A Concept for the Sustainable and Resilient City During the COVID-19 Pandemic? a Case Study of Andernach and Todmorden

The edible city: A concept for the sustainable and resilient city during the COVID-19 pandemic? A case study of Andernach and Todmorden

Annika Holthaus

Department of Human Geography Master’s thesis, 30 HE credits Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Programme in Urban and Regional Planning (120 credits) Spring term 2021 Supervisor: Peter Schmitt

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerability of cities and set a new focus on planning sustainable and resilient cities. This thesis aims to assess the edible city, where edible plants are grown in public spaces, in terms of sustainability and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate its contribution to urban sustainability and resilience. Further, it explores the implications for planning an edible city. As part of this case study, 10 semi- structured interviews were conducted in two edible cities: Edible City Andernach, Germany and Incredible Edible Todmorden, England. The results of this study demonstrate that both edible cities contribute to sustainability, but each is skewed towards one sustainability dimension. Concerning resilience, the study illustrates that both cases are able to withstand the pandemic impacts and adapt particularly in their focus sustainability dimension. However, general resilience is negatively impacted by a stance of waiting-it-out. For planning an edible city, a combination of a top-down and bottom-up approach is recommended. In conclusion, this thesis shows that the edible city contributes to urban sustainability and resilience through the continuing provision of ecosystem services and co- benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Holthaus, Annika (2021). The edible city: a concept for the sustainable and resilient city during the COVID-19 pandemic? A case study of Andernach and Todmorden.

Urban and Regional Planning, advanced level, master thesis for master exam in Urban and Regional Planning, 30 ECTS credits

Supervisor: Peter Schmitt

Language: English

Keywords: sustainability, resilience, nature-based solutions, urban agriculture, edible city, urban planning.

1 Acknowledgements

I want to thank my supervisor Peter Schmitt for his input and guidance.

To my mother: thank you for giving me strength and practical advice!

Further thanks to all the interview participants that shared their knowledge and opinions with me and found the time despite the pandemic situation.

Annika, 06.06.2021

2 Table of contents

1. Introduction 6 1.1 Aim and research questions 7 1.2 Structure of the thesis 7 2. Literature review 8 2.1 Planning for sustainable and resilient cities 8 2.2 Nature-based solutions 10 2.2.1 Ecosystem services 12 2.2.2 Co-benefits 12 2.3 Urban agriculture 13 2.4 The edible city 14 2.5 COVID-19 and urban agriculture 16 3. Theoretical framework 17 3.1 Sustainability 17 3.2 Resilience 18 3.3 Limitations of the theoretical framework 19 4. Methodology 20 4.1 Qualitative research and positionality 20 4.2 Qualitative case study 21 4.3 Research process 21 4.3.1 Case selection and propositions 21 4.3.2 Participant selection 23 4.3.3 Data collection 24 4.4 Data processing and analysis 24 4.4.1 Transcription 24 4.4.2 Data analysis 24 4.5 Ethical considerations 25 4.6 Limitations 26 5. Case presentation 27 5.1 The Edible City Andernach 27 5.2 Incredible Edible Todmorden 29

3 6. Results and analysis 31 6.1 Sustainability and the edible city 31 6.1.1 Economic dimension (provisioning services) 31 6.1.2 Ecological dimension (regulating services) 34 6.1.3 Social dimension (cultural services) 36 6.1.4 Summary 41 6.2 Resilience and the edible city 41 6.2.1 Withstanding: a look into the past 41 6.2.2 Adapting: Dealing with the now 43 6.2.3 Transforming: Envisioning the future 45 7. Discussion 46 7.1 The edible city’s contribution to sustainable and resilient cities during the COVID-19 pandemic 46 7.2 Implications for planning the edible city 49 8. Conclusion 52 9. References 54 10. Appendix 66

4 List of tables and images

Table 1. Trinomial framework of indicators for assessing sustainability concerning 18 the edible city based on Artmann and Sartison’s framework for urban agriculture (2018) and their study on three edible cities (2020).

Table 2. The three categories for analysing resilience. 19

Table 3. Propositions for the three sustainability dimensions. 22

Table 4. List of interviewees. 23

Image 1. Permaculture area in the city-district Andernach-Eich. 28

Image 2. Edible plants in the city centre next to the historic city wall, Andernach. 28

Image 3. High beds in the city centre in Todmorden. 29

Image 4. Pots with spices in a public space in Todmorden. 30

5 1. Introduction In the Anthropocene global challenges have emerged that threaten the future of humanity, such as climate change, urbanization and the depletion of natural resources. While these are chronic stressors, the COVID-19 pandemic has constituted a sudden shock that has exposed the vulnerability of cities and brought attention to urban resilience and sustainability.

The concept of nature-based solutions (NbS) has recently gained attention in academia for supporting urban sustainability and resilience through the reintegration of nature in the urban fabric (Bush and Doyon, 2019; Dorst et al., 2019; Wendling et al., 2018). NbS have been utilized by large organizations such as the European Commission (EC) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme the EC invested over 280 million euros (EUcalls, 2021) in the establishment of guiding principles to mainstream NbS throughout the European Union, making it a priority investment area (Raymond et al., 2017). A special case of NbS are edible city solutions (ECS), which involve the integration of edible plants into the urban fabric. One type of ECS is the edible city, where vegetables, spices and fruits are planted in public spaces for every citizen to harvest for free. Although the EU plans an “evidence-based integration of ECS into the long-term urban planning of cities” (EC, 2018), some researchers have concluded that a practical implementation requires more research on specific NbS and the benefits they provide in a particular context (Almenar et al., 2021; Frantzeskaki, 2019). While there have been various studies on community gardens and green infrastructure, the edible city has only recently entered the academic field and therefore has received little scholarly attention (Sartison and Artmann, 2020). Previous studies concerning the edible city have focused on the social dimension, sustainability transformation (Artmann et al., 2020) and sustainable food systems (Russo et al., 2017; Scharf et al., 2019), but a holistic study of its benefits and connection to urban sustainability and resilience is yet to be performed.

This thesis argues that the edible city is a valuable concept for urban planning to enhance the sustainability and resilience of cities. The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a unique situation in which to explore sustainability and resilience during an actual crisis. A case study approach based on semi-structured interviews is employed to examine two edible cities in terms of sustainability and resilience during the pandemic. One of the studied edible cities is Andernach, Germany, which is managed by the city department for environment using a top- down approach. The other edible city in this study is a bottom-up initiative called Incredible Edible Todmorden (IET) in Todmorden, England. Sustainability is assessed through indicators in a trinomial framework that combines the concept of ecosystem services with co-benefits in the three dimensions of sustainability (economy, environment and society). The resilience of the edible city is explored in terms of withstanding, adapting and transforming in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

6 1.1 Aim and research questions This thesis aims to assess the edible city concept in terms of sustainability and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate its contribution to urban sustainability and resilience. Further, it explores the implications for planning the edible city. The research questions are as follows:

a) How can the edible city contribute to sustainable and resilient cities during the COVID-19 pandemic? a.1) How sustainable is the edible city in Andernach and Todmorden during the COVID-19 pandemic? a.2) How resilient is the edible city in Andernach and Todmorden during the COVID- 19 pandemic? b) What are the implications for planning the edible city?

By answering the research questions, this study seeks to contribute data and knowledge concerning the edible city and thus add to the EC’s current contribution to ECS. Two cases are studied to compare different approaches to the edible city and how they have responded to the current pandemic. The study utilizes an assessment framework for sustainability developed for urban agriculture (UA) based on ecosystem services and co-benefits and applies it to the edible city. The suitability of indicators of the framework can be matched with the acquired empirical data and adjusted to the edible city by either expanding or limiting the number of indicators. Moreover, the concepts of sustainability and resilience are highly relevant not only in academia but also in practice, specifically in urban planning. Therefore, this study aims to inform urban planning by identifying the benefits and limitations of the edible city and its suitability for planning public green spaces, especially considering the pandemic and possible future crisis situations. Further, the study aims to assess whether the concept of the edible city can contribute to more sustainable and resilient cities.

1.2 Structure of the thesis This thesis is structured in eight chapters. The following chapter presents the literature on planning for sustainable and resilient cities and defines urban sustainability and urban resilience. Further, the connection between NbS, UA and the edible city is described. Finally, current research on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on UA is explored. Chapter 3 defines the theoretical framework for examining sustainability and resilience, and Chapter 4 describes the research design. In Chapter 5 the two cases in the study are presented along with a brief background of the pandemic restrictions in each country. Chapter 6 explores the sustainability and resilience of the edible city based on the empirical data. Chapter 7 presents the discussion and answers the research questions, and Chapter 8 concludes the thesis.

7 2. Literature review As a first step this section demonstrates the importance of cities for future development, defines urban sustainability and resilience and connects them to urban planning. In the second step the overarching concept of NbS is defined, and its connection to ecosystem services and co-benefits is explored, which is necessary for the theoretical advancements in Chapter 3. Next is a brief look at UA, leading to the edible city as a specific type of UA in the frame of NbS. By examining previous research on the edible city, a gap in research is demonstrated regarding the assessment of its benefits and contributions to urban sustainability and resilience. The last section covers the current research on COVID-19 and UA as the pandemic is an essential component of this study.

2.1 Planning for sustainable and resilient cities The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development consists of 17 sustainable development goals (SDG) for the world. Specifically, SDG 11 “sustainable cities and communities” identifies the goal to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (UN, 2015). The emphasis is on cities, since the global population living in urban environments will exceed 68% by 2050 (UN, 2019), and cities are responsible for up to 70% of global CO2 emissions (EC, 2019). Focusing on urban areas is acknowledged as an increasingly important factor in achieving sustainability and resilience (Chelleri et al., 2015; Elmqvist et al., 2019), especially given the rise of global challenges like climate change and natural disasters that have placed the concepts of sustainability and resilience at the core of the future planning of cities (Coaffee, 2013; Meerow et al., 2016; Mehmood, 2016). Elmqvist et al. (2019, p.267) call it the “urban century”. Many cities have established plans dealing specifically with climate change adaptation and mitigation in response to the uncertain occurrences of natural disasters, such as extreme floods and heat waves. Accelerating urbanization aggravates multiple problems, especially in the ecological sphere, by destroying natural ecosystems and their biodiversity as well as preventing humans to be in touch with nature (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019). These problems are expected to intensify in the future, which further emphasizes the importance of planning for sustainable and resilient cities (Almenar et al., 2021).

Urban sustainability and resilience have gained increasing attention in academia and practice (Ahern, 2011; Delgado-Ramos and Guibrunet, 2017; Krellenberg and Koch, 2021; Redman, 2014), encompass a multitude of definitions regarding their meaning and measurement and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably (Elmqvist et al., 2019; Leichenko, 2011; Meerow et al., 2016). Both concepts are concerned with urban systems, which are described as complex and adaptive (Folke et al., 2010; Masnavi et al., 2019; Mehmood, 2016). A system can vary in type and scale; a global economic value chain is considered a system as much as a local ecological water system. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the dependence on global systems that impact all scales from global to local. When global food supply chains faced this sudden shock, citizens were confronted with empty supermarket shelves. Urban systems are at the core of planning for sustainable and resilient cities, which

8 include not only economic and ecological systems but also the social component of humans living in the cities (Cartalis, 2014). An urban system is not only dependent on higher-scale systems but consists of multiple subsystems that are interconnected and not easily distinguishable (Ahern, 2011; Mehmood, 2016). This interdependence of systems makes cities especially vulnerable to disasters and shocks because the failure of one subsystem can lead to a greater system failure (Elmqvist et al., 2019). One target for urban planning is reducing the vulnerability of the city, which can be achieved by combining the long-term perspective of sustainability with a focus on resilience.

Sustainability is seen as a framework and a normative concept for future development (Beatley and Newman, 2013; Elmqvist et al., 2019) that meets the needs of the present without compromising future generations (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). It is often related to the three pillars environment, economy and society that act in synergy to enhance quality of life and well-being (Huang et al., 2015, Jong et al., 2015; Pope et al., 2004). A sustainable city fosters economic growth at the same time as social stability and ecological preservation (Jong et al., 2015). Sustainability is seen as a desirable state and as an outcome that can be achieved (Delgado-Ramos and Guibrunet, 2017).

To achieve sustainability the call for resilience as a necessary component has grown (Cartalis, 2014). The COVID-19 pandemic alleviates the substantiality of resilience as uncertainty became a dominant factor for planning cities (Krellenberg and Koch, 2021). Resilience refers to systems and their various stable states. If a system is disrupted by an external shock, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a desirable outcome is either that it returns to its condition before the shock or reaches a new stable state by adapting to the changing circumstances (Beatley and Newman, 2013; Cartalis, 2014; Surjan et al., 2011). Therefore, resilience encompasses on the one hand the capacity of a system to withstand shocks and on the other hand the ability to adapt. Compared to the normative nature of sustainability, resilience is an attribute of a system (Elmqvist et al., 2019).

Cities are built by and for humans (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019). Urban environments are important for the health, well-being and quality of life of their inhabitants, which are affected by environmental, social and economic contexts (Almenar et al., 2021). Spatial planning is an essential component of building sustainable and resilient cities (Cartalis, 2014) because planning connects societal challenges with the urban environment (Wilkinson, 2012). Integrating nature in urban areas is often proposed for sustainable development in urban planning (Bauduceau et al., 2015; Fink, 2016, Maes and Jacobs, 2017). Beatley and Newman (2013, p.3332) note that “making cities greener will make them more resilient in the long run ecologically, economically and socially”. One way to meet the target of urban sustainability and resilience in urban planning is to use so-called nature-based solutions.

9 2.2 Nature-based solutions NbS is often used as an umbrella term that includes multiple concepts such as ecosystem services, green infrastructure and the edible city (Almenar et al., 2021; Dorst et al., 2019, Lafortezza et al., 2018; Nesshöver et al., 2017). The European Commission (EC, 2015) defines NbS as “solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience”. The EC draws a clear connection between NbS and sustainability in the form of environmental, social and economic dimensions and resilience. NbS build on the connection between nature and its positive outcomes for society (Dorst et al., 2019). Growing urbanization and densification enhances the pressure on the natural environment, results in the degradation of urban ecosystems, decreases biodiversity and limits the amount of space available for green areas in cities (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019; Wendling et al., 2018; Xing et al., 2017), which are vital for the connection between humans and nature and its positive benefits for health and well-being (Almenar et al., 2021; Shanahan et al., 2015).

Dorst et al. (2019, p.1) define NbS as “interventions that address social, economic and environmental sustainability issues simultaneously, thereby presenting a multifunctional, solution-oriented approach to increasing urban sustainability” and identify four principles of NbS.

The first principle proposed by Dorst et al. (2019) is the reliance of NbS on nature, which can take different forms. According to the authors NbS can encompass one single solution or integrate multiple solutions. Eggermont et al. (2015) identify three types of NbS. The first is the sustainable use of existing ecosystems, for example fishing grounds. The second type concerns the restoration of ecosystems such as through reforestation, and the third type of NbS is the creation of new ecosystems such as green areas in cities. Almenar et al. (2021) found that only type-3 (created) NbS are found in cities, which underlines that natural ecosystem have been eliminated from the urban fabric. Using nature in urban planning has been proven to be more cost efficient than traditional approaches (Faivre et al., 2017; Lafortezza et al., 2018; Nesshöver et al., 2017) because NbS can be self-sustainable and do not degenerate in the long-term compared to grey infrastructure. NbS are seen as especially fruitful in segmented environments such as cities because a single green roof can provide multiple benefits on a small scale (Dorst et al., 2019; Faivre et al., 2017).

Second, at the core of NbS is their multifunctionality in providing benefits and addressing urgent social, environmental and economic challenges (Almenar et al., 2021; Cohen- Shacham et al., 2016; Dorst et al., 2019; Faivre et al., 2017). NbS are solution oriented, which assumes a given problem (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Almenar et al. (2021) identified 18 challenges for urban sustainability and resilience that are connected to NbS, including exemplary protection of the environment, enhancing resource efficiency, fostering human well-being and supporting the local economy. NbS are tied to different SDGs, mainly SDG 3 well-being, SDG 11 sustainable and resilient cities, SDG 13 climate change and SDG 15 protection and restoration of ecosystems (Dushkova and Haase, 2020). NbS provide various benefits to society, the environment and the economy (Eggermont et al., 2015, Dorst et al.,

10 2019), which differ for each intervention (Almenar et al., 2021). Planting trees in the city helps regulate the local microclimate by reducing the heat-island effect, supporting water capture and decreasing pollution through carbon binding, thus contributing to climate change mitigation. The trees can further provide food like apples to inhabitants. They also enhance the aesthetic value and attractiveness of the area. Additionally, trees can provide health benefits for inhabitants as nature has been found to reduce stress and enable relaxation (Cabral et al., 2017). As this example demonstrates, NbS provide multiple benefits and address various challenges simultaneously.

The third principle states that NbS implementation is inherently connected to urban planning and governance (Dorst et al., 2019). Urban planning deals with challenges by shaping the physical environment not only in the present but also for the future (Beatley and Newman, 2013). Therefore, it is necessary for planners to employ long-term thinking when intervening in the environment through establishing plans, programs and designs (Bush and Doyon, 2019). NbS support the development of sustainable and resilient cities, which is a normative goal for urban planners faced with increasing uncertainty (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Therefore, NbS are gaining increased attention; for example, the New Urban Agenda, the 100 Resilient Cities Programme and the EKLIPSE Expert working groups report on the integration of NbS in planning practice (Raymond et al., 2017). Implementing nature in cities is not a new concept to planning, and the importance of green spaces for citizens is well known (Maes and Jacobs, 2017). Urban planning dedicates space for green areas, parks and gardens and allows for innovative design that considers ecologically sensitive urban development (Dushkova and Haase, 2020). Many cities have developed or are developing plans concerning climate change and city greening in which NbS could be integrated, especially considering the European Union's aim of being CO2-neutral by 2050. Further, urban planning has the tools to support the implementation of NbS by managing trade-offs and conflicts through broad stakeholder participation (Bush and Doyon, 2019).

Fourth, NbS are context specific and need a place-based approach to planning (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019). For implementation, the context is important, not only space specifics, such as local knowledge and climate, but also orientation in time as long-term benefits of NbS are less immediately recognizable (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Dorst et al., 2019, Nesshöver et al., 2017). The noise cancellation of green vegetation might be less effective than a wall, but the vegetation provides other benefits, such as aesthetic value. Subsequently, NbS benefits need to be assessed locally.

Critics of NbS see issues in its unquestioned positive relation to sustainability and resilience. Haase (2017, p.224) questions the role of NbS as being close to a “sustainability fix” as the EC explicitly describes it as a business model. Further, the renewal of cities through NbS involve inherent issues, such as gentrification through increased attractiveness and market value due to the inclusion of nature (Bryson, 2013). Recently, questions have arisen concerning social justice and who benefits from the implementation of NbS (Kabisch et al., 2016). Nevertheless, NbS are seen to provide opportunities for sustainable and resilient cities through two channels: ecosystem services and co-benefit provision (Raymond et al., 2017).

11 2.2.1 Ecosystem services NbS are intimately connected to the concept of ecosystem services, which are the benefits humans derive from ecosystems that address societal challenges (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). These can take the form of provisioning, regulating or cultural services. People in cities depend on ecosystems for their well-being (Dickinson and Hobbs, 2017; Fedele et al., 2017), which includes protection, management and restoration of these natural ecosystems (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). Ecosystem services are thereby not disconnected from humans but are inherently influenced by them. The concept is utilized to attribute value to natural systems and support their protection and restoration, especially in their function of mitigating climate change and reducing the effects of natural disasters.

The service provided can be tangible and measurable, such as provisioning services that include resources produced through the ecosystem like food, water and fuel. For example, a forest delivers wood and sometimes food through berry plants. Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air, reduce runoff and cool the surrounding area through shading and evaporation. These regulating services are less directly experienced by humans, but they have been measured in cities (Elmqvist et al., 2015). Cultural services are non-material benefits that include recreational, aesthetic, educational and spiritual benefits linked to health and well- being (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019; Riechers et al., 2016). Cultural services are inherently difficult to measure because they rely on subjective opinions and cannot be expressed in monetary values (Andersson et al., 2015). Compared to the other two services, cultural services require a human being for production and valuation of the provided ecosystem service (Chan et al., 2011). As an example, a park provides an important ground for social interaction, physical activity and observing nature (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013).

Ecosystem services are useful to measure the benefits of NbS (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Regulating services are important for climate change mitigation and cultural services address societal challenges; thereby, ecosystem services contribute to urban sustainability and resilience (Andersson et al., 2015; Fedele et al., 2017; Maes et al., 2019). McPhearson et al. (2015, p.1) state that the concept of urban ecosystems and their services is not “adequately integrated into governance and planning for resilience”. Incorporating ecosystem services with NbS provides the opportunity to integrate both concepts into urban planning (Potschin et al., 2015; Faivre et al., 2017).

2.2.2 Co-benefits Next to ecosystem services that are directly derived from the ecosystem by humans, NbS provide other co-benefits in the economic, social and environmental dimensions (EC, 2015).

Enhancing, restoring and creating ecosystems creates habitats for insects, birds and other animals. Further, the creation of new systems often encompasses a greater diversity of species, which enhances biodiversity (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Colléony and Shwartz, 2019; Xing et al., 2017). The sustainable use of ecosystems results in reduced pressure on land and enhances the efficient use of resources (Almenar et al., 2021; Lafortezza et al., 2018;

12 Raymond et al., 2017). Further, the proximity of nature to inhabitants can lead to more sustainable consumption decisions (Dushkova and Haase, 2020).

NbS have been assessed to be economically beneficial (Elmqvist et al., 2015) because the loss of an ecosystem results in costs, for example increased cooling costs in the summer resulting from missing vegetation. The EC describes NbS as explicitly constituting a business model that fosters economic growth (EC, 2015). Another benefit is the creation of green jobs to manage and sustain the implemented NbS (Faivre et al., 2017; Maes and Jacobs, 2017; Raymond et al., 2017). Additionally, NbS enhance the attractiveness and image of places or entire cities (Dushkova and Haase, 2020) generating a competitive advantage compared to regions without NbS (Faivre et al., 2017). This increase in the attractiveness of a city can result in increased prices in residential areas, enhanced tourism and more companies deciding to locate there.

NbS also provide multiple social co-benefits. Urban parks are important for the health and well-being of citizens (Maes and Jacobs, 2017; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). They provide a safe space for social interaction that brings together different ethnic groups, which can help ameliorate segregation issues (Beatley and Newman, 2013). NbS can foster a sense of place and influence the image of urban areas (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Urban green areas have been found to result in lower crime rates as nature reduces stress, provides emotional comfort (Almenar et al., 2021; Dushkova and Haase, 2020) and positively influences mood, creativity and inspiration (Beatley and Newman, 2013). Parks enable physical activity and can induce healthier lifestyles, which contributes to physical health and well-being (ibid.).

There are trade-offs and possible conflicts regarding ecosystem services and co-benefits. Each NbS provides a different set of benefits (Almenar et al., 2021) focusing on economic, ecological or social benefits while passively generating benefits in the non-focus dimensions. NbS for climate adaptation, like those for flood plans, focus on regulating services, but they provide other services simultaneously, hence the multifunctional character of NbS. A conflict could develop between building tourism capacity and conserving nature (Colléony and Shwartz, 2019; Niemelä et al., 2010). Maximizing carbon sequestration through planting certain plants can reduce the aesthetic value and diversity of a system. The trade-offs affect the sustainability and resilience of a system, so when implementing NbS as a solution, the problem needs to be clear.

2.3 Urban agriculture UA as a form of NbS encompasses growing food a city in the form of plants and animals in, for example, allotment, community or rooftop gardens (Artmann and Sartison, 2018). The concept of using urban land for food production has a long history and was prominent in Germany after World War I in the form of allotment gardens (Deelstra and Girardet, 2001). Especially in times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, UA has been placed in focus to develop sustainable cities and food systems. Cities provide the necessary infrastructure for establishing agriculture, such as low transport costs, accessible workforces and opportunities

13 for local product distribution (Hodgson et al., 2011). Produce includes vegetables, fruits, medicinal herbs, spices, eggs, milk and wool, depending on local conditions and preferences (Lovell, 2010). UA includes various public and private actors, such as the local government, NGOs, residents, gardeners, consumers, volunteers, activists, local companies and tourists (Artmann and Sartison, 2018). Cities, as dense agglomerations of humans, exhibit the greatest demand for food. Deelstra and Girardet (2001, p.44) found that London contained 12% of Britain’s population, but “requires the equivalent of 40% of Britain’s entire productive land for its food”. It is estimated that food demand will increase by 110% by 2050 (Langemeyer et al., 2021), which underlines the importance of utilizing urban areas for food production to counteract the increasing degradation of ecosystems through large-scale intensive agriculture. Therefore, a stronger integration of UA in urban and regional planning is necessary to achieve sustainable and resilient cities (ibid.), and the edible city constitutes one such approach.

2.4 The edible city The concept of edible cities has gained worldwide attention (Säumel et al., 2019) and recently appeared in research (Sartison and Artmann, 2020). Under the Horizon 2020 programme the project “Edible Cities Network Integrating Edible City Solutions for Social Resilient and Sustainable Productive Cities” (EdiCityNet) was launched with a financial budget of over 11 million euros and the goal of exploring the diversity of edible city solutions and their possible implementation in specific urban contexts (EC, 2018).

The edible city is the object of this study; it constitutes a special type of NbS and UA as it implements edible plants in public spaces. Instead of flowers on the sidewalk, vegetables such as cauliflower are planted, which not only bloom but provide an end-product that is free for citizens to harvest. It is a new way of planning public space that contributes to a more “sustainable, liveable and healthy city” (Säumel et al., 2019, p.2). There is yet to be a fixed definition of the edible city as a concept (Artmann et al., 2020). Kassel and Andernach are considered the first edible cities in Germany, although one resulted from a bottom-up process and the other from a top-down process (Sartison and Artmann, 2020). There are differences in funding and maintenance, which can be public or private, through citizens or the government, and they can encompass local governmental agencies, residents, NGOs and local companies.

As a distinct form of NbS the edible city must face societal challenges and provide certain ecosystem services as well as economic, environmental and social co-benefits to foster urban sustainability and resilience. Sartison and Artmann (2020) studied three edible cities in terms of urban sustainability transformation and found that they contribute to different societal challenges, such as social cohesion, strong local economies, climate change, public health, food security and biodiversity. Other studies have assessed the provisioning ecosystem service in connection to food and sustainable food systems (Russo et al., 2017; Scharf et al., 2019), focused on the social dimension by exploring place attachment and pro-environmental food consumption (Artmann et al., 2020), and examined challenges in the implementation of

14 the edible city (Hajzeri and Kwadwo, 2019; Sartison and Artmann, 2020). Since the edible city has only recently gained popularity in academia, a holistic picture of ecosystem services and co-benefits provided by the edible city is still missing. Therefore, the following presents a comprehensive review of benefits connected to integrating edible plants in the urban fabric derived from studies on the edible city, edible landscapes and edible green infrastructure.

Producing food in the city supports local food security not only in the quantity but also the quality of the products (Gulyas and Edmondson, 2021; Langemeyer et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2015; Säumel et al., 2019). The edible city increases access to high-quality food and supports environmental justice as the vegetables and fruits are available in public spaces free of charge for every citizen (Artmann et al., 2020). Further, producing food in proximity to the consumer reduces transportation costs, packing and processing waste, and the overall carbon footprint, all of which support climate change mitigation (Säumel et al., 2019; Çelik, 2017). Growing food in urban areas can support a more sustainable food production system that is not reliant on global value chains and thus reduces vulnerability to external shocks. The increase in resilience of local food supplies is particularly important, as the COVID-19 pandemic has shown. Through harvesting the free fruits and vegetables, citizens can save on food costs or even generate income through processing and selling the yield (Artmann and Sartison, 2020). The edible city supports local economic growth by increasing the attractiveness of a city as well as creating green businesses and jobs (Çelik, 2017; Scharf et al., 2019; Säumel et al., 2019).

Implementing edible plants in urban space contributes to higher levels of biodiversity than in conventional urban green spaces (Bohn and Viljoen, 2010; Hajzeri and Kwadwo, 2019). Additionally, it enhances resource efficiency by recycling organic waste and stormwater for irrigation (Bohn and Viljoen, 2010). The extension of vegetated land provides habitats for the surrounding wildlife (Elmqvist et al., 2015), and beehives in the city produce more honey than in rural areas because urban areas provide a greater diversity of plants (Deelstra and Girardet, 2001). Every piece of vegetated area in the city helps mitigate climate change by regulating the local microclimate and binding carbon dioxide (Artmann and Sartison, 2020; Säumel et al., 2019).

The edible city provides positive social benefits by connecting humans not only with nature and food but also with each other. Through the provision of food, the edible city supports the idea of healthy food and increases environmental awareness (Artmann and Sartison, 2020; Hajzeri and Kwadwo, 2019). The edible spaces educate citizens about different types of vegetables and fruits and demonstrate their seasonality, thereby exhibit an eco-pedagogical character (Sartison and Artmann, 2020; Scharf et al., 2019). The pandemic has brought health into focus for cities and their citizens. Observing and experiencing nature has been shown to enhance mental health (Artmann et al., 2020). Active gardening enhances physical health and reduces stress (Breuste and Artmann, 2015; Cabral et al., 2017). Lovell (2010) found that gardeners have better health conditions than non-gardeners. When edible spaces are maintained by the community, they enable social interaction, which in turn has a positive impact on mental health and contributes to social cohesion (Artmann and Sartison, 2018; Middle et al., 2014). Sartison and Artmann (2020) explored different edible city concepts

15 and found that people of various age groups and backgrounds actively participate in the planting, which shows that the edible spaces support inclusion and participation. Further, nature in close proximity to urban dwellers can foster place attachment by providing a physical connection to the edible spaces; it can also inculcate place identity, an emotional connection demonstrated by lower rates of vandalism and crime in the edible areas (Sartison and Artmann, 2020; Säumel et al., 2019).

Nevertheless, edible plants in public spaces come with some risks. These mainly concern contamination (Artmann and Sartison, 2018) because edible plants close to streets are exposed to a significant amount of pollution, and the soil in a city might contain chemical contaminants (Russo et al., 2017). Some edible species can cause allergies and immune reactions, posing health risks for citizens (ibid.). There is also the risk of biological invasion by non-native species (Lin et al., 2015), which could counteract the goal of ecological preservation and biodiversity.

2.5 COVID-19 and urban agriculture The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vulnerability of cities and their inhabitants, especially by displaying their dependence on global value chains for urban food supplies; this calls for a new focus on “local food and consumption patterns in order to become more resilient and in turn more sustainable” (Krellenberg and Koch, 2021, p.202). Pulighe and Lupia (2020) found that fresh food purchases increased in Germany by 44.2% and in the UK by 27.5% during the pandemic, underlining the importance of fresh, locally produced food.

The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced daily life for everyone and changed the lifestyles and behaviours of people throughout the world (Hanzl, 2020). Measures, such as lockdowns and social distancing have contributed to increasing isolation, depression, anxiety and decreased well-being, especially in urban environments (Jenkins, 2020; Pouso et al., 2021). These effects are accelerated due to the large number of single households (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019) and, especially, elderly people who have to deal with anxiety and isolation (Samuelsson et al., 2020). As a countermeasure many city dwellers have turned to UA, such as community or backyard gardens (Mejia et al., 2020; Nicola et al., 2020). Toronto (Canada) has opened new community and allotment gardens for urban citizens to produce food locally (Stahlbrand and Roberts, 2020). It has been estimated that in Kampala (Uganda) during the pandemic 65% of the vegetable supply has been provided through urban and peri-urban agriculture (Samuelsson et al., 2020). Engagement with nature and gardening has been shown to positively affect mood, decrease loneliness and enhance well-being during the pandemic (McCunn, 2020; Mejia et al., 2020; Pouso et al., 2021; Theodorou et al., 2021) by providing connection to the outside world for people who are stuck inside (Weimann et al., 2019). Further, many people work from home and search for activities in close proximity to their residence (Hanzl, 2020). Also, an increase in idle time contributes to an increase in UA (Mejia et al., 2020). Many inhabitants have been hit economically by the pandemic through loss of jobs, and producing food leads to food cost savings (Mishra and Pattnaik, 2021). UA can enable entrepreneurial opportunities and create jobs (ibid.). Researchers have called for

16 a stronger integration of urban food production in urban planning and policy to increase the resilience and sustainability of the urban system (McCunn, 2020; Pulighe and Lupia, 2020; Ugolini et al., 2020), especially considering that the COVID-19 pandemic is probably only one of many future crises.

3. Theoretical framework This section elaborates on the concepts of sustainability and resilience in an urban environment and establishes the indicators used in this study.

3.1 Sustainability Wu (2014, p.213) defines urban sustainability as “an adaptive process of facilitating and maintaining a virtual cycle between ecosystem services and human well-being through concerted ecological, economic and social actions in response to changes within and beyond the urban landscape”. This study draws on the connection between sustainability, ecosystem services and co-benefits. Sustainability has been categorized into weak and strong types. In weak sustainability it is assumed that natural capital can be exchanged with human capital, and a system is sustainable if the sum of both does not decrease (Huang et al., 2015). In this view the degeneration of the ecological aspect of a system can be compensated through for example technological advances. Contrarily, in the perspective of strong sustainability, which is employed in this study, natural capital is seen as a critical and determining factor of sustainability. Sustainability in this study is defined as a desired outcome in all three dimensions (economic, ecological and social) that contribute to the sustainability of the system.

Because of the ambiguity of the term sustainability there have been multiple approaches to measuring it. For example, new infrastructure must undergo an environmental impact assessment (EIA) that identifies social, economic and environmental impacts of a proposal compared to baseline conditions (Pope et al., 2004). Another example is an objective-led integrated assessment, where a particular outcome is evaluated based on predefined social, economic and environmental objectives (ibid.). Common among these methods is the assessment of the three dimensions of sustainability using criteria such as economic gain, biodiversity or quality of life (Huang et al., 2015). Important for the evaluation is that sustainability is more than the sum of the dimensions because they are interconnected and exhibit synergies (Lee and Kirkpatrick, 2001). Artmann and Sartison (2018) established a trinomial framework for assessing the sustainability of UA as a NbS by combining the three ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating and cultural) with the co-benefits in the dimensions of sustainability (economic, ecological and social). Further, they (2020) assessed the edible city in Andernach considering sustainable UA, but not only did they keep the dimensions and ecosystem services separated; they also based their research on only two interviews and themselves stated that further research is needed to integrate the different actors. In their concept each dimension and service has different indicators, which in this study are based on the two previously mentioned works by Artmann and Sartison. Table 1

17 illustrates the chosen indicators for this study. The combination of ecosystem services and co-benefits enables the researcher to generate a holistic view on the edible city concerning its benefits. Assessing ecosystem services for sustainability is a well-established measure (Ahern, 2011). But ecosystem services, in focusing on the ecological field, are only concerned with benefits that are generated by the system itself, while the co-benefits include the broader influence exerted on other socio-economic and socio-cultural systems in the city, such as local market benefits and sense of place. Further, Niemelä et al. (2010) note that ecosystem services alone may encourage an economic view of nature because provisioning and regulating services in particular are primarily assessed through monetary measures, neglecting the more intangible services.

Dimension (Service) Indicators (based on Artmann and Sartison, 2018 and Sartison and Artmann, 2020)

Economic (Provisioning) Food provision Good image and media coverage City marketing and tourism Income and job creation Local economy benefits

Ecological (Regulating) Biodiversity Pollination Habitat provision Micro-climate improvement

Social (Cultural) Participation Social cohesion Empowerment and pride Human-nature connection Aesthetic value Environmental education Health Table 1. Trinomial framework of indicators for assessing sustainability concerning the edible city based on Artmann and Sartison’s framework for urban agriculture (2018) and their study on three edible cities (2020).

3.2 Resilience Complex systems such as cities are inherently vulnerable to external shocks, and they must deal increasingly with uncertainty about the future (Folke et al., 2010). Urban resilience defines what path a city will take –recovering, adapting or transforming– in the face of a sudden disturbance like the COVID-19 pandemic or a chronic stressor such as climate change. There are two types of resilience; specific resilience regards specific events such as

18 floods, whereas general resilience describes the long-term continuation of a system despite disturbances (Masnavi et al., 2019). The edible city as a NbS is not implemented to counter any specific threat but to increase general resilience, which is intimately connected to sustainability. Therefore, there is often a distinction between social resilience, economic resilience and ecological resilience (Elmqvist et al., 2019; Ribeiro and Goncalves, 2019; Surjan et al., 2011). While many studies focus on a specific type of resilience, such as social resilience, this study explores resilience as an attribute of the system that necessarily has to account for all dimensions. Compared to sustainability, resilience is not inherently good. If a system has high resilience but has negative outcomes such as urban poverty, it is not desirable and will be difficult to change (Elmqvist et al., 2019).

Ribeiro and Goncalves (2019) specify four pillars of resilience: resisting, recovering, adapting and transforming. Resisting refers to maintaining functions during a disturbance. Resilience of recovery focuses on protecting “the life, propriety and economy” (ibid., p.4). Resilience as adaptation refers to the ability of a system to learn and respond to changing conditions (Berkes et al., 2003). Resilience as transformation applies when the disturbance induces a fundamental shift in the system, for example a shift from intensive agriculture towards sustainable farming (Folke et al., 2010). This study combines the first two forms into the category “withstanding” because both do not induce a change in the system. Further, the study adopts “adapting” and “transforming” as categories of resilience. Therefore, the study will examine the resilience of the edible city regarding its ability to withstand, adapt and transform during the COVID-19 pandemic as illustrated in Table 2. Sudden shocks open up opportunities for change in a system (Ahern, 2011), and therefore the current pandemic offers an opportunity to explore the sustainability and resilience of an urban subsystem like the edible city.

Resilience Explanation

Withstanding Maintaining order and functions in face of a disturbance (Ribeiro and Goncalves, 2019)

Adapting Incremental change of the system to return to the pre- disturbance state (Redman, 2014).

Transforming Fundamental change of the system towards a new stable state (Redman, 2014). Table 2. The three categories for analysing resilience.

3.3 Limitations of the theoretical framework Sustainability and resilience have been differently defined and conceptualized. Therefore, this study employs one definition of the two concepts, which means it necessarily neglects others. By using indicators based on the literature and previous studies on the edible city, this study does not and cannot account for all possible indicators used to assess sustainability. In

19 the analysis a deductive approach using established indicators is applied as well as an inductive approach to allow new categories to emerge that contribute to the sustainability assessment and minimize the neglect of other indicators. Further, by assessing not only ecosystem services but co-benefits as well, this study attempts to establish a holistic picture. Analysing resilience as an attribute based on the three types (withstanding, adapting and transforming) can impact the depth of each aspect compared to a focus on one dimension. Therefore, this study cannot fully cover every aspect that might be of importance, but rather it makes a selection that can be expanded with more time and resources.

4. Methodology This section introduces the study design by exploring qualitative research, the positionality of the researcher and the employment of a case study methodology encompassing all stages of the research including data collection, processing and analysis. It concludes with an ethical statement and the limitations of the study.

4.1 Qualitative research and positionality This study employs a qualitative research approach, which aims for “understanding the nature of the research problem rather than [...] the quantity of observed characteristics” (Baskarada, 2014, p.1) as is the case in quantitative research. Qualitative research focuses on understanding processes, describing phenomena and exploring different policy implementations. According to Mason (2002, p.1) qualitative research is suited to explore “how things work in a particular context”. This study aims to explore the processes taking place concerning the edible cities in Andernach and Todmorden in the special circumstance of a pandemic, considering the implications not only for the edible city itself but also for the people involved and their perceptions of the situation.

Qualitative research encompasses many different philosophies, such as post-positivism, interpretivism and a critical approach (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2010). Coming from a background in physics and natural sciences in my early education followed by economics in higher studies, I am familiar with a positivist approach to reality, in which reality is external to the observer and can indeed be measured in numbers. Thus, my position is inherently influenced, but my studies in urban and regional planning and human geography have changed my positionality. I do not side with a positivist stance; my understanding of reality and knowledge is a mixture of post-positivism and constructivism. I acknowledge that there is a reality that exists and that in the post-positivist perspective can never be accurately measured (Al-Saadi, 2014). I agree that knowledge about this reality is socially constructed by individual experiences, values and beliefs (Baxter and Jack, 2008). Therefore, meaning is subjective, which further influenced the choice of methodology.

20 4.2 Qualitative case study Based on my own positionality, this study follows a qualitative case study approach, which is used to explore a phenomenon, a case, in a specific context and in depth to establish a holistic picture (Baskarada, 2014; Baxter and Jack, 2008; Schrank and Mayer, 2013). Yin (2003) proposes four aspects that make the use of a case study design suitable. The first is that it answers how and why questions, which are presented in Section 1.1. Further, Yin states that the behaviour of the participants in the study cannot be manipulated, which is ensured by the social distancing resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. I am not able to actively be involved in the projects and hence have no direct influence on the participants. Third, Yin highlights the importance of context. While both projects implement the planting of edible plants in public spaces, the approaches and inherent conditions underlying them are quite different, which makes the emphasis on context important. Last, Yin notes that the boundaries between phenomena and context are not clear and that there should be a focus on contemporary phenomena. In this study the phenomena and the context are connected because the emerging pandemic influenced the context and the embedded projects together. The pandemic is a new, prevailing situation, whose ending is not yet defined. This study therefore fulfils all conditions for employing a case study design according to Yin (2003). Further, a two-case study approach was applied, which enhances the reliability of results (Yin, 2003) and allows for comparison between cases. In multiple case studies the cases are examined under the same criteria (Schrank and Mayer, 2013), which will be the sustainability indicators and the three types of resilience outlined in Chapter 3.

To ensure good quality research, I followed Yin’s (2003) six-stage case study process, which was further modified for qualitative case studies by Baskarada (2014). The process utilizes set parameters but at the same time allows for flexibility in design, which fits to my post- positivist positionality. The six stages are plan, design, prepare, collect, analyse and share. The planning phase connects to the set research questions and literature review in Chapters 1 and 2. The design, prepare, collect and analyse phases are further described in the following sections.

4.3 Research process

4.3.1 Case selection and propositions In case study research the unit of analysis is the case, which can be a process, a phenomenon, a group or the like (Yin, 2003). In this study the unit of analysis is the edible city concept in Andernach and Todmorden during the COVID-19 pandemic. Case selection can rely on various parameters that make a case suitable for study, mainly convenience, purpose and accessibility (Baskarada, 2014). In terms of convenience, while using multiple cases enhances the reliability of the results (Yin, 2003), more than two cases would not be feasible for the scope and timeframe of this thesis because as Baskarada (2014, p.5) describes it, “everything cannot and need not be understood”. The US General Accounting Office (1990, p.25) describes seven characteristics for purposeful case selection. The categories “representative”, “cluster” and “special interest” fit this case study. Representative cases are

21 chosen because they represent important variations; Andernach utilizes a top-down and Todmorden a bottom-up approach. Cluster refers to the comparability of different programs: both cases implement edible spaces. Both cases involve a special interest as they are two of the first successfully implemented edible areas in public spaces, a relatively new phenomenon that only recently has become of interest in academic research (Sartison and Artmann, 2020). Last, Andernach and Todmorden were more easily accessible because of their well-known status. Both cities are accustomed to requests for interviews, which allows for good anticipated participation but also requires careful design of the interview questions to acquire the desired information. Further, I am fluent in German and English, which lowers possible language barriers. Andernach is close to my hometown, and Todmorden is close to Manchester; thus, dialects were not an issue in communication.

To guide my data collection and analysis, I followed Yin (2003) to establish propositions, which can be compared to hypotheses in quantitative research and result from the literature or the researcher’s conceptions (Baxter and Jack, 2008). They help to determine the necessary data and the overall scope of the study. In the literature review in Section 2.4 previous studies have been examined and in Chapter 3 necessary indicators for the analysis of sustainability and categories of resilience are derived. Theoretical foundations are seen to be highly relevant for not only guiding the research question but also for the establishment of propositions (Yin, 2003). While these propositions help guide the researcher, additional propositions can be included as data is gathered (Baskarada, 2014). I want to emphasize that the propositions in Table 3 were made at a quite early stage in the research process and therefore represent rather wide-ranging expected developments for both edible cities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Propositions for Andernach Todmorden Sustainability

Economic Decrease in tourism leading to Tourism and donation decrease dimension less publicity. General leading to financial instability. economic stability.

Ecological Biodiversity and planting Probably difficulties in dimension regime maintained due to city maintaining the planters. management and funding. Decrease in biodiversity.

Social Decrease in social activity at Decrease in gardening activity, dimension edible spaces in the city and leading to a less active and the permaculture area. connected community.

Decrease in education and Decrease in education and learning due to less activity at learning due to less the edible spaces. participation.

22 Increased appreciation for Increased appreciation for nature in the city and local nature in the city and local products. products. Increased importance of gardening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 3. Propositions for the three sustainability dimensions.

4.3.2 Participant selection The participants were selected through purposeful sampling, meaning that each interviewee was selected because of his or her connection to the project. To interview citizens and their connection to the edible spaces, I first tried to engage them through social media, which led to no responses. I then switched to snowball sampling by asking previous interviewees for contacts to other citizens I could interview, which resulted in four new participants, two in each city. The appropriate number of participants in a case study depends on various factors, such as the unit of analysis, scope of the study and timeframe available (Pan and Tan, 2011). Both cities are rather small and accordingly there are few people involved with the edible city concept. Further, following previous studies examining edible cities that conducted from two to five interviews, five interviews per city were deemed suitable in the given timeframe.

Interviewee Position City Date Duration

A1 Planning council Andernach 09.03.2021 1h 10min

A2 Former planning council Andernach 18.03.2021 34min

A3 NGO, Perspektive gGmbH Andernach 18.03.2021 56min

A4 Citizen Andernach 01.04.2021 40min

A5 Citizen Andernach 09.04.2021 30min

T1 Committee Member Todmorden 10.03.2021 48min

T2 Committee Member Todmorden 19.03.2021 55min

T3 Committee Member Todmorden 19.03.2021 42min

T4 Citizen Todmorden 23.03.2021 1h

T5 Business Owner Todmorden 30.03.2021 35min Table 4. List of interviewees.

23 4.3.3 Data collection Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted, five in each case. Interviews are seen as “one of the most important sources of case study evidence” (Yin, 2003, p.89), which is in line with my ontological position that knowledge is socially constructed. The interviews were semi- structured to combine a deductive with an inductive approach, where on the one hand data is collected for predefined categories and on the other hand the emergence of new categories is allowed. Due to the semi-structured nature, I was able to adjust and add questions during the interviews. Previous studies on edible cities have mainly utilized interviews (Kaiser, 2017; Sartison and Artmann, 2020; Scharf et al., 2019). Following the interview process proposed by Kasunic (2010), I began each interview with a short introduction of myself, the thesis and the purpose of the interview before asking for consent to record the session and providing the opportunity for the interviewee to ask questions. The interview then followed the interview guide as presented in the Appendix, which was adjusted for each interviewee. At the end of the interviews, the interviewees were invited to add any remaining thoughts. I then thanked them for participating and asked for permission to contact them again. While conducting the interviews, I noticed differences in understanding and attitudes. In Andernach the interviewees seemed familiar with concepts such as sustainability, economics and ecology, while the respondents in Todmorden were rather reticent. As I assumed this difference was due to the fact that regular citizens were interviewed in Todmorden compared to administrative officials in Andernach, I had to adjust my approach during the following interviews to provide more room for the citizens of Todmorden to describe experiences in their own way. Even though the interviews were recorded with video and sound, I made written notes of important aspects during the interviews to demonstrate my interest to the interviewees and to provide backup in case of recording failure.

4.4 Data processing and analysis

4.4.1 Transcription The interviews were all recorded via the software Zoom and manually transcribed the same or the next day. I decided against using transcription software because in qualitative research transcription is connected to the analysis of the data, and they occur simultaneously (Merriam, 2002). This not only helped to uncover topics that I could explore further in later interviews; it also provided a more thorough understanding through repetition.

4.4.2 Data analysis The analysis of the interviews was twofold and can be described with the term “qualitative content analysis”, which combines theory-guided exploration and openness to new topics (Gläser and Laudel, 1999, p.3). Mason (2002) acknowledges the strategic component of qualitative research as well as its flexibility and context specification. I established categories that I employed in the interviews while leaving room for new topics. In the first step, by applying analytical coding (Baskarada, 2014) I selected data that fit the categories I wanted to explore and that were connected to my initial propositions. Returning to the initial

24 propositions is seen as a useful approach to guide the analysis (Yin, 2003). Mayring (2014, p.41) states that “technical fuzziness is compensated for by theoretical stringency” in qualitative content analysis. Yin (2013) notes that analytical generalization is the goal of case study research, which implies the usage of abstract concepts linked to the theoretical foundations. In this case sustainability and resilience are explored under a new context, the COVID-19 pandemic. In the second step I scanned the interviews for information that did not fit these categories, coded it separately and searched for repeating themes among the transcripts. As a result, the analysis combines a deductive approach resulting from the theory and an inductive approach resulting from the data collected.

The researcher needs to be aware of possible investigator bias, which could result in the analysis being influenced by personal values and assumptions (Darke et al., 1998). I did not have any connection to UA and in fact only learned about the concepts of edible cities by coincidence. While I see it as an interesting approach to greening cities, I have not taken a position for or against the concept. Nevertheless, continued self-reflection is important because a researcher can never be fully objective regarding the research subject (Mason, 2002). I noticed during an interview with a charismatic woman how difficult it can be to maintain the stance of researcher and to find a balance between understanding and objectivity. However, by noticing this influence in the first place, I was able to be cautious and reflective throughout the interviews and analyses.

4.5 Ethical considerations The COVID-19 pandemic moved the approach to research towards online methods and their ethical implications need to be considered (BPS, 2017). Online interviews were used in this study, and they need to be assessed in terms of informed consent, confidentiality, privacy and anonymity (Fisher and Anushko, 2008; BPS, 2017).

An important aspect is the informed consent of participants, which included the timeframe, the purpose of the research, the expected involvement of participants and the usage of data (Baskarada, 2014). Each participant was given an information sheet about the research in English or German, which included the purpose of the study, what was expected from the participants, how data was recorded and handled, as well as contact information; it also informed the participants of their right to withdraw their consent at any time without negative consequences. Further, it clearly stated that all participation was voluntary (see Appendix). Every participant filled out a consent form agreeing to the interviews, the recording of the interviews and the publication of data from the interviews. The participants were informed that the data would be stored until completion of the thesis in June 2021. At the start of each interview, I provided the interviewee an opportunity to ask questions about the research, which is important for informed participation (Fisher and Anushko, 2008).

To ensure confidentiality the recorded data was stored on an external hard drive to prevent any leakage of data to unauthorized persons. For anonymity and privacy reasons, all names have been substituted with generic descriptions like A1, A2, etc. The information sheet states

25 that the position of the interviewee will be revealed if necessary, for instance to identify whether they are a member of the planning council. Due to the small size of the cities, anonymity of participants cannot be fully ensured. However, because of the publicity this concept has received in the ten years since its introduction, the participants were accustomed to being interviewed and named in publications such as newspapers. Nevertheless, I removed all personal data that could reveal the identity of the interviewees and only mentioned their positions when necessary.

Another ethical consideration had to be made regarding the particular situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, which influences participants' health, moods and perceptions. An online interview allows the participants to join the interview from a comfortable space. I let every interviewee choose the interview time and date so as not to interrupt their daily routine, which is even more important considering the pandemic. By allowing for a comfortable interview environment at a suitable time for the participants, I tried to reduce any negative impact on their health and moods caused by the interview. Further, questions about their usage of and opinions about the edible spaces during the pandemic were carefully articulated to refer only to the specific interaction with edible spaces without delving into personal issues.

4.6 Limitations In case study research the triangulation of various data sources is highlighted (Yin, 2003). The main data sources are documents, archival records, direct observations and interviews (ibid.). Neither edible city employs written guidelines or concept approaches, and they are not connected to official planning or policy documents. Documentation is available solely in the form of media coverage, which is not up to date with information on the project concerning the pandemic. Nevertheless, press articles were used to construct an initial picture of the projects before the pandemic. Direct observations were not possible due to limitations in travel caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, I would like to visit the cities in person, not only to get an impression for myself but also to observe behaviour in the public spaces. I did get some pictures of the premises from my interviewees and was able to explore some parts through their illustrations. Nevertheless, this study relies solely on interviews that were conducted online. Interviews are only one form of data collection and might be limited in terms of data triangulation, although I made sure that different perspectives were examined and documented. The unique situation of the pandemic is also one of its limitations, that is the availability of data collection methods. Online surveys were considered but ultimately rejected because the aim of the study is to obtain in-depth data as opposed to a large quantity of data from numerous persons. Another reason for rejection was the expected low participation rate, which would not allow statistically significant results. The response on online platforms like Facebook was low to none, which was unexpected and, as described above, led to a change in approach. A survey would be more suitable for measuring the number of people using the spaces. Therefore, I decided to conduct interviews to gain a deep understanding of the edible city and the connected actors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the reliability of the results is dependent on the number of cases chosen. Two

26 cases are seen to enhance the reliability of the results compared to single-case studies (Yin, 2003), and a study using more than two cases was not possible in the scope and timeframe of this thesis. Further, choosing two well-established edible cities that have been operating for over a decade provides means for comparison on the one hand, but on the other hand it limits the transferability of results to emerging edible cities.

5. Case presentation This section introduces the two cases studied: the Edible City Andernach in Germany and Incredible Edible Todmorden in England. These cases were among the first in Europe in which the concept of an edible city through planting edible plants in public spaces was established.

5.1 The Edible City Andernach Andernach is located in the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate in western Germany between Cologne and Koblenz. The city has nearly 30,000 inhabitants (Statistisches Landesamt Rheinland-Pfalz, 2019). In 2008 the local NGO, Perspektive gGmbH, which works with the long-term unemployed, convinced the mayor of Andernach to establish a 14- ha permaculture in the district of Andernach-Eich, where edible plants are now grown and sold on site and in a shop in the city centre of Andernach. This permaculture (see Image 1) put seed to the idea of an edible city, and in 2010, the year of biodiversity, the department for environment together with the mayor planted 101 tomato varieties along the historic city wall. This marked the beginning of the edible city as a new approach to integrating urban agriculture into local green space planning for a sustainable and green city, one of the first of its kind in Germany (Artmann and Sartison, 2020). There was and still is no concrete concept or plan dictating the approach for the edible city in Andernach; it is a top-down project managed by the city department for the environment in collaboration with the NGO, Perspektive gGmbH. During the last decade 40 raised beds were built in the city centre, mainly containing spices, and 3,500m² are used for vegetables (A3, see Image 2). All the vegetables are free for anyone to harvest, following the motto “Pflücken erlaubt!” (“Harvesting allowed!”). The goal is to make planting and growing a tangible experience so as to reconnect people to nature and give them a sense of the seasonality of plants (Kosack, 2016). Not only the permaculture area but also the edible spaces in the city are maintained through the Perspektive gGmbH, which employs professional gardeners as well as workers provided by the unemployment agency. The edible city is financed through the city budget for green spaces, and the money previously spent on flowers is now used for edible plants.

Andernach has an annual festival called “Andernach schmeckt” (“Andernach Tastes Good”), and each year marks a different focus, such as the year of cabbage, the year of the strawberry or the year of the pumpkin. The edible city Andernach has been covered in many different media, such as in TV shows, radio podcasts and newspaper articles, and it has gained the status of “the edible city” in Germany (A2, A3). This increased attention has led to growing tourism activity. While there were about 10 guided tours in the beginning years, there were

27 over 170 in 2015 (Kaiser, 2017). The city received multiple German awards in two competitions in 2010 and 2012; it was named the most liveable city in 2013 and awarded the Lenné award in 2014 (Kosack, 2016). Moreover, Andernach is part of the EU programme EdiCityNet, which is made up of various cities, NGOs and researchers gathering data about existing edible city solutions and their integration.

Image 1. Permaculture area in the city-district Andernach-Eich. (Luxem, C., 2021). Used with written permission of the photographer.

Image 2. Edible plants in the city centre next to the historic city wall, Andernach. (Luxem, C., 2021). Used with written permission of the photographer.

28 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic Andernach experienced various restrictions. The first lockdown in Germany occurred on 22 March 2020, when all restaurants, shops and other services had to close. Further limitations on social contact included distancing between people of 1.5 metres, a mask requirement in public, and only small groups being allowed to gather in public spaces. Since the first lockdown, partial easing of restriction alternated with stricter measures. Since the edible spaces are in public spaces, the social distancing measures applied to the edible city as well as the permaculture area, but overall, the premises were and are open to citizens.

5.2 Incredible Edible Todmorden Todmorden is a small, formerly industrial town in upper Calderdale located on the west Yorkshire-Lancashire border in northwest England about 35 km from Manchester. The town is built on hillsides and divided by the Rochdale canal. Todmorden has about 15000 inhabitants (Todmorden Town Council, 2020) and is ranked in the top 10% of the most deprived communities in the northwest of England (Thompson, 2012; Paull, 2013). In 2008 two local women wanted to change their town for the better through the use of food. After a public meeting with about 60 attendees the initiative Incredible Edible Todmorden was established. Without asking for permission from the local government, the group repurposed public land to grow edible plants, which they called “propaganda gardening”. While this began as an informal community project, IET is now registered as a community benefit society with the support and permission of the local council, and it has an elected committee consisting of eight people. There is no plan or concept, but IET is based on three “spinning plates”: community, learning and business (Morley et al., 2017). The bottom-up initiative established about 70 planters in the city (T2) without any paid staff or an office. These spaces include, for example, a herb garden in the town centre, planting pots at the local railway station and raised beds in front of the police station (see Image 3 and 4).

Image 3. High beds in the city centre in Todmorden. (IET, 2021). Used with written permission of the photographer.

29

Image 4. Pots with spices in a public space in Todmorden. (IET, 2021). Used with written permission of the photographer.

IET collaborates with many different actors like Northern Rail, the police, the fire service, local schools, the local health centre as well as other initiatives in Todmorden to expand the edible spaces. All the planted vegetables are free to everyone. Each plot has mixed plants along with cards providing the names of the produce and when it will be ready for picking (Paull, 2013). All beds and plants are cared for by volunteers. IETs motto is “If you eat, you’re in”. They have over 350 registered volunteers and 50 members attending the gardening sessions that gather on two Sundays each month (T2). In addition to gardening, they host various events in Todmorden, such as cooking courses or seed swaps (Paull, 2013). IET is entirely financed through donations and fees from lectures held throughout the world, for example in Korea, the USA and Russia. Further, vegetable tourism stimulates some income through guided tours along the established green route that starts at the railway station, passes cafés and shops and ends at the local market (Kaiser, 2017). IET has achieved significant media coverage, which has enhanced its popularity globally; over 100 Incredible Edible movements have been established worldwide (Hardman et al., 2019).

Due to COVID-19 England entered the first, national lockdown on the 23 March 2020, with stay-at-home orders that banned all non-essential travel and contact between people. Businesses, schools and gathering places were shut down. Further social distancing as well as a mask requirement were enforced. Similar to the situation in Germany, gradual relaxations alternated with new lockdowns. IET’s main activity is gardening, which was allowed during relaxation phases (in small groups) but forbidden during lockdowns. Since 29 March 2021 outdoor gatherings of six people have been allowed, and IET has been able to pursue gardening.

30 6. Results and analysis This chapter is divided into the two research subquestions, where Section 6.1 focuses on How sustainable is the edible city in Andernach and Todmorden during the COVID-19 pandemic? and Section 6.2 on How resilient is the edible city in Andernach and Todmorden during the COVID-19 pandemic? The results will be further discussed in Chapter 7, where the two main research questions will be answered.

6.1 Sustainability and the edible city This section assesses the three dimensions of sustainability concerning the edible city using the indicators outlined in Chapter 3 by identifying what ecosystem services and co-benefits are provided during the pandemic based on the empirical data gathered in Andernach and Todmorden.

6.1.1 Economic dimension (provisioning services) The indicators in the economic dimension of sustainability for the edible city include food as a provisioning ecosystem service, income and job generation, image and media, marketing and tourism and benefits for the local economy. An additional indicator is proposed – financial stability– as the pandemic has had significant impact on monetary flows and values.

Financial stability This indicator was added specifically for crisis situations, such as COVID-19 that place pressure on the financial stability of projects. A lack of financial stability can make the entire edible city vulnerable and lead to restrictions in any of the three dimensions. For example, a reduced amount of planting due to financial limitations would negatively influence biodiversity and climate regulations as well as aesthetic value. Therefore, the edible city must be financially stable to be sustainable in the long term.

The COVID-19 pandemic has induced increasing limitations on the city budget in Andernach (A1), as in many other cities around the world (Siripurapu and Masters, 2021). Surprisingly, this did not lead to restrictions on the edible city. Although interviewee A1 acknowledged that limitations could arise if the pandemic continues for an extended period, other aspects of the budget will most likely be restricted instead of the edible city. This assumption is grounded in considerable political support and the proliferation of the concept over the past 10 years (A1, A2, A4). Throughout the pandemic the city department has focused on acquiring third-party funding through contests and grants (A1). Further, their participation in the EU programme EdiCityNet is connected to “large amounts of funding for Andernach” (A1). Nevertheless, the edible city only expands through external funds as the available financial means only cover maintenance costs. The executive NGO Perspektive gGmbH is inherently connected to the edible city, and while they have experienced financial cutbacks, the extent of the edible city has not changed because “in total the edible city is a profitable business” (A2). The NGO cross-finances the edible city with other financial prospects when needed (A2). The edible city in Andernach is financially stable at the moment, even amidst

31 the pandemic and despite financial limitations, because of its high status for the city and the related actors.

IET in Todmorden has experienced a “big hit on the income stream” (T3) as their main income pre-pandemic was from lectures and tours (T3). They have continued their presentations online via platforms such as Zoom. Some donations have also been received from community members in Todmorden (T3). While they have been able to gain some income through presentations and donations, the income from vegetable tourism has been lost. Yet, there was little financial concern among the interviewees because they claim to have enough savings to last a while (T1, T2, T3). At the same time, their main expense, which consists mostly of food and drink for the volunteers and event preparations, has reduced significantly (T3) since many activities had to be stopped due to pandemic restrictions. IET does not rely on public funding and thrives to be self-sufficient. Therefore, IET is currently financially stable during the pandemic.

Food Interviewees in both cities stated that food production is not the main goal of the edible city (A1, A3; T1, T2). In Andernach the raised beds in the city centre contain mainly spices and, to a lesser degree, vegetables, and it is estimated that the entire edible spaces including green spaces (1,6ha) can only provide 0.1% of the vegetable and fruit demands of the citizens (A1). Therefore, it is clear that the inner-city spaces are too small to provide enough food to support the large population. Nevertheless, the permaculture at the city outskirts has been gaining increasing attention regarding local food provision, especially during the pandemic. The Perspektive gGmbH established a “fancy farm shop” (A2) on the premises, which emphasizes commercial sales and a general consumer orientation. Further, two new foil tunnels have been built, one in 2020 with a surface area of 240 m² and a larger one in the spring of 2021 with 480 m² (A2). Additionally, an area previously inhabited by chickens has been remodelled for farming, and a new strawberry field has been planted in front of the onsite seminar room (A2). These expansions demonstrate a shift towards food production; the interviewee responsible for the permaculture stated that “you need to watch out to be able to supply the population almost all year round” and “I say produce because else you are not able to meet the demand” (A2). The production would not have been expanded in the absence of increasing demand. In 2019 about 300 lettuce heads were sold in the farm shop; in 2020 over 7,500 were sold (A2). “The stuff was torn out of our hands” (A2) phrases the increase in demand quite well. It is not clear whether the increase in demand was caused by the increase in supply or the pandemic, but the pandemic has certainly influenced citizens’ interest in local food (A4, A5). Since the pandemic people have been standing in line to buy vegetables at the permaculture area (A2), and the list for local meat sales is always filled (A5). People visit the permaculture area to buy food, and it has therefore contributed to local food safety during the pandemic even though it is not free of charge. The food production in the city centre was described by the interviewees as more of an afterthought used when people pass the raised beds, for example on their way to work (A1, A4, A5), though it might provide food safety for other citizens who were not interviewed.

32 In Todmorden the COVID-19 pandemic led to supermarket shortages (T5) and one interviewee stated that “suddenly we were struggling with things like food” (T3). This resulted in an increased interest by citizens in regional and local food production (T1). IET took an active role in supporting food security for people in the town, not only through vegetable planting in public spaces free of charge but by establishing new food-related projects. IET started collecting waste food from supermarkets and restaurants and packed over 100 so-called “life bags” that anybody in need could take or have delivered (T1, T5). Further, when gardening was possible, they provided lunch bags, even to those who had not been gardening (T5). As in Andernach the edible spaces in Todmorden do not produce large amounts of food, but IET has refocused on providing food security through other means, such as food waste collection and distribution, since the beginning of the pandemic.

Income and job generation The Perspektive gGmbH in Andernach employs three professional gardeners and 20 to 25 workers provided by the unemployment agency. Since the first lockdown on 16 March 2020, it has been forbidden to take any training or educational measures in the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate, so the workers from the agency are not allowed to work. Not only are the jobs on hold, but at the beginning of the planting season, the NGO lacks “the manpower to produce” (A2) because “watering in the summer is immense work” (A1). So-called ‘one- euro-jobs’1 are financially beneficial for the city as they do not pay full wages. In the coming months, the city might have to employ fully paid workers or hire other companies to care for the edible spaces, which will result in increasing costs. The responsible people in the city department and the NGO are not only employed for the edible city. The city department is concerned with climate and nature conservation, and the Perspektive gGmbH has various projects to manage. Consequently, the generation of jobs and income has been restricted due to the pandemic.

IET does not employ any workers, and nobody is paid (T1). Many committee members are retired (T4). As a result, there is no direct job or income creation. However, one possibility for citizens is to harvest the planted vegetables and “sell it or make jam and sell it” (T5). From the interviews it is not clear whether this is done by the inhabitants.

Image and media According to one interviewee, “The edible city is Andernach, point” (A2). The pandemic did not hamper interest in the edible city as the city department still receives multiple questions and interview requests each week concerning the project (A1). The edible city enjoys full political support and has a high status for the city department and the Perspektive gGmbH, because of its popularity and tourism value (A1, A2, A4). The image of the edible city in Andernach is of great importance for the actors as one interviewee states, “It’s important that the image for the city and Perspektive stays good” (A1) during the pandemic, referring to possible restrictions in planting because of the lack of manpower. Pumpkins are given as an

1“One-Euro-Job is a job with an NGO specifically for someone who’s been unemployed long-term and for which they earn 1 to 2 euros per hour maximum to supplement unemployment benefit” (PONS, 2021).

33 example, because they are low maintenance and create “great scenery for the city” (A2). Maintaining a good image and continuing to present themselves in the media is a main concern for the actors involved in the edible city Andernach amidst the pandemic.

IET used propaganda gardens in public spaces to gain publicity and one key driver was social media. T1 acknowledged that “we wouldn’t exist without social media” as they recruit and spread their ideas on their website and other services. The council has taken up the idea, and Calderdale is now called Incredible Calderdale (T2). As in Andernach, interest from all over the world did not decline due to the pandemic (T2). Further, they make sure not to plant crops that need to be dug up (T2), not necessarily to maintain a good image, but because they receive complaints if the spaces are not tidy (T1).

Marketing, tourism and local economic benefits The interviewee from the city department in Andernach stated that “the value for the city is mainly one of city marketing” (A1). The city establishes a new topic every year for marketing purposes (A3). The resulting tourism generates income for various establishments such as restaurants and hotels and serves as a location factor for companies (A1). A4 referred to the permaculture area especially as a “tourism magnet” and said that tourists are “willing to drive outside the city to see it” (A4). The city did host guiding tours, but these have been on halt since the pandemic started (A1), and the number of international tourists has decreased greatly due to pandemic travel restrictions. Though, it was noticed that more tourists are coming from the surrounding cities (A2, A4). The pandemic and the declining number of tourists leads to less public attention and ultimately less awareness of the edible city concept (A1), which results in economic loss. However, the edible city embodies a model for local farmers. The establishment of the farm shop at the permaculture demonstrated that shops without vendors based on trust work, and since the pandemic farmers have begun to put up their own shops in the city (A4).

In Todmorden IET calls their touristic activity “vegetable tourism” and has been rewarded for bringing the most tourists into town (T1, T2). IET uses guided tours to navigate visitors past shops, the market and various cafes (T2). Further, they actively promote local shopping (T2). They also create location value for businesses in Todmorden similarly to Andernach and, the collaboration is based on a give-and-take concept. One interviewee, a restaurant owner, described taking the vegetables planted for their food and in return donating meat at events, after which people come to her restaurant (T5). Even businesses not directly benefiting from the vegetables or spices donate tools and seeds (T2), which demonstrates an acknowledgement of IET’s work for the society and the town. Since the shops are now closed and the tours have stopped, this economic value has diminished.

6.1.2 Ecological dimension (regulating services) The indicators for the environmental dimension of sustainability encompass local climate, biodiversity, habitat provision and pollination. Based on the empirical data, one new indicator is proposed: resource recycling.

34 Local climate Climate change is an increasing threat that is experienced in both cities through decreasing amounts of rain and higher temperatures in the summer (A1, A2; T2). Measurements in Andernach have shown that the edible spaces positively influence the local microclimate (A1). The plants bind CO2 and support run-off, which is especially important in Todmorden, where floods occur regularly and there is a rather damp climate where “it rains every day to a degree” (T2). Interviewees in both cities stated that the pandemic did not influence the extent of planting (A1, A2; T1, T2), so it can be assumed that the benefits for the local climate have not been impacted by the pandemic.

Biodiversity, habitat provision and pollination The edible city in Andernach provides a habitat for insects, birds and other small animals through planting not only vegetables but also fruit trees. Additional flower streaks support pollination. Nevertheless, the biodiversity of the edible city is threatened due to an increased economic orientation and the pandemic. For example, the planting is decided after demand prospects and not ecological value (A2). Further small plots on the permaculture area are becoming redundant because they are “not effective for farming” (A2). The pandemic intensified the threat to biodiversity because the planting has become less work intensive (A1, A2) due to the lack of a work force caused by pandemic restrictions. Therefore, there is less lettuce in the city because it needs water every day and must be replanted every four weeks. Instead, plants with longer growing periods are chosen such as cauliflower (A2). Both these factors reduce the variety of plants and the biodiversity of the edible city Andernach.

Todmorden has a short growing season from March to September (T2, T3). The decision on planting is “rather random” (T1) as it depends on what kind of seeds are available. IET stopped planting vegetables that grow in the ground, such as carrots and potatoes, because the digging up by citizens leads to dirty sidewalks (T1, T2, T3). Biodiversity and habitat provision is enhanced through the additional planting of flowers, bushes and trees (T3, T4) and the creation of a wildlife corridor of native British trees (T2). Like Andernach’s flower streak for bees, Todmorden established a pollination streak (T5). In contrast to Andernach the pandemic did not result in restrictions or changes in planting. The limitations for gardening did not affect the planting because the humid weather makes watering largely unnecessary (T2). While in Andernach the growing has been described as “hard work” (A2), the interviewees from Todmorden collectively noted that “plants will just keep on growing” (T2) or that “once everything is planted and growing it kind of looks after itself” (T4). Additionally, the interviewees noted that “we just let the weed” (T1), meaning that the caretaking is not performed as deliberately as in Andernach.

Resource recycling Resource recycling is a proposed new category for sustainability because the recycling of water and waste appeared multiple times during the interviews in both cities. While this could be added to the economic section, it seems to fit more with ecological reasoning in the empirical data.

35 As watering has become an increasing problem in Andernach, the city and the Perspektive gGmbH are looking into recycling grey water (A2). One interviewee said they contacted an engineer’s office in March seeking opportunities for effective water usage (A2) because they are facing longer dry periods and stronger winds, which enhance evaporation. Further, they recycle the manure from chickens and pigs to produce their own fertilizer (A2). Neither Andernach nor Todmorden use pesticides (A3; T2). IET in Todmorden has established rainwater collection buckets to recycle water (T2, T3, T4). Further, they recycle seedlings through seed swapping, because “every gardener ends up with three times as many seedlings as they need” (T4).

Concerning waste, the edible city produces less package waste because the crops are directly harvested. Additionally, there is low food waste since “everything is harvested” (A1). A4 noted that flowers are just thrown away after they bloom, while the edible plants produce an end product that can be used. In Todmorden waste recycling is not directly related to the planted vegetables, but IET collects around 600 bags of rubbish in and around the edible spaces each year, and they have continued this during the pandemic (T1). They additionally use waste food for their regular Sunday meals (T4), and a restaurant owner stated that they have learned a great deal about food recycling in terms of what herbs and vegetables can be used to cook different meals (T5).

6.1.3 Social dimension (cultural services) The social dimension indicators encompass participation, education, human-nature connection and aesthetic value, health and social cohesion, empowerment and pride.

Participation The concept of the edible city in Andernach was not designed to include citizen participation, and responsibility lies in the working group, which consists of the city department, the Perspektive gGmbH and a few other actors (A1, A3). Therefore, citizens do not participate in gardening, and there seems to be little interest in doing so (A1, A2, A4). The Perspektive gGmbH has one or two volunteers who help two times a year for a few hours (A2). There have been some initiatives; for example, a neighbourhood was entrusted with some public space for planting, but the main initiator is getting too old to care for the area, and there is no interest from other citizen to take over, so the space will revert back to the care of the Perspektive gGmbH. Another project included children designing information plates for edible spaces located on their way to grammar school (A1). Further, the EU project EdiCityNet, of which Andernach is part, focuses on integrating the younger generation into edible solutions through various activities that have shown great resonance in Andernach during the pandemic (A4). Otherwise, Andernach exhibits more indirect participation through citizens taking the message home and planting vegetables in their own gardens or balconies. An interviewee said she does permaculture in her own garden, and her sister-in- law took inspiration from the edible city to start her own edible garden during the pandemic (A4). Multiple interviewees mentioned that citizens want their own gardens (A1, A2, A4, A5), their “own domain” (A5), and that the motivation to take care of spaces that belong to others or the public is extremely low (A2).

36

Anyone can join IET, and everyone living in Todmorden can vote for committee members and participate in decision making (T2). Further, non-members can offer ideas (T5). Gardening activity was completely shut down from the lockdown in November 2020 until the end of March 2021. Before that IET could garden with masks and social distancing (T1). Normally, there would be about 50 volunteers on a gardening Sunday (T1, T2), which included a group with high vulnerability to disease. Therefore, the number of participants has greatly decreased since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, there have been new volunteers signing up, who never participated before as there is an increased interest in gardening and getting outside due to the pandemic restrictions (T2, T3). Although the organized activities have stopped, there are still people doing some gardening on their own in the edible spaces. One interviewee said, “Sometimes we just go clean the graveyard of people we don’t know with like two or three people and it’s a small group of people” (T5). Also, there has been significant participation in other activities during the pandemic, such as litter collection and the building of small libraries around town (T1), as IET reoriented itself when gardening became unavailable.

Ecological education In both cases learning about ecology, nature and growing is communicated via three channels: presence, events and media.

In Andernach interviewees noted that the edible city is “present everywhere” (A4) and that “there is no way around it” (A5). The major learning channel is through looking and seeing (A1, A2). This path does not require direct contact with humans as it can be followed using the information signs with short descriptions of the plants at each bed. To make it interesting, new spaces or new attractions (A1) are regularly added. For example, two gardens in the city centre educate people about the negative temperature effects of a grey garden covered with gravel compared to a green garden covered with plants (A4). Though, according to one interviewee information is missing or not detailed enough at some edible spaces (A5). The permaculture area was highlighted (A4, A5) for being family friendly and a great place to show children where food comes from (A4). A mother noted that “except for books it is nearly impossible to show that [food origin] now” (A5). Another interviewee stated, “I know now forever what brussels sprouts look like” (A4). During the pandemic, a new aquaponic was installed with a low budget in mind so that citizens can replicate it in their own gardens (A2). As supermarkets have limited supplies due to the pandemic, the edible city demonstrates that vegetables can be grown where one lives. This path of education has not been restricted during the pandemic, but rather it has flourished as people spend more time outdoors, whereas events have been cancelled for over a year. Before the pandemic a well- attended festival called “Andernach Tastes Good” was held in which the edible city presented itself with a specific topic; this year it would have been bees (A1). Media, as the third channel, encompasses mainly the local newspaper and the city homepage (A1). The city department is planning to post pesto recipes online as well as where to find the necessary plants in the edible city spaces (A1). However, it was mentioned that the local newspaper has a low circulation and that the city “does not use the homepage much” (A5). An interviewee sums

37 it up this way: “Especially the environmental education has suffered” during the pandemic (A4).

IET in Todmorden utilizes the same channels. Learning through “saying it and keep doing it” (T2) and demonstrating that anyone can grow plants without expert knowledge (T1). Each bed has signs with information about the vegetables and spices, just like in Andernach. “Every day [...] we walk past the signs and children [...] can remember the herbs, because they walk past every day” (T5). This indicates that the prominent location supports learning. Similar to Andernach, all events had to be cancelled due to the pandemic. Although IET has focused more on using social media like Facebook to distribute information during the pandemic, such as activities to do at home, this does not necessarily contribute to environmental learning.

Human-nature connection and aesthetic value Since the pandemic there has been a stronger awareness of nature (A3, A4), and the edible city experienced an increased resonance among citizens. The edible city demonstrates where food comes from, lets citizen experience the different seasons and growing periods and creates the opportunity to touch, smell and taste vegetables and fruits (A3, A4, A5). During the pandemic people have turned to locally produced food as global supply chains face restrictions. One interviewee noted that, “If you stand in front of an empty shelf for the first time in your life, you can suddenly value what it means to buy products whose production location is known” (A3). Further, the interviewees show aesthetic appreciation for the edible spaces: “It is just beautiful to see how everything grows” (A5), and the view at the permaculture area is described as “gorgeous” (A2).

An interviewee in Todmorden stated that, “People are just so much more aware of their environment because, you know, […] a lot of people have commuted to Manchester and then like me they are working at home now. They are not going anywhere. So, what the town looks like and initiatives around town are more important. They are more obvious” (T3). Citizen in Todmorden show an increase in awareness for the local environment. The connection to nature is mainly derived from the gardening activity and “seeing the results of what you’re doing” (T3). Since that is only partly possible during the pandemic, the connection between humans and nature might be less intensive. In contrast to Andernach only one interviewee attributed aesthetic value to the edible spaces and described them as “beautiful” (T1).

Health The Perspektive gGmbH employs people suffering from alcoholism, psychological illnesses and physical impairment (A2). Since the beginning of the pandemic, these people have not been allowed to work; they have “to sit at home, bored and staring at the ceiling that is slowly falling on their head” (A2). The statement implies that the workers are struggling with the situation because gardening not only provided physical activity but also the opportunity to learn and meet people, which is beneficial for mental health. Through the pandemic the topic of healthy living is gaining increased attention. The edible city provides examples for a healthier diet (A4), which is further supported by the better taste of the vegetables and fruits

38 compared to supermarket products (A4, A5). The edible spaces, including the permaculture area, are actively used for local recreation and relaxation (A2, A4, A5), which has positive health impacts. One interviewee said that “especially now [during the pandemic] with the permaculture area, which is just beautifully situated [...]. You can really meet there and take a walk with a friend” (A4). Therefore, the edible city encourages and supports physical activity. Additionally, being able to harvest the edible spaces has been described as a moment of joy (A4). Watching the plants bloom is “beautiful and relaxing” (A5).

IET in Todmorden focuses on people with mental health issues, addictions, depression and learning difficulties, like the Perspektive gGmbH in Andernach (T1, T2). One interviewee stated, “The more people I interacted with, the more it helped my recovery [from alcohol abuse]” (T4). IET presents an opportunity to meet people without commitment and lets them garden together. The pandemic has proven to be a challenge especially for vulnerable groups. Two interviewees voiced concern: “I think people who are isolated normally […] perhaps gained more from being able to garden than the average person. And so, when they had to withdraw [during the pandemic] they felt the harm much more sharply” (T4); “Probably, the Sunday meetings were the only time they got to talk to somebody and for some of them it’s the only time they get proper food” (T3). The members of IET show great concern for everyone involved and they engage in various activities that improve health. For the vulnerable groups they make videos and send emails regularly to give them hope and make them feel included and not forgotten in times when they are not allowed to go outside (T1, T3, T5). Moreover, IET members gave out cards with their phone numbers for anyone needing help (T1). The people in Todmorden “feel like they are in good hands” (T5) and “People who live alone, people who are vulnerable, they don’t have to be so afraid, they will relax” (T5). These activities not only make the receiver feel better but also the giver. One interviewee describes it as “Being kind gives you joy; it feels really good” (T1). Another one states, “It's wonderful to see the old ladies pick [...] rhubarb to make rhubarb crumble. It's just great to see, it makes you feel warm inside” (T2). Helping others has a positive effect on mood and well-being, which has been facilitated during the pandemic situation. Being part of IET and having a task helped the oldest member of IET, a 76-year-old woman who cannot go out physically and describes the situation as “a shock” and that she is “hiding” (T2). The media aspect of IET has helped her connect and not feel isolated. Another aspect is physical activity, which during the pandemic is provided for example through litter collection. They also plan, when the pandemic allows them, to take people on short walks because “people are frightened to go back out, because they’ve gotten used to staying in” (T1). Appreciation for members is displayed through emails: “We get emails all the time [asking] ‘when does the gardening start again? I need to get out. I need to do something’” (T5).

Social cohesion, empowerment and pride The edible city in Andernach is known for the innovative concept of planting vegetables in the city that are free for everyone to take. This kind of sharing is part of social cohesion, though a rather weak one since it happens anonymously and might be better described as a form of consumption. While there might be occasional conversations at the edible spaces, there is rarely formation of social contacts (A4). The events connected to the edible city, like

39 “Andernach Tastes Good”, allowed people to meet and interact, but since the pandemic all events have been cancelled. This resulted in a “loss of communication” (A3). A sense of pride was evident during the interviews. One interviewee called the edible city a “tradition” (A3). The concept is positively valued, and one interviewee repeatedly describes it as “super cool” (A4).

In Todmorden IET puts great emphasis on including everyone “without favour or prejudice” (T4). As a result, the members are “completely across the board” (T2). The youngest member is six years old, and the oldest is 76. Further, there is a young boy with Down syndrome, one recovering from alcohol abuse and an autistic boy (T2). The inclusion extends to other cultures too, as a Thai woman states, “We cannot find it anywhere like that. To have so many white people and they are nice” (T5). During the pandemic they tried to include isolated members by sending regular emails and videos (T5). IET fosters community cohesion by creating a topic about food to start conversations and get people together. An interviewee describes the situation: “So, you get rich people that live up on the hill come down and say, you’d be planting, and they say, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t do it like that. My man would do it such and such a way’. Guys from Pakistan would come and say, ‘Back home in Pakistan we would do x’. […] Suddenly you got all these different people that normally would not mix or interact, talking about our potato or bean” (T2). During the pandemic members of IET distributed “kindness cards” that included a phone number to call for assistance, for example to do the shopping, deliver food or take old people for walks (T1). They extended their help throughout the entire town by creating small libraries that form “a connection to someone else, because you got their book” (T2). Further activities like litter collection bring the community together, even during the pandemic, albeit in a socially distanced way. IET establishes a form of empowerment because “the government did nothing” (T5) during the pandemic, and IET helps to “make the world a better place” (T3). The notion exists that the community can take better care of themselves than the official authorities, who do not even try according to several members. Further, it empowers the citizens to change the public spaces, and everybody is allowed to suggest ideas (T2, T4). IET does not have any mandatory activities and rather provides a sense of freedom for its members. “And somebody asked the company that owns the land if we could [distribute seeds] and they said no. So, we put pink buckets over our head, so we would not be recognized. And we went and spread it with wildflower seeds. So, telling us not to do something really doesn’t have any impact” (T2). Propaganda gardening and violating rules or acting against more powerful actors empowers the members of IET. According to one interviewee, “The power of people makes the town absolutely beautiful” (T5). Last, the members show a sense of pride for IET and their city. T2 describes it as “most amazing thing you’ve ever seen” (T2) and T1 notes, “It’s the greatest place on earth to live because no one would allow you to die here if they could stop it in any way shape or form”. They also show appreciation: “Then it came down to the pandemic time, everyone felt grateful to have them” (T5).

40 6.1.4 Summary This study does not attempt to weigh the various indicators for sustainability against each other, because the importance of each one is highly subjective, and its contribution to sustainability cannot be placed on an ordinal scale. Neither can all the indicators be accurately measured; this study relies solely on qualitative data from the conducted interviews. Nevertheless, both concepts exhibit a predominantly positive connection to sustainability, not in individual indicators but in the dimensions as a whole. Further, Andernach shows a greater focus on the economic dimension, especially during the pandemic, by focusing on cost savings, efficiency and maintaining a good city image. However, its social dimension, which has been characterized as including little-to-no citizen participation, has further lost means of connection because events and festivals have been cancelled during the pandemic. In comparison IET excels in the social dimension through demonstrating inclusion and participation even during the pandemic. Contrarily, its economic dimension is less expanded and is not connected to jobs or income as it has lost value due to the halt in tourism during the pandemic.

6.2 Resilience and the edible city Resilience is the capacity of a system to “survive, adapt and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience” (Resilient Cities Network, 2021). The edible city as a subsystem of the whole city has to be resilient against vulnerabilities to be able to deliver ecosystem services and benefits in times of crisis in order to contribute to sustainability. This section will analyse to what extent the edible cities in Andernach and Todmorden have been able to withstand, adapt and transform during the COVID-19 pandemic.

6.2.1 Withstanding: a look into the past A system withstands a sudden shock when it continues to deliver its ecosystem services and benefits without the need for adaptation. The previous section explored the economic, ecological and social dimensions of benefits and ecosystem services that the edible cities in Andernach and Todmorden provide during the pandemic. This section will in the first step look at two aspects that enhanced the withstanding capacity in both cities, namely their resources and infrastructures. Following this will be a look into the past, comparing the pre- COVID situation with the current one to determine which sustainability dimensions can be called resilient in terms of withstanding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Withstanding capacity Financially, Andernach depends on public funding, which can be considered rather stable compared to, for example, tourism income during the pandemic. Even though there has been pressure on the public budget, the edible city budget has not, and probably will not, be touched (A1). Further, the city department “has always dealt with financial distress” (A3) and thus the current situation is not unique in financial terms, and acquired knowledge throughout the years contributes positively to resilience. Moreover, the concept is of high

41 political interest because of its publicity and economic value. Andernach relies on external funding for extensions of the edible city, which negatively influences the robustness of the system and thus its resilience. Without the collaboration with the Perspektive gGmbH, which is a subsidiary of the city, the concept might have never been established because of their low-cost employment opportunities. While political support and financial security enhances general resilience to any shocks or chronic stresses, the reliance on one company and external funds could negatively affect resilience, although this is not evident in the current pandemic situation. The pandemic has taken up time for organizational purposes in the city department and the NGO office. Both actors are responsible for various projects, and the edible city only takes up around 5% of the activities for the Perspektive gGmbH (A2). This low time investment can negatively affect the resilience of the system in times when more intense management is required, such as during the pandemic. IET is financially dependent on donations, and collected a significant amount of savings over the past decade that provide financial stability during the pandemic. The savings enhance resilience in the pandemic but lower it for any long-term stress situations. IET’s expenses are quite low because they neither pay any staff nor rent an office. Both aspects, not relying on external funding and having no regular expenses, foster the resilience of IET. Additionally, many members have a lot of spare time as they are retired. That time was spent on organizing IET, tending the edible spaces and supporting the people of Todmorden during the pandemic; this helped the system to be robust in the face of the crisis.

The edible city Andernach is part of the EU-wide network EdiCityNet, where edible solutions are gathered to create a guiding framework for cities. Through this network Andernach exchanges ideas with other cities, such as Oslo, Rotterdam and Berlin; it receives funding for new projects and support in the establishment of smart systems. However, during the pandemic the city department stated that there might be “too little communication”, especially concerning measures and ideas connected to the pandemic (A1) that could have strengthened the withstanding and adaptive capacities of Andernach. IET was part of a formal network called Incredible Edible Network, which was established with external funding and has been abandoned since the funding stopped (T1). T1 stated that “We don’t need the Edible Network; we connect ourselves” and “We have been building our network of collaboration for 12–13 years”. This network contributed to IET’s capacity to withstand, and T1 noted that “All have come together in this pandemic to show the strength of the network”. The connection to other initiatives enabled IET to provide food to those in need. Establishing new collaborations takes time and is especially difficult during the pandemic when personal contact is unavailable. IET connects to other initiatives through emails and social media and exchanges ideas, particularly in Europe (T1) and this has continued during the pandemic. The network and connectivity have provided the capacity to deal with the pandemic and its impacts, supporting general resilience.

Withstanding the COVID-19 pandemic Both concepts, the edible city Andernach and Incredible Edible Todmorden, have existed for over a decade, which demonstrates that they have an established infrastructure and network that enhance not only the capacity to withstand the pandemic but also long-term resilience. Nevertheless, both differ in the ecosystems and co-benefits provided during the pandemic.

42

In the economic dimension both edible cities faced restrictions that could not be influenced by the cities themselves, such as work and travel restrictions by the government. However, the impact was greater for IET because the local market benefits have been closely tied to tourism in the form of guided tours, specifically along shops and cafes. Conversely, in Andernach the image of the edible city served during the pandemic as a location factor for companies and a model for local farmers to set up their own shops following the permaculture example. Indicators such as financial stability, food provision and image have not been impacted in either edible city; thus, they can be seen as withstanding. Neither of the edible cities had to restrict the extent of edible spaces due to the pandemic. In the ecological dimension through the maintenance of the edible spaces, local climate effects such as improved air quality and reduced local temperatures have not been impacted. Although Andernach increasingly focused on efficient planting, the spaces continue to provide habitats for animals and pollination opportunities for bees. Overall, the ecological dimension has not been heavily impacted by the pandemic. In the social dimension the top-down planned edible city in Andernach, which pre-pandemic did not include citizens in the planning, lost another communication channel to the citizens as events were cancelled. Conversely, even though IET could not utilize gardening as an activity, they established new projects to include members and engaged in socializing through preparing food bags, building small free libraries and contacting members via email and phone. Nevertheless, both edible cities lost a method of conveying ecological knowledge. One interviewee in Andernach stated that “People need to experience it” (A2), which renders online communication redundant. Health benefits have not only been maintained during the pandemic; they have increased in both cities.

Economically and ecologically the edible city in Andernach shows robustness in absorbing the shock, while the social dimension, which was less developed pre-COVID, has further declined and cannot be considered as withstanding the pandemic. IET has been less withstanding economically than Andernach, but it excels in the social dimension.

6.2.2 Adapting: Dealing with the now If a system faces a shock that exceeds its withstanding capacity, it necessarily has to adapt in order to survive and maintain its previous order. Adaptability has been defined as the “capacity of a socio-ecological system to learn, combine experience and knowledge, adjust its responses to changing external drivers” (Folke et al., 2010, p.2). Adapting necessarily includes an incremental change in response to a shock (Redman, 2014) such as the COVID- 19 pandemic.

Responsible for the edible city Andernach is a project group consisting of two main actors: the city department for environment and the executive NGO Perspektive gGmbH. Since the start of the pandemic, the project group has not been able to meet in person and has adapted by utilizing online platforms for their regular meetings. Along with the pandemic emerged a time of uncertainty about regulations and the timeframe for planning. All participants in the project group “know each other [and] appreciate each other” (A1), which allows for

43 immediate contact to discuss emerging problems and react accordingly. The concept in Andernach is not based on a fixed plan nor did they establish a crisis plan for the pandemic. The edible city Andernach is inherently experimental in design, which enables greater reactive and adaptive capacity. Throughout the past ten years actors have gained knowledge about plants, what grows where, how much water is needed and how much caretaking is required. The flexibility of the project's organization combined with the acquired knowledge of plants allowed the project group to find a solution that decreased water costs and compensated for the missing manpower caused by the pandemic by planting less labour- intensive vegetables in the inner city. These plants have a longer growing cycle, require less water and reduce the overall need for care. Nevertheless, the adaptive capacity of the edible city Andernach has been weakened because of organizational matters. Due to the pandemic the actors have had to expend time and effort to conform to regulations and change their organizational structure, such as by limiting the number of people in the office and establishing home-office possibilities. This limits the time available to react to changes in the edible city, and the Perspektive gGmbH had to delay plans for a new aquaponic on the permaculture (A2). Additionally, a mood of resistance rather than adaption is prevalent: resisting in the sense that the edible city is currently on halt but will continue once the pandemic is over (A3). This is underlined in that planning for the “Andernach Tastes Good” event is continuing on the premise that it will be held. The city department has already invited a guest lecturer specializing in insects to talk about this year's topic: bees. “Let’s wait what will happen this year” (A1) describes the stance of waiting for the pandemic to end. Further, there are no adaptive measures or secondary plans for the case that the pandemic regulations are not lifted until the end of the year. The Perspektive also plans to allow people to make their own apple juice “if the pandemic stops by autumn” (A2). Overall, the edible city Andernach has adapted to continuing operations of the project group and adjusted the planting to changing conditions. Otherwise, a wait-and-see approach seems to be dominant.

IET in Todmorden is handled by a committee consisting of seven members, who are elected every four years to allow new people to enter, which increases the diversity of the organizational organ responsible for liability, insurance, health and safety, purchasing and mobilization (T1). During the pandemic, interpretation of government rules has been especially difficult for IET (T1, T4) because there are separate rules for individuals, community organizations and community organizations dealing with illnesses. The diversity of members enriched the interpretation and implementation of the pandemic restrictions for IET. Similar to Andernach IET does not have a static plan and applies a flexible approach. Interviewee T3 said that “because they don't really have a strategy, actions or rules, it's very responsive and flexible and that has been a good thing”. There is no commitment required, and IET has a supportive network of 350 volunteers who enhance the ability to react to changing situations. In England the restrictions did not allow for gardening, which is the main activity of IET. They adapted by looking into various opportunities to help people: “When the pandemic came, boom, we thought, aha, people need books, they need to read, they need to imagine, we make books everywhere [in form of little libraries around town]” (T1) as a creative and innovative approach to keeping the community together. IET remained inclusive for those with disabilities and mental illnesses by engaging their 350 volunteers to call or send them emails. Further, they connected to new initiatives that deliver food to people in

44 need or provide necessities. IET mainly adapted their social activities to the changing circumstances by being flexible, innovative, inclusive and by seeking collaboration with other initiatives. T1 even called it a “beautiful moment to expand our movement of gardeners”.

6.2.3 Transforming: Envisioning the future As mentioned in the theory section, systems usually remain in their stable states, where their functions are preserved. Through an external shock a system can be pushed out of this state. While adaptation is an attempt to return to the previous stable state, transformation is a fundamental change towards a new stable state. A more distinct view is presented by Elmqvist et al. (2019), who instead of assuming static states of a system describe it as a trajectory. A system can therefore exhibit various possible future pathways, and a change between two pathways occurs if the shock or chronic stress exceeds the system's adaptive capacity.

The two edible city concepts in Andernach and Todmorden, which are distinct in their approaches, also exhibit two distinct pathways towards the future. The analysis of resilience in the previous sections showed that both edible cities were able to withstand and adapt to the pandemic, and both were able to maintain their functions and benefits to a large degree. Accordingly, they will not (at this point in time) change to new developmental pathways but have proven to be resilient on their current trajectory, despite the pandemic. Nevertheless, there have been some changes in focus that could provide insight on their future development.

Andernach has shown a greater focus on the economic dimension, not only by attributing the greatest value of the edible city to its image and marketing benefits but further by displaying an increasing trend towards agricultural production. The permaculture area has been expanding their vegetable production and is planning to expand further to meet demand, which has increased exponentially during the pandemic. One interviewee hopes for the extension of selling points to the city districts because the distance to the permaculture area is too far (A5). Further, the focus of the project group is on efficiency and cost mitigation in the planting due to lack of manpower, and for future development there are ideas about smart watering systems that allow water savings to be measured in monetary value. An interviewee stated that “working with companies will gain importance” (A3), which further strengthens the economic dimension. The ecological dimension seems to be secondary and might gain more importance with climate change mitigation and adaptation issues. The social dimension has been rather neglected since the concept “was not designed” (A3) to include citizens. A3 further explains that including citizens in planning and management requires great organizational input and articulation of the “rules of the game” as the city and the citizen have different views regarding sustainability. Momentarily, the edible city Andernach fulfils the EC’s aim of creating a “business model” for NbS (Bauduceau et al., 2015) that focuses on the economic dimension while secondarily providing ecological and social benefits. In all interviews in Andernach a positive attitude towards the future of the edible city was apparent. Many expressed the “great potential” of the concept (A1, A2, A3, A4). Whether the edible city Andernach will continue to focus on the economic dimension or change its focus is an

45 open question, but one interviewee concluded that “in any case there is a change incoming” (A4).

IET in Todmorden started out as a guerrilla gardening activity, one in which public spaces were used for planting without asking for permission. The pandemic has demonstrated their focus on the social dimension not only by including the vulnerable group affected the most by the pandemic but also by shifting their activities from gardening to other social projects when gardening was forbidden. Since the beginning their goal has been to change Todmorden to be better for the people. One interviewee stated, “We are the social side of edible cities” (T1), which indicates that for them the edible city is inherently a social component, while Andernach displays the opposite case. IET demonstrated the capacity to adapt and remain on their current socially focused developmental trajectory. However, this goes hand-in-hand with lower interest in the economic and ecological dimensions. Their network and resources have been used to provide food for those in need, establish contacts with those in isolation and create activities so that people can be outside. They further plan to do a “walk-and-talk” once the pandemic allows it because “people are frightened to go back outside” (T1). While they hope to return to a normal state soon in which they can gain income through tourism, they did not express concerns or plans about strengthening the economic side of IET. Compared to Andernach the future of IET is clearly oriented towards the social aspect, with economic and ecological matters being secondary.

7. Discussion In this section the results from Chapter 6 are discussed. The first part deals with the main research question: How can the edible city contribute to sustainable and resilient cities during the COVID-19 pandemic? The second part discusses the implications for planning the edible city in relation to the second research question: What are the implications for planning the edible city?

7.1 The edible city’s contribution to sustainable and resilient cities during the COVID-19 pandemic A sustainable and resilient subsystem contributes to the overall sustainability and resilience of the entire urban system: the city. Sustainability and resilience are connected because a sustainable city needs to be resilient for a long-term perspective, while a resilient city is not necessarily sustainable. This section will discuss the sustainability and resilience of the edible cities in terms of contributions and limitations.

Concerning sustainability each concept has a different weighting of the dimensions. While Andernach demonstrates a more economically oriented focus on the image and marketing of the city and the connected local market benefits, Todmorden clearly exhibits a social orientation. This study employs the definition of sustainability resting on the three pillars of economy, environment and society that in synergy create a sustainable vision of the future. In their current state both concepts overvalue one dimension while neglecting another. This

46 does not mean the concepts are not sustainable; the prioritization of one dimension might be necessary (Bush and Doyon, 2019), but it shows the potential for future development for both concepts to strengthen all dimensions. Especially benefits in the ecological dimension, such as carbon sequestration, seem to be a passive advantage of integrating plants in the edible city during the pandemic. This could change due to increasing local climate change in Andernach and Todmorden in the form of decreasing rain and dryer summers (A1, A2, T1, T2). Moreover, if sustainability is considered a normative goal, it is highly subjective. In this sense both concepts have to be evaluated in comparison to other possibilities, which include grey infrastructure and the planting of non-edible plants like flowers. In comparison, the multifunctionality of edible plants in public spaces becomes evident. Grey infrastructure usually focuses on one dimension. A collection system provides a regulating service by reducing run-off. There might be an economic value if it saves costs that would occur through water damage, but there is no inherent social component. While flowers in public spaces also provide regulating services such as temperature reduction and social benefits through aesthetic value, edible plants establish an ecosystem that not only produces vegetables and fruits for citizens but additionally provides marketing value, recreational opportunities and awareness of food origin and UA in general.

The edible cities have continued to provide most of their benefits and services throughout the pandemic. Ultimately, a city is built for its people, and the interviewees exhibited overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards the future of edible cities. Nevertheless, there are threats to the sustainability of the edible city concepts, and they are exacerbated through the pandemic. The first threat revolves around participation. IET has about 350 volunteers, and a survey conducted of Todmorden residents in 2016 found that 68.1% of the respondents do not take part in any activities (Morley et al., 2017). The number of people participating should have decreased significantly during the pandemic due to the restrictions, which is further supported by the survey findings that of those 31.9% participating regularly, 80% do so through local food events (Morley et al., 2017), which are prohibited during the pandemic. IET provided different activities like packing food bags and giving out cards with phone numbers to call if someone needed help, and the interviewees stated that around 100 food bags and 34 cards were distributed (T5). There is no doubt that these activities improve the well-being of some individuals and are important during the pandemic, but for a city of 15,000 inhabitants, they have a small-scale impact. Andernach presents a similar picture. A survey conducted in 2018 found that only 10% of the citizens are actively engaged with the edible city (IÖR, 2019). Further, 70% of the respondents stated that they never pick any vegetables, herbs or fruits. The edible city is utilizing public space, which is inherently for the public. Therefore, a threat to sustainability is raised because the extent of participation and inclusion of the public is low in both cities, which leads to the questions of whether the food is really for all the citizens. Another threat to sustainability concerns power relations, especially in Andernach. Even though IET in Todmorden might have low overall participation from the whole city, it is free for everyone to participate and there are no regulations on what to plant, when to participate or who can propose new ideas. In contrast the concept in Andernach is steered by the city as a product delivered to the citizens, who have no power in influencing this product. All decisions are made in a small project group with two main actors (the city department and the Perspektive gGmbH), without public input.

47 Given that sustainability also concerns social justice, Andernach exhibits a clear power imbalance between the city and its citizens, which threatens its sustainability.

In terms of resilience each concept is withstanding the pandemic and will not reach a critical point that could lead to a transformation or loss of the edible cities. The withstanding capacity has been greatly enhanced through the establishment of a network, which has been found to contribute to resilience (Ahern, 2011; Ribeiro and Goncalves, 2019). Generally, the analysis has found that each edible city has adapted well in its focus dimension because this has the most value for the actors. Andernach adapted its planting not only by choosing less labour- intensive plants but also by considering smart watering systems to enhance efficiency and reduce costs. IET changed how they integrate and engage the community during the pandemic, and the activity of planting has become a secondary feature. In both cases, what was beneficial was their experimental design and the flexibility of not following a fixed plan or set of guidelines. Ahern (2011, p.1) called this approach “safe-to-fail” to indicate that a failure of the system is not the end of it, but rather it is the beginning of a learning process; that in times of uncertainty it is impossible to design projects as fail-safe. Further, research on resilience has highlighted flexibility for adapting to change and enhancing resilience (Leichenko, 2011; Surjan et al., 2011). The small number of actors negatively affects diversity, which negatively affects resilience (Ahern, 2011; Cartalis, 2014), but this also allowed for swift reactions to the pandemic situation and has been termed innovation by Ribeiro and Goncalves (2019) as it contributes positively to resilience.

General resilience relies on certain factors that did not negatively affect the concepts in this crisis situation but raised concerns about future stresses. Representatives of IET and the city department in Andernach stated that there could be financial cutbacks if the pandemic continues for much longer (A1, T3). IET is solely reliant on donations, which previously were gathered through tourism and now are mainly provided through community donations and lectures. The diverse donation sources have supported IET’s resilience in the pandemic since a reliance solely on tourism would have led to a quick end to income. However, tourism was and probably will be again the main income stream that they rely on. Andernach has a fixed budget available for the edible city and is reliant on the political support of the local government. Further, because of the fixed budget they need external funds to extend the edible. The reliance on external funding in Andernach and on tourism income in Todmorden can negatively impact general resilience as dependence on external factors negatively correlates to resilience (Kaiser, 2017). Another negative impact could be the stance of ‘waiting-it-out’ that was apparent in the interviews in both cities. If the edible city faces a long-term crisis, waiting could prevent adaptations or transformations necessary for the continuation of ecosystem services and co-benefits. A form of counteraction could be that the actors in both cities are fond of their project, connect it to a form of pride and will probably put forth great effort even when faced with a long-term crisis.

48 7.2 Implications for planning the edible city The COVID-19 pandemic has placed the health and well-being of inhabitants of urban systems at the centre of attention for policy and planning (Jon, 2020; Rice, 2020). The EU is planning to mainstream ECS into urban planning to achieve economic growth in line with ecological preservation and social cohesion (EC, 2018). Dorst et al. (2019) argue that planning is a core principle of NbS. The previous section established that the edible city as a NbS is suitable for planning sustainable and resilient cities, but both cases demonstrate limitations. This section examines implications for implementing the edible city from a planning perspective derived from the analysis and the empirical data, while dealing with the question of replicability.

First, the edible city Andernach and Incredible Edible Todmorden share an experimental nature. Neither has a fixed plan nor did they develop one in response to the pandemic. Experimentation has been found to be a key enabler for implementation of NbS (Frantzeskaki, 2019; Sarabi et al., 2019), and this holds true for the edible city. Ahern et al. (2014) highlighted the need for planning to be adaptive in the face of an uncertain future and that planners need to accept failure when implementing new, innovative solutions in the urban fabric. Against a traditional planning approach that relies on knowledge and established practices (ibid.), the edible city proves to be a diverse concept based on different disciplines and an accumulation of knowledge over time. Experimentation allows for flexibility needed to adapt to changing situations and problems, which strengthens the resilience of the edible city. According to one interviewee a pandemic concept “would just stiffen things up and make it sluggish and slow” (A2). While urban greening is not a new concept for urban planners, the edible city introduces food as a new narrative specifically for the city. Food planning and the call for planners to support urban food production has been prevalent, especially in the USA, where food councils have been established (Campbell, 2016). The pandemic not only enforces a new perspective on health but also on food as a local opportunity that is independent of global value chains and contributes to food resilience. A pilot city or project that experiments with edible city solutions is necessary to gather experiences and data for other cities and planners that will make future implementations easier.

Second, both examined projects established a focus on one sustainability dimension while still utilizing co-benefits resulting from the other two dimensions. By targeting a distinct dimension, the underlying goal becomes clear. As was established previously, Andernach shows an economic focus oriented towards city image and marketing as opposed to the social focus of IET. For a sustainable edible city, I argue that this approach is not optimal and that urban planners should try to value each dimension equally. While certainly a difficult task, a common vision or set of expectations for each dimension can support this endeavour (Frantzeskaki, 2019; Sarabi et al., 2019). IET proposes a model with three spinning plates of business, learning and society, but the model does not clearly specify each aspect nor do they receive equal attention, at least during the pandemic. Their vision is to “make the town a better place” (T3), which is quite broad and difficult to address with actions. The environmental department in Andernach describes the edible city as an innovative way for

49 greening the city that refers to the multifunctionality of nature (Kosack, 2016), but here also a clear specification is missing. Urban planners should establish prospects for the social, economic and ecological dimensions to ensure an equal consideration of each.

Third, both cities are part of different networks at different scales. IET has created a community network consisting of volunteers, members and other initiatives in the town who share work and support each other especially during the pandemic (T1, T2). Further, they are connected to other Incredible Edible initiatives that have spread in England and internationally. This contact allows sharing ideas and enables a learning interface, where IET as a successful example is frequently asked how they operate and how others can implement the edible city. The local network in Andernach revolves mainly around the city department and the executing NGO Perspektive gGmbH. Andernach receives requests for interviews and questions about the edible city every week (A1), but these are largely in a German context. Internationally, Andernach is part of the EdiCityNetwork, which is further connected to the EU through which many cities throughout Europe exchange knowledge and ideas. Local, national and international networks are important for acquiring knowledge and fostering a learning-by-doing approach (Frantzeskaki, 2019). During the pandemic, the local networks in both cities have enabled a fast reaction to the circumstances and fostered the adaptation process. Therefore, networks contribute to general resilience and thus urban planners must act on opportunities to engage in various networks when implementing the edible city.

Last, the edible city is place and time specific, which is in line with the fourth principle of NbS proposed by Dorst et al. (2019). The examined cases involve small cities of under 30000 inhabitants. The edible city Andernach is financed through public funds, IET through donations. IET engages a small, tightly knit community, and the edible city Andernach is organized by a small city department and a local NGO. Andernach is facing drought caused by decreasing rain and increasing wind that leads to evaporation (A2). Todmorden is located in a damp area and has fewer concerns about watering the plants. Moreover, the cities deal with different types of culture. IET is characterized by high engagement by the inhabitants of Todmorden who are willing to help support the town. Andernach, in contrast, experiences a high level of disinterest from its citizens concerning the edible spaces, which could be related to them not being included in the planning process. Some interviewees mentioned that many Germans want their own gardens and not publicly owned land (A1, A3, A5). Zuniga-Teran et al. (2020) note that every city faces unique challenges, including finances, stakeholders, land availability, climate and soil, and regulations. When implementing an edible city, the planners need to examine the context specific characteristics of the city and distil the possibilities. According to one interviewee the edible city Andernach would not exist without the Perspektive gGmbH and its financial advantages (A2). IET holds that they would not exist without social media (T2). Timing can also be of great importance. Times of crisis present opportunities for change (Zuniga-Teran et al., 2020), and the pandemic might be the right time to expand the edible city concept to meet important challenges in public health and urban food systems.

Two barriers for implementing the edible city have emerged through the analysis. One revolves around missing definitions and visions for the edible city and connected concepts.

50 When asked whether the edible city is sustainable, the majority of respondents stated that it was, but they had difficulties articulating their reasoning. One interviewee even asked, “Well, what is sustainable?” (A2). Even though there was no common ground as to what sustainable means, all the interviewees stated that their respective edible city was sustainable, mostly because of its long establishment. The concept of resilience was not mentioned by any of the interviewees. At last, there is no clear definition of the edible city. To a planner utilizing the edible city concept to plan a sustainable and resilient city seems a vague task. Therefore, it is necessary to gather data and information on edible cities as well as their benefits and best practices around the world, which is the aim of EU programme EdiCityNet. A lack of understanding of sustainability might have led to the different valuations of the dimensions in Andernach and Todmorden. The planner needs to define a common vision for stakeholders and must be able to connect sustainability and resilience to ecosystems and their benefits. It is especially difficult to articulate the value of the social dimension because social cohesion, pride and empowerment cannot be measured monetarily.

Another focus for urban planning in implementing the edible city is to ensure a participatory and collaborative approach, which is seen as highly important for implementing NbS (Campbell, 2016; Frantzeskaki, 2019; Sarabi et al., 2019; Zuniga-Teran et al., 2020). A recurring theme during the interviews in Andernach was that including citizens is difficult, on the one hand due to lack of interest by the citizens and on the other hand due to the necessary organizational effort and time, which currently makes it not possible for the responsible city department. Further, there are differences of opinion between the city department and the citizens about what is ecological and what is sustainable (A1, A3), which leads back to the previous barrier. The top-down nature of the edible city Andernach could contribute to the passivity of the citizens since everything is managed and there is no need for them to be engaged. During the interviews with IET members, a negative connotation towards the local government and council became evident. “The city doesn’t care for public space” (T2), which created the necessity for the citizens to act. During the pandemic this holds true as well, as according to an interviewee, “The government did nothing” (T5). While there are small collaborations with the local council, IET tries to keep the connection to a minimum because “of their [the council’s] rules” (T1) that take up too much time and money. There seems to be a grudge, not necessarily towards the local government itself but towards its bureaucratic organization. Contrarily, IET is acknowledged in the local neighbourhood plan 2020 for Todmorden, so the antipathy seems to be one-sided as the local government reached out to IET and other initiatives during the pandemic for help because of their precarious financial situation. Due to the top-down approach in Andernach, the project group has to deal with non-existent citizen engagement and missing resources, and the bottom-up approach in Todmorden reveals negativity towards the local government from the members. Both cases pose a problem for participatory planning that includes a broad variety of stakeholders. For the implementation of an edible city, the planner needs to establish connections with local networks and citizens as well as political actors early on in the process. A necessary component for implementing NbS is political support (Zuniga-Teran et al., 2020). In the beginning the edible city project in Andernach was ironically smiled upon by the local politicians and surrounding cities (A1). As it gained publicity and was deemed successful, political support increased. During the pandemic there have been no financial

51 cutbacks in the edible city budget, even though the city faces budget restrictions; this can be partly traced back to political backing. A combination of a top-down and a bottom-up approach would be advisable so as to include citizens and ensure their engagement on their own terms, while the city can be supportive in terms of land availability, financing and securing political support. This approach allows collecting knowledge from citizens and experts in designing the edible city, and it empowers citizens to co-create public space.

8. Conclusion Following the two main research questions, this study examines the edible city as a type of ECS based on two cases in terms of sustainability and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic to assess how they contribute to sustainable and resilient cities, and it discusses the supporting and hindering aspects for planning an edible city.

Based on indicators in a trinomial framework that combines the concept of ecosystem services with co-benefits in the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, ecological and social), the results of this study demonstrate that both edible city concepts, despite their different approaches, show a predominantly positive connection to each sustainability dimension. However, during the pandemic the top-down planned edible city in Andernach has placed greater attention on the economic dimension, especially on maintaining the city image, while the social dimension has faced limitations in terms of communication, both between the city and the citizens and between the citizens. The bottom-up initiative IET emphasizes the social dimension in general and specifically during the pandemic by focusing on inclusion and participation. Here, the economic dimension was weakened during the pandemic because tourism activities had to be stopped. Both concepts seem to value the ecological dimension as a passive benefit that occurs naturally through incorporating plants in the urban fabric. The few possibilities for citizens to engage with the edible city in Andernach are critical for sustainability, which occurs as a product that can be consumed but not influenced. Further, both concepts exhibit an alarmingly low engagement rate: based on a city scale perspective less than 10% of the citizens in Andernach and less than 30% in Todmorden are engaged with the edible cities, even though the vegetables and fruits are planted in public spaces. The explored edible cities do not constitute an optimum for sustainability, and there is potential in both cases to strengthen the non-focus dimensions. Concerning resilience, the study shows that due to the establishment of both concepts for over a decade, their resources and infrastructure greatly increased their capacity to withstand the pandemic’s impacts and adapt accordingly. However, although this is true for the focus dimension, it is less so for the remaining ones. None show a transformation to a different trajectory, which means that the pandemic did not put any concept at a critical point, so they can be assessed as resilient. Although, the stance of waiting the pandemic out that is evident in both cases is concerning.

In conclusion this study has shown that the edible city contributes to urban sustainability and resilience through the continuing provision of ecosystem services and benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic and that it is a suitable concept for urban planning if the limitations of

52 the two cases are acknowledged and seen as opportunities for improvement. For urban planning this study contains certain facilitating aspects for implementation: an experimental nature, a more equal valuation of all sustainability dimensions, the importance of networks and the context and time specific conditions in each city. Therefore, this study contributes knowledge to two different approaches to the edible city in terms of sustainability and resilience during a pandemic situation; it adds to the goal of the EC to “explore the wealth and diversity of existing ECS” (EC, 2018) and draws implications to support implementation through urban planning.

Drawing on the limitations of this study, future research can extend the study on the one hand by confirming or changing the applied sustainability indicators and on the other hand by establishing a framework that weights the indicators for comparability. Moreover, the data on ECS, specifically edible cities, is still scarce, and further research is needed to examine the benefits and ecosystem services for different edible concepts at different locations. Another limitation of this study is the focus on two small-scale, well-established edible cities; this calls for research on emerging edible cities or concepts in larger cities. The COVID-19 pandemic allows for exploring resilience during an actual stressor to urban systems and should be utilized to assess not only a pre-COVID and COVID situation, but future post- COVID conditions for the edible city.

53 9. References Ahern, J. (2011) ‘From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, pp. 341–343. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021.

Ahern, J., Cilliers, S. and Niemelä, J. (2014) ‘The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, pp. 254–259. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020.

Al-Saadi, H. (2014) Demystifying Ontology and Epistemology in research methods. Available at: /paper/Demystifying-Ontology-and-Epistemology-in-research-Al- Saadi/a521c176af4f65956814222f281bc3cc971f87b5 (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

Andersson, E., Tengä, M., McPhearson, T. and Kremer, P. (2015) ‘Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability’, Ecosystem Services, 12(C), pp. 165–168. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002.

Artmann, M. and Sartison, K. (2018) ‘The Role of Urban Agriculture as a Nature-Based Solution: A Review for Developing a Systemic Assessment Framework’, Sustainability, 10(6), p. 1937. doi: 10.3390/su10061937.

Artmann, M. and Sartison, K. (2020) ‘Edible city – a new approach for upscaling local food supply? The case of Andernach, Germany’. In: Breuste, J., Artmann, M., Ioja, C., Qureshi, S. (Eds.): Making Green Cities. Concepts, challenges and practice, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 129-140. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-37716-8_4.

Artmann, M., Sartison, K. and Vávra, J. (2020) ‘The role of edible cities supporting sustainability transformation – A conceptual multi-dimensional framework tested on a case study in Germany’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, p. 120220. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120220.

Babí Almenar, J., Elliot, T., Rugani, B., Philippe, B., Navarrete, G.T., Sonnemann, G. and Geneletti, D. (2021) ‘Nexus between nature-based solutions, ecosystem services and urban challenges’, Land Use Policy, 100(C). Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v100y2021ics0264837719307409.html (Accessed: 7 May 2021).

Baskarada, S. (2014) ‘Qualitative Case Study Guidelines’, The Qualitative Report, 19(40), pp. 1–18. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1008.

Bauduceau, N., Berry, P., Cecchi, C., Elmqvist, T., Fernandez, M., Hartig, T., Krull, W., Mayerhofer, E., N., S., Noring, L., Raskin-Delisle, K., Roozen, E., Sutherland, W. and Tack, J. (2015) Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-based Solutions & Re-naturing Cities: Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on Nature-

54 based Solutions and Re-naturing Cities. Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2777/765301 (Accessed: 16 May 2021).

Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008) ‘Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers’, The Qualitative Report, 13(4), pp. 544-559. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573.

Beatley, T. and Newman, P. (2013) ‘Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities’, Sustainability, 5(8), pp. 3328–3345. doi: 10.3390/su5083328.

Bohn, K. and Viljoen, A. (2010) ‘The Edible City: Envisioning the Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL)’, Field, 4(1), pp. 149–161.

Breuste, J. H. and Artmann, M. (2015) ‘Allotment Gardens Contribute to Urban Ecosystem Service: Case Study Salzburg, Austria’, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(3), doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000264.

British Psychological Society (BPS). (2017) Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research, INF206/04.2017, Leicester. Available at: https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and- policy/ethics-guidelines-internet-mediated-research-2017 (Accessed: 7 May 2021).

Bryson, J. (2013) ‘The Nature of Gentrification’, Geography Compass, 7, pp. 578-587. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12056.

Bush, J. and Doyon, A. (2019) ‘Building urban resilience with nature-based solutions: How can urban planning contribute?’, Cities, 95, 102483. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102483.

Cabral, I., Costa, S., Weiland, U. and Bonn, A. (2017) ‘Urban Gardens as Multifunctional Nature-Based Solutions for Societal Goals in a Changing Climate’. In Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A. (eds) Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas, Cham: Springer International Publishing (Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions), pp. 237–253. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_14.

Campbell, L. K. (2016) ‘Getting farming on the agenda: Planning, policymaking, and governance practices of urban agriculture in New York City’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 19, pp. 295–305. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.011.

Cartalis, C. (2014) ‘Toward resilient cities – a review of definitions, challenges and prospects’, Advances in Building Energy Research, 8(2), pp. 259–266. doi: 10.1080/17512549.2014.890533.

Çelik, F. (2017) ‘The Importance of Edible Landscape in the Cities’, Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 5(2), pp. 118–124. doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v5i2.118-124.957.

Chan, K., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R., Vadeboncoeur, N. and Woodside, U. (2011) ‘Cultural services and non-use values’. In:

55 Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G.C. and Polasky, S. (eds) Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 206–228. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.003.0012.

Chelleri, L., Waters, J. J., Olazabal, M. and Minucci, G. (2015) ‘Resilience trade-offs: addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience’, Environment and Urbanization, 27(1), pp. 181–198. doi: 10.1177/0956247814550780.

Coaffee, J. (2013) ‘Towards Next-Generation Urban Resilience in Planning Practice: From Securitization to Integrated Place Making’, Planning Practice & Research, 28(3), pp. 323– 339. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2013.787693.

Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. and Maginnis, S. (2016) Nature-based Solutions to address global societal challenges, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en.

Colléony, A. and Shwartz, A. (2019) ‘Beyond Assuming Co-Benefits in Nature-Based Solutions: A Human-Centered Approach to Optimize Social and Ecological Outcomes for Advancing Sustainable Urban Planning’, Sustainability, 11(18), 4924. doi: 10.3390/su11184924.

Darke, P., Shanks, G. and Broadbent, M. (1998) ‘Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism’, Information Systems Journal, 8(4), pp. 273–289. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.1998.00040.x.

Deelstra, T. and Girardet, H. (2001) ‘Urban agriculture and sustainable cities’. In: Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Guendel, S. and Sabel-Koschella, U. (eds) Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung, pp. 43–65.

Delgado-Ramos, G. C. and Guibrunet, L. (2017) ‘Assessing the ecological dimension of urban resilience and sustainability’, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 9(2), pp. 151–169. doi: 10.1080/19463138.2017.1341890.

Dickinson, D. C. and Hobbs, R. J. (2017) ‘Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research’, Ecosystem Services, 25, pp. 179– 194. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.014.

Dorst, H., van der Jagt, A., Raven, R. and Runhaar, H. (2019) ‘Urban greening through nature-based solutions – Key characteristics of an emerging concept’, Sustainable Cities and Society, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101620.

Dushkova, D. and Haase, D. (2020) ‘Not Simply Green: Nature-Based Solutions as a Concept and Practical Approach for Sustainability Studies and Planning Agendas in Cities’, Land, 9(1), 19. doi: 10.3390/land9010019.

56 Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J. M. N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., Fady, B., Grube, M., Keune, H., Lamarque, P., Reuter, K., Smith, M., van Ham, C., Weisser, W. and Le Roux, X. (2015) ‘Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe’, Gaia - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24(4), pp. 243–248. doi: 10.14512/gaia.24.4.9.

Elmqvist, T., Setälä, H., Handel, S. N., van der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Blignaut, J. N., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Nowak, D. J., Kronenberg, J. and de Groot, R. (2015) ‘Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, pp. 101–108. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.001.

Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Takeuchi, K. and Folke, C. (2019) ‘Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century’, Nature Sustainability, 2(4), pp. 267–273. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1.

Ershad Sarabi, S., Han, Q., L., Romme, A. G., de Vries, B. and Wendling, L. (2019) ‘Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review’, Resources, 8(3), 121. doi: 10.3390/resources8030121.

EUcalls. (19 January 2021) Horizon 2020 - Nature-Based Solutions of €282 million. Available at: https://eucalls.net/blog/nature-based-solutions (Accessed 18 May 2021).

European Commission. (2015) Nature-based solutions. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/environment/nature-based- solutions_en (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

European Commission. (2018) Edible Cities Network Integrating Edible City Solutions for social resilient and sustainably productive cities. Available at: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/776665/de (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

European Commission Joint Research Centre. (2019) The future of cities: opportunities, challenges and the way forward, LU: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC116711 (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., de Boissezon, B. and Vandewoestijne, S. (2017) ‘Nature- Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges’, Environmental Research, 159, pp. 509–518. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.032.

Fedele, G., Locatelli, B. and Djoudi, H. (2017) ‘Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience’, Ecosystem Services, 28, pp. 43–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.011.

Fisher, C. B. and Anushko, A. E. (2008) ‘Research Ethics in Social Science’. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 95–110. doi: 10.4135/9781446212165.

57 Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. and Rockström, J. (2010) ‘Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability’, Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. [online] Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/ (Accessed: 7 May 2021).

Frantzeskaki, N. (2019) ‘Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities’, Environmental Science & Policy, 93, pp. 101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033.

General Accounting Office (GAO). (1990) Case Study Evaluations. Available at: https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/resources/guide/case_study_evaluations_gao (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (1999) Theoriegeleitete Textanalyse? Das Potential einer variablenorientierten qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH.

Gómez-Baggethun, E. and Barton, D. N. (2013) ‘Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning’, Ecological Economics, 86, pp. 235–245. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.

Gulyas, B. Z. and Edmondson, J. L. (2021) ‘Increasing City Resilience through Urban Agriculture: Challenges and Solutions in the Global North’, Sustainability, 13(3), 1465. doi: 10.3390/su13031465.

Haase, A. (2017) ‘The Contribution of Nature-Based Solutions to Socially Inclusive Urban Development– Some Reflections from a Social-environmental Perspective’. In Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A. (eds) Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions), pp. 221–236. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_13.

Hajzeri, A. and Kwadwo, V. O. (2019) ‘Investigating integration of edible plants in urban open spaces: Evaluation of policy challenges and successes of implementation’, Land Use Policy, 84, pp. 43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.029.

Hanzl, M. (2020) ‘Urban forms and green infrastructure – the implications for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic’, Cities & Health. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23748834.2020.1791441 (Accessed: 16 May 2021).

Hardman, M., Adams, M., Baker, M. and Beesley, L. (2019) ‘Food for all? Critically evaluating the role of the Incredible Edible movement in the UK’. In: Certoma, C., Noori, S. and Sondermann, M. (eds) Urban gardening and the struggle for social and spatial justice. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 139–153. doi: 10.7228/manchester/9781526126092.003.0009.

58 Hesse-Biber, S. N. and Leavy, P. (2010) ‘An Invitation to Qualitative Research’. In Hesse- Biber, S. N. and Leavy, P. The Practice of Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc, pp.3-14.

Hodgson, K., Campbell, M. C. and Bailkey, M. (2011) ‘Urban agriculture: Growing healthy, sustainable places’, APA Planning Advisory Service Reports, pp. 1–145.

Huang, L., Wu, J. and Yan, L. (2015) ‘Defining and measuring urban sustainability: a review of indicators’, Landscape Ecology, 30(7), pp. 1175–1193. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015- 0208-2.

Incredible Edible Todmorden (Photographer). (2020) ‘Untitled’ [Edible spaces in Todmorden, Photograph]. Retrieved 15 May 2021, from https://www.incredible-edible- todmorden.co.uk/pictures.

Jenkins, A. (2020) ‘Biotic systems as a critical urban infrastructure during crisis: learning from the COVID-19 pandemic’, Cities & Health. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1789821 (Accessed: 16 May 2021).

Jon, I. (2020) ‘A manifesto for planning after the coronavirus: Towards planning of care’, Planning Theory, 19(3), pp. 329–345. doi: 10.1177/1473095220931272.

Jong, W. M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C. and Weijnen, M. (2015) ‘Sustainable–Smart– Resilient–Low Carbon–Eco–Knowledge Cities; Making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, pp. 25–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.004.

Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., Haase, D., Knapp, S., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Zaunberger, K., Bonn, A. (2016) ‘Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action’, Ecology and Society, 21(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-08373-210239.

Kaiser, M. (2017) ‘Werkstätten des Wandels? -Essbare Städte und ihr Beitrag zur sozial- ökologischen Transformation’. In Keck, M., Faust, H., Fink, M., Gaedke, M. and Reeh, T. (eds) Transformationsräume: Lokale Initiativen des sozial-ökologischen Wandels. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, pp. 59–82. doi: 10.17875/gup2017-1067.

Kasunic, M. (2010) Measurement and Analysis Infrastructure Diagnostic, Version 1.0: Method Definition Document, Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. doi: 10.1184/R1/6575354.v1.

Kosack, L. (2016) ‘Die Essbare Stadt Andernach’, Standort, 40(2), pp. 138–144. doi: 10.1007/s00548-016-0430-4.

59 Krellenberg, K. and Koch, F. (2021) ‘Conceptualizing Interactions between SDGs and Urban Sustainability Transformations in Covid-19 Times’, Politics and Governance, 9, pp. 200–210. doi: 10.17645/pag.v9i1.3607.

Lafortezza, R., Chen, J., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. and Randrup, T. B. (2018) ‘Nature-based solutions for resilient landscapes and cities’, Environmental Research, 165, pp. 431–441. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.038.

Langemeyer, J., Madrid-Lopez, C., Mendoza Beltran, A. and Villalba Mendez, G. (2021) ‘Urban agriculture — A necessary pathway towards urban resilience and global sustainability?’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 210, p. 104055. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104055.

Lee, N. and Kirkpatrick, C. (2001) ‘Methodologies for sustainability impact assessments of proposals for new trade agreements’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 03(03), pp. 395–412. doi: 10.1142/S1464333201000765.

Leichenko, R. (2011) ‘Climate change and urban resilience’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), pp. 164–168. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.014.

Leibniz-Institut für ökologische Raumentwicklung (IÖR). (2019) Kurzbericht Projekt Essbare Städte Befragungsergebnisse Andernach. Available at: https://www.ioer.de/projekte/essbare-staedte/ (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

Lin, B. B., Philpott, S. M. and Jha, S. (2015) ‘The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity-ecosystem services: Challenges and next steps’, Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(3), pp. 189–201. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2015.01.005.

Lovell, S. T. (2010) ‘Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States’, Sustainability, 2(8), pp. 2499–2522. doi: 10.3390/su2082499.

Luxem, C. (Photographer). (2021) ‘Untitled’ [Permaculture and edible city in Andernach]. Retrieved 12 May 2021, personal exchange.

Maes, J. and Jacobs, S. (2017) ‘Nature-Based Solutions for Europe’s Sustainable Development’, Conservation Letters, 10(1), pp. 121–124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12216.

Maes, M. J. A., Jones, K. E., Toledano, M. B. and Milligan, B. (2019) ‘Mapping synergies and trade-offs between urban ecosystems and the sustainable development goals’, Environmental Science & Policy, 93, pp. 181–188. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.010.

Masnavi, M. R., Gharai, F. and Hajibandeh, M. (2019) ‘Exploring urban resilience thinking for its application in urban planning: a review of literature’, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16(1), pp. 567–582. doi: 10.1007/s13762-018- 1860-2.

60 Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mayring, P. (2014) Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Available at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168- ssoar-395173.

McCunn, L. J. (2020) ‘The importance of nature to city living during the COVID-19 pandemic: Considerations and goals from environmental psychology’, Cities & Health. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23748834.2020.1795385 (Accessed: 16 May 2021).

McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T. and Frantzeskaki, N. (2015) ‘Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services’, Ecosystem Services, 12, pp. 152–156. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012.

Meerow, S., Newell, J. P. and Stults, M. (2016) ‘Defining urban resilience: A review’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, pp. 38–49. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011.

Mehmood, A. (2016) ‘Of resilient places: planning for urban resilience’, European Planning Studies, 24, pp. 407–419. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1082980.

Mejia, A., Bhattacharya, M., Nigon-Crowley, A., Kirkpatrick, K. and Katoch, C. (2020) ‘Community gardening during times of crisis: Recommendations for community-engaged dialogue, research, and praxis’, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2020.101.006.

Merriam, S. B. (2002) Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, San Francisco: WILEY.

Middle, I., Dzidic, P., Buckley, A., Bennett, D., Tye, M. and Jones, R. (2014) ‘Integrating community gardens into public parks: An innovative approach for providing ecosystem services in urban areas’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4), pp. 638–645. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.09.001.

Mishra, A. and Pattnaik, D. (2021) ‘Urban Agriculture during and Post Covid-19 Pandemic’, Biotica Research Today, 3(1), pp. 62–64. Available at: https://www.bioticainternational.com/ojs/index.php/biorestoday/article/view/691 (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Morley, A., Farrier, A. and Dooris, M. T. (2017) Propagating success? The incredible edible model final report. Available at: https://www.incredible-edible- todmorden.co.uk/resources/research-and-evaluations (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., Haase, D., Jones-Walters, L., Keune, H., Kovacs, E., Krauze, K., Külvik, M., Rey, F., van Dijk, J., Inge Vistad, O., Wilkinson, M. E. and Wittmer, H. (2017) ‘The science, policy and

61 practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective’, Science of The Total Environment, 579, pp. 1215–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106.

Nicola, S., Ferrante, A., Cocetta, G. and Bulgari, R. (2020) ‘Food Supply and Urban Gardening in the Time of Covid-19’, Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Horticulture, 77(2), pp. 141–144. doi: 10.15835/buasvmcn-hort:2020.0051.

Niemelä, J., Saarela, S., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S. and Kotze, D. J. (2010) ‘Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11), pp. 3225–3243. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8.

Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019) ‘The rise of living alone: how one-person households are becoming increasingly common around the world’, Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/living-alone (Accessed: 16 May 2021).

Pan, S. L. and Tan, B. (2011) ‘Demystifying case research: A structured-pragmatic- situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies’, Information and Organization, 21(3), pp. 161–176. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.07.001.

Paull, J. (2013) ‘“Please pick me”: how Incredible Edible Todmorden is repurposing the commons for open source food and agricultural biodiversity’. In Franzo, J., Hunter, D., Borelli, T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Foods and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health, Oxford: Earthscan, Routledge, pp.336-345.

PONS (online dictionary). (2021) ‘Ein-Euro-Job’. Available at: https://de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung/deutsch-englisch/Ein-Euro-Job (Accessed 18 May 2021).

Pope, J., Annandale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004) ‘Conceptualising sustainability assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, pp. 595–616. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001.

Potschin, M., Kretsch, C., Haines-Young, R., Furman, E., Berry, P. and Baró, F. (2015) ‘Nature-Based Solutions’. In: Potschin, M. and Jax, K. (eds) OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book, EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. Available at: http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book (Accessed: 12 May 2021).

Pouso, S., Borja, Á., Fleming, L. E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., White, M. P. and Uyarra, M. C. (2021) ‘Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown beneficial for mental health’, The Science of the Total Environment, 756, p. 143984. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143984.

Pulighe, G. and Lupia, F. (2020) ‘Food First: COVID-19 Outbreak and Cities Lockdown a Booster for a Wider Vision on Urban Agriculture’, Sustainability, 12(12), 5012. doi: 10.3390/su12125012.

62 Raymond, C., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., Kabisch, N., de Bel, M., Enzi, V., Frantzeskaki, N., Geneletti, D., Cardinaletti, M., Lovinger, L., Basnou, C., Monteiro, A., Robrecht, H., Sgrigna, G., Munari, L. and Calfapietra, C. (2017) An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects, EKLIPSE Expert Working Group. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18682.08643.

Redman, C. (2014) ‘Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits?’, Ecology and Society, 19(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-06390-190237.

Resilient Cities Network (2021) Urban Resilience. Available at: https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/urban-resilience/ (Accessed: 16 May 2021).

Ribeiro, P. J. G. and Pena Jardim Gonçalves, L. A. (2019) ‘Urban resilience: A conceptual framework’, Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, p. 101625. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101625.

Rice, L. (2020) ‘After Covid-19: urban design as spatial medicine’, Urban Design International. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-020-00142-6 (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Riechers, M., Barkmann, J. and Tscharntke, T. (2016) ‘Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green’, Ecosystem Services, 17, pp. 33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007.

Russo, A., Escobedo, F. J., Cirella, G. T. and Zerbe, S. (2017) ‘Edible green infrastructure: An approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban environments’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 242, pp. 53–66. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.026.

Samuelsson, K., Barthel, S., Colding, J., Macassa, G. and Giusti, M. (2020) Urban nature as a source of resilience during social distancing amidst the coronavirus pandemic, OSF Preprints. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3wx5a (Accessed: 20 April 2021).

Santiago Fink, H. (2016) ‘Human-Nature for Climate Action: Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Sustainability’, Sustainability, 8(3), p. 254. doi: 10.3390/su8030254.

Sartison, K. and Artmann, M. (2020) ‘Edible cities – An innovative nature-based solution for urban sustainability transformation? An explorative study of urban food production in German cities’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126604. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126604.

Säumel, I., Reddy, S. E. and Wachtel, T. (2019) ‘Edible City Solutions—One Step Further to Foster Social Resilience through Enhanced Socio-Cultural Ecosystem Services in Cities’, Sustainability, 11(4), p. 972. doi: 10.3390/su11040972.

Scharf, N., Wachtel, T., Reddy, S. E. and Säumel, I. (2019) ‘Urban Commons for the Edible City—First Insights for Future Sustainable Urban Food Systems from Berlin, Germany’, Sustainability, 11(4), p. 966. doi: 10.3390/su11040966.

63 Schrank, S. and Mayer, H. (2013) ‘Das qualitative Case Study Design’, ProCare, 18(4), pp. 20–24. doi: 10.1007/s00735-013-0107-1.

Shanahan, D. F., Fuller, R. A., Bush, R., Lin, B. B. and Gaston, K. J. (2015) ‘The Health Benefits of Urban Nature: How Much Do We Need?’, BioScience, 65(5), pp. 476–485. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv032.

Siripurapu, A. and Masters, J. (2021) ‘How COVID-19 Is Harming State and City Budgets’, Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-covid-19-harming-state-and-city-budgets (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

Stahlbrand, L. and Roberts, W. (2020) ‘Local food system responses to COVID-19: Toronto and its city region’, Ruaf. Available at: https://ruaf.org/news/local-food- systemresponses-to-covid-19-toronto-and-its-city-region/ (Accessed 15 May 2021).

Statistisches Landesamt Rheinland-Pfalz (2019) Bevölkerungsstand 2019, Kreise, Gemeinden, Verbandsgemeinden. Available at: http://www.statistik.rlp.de/de/regional/geowebdienste/bevoelkerung/ (Accessed: 16 May 2021).

Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Surjan, A., Sharma, A. and Shaw, R. (2011) ‘Understanding Urban Resilience’, in Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management, pp. 17–45. doi: 10.1108/S2040- 7262(2011)0000006008.

Theodorou, A., Panno, A., Carrus, G., Alessio Carbone, G., Massullo, C. and Imperatori, C. (2021) ‘Stay home, stay safe, stay green: The role of gardening activities on mental health during the Covid-19 home confinement’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 61, p. 127091. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127091.

Thompson, J. (2012) ‘Incredible Edible ‐ social and environmental entrepreneurship in the era of the “Big Society”’, Social Enterprise Journal, 8, pp.237-250. doi: 10.1108/17508611211280773.

Todmorden Town Council (2020) About Todmorden. Available at: https://todmorden- tc.gov.uk/about-todmorden/ (Accessed: 16 May 2021).

Ugolini, F., Massetti, L., Calaza-Martínez, P., Carinanos, P., Dobbs, C., Krajter Ostoic, S., Marija Marin, A., Pearlmutter, D., Saaroni, H., Sauliene, I., Simoneti, M., Verlic, A., Vuletic, D. and Sanesi, G. (2020) ‘Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and perceptions of urban green space: An international exploratory study’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 56, p. 126888. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126888.

64 United Nations. (2015) Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

United Nations. (2019) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18356/b9e995fe-en (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Weimann, H., Björk, J. and Håkansson, C. (2019) ‘Experiences of the Urban Green Local Environment as a Factor for Well-Being among Adults: An Exploratory Qualitative Study in Southern Sweden’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), p. 2464. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16142464.

Wendling, L. A., Huovila, A., zu Castell-Rüdenhausen, M., Hukkalainen, M. and Airaksinen, M. (2018) ‘Benchmarking Nature-Based Solution and Smart City Assessment Schemes Against the Sustainable Development Goal Indicator Framework’, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2018.00069.

Wilkinson, C. (2012) ‘Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory’, Planning Theory, 11(2), pp. 148–169. doi: 10.1177/1473095211426274.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wu, J. (2014) ‘Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, pp. 209–221. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018.

Xing, Y., Jones, P. and Donnison, I. (2017) ‘Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment’, Sustainability, 9(1), p. 149. doi: 10.3390/su9010149.

Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd Edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

Yin, R. K. (2013) ‘Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations’, Evaluation, 19(3), pp. 321–332. doi: 10.1177/1356389013497081.

Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., de Vito, L., Gerlak, A. K., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A. and Booth, G. (2020) ‘Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4), pp. 710–732. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890.

65 10. Appendix A. Interview Guides: Each interview had its own interview guide that started with general questions, followed by questions structured around the three dimensions of sustainability and concluded with future perspectives. The following are exemplary, which have been translated to German for the interviews in Andernach. The guide was used to manage the interview, but I allowed flexibility around the topics.

A.1 Interview guide committee members of IET / city department Andernach General: What is IET for you? What is your role in IET? How did you engage with IET? How is IET organized? -What actors are included? -How is it financed? -Do you have a strategy or plan? How is the relation with the city council?

Economic: Are there financial losses due to the pandemic? How is vegetable tourism affected? How are those affected that guide tours in Todmorden? Did the interest from outside change? Do the missing financial means impact IET? Have there been measures to counter this?

Ecological: How much is produced? Who decides what is planted? Could you hold up with tending all the plants during the pandemic? Does the pandemic impact the future organization of the edible spaces? What happens if people cannot tend their planters? How do you convey ecological knowledge especially now during the pandemic?

Social: Did you notice a change in the engagement of citizens of Todmorden with IET? Do you have measures to include the especially vulnerable due to the pandemic? How often do you have contact with other members of IET? Did that change during the pandemic? Is there an increased interest in regional products due to the pandemic?

Incredible Edible Network: How significant is the network for you?

66 Do you exchange experiences with other Incredible Edible initiatives concerning the pandemic?

Future: How do you envision the future of IET after the experiences during the pandemic? Should there be changes in the approach like crisis management due to the pandemic?

A.2 Interview guide members IET / citizen Andernach General: How long have you been living in Todmorden? What is IET for you? How did you get engaged with IET? What was your first impression? How did this impression develop?

Economic: How do you use the edible spaces? Did it change through the pandemic? Did your interest in local products change? Especially during the pandemic? What is your motivation to participate? Did IET help you during the pandemic? If yes, in what way? (Health, Doing, ….)

Social: Can you describe the community around IET? Do you have social contacts through IET? Did this change during the pandemic? Would you be engaged if it was provided by the city council?

Ecological: Did you learn something about local and healthy food? Did you learn something about ecological planting? Did the pandemic change the necessity of ecological food planting for you?

Future: What would you wish for the future of IET? Would you recommend it for other initiatives? Is it especially in crisis times a useful activity for health, social contacts,…?

67 B. Consent form Information for participation in the master’s project “The edible city: A concept for the sustainable and resilient city?”

Information on the study I’m a university student in the master’s program ‘Urban and Regional Planning’ at the Department for Human Geography at Stockholm University. The aim of this study is to examine different concepts of the edible city during the COVID- 19 pandemic including the emerging problems and possible solutions.

What does participation include? Participation in the study is voluntary and includes an online interview that lasts a maximum of one hour. Consent to participate can be withdrawn at any time without any further consequences.

Data With your consent the online interview will be video-recorded. All data of this interview is treated confidentially, is only available for me and is only used in the context of this master's thesis. All data is anonymized unless it is important for the publication that the workplace or position is made known. Parts of the interview can be included in the master's thesis as quotations. You have the opportunity to view this data. The consent to the use of data can be revised at any time, in which case all data will be deleted.

If you would like to receive the results of this study, please contact me by e-mail.

Contact information Researcher: Annika Holthaus, [email protected] Supervisor: Peter Schmitt, [email protected]

Declaration of consent I received and understood the information about the master’s project “The edible city: A concept for the sustainable and resilient city?”. I agree that: -I take part in interviews -the interview is recorded -the information from this interview will be published

I agree that this data will be used until the end of the project in June 2021.

...... Date, Signature

68