point, the question remains as how to address these practices not as a given, but as spaces that emerge and transform out of negotiation – with the potential to enact alternative futures and new ways for civil society to claim their ‘’right to the city?

The concept of the imaginary offers one such a lens. A significant body of work exists on the concept of urban imaginaries for understanding stability, resistance and change in urban environments. Urban imaginaries are widely understood in the geography community as representational discourses about places and spaces (Watkins, 2015). Current urban scholars approach them as performative discourses to highlight their re-enforcing, co-constitutive nature between material action and discourse (Bialasiewics et al., 2007; Watkins, 2015). Following Watkins (2015) conceptualization of urban imaginaries as performative discourses, they (1) project and naturalize ideas through language and practice (2) are enacted in material practice, and (3) are modified through this enactment. A performative approach to urban imaginaries thus gives insight into the negotiation and value-making process of place-making and place-keeping practices. The imaginary enables and legitimize material practices through representation, however, it is the practice itself that largely carries the understanding (Taylor, 2004). The imaginary, then, becomes performative through a process of context-dependent re-localization in which the produced material effects could modify the initial urban imaginary by actors and actions (Davoudi, 2018).

Kagan (2018) identifies two tendencies inherent to the communication and negotiation process of urban imaginaries. The process of governance – that is, the social and political participation and cooperation between different stakeholders – can propel or restrain the possibility for radical urban development trough the mobilization of dialectic and dialogical tendencies. Dialectical tendencies relate to a negotiation process between different (hegemonic and radical) imaginaries that are agreed upon through compromises, argumentative resolution or synthesis – thus, aimed and consensus-building and problem/solution-oriented. Dialogical tendencies, on the contrary, aim towards an understanding of sustainable urban development as a complex and conflict-oriented negotiation process. Thus, the negotiation process of urban development is characterized by a co-existence of different views which remain unsolved and therefore result in question-oriented learning. Within this theoretical frame, space is not rendered only as a materialization of discursive practices, but space itself become constitutive for the (re)production of discursive practices that produce specific spatial orders. Understanding UA projects as performative imaginaries allows for the understanding of their materialization and continuation as a result of the socially negotiated bundling process that is strategically mobilized and tactically deployed.

(19)

19 | P a g e 2.5 Conceptual theoretical framework

Drawing on UA’s potential as a user-centered practice for long-term green space management while simultaneously recognizing the entanglement of these spaces in path-dependent and contextual processes of capitalist development within the dominant paradigm of sustainability, Figure 1 summaries the conceptual framework used to discusses how the user-value is maintained through the place-making and place-keeping process.

UA as place-making practice

Regulation

Actions, uses & conflicts between

uses

Resources

Finance, redevelopment, skills & expertise

Maintenance Routines, practices Place-keeping Dialectic tendencies Dialogical tendencies Coordination

Interventions, actions, aspirations

Imaginaries of emergence Focus on disagreements and conflict, power-relations

Imaginaries of change by planning

Focus on compromises and consensus-building

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the negotiation tendencies of UA as a place-making practice in performative

governance in which place-keeping is considered at the beginning. Adapted from de Magalhães & Carmona (2009); with additions from Dempsey & Burton (2012) & Kagan (2018).

(20)

20 | P a g e

Chapter 3 - Spaces of Hope: Test Site Rotterdam

The case study in this research encompasses the centrally located urban district Rotterdam Central (also known as

Stationskwartier) – traditionally known as the business area developed from the post-war period. In particular, the focus

lies on the development of the so-called ’Test Site Rotterdam’ and bottom-up urban green space management through UA projects. Before elaborating on the specific urban greening initiatives, it is crucial to consider the socio-spatial and political-economic context in which these developments were proposed.

Figure 2. Rotterdam Central District. Demarcation case study area.

(21)

21 | P a g e 3.1 Between prosperity and urban decay

At the beginning of the 21st_{century, the RCD area was the typical run-down, post-war derelict development area} awaiting ambitious large-scale project development and full demolition of old infrastructure. At that time, it was known as a ‘’zero-tolerance’’8_{area due to great vacancy as a consequence of a lack of further investments awaiting further} large-scale plans. Before the credit crisis and real estate crisis struck the area in 2008, plans for redevelopment of this district were already adopted that fit in with a strategy in which entrepreneurial governance initiatives shaped greater development activities led by the private sector. With the RCD as an important international asset for the city of Rotterdam, the strengthening of the national and international position of the area to live, work and recreate became an explicit objective (Area vison plan, Weena I Glocal City Distict, 2007). In anticipation of this, the Rotterdam developer LSI was collecting a large part of the real estate and land of the Schiekadeblok, including the Schieblock office building. Stimulated by property-led regeneration, the area vision came about in the economic heyday of 2007 and the station quarter – which comprises nearly 600,000 m2_{of the development space – had become a ‘’Glocal City District’’,} described as: ‘’a unique area in the Netherlands where the Randstad and Europe meet and where Rotterdam

showcases itself […] by creating a ‘’Mixone’’ (Mixed Zone): a lively metropolitan area through the mix of functions compromising of public, semi-public, and, to a lesser extent, private areas, which form a stimulating network to showcase local entrepreneurial culture’’ (ibid: 6). At that time particularly focused on being a business-district, the glocal

ambitions were mainly reflected in the wish of companies and institutions to act in ‘global’ open networks whilst being based locally. Through this approach, a guiding idea had been formulated for the programmatic and spatial elaboration of the area after which the municipality adapted a facilitative role (Image quality plan, 2009: 11).

However, the crisis altered the context of urban planning with feasible consequences for the city’s branding strategy to become a ‘Glocal’ district: the delayed construction plans in the RCD resulted in unused urban space and vacant office buildings. As a pro-active response to guide the development through the crisis and set conditions that control what is built, the municipality decided, in 2009, to buy off the land of one of the strongest potential redevelopment locations, namely the Schiekadeblok (with a plan volume of 240,000 m2 _{including offices, homes and shops) from real} estate developer LSI and award financial ownership to the same developer through a leasehold construction9_{. For an}

8_{The so-called zero-tolerance policy is a strict anti-crime, in particular, government policy, in which hard action is taken against even the smallest}

expression of crime and nuisance. This policy made it possible to have more supervision on the street and in public spaces (e.g. Baillergeau & Hebberecht, 2012).

9_{Municipal land allocation agreement between the municipality and land developer that gives the developer the sole rights through}

long-term lease agreement is a measure taken by the municipality to guide the city and its inhabitants through the economic crisis. The municipality makes €200 million is made available for this (Peek, 2014).

(22)

22 | P a g e amount of 52 million euro’s, the municipality became the legal owner of the property rights and LSI agreed to continue to develop the Schiekadeblok and contribute once-only €2 million to the design of the outdoor space10_{(Peek, 2014).} Contrary to the expectation to start construction in 2012, however, the construction of expensive high-rise buildings was not forthcoming and the development of the vacant space appeared to be completely unrealistic after the outbreak of the crisis. As a consequence, the supply of office space in the center of Rotterdam, including many vacant properties, more than doubled between 2008 and 2013 (Bak, 2013). Without buyers for the planned offices, the implementation of the plans for RCD, including the outdoor space, stopped before they even started.

3.2 ‘Window of opportunity’ for bottom-up urban development

In between the response of local authorities to steer urban development through negotiated networks with private developers and the guiding area vision plan, alternative forms of development through temporary fill-in strategies started to take place. The two founders of ZUS (Zones Urbaines Sensibles) – an, at that time, newly started design agency who already moved into the vacant office building as ‘anti-kraak’ residents (property guardians) in 2001 – decided not to wait for traditional forms of urban development but to ‘’make city’’ in an organic, alternative way and to redevelop the open space by (re)utilizing the existing buildings and infrastructure (van Raak et al., 2014). In 2008, co-curator Crimson Architetural Historians invited ZUS to conduct a design research into their own working environment for the exhibition and publication ‘Makeability’ (in Dutch ‘Maakbaarheid’) as part of the 4th_{IABR ‘Open City’. The} initiators were then asked as co-curator for the 5th_{IABR ‘Making City’’ and the Schiekadeblok – characterized at that} time by vacancy and deteriorating for which there seemed to be no budget for further area development – was pronounced as ‘Test Site. The name implies experimenting with strategies to develop the area with ‘’alternative forms

of financing, planning processes and design tools’’.

Under the title I/We/ You Make Rotterdam, ZUS initiated a number of projects to develop the city together with citizens and local companies. The first project that rises from this intervention is the Luchtsingel, a wooden temporary pedestrian 350 meters long footbridge between Central Station, Pompenburg and Hofbogen. Other projects within the Test Site are the Dakakker, a rooftop-farm on top of a modernist office building Schieblock from the reconstruction period (1) Park Pompenburg providing space for urban agriculture in a former storage place (2) and a roof park with an urban garden and fruit orchards at a former railway viaduct the Hofbogen (3). In March 2012, De Luchtsingel won

10_{In 2016 a Court of Auditors rapport has shown a loss of €20 million for the municipality of Rotterdam due to the inability of LSI}

(23)

23 | P a g e the first City Initiative, an annual election to finance one major citizen’s initiative in Rotterdam11_{, and was awarded with} 4 million euros for its realization. Although the Test Site area is focused on different various small-scale local interventions, these three initiatives (rooftop farm DakAkker, Park Pompenburg and roof park Luchtpark Hofbogen) are taken as primary research objects for the purpose of this study because of their embedding in the strategic place-making efforts for a three-dimensional green cityscape. Figure 3 shows the initial idea sent for the contest and a contemporary aerial picture of the site. Figure 4 provides a timeline of the key events identified in the regeneration process.

Figure 3. Left: aerial picture Test Site Rotterdam (2019). Source: IABR.nl

Right: mental map public structure Test Site Rotterdam. Source: publicspace.org (1) DakAkker (2) Park Pompenburg (3) Luchtpark Hofbogen

11_{This is a direct translation of the Dutch term ‘Het Stadsinitiatief’, defined as an administrative instrument for public participation}

in which inhabitants of Rotterdam were called to present projects for the revitalization of the city and for which public financial resources was made available (see [Netherlands] Brief van Wethouder Arbeidsmarkt, Hoger Onderwijs, Innovatie en Participatie, from 13 march 2013, MVSP/2013/1146350, www.rotterdam.raadsinromatie.nl)

(1) (1) (2) (2) 2) (3) (3)

(24)

24 | P a g e

Masterplan Stationskwartier Alsop presented

Disapproval of Master Plan by the State Opening of the Schieblock as a ‘city laboratory’ by ZUS: starting to experiment with temporary uses on the roof and surrounding area.

ZUS as ‘anti-kraak’ (property guardians)

in the Schieblock building Publication of Weena I Glocal City

District

Start crowdfunding for Luchtsingel bridge by ZUS

ZUS wins City Initiative

Construction of Dakakker on the Schieblock building as part of the 5th_{IABR: Making City}

Construction of Pompenburg Park and vegetable g arden ‘Vredestuin’

Design and construction ‘Luchtpark’ on the Hogbogen railway viaduct.

Housing corporation Vestia and Havensteder decides to sell the railway viaduct Hofbogen because it no longer fits within the portfolio strategy

Revised vision plan for RCD presented: Opening ‘Luchtpark Hofbogen’

RCD Next Step with same guiding terms Glocal and Mixone

New plans presented for Pompenburg area

Hofbogen sold to New plans presented for the Schiekadeblok (including the Schieblock building)

Figure 4. Timeline of key events in the regeneration of the RCD area.

Source: author, data derived from Peek et al. (2014); Koreman (2019).

(3) 2012 2015 2007 2018 2011 2001 2016 2014 2019

(25)

25 | P a g e

Chapter 4 - Problem Statement

4.1 Research Aims

The aim of this study is to understand and contest (UA) projects as a particular type of neoliberal projects through their mobilization as part of place-making and place-keeping strategies – here understood as the responsive long-term urban green space management – for restructuring process. By examining UA as an ‘urban imaginary of nature’ that can propel or facilitate the production or reconstitution of urban green space, this study examines the dynamic interplay between depoliticizing tendencies and (re)politicizing counter-tendencies of urban green space production within the context of the contemporary entrepreneurial ethos of neoliberal urban development and policy.

4.2 Research Questions

The problem statement, and the associated aims and objectives of this thesis’s research results in the following research question: How are Urban Agriculture (UA) projects mobilized as imaginaries for place-making and place-keeping in the context of neoliberal urban restructuring and regeneration, in the case of the Test Site Rotterdam?

In order to answer this research question, the following sub questions are presented:

(1) What issues are being politicized in the process of appropriating Urban Green Space for UA?

The first sub question is especially interested in the struggles that informed the appropriation of vacant and underused urban space for UA. To this aim, the first part of this section analyses the bundling process of the underlying (competing) place-frames enacted by key actors in the process in order to materialize the imaginary of UA projects in the case of urban redevelopment in RCD.

(2) How do UA projects hold meaning for the long-term management of Urban Green Space?

In line with Dempsey et al. (2012) who states that place-keeping – consisting of both physical and non-physical dimensions – is crucial in understanding the factors that play an enabling role in the continuity of urban open space, our second question asks how these spaces are being established and managed and who is involved in the process – that is, the process of social and political participation and cooperation between the different stakeholders involved.

(26)

26 | P a g e

(3) How might these spaces and the tactics and relationship developed within them, challenge – or not – entrepreneurial operational and instrumental approaches in contemporary sustainable urban regeneration ?

Lastly, the third sub question aims at analyzing how UA projects are being evaluated and communicated both in policy discourse and new urban redevelopment plans. More specifically, our third question aims at analyzing the extent to which – interlinked with growth-oriented economic and market-driven models of sustainability – these UA practices are embedded within wider vision and political discourse of a sustainability fix, thus reproducing or challenging the capitalist status quo. This means analyzing if and how urban agriculture is being depoliticized by assessing how it is intertwined with wider imaginaries of place-branding and capitalist urbanization. How are, in the process of performing, power relations developed?

(27)

27 | P a g e

Chapter 5 - Methodology

5.1 Research Design

In essence, the key focus of this research is on the relationship between urban agriculture projects and place-making and place-keeping strategies for restructuring processes. Based on the empirical demarcation of the research question, this study represents a qualitative single-case study research design. A single-case study research allows acquiring detailed, context-dependent interpretation, descriptions and explanations from participants involved in the social phenomenon (Bryman, 2008). Yet, a common concern about the case study as a research strategy involves the inadequacy as a basis for scientific generalization. Nevertheless, the present case study is not intended as a most representative case; rather, following Birch’ (2012) argumentation on urban planning as a practice-based discipline, case-study approaches allow the provision of ‘’road maps’’ regarding context, key actors and/or crucial decision points in the context of urban planning which can be useful for stimulating further research. In addition, Tenemos & McCann (2012: 8) suggest, in the context of a municipal sustainability fix, that a ‘’detailed case study analyses […] can offer

valuable insights into how governments and citizens create local ideologies surrounding sustainability and how, in turn, those ideologies drive the fundamentally political process of policy-making’’.

5.2 Case Selection

The unit of analysis of this research implies the process of a redevelopment project in which the concrete manifestation of UA shapes the boundaries of the case (Crane & Weber, 2015; Yin, 2014). The iterative nature of this research – that is, generating data and theory in a reflexive process (Bryman, 2008) – is in the first place reflected in the chosen approach to the case selection where the collection of secondary and primary data helped to (re)define the research problem and objectives of the study. Based on the initial research questions(s) and theoretical propositions on UA and its embedding in new green development tendencies in contemporary urban regeneration – particularly entrepreneurial urban policy – the Test Site Rotterdam Central District was identified as a fitting critical or typical case study (Yin, 2014: 51). Firstly, it can be stated that urban redevelopment of this area reflects the changing role of local authorities in two ways: a shift to entrepreneurial strategies in the pursuit of sustainable inner-city regeneration, focused on shaping an attractive city-image due to its strategic location (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2007; 2016), as well as the moving away from a regulatory role towards one of enabling civil society to act by means of redistributing responsibilities for open (green) spaces, by means of the City Initiative of Rotterdam (Stadsinitiatief Luchtsingel, 2012). Secondly, considering the ongoing nature of the case study into account, it is possible to analyze the decision-making process around the development and its current circulation. Thirdly, Rotterdam was the first Dutch city to refer to UA as a policy objective, launched in the food strategy Food and the City: Stimuleren van Stadslandbouw in en om Rotterdam (Food and the City: stimulating urban agriculture in and around Rotterdam) (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2012). Table 2 gives an overview of the most important content of the specific UA projects researched.

(28)

28 | P a g e Name of UA project Rooftop-farm DakAkker Urban garden ‘Vredestuin’ Urban garden Dakgaard/Tuin op

de Hofbogen

Type of UA collective, commercial/for-profit collective, non-commercial/non-profit collective, non-commercial/non-profit

Scale of production rooftop vacant lot, park vacant railway, park

Location Schieblock building Park Pompenburg Park Luchtpark Hofbgoen

Start 2012 2014 2018

Size 1000m2 _1500m2 _1500m2

Primary functions or orientation

creation of edible landscaping, food production, skills training, education, green infrastructure

community-building, food production, education, environmental pollution, recreation, poverty reduction

community-building, food

production, education,

environmental pollution, recreation, poverty reduction

Organized yes yes yes

Management Association Rotterdam Environmental Centre

non-profit organisation

foundation ‘Vredestuin’

non-profit organisation foundation ‘stichting Groengoed’

Labor staff and volunteers staff and volunteers staff and volunteers

Image (year 2019)

Table 2. Overview of UA projects in the Test Site Rotterdam area. Source: author, data derived from rotterdamseparken.nl;

luchtsingel.org and own empirical material. Source photos: author.

5.3 Data Collection

As mentioned before, this research is interested in the nature, selection, circulation, and ‘work’ of UA in the urban regeneration process in the Rotterdam Central District. With the aim to pursue an explanatory purpose of the respective context and process under study (Bryman, 2008), qualitative data was expected to best suit the type of research question posed. According to Yin (2003), using different types of data from different sources often allows to gain a more comprehensive view of the phenomenon under study. To tease out the complexity of the case and increase internal validity, the analysis of this research relies on qualitative data which is triangulated from three data sources: semi-structured in-depth interviews with key actors or stakeholders who can clarify various elements of the cases analyzed, the analysis of key policy documents in addition to secondary materials. These include archival research, news publications, social media platforms, and web-based research) and participant observation. The underlying aim was to get different perspectives on the phenomenon under study to gain ‘purposeful maximal variation’ (Creswell, 2017). This was done by alternating periods of data collection and data analysis, in which the research questions

(29)

29 | P a g e formed the basis of the data collection process. Following Yin (2011), who notes that the adaptation of a case study approach implies focusing on getting information on the various aspects of the case as the criteria for a good sampling size, a triangulation of methods was used in order to not only increase the validation but also to gain multi-perspective interpretations upon the phenomenon being studied (Olsen, 2004). These methods will be specified in the following sub-chapters.

5.3.1 Document research

The primary stage of the research involved the conduction collection of secondary data (i.e. documents) in order to gain a descriptive analysis of the case-study. This is the gathering of texts produced by organizations/participants in an effective and systematic manner in order to provide a description and explanation of the phenomenon at hand. Secondary data is useful to find information and aids better understanding of the research area, besides that it is easily available and can be reviewed repeatedly (Miller & Brewer, 2003; Yin, 2011). Taking into consideration the research objectives, the emphasis of the selection of secondary data is placed on (1) documentation around the city initiative and Test Site Rotterdam, including: sourcing from news details give media gaging the state and nature of the public discourse at the time, council documents City initiative 2012, Original plan from design agency ZUS for Biennial and the City Initiative, implementation agreement; (2) documentation around the UA projects, these include private reports and websites; and (3) documentation on the regeneration process of RCD including flagship documents, plans, visions, reposts and articles on the Central District area as of the year 2011 as this is considered the starting date of the restructuring process central to this study. Following Scott (1990), four criteria can be identified against which the quality of documents can be assessed: authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning. Here, it is important that is can be justified who produced the document and why; if the meaning of the document is clear and if there are different interpretations of the documents. Table 3 in Appendix A gives an overview of the key documents analyzed based on these criteria.

5.3.2 Key informants and interviews

Based on findings from the document analysis which allowed for an administrative records sampling frame (Ritchie et al., 2013: 123) and initial direct participation in a public meeting which allowed for personal (informal) contact with one of the initiators of the City Initiative, a number of key stakeholders were identified and approached for an in-depth interview. This source of evidence was essential in getting personal renditions of the case (e.g. perceptions, attitudes and meanings) (Yin, 2014: 106). Based on the chosen unit of analysis, purposive sampling was conducted characterized by a typical case sampling approach (Bryman, 2008). Within this form of sampling, the relevance to the research question forms the criteria on which the context and participants are selected. In total, there were three types of actors identified: key actors involved in the planning/image-restructuring process of the Rotterdam Central District, key actors involved in the implementation of urban agriculture in the Rotterdam Central District, key actors involved on-the-ground in urban agriculture practices and the development area. Figure 5 in Appendix B provides a schematic

Negotiating the imaginary of urban agriculture in urban regeneration : the case of the 'test site Rotterdam'