.
.
and design for inclusion of helpful technology, systems and ideas that would benefit them, their agriculture and environment and not for the express purpose of being “green”.
6.4.1.3 Agricultural urbanism
The interviewees spoke of the education of individuals and the integration of agricultural processes within the city limits. They also spoke about the acknowledgement of the “farm to fork” distance and reducing it, a key component in the concept of Agricultural Urbanism and its education of urban residents in agricultural processes and reduction of distances that food travels before reaching the fork or table.
6.4.1.4 Eco-mimesis
In the provision of supporting systems for agriculture and the design of the practices, including aspects of permaculture the practitioners intuitively or indirectly mimic natural processes. This through collection and distribution of water (rivers, lakes, wetlands), filtration of water from one system before entering another (being the very nature for the existence of wetlands and marshlands) and companion planting and other techniques of traditional and permaculture agricultural practices.
6.4.1.5 Ecosystem Services
The concept of Ecosystem Services directly relates to the two main reasons for the participation in urban agriculture through Provisioning and Cultural services, those being the production of food and the aesthetic appeal and appreciation of the plants and animals. Resulting from related practices of the agriculture, the participants provide for or participate in the remaining services of regulating and support services.
6.4.2 Summation.
Through the process of interviewing practitioners and observing the varied private urban agriculture practices presented here, the researcher was able to better understand the practice, how it is formed and how it relates to the built environment that it is practised within. The researcher acknowledges that the participants in the study have generally not been aware of the theories and concepts that were used in the research, in order to not influence the research they were not made aware of them (during the research) by the researcher.
The intuitive reaction of the participants to apply technologies that would help them and the environment comes from their more informed link to the natural environment through their immersion in the natural environment by their practice of agriculture and awareness of its links to the greater environment outside of their direct control. This coupled with their views of a responsibility for the environment, which informs and is informed by their practice, to grow healthy natural foods, leads them to be aware of our link to the natural environment.
.
When faced with challenges in their agricultural practices the participants appear to inform each other or seek out others who would be able to advise or help to overcome these challenges. The practitioners appear to feed off each other’s knowledge and drive for practising urban agriculture regardless of the challenges faced. In some cases this leads to transfer and adaptation from one type of gardening to another (i.e. in ground to balconies). The practitioners of urban agriculture have been and are able to adapt their practices to their conditions and still belong to the practice of urban agriculture without losing the identity or link to the practice. The researcher notes that while the practice has remained autonomous (for the most part) from its inherent link to architecture and architects, It would be advantageous for architects to help in providing adequate and appropriate spaces and services for urban agriculture.
In order for architects to better serve the practice of urban agriculture, there needs to be an education and awareness of the practice and its needs. Currently additions and adaptations to the built environment, for the practice of urban agriculture, rely strongly on the knowledge and desires of the home-owner/ agriculture practitioner. With the previously mentioned limited knowledge of the theory and concepts used in this research by the practitioners of urban agriculture, the end result of working with architects will remain under-informed and not to the scale that will help and promote the practice.
Architects, who may also lack that same understanding and knowledge of appropriate theories and concepts that drive, inform and build the practice will result in projects where the practitioners will (generally) remain reliant on their own, limited knowledge and ability to adapt existing and provided spaces to better serve their agricultural practice. The architectural industry acknowledges that the role of the professional architect is to listen to the wants and desires of the client and to then provide appropriate and informed design of spaces and services that will be of a benefit to the client and their desires for the building. This primary research has shown that the average client is not as well-informed as needed, with regard to the concepts and theories, and may have an understanding that they possibly are unable to communicate adequately to the architect regarding the concepts and theories informing and working with their practices. The result is that it is the architects role and duty to become informed, in order to better provide a service for the client, where the result doesn’t become an application of green technologies that may or may not result in better systems and provisions for urban agriculture.
.
7 CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
.