Reports from Urban Studies Research Internships 2017

Ed. Guy Baeten, Fredrik Björk, Anders Edvik & Peter Parker

1 MAPIUS 22 Reports from Urban Studies Research Internships 2017

ISBN: (tryck) - 978-91-87997-10-5 (digital) - 978-91-87997-11-2

2 Content

Introduction 4 A House that Creates Relationships. A Case Study of Sofielund’s Collective House in Malmö, Sweden by Anna-Riikka Kojonsaari 5 Business Improvement Districts and Their Role in the Swedish Context by Maja Stalevska & Dragan Kusevski 13 The Urban Mycelium: Urban Agriculture Networks and Systems in Malmö, Sweden by Kerstin Schreiber 43 Social impact generated by urban farming. A study on the application and purpose of SROI to communicate the value of urban farming by Louise Ekman 74

3 Earlier publications in the MAPIUS-series

1. Mikael Stigendal (2007) Allt som inte flyter. Fosies potentialer – Malmös problem. 2. Ebba Lisberg Jensen & Pernilla Ouis, red. (2008) Inne och ute i Malmö. Studier av urbana förändringspro- cesser. 3. Per Hillbur, red. (2009) Närnaturens mångfald. Planering och brukande av Arriesjöns strövområde. 4. Johanna Sixtensson (2009) Hemma och främmande i staden. Kvinnor med slöja berättar. 5. Per-Olof Hallin, Alban Jashari, Carina Listerborn & Margareta Popoola (2010) Det är inte stenarna som gör ont. Röster från Herrgården, Rosengård – om konflikter och erskännande. 6. Mikael Stigendal (2010) Cities and social cohesion. Popularizing the results of Social Polis. 7. Mikael Stigendal, red. (2011) Det handlar om något större. Kunskaper om ungdomars möte med sin stad. Följeforskning om New City. 8. Eva Öresjö, Gunnar Blomé och Lars Pettersson (2012) En stadsdel byter skepnad. En utvärdering av förny- elsen på Öster i Gävle. 9. Nicklas Guldåker och Per-Olof Hallin (2013) Stadens bränder del I. Anlagda bränder och Malmös sociala geografi. 10. Helena Bohman, Manne Gerell, Jonas Lundsten och Mona Tykesson (2013) Stadens bränder del 2. Fördjup- ning. 11. Manne Gerell (2013) Bränder, skadegörelse, grannskap och socialt kapital. 12. Mikaela Herbert (2013) Stadens skavsår: Inhägnade flerbostadshus i den polariserade staden. 13. Eva Hedenfelt (2013) Hållbarhetsanalys av städer och stadsutveckling. Ett integrerat perspektiv på staden som ett socioekologiskt komplext system. 14. Irene Andersson (2013) För några kvinnor tycks aldrig ha bott i Malmö. Om synlighet, erkännande och genus i berättelser om Malmö. Publicerad tillsammans med Institutet för studier i Malmös historia. 15. Per-Olof Hallin (2013) Sociala risker: En begrepps- och metoddiskussion. 16. Carina Listerborn, Karin Grundström, Ragnhild Claesson, Tim Delshammar, Magnus Johansson & Peter Parker, red. (2014) Strategier för att hela en delad stad. Samordnad stadsutveckling i Malmö. 17. Helena Bohman, Stig Westerdahl & Eva Öresjö, red. (2014) Perspektiv på fastigheter. 18. Richard Ek, Manne Gerell, Nicklas Guldåker, Per-Olof Hallin, Mikaela Herbert, Tuija Nieminen Kristofers- son, Annika Nilsson & Mona Tykesson (2015) Att laga revor i samhällsväven – om social utsatthet och sociala risker i den postindustriella staden. 19. Helena Bohman & Ola Jingryd (2015) BID Sofielund. Fastighetsägares roll i områdesutveckling. 20. Helena Bohman, Anders Edvik och Mats Fred (2016) Nygammalt: rapport från områdesutveckling i Södra Sofielund/Seved, Malmö stad. 21. Margareta Rämgård, Peter Håkansson & Josefin Björk (2018) Det sociala sammanhanget. Om Finsam Mitt- Skånes arbete mot utanförskap.

4 Introduction

Students at the Master of Urban Studies at the Department of Urban Studies, Malmö University, have the option to become a Research Intern at a research project at Malmö University or elsewhere. Students become a member of a professional research team and can gain invaluable research experience that will be of help later in their career. At the end of the internship, students present their research results and write a report. This publication contains four such reports written in the beginning of 2018. Anna-Riika Kojonsaari participated in the Critical Urban Sustainability Hub, or CRUSH. CRUSH runs between 2014 and 2019 and is a FORMAS Strong Research Environment that brings together 14 researchers from Malmö, Uppsala, Lund and Göteborg. It is a research platform with an international outlook on critical perspectives on urban sustainable development, and with a prime focus on Sweden’s acute housing crisis. Its overall focus is the housing crisis (and related urban issues: displacement, eviction, gentrification) seen through the lens of weak groups in order to provide discursive space for those groups in science and media. Rather than defining the current housing crisis as a mere housing shortage that can be built away, it defines the crisis as a crisis of housing inequality and housing polarization. In that way, it seeks to highlight power relations and injustices at work in the housing market. Maja Stalevska and Dragan Kusevski participated in the research platform shifting conceptualizations of property in Sweden, a multidisciplinary research platform at Malmö University, that explores how different conceptions of property inform urban development. The starting point is that conceptions of property are highly normative, complex and span a field far beyond the strictly legal. Moreover, these conceptualizations have important implications for understanding for instance, the role and limits of urban planning, sale of municipal land, gating and the management and use of public space. Maja Stalevska and Dragan Kusevski have mapped and analysed the growth of BID-like (Business improvement districts) organizations in Sweden which is indicative of a significant shift in understandings of public space and its management. Kerstin Schreiber and Louise Ekman took part in Malmö Växer, a VINNOVA-financed project on urban cultivation led by the City of Malmö, in partnership with Malmö University. The project aims to find ways the municipality can coordinate urban cultivation in public space. Urban cultivation has been wide-spread in Malmö for many years, but the municipal organisation has not kept up with the rapid increase in interest and lacks ways to manage urban cultivation in all its different forms. Together with local stakeholders the project intends to experiment with different models of governance to ensure long term sustainability for urban cultivation initiatives. The project will also investigate ways to measure and evaluate the values and benefits of urban cultivation from social, ecological and economic perspectives.

5 A House that Creates Relationships A Case Study of Sofielund’s Collective House in Malmö, Sweden

Anna-Riikka Kojonsaari

One of the oldest human needs is having someone to wonder where you are when you don’t come home at night. – Margaret Mead

Abstract In the winter of 2017, I conducted a study in Sofielund’s Collective House (SoKo) in Malmö, Sweden, with the aim to understand how the everyday is experienced by the residents in a collective house and what kind of meaning is created around belonging. The study was a part of my research internship in Critical Urban Sustainability Hub (CRUSH), a research platform that focuses on sustainable housing. I was interested to consider the social sustainability of collective housing from the individual’s perspective through the concept of belonging and connect it to the analysis of a collective house in the neoliberal era. During November and December of 2017, I conducted six qualitative semi-structured interviews and observations in the collective house. The qualitative data was supported and compared with data gathered through an online survey¹ distributed for the residents and answered by 21 inhabitants anonymously. The validity and soundness of data were tested through triangulation via different sources: the interviews, survey data, secondary data from local newspaper articles. The data was analysed with theoretical considerations around collective action and commons, derived from Elinor Ostrom (1990, 2007), David Harvey (2012), and Zygmunt Bauman (2000), inspired by a question whether housing could be considered as a common resource. This internship article is an ethnographic report that aims to offer an account of the everyday practices of sharing taking place in the house and the demonstrations of belonging through the dwellers’ perspective. It is also an outcome of my learning process during the internship. Furthermore, the account is my interpretation of the everyday in Sofielund’s Collective House while I have aimed to give room for the interviewee’s voices. I want to thank Daniel Sestrajcic and other informants: Frida Jorup, Ylva Karlsson, Vera Rastenberger, Dana Lötberg, Julia Lundberg, and all the residents in Sofielund who took their time to answer the survey thus contri¬- buting to the study.

6 1. Background Collective housing is an interesting alternative option for individual housing. Some even think it might offer a solution for the urban housing problems we are facing today. Indeed, cohousing offers a valuable alternative form of living that meets the needs and wants of many people in today’s society (Sandstedt and Westin, 2015). However, as Sandstedt and Westin (Ibid.) note, cohousing should not be romanticised, but neither should it be ignored, despite possible preconceived notions. Even though cohouses have been studied extensively especially in Sweden (Vestbro, 2000), collective management of urban resources, including housing, is gaining new interest from the younger generations. That said, it should be noted that the analysis is made by the younger generations. My focus lies on looking at the sustainability of this type of housing from a social perspective and considering how collective house can act as an enabler in enhancing social belonging in the age of neoliberalism. Vestbro (2012) notes, that in Sweden the most common term for the phenomenon is collective housing. Palm Linden (1992:15) has defined the term kollektiv hus as: “a multi-family housing unit with private apartments and communal spaces such as a central kitchen and a dining hall, where residents do not constitute a special category”. The term collective housing was emphasized in the 1970s, when there became new goals involved, such as community and collaboration (Vestbro 2012:1-2). Before that, the concept referred to the collective organisation of services in building complexes that did not have aims about promoting a sense of community or neighbourly collaboration (Ibid). Throughout this article, I mainly use the term collective housing as it is a direct translation from the Swedish term Kollektiv Hus that Sofielund’s Collective House (SoKo) uses. People live in collective houses for several reasons, such as shared values around sharing and cooperation. Mc- Camant and Durrett (1988), Woodward (1989), and Vestbro (2000) have aimed to characterise the “Collectivists”, concluding that they usually favour ‘post-materialist’ values, such as leisure time activities, time spent with children, as well as caring more for qualities in nature than in consumer items (Vestbro, 2012). Vestbro concludes, that the cohousing inhabitants are still reviewed to belong to the new groups of “post-materialists”, who turn their backs to the consumer society and favour values such as cultural and recreational activities, meaningful social interactions, and time spent with children (Ibid.). Also, Sargisson (2012), who has focused on contemporary cohousing, concludes in her research article, that the shared values favour sharing, cooperation, and participation (including the gift of labour to the community). However, to favor value around sharing, does not need to mean turning back on something, as Vestbro (2012) suggests, but, rather, imagining and creating new, more sustainable ways to organize housing while achieving economic and social benefits.

2. Sofielund’s Collective House This particular collective house, Sofielund’s collective house in Malmö, became move-in ready in December 2014. The house has about one hundred residents and it aims to be for people from any age groups and with different backgrounds (Lokaltidningen, 2015). Behind SoKo is Kollektivhus i Malmö (KiM), an association that was established in the year of 2009 by people who wished to live collectively in the city centre. The group started to plan a collective house for themselves. Behind the group was also Kollektivhus.nu, a national association for all the existing collective houses and independent associations in Sweden. The SoKo-group planned the house for several years and designed it to fulfil their needs, which will be explained in more detail further on. Engaging in different groups through the process was a way to make all the inhabitant’s voices heard. KiM participated in the planning process of the house together with SoKo. Other actors involved in the project were Malmös Kommunal Bostad (MKB) and Swedish construction company NCC. Furthermore, SoKo rents the house from MKB and takes care of the house management. The first time I visited the house, I met with Frida Jorup, a resident and an architect involved in the planning process from the beginning of the project. Frida presents the house, its large kitchen and dining room, living room with library, music room, handcraft spaces, children’s playroom, a spacy laundry room with large windows, movie room, and a “second-hand store”. There is also a designated group of people sorting out the books and organizing them. Moreover, in the living room, there are board games free to use and loan. It is not uncommon to see residents working with their laptops in the common areas, as I witnessed during my first visit. Big windows between the spaces imply a sense of trust and openness, contributing to the feeling of transparency. People often greet one another and stop to change a few words. As dweller Jenny Eriksson said in an interview in the magazine Expressen (2016), the house creates meetings and connections with the neighbours. Moreover, the house has 45 apartments, of the size of 1-6 rooms, which all have their own kitchen. Some of

7 the bigger apartments are used as commune apartments. The house also has several common spaces. According to Eva Svegborn in Lokaltidningen (2015), the aim is to use the collectively shared spaces for example as a yoga room, workshops, and music rooms. The house is built as open space and has no gates around. In fact, informant Julia Lundberg noted, that if there would be a gate, she would not want to live in SoKo, since for her it would be counterproductive to the idea of a collective house (Interview 6). Furthermore, one of the people involved in the planning process from the very beginning is informant Daniel Sestrajcic, who now lives in the house. He noted that in the beginning there was a discussion whether the house should close the open stairs in the backyard because there were a lot of children running around (Interview 5). According to Daniel, several aspects were considered in the house meetings, others saying it should not be gated while others feeling it was insecure without a gate (Ibid.). By choosing not to build gates nor close the stairs, SoKo decided to remain open. What is more, the SoKo-group reminded me of Ostrom’s theory of collective action in which a group of prin- cipals can organise themselves voluntarily to retain the residual of their own efforts (Ostrom, 1990) but also the kind of “self-defined group”² that Harvey discusses (Harvey 2012:73). With the conditions such as defined group boundaries, good conflict resolution abilities, and appropriate rules, many groups can manage and sustain common resources (Hess and Ostrom 2007:11). Thus, these notions made me interested of exploring how this kind of group organise themselves and how the process takes place in the everyday. I was also curious to lift up the question of whether housing could be seen as a common resource. Ostrom, as many of the interviewed residents in SoKo, believes in self-governing. In practice, this does not demand an organisation, but a process of organising; an organisation is the result of that process (Ostrom, 1990:39). With this in mind, I will now present my findings and engage in analysis divided in three chapters: sharing, negotiating, and belonging.

3. Sharing The house has shared material resources; there is no need to own everything privately if the possibility of asking the next-door neighbour is considered as a norm. Through the implementation of the “store”, SoKo encourages circular and shared economy. The “store” is a room that serves for circulating material that is no longer needed; one can leave own redundant things in the room and take something else in return if needed. For example, the collective has a shared vacuum cleaner ergo it is not necessary to privately own one. Other items that the inhabitant’s share is for example screwdrivers, clothes, bikes, suitcases, rain boots, cat food, and so on. Informant Julia mentioned she enjoys the feeling that so much in the house is common (Interview 6). In the light of this, within the SoKo-members, members who share similar values around housing and want to live collectively, housing, to a certain degree, between the inhabitants, resembles a common resource. Indeed, sharing has been taken into consideration from the beginning of the planning and design processes. Some of the common rooms are bookable for group meetings or other functions. For example, informant Ylva Karlsson, who is a social rights activist, uses the common spaces for meetings with other activists. One of the reasons why she lives in a collective house is the ability to use the house as a tool, for example when arranging meetings (Interview 2). The house is not something that is owned by any one individual, but it is something that the community manages together: “[…]we take care of that [the collective house] for not just this small community but for the community in the city and sort of the society, the bigger community.” (Interview 2). Hitherto, the house has shared its resources to protesters during the eviction of Romani people who camped in the district of Sorgenfri, Malmö. People were protesting the eviction and spent days in the occupation without a possibility to shower, so some inhabitants in SoKo arranged a possibility to shower in the house. Because the house has communal showers and a sauna, they let the protestors to use these spaces. In this way, the house shared its resources with the wider community outside the house. So, how does the house relate to the city around it? It is true that SoKo has structured itself around members, however, they have made efforts to share resources with the outside community by arranging open house events, second-hand markets, and other open events. SoKo plans to continue this openness in the future. In the interview with Ylva, she reflected how the house might not engage in the local district as much as she thought they would but sees it understandable since the house needs to focus on the internal processes, referring to the meetings and negotiations (Interview 2). As the informants reflected, this might be due to the house being young and the fact that the residents are still finding ways to deal with the internal processes and finding the best practices. For example, Ylva noted, how there are many resources and possibilities which she believes the house is only starting to explore (Interview 2). It will be interesting to see, how the relationship between the collective house like and the city develops in the future.

8 4. Negotiating Bauman notes in “Liquid Modernity” (2000), that the most promising kind of unity is achieved daily anew by confrontation, debate, negotiation, and compromise between values, preferences, chosen way of life, and self-iden- tification of many different, but always self-determining members of the polis. One part of the SoKo-association is negotiating over internal processes. The house arranges monthly meetings that at times require several hours from the inhabitants. One of the key questions had been the queue system and how to manage the distribution of free apartments. The association had developed a system for queuing, yet none of the free apartments had been distributed through it which was seen as a problem. In fact, the question remained debated for almost a year, but through time and continuous negotiation, the residents seemed to have found a compromise. Thus, the collective can be seen functioning in the everyday through small actions between the residents, but also in a wider time frame in the weekly dinners and monthly meetings et cetera. The majority of the interviewees said they sometimes feel stressed about the chores or meetings around the house, however, these notions were continued with thoughts of their value since they also bring them a lot of joy. In- deed, according to the inhabitants, the decision-making process is time-consuming, but at the same time necessary. Informant Vera Rastenberger noted that it may feel a bit unpleasant with the long meetings, but, after all, striving so that as many as possible agree is a good thing (Interview 3). Furthermore, Julia noted that even though not all the topics in the meetings are interesting for her personally they should be discussed since they may be important to others, and sees this as a part of the idea around democracy (Interview 6). The informants saw the value in the meetings and negotiations, some even in the conflicts. For example, Ylva considered that the society might shy away from conflict, rather than seeing it as something positive or necessary (Interview 2). What she means is, that conflict can be carried out in a negative way, but in itself, it is a rather neutral as well as very important thing (Ibid). It is clear that the meetings require time and patience from the individuals, but the inhabitants seem to reflect upon it as something unavoidable and part of the collective. Indeed, when looking at the house with Bauman’s (2000) and Ostrom’s (1990) thoughts in mind, the chosen way of life, the polis where the members negotiate daily, SoKo has managed to create a promising kind of unity to retain the residual of their own efforts - a house where the inhabitants engage in the house management and see the rules and negotiations as valuable part of it.

5. Belonging When asked about the favourite qualities of the house, the neighbours or the community feeling was replied without exception. Some of the residents live on their own, some share apartments with one or more persons, and there are also collectives, or what Vestbro (2012) would define as communes, within the collective. Living in a collective house and having other people around in the everyday might help to avoid the feeling of alienation, which individualism might produce. Hylland-Eriksen (1995:58) notes, that in European societies, the self is often regarded as an independent agent, undivided (as in the word ‘in-dividual’), integrated and sovereign, in contrast to many non-Western countries, where the self may be seen more as the sum of the individual’s social relationships. Our housing is organised around individualism. In SoKo, on the other hand, 76% of the residents in SoKo know most of their neighbours (survey data). To form relationships with one’s neighbours seems to be one of the most positively regarded aspects of living in a collective house. Social relationships, a social network, that is close by creates feelings of security and alienates feelings of loneliness. Informant Daniel talked about a poster they have in the house, that says “akta dig för ensamheten”, watch out for loneliness, which Daniel says for him represents the reason to have a collective house (In- terview 5). To avoid loneliness can be taken into consideration when creating new public spaces and housing in cities. One of the ways that make the residents feel belonging to the community is the habit of sharing a meal and eating together. The house arranges dinner collectively three times a week. They manage the preparing and planning through an app which allows the inhabitants to book their meals and preferences in advance. In fact, eating together was considered as one of the most important factors for the community feeling and was brought up by almost every informant. The common dinners were the most answered feature in addition to neighbours when asked about the best qualities of the house. It serves as a way to get to know the neighbours better and establish relationships. The habit of eating together creates the sense of community and serves as an enabler to get to know the neighbours and strengthen the existing relationships. Informant Daniel was very inspired by the Landless Wor- kers Movement in Brazil (MST), Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra, where one of the groups central idea is to eat together (Interview 5). In fact, he mentions that without the communal eating, SoKo would not be a good collective house (Interview 5). Eating and socialising are basic human needs, both performed in the everyday; in a

9 collective house these aspects form a basis for the community feeling, thus communal kitchen is one of the basic building blocks of a good collective house. Furthermore, it is not only eating together that creates the feeling of belonging but also the community work performed together with other residents, like preparing the food or maintaining the house. These gifts of labour lead to an environment of reciprocity, where people help each other and thus create an interacting network. These acts further strengthen the relationships and connections among the inhabitants. Furthermore, Dana Lötberg reflected the housework: Some feeling of meaningfulness, that I feel that this house is important. Of course, you can feel alone in this house, of course, but also it is some kind of security net, that you have so many people around you that also know some parts of your life. They can see that you are home, they can see that you are eating, so it is a safety net. I feel that it is important, I like being a part of that (Interview 4). The network the residents create through the everyday actions, through different gifts, and the sharing economy is the social layer of the collective house, totally depending on the residents. However, in the case of SoKo the constructions of the house, the material side of it, also nourishes this kind of interaction. In addition, I noticed how everyone in SoKo greeted one another when passing by. During almost all of the interviews, other residents would walk by and change a few words. Certainly, the sense of community is created through the activities the inhabitants perform, but also small everyday actions such as paying attention to one another. Informant Ylva noted, that building the community every day includes doing the relational community work, such as saying hi and helping out someone (Interview 2). Indeed, the community is built through the relationships that are taking place and strengthened in the everyday actions. One respondent reflected that the community feels like having a big family: It is easy to talk to everyone; it is like having a big family, sharing common spaces in the evening, eating together... Some of the people I have got to know very well, and it is easy to get new friends in a community like this. Even the ones I do not talk to that often are like family in a way since we share so much in the house (Anonym survey respondent). Meanwhile, Julia described that the idea of living collectively for her is very much expanding the idea what home is (Interview 6). Expanding the idea of home and relationships instead of creating a traditional individual home does not need to be seen as turning your back on something, but instead, expanding the ideas traditionally attached to an individual home. What is worth noting is, that there are more women than men living in SoKo. This gender imbalance was cate- gorised as a negative aspect by some of the survey informants as well as the low amount of older men especially. It seems that more women want to live collectively than men. I asked Dana why she thinks there is gender imbalance, and she answered it might be due to how people are raised in the society (Interview 4). Whereas women are raised for being caring and social, men have to be able to take care of themselves, she reflected (Ibid). In fact, Vestbro has concluded, that the patriarchal society has been the main obstacle to the implementation of cohousing (Vestbro, 2012). It might be that females more easily gravitate towards the social layer of the collective houses, due to the existing gender roles in the society. The feelings of belonging are experienced differently at the individual level. The differences in age distribution might have an effect on how the residents experience belonging. The collective house has inhabitants from different ages. One of the informants, 74-year-old Vera, has experience in living collectively also in a 55+ collective house for the elderly, but she prefers more age variety in the people around her in the everyday life. Compared to the 55+ houses, Vera considered Sofielund better for her because there are children and young people around who bring her joy but also other like-minded 70-year-olds (Interview 3). A collective house could serve as an alternative to elderly care, where a mutual benefit is achieved through the social layer. Likewise, retired Monica Ståle names the same factor in an interview in ETC-magazine (2017): the wish to rather be surrounded by people of different ages. Mo- reover, Hylland-Eriksen (1995:142-3) notes, that ageing is an inevitable biological process but, like gender, it is a universal principle for social differentiation, yet both of them are socially constructed to some extent. To which degree we allow these differentiations affect the way we organize our social lives is a question that could be asked when building and planning housing. The social layer in the collective houses makes a reciprocal relationship between the residents from different walks of life possible while creating a security net for the elderly residents as a byproduct.

10 In conclusion, the community is just as much a living process dependent on its own constant reinventing and reassembling, which require collective and continuous effort. It is performative as I have demonstrated, and it is a process that requires developing relationships based on mutual understanding. Furthermore, community is not an institution nor an organisation but a way to make links between people (Zibechi 2010:14) and the links are taking place in the everyday in the case of SoKo. Ergo, community is constantly re-invented and re-created (Ibid:19). The collective housing can be viewed as a stage where these relationships are cultivated anew and the community that is achieved through this process functions as a relational ground for collaborative lifestyle thus creating a motion, like a circle that reinforces itself. When examining these relations and interrelations in SoKo, we can see the house and its inhabitants operate in a liminal state, a state of becoming or as a constant state of flux that is visible in the negotiations, house meetings, and sharing economy, but also in the everyday activities. Julia brilliantly described it: To me, it is very interesting to feel that you are a part of a bigger motion like there are different groups doing stuff and they have just been fixing the cinema room, and it is so beautiful. And they are like, okay, could someone just like paint the table? So, then me and someone else were like okay, we are doing that. So, we have been like 15 people altogether or se- parately creating this space. Those are the times when you are not actually doing something for your tiny, tiny home, but you are expanding the idea, even though I am in that room like every third week I still feel like oh wow this is like my living room basically. Like creating this area with, it is so amazing how you have earlier thought about your tiny tiny home, and here space is big, I think that almost like physically does something with one’s brain (Interview 6). Through taking care of the home while working together, several human needs are fulfilled simultaneously.

6. Conclusion In this article, I have aimed to give an account of the everyday practices of sharing and understand how the inhabitants in Sofielund’s Collective House articulate and demonstrate belonging in relation to their housing. I carried out interviews and observations in SoKo during November and December of 2017, together with an online survey, to gather data for an analysis. I wanted to consider the resident’s experiences and analyse how living in a cohouse is experienced by them. Therefore, I used ethnographic inquiry which allows this kind of perspective. In the case of Sofuelund’s Collective House, what seemed to be important factors for the community feeling and the feelings of belonging were traditions such as eating together and small everyday performances like greeting one another. The house was designed from the beginning with the idea of creating the feeling of community and encouraging sharing. These ideas were materialised in the common spaces around the house such as the communal kitchen, library, the “store”, and sauna, big windows to enhance transparency, and the decision not to build any gates. Moreover, the residents answered the most positive aspect of the house was the weekly dinners arranged collectively. Also, negotiating and meetings were seen as an important, though time-consuming, part of the community. Furthermore, it is important to deeply understand the human needs, need for intimacy and belonging, when planning for sustainable future housing. Taking into consideration different needs and different wishes regarding housing, there could be a wider variety of different types of housing in the cities to serve different kinds of social needs. Thus, this study has aimed to contribute to the understanding of how collective housing might act as an enabler in fulfilling certain human needs, such as belonging, by looking at the dweller’s points of view. Sofielund’s Collective House serves as an example, that for a certain group to organise and realise housing on their own terms in a city is possible.

Endnotes 1. A survey was conducted through Sunet Survey software. The link was distributed by email to the residents in Sofielund. It was not controlled whether the respondents actually lived in the house since the link was distributed through a closed email list. Also, the survey was clearly addressed for the people living in Sofielund’s Collective House. The known variable in the surveys is, that you can never truly know who answers them. One method to increase the reliability was that the survey link was open for a relatively short period of ten days. In this time, the survey was answered by 25 respondents. In contrast to the interviews, in surveys, the interviewer effect is eliminated, so the combination of these methods allowed me to compare the data.

11 2. Harvey discusses the practices of commoning. SoKo does not meet the definition of commoning because their environment is not “non-commodified-off-limits to the logic of market exchange and market valuations” (Harvey 2012:73) but still has a value in itself. See Harvey’s whole quote: “The common is not to be construed, therefore, as a particular kind of thing, asset or even social process, but as an unstable and malleable social relation between a particular self-defined social group and those aspects of its actually existing or yet-to-be-created social and/or physical environment deemed crucial to its life and livelihood. There is, in effect, a social practice of commoning. This practice produces or establishes a social relation with a common whose uses are either exclusive to a social group or partially or fully open to all and sundry. At the heart of the practice of commoning lies the principle that the relation between the social group and that aspect of the environment being treated as a common shall be both collective and non-commodified-off-limits to the logic of market exchange and market valuations. This last point is crucial because it helps distinguish between public goods construed as productive state expenditures and a common which is established or used in a completely different way and for a completely different purpose, even when it ends up indirectly enhancing the wealth and income of the social group that claims it. A community garden can thus be viewed as a good thing in itself, no matter what food may be produced there. This does not prevent some of the food being sold.” (Ibid).

References Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Harvey, D. 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso. Hess, C. & Ostrom, E. 2007. (eds.). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hylland-Eriksen, T. 1995. Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. 3rd ed. Pluto Press. Kollektivhus i Malmö, KiM. Hur KiM skapade SoKo. Last accessed: 2017-12-06 at https://kollektivhus.wordpress.com/so- fielunds-kollektivhus/ McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. 1988. Cohousing - A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. Berkeley, California: Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press. Nordh, J. 2015. Lokaltidningen, Malmö Limham. 2015-01-22. Last accessed: 2017-12-06 at http://malmo.lokaltidningen.se/f%C3%B6r-de-goda-grannarna-finns-det-inget-tvaang-att-g%C3%B6ra-allt-tillsammans-/20150122/artik- ler/150129963/ Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palm Linden, K. 1992. Kollektivhuset och mellanzonen. Om rumslig struktur och socialt liv (Collective housing and intermediary space. About spatial structure and social life). PhD thesis, Lund University, Building Functions Analysis, School of Archi- tecture. Sandstedt, E. & Westin, S. 2015. Beyond Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Cohousing Life in Contemporary Sweden. Housing, Theory & Society. 2015, Vol. 32 Issue 2, pp: 131-150. Sargisson, L. 2012. Second-Wave Cohousing - A Modern Utopia? Utopian Studies. Vol. 23 Issue 1. 2012, pp: 28-56. Selåker Hangasmaa, K. 2016. Därför vill allt fler bo i kollektivhus. Expressen. 2016-03-20. Last accessed: 2017-11-06 at https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/hem-och-bostad/darfor-vill-allt-fler-bo-i-kollektivhus/ Vestbro, D.U. 2000. From Collective Housing to Cohousing – A Summary of Research. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol 17:2. Vestbro, D.U. 2012. Saving by Sharing – Collective Housing for Sustainable Lifestyles in the Swedish Context. 3rd Interna- tional Conference on Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity, Venice, 19 – 23 September 2012. Wickberg, J. 2017. Flyttade från ensamhet till ett åldersblandat kollektiv. ETC. 2017-04-04. Last accessed: 2018-01-08 at http://malmo.etc.se/inrikes/flyttade-fran-ensamhet-till-ett-aldersblandat-kollektiv Woodward, A. 1989. Communal Housing in Sweden. A Remedy for the Stress of Everyday Life? Franck, K.A. & Ahrentzen, S. (eds): New Households, New Housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 71-94. Zibechi, R. 2010. Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-state Forces. Translated: Ryan, R. AK Press: Oakland.

12 Appendix List of the interviews: Interview 1. Frida Jorup, at Sofielund’s Collective House 10.11.2017. Interview. 2. Ylva Karlsson, at Sofielund’s Collective House 13.11.2017. Interview. 3. Vera Rastenberger, at Sofielund’s Collective House 13.11.2017. Interview 4. Dana Lötberg, at Sofielund’s Collective House 20.11.2017. Interview 5. Daniel Sestrajcic, at Sofielund’s Collective House 11.12.2017. Interview 6. Julia Lundberg, at Sofielund’s Collective House 11.12.2017.

13 Business Improvement Districts and Their Role in the Swedish Context

Maja Stalevska & Dragan Kusevski

Abstract The overarching aim of this research is to capture the general picture concerning the conception and delimitation of BIDs (Business Improvement Districts) in Sweden, and in particular, to understand the present-day perspectives both of municipalities and property owners with respect to their formation. Given the lack of previous research providing a general overview of the Swedish context, an inventory on all operating BID-like partnerships in Sweden is presented, with the aim to capture the general specificities of the Swedish BID-model. Particular focus is paid on partnerships operating in residential areas – referred to here as Neighbourhood Improvement Districts (NIDs). The paper provides a rough comparison of seven residential areas in Gothenburg, Stockholm and Malmö, as delimited by the geographical extents of the seven identified NID partnerships. A spatial analysis of the cases - their socio-economic context and spatial delimitation - goes to show that a geographic consideration of the spaces, i.e. where they appear, is pivotal to understanding their role and function, or why they appear: namely, to strengthen legitimacy of urban governance in spaces of attractive property development. Despite the local specificities and differences between the cases, based on the empirical data, we argue that the formation of NIDs is mainly preconditioned by three particular factors: the vulnerable socio-economic environment, the high economic potential of the areas, and a specific property-ownership structure, usually dominated by one or few bigger (often public) property actors. This particular geographic pattern of emergence is specific to Sweden and has not been recognized in other contexts so far. However, the main concerns in regard to enabling the creation of BID partnerships in general remain valid for the Swedish context as well, as they, much as their UK and US counterparts, remain largely unburdened by accountability, democratic dialogue or social justice considerations. Keywords: Business/Neighbourhood Improvement Districts – Sweden - Property owners - Municipal housing companies – Regeneration tactics - Legitimacy

14 Introduction In the wake of the 1990’s economic crisis, rising unemployment and increased immigration influx in Sweden, a deepening urban segregation pattern and uneven urban development within major cities have put the political focus on lifting the most socio-economically challenged residential areas. Within this context, emerges a new category of public-private partnerships, or so-called business improvement districts (BIDs), formed by property owners with the support or in collaboration with politicians and local authorities, with a primary objective to improve the attractiveness and increase the property values in vulnerable residential areas (Holmberg, 2009; 2016; Olsson, 2017). This study is generally concerned with the conception and delimitation of the Business Improvement Districts in Sweden, and particularly, with the present-day perspectives of municipalities and property owners with respect to their formation. Accordingly, we suggest that the BID co-operation in Sweden is a three-sided process, with three particularly important perspectives that need to be considered in view of their analysis: the municipality-, the property owners-, and the residents’ perspective. Since the forming of BIDs is mainly preconditioned by the independent interests that the first two parties maintain in specific relegated residential area, in addition to presenting the particularities of their emergence and activities, we will also provide an account of the contestation over the lack of democratic dialogue arising from placing land and property ownership in the centre of the BID as a precondition, or condicio sine qua non, for formal participation. In the seemingly binary public/private constellation of BIDs, the interest of public housing companies has been particularly perplexing, mainly in relation to their dual role of acting as business-like entities on one hand, and public actors bound by social responsibility on the other. Following this, the study focuses particularly on capturing the perspectives of the public actors involved in the BID process, not least arising from the fact that all BIDs in Sweden have been, without any exceptions, formed on the initiative of public housing companies and/or local public authorities. Although the initiatives do sometimes intertwine and can come from different parties at the same time, we suggest that public actors are a particularly important factor for understanding this case as they do, without question, act as drivers of the BID process in Sweden from day one. In trying to understand why public actors would consider engaging in the promotion of BIDs, we turn to the current wave of urban regeneration of socio-economically challenged and stigmatized areas in Sweden, and the potential role BIDs might have in this context. Thus, while most previous research on BIDs has considered the organizational form as such, we maintain that a spatial analysis of the Swedish cases i.e. where the BIDs are located and how they are delimited - is pivotal to understanding their role and function: namely, to strengthen legitimacy of urban governance in spaces of attractive property development. In other words, we suggest that by initiating BIDs - or local partnerships for urban development, public housing companies and local governments try to create a solid ground for prospective change in stigmatized areas where the interest in investing is low and/or there is no middle-class housing spillover demand. In doing so, both parties actively work to attract support and larger investments toward the area in order to effect bigger structural changes along the way. Furthermore, both public and private property owners (management) seek to gain legitimacy through the process and establish themselves as credible agents of change. We relate to Van Gent’s (2010) theory of adopting social transformation strategies according to the local housing context, and particularly to Parker and Madureira’s (2016) development of that theory which includes notions of legitimacy to better understand the actions of management within the specific housing context. BIDs play multiple roles in the reaching of the above-mentioned overarching goals. First and foremost, they serve as means of getting local property owners to commit to developing the area - both their own property and the public space around it - with the primary objective of raising the property values. Additionally, the formation of BIDs is always preceded by some form of initial research and problem description of the entire urban area in question. The reason for persuading private property owners to join is to commit them to invest in raising the standard of their housing stock, and potentially engage in upgrades and investments in the public space, which is in effect directly related to the aim of BIDs to institute social change in deprived residential areas. Upgrading a residential area by gradually raising the living standards through physical upkeep and upgrade of public amenities is a strategy for social-transformation often adopted in neighbourhood regeneration, mainly when the housing context (Van Gent, 2010, Parker and Madureira, 2016) does not allow for, or constraints, the use of a more radical approach such as for example demolition, reconstruction or tenure-restructuring, as is the case with vulnerable residential areas in Sweden. By the same token, BIDs also provide an effective way to focus policy attention and public funds to the areas in question, as they enjoy a privileged access to city officials and are treated favourably by city and district administrations.

15 In line with the general aim of the research and given the lack of previous studies providing a general overview of the Swedish context, an inventory on all operating BID-like partnerships in Sweden is presented in this paper, with the aim to capture the general specificities of the Swedish BID-model. Particular focus is paid on partnerships operating in residential areas – referred to henceforth as Neighbourhood Improvement Districts (NIDs). The paper provides a rough comparison of seven residential areas in Gothenburg, Stockholm and Malmö, as delimited by the geographical extents of the seven identified NIDs. The remainder of the paper is consequently organized in two parts. The first part begins with a general overview of the BID concept, its origins and dissemination in different contexts, followed by an overview of the main concerns related to its institutional set up and main operations. This is followed by an overview of the two types of BID-like partnerships found in Sweden, and an introduction of the separate case studies which represent the focus of the research. The second part provides a discussion of our main findings, organized around three central themes, each -at tempting to capture a particular aspect of the NIDs specific emergent geography. Despite the local specificities and differences between the cases, based on the empirical data, we argue that the formation of NIDs is mainly preconditioned by three particular factors: the vulnerable socio-economic environment, the high economic potential of the areas, and a specific property-ownership structure, usually dominated by one or few bigger (often public) property actors. In the first chapter of the second part we explore concepts of spatialized crime-prevention theories particularly employed in the country’s national crime policies and explore their use and appropriation by NID partnerships in order to better understand their operations in socio-economically vulnerable areas with high crime rates and high levels of insecurity. The second chapter explores NIDs emergence in what we argue are vulnerable areas with a high economic potential. We will present the context of urban regeneration practices, public-private partnerships, urban policies and area-based initiatives in Sweden, as we build on the notions of state-led gentrification and the ‘social-mix’ principle. At the end, we’ll discuss the implications that these processes may have on urban governance, social justice, property and democracy. We’ll also give a review of the contestation and voices of resistance that have appeared as a reaction to the NIDs urban regeneration tactics. The third chapter will deal with the specific ownership structure of the housing stock in the NIDs areas. We believe that it is of crucial importance to point to the specificities of the property-ownership structure and its connection with the formation of NIDs. We are going to discuss the Swedish housing context and the role that municipal housing companies have in relation to the occurrences in the housing market and the formation of the NIDs in particular. The notion of legitimacy by Parker and Madureira (2016) will be used to explain their movements in these areas, as we believe that it has to do with presenting themselves as credible agents for future bigger-scale regeneration. The final chapter summarizes the conclusions from the research and reflects on the study’s limitations and -pro vides recommendations for future research.

PART I

1. Introduction of the BID concept and its transfer to Sweden The definition of BIDs shifts considerably along different countries and regions since the legislation and the particular forms of organization are shaped according to local conditions. Each country, region, even individual BIDs, have their specific definitions of what constitutes a BID, which renders more difficult the attempt to coin a general definition that will cut across discrete regional models. Moreover, the geographical and legal peculiarities have also implied a varied nomenclature: BIDs in the USA, BIAs (Business Improvement Areas) in Canada, UID (Urban Improvement Districts) and NID/HID (Neighbourhood / Housing Improvement District) in Germany, and so on. However, this traveling concept has some distinguishable features that make it recognizable despite its local va- riations. In general, a Business Improvement District (BID) is the most often used term for organized collaboration within a geographically defined area as a means to increase its attractiveness and promote economic activity: “BIDs provide street-level services and small-scale improvements to streets, parks, and other common areas beyond what local government is willing or able to provide” (Foster, 2011: 105). Their scope of operations and activities varies across regions, depending on the legal framework and the nature or conditions of the designated areas. The origin of the BID concept can be traced back to North America, from where it has spread to other countries including Sweden. The main reason for its emergence is considered to be the general trend of retail decentralization

16 that took place back in the 1970-80s and saw town centres, both all over Western Europe and North America, losing pedestrian flow and commercial activity to suburban, businesses like malls and shopping centres (Morçöl, et.al., 2008). This has prompted many local businesses and property owners, located along Main Streets and commercial strips in Canada and the USA, to form self-taxing co-operative schemes in an attempt to revitalize rundown city centres and increase business revenues. Responses in Europe have been somewhat different, with the UK and Sweden opting for Town Centre Management (TCM) schemes instead which, unlike their counterparts in North America, are based on a voluntary membership and funding system. Compared to Sweden however, the trajectory of UK’s TCMs has taken an earlier turn toward the introduction of a BID legislation in 2004, as a way to overcome the limitations of TCMs for long term funding and install a more sustainable funding mechanism in lieu of decreasing public financial support (Hogg et al., 2007). With respect to the increased interest for institutio- nalizing BIDs in Sweden, the Swedish TCMs are also exploring the possibility of re-aligning their activities in that direction. According to Lloyd and Peel (2008), TCM and BIDs differentiate in three particular ways. They argue that “BIDs represent a step-change in urban economic policy and urban revitalization practice because they institutio- nalize the more informal and localized partnership arrangements put in place through TCMs” (Lloyd and Peel, 2008: 15). Second, they point out that BIDs are a mechanism for addressing a complex of environmental, economic, social, and resource issues associated with urban sustainability, and third, that BIDs represent a new form of contractualism of state-market-civil relations because they are subject to a formal ballot, legitimated through specific legislative and financial provisions (Morçöl, et.al., 2008). Thus, the transformation of TCMs and the call for institutionalization of BIDs in Sweden are a manifestation of the structural transformations that took place in the public sector in the 1990s, and the shift from traditional welfare policies to a more neoliberal urban governance approach. The emergence of the BID concept is historically seen as part of a wider trend of decentralizing policy efforts, seeking to increase the number of actors actively involved in the process of urban governance. In fact, many scholars regard the creation of BIDs to be emblematic of the new forms of governance and the shift toward urban entrepreneurialism, as well as a part of a general trend of neoliberalizing urban policy (Ward, 2007; Lloyd and Peel, 2008). However, the emergence of the BID model in Sweden is to some extent also the result of policy transfer (Hoyt, 2008; Cook and Ward, 2012; Peyroux et al., 2012). According to Hoyt, BIDs are a rather new urban revitalization policy, which in the context of a diminishing public-sector influence over urban development, urban policy entrepreneurs are spreading both inside and outside countries as a new coping mechanism for urban decay (Hoyt, 2008). According to Ward and Cook (2012), the two-day conference on BIDs that took place in Sweden in 2009 is a part of that important arena through which the transfer and mobilizing of such urban policies occur. According to Hoyt’s definition on policy mobility, Sweden is right now in the emergence stage which is the importing stage before the introduction of the enabling legislature. Conferences on BIDs with expert-speakers from other countries like the one in Stockholm, as well as policy tourism entailing trips to famous BID examples from the US such as Bryant Park, are all a part of this importing process which entails analysis of so-called best practice examples, promotion and lobbying for the enabling legal framework. Conversely, many scholars are calling for caution in relation to quick or uncritical adoption of policies from contexts that are drastically different from the host, as chances are they could be unsuccessful or worse, further exacerbate the condition of the targeted area. Morçöl et al. (2008) also point to the potential risks and difficulty of transferring policy in different historic or social contexts and argue that there must be some compatibility. They point to the case of the TCM in the UK which served as a valuable conceptual predecessor according to which the BID model could be locally fitted. The long tradition of TCM in Sweden has also been informing the process of advocating for BID enablement and might serve as a valuable resource of local experiences in the tradition of collective action.

Main concerns relating to the operations of BIDs Before moving on to examples from the Swedish context, we’ll give a short account of the critical voices, as well as advocates for BIDs, and their general thoughts on the shortcomings and advantages of these organizations. Several authors have taken a critical stance towards BIDs, questioning their purpose and pointing out the possible dangers for the urban social environment. Foster (2011) recognizes three main concerns in regard to enabling the creation of BIDs: the risks of scaling up, distributional issues, and the threat of ossification. The scale is important since it determines the level of complexness in terms of functionality and the heteroge- neity of the user groups. Foster also argues that the “size of the geographic commons managed by certain groups

17 and the type and range of functions required or delegated to the group make it difficult for local authorities to effectively monitor these groups” (Foster, 2011: 122). Although BIDs are subject to local government monitoring, she argues that “in practice, it is not at all clear how much attention city officials devote to monitoring these groups” (ibid: 124). The distribution issues refer to the risk of relying on private actors to manage local goods and services, “without creating or aggravating inequalities in their distribution” (Ibid: 124). Foster argues that more prominent areas will be able to “raise and dedicate private funds, while poorer neighbourhoods will be left underfunded” (ibid: 125). Moreover, “the more that sub local communities are able to manage their own commons, provide for their own public goods, and pay for them directly, the less likely they are to be supportive of citywide services (and taxes) that provide those goods and services to other communities “(ibid: 125), which happen to be particularly vulnerable social groups. The third issue relates to their durability, that is the fact that despite their limited term, depending on the local government to continue their functioning, BIDs “rarely dissolve” (Ibid: 130). Here, Foster points out the dangers of ossification and emergence of “commons cartels”. She argues, “given what we know about the principles of long-enduring institutions, they work to provide one set of commons users a privileged place at the table... they punish those who challenge the values of incumbent users” (Ibid: 132). Likewise, Cook (2008: 31) finds the transfer and construction of the BID policies questionable at best. However, what he finds particularly problematic is the “lack of involvement by employees, residents and the wider public”. He continues “from New York City to Bristol, they continue to be unable to vote in local BID elections and are largely absent from local partnership boards […] instead, the direct needs and desires of employers, businesses and, to a lesser extent, consumers prevailed” (ibid: 31). Ward (2007) recognizes the emergence of the BIDs as a part of the arsenal of neoliberal urbanization. He points out to three signs suggesting this: first that “BIDs are presented as solutions to the failures of the past policies and practices of the state”. Second, “BIDs constitute the dividing up of the city into discrete, governable spaces…that encourage inter-urban competition, as one BID competes with another to capture value, and a share in the spatial division of consumption” (Ward, 2007: 667). This ‘localism’ often can lead to exclusionary practices (Amin, 2004) and creation of insiders and outsiders. Ward comments: “This is all well and good if you look and act appropriately. However, if they feel your presence in the area threatens the veneer of civility that they are active in producing they may have a quiet word, perhaps suggesting you leave the vicinity” (Ward, 2007: 657). Finally, “BIDs are presented as a flexible way of governing”, capable of implementation of programs “more rapidly and cheaply”, avoiding slow bureaucracy, with ‘market-like’ dynamic. He concludes that, as other neoliberal urbanization tools, BIDs “constitute the redrawing of state-market relations not the diminution of state capacities”. (Ibid: 668) Despite the critical writings and calls for caution around BIDs, their advocates refer to them as “one of the most important developments in local governance in the last two decades” (MacDonald,1996, np). “We live in an increasingly competitive world, where people and capital are ever more mobile. Towns, cities, regions and countries that provide safe and attractive places to live and work will be the winners,” stated UK Prime Minister Tony Blair while announcing the UK legislation for Business Improvement Districts (in Ward, 2007). Some state the positive effect that BIDs can also have to neighbouring areas, counting on the ‘trickle-down’ effect and emphasizing the ‘win-win’ situation. “Benefits produced by BIDs are available to all city residents, not just BID members. We are all free riders on BIDs expenditure”, argues MacDonald (in Cook 2008: 32). A rich insight of the view of BIDs, can be extracted from the paper by Paul Levy, executive director of a BID in central Philadelphia. He argues that “BIDs seek to make our cities liveable and competitive again. Cleaning, safety, marketing, and parking programs are only a means to this end. This becomes clear when examining the origins of BIDs” (Levy, 2001: 125). He claims that the reason for the formation of BIDs usually lays in “fear or opportunity”. He also argues that BIDs mean change in governance, however warning that “it would be wise not to overstate this idea of governance” (ibid: 130). He seems to confirm the position of many critics who place the BIDs in the shift towards entrepreneurial ways, with statements like “[a] plurality (of the BID managers) defined their primary role not as public servant or supervisor but rather as entrepreneur” (ibid: 127); “the skill they considered most essential to success had little to do with either delivering services or managing staff? Rather, it was the ability to speak effectively to audiences. Often, you do not have to spend money or deliver programs. You simply need to be empowered to take charge and persuasive enough to build consensus” (ibid: 127).

18 2. Data and Methods This research has begun as an investigative work with the aim to identify the existing forms of BID-like partnerships in Sweden and hopefully provide some insight into the perspectives of municipalities and property owners with respect to their formation. Although there are certainly many local particularities which could potentially provide a more in-depth understanding of the specific context of each case, we have nonetheless, partly because of the lack of a previous research which provides a more general overview, decided to keep the focus on all seven cases with the aim to capture their general specificities. Accordingly, the paper provides a rough comparison of the seven residential areas in Gothenburg, Stockholm and Malmö, as delimited by the geographical extents of the seven identified NID partnerships. The general data for each area such as population structure, employment levels, education levels and so on, have been obtained from the official statistics of the respective municipalities, government and municipal documents, policy documents, and partly from NIDs’ reports, surveys and interviews with NID managers. Empirical material regarding the general information for the NIDs such as their geographical boundaries, the organizational forms, the details around the formation process, the membership lists and so on, have mainly been obtained from interviews with NID members and managers, NIDs’ annual reports, web-pages, safety surveys, as well as previous research concerning some of the cases. We have conducted a total of 10 semi-structured interviews with an average length of 50 min per interview. Interviews were made with some of the NIDs managers, board members, representatives of the MHCs, politicians and so on, obtained through a so-called ‘snowball sampling’. Concerning the geographical data regarding property boundaries and property ownership structure in each area, we have used NIDs official maps of the property ownership and membership structure, obtained from their web-pages. For four of the NIDs (Rågsved, Centrala Hisingen, Gamlestaden and Malmö) which haven’t produced such layouts, we tried to do a rough mapping ourselves by using GIS data from Lantmäteriet’s online geodata da- tabase, combined with property ownership data from public and private real estate companies’ annual reports and web-pages. We haven’t been able to do a complete mapping since some data is not public. Nonetheless, we have been able to get the general picture of the ownership structure for these areas as well. All of the maps, both produced by the authors and obtained from the NIDs, are presented as appendixes to the text. Additionally, we used data from official documents such as regional, comprehensive and detailed urban plans, plan programs, visions, protocols, printed materials from the NIDs, as well as media reports.

3. BID-like partnerships in the Swedish context Town Centre Management partnerships (TCMs) Against the backdrop of retail decentralization in the 1980s Sweden, along with the UK, saw a slightly different version of BID-like collaborations emerging in its emptying town centres. According to Forsberg et al. (1999), the TCM is one of two distinct local policy responses to the 1980s wave of retail decentralization in Sweden - the alternative response being a form of continued support for suburban and out-of-town retail centres aimed to keep or increase consumer demand (Forsberg, 1994, 1995). The TCMs (or Stadskärneforening in Swedish), are a form of public-private partnerships still operating in town-centres with the aim to revitalize them as a vital part of the city’s commercial core. They were formed mainly by municipalities, local retailers and businesses, which communicate either through projects or a limited liability company (Edlund and Westin, 2009). However, the National TCM association (Svenska Stadskärnor), includes in its membership both individual municipalities as well as interested businesses which are not necessarily involved in any form of a TCM partnership but rather see a possibility to extend their business networks. The idea is, according to the president of the association, to offer help and education to concerned politicians and municipalities who “see their cities dying and don’t really know how to work with this” (personal communication, October 3, 2017). Additionally, the association collaborates with the National Housing Office (Boverket), the association of Private Property Owners (Fastightesägarna), the National Transport Office (Trafikverket), Visita (the association of the Swedish Hospitality Industry), the Swedish Trade Federation (Svensk Handel), and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting). The focus of the TCMs is, as already mentioned, increasing the attractiveness of town centres and commercial strips, which entails mainly street-level activities such as cleaning and maintenance of the space around the retailers’ property. Their activities also often extend into organization of promotional events and festivals, as well as occasional capital improvements and redevelopment projects, mainly in collaboration with other external actors. In lack of a legal framework for self-taxing, TCMs are funded only by annual membership fees which means that compared to other institutionalized forms of BID-like partnerships, they have a rather small budget at their disposal. Thus, activities such as project-based investments entail additional funding outside their regular budgets, covered either

19 mutually by all or some of the three constituting parties, as well by other external sources. According to the association’s president, the TCMs chief work consists of identifying the main needs or issues of the city-centre area and agreeing upon the potential solutions after which, it’s up to the will, or interest, of individual members or TCM parties to take part in the investment (personal communication, October 3, 2017). In that sense, the TCM works more as a platform through which the local businesses are able to communicate their issues to the local authorities and conversely, the local authorities are able to engage the local business to invest in the maintenance and development of particular public areas. However, recently, in view of the potential introduction of a BID legislation, Svenska Stadskärnor are considering the transformation of some of their TCMs into BIDs and seek to expand their influence outside city-centres by initiating new BID partnerships. They have developed their own BID-model which they tested in five towns (Filipstad, Ludvika, Orsa, Rättvik and Torsby) in collaboration with the county councils (Svenska Stadskärnors BID-modell, 2017), and later expanded to four new test sites in Västervik, Gamleby, Åtvidaberg och Linköping. However, the pilots so far remain focused on city-centres, with the same overarching aim to increase their attractiveness for visitors (Svenska Stadskärnors BID-modell, 2017). With two of the first pilot cities discontinued and the second group still in their test phase, it is uncertain whether their BID model will develop into a more stable, long-term form of co-operation. In the meantime, the spread of a new type of BID-like partnerships in housing areas with socio-economic challenges is gaining more and more traction in the public sector as they engage with a more pressing set of urban issues that have long been on the top of the social policy agenda of both state and local administrations. Thus, the remainder of this paper turns to explore in closer detail the framework of a small but fast-growing group of NIDs across Sweden, as we consider their rising prominence, reflected in their recent burgeoning consideration by public policies, to be particularly relevant in the wake of rising socio-economic inequalities and deepening urban segregation.

Neighbourhood Improvement Districts (NIDs) NIDs are a form of public-private partnership formed by property owners with the support or in collaboration with politicians and local authorities, with a primary objective to improve the attractiveness of stigmatized residential areas and increase the values of their property portfolio (Holmberg, 2009; 2016; Olsson, 2017), through the employment of an integrated approach combining crime deterrence strategies with urban redevelopment projects, deterrence or dispersion of social contracts, building new housing, as well as marketing of the areas in order to attract new residents and investments. Compared to the TCMs therefore, NIDs are working with a rather different and much more complex set of urban challenges related to stigmatization, segregation, high mobility patterns and a persisting public negative image. The usual triggers for forming a NID, at least according to their official policies, are high crime rates, maintenance and/or property management issues, as well as a general negative reputation attached to certain housing areas. They are usually formed on the willingness of municipalities or property owners to deal with nuisances such as mismanagement of the real-estate by irresponsible owners (often referred to as ‘slum-owners’), derelict public spaces or general high crime trends and perceptions of high insecurity in their respective areas. Their day-to-day operations are defined as a complement and improvement of existing public services such as cleaning and security actions; however, their activities often exceed basic maintenance and security measures and extend from functions in consumer marketing (festivals, events, self-promotion, maps, newsletters) to capital improvements such as street lighting, street furniture, to urban redevelopment projects (Holmberg, 2009; Olsson, 2017). Consequently, they can have quite a lot of influence over decisions concerning local urban planning, implementation of public policies and area-based initiatives. As we will show later, their formation and activities are actually closely related and partly emanate from national and local urban policies, development strategies and UDPs (Urban Development Plans), which demonstrates that these partnerships have a much larger scope of influence than simple neighbourhood marketing and everyday street-level activities. A quick look of the Swedish NIDs shows that they are regularly formed around under-developed inner-cities or suburbs that are considered to be important nodes for future urban development or zones of untapped economic potential. The initiators of the NIDs are mainly municipal housing companies (henceforth MHCs) which usually own the largest share of the housing stock in these areas. From that position MHCs have the best possibilities to mobilize private actors by taking some of the initial costs, or by acting as economic guarantors before the association carries itself. The exception from this rule are two NIDs (Sofielund in Malmö and Centrala Hisingen in Gothenburg), where the main initiatives come from the local authorities and the local associations of Private Property Owners (Fastighetsägarna), in a context of a more fragmented ownership structure and, property-wise, less represented

20 public housing companies. Even so, the MHCs are still largely involved in the process from the very beginning, as they are nonetheless the largest property owners. In the absence of a legal framework, NIDs don’t have a term limit and are formed mainly in a long-term perspective. Likewise, all NID partnerships are voluntary based, and financed through fixed membership fees and service fees which are calculated according to the size and tenure structure of the property. In that sense their budgets on an annual level are, similar to the TCMs, quite small and negligible (Olsson, 2017). However, NIDs are quite successful at mobilizing extra public support in terms of project funding, as well as attracting external investments from other actors. The following sections will describe in more detail the particularities and the socio-economic and political context of the all seven NIDs that operate currently in the three largest cities in Sweden, including the main issues of the areas that were pointed out as the reasons standing behind the introduction of NIDs. Although there are some local specificities and differences between the cases, based on the empirical data we have gathered, we maintain that the formation of NIDs is mainly preconditioned by three particular factors: the challenged socio-economic environment, the high economic developmental potential of the areas, and the specific property-ownership structure, usually dominated by one or few bigger (often public) property actors. Accordingly, the description of each case will be largely focused on these three categories.

NIDs in Gothenburg The first neighbourhood improvement districts ever to be formed in Sweden were Property Owners in Gamlestaden (Fastighetsägare Gamlestaden in Swedish) and Property Owners in Centrala Hisingen (Fastighetsägare Centrala Hisingen), formed in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Both areas are located in the inner-city of Gothenburg, with a mix of housing – built mainly in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century - and large industrial zones - which were largely left open for re-development after the closing of the shipyard and several other industries in the 1970s (Holmberg, 2009). Most parts of the older housing stock have been largely renovated over the years, with some houses being completely demolished and replaced in the 70s and 80s (ibid.). The low urban density and heavy traffic lines left from the industrial zoning, provide the right conditions for more urban densification and have therefore made both areas the focus of official urban plans and strategies, prioritized as strategic nodes for future urban expansion and economic development of the city (Göteborg Stad, 2006; 2017). Their location and the proximity to the city centre are maybe the most important factors for the re-development, which will be even further strengthened with future transport developments and connections with the rest of the city (Göteborg Stad, 1999; 2006; 2009; 2017). Conversely, both areas have also shared a rather negative image and a “stubborn reputation” of being characterized by socially vulnerable groups, crime, prostitution and drug trafficking (Holmberg, 2009). The population statistics of the areas also show higher percentage of foreign-born and unemployed than the average amount in Gothenburg (Göteborgsbladet, 2001, 2002). According to the current manager of Fastighetsägare i Gamlestaden, following a number of spectacular crimes and violent outbursts that took place in Gamlestaden in the beginning of the 2000s, the largest property owner in the area1 – the MHC Bostads AB Poseidon- realized that their residents experienced the neighbourhood as unsafe, prompting the company to do an investigation of the area with a focus on crime and security (Malm, 2001; Holmberg, 2009). The report states that, a review of the placement of social contracts in Gothenburg showed that Gamlestaden and parts of Centrala Hisingen, had the most social contracts per capita relative to the rest of the city (Malm 2001; Holmberg 2009). Thus, preceded by a district investigation in 2000, Bostads AB Poseidon initiated the NID Fastighetsägare i Gamlestaden, with this particular problem picture in their mind: One tenth of the homes were rented as so-called social housing, targeted to people with substance abuse problems. Organized crime took a grip on the district. Several local businesses were run by persons linked to organized crime and Gamlestaden became the site of shooting, blasting and car fires. The general crime was very high, and relocation studies showed that many residents chose to move from Gamlestaden due to insecurity, fear and in- dignation. (Holmberg, 2016) Following the event developments in Gamlestaden one year later, representatives of the private real-estate in-

1 The municipally -owned Bostads AB Poseidon owns close to 40% of the entire housing stock in Gamlestaden (see Appendix 1)

21 dustry (Fastighetsägarna) and Bostads AB Poseidon identified Centrala Hisingen as a strategic area with similar major issues and, likewise, a great economic potential (Holmberg, 2016). The fundamental difference in Centrala Hisingen is, however, that municipal housing companies don’t have the same dominant position in the property stock. Hence, the fragmented ownership of the area became part of the initial problem: A clear problem factor in the district was the fragmented property ownership, with, in many cases, a doubtful level of management. Crime was high in parts of the district and the concentration of social housing was very high. (Holmberg, 2016) As stated in Holmberg’s report: “[a] local partnership between the property-owners was seen as a way of turning a major problem into an opportunity” (2009: 49). Thus, following an investigation initiated by the local branch of the private real-estate industry (Fastighetsägarna Göteborg) and three local MHCs – which largely funded the investigation together with the two largest private housing companies in the area, Property Owners Centrala Hi- singen was formed in 2002. Since the main issue identified in relation to the rampant crime rates was the concentration of social housing (Holmberg 2009), consequently, the NIDs main activities in both areas focused on introducing area guards, security and maintenance inspections, reducing the concentration of social housing through deterrence and dispersal of social contracts (Holmberg, 2009; 2016), strategic real-estate acquisition (buy-out of slum ‘owners’) and conversion to specific – less risky - forms of tenure, all in line with the partnerships’ aim to increase the safety, status, reputation and social sustainability of the areas. According to Sahlin (2007) however, the concentration of social contracts was considered an issue well before the formation of the property partnership. In fact, the district authority had initiated a number of work groups in 19972, with the aim to increase the attractiveness of Gamlestaden by “excluding some of its residents” (ibid: 290). Above all, local property owners and stakeholders - who would later become Property Owners in Gamlestaden – were mobilized in the work from the very beginning. Sahlin (2007) argues that the crime factor – related to the concentration of socially vulnerable groups - became emphasized later with the formation of the NID.

Fig1. Share of families on social assistance 1999-2006. Source: Holmberg, 2009

Additionally, as the poor physical environment was identified as part of the problem picture as well, the partnerships have in the same way focused on refurbishments of the housing stock and upgrades in the public space such as construction of new playgrounds, parks, installation of lighting and so on (Olsson, 2017). Moreover, both individual property owners and the partnerships as well, have been directly involved in the preparation of comprehensive and detailed plans for their respective areas as local consultants. For instance, the City Building Office held special meetings with the organization Fastighetsägare i Gamlestaden (Göteborg Stad, 2006/del 2: 7) while

2 Sahlin (2009: 291) explains that one of the working groups that were formed by the district authority in 1997, had an explicit task to take control over moving in and out of the area, to ultimately improve the development of the district – the theory being that ‘good’ tenants moved, and ‘bad’ tenants’ stayed. One infamous house containing a large number of single rooms - proclaimed the ‘welfare hotel’ – was under their pressure bought by Bostads AB Poseidon and transformed into student housing. Furthermore, Poseidon gave notice to the district social authority, which used to rent flats and lease them to homeless people - some of them substance abusers or mentally ill.

22 preparing the in-depth overview plan for Gamlestaden in the period from 2002-2006. Likewise, in the official planning proposal it stands that the “City Building Office has prepared the plan in cooperation with property owners and other municipal administrations”, with two representatives from Bostads AB Poseidon as part of the property owners reference group (Göteborg Stad, 2006/del 2: 7, emphasis added). Clearly, although the partnerships are formed on the willingness of property owners, they have great political support and collaborate closely to local authorities - which can be to some degree directly credited for the NIDs formation. Moreover, the property owners’ agenda seems to be largely informed and steered by the official politics of the local governments and vice versa. Evidently the residents, who are ultimately most affected by any sort of development in this area, are more or less left out of the decision-making process. The precondition for formal participation in the NID is ‘property ownership’, which in an area dominated by rental apartments remains a privilege of the few. The business plan and the activities of the NIDs are decided by the partnerships’ boards, consisting of representatives of the property owners, while the local community is involved only on certain occasions such as public events and meetings organized by the NIDs.

NIDs in Stockholm The neighbourhood improvement districts formed a few years later in Stockholm have emerged in a somewhat similar problematic socio-economic and political context, but in some respects a slightly different urban setting. The first NID was formed in Järva in 2007, a suburb dominated by public housing, built in the 60s and 70s in the Million Programme era. The geographical boundary of the NID includes the districts Akalla, Hjulsta, Husby, Kista, Rinkeby and Tensta (see Appendix 2-6) - all, more or less, immigrant dense neighbourhoods, marked with high levels of unemployment and social assistance dependency. Inspired by Järva, a year later a NID-partnership was formed in Skärholmen (see Appendix 7-10) and three years later in 2012, in Rågsved (see Appendix 11). Both areas are in many respects quite similar to Järva – suburbs in the south-western and southern part of Stockholm dominated by multifamily housing -and public rental housing - with high representation of foreign born, unemployed and social assistance dependency. The latest NID partnership which was formed in 2017 in Hässelby-Vällingby (see Appendix 12-14) is the most heterogenous, both in terms of the housing stock and forms of tenure, as well as in terms of socio-economic indicators. Namely, some points in the area - consisting predominantly of multifamily blocks - have, in many respects, the same socio-economic challenges as the rest of the NIDs; the rest of the area however includes also a lot of single-family homes, some of which are actually quite exclusive. Therefore, the activities of the NID have been limited to three ‘problematic’ points – Hässelby Gård, Grimsta and Smedshagen, all dominated by large shares of multifamily housing. Although extensive parts of the public housing have been sold to private real estate owners in the past two decades, these areas are still largely dominated by MHCs. A public survey done in 1995 by a special Urban Inquiry Commission found the districts of Skärholmen, Rågs- ved, Rinkeby, Tensta and Husby (in Järva) the most “unattractive” neighbourhoods in Stockholm, characterized by an over-representation of people with foreign background, high levels of unemployment and families on social allowance (Andersson, 2006; Lawson, 2004). Together with a few other districts in Gothenburg and Malmö (including Sofielund), the Stockholm areas were marked as the most “vulnerable areas” in Sweden. Consequently, these particular districts have been the focus of a number of state policies and area-based initiatives, aimed at reversing the increasing socio-economic disparity and the urban and ethnic segregation (Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet, 2012). High crime rates and low perceived safety are also a common feature of all four areas. For instance, Bredäng in Skärholmen, Rågsved, Hässelby/Vällingby, Rinkeby/Tensta and Husby made the list of the most crime exposed zones in Stockholm in a report made by the Swedish police authority in 2015 (Utsatta områden, 2015). Rinkeby, Tensta and Husby were put in the top most vulnerable areas in Sweden (Särskilt utsatt område) with only 13 other districts from the rest of the country. A “particularly vulnerable area”, as defined in the report, is a geographically demarcated area characterized by general inconvenience to participate in the legal process, difficulties for the police to complete their mission, parallel social structures, violent religious extremism and proximity to other vulnerable areas (Utsatta områden, 2015). Bredäng, Rågsved, and Hässelby/Vällingby on the other hand were put in the utsatt område group or “vulnerable” areas, characterized as areas with low socioeconomic status affected by criminality. Following the report, some of the MHCs in these areas received subsidies from the national Housing Office, awarded as support to property owners in improving the outdoor environment in the exposed areas that same year3 (Boverket, 2016).

3 The public housing company Stockholmshem, member and owner of large property shares in all four NIDs in Stockholm, has been granted a total of 579 500 SEK for two Outdoor Environment Projects: 333 500 SEK for a landmark entrance in Hässelby

23 On the other hand, the current housing crisis in Sweden, and in Stockholm in particular, puts these areas in a rather different perspective, especially for real estate companies. The bad reputation of the neighbourhoods, related to the high crime rates and their socio-economic challenges, has kept property prices down in these suburbs, which coupled with a high demand for housing presents a rather big opportunity for property developers and the real estate business. Quite a lot of possibilities for profit lie in large parts of the existing housing stock, particularly the Million Programme homes, dubbed for large technical renovations (Boverket and Energimyndigheten 2016; SABO 2009). As Baeten et.al (2017) point out, “apartments in rundown neighbourhoods in Sweden have become the object of profit-seeking renovation works […] after which the Million Program becomes, so to speak, a ‘brown- field site’ waiting to be renewed and made profitable” (p. 639). Additionally, the areas have been targeted for new extensive developments and urban densification in urban plans and policies from the past decade (Stockholm Stad 2006; 2007; 2010; 2017). The Comprehensive plan for Stockholm (1999; 2006) suggests that a number of high-potential urban areas located in the outskirts should become “centers of gravity”, connected with a new efficient network of public transport (Stockholm Stad, 2006; 2010). Kista in Järva, Skärholmen, and Vällingby are marked as three out of nine focus points considered to have the largest potential for becoming regional city-centres (Stockholm Stad, 2006; 2010; 2017). In this landscape of hardship and economic potential, a re-development programme, known as the Järvalyft, gave birth to a new partnership called Property Owners in Järva (Fastighetsägare i Järva), set to increase the security and property values in the area. The project, which actually started as Svenska Böstader’s (the largest MHC and property owner in Järva) plan to re-develop its Million Programme stock - before it was taken over by the local authorities, was launched as an integrated area-based policy consisting of both ‘soft’ measures such as improving school results and dealing with security issues, and ‘hard’ measures such as extensive refurbishments and new urban developments (Stockholm Stad, 2009). The NID partnership was formed on the initiative of Svenska Böstader and largely facilitated the municipality’s efforts to implement the project in close cooperation with the local business and community. One year later, inspired by the developments in Järva, Svenska Bostäder initiated a similar partnership in Skär- holmen, an equally challenged area both in terms of insecurity and crime rates, and with the same potential for urban development. Although it wasn’t part of a particular policy or programme, according to the NIDs manager, Property Owners in Skärholmen’s activities are mainly organized around local crime-prevention and development programs, administered by the district authorities (personal communication, 09.11.2017). Svenska Bostäder have also been involved in the formation of the other two NIDs, in Hässelby-Vällingby in collaboration with the district authority, and in Rågsved alongside the MHC Familjebostäder. Same as the Gothenburg cases, the property owners in Stockholm have had a privileged access to public officials through the NIDs and were quite able to focus both extra policy attention and funding toward particular areas of interest. Likewise, the local residents have remained largely uninvolved in the decision-making process, although unlike in Gothenburg, there have been some protests related to this. Albeit the protests weren’t pointed directly to the NIDs activities but to Svenska Bostäder’s plans to demolish parts of their housing in Husby, they have, nonetheless, expressed their dissatisfaction with the general attitude of both real estate owners and local authorities to exclude them from important decisions regarding the direction of future extensive developments in their own neighbourhood.

NIDs in Malmö Fastighetsägare BID Sofielund (Property Owners in Sofielund) was formed in the end of 2014, as the first and only ‘neighbourhood improvement’ partnership of its kind to be formed in Malmö to date. The idea for a local collaboration emerged from an area-based policy administered by the municipality in the period from 2010-2015, aimed to raise the standard of living in five particularly vulnerable areas in Malmo (Malmö Stad, 2015). The work of the property owners in Sofielund therefore, had started three years before the partnership was formed, within the framework of Malmo City’s Områdesprogram, in Seved, Södra Sofielund. After the programme came to an end, the work has been scaled up to cover all Sofielund and a new association, Property Owners BID Sofielund, has been formed (Malmö Stad, 2015). The area-coordinator from the Områdesprogram became the development leader and manager of the NID.

Center, and 244 000 SEK for a youth center in Rinkeby (Boverket, 2016). Familjebostäder, likewise an MHC with large shares of property and member of three NIDs, received 3 864 964 SEK for the project Social gemenskap över generationer på bostadsgårdar in Tensta (Boverket, 2016).

24 The geographical boundaries of Fastighetsägare BID Sofielund include the residential districts of Norra and Södra Sofielund, and the industrial zone set between Norra Sofielund and Norra Grängesbergsgatan, located in the south-eastern part of the inner-city of Malmö. Moreover, the area is situated along a particularly strong boundary that divides the western and eastern parts of Malmö by levels of income, education, employment and other social and economic indicators. Infamous for the high rates of criminality and drug trafficking (especially its southern part called Seved), the area has been the subject of many public area-programs from the middle of the 90s until today. According to Malmö City’s final report for the Områdesprogram project, the resources for the policy have been used in particular to develop new collaborations and solutions that would foster a sustainable development beyond the area-policy’s term limit. Among other things, the importance of a citizen’s perspective was emphasized, as a precondition to succeed in mobilizing local resources such as associations, property owners, entrepreneurs, other authorities and, not least, the residents themselves (Malmö Stad, 2015). According to the report, the work had begun in 2011 with a comprehensive inventory and review of the property management in the area (Malmö Stad, 2015). The main problems identified were crime, vandalism, and littering, particularly around Seved’s properties. Additionally, a number of ‘slum owners’ and property managers that kept the housing on a substandard level were found to be a serious nuisance to the area’s standard of living. Moreover, statistics showed that over 25% of the population, annually, are moving from the area to other parts of the city, mainly due to notions of insecurity. The problem picture that was formed with the area-programs’ inventory thus, would later become the base of the NIDs agenda and future activities aligned with its two main goals: increasing the perceived security and property values in the area. The second aim demonstrates, as some of the members have pointed out, that the triggers do not only emanate from the area’s socio-economic challenges, but also from its underused potential related to its central location in the city, as well as the local cultural scene. Similar to the two Gothenburg NIDs, Sofielund is located in the inner-city, and likewise, has a large industrial zone set to be re-developed. Moreover, there is potential for a middle-class housing spill over demand, partly because of the location and the pressing housing crisis and additionally, because of the presence of a strong local cultural and art scene, which the municipality and the NID would like to use as a ca- talyst for Sofielund’s re-revelopment into a ‘creative and entrepreneurial’ post-industrial hub (manager of Sofielund NID, personal communication). Fastighetsägarna Syd - who were one of the main initiators of the NID - have emphasized that the location of Sofielund in regard to the city was the deciding factor for choosing this particular district to be the test bed for NIDs in Malmö: It’s the location, yes, the location is in the middle of the city centre and in order to have an area that central that couldn’t maximize its possibilities… if you compare it in the rental market, there are a lot of possibilities there, in order to increase the value in long term. It’s not only the social and human perspective, they are of course very important, but our members are there for the business as well. So, they saw a possibility within the BID concept to increase the value of their property. (Representative from Fast- ighetsägarna Syd, personal communication, 29.09.2017) Additionally, the area’s location between the city centre and Rosengård has turned it into a re-development corridor for the desired integration of Rosengård with the rest of the city (Malmö Stad, 2014). The development potential of the area will increase even more with the construction of a new train stop, set for 2018, planned to be located on the very edge of the NID with Rosengård. The NID in Sofielund presents a unique example in the Swedish context, as it is the only one initiated explicitly by the municipality, or more precisely by the joint initiative of both the municipality and the local association of private property-owners Fastighetsägarna Syd. The reason for this lies in the largely fragmented ownership structure (see Appendix 15) and the absence of a strong property owner – similar to Centrala Hisingen – which could take up the initial inquiry. Likewise, the fragmented ownership structure became part of the area’s main issues, along with the high crime rates and the general condition of the property portfolio (Holmberg 2014). The public housing company MKB has, admittedly, the largest share of the housing stock in the area but is, nonetheless, in a far less dominant position than the MHCs in the majority of the other cases. MKB has still been largely involved in the process from the beginning, as the only municipal property owner and one of the most powerful real estate actors on the housing market in Malmö. The formation of this particular NID has also caused another line of events that mark a milestone in regard to the previous cases – local protests mobilized as a direct reaction to the NID and its aim to increase the property values in the area, which have caused concern for the potential of rising rents and an unwanted gentrification pro-

25 cess (Bohman, 2015). Aside from the protests which took place before the partnership was formed, there have been later concerns expressed by some local groups in relation to the NIDs ongoing activities. For instance, the local cultural and social center - Kontrapunkt, have criticized the NIDs lack of engagement with the local community in activities which are otherwise labelled as grassroots (Kontrapunkt, 2017). Furthermore, Kontrapunkt argue that the municipality, with the help of the NID partnership, seek to capitalize on the local cultural spirit, however, while simultaneously emphasizing the area as an ugly, dangerous, and unsafe ‘no-man’s’ land, which they believe is used in order to render the local residents invisible and substitute them with different groups. Later on, Kontrapunkt have moved from the premises which they rented in Sofielund after a conflict with the property owner who, according to their web-page, evicted Kontrapunkt on account of their vocal criticism (Kontrapunkt, 2015).

PART II In the previous chapters, we discussed the geographical delimitation of NIDs in Sweden, i.e. where NIDs tend to appear. Data from official urban plans and strategies, different reports from the NIDs and other institutions, as well as data from the NIDs’ membership and property ownership maps was analysed and presented, in order to better understand the geographical context of their appearance. We came to the conclusion that there are three particular preconditions that the specific areas meet, prior the creation of a NID: (1) a low socio-economic status, (2) a high economic potential, and (3) a specific property ownership structure. In the following chapters, we’ll try to explain these patterns and provide some insight into the reasons why NIDs appear in these specific places. Accordingly, we organized the discussion in three general themes relating to the three preconditions discussed previously in an attempt to explain the logic behind each of them.

4. NIDs – partnerships for safety Issues of safety and crime are without exception the first and chief reason given by NID agents for their engagement in problematic residential areas across Sweden, albeit, for the purpose of increasing the property values and the neighbourhoods’ attractiveness. Consequently, a large portion of their activities is concerned with locally based strategies for preventing crime and increasing the sense of security among their residents. In that respect, it seems important to first address their hands-on engagement with crime prevention, and ultimately try to unpick the connection between their two main goals: increasing safety and the values of their property portfolio. In the following sections we give a short account of the existing literature which relates crime rates with the spatial configuration and appearance of urban neighbourhoods, as well as its appraisal in regard to the strategies employed, their justification and the potential outcomes. We suggest that for NIDs, spatial considerations of crime constitute a link between security and profitability. Furthermore, we will present the crime-policy landscape of Sweden, particularly in relation to the general wave of policy decentralization from the past two decades and consider the emergence of NIDs against the backdrop of increasing private provision of public services. We will close with a discussion of NIDs activities related to crime prevention (conditioned by the increase of property values) and a consideration of the potential benefits and pitfalls from delegating responsibility for crime deterrence from public to private actors.

Spatial considerations of crime There is a large body of academic research which underlies the connection between property management and the design of urban spaces on one side with the incidence of crimes in residential areas on the other (Newman 1972, 1980; Wilson and Kelling, 1982; Cohen and Felson, 1979). The theoretical framework of this school of thought is particularly important for our research for two reasons: the first is that Sweden, same as many other countries, has been probing crime-prevention through environmental design and management for quite a while now (Regering- en, 1996; Polismyndigheten i Stockholms län, 2005; Regeringen, 2017). The second reason is that the crime-design logic has also been largely informing the chief actions of NIDs - lowering crime rates and increasing the feeling of security through good property management, housing refurbishments and physical interventions in the public space are all high on the NID agenda. Generally speaking, the central premise of all crime-design theories is that the physical design, the layout and management of public spaces directly influence a neighbourhoods’ exposure to crime, as landscapes have the ability to emit messages of vulnerability to criminal minds. Despite the extensive criticism toward these theories on many accounts (ranging from the exclusion of social factors from the crime equation, to their limited, localized view of

26 larger structural issues), spatialized crime theories have nevertheless become incredibly popular in criminological discourse and related public policies. A number of criminological theories such as defensible space and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design), broken windows and situational crime prevention, have made their way to both crime policies and urban planning in countries around the world, as a standard for designing safe neighbourhoods, despite the fact that most of these theories remain largely untested and contradictory (Cozens et.al, 2002; Herbert and Brown 2006; Reynald and Elffers 2009). A potential explanation for their rampant popularity may lie, as Reynald and Elffers (2009: 26) point out, in the fact that “the crime–design thesis offered an exclusive selling-point, emphasizing the fact that the built environment is more easily manipulable than the sociological context”. Likewise, Herbert and Brown (2006) argue, this popularity might just be on the account of the simple logic that crime-design theories mobilize. There exists however, aside from the design perspective of crime prevention scholarship, a large body of academic research which emphasizes the connection between perceived safety, or fear of crime in residential areas and the potential for investments in property development (Bannister and Fyfe, 2001; Flusty, 1997; Christopherson, 1994). “Why fear matters in these environments”, explain Bannister and Fyfe (2001: 810), “has less to do with the social and psychological impact on individual citizens and more to do with the way it has a negative impact on patterns of investment in the city”. Similarly, Flusty (1997) argues that much of today’s exclusive secured space focuses on the exclusion of undesirable social groups, “configured more for the symbolic defence of status than for the physical protection of occupants”, pointing to the relationship between security and profitability. From that perspective, Herbert and Brown (2006: 772) hint a third and quite compelling explanation for the popularity of these theories through their engaging argument that “landscapes communicate not just to criminals, but to everyone, including tourists, shoppers, and real estate developers”. Somewhere in the convergence of all these reasonings, we suggest, lie the cornerstone urban politics of the NID organizations in Sweden, and arguably BID schemes in general.

NIDs in the context of policy-decentralization in Sweden The reason behind NIDs engagement with issues of local crime and safety can be traced back to the middle of the 1990s and the shift from sectoral to area-based approaches in dealing with general issues of crime prevention in Sweden. National crime policies (particularly crime-prevention) have enabled the appearance of local partnerships, or ‘partnerships for safety’, by prioritizing the local level as the primary site for dealing with particular societal issues (Regeringen, 1996). The very first NIDs which were formed in Gothenburg in 2001/2002, were actually the -im mediate product of a national crime-prevention program set in 1996 (Allas vårt ansvar/Everybody’s Responsibility), which sought out to decentralize and delegate the responsibility for crime-prevention from the central government to the local level of municipalities, by seeking both a wide cross-sectoral and a public-private collaboration between different actors, including the civil society. Hörnqvist (2001) argues that this development is primarily seen in the state (i) delegating responsibility to the local level, (ii) reprioritizing of core areas of operation and outsourcing of public services, and (iii) mobilizing volunteer organizations and other groups of concerned citizens for execution of unpaid services (2001:37)4. What is particularly important however is that this organizational shift has fundamentally influenced all public administration in Sweden, not just the law enforcement agencies. Other sectors have delegated responsibilities to the local level as well and have localized or narrowed down the focus of policy work to specific problematic areas. As a result, crime-prevention programmes have shared the field with many other area-based policies aimed at increasing employment rates, improving public health, increasing democratic participation, improving school results and not least carrying out urban regeneration projects, all that while underlining the importance of increasing citizen participation and enhancing public-private collaboration as a prerequisite for the policies’ success (Lawson, 2004; Hörn- qvist, 2001). Thus, socio-economically vulnerable or problematic residential areas across Sweden, have become the breeding ground for different ‘partnerships for safety’ and public-private collaboration models which involve municipalities, the police, safety councils, businesses, property owners, NGOs, and so on, concerned with all kinds of issues ranging from decreasing crime rates to urban renewal. In turn this has presented a unique possibility for local actors to engage in one-size-fits-all strategies for dealing with the urban issues of relegated neighbourhoods, in the form of partnerships such as the likes of NIDs which are given a wide discretion to make their own assessments in regard to which factors will be considered and how should they be addressed under one policy umbrella. The

4 Hörnqvist (2001) notes that although this seems as if the state is retiring, it does not really mean that the state has ultimately renounced its role of maintaining law and order in society, rather that the way to maintain this order is being changed in line with the general neo-liberal reform of the public sector.

27 manager to two of the Stockholm NIDs demonstrates this while explaining the main reasons standing behind their formation, pointing to a variety of social issues and groups as subjects of their work: In these areas, there is a lot of crime, more crime and insecurity than the rest of Stockholm. But also, a lot of people with low education levels, a lot of unemployment, living on social assistance. Then, not so many people who vote, for example. All these parameters that are bad for society. So, they were also the triggers, I would say. (NID manager of Fastighetsägare Skärholmen and Fastighetsägare Hässelby-Vällingby, personal communication, 09.11.2017) The range of their acquired responsibilities however entails expanding the role of property-owners in society beyond merely housing (Sahlin and Wennerström, 2009), and ultimately poses a lurking danger of coupling public goods with private (business) interests.

Safety and designing-out crime As mentioned earlier, the main actions of NIDs pivot around two main goals: reducing crime rates and increasing property values. The connection between these two seemingly unrelatable aims in Swedish policy discourse has been made, as Sahlin (2007: 280) argues, through the all-encompassing concept of safety: [w]ithin these very different public fields – city governance, policing, crime prevention, public health and wealth, as well as urban planning and renewal – safety has become a key concept. [T]he traditional and new cur- rents of thought and action concerning security, beauty and community, have merged to render ‘safety’ an all-embracing concept for (good) urban planning, local development work, crime prevention and general improvement of deprived residential areas. In this context, ‘safety’ has emerged as a quality capable of raising property values as well as attracting profitable tenants. Her argument demonstrates why, in lieu of increasing overall attractiveness and property values, improving the sense of security among residents has been pivotal to the work of NIDs. This safety logic has been present and clearly demonstrated in many crime-prevention handbooks and documents that followed Allas vårt ansvar, such as for instance the popular BoTryggt handbook series for crime-prevention which were specifically prepared for urban planners, property owners and developers with the aim to educate them “at designing out crime and at designing in security into our housing environments” (Polismyndigheten i Stockholms län, 2005:5, emphasis added). Stock- holm’s Police Authority, which prepared and promoted the handbooks in a wide collaboration with MHCs, private housing companies, Stockholm’s City planning Authority and so on, go as far as to say that “BoTryggt has become a sort of de facto standard for crime prevention, not only in Stockholm but all over Sweden” (ibid, 2005: 5, emphasis in original). Their claim certainly holds ground, insofar as the discussion of crime-prevention in urban planning has definitely not been limited to crime policies only. Notions of safety and security have become a recurring theme in many urban planning documents from the past two decades (see Bergström, 2006), including comprehensive and detailed plans from planning authorities5, as well research and recommendations prepared by Boverket6 (the Swed- ish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning). Consequently, urban development has been established as the frontier for the prevention of crime and increasing the feeling of safety and security among citizens. This demonstrates why NIDs insist on grounding their work in urban (re)development and by the same token employ crime-prevention strategies rooted in spatialized theories. Moreover, it highlights the relationship between notions of safety, community and attractiveness which appear at the centre of NIDs regeneration narratives. In addition, we identified three particular criminological concepts that are guiding NIDs security paradigm: broken windows theory, situational crime-prevention and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental

5 See for example Malmö Stad (2012) Granskningsrapport.Trygghet och säkerhet i Malmös stadsmiljö- fysiska åtgärder i den offentliga utomhusmiljön (Safety and security in Malmö City’s environment - physical measures in the public outdoor environment); 6 For instance Boverket’s (2010) Plats för trygghet. Inspiration för stadsutveckling, offers tips and ideas on how to work towards strengthening public safety with a focus on how the design of the physical environment can affect people’s feelings of security or insecurity in urban environments (ibid);

28 Design). The first two concepts have been explicitly pointed as the theoretical framework of the security work of NIDs, while the third has been mainly considered in crime policy documents in Sweden in general. What is common to all three concepts is that they all represent an attempt to predict and discourage incidence of crime by relying on the expression of territoriality in residential neighbourhoods, or in other words, the symbolic demon- stration of community and social control over the environment, inherent in proper management and objective attractiveness of the physical landscape7. Their central premise is the base of defensible space theory, and in that genealogy, they relate directly to the design and routine management of the public front of private property, as well as the semantics of the public space extending in its direct proximity (Blomley, 2004). Crime-prevention policies in Sweden produced in the past two decades, relying mostly on the concept of situational crime-prevention - and consequently NIDs crime paradigms, hold a clear focus in the premise that crime can be prevented. In that extent, it’s argued that in order for a crime to take place, three factors must be met: (1) a motivated perpetrator, (2) an object or a victim, and (3) an opportunity to commit the crime. Based on this, crime prevention mechanisms are placed in two categories: the first is the so-called social prevention, that is, influencing people through various social measures. The second category is called situational crime-prevention, and entails reducing the opportunities for crimes by designing and managing the built environment in a well-thought-out manner. Following the strategies and recommendations in both national crime-prevention policies (Allas vårt ansvar and Tillsammans mot brott), NIDs explicitly maintain that their field of action, as a representative of the local community, is concerned mainly with the latter, which covers the second and the third factor: the object or victim and the opportunity to commit a crime. The first factor is left to the police, schools and social authorities. In this framework the logic of spatial crime theories, present in crime policies and NID actions, is revealed: there exists an objective, rational, criminally minded potential offender that needs to be discouraged and removed from the urban space. Moreover, following the reasoning expressed in the national crime policies that urban segregation and social exclusion are one of the main prerequisites for the production of criminality8, NIDs largely consider that this potential offender exists in a very particular spatial setting often related to multi-family rental housing (particularly in the Million Programme stock), and in a very vaguely defined and potentially dangerous class of socially vulnerable or disadvantaged people that often have little to do with each other, and least with the anticipated crime in these areas. The chairman of Fastighetsägare Hässelby-Vällingby demonstrates this logic while explaining the reasons behind their selective geographical approach when choosing the NIDs priority action areas out of the entire district: [W]e pinpointed these three areas [Grimsta, Hässelby Gård and Smeds- hagen] because there is no idea to work with single-family areas […] there are no problems there. Or perhaps there are problems but of another kind. And, Hasselby Gård is perhaps the one that is most like, most similar to Järva. Because it’s a little city centre and there are many different landlords and, rather many poor people, unemployed or drug addicts and so on. (Board Chairman of Fastighetsägare Hässelby-Vällingby and CEO of the MHC Svenska Bostader, personal communication, 09.11.2017) This urgency of clearing the space frompotential offenders and focusing on de-victimizing the landscape through urban (re)design, could potentially serve to confirm the claim made by Bannister and Fyfe that situational crime prevention seems to have less to do with the social and psychological impact on individual citizens and more to do with the way it affects patterns of investment. This becomes even more evident in their strictly localized approach

7 Although they all share a common foothold, crime-design theories are inherently different, not least in terms of the promotion of different deterrent mechanisms which are to be employed in the prevention of urban crime. Some, like the ‘broken windows’ theory, actually advocate or have been known to promote increased policing and criminalization of certain behaviour in public spaces, while other such as ‘defensible space’ and situational crime prevention, focus more on the semantics and the design of the urban landscape as their primary deterrent. However, the fact that all spatial crime concepts have been considered conceptual descendants of Newman’s (1972) ‘defensible space’ theory, has justified to some extent their interchangeable use in actual crime policies. This has also been the general case with the crime policies in Sweden, and consequently the safety and security paradigm of NIDs in particular. 8 In Allas vårt ansvar immigrant dense and segregated residential areas characterized with a concentration of socially vulnerable households and individuals (as well as a poorer physical environment) are deemed as a particularly risky environment with a ‘springboard effect’ on crime and other social issues. The Million Programme areas are by the same token associated with groups which usually have poorer opportunities to get to know the welfare society’s various benefits and are consequently more prone to high rates of criminality.

29 to crime and security and the complete disregard for the potential spill over effects of their crime deterrence actions in relation to neighbouring areas. A recent housing security report published jointly by the four NIDs in Stock- holm, reads: “after action, some crime may move to other real estate nearby or elsewhere, but far from everyone.” (Trygghetscertificerad fastighet,2017). Additionally, NIDs focus on physical upkeep and attractive urban environments as the primary assets for deter- ring crime, coming from the premise that a tidy and attractive neighbourhood is an evident indicator of a healthy community that can establish effective dominion over theirown neighbourhood space. The emphasis on the relationship between environmental design and low crime rates however, could also in turn serve to legitimize housing renovations and interventions in the public space in view of relieving areas of crime, and not least, legitimize NID actors as leaders in an urban regeneration process. The underlying reason given by the NIDs for their activity in the poorest and most stigmatized areas across Sweden, is the assertion of informal social control and dominion over ones ‘own’ neighbourhood space by creating ‘local’ partnerships or alliances to fight crime mainly by increasing the objective attractiveness of the physical space. The path from territorial stigmatization to an economic opportunity has been well recognized and discussed before. Kallin and Slater (2014: 1351) show how the “blemish of the place” becomes a target and rationale of the consequent “fix of the neighbourhood”, typically with the assistance of the state. They argue “the reliance on stigma as an engine of regeneration is written into the very policies that are aimed at these areas of deprivation. As stigma gets worse, the rent gap – the opportunity for profit – gets wider” (ibid: 1364). We suggest that NIDs make use of the stigma attached to certain housing areas and hold it as justification to proclaim a certain state of emergency that serves to primarily put in place a NID partnership and eventually effect some degree of urban regeneration. Following the same line of reasoning, the following section will discuss in more detail the potential part NIDs play in the process of urban regeneration of socio-economically vulnerable residential areas.

5. Urban regeneration tactics To better understand the rationale behind the specific geographical pattern of NIDs, we maintain that they also need to be analysed against urban regeneration strategies, since they tend to pop up in areas often highlighted by urban social policies. We will try to present an overview of the urban regeneration context in Sweden, as well as the urban policies related to it. This will provide us with the necessary understanding of the context in which the NIDs appear, and the mutation of the regeneration tactics over the time. We believe this is important in order to fully grasp the form and function of today’s NIDs. Roberts and Sykes (2000: 17) define urban regeneration as a “comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change”. The array of strategies used for urban regeneration are numerous. For instance, Van Gent (2009) differentiates two main categories of physical interventions which are employed by public officials and housing corporations as means to institute social change: physical and tenure restructuring and upgrading by gradually increasing the standards, while Parker and Madureira (2016) add three more categories - service-partnering, socio-economic empowerment, and image building. The process of regeneration is shaped by urban policies, action plans and projects which reflect the priorities, aims and goals of the state. These processes however, are rarely initiated, led and implemented solely by the public sector, as Amirtahmasebi et al. (2016: xxix) argue “the need for massive financial resources is one factor. However, even if the government could provide the necessary resources for regenerating urban land, the buy-in from the community and business sector is needed to ensure the sustainability of regeneration efforts”. The same authors consider BIDs to be a financial tool for urban regeneration projects: “BIDs have successfully leveraged private funding in cities to catalyse urban regeneration” (Amirtahmasebi et al., 2016: 46). We believe however, that in the Swedish context that is hardly the case, since the private budgets that NIDs collect are negligible. We propose an approach where the NIDs would be viewed as an implementation tool instead. We argue that they offer the necessary infrastructure for softer (and potentially harder, future) regeneration strategies. “It is critical to think ahead early in the planning process and not wait until the end to identify and engage potential private, civic, and public partners. These groups will act as the main implementers, change agents, and advocates for regeneration” (Amirtahmasebi et al., 2016: 28).

30 NIDs in the context of urban regeneration As we saw earlier, the areas in which NIDs are emerging are typically urban areas with a low socio-economic status, and often struggling with stigmatization. However, in part owing to their political importance, as well as their location and importance for the development of the rest of the city, these neighbourhoods have often been the subject of considerations for future densification and development in urban plans and strategies (see: chapter 2). This sends clear signals to market actors (particularly the real-estate market), informing them where future developments can be expected to happen in the city, thus shaping the landscape of investments. In that landscape, of course, a special place is reserved for the stigmatized areas which represent oases of untapped potential that haven’t yet fulfilled their full (economic) potential. Urban policies thus pave the way for the emergence of the NIDs, by highlighting the areas that will be a subject of policy attention and public funds in the future. Although not explicitly related to public initiatives, NIDs have nevertheless followed urban policies to the letter and continue to pop-up in vulnerable residential areas previously targeted by the state or municipalities (see chapter 2: Neighbourhood Improvement Districts). While following the same geography, the NIDs present themselves as something different from the public projects and initiatives they follow, a feature often highlighted in their discourse as a result of the general fatigue found among residents and groups targeted by short-lived governmental programmes. The turn to BID-like partnerships is thus magnified against the failure of previous area-based policies and presented themselves as something new, different, long-lasting, and ultimately better: There has been a lot of welfare money coming from the government and lot of other money, projects coming from the government. Lot of projects have been done in this area, and people are so tired of projects. They are coming and going you know. Coming one year and three years later it’s disappeared again. (NID manager of Fastighetsägare Sofielund, personal communication, 21.09.2017) One crucial difference that separates them from public urban policies however is the focus on physical measures which in public interventions is not considered as relevant to the uplift of socio-economically relegated areas as labour and education market initiatives. Malmö councillor Andreas Schönstrom explains that in spite of area-based initiatives’ relative success on an individual level, there hasn’t been any real improvement in deprived neighbourhoods’ overall socio-economic status compared to the rest of the city. The reason for this is, he argues, the transient character of the segregated neighbourhoods: In Sofielund [the mobility] is about 20%. You have to understand, that’s because [in order] to get your first place to live, it’s very easy [to do it] in those areas. (…) But, of course when you get a job, you want to move as everyone else. Because, you would realize that this isn’t a good environment for my kids, for my family, and of course, when you get money – you move. This also explains why in 20 years we couldn’t see a difference in those areas. We put all these money in, but we couldn’t see something, the output wasn’t there. (personal communication, 20.12.2017) He further clarifies that this is where the NIDs make a difference, and depart from everything else the city has done before: This is the big difference between BID Sofielund and everything else that we have done. Because, they work with real-estate owners, the houses – they don’t move. They work with the school – a school doesn’t move. (…) So, this is the big contribution I can see with BID Sofielund, if you compare [it] to everything else that we’ve done. What the councilman tries to convey is that NIDs, in contrast to previous public initiatives that focused on the populations in vulnerable areas, will primarily focus on the improvement of the neighbourhood’s socio-economic status instead. In a review of state policy efforts for breaking segregation in Sweden’s three largest cities, Andersson (2006) similarly argues that high mobility, specifically ‘selective migration’ (2006: 793), is the main reason for fail- ing to improve a neighbourhood’s socio-economic status despite concerted efforts. He argues that “the main challenge seems to be to reduce out-migration, and especially the ‘middle-class leakage’, since this is the driving-force behind the production and reproduction of the segregation” (Andersson, 2006: 795).

31 Getting the middle-class balance right seems to be the general goal of NIDs as well, however, with a slightly different approach employed. NID actors often insist that their main engagement is to stop local residents from moving out by making them feel safe and proud of their neighbourhood. Conversely, a lot of their work focuses on removing - ostensibly negative - resident groups such as the dispersal of residents with social contracts. On the other hand, a lot of effort goes into marketing the areas for middle-class groups through joint investments in new housing, efforts to renovate and restructure the existing housing stock, building attractive public amenities and so on. Thus, it seems like the general idea is not so much stopping out-migration and keeping citizens put, as attracting (and replacing part of the local constituency) with a middle-class in-migration. However, the main issue - particularly in view of the displacement of vulnerable residents, is the fact that much as people, problems tend to move as well. A gentrification-like process would thus improve the status of the NID area, but then another neighbourhood would take its place on the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy instead (Andersson, 2006). This means that NIDs aren’t promising anything more in terms of improving the lives of residents compared to the public place-based initiatives before them they denounce so vigorously. Thus, in order to be able to successfully replace previous place-based initiatives, NIDs would have to consider a more serious approach that would factor in a more tangible improvement of resident’s socio-economic position as well. NIDs, unlike actual public area-based initiatives, are significantly less hampered by public accountability and enjoy more freedom in determining the stretches of their social responsibilities. Although this might be reflected upon differently along public-private lines inside the organization itself, as far as the entire partnership is concerned, to borrow the phrase from the former General Manager of Poseidon, “[we] stressed that this was no social project” (Wendel in PM 2006 RVI 11). Some of the NIDs have been sporadically engaged in smaller scale social projects and activities, mainly in collaboration with local authorities (employing people with difficulties in entering the job market; or training programs for immigrant women with lower education). However, such initiatives are rare and have a rather small scope in terms of their outreach, funding and durability. In that sense, in their current mode of operation, NIDs could not by any means fully substitute a comprehensive area-based policy. Despite their rhetoric of working for social sustainability, their main work remains focused on issues related to real property. Göran Wendel, former CEO of the MHC Poseidon in Gothenburg, explains Fastighetsägare Gamlestaden’s agenda with the following statement: The property owners gathered around a common vision: Gamlestaden will be a safe and comfortable, well-functioning neighbourhood to live, work and stay in. To this vision, we linked an overarching aim which was to positively affect the development of value of both rental and owner-occupied apartments. We stressed that this was no social project. […] We then set three working goals: to reduce crime, make the population more diverse and increase security. (Wendel in PM 2006 RVI 11) Another departure in regard to previous public initiatives is the mutation of the ‘partnership’ model. BIDs in general are considered part of the public-private partnership (PPP) spectrum (Briffault, 1999: 422)9. PPPs (see: Forrer et al., 2010), and BIDs in particular (see: Briffault, 1999; Morçöl et al. [eds.], 2008) are considered to have serious accountability issues. Many authors point out to the difficulty to hold BIDs accountable, due to their -in tertwinement with local governments and the unclearness of which constituencies they affect (Morçöl and Wolf, 2010). Although local governments are supposed to oversee the work of BIDs in countries where they have been institutionalized, it is argued that governments seldom practice their rights to oversee or dissolve them (Foster, 2011). We suggest that the non-existence of a legislature in Sweden renders the question ‘to whom are NIDs accountable?’ even more important and that much harder to answer. Since there is no political mandate or legal framework, it’s not clear who oversees their work and who can dissolve them, if this is necessary. This freedom on the other hand, seems to suit the NIDs as they generally are not too thrilled by the idea of introducing a legislature:

9 Morçöl and Wolf (2010) however, think that the qualification of the BIDs as private-public partnerships doesn’t capture the whole picture, and they argue “it is better to conceptualize BIDs as actors in urban governance networks”, since “they are auto- nomous from governments, exist in relationships with other actors (e.g., governments), and they participate in collective action to determine policy goals in urban areas” (2010: 908). Nonetheless, they recognize the “accountability challenge” that BIDs share with other PPPs (ibid: 909).

32 I think, if you have a legislation, then it would be stricter and more ruled what we can do, and what we cannot do. And, maybe there will be more expectations on the BID, from the authorities, or the police, or even the people that are living in the city. Maybe, that’s not good, I’m not sure. Now, we are a little bit freer, we can work with the things that the members think are the most important. I don’t know, I’m not so sure… (NID manager of Fastighetsägare Skärholmen, personal communication, 09.11.2017) Additionally, NIDs differ from previous forms of public-private partnerships in Sweden in their consideration for citizens’ participation, or more specifically, their lack of democratic dialogue. With a quick glance at the membership of all seven NIDs it becomes obvious that their places are reserved chiefly for property-owners, rendering other (non-property-owner) residents and the civil society non-existent, at least at the decision-making level. The mutation of the partnership approach, inherited from the previous policies, renders NIDs less democratic than their predecessors. Although NGOs and particular groups - such as artists - are sometimes included on specific projects, the actual decision-making level in the NIDs is reserved solely for the property-owners. Furthermore, the absence of legislature makes them difficult to hold accountable. NIDs follow the path of previous programs but mutate the approach - they become PPPs without citizens and civil society, and area-based approaches focused only on physical measures. To conclude, we draw three important characteristics of NIDs that need to be remembered in regard to urban regeneration processes: (1) NIDs are evaluated as and levelled with (previous) public area-based policies; (2) their focus is primarily on lifting the attractiveness and socio-economic status of the neighbourhood, hence the primacy on marketing and physical measures; and (3) they mutate the partnership approach, which now includes only property-owners working together with public officials, leaving out the most vulnerable groups.

Social mix and gentrification Introducing ‘natives’ or middle-class residents into the mix of a problematic area, with the purpose of improving the socio-economic status of the whole area through social networking, refers to the idea of social mixing. The social mix principle is often used when regenerating residential areas and has been the goal of the Swedish housing policy since the 1970s (Andersson and Musterd, 2005). The NIDs in Sweden are adopting similar principles as the ‘social mix’ idea, which is clearly visible in their reasoning regarding the downfall of the neighbourhoods – often ascribed to the residents and land-owners that are currently living and have lived there prior the formation of the NID. Therefore, the ‘uplift’ should happen with the introduction of new investors, property-owners and businesses, creating an environment for more ‘decent’ residents, as a NID Board Chairman explains himself: [W]e also can do some kind of reconstruction, we are discussing what should we do, and we also have to have some kind of idea what kind of shops and so on. And the important thing is to make it popular for common people, whatever common people is. The more decent people gets into these suburbs the less space is left for those who make disturbance (…). (Board Chairman of Fastighetsägare Hässelby-Vällingby and CEO of the MHC Svenska Bostader, personal communication, 09.11.2017) Van Gent (2010: 4) argues that due to the “creation of space for the upper-classes at the expense of the working class”, the social mix strategy should be considered as ‘state-led gentrification’. The notion of ‘state-led’ or ‘third-wave’ gentrification is introduced by Jason Hackworth and Neil Smith, to describe gentrifying processes led by large developers, but also actively promoted by the ‘entrepreneurial local state’ (Glynn, 2008). The ‘third-wave gentrification’ process, differs from its predecessors in four ways, argue Hackworth and Smith (2001): Firstly, it expands both in inner-city and more remote city neighbourhoods. Second, large developers are first to ‘orchestrate reinvestment’, while before they were included only after the ‘area was tamed’. Third, the ‘effective resistance has declined’ and finally, the state is more involved in the entire process (Hackworth and Smith, 2001: 468). NIDs, arguably, share similarities with the ‘third-wave gentrification’ process, as understood by Hackworth and Smith, since signs of the four distinctive features can be recognized. First, the NIDs are emerging exactly in those areas pointed as characteristic: inner-city areas, as is the case with the NIDs in Malmö and Gothenburg, and in more remote areas, on the outskirts of the city, as is the case with the NIDs in Stockholm. The inner-city has been traditionally a site of previous waves of gentrification (second-wave) due to the willingness of the middle-classes

33 and the art-scene to move there, thanks to the proximity to the centre and the cheap space. While in Malmö and Gothenburg, the NIDs are trying to create a suitable environment in the inner-city, in Stockholm, the NIDs expect (or try to create) a middle-class spill over demand, even in the remote neighbourhoods, due to the scarce available housing in general. This roaming in more remote locations can prove to be riskier, rendering the assistance of the local government even more needed. Second, the large property-owners, especially the MHCs, together with the Association of Property-owners (Fastighetsägarna), are clearly not just seizing the opportunity, but act as initiators and leaders of the whole process. They often launch and fund the research that precedes the formation of the NIDs. They are heavily involved in the development of the area, prior and after the formation as well, as they typically own the largest shares of housing stock in the areas. Third, although there were some protests connected to the formation of the NIDs and to particular projects that the NIDs were part of, the resistance is inconsistent and muffled. A reason for this can be the engagement of aca- demics in policy-driven research “with an agenda and questions set by interested funders” (Glynn, 2008: 166). The NID managers are stressing the importance of a research around the NIDs, as a crucial step for cementing their status. Finally, the state is involved on different scales: enabling, supporting in different ways and sometimes even leading the process of formation and working of the NIDs. The relation of the municipalities with the NIDs is multifaceted and constantly negotiated, but there are some clear connections: the NID in Malmö perhaps being the most obvious example, since the municipality is one of the initiators (together with the Private Property-Owners Association/Fastighetsägarna Syd) and partner on many projects. The NID in Järva was also a direct consequence of a municipal project for uplifting the neighbourhood. The mentioning and referring of the BIDs as a safety and security model, in central state documents, also points to the political support that these partnerships are gaining. Although it’s not clearly visible yet, the use of social mix and tactics for attracting the middle-class, means that we can expect a gentrification-like process in the areas somewhere in the future. Te four indicators by Hackworth and Smith also suggest that we might be talking about a gentrification that is state-led. In any case, these areas can potentially face the danger of displacement of the vulnerable socio-economic groups. As mentioned before, these processes don’t go unnoticed and occasionally fall under harsh criticism from NGOs and local residents, especially for those actions aiming to displace or replace local residents of less stable incomes with more affluent groups. Regarding the annual NGBG festival on Norra Grängesbergsgatan organized by BID Sofielund and Malmö Stad, the culture collective Kontrapunkt expressed their concern in an open letter to the city and BID Sofielund that despite their claims to organize the event as a way to engage with the local community, the property owners and Malmö Stad are bypassing the smaller businesses and fail to engage in a meaningful way with the local residents (Kontrapunkt, 2017). They argue that narratives describing certain streets and parts of Sofielund as urban no man’s land and a territory not yet annexed, renders people that live there invisible, and sends a message that others should come and take their place. Similarly, the residents in Husby have responded with loud protests to the new urban development plans for Husby presented in 2007 (part of the Järvalfyft Initiative), in the scope of which the MHC Svenska Bostäder intended to demolish a large part of the housing stock and replace it with single-family houses. Additionally, a large section of the stock was supposed to be either renovated or rebuilt, a process requiring that residents must be evacuated and the rents subsequently raised up to 75 percent. After the residents blamed Svenska Bostäder for trying to replace them with groups with a stronger economy, the plans were abandoned and replaced with ‘softer’ measures. According to their current CEO, the housing company decided to take a few steps back and do things slower and in a much smaller scale, involving less invasive refurbishments that wouldn’t require evacuation. Nonetheless, the rents have subsequently increased approximately 20% after the performed renovations (personal communication, 09.11.2017). We maintain the context of regeneration strategies and urban policy is important to fully understand the rationale behind the geographical delimitation of NIDs in Sweden, since they continue to pop-up in areas targeted by these policies and programmes. The new geographical dimension employed through urban policies, has helped consolidate a particular spatial system, or order, of intervention areas, which have become the go-to list and starting point for many future programmes, interventions and rescue missions – employing a wide front of both public and private actors. NIDs in Sweden have de facto followed the map of these intervention areas, consolidated through a number of national and local urban policies. As they continue to follow this order, there is a change, in the partnership and area-based approach from before - they become PPPs without citizens and civil society, and focused only on physical measures.

34 6. The ownership structure and legitimacy strengthening As we mentioned earlier, the housing context in Sweden seldom allows large-scale restructuring (Van Gent, 2009). However, that doesn’t mean that regeneration processes are not happening. The turn to softer measures, such as physical upgrading can mean less control for local managers and property-owners than tenure restructuring (Van Gent, 2009: 133), but here also, we argue, lies the reason for the existence of the NIDs. Building on the concept of legitimacy in regeneration processes by Parker and Madureira (2016), we maintain that the NIDs, and the MHCs as their most common initiators and largest members, want to present themselves as credible agents for future regeneration. A better understanding of the housing context in Sweden, and the role of the MHCs in it, is necessary, in order to grasp the dynamics behind these processes.

The Swedish housing context and MHCs The predominant form of tenure in the housing stock of the NIDs is municipally owned apartment rentals, dating mainly from the post-war period or the so-called Million Program Housing period. The Million Housing Program was an effort to construct 1 million dwellings from 1965-1974, in response to the country’s housing shortage. This entailed the erection of a large share of publicly owned multi-family rentals in the suburbs of larger cities, including Skärholmen and Järva in Stockholm and Centrala Hisingen in Gothenburg which have a substantial share of Million Program housing within their residential stock. Rågsved in Stockholm and Gamlestaden in Gothenburg are also characterized mainly with large multi-family estates from the post-war period, while Hässelby-Vällingby10 (Stockholm) and Sofielund (Malmö) are represented by a more mixed tenure structure including condominiums and private villas and a smaller share of public rental housing, compared to the other areas. During the 1980s and the 1990s the large estates located in the suburbs of big cities, which came to be represented with high concen- trations of low income groups, become the main entry point into the housing market for newly arrived migrants (Musterd and Andersson, 2005). This in addition to the areas’ general lack of amenities coupled with a relatively fast physical deterioration, contributed to the stigmatization of the neighbourhoods, particularly over the last couple of decades. Consequently, there have been calls in recent years for a technical renovation of this part of the housing stock, entailing both an “ecological renovation (lifting these homes to contemporary environmental norms and standards) and ‘social’ renovation” (Baeten et al., 2017: 637). The largest share of the rental stock in these areas has been, historically, predominantly owned by MHCs. In Sweden, the MHCs have always had an important role in the national housing system. Since their establishing in the 1930s, their functioning is closely connected to the control of the rental market by the state, in view of a more just and equal distribution. Elander (1995: 925) argues that “a crucial role in the implementation of social rented housing in Sweden is played by the landlords themselves i.e. the public housing companies and the National Associ- ation of Municipal Housing Companies (SABO). Governed by politically appointed boards, these companies form a quasigovernmental organisation of producers, closely linked to their local political constituencies”. MHCs in Sweden are further pointed as “financially strong enough to carry out housing regeneration without state housing loans” (Elander, 1995: 930). Christophers (2013: 891) in similar manner claims that the MHCs became the “main instruments for implementing the state’s housing policy”. The MHCs, “owned and controlled by the municipalities”, in the beginning were “run as independent enterprises on a non-profit basis” (Bengtsson, 1994: 186) and were “characterised by a social commitment” (Borelius and Wenneström, 2009: 224) However, two important changes related to the Swedish housing context and MHCs have to be mentioned specifically. First, in the early 1990s there was a change in the housing policy which allowed the MHCs to sell their stock to private rental companies or cooperative associations. In some municipalities (usually those with a Social Democratic majority) this shift had little effect, but in some (such as Stockholm), it contributed to big structural changes due to the large sell-offs of the public rental housing stock (Andersson and Turner, 2014). Additionally, the promises that the money gained from the sell-offs would be re-invested in building new public housing haven’t been fulfilled, as “the number of new developments is not anything near the number of the sell-offs” (ibid: 8). Asi- de from contributing to social segregation, these conversions also meant that the MHCs got “stuck with the most unattractive part of the stock” since “it was only possible to sell the most attractive part of the housing stock at a price that exceeds the value of outstanding debts” (Christophers, 2013: 892). Second, in 2011, on the initiative by the Private Property-owners Association (Fastighetsägarna), a change in the legislature for MHCs was introduced saying that they “must conduct their activities according to commercial

10 Although an area with mixed housing (villas and multi-family buildings), the focus of the NIDs is solely on the latter (see: Chap- ter 2)

35 or business-like principles” (Christophers, 2013: 894). This change calls into question the social responsibility of MHCs, since nobody can tell what the ramifications will be in view of marketisation and profit-seeking. Bohman (2015: 41) comments that “on the one hand, ‘business principles’ suggest that the MHCs should not devote themselves to projects that, from a business-economic perspective, would appear obviously irresponsible. On the other hand, the MHCs mission to operate ‘in the general interest’ remains. The matter remains complicated because there is no clear answer what concrete measures are considered business-rational”. This significantly changes the reality for the Million Program rental stock since it “finds itself in a completely new economic-legal environment and has been turned into an interesting object for profit-seeking (by both public and private companies)” (Baeten et al. 2017: 639).

NIDs and strengthening legitimacy As mentioned before, NIDs are always formed in areas with a specific ownership structure which is more or less fragmented but dominated by one housing company, that typically takes up the initiative for forming the collaboration in the first place. Besides having the biggest interest in developing the areas due to the fact that they usually own the largest share of property, another reason for MHCs active engagement in vulnerable areas could be that they consider themselves ‘natural’ leaders both in terms of their size as landlords and social responsibility role (Bohman, 2015: 43). The changes that took place in the 1990s and allowed MHCs to transform and sell their stock, had an impact on their eagerness to engage in vulnerable housing areas. Aside from being stuck with the least attractive parts of the housing stock they haven’t been able to sell, MHCs’ property is also spatially bounded since unlike private property-owners they are not allowed to own property outside their municipalities (Sahlin and Wennerström, 2009). This renders them more dependable on the development of the vulnerable areas, since the fate of the companies is very much related to it (Borelius and Wennerström, 2009). However, being able to effect a certain change in terms of a form of urban regeneration, their size in financial terms also matters since “certain measures can only be taken by major players, as they require financial resources that smaller players do not have” (ibid: 43). For example, aside from the funding of the initial research, sometimes public companies engage in more costly measures such as buy- outs of misbehaving landlords. Additionally, the complexity of the social context in which they are embedded also means that it may take a while for these estates to return a profit. A luxury that financially weaker actors can’t afford. However, the development of the area and in turn the value of the MHCs property portfolio, depends largely on the behaviour and property of other (particularly larger) landlords located in the same area. Thus, in neighbourhoods with a fragmented ownership structure it becomes imperative that all property owners agree on a common strategy and concert their efforts together if they want to effect a significant change along the way. On the other hand, this means that forming a collaboration only makes sense if there are more than one actor that need to be united: [F]or us the purpose of doing it as a BID concept, is in areas where we don’t have full management over the whole area. In lots of other areas, we own big part of the property. So, of course, it has to be an area where you have a lot of different property owners, where you have to unite, to make a change. (Representative from MKB, personal communication, 30.10.2017) Weber (2002: 523) argues that “the value of a physical structure is context-depended” and the value doesn’t depend only on the age, but also “of the conscious decision to invest and maintain or, conversely to undermaintain and disinvest”. The dependence on the context, urges the different property-owners to collaborate for the mutual financial benefit. Having this in mind, it is imperative for the NIDs that more members join in. Without legislature the participation is voluntary, so they often have to find other ways to attract new members. In Centrala Hisingen for example, the NID uses a specific visual strategy which involves displaying signs on the facades of members’ buildings which serves to both inform and attract non-members to join. Similar tactics, although seemingly inno- cuous employ, as the manager of the BID Sofielund calls it, a ‘moral factor’ to commit other property owners to participate for the benefit of the entire neighbourhood: What we can use is the moral factor for pressing each other. The only mechanism we have is: if one property [owner] is a member here, and the next one, the neighbour, is not a member, he can take his colleague by the ear and say ‘Why aren’t you a member? Look at your property! That’s not nice! The value of the area will not increase if you are doing like this.” (personal communication, 21.09.2017)

36 The private real-estate market however “often cannot supply all the conditions necessary for the extraction of value” (Weber, 2002: 523) and here the state can offer an assistance, since “states discursively constitute, code and order the meaning of place, through policies and practices that are often advantageous to capital” (ibid: 524). Uni- ted as a block of property-owners it becomes easier for NIDs to lobby and influence state policies and practices. However, the MHCs have an advantage due to their access to public institutions, which further cements their vital role for the association: I know these people [from the public sector] anyhow, but it gets even stronger if we can do it together with all the landlords, and that is also one of the main reasons why they want to be in the organization. Because they get access to that, also through us. (Board Chairman of Fastighetsägare Hässelby-Vällingby and CEO of MHC Svenska Bostader, personal communication, 09.11.2017) Stenberg (2010: 13) in her research on the collaboration in Gamlestaden, concludes in similar manner that “this partnership may be an excellent example of a collaboration promoting business capital, i.e. a partnership giving business actors privileged access to public policy”. For the private property-owners, this function of the NIDs is arguably most attractive in view of a potential increase of the value of their property. For the MHCs on the other hand, we suggest that it is particularly important to gain legitimacy and be perceived as a credible agent for future changes in the neighbourhoods. As mentioned before, the housing context in Sweden seldom allows a bigger restructuring of the stock as means for urban regeneration (Van Gent, 2009). In that context, alternative, softer, measures of upgrading step-by-step, could mean less control over the desired outcomes for local managers and property-owners. Parker and Madureira (2016: 593) thus see legitimacy as ultimately related to control. “Being perceived as legitimate brings freedom from questioning and room to manoeuvre. Being perceived as a credible actor is pivotal in gaining access to potentially available resources” (ibid: 593). NIDs have successfully managed to attract public funding in different partnership projects, ranging from physical improvements in the areas, financing the service of consulting firms, to bigger development projects, such as Järvalyftet. Therefore, they have successfully convinced the authorities on several occasions to prioritize their areas. However, Stenberg (2010: 14) notes that “this is a process in which there must naturally also be losers, as the municipality doesn’t have an endless supply of funds”, which means that other areas might suffer in turn from disinvestment. The second change from 2011, mentioned above, meant that all MHCs should work according to ‘business-like principles’, although it seems unclear what that precisely means, given that they also have to act in accordance to social responsibility. This unclarity though seems work to MHCs benefit, since they’ve been able to reinterpret the meaning of social responsibility over the past years. For example, Sahlin and Wennerström (2009: 25) argue that “MHCs have taken on their safety task as a way of re-interpreting their social objectives and providing new accounts for economic objectives, and that safety to a growing extent has become a tool to improve the finances of the companies”. The possibility to broaden their “role in society beyond mere housing” (ibid: 14) enables both MHCs and NIDs, to relate to national and municipal policies such as crime-prevention and urban regeneration projects. This ability for Parker and Madureira (2016: 600) “is important as a means of securing property values but probably more importantly in gaining political support” that will provide them with more control over the development of their areas. Their expanded role, through the NID as a proxy, has an additional meaning for MHCs in the context of the decentralized housing policy. Andersson and Turner (2014: 26) argue that since housing policy is “controlled by local governments, for the foreseeable future it will be the political ideologies of these local governments that will locally decide the future of particular public housing companies.” Therefore, it becomes necessary for MHCs to re-examine their future relevance with respect to their continued existence. Stretching their activities beyond mere housing is one possibility for public housing companies to re-invent their future role within their respective municipalities. NIDs however don’t just follow policies - they also try to influence them and challenge the structures of the municipalities. The NID manager of Sofielund explains that their biggest issue – as a non-profit organization primarily invested in real-estate development – is the slow bureaucracy in the city: [I]t’s a complex situation between the structures in the City and how the private businesses and property owners are looking at things. If you have a property, or you have a business, you want things to happen faster, but the structure in the city is so slow. It takes such a long time. You have to have plans for everything, you have to discuss it, you have to have talks about things and so on, you know what I am talking about. And, I think the BID structure has been challenging a lot of those structures. (Manager of Fastighetsägare Sofielund, personal communication, September 21, 2017)

37 It is clear that property-ownership provides means for gaining influence and credibility in a specific area for the members of NIDs. Their influence over urban policies creates a landscape in which NIDs can control the circumstances around property development not just in their areas but in the entire city. Conversely, not owning a property arguably means a lack of credibility and influence in the area. Aalbers and Christophers (2014: 384) argue that in this context, this means that “private property is not only about the power over an object and the ability to exclude others from it; it is also related directly to political participation. Even in the present day and age, the acquisition of housing sometimes entitles people to citizenship rights”. Blomley (2005: 126) also recognizes the many benefits that property-ownership carries with itself: [E]ven though property ownership is no longer a prerequisite for voting, private property ownership is seen as a good thing because it denotes standing, responsibility and self-control. Conversely, those who do not own (or who own in ways that don’t fit the ownership model) are viewed with suspicion. He also points to the fact that this can have insidious effects as sometimes it gets ‘smuggled’ in public policies: [H]ousing policy overwhelmingly favours owners, as against renters. Pro- grams of urban revitalization, under the banner ‘social mix’, encourage property owners to move to areas dominated by renters and so ‘uplift’ a neighbourhood. (ibid, 2005: 126) There are signs that indicate that property-ownership is being increasingly favoured over renting in Sweden as well, particularly in the last twenty years (Christophers, 2013). Christophers argues that the tenant neutrality principle which was included in the housing policy since the 1970s, had a subtle but crucial role: namely “to accord equal social status to each tenure form” (Christophers, 2013: 894). The gradual dissolution of this principle made the renters the usual suspects for the poor performance of a given area. For NIDs, the non-inclusion of renters or other non-property actors (i.e. civil society) in the decision-making process is justified by the technical impossibility to gather all interested parties: “in the board, as members are only property owners, businesses and associations. That’s important for us, because if we are to invite all the tenants in the area it will be impossible for us” (manager of Fastighetsägare Sofielund, personal communication, September 21, 2017). These residents that the NIDs marginalize are arguably the most vulnerable groups in the cities i.e. renters that are often with immigrant backgrounds and economically weak, given the vulnerable nature of the neighbourhoods in which NIDs operate. On the other hand, NIDs provide opportunities for realizing “the vision, needs and desires of the constituencies that already enjoy great access to economic and political capital” (Schaller and Modan, 2008: 395). MHCs in Sweden always had an important role in the housing system, and this proves to be true in the ini- tiation and functioning of the NIDs as well. Almost always being the initiators, MHCs see themselves as de facto leaders in the areas. However, an area with fragmented ownership, at least to some degree, is needed since a collaboration makes sense only if they don’t have full control. We argue that control is the crucial reason for the engagement of everyone in the NID, particularly true for the MHCs. Therefore, gaining political support and legitimacy for (future) regeneration becomes the most important task, and relating to national crime or urban policies helps to achieve this goal. Since property-ownership means political participation, influence and legitimacy for the property-owners, renders non-owners non-existent in these processes.

7. Conclusion The paper tries to capture the general picture concerning the emergence and delimitation of BIDs in Sweden, as well as the present-day perspectives both of municipalities and property owners with respect to their conception. Through an investigative attempt to map the operating BID-like structures in Sweden we found that there is a particular type of BID-like partnerships which present a significant deviation from the North American BID model, i.e. the Neighbourhood Improvement Districts (NIDs). We suggest the main difference in regard to other international examples is the specific geographical emergence pattern, a feature which to our knowledge has not been recognized in other contexts so far. Ward (2011: 85) argues for example that “there is no clear underlying geographical pattern to the establishment of English BIDs. They have been created in cities and towns of all sizes and all parts of the country…” - emphasizing the importance of formal and informal networks of ‘policy entrepreneurs’ and the presentational performances of individuals for the promotion and establishment of the BIDs. While we recognize the importance of capturing their organizational form and transfer from other policy contexts, we maintain that a spatial analysis of BIDs is pivotal to understanding their role and function in Sweden.

38 Although there are some local specificities and differences between the cases, based on the empirical data we have gathered, we conclude that the formation of NIDs is mainly preconditioned by three particular factors: (1) the challenged socio-economic environment, (2) the high economic potential of the areas, and (3) a specific property-ownership structure, dominated by one or few bigger (often public) property actors. Accordingly, we provided a discussion focusing on three general themes which relate to the above-mentioned preconditions. We suggested that the emphasis NIDs place on decreasing crime rates and deterrence of potential offenders is very much related to patterns of investment and unlocking the untapped economic potential in socio-economically challenged areas. Furthermore, we argued that NIDs serve as a regeneration tool which possibly involves the employment of ‘social mix’ strategies that might potentially lead to a gentrification process and ultimately the displacement of the most vulnerable groups from these areas. Additionally, while they follow the intervention map highlighted by previous urban and social policies, they represent a deviation from the previous partnership and area-based approach through which these policies were implemented. We suggest that some of these changes contribute to a lower accountability and lack of a democratic dialogue. Finally, we examined the main reasons for MHCs engagement in the formation of NIDs which we suggest is related to questions of control and legitimacy regarding urban governance in spaces of attractive property development. This research is an attempt to contribute to a limited academic work concerning BIDs in the Swedish context and will hopefully help to narrow this gap. Additionally, we think this task is important in view of the proliferation of reports that stress only the positive outcomes of these partnerships while seldom proportionally address the potential shortcomings of the model i.e. questions about democracy, accountability, displacement, and so on. Hope- fully the study will also contribute to the international body of work with regard to BIDs and provide a possibility for a comparative study of the Swedish model with other international examples. Considering the relatively short time frame, as well as the limitations posed by the language context which is foreign to the authors, this study would benefit from a more detailed and comprehensive approach to the subject in a future research. A consideration of the local particularities and a closer view of each case in particular could potentially provide a more in-depth understanding of the specific context of each NID partnership and reveal more of the similarities and differences of the Swedish BID case in relation to other international BID models.

References Aalbers, M. B., & Christophers, B. (2014). Centring housing in political economy. Housing, Theory and Society, 31(4), 373- 394. Amin, A. (2004). Regions unbound: towards a new politics of place. Geografiska Annaler: Series B,Human Geography, 86(1), 33-44. Amirtahmasebi, R., Orloff, M., Wahba, S., & Altman, A. (2016).Regenerating Urban Land: A Practitioner’s Guide to Leveraging Private Investment. World Bank Publications. Andersson, R. (1999). ‘Divided cities’ as a policy-based notion in Sweden. Housing studies, 14(5), 601-624. Andersson, R. (2006). ‘Breaking Segregation’ – Rhetorical Construct or Effective Policy? The Case of the Metropolitan Deve- lopment Initiative in Sweden. Urban Studies, 43(4), 787-799 Andersson, R., & Musterd, S. (2005). Area‐based policies: a critical appraisal. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 96(4), 377-389. Andersson, R., & Turner, L. M. (2014). Segregation, gentrification, and residualisation: from public housing to market-driven housing allocation in inner city Stockholm. International Journal of Housing Policy, 14(1), 3-29. Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet, R. (2012). Urbana utvecklingsområden. Statistisk uppföljning utifrån sju indikatorer. Stockholm. Baeten, G., Westin, S., Pull, E., & Molina, I. (2017). Pressure and violence: Housing renovation and displacement in Sweden. Environment and Planning A, 49(3), 631-651. Bannister, J., & Fyfe, N. (2001). Introduction: Fear and the city. Bengtsson, B. (1994). Swedish rental policy – a complex superstructure with cracking foundations. Bergström, C. (2006). Safety and Sustainability in the Community Planning Process: Actors’ Interests, Roles and Influences (Doctoral dissertation, Universitetsservice US AB). Blomley, N. (2004). Un‐real estate: Proprietary space and public gardening. Antipode, 36(4), 614-641. Blomley, N. (2005). Remember property? Progress in Human Geography, 29(2), 125-127. Bohman, H. (2015). BID Sofielund: fastighetsägares roll i områdesutveckling, Malmö University Publications in Urban Studies (MAPIUS) 19

39 Borelius, U., & Wennerström, U. B. (2009). A new gårdsten: A case study of a swedish municipal housing company. Interna- tional Journal of Housing Policy, 9(2), 223-239. Boverket (2010). Plats för trygghet. Inspiration för stadsutveckling. Boverket (2016). Beviljade stöd till utemiljöer i socioekonomiskt utsatta områden. Available at: https://www.boverket.se/sv/bi- drag--garantier/stod-till-utemiljoer/ [Accesed 02 Sep. 2017] Boverket and Energimyndigheten (2016) Underlag till Den Andra Nationella Strategin För Energieffektiviserande Renovering. Briffault, R. (1999). A government for our time? Business improvement districts and urban governance. Columbia Law Review, 365-477. Christophers, B. (2013). A monstrous hybrid: the political economy of housing in early twenty-first century Sweden.New Political Economy, 18(6), 885-911. Christopherson, S. (1994). The fortress city: privatized spaces, consumer citizenship. Post-fordism: A reader, 409-427. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American sociological review, 588-608. Cook, I. R. (2008). Mobilising urban policies: The policy transfer of US Business Improvement Districts to England and Wales. Urban Studies, 45(4), 773-795. Cook, I. R., & Ward, K. (2012). Conferences, informational infrastructures and mobile policies: the process of getting Sweden ‘BID ready’. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2), 137-152. Cozens, P., Hillier, D., & Prescott, G. (2002). Criminogenic associations and characteristic British housing designs. Interna- tional Planning Studies, 7(2), 119-136. Edlund, J., & Westin, L. (2009). BIDs i Sverige: Internationella erfarenheter av” Business Improvement Districts”. CERUM. Elander, I. (1995). Policy networks and housing regeneration in England and Sweden. Urban Studies, 32(6), 913-934. Flusty, S. (1997). Building paranoia in N. Ellin (ed.) Architecture of fear. Forrer, J., Kee, J. E., Newcomer, K. E., & Boyer, E. (2010). Public–private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 475-484. Forsberg, H (1994) Kampen om Köpkraften: Externa Köpcentra i Sex Kommuner, Rapport R5:1994. Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm. Forsberg, H (1995) Out-of-town shopping centres in Sweden: a political struggle for purchasing power. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 12(2), 109–113. Forsberg, H., Medway, D., & Warnaby, G. (1999). Town centre management by co-operation: evidence from Sweden. Cities, 16(5), 315-322. Foster, S. R. (2011). Collective action and the urban commons. Notre Dame L. Rev., 87, 57. Glynn, S. (2008). Soft-selling gentrification?Urban Research & Practice, 1(2), 164-180. Göteborgsbladet (2001). Göteborg: Göteborgs stadskansli. Göteborgsbladet (2002). Göteborg: Göteborgs stadskansli. Göteborg Stad (1999) Översiktsplan för Göteborg. Del 2 Användning av mark- och vattenområden. Göteborg: Stadsbyggnads- kontoret. Göteborg Stad (2006) Fördjupad Översiktsplan för Delar av Gamlestaden-bagaregården, Del 2 Planförslag. Göteborg: Stadsbygg- nadskontoret. Göteborg Stad (2009) Översiktsplan för Göteborg. Del 2 Användning av mark- och vattenområden. Göteborg: Stadsbyggnads- kontoret. Göteborg Stad. (2017) Startplan 2017 med Utblick mot 2018-2020. Göteborg: Stadsbyggnadskontoret. Hackworth, J., & Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification.Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 92(4), 464-477. Herbert, S., & Brown, E. (2006). Conceptions of space and crime in the punitive neoliberal city. Antipode, 38(4), 755-777. Hogg, S., Medway, D., & Warnaby, G. (2007). Performance measurement in UK town centre management schemes and US business improvement districts: comparisons and UK implications. Environment and Planning A, 39(6), 1513-1528. Holmberg, H. (2009) Trygga, säkra, attraktiva stadsdelar. En utvärdering av lokala partnerskap mellan fastighetsägare. Fastighets- ägarna, Förvaltnings AB Framtiden, FCH, Fastighetsägare i Gamlestaden, Gärdsås Torgbolag Holmberg, H. (2016) Gamlestaden 2016. Från förfall till pånyttfödelse. Dags för BIDs i Sverige? Kunskapsproduktion AB. Fast- ighetsägare i Gamlestaden, Fastighetsägarna GFR, Förvaltnings AB Framtiden Hoyt, L. (2008). From North America to Africa: The BID model and the role of policy entrepreneurs.Public Administration And Public Policy-New York, 145, 111 Hörnqvist, M. (2001). Allas vårt ansvar i praktiken;: en statligt organiserad folkrörelse mot brott.

40 Kallin, H., & Slater, T. (2014). Activating territorial stigma: gentrifying marginality on Edinburgh’s periphery. Environment and Planning A, 46(6), 1351-1368. Kontrapunkt (2015, May 15). Property owner forcing Kontrapunkt to close down. Retrieved from: http://www.kontrapunktmalmo.net/property-owner-forcing-kontrapunkt-to-close-down/ Kontrapunkt (2017) Call to the grassroots. Retrieved from: http://kontrapunktmalmo.net/call-to-the-grassroots/ Lawson, A. (2004). Urban Governance: Experiences from Implementation of Local development Programs in the Stockholm Region. Why so little for so much?. Paper for the ‘ECPR Joint Sessions’ workshop Levy, P. R. (2001). Paying for the public life. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(2), 124-131 Lloyd, G., & Peel, D. (2008). From town center management to the BID model in Britain: Toward a new contractualism?. Public Administration And Public Policy-New York, 145, 71. MacDonald, H. (1996). Why business improvement districts work. Civic Bulletin, 4, 1-3 Malm, U. (2001). Trygghet och säkerhet i Gamlestaden, Göteborg. Malm Kommunikation AB, Bostads AB Poseidon 2001 Malmö Stad (2012) Granskningsrapport.Trygghet och säkerhet i Malmös stadsmiljö- fysiska åtgärder i den offentliga utomhusmiljön Malmö Stad (2014). Comprehensive Plan for Malmö. Summary in English. Malmö Stad (2015). Slutrapport Områdesprogram. för ett socialt hållbart Malmö. Stadskontoret, Välfärdsavdelningen Morçöl, G., & Wolf, J. F. (2010). Understanding business improvement districts: A new governance framework. Public Admi- nistration Review, 70(6), 906-913. Morçöl, G., Hoyt, L., Meek, J. W., & Zimmerman, U. (2008). Business improvement districts: Research, theories, and controversies. Business improvement districts: Research, theories, and controversies, 1-23. Musterd, S., & Andersson, R. (2005). Housing mix, social mix, and social opportunities. Urban Affairs Review, 40(6), 761- 790. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space (p. 264). New York: Macmillan. Newman, O. (1980). Community of interest. Society, 18(1), 52-57. Olsson, H. (2017). BIDs på svenska. [online] Real Estate Owners Stockholm. Available at: http://www.fastighetsagarna.se/ webbshop/broschyrer-och-faktablad/bids-pa-svenska [Accessed 2 Sep. 2017]. Parker, P., & Madureira, A. M. (2016). Housing context and legitimacy in the transformation of a stigmatized estate: the case of Rosengård. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(4), 589-604. Peyroux, E., Pütz, R., & Glasze, G. (2012). Business Improvement Districts (BIDs): the internationalization and contextualization of a ‘travelling concept’. Polisen (2015). Utsatta områden -sociala risker, kollektiv förmåga och oönskade händelser. Stockholm. Polismyndigheten i Stockholms län (2005) Bo Tryggt 05: Handbok för brottsförebyggande och trygghetsskapande i bostäder och bostadsområden, Forsknings- och utvecklingsenheten, Polismyndigheten i Stockholms län Regeringen (1996) Allas vårt ansvar - ett nationellt brottsförebyggande program Regeringen (2017) Tillsammans mot brott – ett nationellt brottsförebyggande program Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2009). The future of Newman’s Defensible Space Theory: Linking Defensible Space and the routine activities of place. European Journal of Criminology, 6(1), 25-46. Roberts, P., & Sykes, H. (2000) Urban regeneration. A handbook. London: Sage SABO (2009) Hem För Miljoner: Förutsättningar För Upprustning Av Miljonprogrammet Rekordårens Bostäder. Stockholm: SABO. Sahlin, I. (2007). Whose Safety? How the ‘Safety Issue’ has Informed Gothenburg’s Housing Policy. Anxious cities, 1, 279. Sahlin, I., & Wennerström, U. B. (2009) Social and economic objectives and safety work in Swedish municipal housing companies. Schaller, S., & Modan, G. (2008). Contesting Public Space and Citizenship: Implications for Neighborhood Business Impro- vement Districts. Public Administration And Public Policy-New York, 145, 373. Stenberg, J. (2010). Tre bostadsområden: Olika typer av governance. Stockholm Stad (2006). Aktualisering av Översiktsplan -99. Stockholm. Stockholm Stad (2010). Promenadstaden. Översiktsplan för Stockholm. Stockholm: Stadsbyggnadskontoret. Stockholm Stad (2016). Översiktsplan för Stockholm. Samrådsförslag. Stockholm: Stadsbyggnadskontoret. Svenska Stadskärnors BID-modell. (2017). [online] Available at: http://www.svenskastadskarnor.se [Accessed 2 Sep. 2017]. Trygghetscertificerad fastighet, (2017) [online] Available at: http://www.jarvafast.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/FS-Trygg- hetscertifiering-2017-08-22-2.pdf [Accessed 2 Sep. 2017] van Gent, W. P. C. (2009). Realistic regeneration: housing contexts and social outcomes of neighbourhood interventions in Western European cities.

41 van Gent, W. P. C. (2010). Housing context and social transformation strategies in neighbourhood regeneration in Western European cities. International Journal of Housing Policy, 10(1), 63-87. Ward, K. (2007). Business improvement districts: policy origins, mobile policies and urban liveability. Geography Compass, 1(3), 657-672. Ward, K. (2011). Policies in Motion and in Places. The Case of Business Improvement Districts.Mobile Urbanism: Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age, 17, 71-95. Weber, R. (2002). Extracting value from the city: neoliberalism and urban redevelopment. Antipode, 34(3), 519-540. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic monthly, 249(3), 29-38.

List of abbreviations BID - Business Improvement District CPTED - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design MHC - Municipal Housing Company NID - Neighbourhood Improvement District PPP – Public-Private Partnership TCM -Town Centre Management UID - Urban Improvement District

Interviews

Name Role/Occupation Date of the interview

Hjalmar Falck Manager of Fastighetsägare 21 September 2017 Sofielund and Malmö Stad servant 22 November 2017

Anna Wiking Representative from Fastighetsägarna Syd 29 September 2017 (Private Property-owners Association)

Björn Bergman Representative from Svenska Stadskärnor 03 October 2017 (Swedish TCM Association)

Ulf Malm Manager of Fastighetsägare Järva and 26 October 2017 Fastighetsägare Rågsved

Emma Cedermaer Representative from municipal housing 30 October 2017 company MKB

Sead Kurtovic Representative from Hyresgästforeningen 08 November 2017 (Tenant’s Association)

Catarina Johansson-Nyman Managers of Skärholmen Fastighetsägare and 09 November 2017 Karin Göransson Fastighetsägare Hässilby-Vällingby

Pelle Björklund Chairman of the Board in Fastighetsägare Järva and Fastighetsägare Hässilby-Välling- 09 November 2017 by; CEO of municipal housing company Svenska Bostader Andreas Schönström Member of the Municipal Council in Malmö Stad, responsible for Technology, 20 December 2017 Environment and Safety

Note: All interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed by the authors.

42 Appendixes Appendix 1 – Property-ownership map, Fastighetsägare Gamlestaden, Gothenburg Appendix 2 – Property-ownership map (Akalla), Fastighetsägare i Järva, Stockholm Appendix 3 – Property-ownership map (Husby), Fastighetsägare i Järva, Stockholm Appendix 4 – Property-ownership map (Rinkeby), Fastighetsägare i Järva, Stockholm Appendix 5 – Property-ownership map (Tensta, Hjulsta), Fastighetsägare i Järva, Stockholm Appendix 6 – Property-ownership map (Kista), Fastighetsägare i Järva, Stockholm Appendix 7 – Property-ownership map (Bredäng), Skärholmens Fatighetsägare, Stockholm Appendix 8 – Property-ownership map (Sätra), Skärholmens Fatighetsägare, Stockholm Appendix 9 – Property-ownership map (Skärholmen), Skärholmens Fatighetsägare, Stockholm Appendix 10 – Property-ownership map (Vårberg), Skärholmens Fatighetsägare, Stockholm Appendix 11 – Property-ownership map, Fastighetsägare i Rågsved, Stockholm Appendix 12 – Property-ownership map (Grimsta), Fastighetsägare i Hässelby-Vällingby, Stockholm Appendix 13 – Property-ownership map (Hässelby Gård), Fastighetsägare i Hässelby-Vällingby, Stockholm Appendix 14 – Property-ownership map (Smedshagen), Fastighetsägare i Hässelby-Vällingby, Stockholm Appendix 15 – Property-ownership map, Fastighetsägare i Sofielund, Malmö

43 Appendix 1

.. FASTIGHETSÄGARE I AKALLA Appendix 2 Maj 2014 - Svenska Bostäder HANSTA � HSB:s Brf Porkala Nr 249 [I] HSB:s BrfSveaborg Nr 2 - Micasa D SISAB Brf Borgågatan - Brf Nystad -� HSB:s Brf I matra i Stockholm � HSB:s Brf Akallahöjden § HSB:s Brf Pargas Nr 195 � HSB:s BrfTrädgårdsstaden i Stockholm - Brf Sibeliusgången 26 - Brf Sibeliusgången 28 1118 BrfKotkagatan - Privatägda radhus - Brf Saimagatan •' - Lidl Sverige KB • .-� � � Brf Nystaden 2 D Stockholms kommun/ Övrigt - Akalla Centrumfastigheter J

HUSBY ,, Karta: Fastighetsägare i Järva/ UUS

44 Appendix 4

45 46 Appendix 7

Appendix 8

47 Appendix 9

Appendix 10

48 Appendix 11

Appendix 12

49 Appendix 13

Appendix 14

50 Appendix 15

51 The Urban Mycelium: Urban Agriculture Networks and Systems in Malmö, Sweden

Kerstin Schreiber

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors Anders Edvik and Fredrik Björk for giving me the opportunity to participate in this research internship. It has been a great journey since the very first meeting, and I received much encourage- ment, inspiration, and the occasional necessary critical questions that are required to put my work into perspective. I appreciate their time and commitment, and the sentence “We are not your supervisors, we are all a team.” I wish to give credits to all participants of my study. This work would not have been possible without their generous donation of time and voice. Every single person added their valuable knowledge to this report, and I am grateful for their honesty and deep insights into their struggle and success stories. My kind and smart classmate Louise Ekman played a special role in this endeavor by contributing further understanding of Urban Agriculture. I enjoyed and benefitted a lot from our interesting conversations and exchange of experiences.

52 Introduction

More and more municipalities integrate Urban Agriculture (UA) in their strategies towards more sustainable and green cities (van Veenhuizen, 2006). According to Mougeot (2005) Urban agriculture is an industry located within, or on the fringe of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows and raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food products, re-(using) largely human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area. (p. 52) Beyond Mougeot’s view on the ‘industrial’ kind of this phenomenon, which delivers above-mentioned products to local markets, these UA can also occur on the household and community level (van Veenhuizen, 2006; RUAF, 2017). Hence, UA is a multi-dimensional and multi-scalar undertaking with an extensive variety of different types, foci, and set-ups: non-profit and for-profit; individualistic and community oriented; educational, recreational, and economically oriented; soil-based or hydro-/aqua-/aero-ponics; urban and peri-urban; in open spaces on the ground level, embedded in building envelopes, underground, and on rooftops; loosely and professionally organized. While UA is primarily known in the form of balcony and backyard projects or colony gardens, new forms are emerging, which go beyond the individualized and privatized form of UA. Here, citizens organize as groups, associations, and enterprises and work with UA in short-term and long-term projects in a more professionalized or organized setting with public outreach. On one hand, those interactions have the potential to generate numerous benefits regarding urban food security and nutrition, physical and mental health, local economic development, social inclusion, and urban environmental management (van Vennhuizen, 2006). UA can also play a significant role in improving or maintaining ecosystems. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) framework of the United Nations, UA can be classified as an ecosystem service. On the other hand, UA activities hold potential hazards for stakeholders. Contaminated crops, which were irrigated with polluted water, fertilized with agrochemicals, or exposed to heavy metals in the soil and air as well as a lack of hygiene in the supply chain and the transmission of diseases from insects and livestock are serious risks (van Vennhuizen, 2006). Accordingly, UA organizations metabolize inputs from the environmental, social, and economic system into products and services and emit them back to the environment (i.e., markets, audiences or clients) (Jacobs, 1974; William, 1965) with positive and negative outcomes. All processes, both beneficial or harmful, are limited or promoted by urban conditions, such as land competition and policies (Mougeot, 2000) which are mainly governed by municipalities (van Vennhuizen, 2006). One of the most crucial resources for these organizations is funding, notably, when the undertaking should go beyond volunteerism. Such resources are not only necessary to maintain, sustain, and expand operations but also to access markets with lower economic means (Cabannes, 2012). In 2016, the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) assessed several hundred US-American urban farmers on their financial management. Accor- ding to the survey, 40.7% of the UA farm’s gross sales are aggregated through farmers’ markets and stands, 22.4% through a CSA scheme, 12.0% through sales to restaurants and other actors (10.7%). Modest revenues are generated with direct retail, delivery to institutions, wholesale, through farm coops and food hubs. In 67.1% of the cases, UA earnings do not even generate enough resources for a salary for the primary farmer. 60.0% of the survey participants depend on off-farm jobs, and 31.0% applied for grants or raised other types of funds (NCAT, 2016). Not to forget are also non-profit organizations that work mainly in the field of education and coordination. Non-profits often provide services that governments cannot offer themselves to society. Governments turn to non-profits to purchase goods and services and, therefore, become a crucial source of income for these organizations (Krashinsky, 1997). Despite (or even because of) the fact that organizations working with UA often follow non-profit or social enterprise missions, the financial struggle is the rule rather than the exception, as Cabannes (2012) highlights: “Ur- ban agriculture requires both financial and political legitimacy to increase its contribution to feeding cities. While there is increased political support, financial support for urban producers remains quite limited” (p. 665). UA actors interact with their environment to acquire necessary material, monetary, and human resources for their survival (Jacobs, 1974; William, 1965), has the capacity to adapt and answer to the demands and needs of the local stakeholders (Mougeot, 2000; Van de Berg & Van Veenhuizen, 2005, Robineau, 2015) and to innovate with or around the naturally or institutionally limited resources (De Certeau, 1980). To do so, they are in constant interaction with their environment (Van de Berg & Van Veenhuizen, 2005). UA organizations are, therefore,

53 deeply embedded in economic, social, and ecological urban systems. However, “inter-connectedness” and “embed- dedness” are still vague and abstract concepts in the field of UA research. Prior work has conceptualized UA, as places of civic engagement (Ghose & Pettygrove, 2014; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004), a component in urban planning (Dubbeling & Merzthal, 2006; Huang & Drescher 2015), and for re-establishing or ensuring food security (Barthel & Isendahl, 2013). The question of how connectedness and inter-dependence resemble and function on a broader scale, specifically with focus on the factors that make these organizations strive or struggle and the networks they build, has not been addressed. Solely work on the West African city Bobo-Dioulasso has applied systemic perspectives and analyzed informal networks (Robineau, 2015). In concert with Robineau’s concept of socio-spatial arrangements, connecting actors, rather than analyzing organizations through reductionist glasses and regarding each organization as an isolate, I suggest that systems thinking and social network modelling can provide supplementary understanding of UA. Applying an inductive research approach, I synthesize empirical data to theoretical conclusions on the structure and dynamics of UA systems and the connected social networks. I begin this paper with the paradigm of systems and network thinking, which are the base for the analytical frameworks applied in this work. After the explanatory sections on data collection and analysis, I introduce the focal case, the City of Malmö, Sweden. There, a broad range of UA organization operate in diverse shapes and constellations, which provides a compelling case for exploratory investigation. Following, I present and discuss my findings under “Results” and “Discussion”. Concluding, I summarize limitations and gains from this study and give an outlook to possible future research.

Conceptual and Analytical Frameworks

(Open) Systems Theory: Organizations as Systems1 Organizational theorists claim that “all formal organizations are embedded in an environment of other organizations as well as a complex of norms, values, and collectivities of the society at large” and depend on this environment to some degree (William, 1965, p. 218). Hence, they are at the same time open systems and embedded in other open systems (William, 1965). Open Systems theory has its base in von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory. Both schools vary insofar as open systems theory not only claims that systems are in a relationship with their environment, but that precisely this is the indispensable requirement for a system to exist (Buckley, 1967). Interestingly, while systems explorers from diverse disciplines were capable of collaboratively disentangling complex phenomena, they unwillingly created an alternative complexity for future researchers. Academic fields develop and utilize their specific vocabulary. Hence, in collaborative interdisciplinary research and scholarship, different meanings of the same terms are juxtaposed, which complicates the development of a standard definition. When

1 The foundations of systems and network theory and the “structuralist approach” can be traced back to the 1920s work by Rad- cliffe-Brown (Carrington & Scott, 2011). Inspired by academic peers of his time, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a theoretical biologist, laid the foundations for a “General Systems Theory” or Allgemeine Systemlehre as early as 1937, when he presented his approach at the University in Chicago (Laszlo & Krippner, 1998). Appreciating the complexity of our world, systems thinking distanced itself purposely from the Newtonian reductionist point of view that had been omnipresent in science for centuries (Laszlo, 1996; Laszlo & Krippner, 1998). Instead, “holism” tried to explain phenomena (e.g., cellular or human behavior) based on underlying structures that constitute social and natural life. Even though general systems theory sprung from Bertalanffy and colleague’s biology background, notions and concepts could be transferred into the social sciences and the humanities. This has led to a distinction between hard systems, consisting of measurable and mainly physical components, and soft systems, which comprise of human objects and intangible values (Laszlo & Krippner, 1998). The adoption of the multi-dimensionality concept became a fruitful addition to a wide range of fields in scholarship and research on different scales and scopes: economics (Kenneth E. Boulding), psychology (James G. Miller), philosophy (Ervin László, C. West Churchman, Bruno Latour), psychiatry (Gregory Bateson), physiology (Ralph Gerard), mathematics (Anatol Rapoport), organizational studies, anthropology and sociology (Fred Emery, Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, Michel Callon, John Scott, Steve Borgatti, Mark Granovetter, Talcott Parsons), computer engineering (Jay W. Forrester), biology and ecology (Fritjof Capra) and furthermore inspired multi-disciplinary thinkers like Nobel Prize Turing Award laureate Herbert A. Simon. With the rising awareness of environmental and social issues, scholars like Donella H. Meadows and her then-husband Dennis L. Meadows used the paradigm not only to visualize and discuss the underlying structure of problems in the social-economic-environmental triangle but also to plead for more interdisciplinary work in understanding and tackling environmental destruction. Today, systems thinking is applied in a variety of different fields, such as public health (e.g., Malik et al., 2014; Peters, 2014; Trochim et al., 2006) inter- and intra-organizational relations, business and management studies (e.g., Peter Senge), and medicine. The continuous development of systems thinking by pairing fields and schools of thought with empirical work brought several “big” streams or approaches to system analysis.

54 reviewing literature on general systems theory, open systems theory, and systems thinking, one struggles to find a coherent vocabulary for basic characteristics of systems. Given, that this work is mainly concerned with complex organizations, I regard Thompson’s (1967) definition as the most precise and appropriate for the use of analyzing organizations systemically: Approached as a natural system, the complex organization is a set of interdependent parts which together make up a whole because each contributes to something and receives something from the whole, which in turn is interdependent with some larger environment. Survival of the system is taken to be the goal, and the parts and their relationships presumably are determined through evolutionary processes. Dysfunctions are conceivable, but it is assumed that an offending part will adjust to produce a net positive contribution or be disengaged, or else the system will degenerate. (p. 6-7) A system is embedded in three layers of purpose: the system’s purpose, its parts’ purpose and the purpose of a supra-system (Ackoff, 1981). According to Donella H. Meadows (2008), “purpose” is the most challenging systems aspect to grasp because of its intangibility and since rhetoric goals or written statements are often not reliable sources. She emphasizes that the expressed behavior is a more precise indicator. Meadows adds that understanding purpose is crucial since it can change the character of a system fundamentally despite unchanged parts and connections. For example, a university would be a very different institution if students would grade professors. Connections or relationships between two system parts consist of interaction processes, such as the transfer and exchange of information through communication or materials through natural flows. Tracing and identifying these links can be challenging, depending on the kind of exchange (Meadows, 2008; Steiner, 2013). Connections between parts are essential to fulfilling a system’s purpose. The qualitative characteristic of these connections, namely responses and interactions, are decisive for the development of each element (Walker & Salt, 2006). Connections are furthermore crucial to prevent a system’s metabolic processes from degeneration and entropy while ensuring its continuation and resilience. In systems thinking, this capacity is linked to “the concept of homeostasis, or self-sta- bilization, which spontaneously, or naturally, governs the necessary relationships among parts and activities […] thereby keeps the system viable in the face of disturbances stemming from the environment.” (Thompson, 1967, p. 6-7) Homeostasis requires that the system either adapts to the environment or changes parts of the environment as no system can exist autonomously (Hall & Fagen, 1956; Meadows, 2008; Walker & Salt, 2006). Learning processes and feedback loops are the units of operation for systems to carry out this adaption (Meadows, 2008; Peters, 2014). Based on these, systems adapt to change (Walker & Salt, 2006) which leads to systemic evolution (Thompson, 1967). While Meadows (2008), claims that parts (she calls them elements) and wholes are relatively easy to identify, I correspond with Arthur Koestler (1967) that this endeavor comes with specific difficulties. From his philosophical psychology point of view, Koestler argues that extremes like “wholes” or “parts” as such do not exist in neither the natural nor the social world. He explains that there are “intermediary structures on a series of levels in ascending order of complexity: sub-wholes which display, according to the way you look at them, some of the characteristics commonly attributed to wholes and some of the characteristics commonly attributed to parts” (p. 48). He refers to this as the “Janus effect,” lent by the Roman god Janus, whose two faces point in opposite directions. Due to a lack of proper terminology for this perspective on hierarchic systems, he introduces the notion “holon” for the nodes in a system that “behave partly as wholes or wholly as parts, according to the way you look at them” (p. 48). He further argues, using “the watchmakers’ parable,” that social systems need stable social sub-assemblies, some interlocking hierarchical structure, to function. Those hierarchies can be based on different foundations: geographical distribution, social cohesion or control function, the latter one mainly carried out by government administrations (Koestler, 1967). Both ideas must be kept in mind when analyzing Malmö’s UA environment systemically. For instance, an individual UA organization can be a whole in itself (web of employees, land, knowledge, money, etc.), as well as part of a bigger whole, for instance, a city. In this work, I look at both scales to gain as much understanding about the systems in action as possible. Overall, systems theory has several advantages in comparison to individualistic approaches. For instance, Wil- son and Morren (1990) appreciate the theory’s potential to understand interaction, interconnection, interrelation, and control mechanisms: “All systems approaches have in common the assumption, commonly referred to as the holistic perspective, that everything is or can be connected to everything else. The systems perspective encourages us to examine how things interact, interconnect, interrelate, or, in some cases control each other” (p. 68-69). Fur- thermore, referring to their work on human perception, Laszlo and Krippner (1998) emphasize, that

55 systems theory can model complex intrapersonal, interpersonal, inter- group, and human/nature interactions without reducing perceptual phenomena to the level of individual stimuli. It capitalizes on the emergence of parallelisms in different disciplinary interpretations of reality and consequently provides a platform for the integrated study of complexity in the human experience. (p. 6) Therefore, the systems paradigm seems to provide an original and flexible theoretical foundation for the investigation of Malmö’s UA organizations.

Social Network Theory2 Social networks are a set of nodes (e.g., individuals, organizations, websites, journal articles, etc.) which are linked by one or more types of social relationships (Laumann, Galaskiewicz & Marsden, 1978; Wassermann & Faust, 1994; Marin & Wellman, 2011). Social networks illustrate patterns of inter-organizational or intra-organizational connections, which have a reoccurring and relatively stable character (Agranoff, 2007). They can form on multiple levels, ranging from personal networks surrounding individuals, companies, regions, up to whole national econo- mies or the world system (Nohria, 1992). While one of the primary principles of networks is that all participating actors somehow depend on at least one other actor, a common observation is that only a minority of nodes tend to be more important and powerful than the others, based on their position in the network (Castells, 2000). That means that an actor’s importance does not depend on the individual characteristics but on the value, that it can deliver to the network (Castells, 2004). By modelling and analyzing these stable structures, one can learn about the existence of such powerful key actors as well as other structural capacities of whole network (Wellman, 1983, 1988; Castells, 2000; Carrington & Scott, 2011). SNA is a one of several quantitative approaches to systems thinking which enriches the researcher’s methodological toolkit and helps to approach problems from a structuralism perspective (Marin & Wellman, 2011). It is a method to visualize links between different actors (Peters, 2014) and make sense of people’s and organizations’ behavior, based on these linkages (Mitchell, 1969) rather than the attributes of the unit of interest (Marin & Well- man, 2011). It is, therefore, an appropriate tool to investigate relational systems (Galaskiewicz, 1996), as Marin and Wellman (2011) elaborate: Network explanations do not assume that environments, attributes or circumstances affect actors independently. Moreover, they do not assume the existence of uniformly cohesive and discretely bounded groups. Final- ly, network analysis takes context so seriously that relations themselves are often analyzed in the context of other relations. (p. 12-13) Networks can be investigated in two distinct ways: as whole networks or as ego-centric networks. While the first provides an overlook of an accumulation of social structures, the latter aims attention at the nodes surrounding a focal node (Hanneman & Riddle, 2011; Marin & Wellman, 2011). Data for SNA is usually organized in a “socio-matrix,” consisting of columns and rows with individual or collective actors, while matrix algebra is applied for calculation. This matrix is particularly useful when large data sets must be analyzed and generating a useful socio-gram presents difficulties (Carrington & Scott, 2011). Much of SNA work concentrates on one-mode networks, which show the same set of actors in row and column (Borgatti & Halgin, 2011). This approach has been used in the

2 The earliest traces of social network analysis can be found in the 1930s in “[g]erman sociology, where the ‘formal sociology’ of Simmel and others emphasized the formal properties of social relations and the investigation of the configurations of social relations that result from the interweaving of actions in social encounters” and inspired scholars in social psychology and psychothe- rapy (Carrington & Scott, 2011, p. 1). Moreno (1934) developed a visualization tool, the “sociogram,” to investigate social relations. This approach was named “sociometry” and found further application in studies on education and communities. Later, criminology, economics, public health, and other disciplines adopted social network analysis for their studies (Carrington & Scott, 2011). While the beginnings of social network analysis (SNA) focused on individuals (Mitchell, 1969), later works extend the definition to larger entities. From the 1970s on, computer technology has improved the capacity of network calculation and modeling and made more advanced analysis possible (Carrington & Scott, 2011). The practical application of SNA is related to graph theory, where real-world phenomena are transcribed into abstract models (Carrington & Scott, 2011). Axioms and theo- rems in graph theory are then used to compare and evaluate SNA models (Carrington & Scott, 2011). However, unlike in graph theory, the nodes and edges in SNA represent actual entities and relationships (Hanneman & Riddle, 2011) which makes SNA a more effective tool for this work.

56 present work. Alternatively, “two-mode networks” or “affiliation networks” can organize data in a rectangular matrix. Rows and columns each contain different types of nodes, for instance, students, and events. From the entries in the cells, one could read which student was present at which event(s) (Carrington & Scott, 2011). Common measures in SNA to examine nodes include “density” and “centrality”. These describe one node’s power, influence, prestige or popularity in relation to other nodes. Graph theory provides useful tools to investigate clusters and holes (Carrington & Scott, 2011). The way that nodes are connected gives clues as to whether whole networks or parts of networks aim for transmission, adaption, binding or exclusion (Borgatti & Lopez-Kidwell, 2011) and how actors are enabled or constrained by these relationships (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994). Network analysis also requires considering the content of links. Ties between two nodes or actors can be directed or undi- rected to indicate reciprocal or asymmetric relationships as well as indicate the flow of cognitive or physical goods (Carrington & Scott, 2011; Marin & Wellman, 2011). Additionally, links can get a range of positive or negative value assigned, based on the relationships’ intensity (Carrington & Scott, 2011). Assigning values and directions on ties are important because, in reality, members of a network are engaged in these networks to varying degrees and neglecting this would lead to imprecise results (Marin & Wellman, 2011). Due to the scope of this work, such mathematical calculations have not been undertaken. Instead, more qualitative mapping and discussion has been preferred in order to acknowledge contextual parameters.

Connecting Systems and Networks For this examination, I combine systems thinking and social networks. I assume that the position of a focal actor in a network is the result of systemic dynamics that foster an organization to act and react to disturbances and opportunities to sustain its operations. Furthermore, the position of an organization has influence on its performance by giving or blocking access to resources which are necessary to react to these disturbances and opportunities. In addition, the goal of an organization is to keep up a productive system and maintain a place in the network. As such, it is not only interested in how itself is functioning, but also on the well-being of its system components, respectively connected nodes: the focal organization is more than simply the central point of its stakeholders: it is also a stakeholder of many other focal points in its relevant social system. The organization is not necessarily at the center of the network; therefore, treating its position as a variable in its complex social system provides one with an opportunity to understand more fully how patterns of stakeholder interactions impact the organization. (Rowley, 1997, p. 892) The objective of this work is to understand the systems dynamics in the ego-centric networks of UA organizations in Malmö as well as the network position of organizations within a broader network. Usually, a network is bounded by a common goal or purpose. The network I will investigate, however, focuses instead on the organizations’ common topic, in this case UA, and the individual ego-centric networks, which then merge into a much more extensive network of either linked or isolated actors.

Research Methodology For every project, researchers are confronted with the decision between the application of a deductive or inductive research approach. While deduction begins with the formulation of a theoretical framework by which data is collected and analyzed, induction starts off with a specific case to generalize results into a theory (Bryman, 2004; Collis & Hussey, 2014; Creswell 2002). Nevertheless, both approaches appear intentionally or coincidentally in most studies (Collis & Hussey, 2014). In this work, I investigated inductively to contribute to the understanding of UA as complex systems in social, economic, and ecological regimes. In terms of methodology, an exploratory pathway has been chosen. It seems evident that, by leaving the reductionist research approach behind, methods of investigation must be adapted as well. Systems theory suggests to model complex entities created by the multiple interaction of components by abstracting from certain details of structure and component, and concentrating on the dynamics that define the characteristic functions, properties, and relationships that are internal or external to the system. (Laszlo & Krippner, 1998, p. 13) They furthermore emphasize:

57 function as well as structure, on relationships and bonds in addition to the elements and components to which they pertain, so that the resulting understanding of the entity or process under consideration is expressed in terms of its roles and functions within the embedding whole. (1998, p. 14) Both, data acquisition and analysis were guided by these considerations, which will be described in the next section. Investigating UA using systems theory and social network theory is a new way of understanding this phenomenon, and, since no comparable studies exist, this exploratory approach offered the opportunity to investigate the field with the aim to gain more thorough understanding and to identify interesting questions for follow-up research projects (Collis & Hussey, 2014).

Method of Data Acquisition For this endeavor, I sampled the study participants purposively, which allows a systematic and deliberate selection in comparison to random or statistical sampling (Pope & Mays, 1995). Before any data collection or analysis could take place, a set of relevant actors had to be delimited (Laumann, Galaskiewicz & Marsden, 1978, Marin & Wellman, 2011). In the study on inter-organizational systems and networks, this requires “the choice of an explicit criterion by which a particular set of organizations is to be analytically treated as a bounded system of interaction, that is, a community or field of organizational actors” (Laumann, Galaskiewicz & Marsden, 1978, p. 459). Given the study’s focus on UA in Malmö, I choose to interview representatives of organizations who are actively working with UA in Malmö within an official organizational set-up with public outreach. This excluded community gardens and colony associations. However, to get a broader understanding of the UA system beyond this artificial boundary, interviews were also conducted with other actors engaged in network meetings to gain additional knowledge. First, an initial interviewee list has been compiled through online research on Facebook and Malmö’s Urban Agriculture Network blog, where participants are listed in meeting reports. This list was then cleared by contacting each organization via e-mail, Facebook message or contact form. About 30% of the organizations were not active anymore and had to be removed. One organization was identified through interviews (“snowballing”) and another through an UA event. To keep the anonymity of all respondents from UA organizations, only an organization code, set by the researcher, is used. The full list of information to the interviews (i.e., code, legal frame, date) can be found in the Appendix. For the collection of data, both quantitative and qualitative methods have been used. Terminology and concepts of systems theory and SNA informed the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with the identified respondents. To collect information about important partners and sources as well as the interaction with them, a roster for each UA organization has been compiled. I chose this approach over the recall technique, where respondents list associates based on their memory (Marin & Wellman, 2011), because it was expected that organizations maintain many ties and might not be able to recall all of them instantly. As information retrieved from online sources might not be complete, interviewees were asked to add additional partners, collaborators, and sources if necessary. Secondly, working progressively through the roster, respondents should tell about the purpose, quality, and characteristics of the relationship with each linked organization. The qualitative and semi-structured interview approach enabled to follow up on respondents’ narratives. During the data collection phase, I conducted a total of 25 interviews of which 21 were with UA organizations and municipal departments and 4 with other actors. A total of 4 respondents did not give their consent to recor- ding. Thus, notes were taken during the conversation. Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 2,5 hours and were transcribed. Furthermore, two project managers were contacted with questions via e-mail. Field notes were taken before and after interviews at the locations. The author moreover attended 4 UA events: the final presentation of an UA project, an UA network meeting, a public workshop on UA and a weekly association meeting. Secondary data in the form of text and images were collected from websites, social media platforms, and relevant grey literature such as strategy papers, reports, reviews as well as surveys from an on-going project led by Malmö’s Environmental Department. All interviews were conducted in English.

58 Method of Data Analysis Network and systems analysists must be aware that nodes are not part of mutually exclusive and discrete groups and should also not be treated as such (Marin & Wellman, 2011). However, to systematically analyze UA organizations and their systems, and to provide necessary comparability, organizations were categorized as either commercial, educational, coordinating or environmental initiatives. To carry out systems analysis, a review of each organization’s central mission or purpose commenced the analysis (Meadows, 2008). Following, the systems’ and networks’ parts and connections were coded. In this work, narratives were coded according to events or actions that related to systems aspects, such as resilience, feedback loops, adjustment, adaptation, etc. and indications of network activities. Feedback loops have been identified from the respondents’ narratives about relationships with specific network actors or system components. These narratives where summarized thematically. For the network visualization, a color code has been used to differentiate between organizational types, which is recommended by Hanneman and Riddle (2011). Through combined system and network data collection, a total of 108 nodes were identified which are connected by 215 edges or links. It is important to mention that for the sake of visualization, individuals, such as employees or volunteers of one UA business or association, have been summarized into a single node. For example, an organization works with residents, delivers products to food stores and receives help from volunteers. Here, not every resident, shop or volunteer was granted one single node. Since the focus of this work is not on the number of links, but on the interconnectedness, this drawback was tolerated. All data (nodes and edges) were collected and managed in an Excel spreadsheet. The network was modeled with the social network through modeling software “Gephi” and applied a layout filter to organize the most central actors, whose nodes were manually enlarged. In this graph, organizations are divided into several categories: Associations (ASO), Individuals (IND), Urban Agriculture (UA), Commercial Bu- sinesses (COM), Educational Institutions (EDU) and Governmental Institutions (GOV).

Limitations SNA’s main issues are related to obtaining the necessary data while remaining within ethical boundaries (Marsden, 2011). In this study, the rather short time frame was a limiting factor. Also, recalling connections retrospectively from several months ago seemed to be difficult for respondents. People might not remember all links or do not regard them as relevant (Marin & Wellman, 2011). Hence, a data clearing is undertaken by the respondent and not by the researcher, making the aim to paint a picture of the whole system somewhat complicated. This gap was partially filled by conducting online research before the interviews to provide roasters and to triangulate missing connections that did not come up during the conversation. In systems inquiry, just like in many other social science fields, pre-conditions, assumptions, expectations, and values can only be suppressed, but not entirely removed. Ruesch and Bateson (1951) emphasize that “the systematic differences and distortions which follow when the investi- gator takes a particular view of the system which he is studying, or when he specializes in a particular method of collecting data, are themselves clues to his value system. The nature or slant of his knowledge is determined by his methods of obtaining that knowledge and by his notions of what knowledge is.” (p. 11)

Asking openly about official and unofficial relations and partners is a challenging endeavor, and some actors might have avoided talking about specific links due to fears of adverse effects on their success. Additionally, research ethics is an essential consideration in network studies during the analysis process. This concern should be taken very serious since not all participants feel comfortable about disclosure of their connections (Lelong & Nagel, 2017). It would be more advisable to make follow-up research, like long-term shadowing, where participants are brie- fed to fill out an online-form once a month and report on their most important connections, as well as interviews at the beginning and the end of the season. Doing so, studies can take the shape of participatory investigation, making the respondents not only subject to research but actors in the process of complex system modeling. This could also increase the understanding of the relevance of the investigation and contribute to more open disclosure of data. Lastly, one must consider language barriers. English is not the mother tongue of the researcher and the majority of respondents. Nevertheless, all interviews were conducted in English since both parties felt the most comfortable communicating in this language.

59 Case Study: Malmö Empirical research for this work was conducted in the city of Malmö. Malmö is the third most populated city in Sweden with 333,633 inhabitants (Malmö Stad, 2018a, January), located in the southern region of Skåne, and surrounded by very fertile agricultural land (Malmberg et al., 2001). The city consists of an old city center, and several adjacent neighborhoods with mixed single-family and multi-family premium housing in the West towards the coastline, average multi-family housing in the center, and high-rise housing in the South and East. These high-ris- es have been planned and built in the 1950s and 1960s as part of the “Million-Housing Program” and became known as spaces of social crises with poverty and crime. Once an industrial town, the city lived through periods of economic decline in the 1980s, followed by recovery after the construction of the Öresunds bridge. Nevertheless, social inclusion is a continuous challenge, despite the city’s regeneration plans and ambitions to fulfill sustainability goals (Guidoum, 2010). For several years, the City of Malmö has been heeding the demand to address environmental, social, and economic challenges and commits itself to holistic sustainable urban development through the adoption of comprehensive policies (City of Malmö, 2010, 2014). In their “Policy for sustainable development and food,” the City of Malmö identifies food as one of their primary interest fields and formulates objectives and possible strategies. For instance, food-related greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced by promoting local food production (City of Mal- mö, 2010). Herewith, Malmö follows a global trend: an increasing number of municipalities recognize the potentials of UA and integrate this concept into their development planning (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000; Rantanen & Kahila, 2009). UA, as a component of sustainable urban development, has also been highlighted at the Sustainable City Development Conference 2016 in Malmö (Malmö Stad, 2018b, January), and by public managers like Trevor Graham, who emphasized the need for experimentation with sustainable solutions.

Results and Analysis

Systems Analysis The following chapter provides the reader with a description and analysis of how individual and collective UA actors function within the social, economic, and ecological system in Malmö. The aim of this section is to present the multiple ways in which UA organizations manage struggles and opportunities, and reorganize their system and network to be productive. It is divided into sub-sections according to the distinct categories of UA types. Each sub-section discusses the organizations individually, with exception to commercial UA organizations, where the discussion follows a thematic logic. Given the affiliation with the same business incubator project, the thematic ordering makes a cross-case comparison possible, which simplifies the analysis and comprehension. In this sub-section, the reader follows the “path” of the urban farmer along the production chain (knowledge, cultivation, sales) and beyond (additional income sources).

Commercial Focus In 2013, the for-profit social enterprise “BI” in Malmö initiated a business incubator program, named “Stadsbruk,” which aims to facilitate and foster commercial UA entrepreneurship. The program expects to generate gains in terms of employment and economic value of UA (Stadsbruk, 2016, 2017). BI partners with several public and private organizations, such as the Swedish Agricultural University SLU, the City of Malmö, the City of Gothenburg, Växjo municipality, White architects, Malmö University, and the Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) (Vinnova, 2018, January). To date, this program is unique in Europe, received 20 Million Swedish Crowns (2 Million Eu- ros) by the Swedish Innovation Fund Vinnova (Stadsbruk, 2016) and an additional 6,6 Million Swedish Crowns (650.000 Euros) in a follow-up finance round in fall 2016 (Vinnova, 2018, January). BI employs one full-time project manager for the program and meets up bi-weekly with partners in Gothenburg and Växjo to discuss the project’s progress (PC3 BI, 2017). During the data acquisition phase, a total of 5 UA enterprises were actively working with the incubator program on two distinct farming sites in Malmö.

3 PC = Personal Conversation

60 Code Est. # Entrepreneurs Focus Com1 2015 2 2.500 m2 Com2 2014 2 2.500 m2 Com3 2017 7 500 m2 Com4 2015 2 1.200 m2 Com5 2015 1 600 m2

Table 1: Organizations with commercial focus

Growing Knowledge UA requires specific knowledge, which has often been acquired by urban farmers in permaculture schools. Several farmers maintain exchange relationships with former teachers for consultation. These connections are furthermore important as they generate teaching opportunities for farmers, and alternative income sources, as well as a transfer of experiences to prospective urban farmers: “We’ve been back at [farming location] to tell the current students about what we are doing. So, we have been collaborating in that way. We also have contact with our old teachers to ask for advice. Other than that, it’s just sharing” (PC Com4, 2017). Additionally, Com4 also maintains a network of peers from their former class: We are in touch with all the former students in [farming location]; we have a group. So, there is a big support network, and it’s like whenever we need help here, we can advertise that […], maybe you can call that collaboration. Definitely a network, a platform. (PC Com4, 2017) Since Com1 works with Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), the farm retrieves CSA-specific knowledge from the Swedish Agriculture Association and participates actively as a board member. Most farmers also appreciate that the incubator offers them workshops on farming business related topics. However, during the growing season, farmers are occupied with managing their land and sales. Thus, education and development must be postponed to the winter months. Additionally, the good connectivity between the farmers of the incubator program gives the newest group (Com3) access to advice related to software, delivery, and custo- mer management for produce distribution. Furthermore, knowledge is also expanded through media. Com2, for instance, listen to farming podcasts and read relevant books. Social Media provides an essential platform for the farmers to connect with the community for the exchange of knowledge, but also for conveying a “realistic” picture of commercial farming. Even though one farmer (Com2) describes the posting of less positive messages as risky and controversial, concerns were put aside. From the farmer’s own experience, an open and transparent post stimulated a constructive discussion and led to the bi-lateral transfer of knowledge: It’s really cool how everyone can help. Like yesterday. Sometimes it’s... people... if you just post beautiful photos and how amazing it is and how incredible it looks, you would think that it is really easy. This is really hard work. I have done a lot of hard work, I have worked in a lot of kitchens, but this is by far the hardest job ever. So sometimes it’s nice to put up a photo and say like “This is a bed of thistles. I have to do it by hand. I have to pull it out because otherwise, things don’t grow. And it’s exhausting. It’s not just beautiful flowers and whatever. Yesterday I posted a picture about thistles and so many people were like “Oh but maybe you could use them, you could eat the roots or you could do this with them or you could...“ Wow cool! It’s really fun to read this. (PC Com2, 2017) As several farmers emphasize, this feedback is likewise important in keeping up motivation and receiving valuable acknowledgment. Facebook is also an important tool to connect with peer farmers remotely, both within Malmö and outside; mainly Gothenburg, which is the city that BI works with closely (PC Com3, 2017).

Growing produce While farmers in one of the two farming sites of the incubator program have access to a greenhouse and cultivate warmth-demanding crops like tomatoes, farmers in the other (the majority) cannot take advantage of such an installation despite their interest. One farmer tries to solve this issue by installing a growing tunnel into a soil trench on his plot. This practice is necessary to remain below a certain height threshold to avoid a “building tax,” which the farmer cannot afford to pay. Close geographical proximity is not only an asset to exchange and to share informally. Farming complications

61 arise when land is not occupied and remains wild, or the responsible tenant does not take care of his/her piece of land. In both cases, weeds can quickly spread among the fertile fields. Given that organic farming, which is prac- ticed in the incubator program, does not allow the usage of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, weeds must be removed manually, which leads to an increase in labor for commercial farmers and in less time available for other business promoting activities. To tackle this problem, the incubator is planning on selecting more carefully future urban farmers. Nevertheless, undefined responsibilities and roles leave questions as to who oversees managing the unoccupied or poorly-maintained land: other producers, the landlord or the owner of the property. In the case of commercial UA, this has led to some discontent. Fences are an important measure to protect crops from vandalism or theft by humans or animals which influences the business performance negatively. Both farming locations are surrounded by low-threshold fences. However, the comparably remote location in the urban fringes of Malmö, the lack of a secure fence, yet the good accessibility by foot, bike, and car is one factor that contributes to the occurrence of theft at one of the two farming premises. Given the small plot sizes, missing produce is more easily recognizable by the farmers. The second farming location is used by multiple groups and is close to a residential area, which has led to occasions where people accessed the garden without adequately closing the gate and prevented the protection against rabbits. Since the commercial farmer in this space does not depend financially on the crops but uses the acre as test-bed for a seed-distribution company, the damage is not as severe as for the other farmers. Besides occasional rabbit incidences, theft by humans has also been reported. Most of the time, the farmer simply observed that some produce was missing. In one specific case a farmer caught a thief in the act and reacted by calling the police to reported the case. Since the thief denied the attempt to steal and the farmer did not have evidence, no persecution followed. As Stadsbruk farmers are aiming to make a living with their land, they not only lose valuable harvest but also the time it took to grow. Given that some plants can be lined out only once a year, vandalism and theft mean a serious financial loss for those entrepreneurs. If a replacement is possible, farmers must purchase new seeds, seedlings or plants, reducing their revenue. Financial losses, however, are more severe for farmers, who are paid by weight or piece. In the case of a CSA, such risks are covered by the initial investment of shareholders and reduced bag content for customers. Among some farmers, these incidences have led to distrust towards unknown visitors. Yet, there are also examples that show civic engagement and surveillance: One farmer recalls a harvest at 05:00, using a headlamp. A car passed by, signaling, that the driver was aware of the potential theft until the farmer identified itself. BI is the farmers’ closest partner in terms of land. These relationships are not without conflicts and concern disagreements about role and responsibility as well as trust and transparency. As some farmers report, the incubator program’s responsibilities are not well enough defined: It’s kind of difficult to know their role as well. I mean, we have asked for seminars on different things. Or at least I have. But that doesn’t seem to be a fit in with what they are doing at the moment. I also feel like there is a bit of discrepancy between... or maybe even just confusion about what they are supposed to provide us with and what they want to do. Since they are a company that is trying to sell their business model with urban farming and green incubator and stuff. I feel like that’s been a little bit conflictual at times as well where a lot of the farmers here felt a bit frustrated with things that we are supposed to have here but hasn’t really been done in time or been done or been done as we asked, like the gates or billboards outside. So, I mean the practical things have been suffering a little bit in this collaboration, which I think is also not what BI wants to do. (PC Com4, 2017) This refers, for instance, to the problem of theft. Here, the farmers felt the need for a more secure fence, which has not been met by their landlord, BI. Further dissatisfaction arose from the undesired involvement of the incubator organizers. A school asked one farmer team to tour a group of students for payment. While the farmer had to postpone this appointment, BI stepped in and provided the tour instead, which resulted in a lost income opportunity for the farmer. Furthermore, several farmers mentioned that they feel exploited to some extent as “model farms” to sell the concept to other cities. An example includes a clause in the new contract, which aimed to oblige the farmers to print the incubator’s logo on all their product labels. The farmers collectively refused this requirement, which was removed from the contract consequently. The conversation with one farmer team illustrates the needs, which are not met due to ill-defined or unfitting roles and responsibilities:

62 Respondent 1: I think BI and Stadsbruk would be happy to have the municipality around more of the practical things that they are doing and I think that we would be more happy with having someone like that’s more… Respondent 2: …land-lordy! Respondent 1: Yes! It’s broken, come and fix it! Respondent 2: Exactly, that would be great. “Here is the list. But tomorrow, not in three months”. Yes, that’s what we need, a landlord. Respondent 1: Either that or just to know that it’s all up to us, because when it’s... Respondent 2: And then we can reform, regroup with all the other farmers. But as it is now, we kind of... we have so many other things to do that that’s not a priority, get started... Obviously, you could build an amazing organization or network with farmers and do it on our own. But now, we are on this platform, so... Respondent 1: I mean, unclear responsibilities. […] So that’s been difficult in that relationship. (PC Com4, 2017) It is important to highlight that the farmers do not tie responsibility to BI per se. The challenging factor in this relationship is uncertainty about municipal land use management in general, which makes the farmers’ system more difficult to maintain properly. Additionally, the combination of slow reaction by the incubator program combined with seasonal conditions, related to agricultural practices, limit or enable the system’s functioning. A farmer reports that the process of contract preparation was delayed, which meant that access to the land had been granted halfway into the season, yet, the farmer was charged for a whole year. Furthermore, as a farming team recalls, tilling was organized late, which prevented the farmers from starting to prepare their land. Furthermore, a lack of trust and transparency pose a challenge for the farmer’s systems and the relationship to BI. Some farmer teams emphasize that this lack of transparency from BI, and the consequential distrust led to the consideration of bypassing the organization and searching for direct relationships with municipal departments. Values like trust and transparency, according to a farming team, are specifically important, because the farmers’ aim is to run a sustainable business that can earn them a living. Despite these unsolved conflicts, the farmers emphasize the value of being given the opportunity to develop their operation. Without the incubator program, access to essential resources such as land or business advice would be more difficult. Furthermore, they suggest measures on how both systems can work symbiotically: With the transparency comes the “Wait a minute, we know things about farming that you don’t know. So maybe if we talk to each other, we’ll get things done in a better way. There is definitely a bit of work to be done on that relationship. (PC Com4, 2017)

Selling produce The main aim of commercial farmers is the cultivation and sale of vegetables, herbs, and flowers as well as products such as herb salts. Farmers use very different marketing strategies to distribute produce most effectively and -effi ciently. Among the recipients are customers at farmers’ markets, cafés and stores, restaurants, and weddings. Some farms make good experiences with restaurants, particularly Com2, whose co-founder has a background in gastro- nomy, and who can connect more easily with chefs. The prior experience and knowledge from working in kitchens, creative thinking, as well as a former side job in Malmö, which yielded relationships to local stores and restaurants, is beneficial for the marketing of this farmer’s produce. Nevertheless, the demand of produce exceeds the supply: “They’ve been wanting to buy […], and it’s crazy to think that we have to say no to restaurants because we can’t keep up with them. There is a huge demand” (PC Com2, 2017). Due to time constraints, Com2 must limit the delivery to only a few restaurants. The respondent recalls that other restaurants request fresh produce, yet, regular clients are prioritized and closer relationships established. The farmer emphasizes the link between time, labor, and yield as factors which limit his farm from expanding and serving more restaurants: “So, you don’t really want to ruin that relationship but if I had more time and more hands then I would have more beds planted, and that’s just the logistical thing. I know that that’s an issue and we should have been better at that. But it’s been, this year has been a lot of learning.” (PC Com2, 2017).

63 Com1 quit the restaurant distribution, as they could not meet the demanded quantity. Additional collaborations with other businesses included a small-scale pasta manufacturer that used vegetables to enrich or dye pasta products. However, the desire to maintain direct contact with customers led the enterprise to implement a CSA scheme. “We have reached a point where there are some food stores who have heard about buying our stuff. But for us, there is no point in it. The intermediaries have to go away; it’s way too complicated. We would rather meet those who eat our vegetables“ (PC Com1, 2017). This model allows the farmers to receive the shareholders’ annual fee at the beginning of the year and economize over the whole season, that is, to invest in fixed and variable input factors as well as in salary. This concept furthermore provides a financial “buffer” and risk insurance against unfavorable weather conditions, pest, and theft. At the same time, it enables a closer relationship and conversations with the consumers due to weekly pick-up meetings. An alternative to the restaurant distribution is the sale of flowers and vegetables through small set-ups in cafés or a “flower subscription,” which have been experiments by Com4, yet with less satisfying results. The distribution on established farmers’ markets is not a viable option: they said that, because we grow in Malmö, we couldn’t be there. I never thought this was a thing “too local.“ I didn’t think that existed. But apparently, it does. So that’s the thing because urban farming and urban commercial farming has never existed in Sweden they don’t really know how to tackle anything. (PC Com2, 2017) As the farmers did not have access to this market, they collaborated with the Street and Parks Department to set up a monthly market called “City Pantry” (“Stadens skafferi”) (Stadsbruk, 2016), which was and still is not as successful for the farmers as hoped. The biggest challenge for the farmers is, that produce must be harvested without prior knowledge of the demand. Depending on the weather conditions and the interest of people, food stocks are either too low or too high. Furthermore, farmers feel obliged to keep the stand well-stocked to create an attractive and inviting image for customers. This often results in left-over food and food waste, which reduces the farmer’s revenue and is an unnecessary loss of resources (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Exemplary scenario model of a farmers’ market sale: Farmers pick produce on the same day (hand), according to an estimated demand, and bring it as harvest to the market. Unfavorable weather conditions motivate less people to visit the market, which results in unnecessary food waste.

The negative experiences resulted in adopting an alternative marketing strategy and a reorganization of the distribution system. As collective action, the farmers implemented the REKO-ring concept4 in Malmö. By using REKO-ring, the farmers increase their potential network of distribution, since more people receive information about available products through Facebook. Furthermore, they only harvest according to the request (Figure 2) and get paid before handout.

4 Developed in Finland and inspired by the French AMAP movement, REKO-ring is a direct-distribution scheme for local farmers, which several Swedish cities already use. In Malmö, three of the five commercial urban farmers participate along with other producers from Malmö and the surrounding areas. A private or publicly accessible Facebook group is managed by one or several producers that post their offers along with available quantities and prices. Subscribers of the group, the consumers, can comment on posts and inform the producer about the amount they would like to purchase. The money is transferred immediately via the app “Swish.” Producers meet their customers once a week (or bi-weekly in smaller municipalities) and hand over a bag with their order. Since multiple producers are gathering, consumers can order from various sources and pick it up at once.

64 Figure 2: Exemplary scenario model of a REKO-ring sale: producers post their offer on an online market, which can be accessed by both farmer and consumer conveniently. Consumers make orders over several days up until a deadline. Farmers harvest the exact amount (hand) and hand the ordered food at a parking lot, which keeps the time investments and waste low.

The organizers of REKO-ring define meeting place and time. This power has several implications for the customers and the existing/potential links between producer and consumer, which are not always in favor for the consumers. For instance, they cannot make spontaneous decisions on the market, they must have trust in the producers since the money must be transferred prior to the handout, and participation is only possible with access to Face- book and Swish, which excludes foreigners who do not have the banking infrastructure available. Consumers are also tied to the pre-defined time slot and place. This meeting place had to be relocated from a large public park to the parking lot adjacent to a café and working space in Malmö’s north-western part. A civil servant from the Street and Park Department, involved in the organization, stated that this re-location took place due to the lack of parking lots at the public park. Within this network of REKO-ring Malmö, the producers can create an alternative marketplace, bypassing several geographical and institutional barriers. However, as the growers of vegetables, fruit, and other perishable goods are tied to the productive season, yet aim to continue an off-season market, the collective must approach different local producers: So, the other day I was speaking to three different bakers, because I think that bread would be fantastic to have there. And that could be year-round. The chicken people can provide eggs year-round. There are different needs. The vegetarians don’t really care for meat. Apples maybe too. I mean, we have onions and garlic and stuff like that, but there has to be another choice. (PC Com2, 2017) Expanding the assortment of offered products further functions as a pull-factor for consumers: We have a group of different vegetable farmers, but I mean it feels like we are helping each other in the group as well because if REKO-Ring can provide like a big span of things to buy, then that is good for all of us. People can start to buy more of their food and hygiene products through REKO-Ring as well. Then more people feel like it is worth going there. So, it’s been really successful for us as well. (PC Com4, 2017) Getting more producers to participate in REKO-Ring, however, requires additional effort by some farmers: I got on to [organization’s name] which is a café that we worked with, so we delivered to them quite a bit. And they make their own Kombucha. I’ve been on her and said, we need to sell Kombucha in REKO-Ring. I said to her that if she puts it up this week… I understand that she doesn’t have much time and that’s the problem. “If you put it out this week, I can pick it up and deliver it to REKO Ring, so I could be your drop off.” […]. She sold 14 bottles. It’s great for her. She just has to answer Facebook messages. (PC Com2, 2017) Direct marketing provides the chance to sell without organic certification which would demand a readjustment to the conditions of certification agencies as well as a financial compromise:

65 Organic means you can still use these and these pesticides, you can still use these and these fertilizers. How we do it is beyond that anyways. But we are dealing directly with customers. If we were selling to a supermarket, then it would be something else. Then we would have to [certify] (PC Com2, 2017). Almost all producers emphasize the importance of direct marketing. Cutting out intermediaries is not only a way to get higher revenues but to communicate and interact directly and personally with their customers. Parti- cularly with a product that, from outside, differentiates itself very little from what can be found in a conventional supermarket, the added value must be conveyed otherwise. Beyond this, growers can build relationships with new customers and intensify those and existing ones, which is even more magnified in a CSA, where the financial commitment of stakeholders is lasting for a whole season.

Additional Income Revenue from the sale of produce alone cannot sustain these entrepreneurs, which leads to dependence on secondary jobs, paid maternal/paternal leave or other external sources. Apart from the annual Environment Grant awarded by the Environmental Department, which one farmer received in 2017, there are few grants available for commercial farmers. Currently, conventional subsidies are only available for rural farmers. Between 2013 and 2020, investments of about 6.6 Billion Euros are expected to be distributed for the development of farming and rural areas, specifically for farms who undertake eco-systems services, based the size of land (European Commission, 2017). However, as their location is distinctly not rural and the acre size rather small, neither urban nor peri-urban enterprises have access to such funds. An alternative financial source from the EU and member states is the LEADER/CLLD Fund, which aims to promote community-led rural and local development (European Network for Rural Development, 2017, Decem- ber). Some participants of the Stadsbruk program have applied to this fund during the data collection phase of this work. The results are not known to the author at the time of data analysis. Contrary to generating a direct income flow, farmers furthermore aim to save money by taking advantage of different contacts. For instance, Com3, who are students at SLU, benefit from tight collaboration and symbiotic relationships with their university. For instance, the farmers buy seeds, which are brought to the university facilities where student groups learn how to bring the seeds up to plant size, which are then used by the farmers. This brings advantages in terms of saved time and space, given, that farmers can only access closed containers at their tract of land. Furthermore, university students benefit from the collaboration with these farmers by gaining real-world experience, a trait, that is often missing in agricultural education, according to a respondent of Com3. In another case, personal contact to experts are built to save consulting costs. Farmers save money by hand-crafting tools above their financial means instead of buying tools: Just like these... [points to crop covers] these are IKEA blinds that we sew together because we can’t afford to buy a net like they have, ‘cause it costs 10,000 crowns [about 1.000 Euros]. You know what I mean, it’s tough, it’s a tough balance. I don’t understand why it costs so much. I guess it’s maybe a combination of because they can and because also they say “You can use them for 10 years”, so then you only buy it once. And then look at those holes. You almost have to buy a new one every year. (PC Com2, 2017) However, since farmers do not know how long they will be able to operate, a standard amortization scheme as in large-scale farms is not feasible. Producers of these tools and equipment are not adjusted to smaller agricultural farming systems yet. Farmers also build networks to get equipment that is not available in Sweden and would require high financial investments to import. One farmer posted information about such a device on the farm’s Facebook fan-page and a Facebook follower responded, referring to an acquaintance who was able to build the tool. A collaboration between the farmer and the handcrafter evolved, who produced several tools, which were sold to other farmers. UA organizations are the busiest during spring, summer, and fall, following the climatic conditions of Scan- dinavia. Hence, bridging the less productive winter months is necessary to survive. Often, these months are used for planning and organization: “It’s hard to balance time and everything. As soon as we start doing other things it becomes a bit like... if I am out there and doing a talk, then I am not here farming. So, I said to them, maybe we can do it in the winter” (PC Com2, 2017). As an irregular alternative income stream, farmers also give classes

66 in their former permaculture schools and receive remuneration for presenting their operation. Another critical, non-monetary source of help are volunteers that assist with different tasks on the field during the season. This labor source is an essential factor as some respondents reported. These are often friends or acquaintances, who provide help as well as interns from farming schools. As mentioned earlier, Social Media plays a crucial role for the acquisition of knowledge and additional funding. One farming team used a crowd-funding platform to raise money for an electro cargo bike. Since the necessary threshold for a new bike has not been reached, the farmer, who is also bicycle technician, assembled a cargo bike with the resources available through the donations. Besides private supporters, a company contacted the farmer through Facebook and sponsored their product to substitute a broken tool: People have really been like... stepping up and helping and giving tips. It’s really a farming community. […] One day we broke that little hand spate and then an eco-company that has an online shop said: “Hey, I’m gonna send you a new one.“ That’s like, wow, that’s not at all why I posted this photo. (PC Com2, 2017) While this aid was welcomed by the farmer, given the limited financial resources, it must be questioned which motivations lie behind this company’s actions. Lastly, one farmer has received the offer of sponsorship, however, whether this offer has been accepted is not known to the author.

Educational focus The following section presents results from the analysis of organizations who initiate and organize educational projects. Au contraire to the last part, organizations will be discussed individually, providing a better understanding of each case.

Code Est. Focus Ed1 2015 Forest gardens, adventure playgrounds Ed2 2015 School programs with children and adolescents Ed3 2014 Indoor Agriculture with aquaponics and hydroponics, courses and membership Ed4 2015 Beekeeping, job creation and education

Table 2: Organizations with educational focus

Ed1 The municipality serves as an important source of money and resources when it comes to educational services. The non-profit organization Ed1, for instance, signed an agreement with the Street and Park Department. This agreement enables an un-bureaucratic collaboration between Ed1 and the municipality for educational UA projects with children on public land. In this case, the Street and Park Department sends an assignment to Ed1 without the need for a public tender, as it is common in public affairs. As reported by the Street and Park Department, the choice fell on Ed1 as they were the only applicant for this contract. While this agreement does save some bureaucratic paperwork, it is not a secure cushion for Ed1: No, it doesn’t give any security. Because next year they can say: “Oh this year we don’t have any money, so we are not gonna ask for anything this year.“ And that’s also why we can’t hire [freelancer] because we have no idea… they can come in December and make a cut for next year. (PC Ed1, 2017) Still, in this collaboration, the department allocates monetary and human resources, containers, water, electri- city, and barbeques. In the previous year, the same department legitimized Ed1’s operations by assisting with the application for a major grant. The application was successful and laid the foundation for playground and gardening projects in People’s Park. An additional partner is the housing company HC that hired Ed1 briefly for a project financed by Vinnova. Furthermore, they appointed Ed1 with the task to build forest gardens with children from after-school programs in low-income areas. The portfolio of Ed1 also includes collaborations with publicly funded study circles who organize workshops with immigrants. However, the number of participants has been low during the past two seasons

67 which led to only two workshops per year. Additionally, Ed1 sustains an enduring collaboration and partnership with a school that has participated in prior projects of Ed1 and still is a regular attendant and partner in on-going activities. Projects like these get funded from the School Department in Malmö, funneled through the benefiting school. Since many of these projects are about leisure time activities for school children, the question has been raised whether the Leisure Department, who administrates budgets for free time programs, should be an additional funder. According to Ed1, who sought advice from the responsible person in the Leisure Department, there were no mechanisms in place to promote UA organizations through this source. ED1 further acknowledge, however, that their contact person from the Street and Park Department promised to negotiate and find appropriate solutions. The interview with the Street and Park Department some weeks later confirmed this. Since early December 2017, the opportunity for associations to apply for these funds is publicly confirmed (Malmö Stad, 2017a). The combination of vegetable growing, education and playgrounds (“pediculture”) is not common in Sweden. Ed1 therefore contacted organizers of similar set-ups in Gothenburg and Stockholm for inspiration and advice, yet did not have the means to travel. The respondent also mentions the aim to expand and, likewise, the importance of communicating their projects. On Social Media, the organization posts regularly about their activities. However, the disadvantageous location of one of their projects is not ideal for “coincidental discovery,” as there is little pedestrian traffic. Hence, Ed1 mentions to put more effort into communication and outreach strategies.

Ed2 The non-profit organization Ed2 hosts several projects, related and unrelated to UA, both within Malmö and -in ternationally. The founder of Ed2 has been involved in and has co-founded several organizations and projects in Malmö. These engagements laid the basis for a broad network of connections and experiences which have been used for strategic decision making, such as choosing the ideal legal framework (non-profit organization) or the focus (children). The respondent further explained that the potential for increased access to financial resources and personal preferences have informed and influenced such decisions. In contrast to other organizations, Ed2 works on different farming and non-farming projects simultaneously in Malmö and internationally which broadens the sources of income and make the organization more economically resilient. For instance, Ed2 conducts projects in Malmö with recent immigrants, working with gardening to improve their Swedish language skills and funded by the Environmental Department in Malmö. Furthermore, the organization engages in an educational project in Ethiopia, as well as exchange programs with African municipalities, where the Ed2 founder overtakes a consulting role. The program is tailored to include other organizations and public institutions as well. Ed2 partners with Ed4, a local chef school, and Co2. Each contribute to one specific element of the curriculum and, in return, get an additional income opportunity. Ed2’s main UA program offers a free year-long course for school classes with children from 9 to 11 years and a summer course for pre-schoolers. In 2017, this included a total of 250 children from 10 school classes in 5 schools in Malmö. The opportunity to provide the lessons, nine meetings per year, for free is granted to large funding packages, received in 2017. The program addresses both public as well as private schools. The respondent reported that the acquisition of public schools was difficult in 2017 because, by the time the funding got accepted in March, public schools were already booked out. The founder of Ed2 then had to handpick and approach private schools. The primary funding has been received by the “Heritage Fund” (“Allmänna Arvsfonden”) which supports social projects for children, adolescents, and disabled people in Sweden. In 2016 alone, the fund has distributed about 734 Million Swedish Crowns (72 Million Euros) to 400 projects (Allmänna Arvsfonden, 2017, December). Addi- tional grants are collected by the Association of Beautification and Planting in Malmö (“Malmö Förskönings- och planteringsföreningen”): They had this “we only support things that are standing for 100 years, like a statue or a big fountain. I’ve been convincing them that investing in children is also something that is “maintaining for a long time.“ They are called beautification and planting association, but they are mostly focused on beautification than the planting. So, I was like “But in your name, there is planting!“ So they have been supporting us for three years. Every year, I get some funding from them as well. (PC Ed2, 2017) Expanding the network by bending or highlighting specific systems overlaps has therefore been a valuable strategy to access new funding sources. Like Ed1, the Street and Park Department provided Ed2 with free access to cultivation boxes, a greenhouse, and storage in a large public park to carry out classes. This location is well accessible

68 and cases of vandalism and theft have been recorded. The option of a fence or other enclosure is not feasible, as parks count as public land and must be kept accessible to the public. Thus, theft and vandalism must be dealt with differently, for instance, by replanting. This results in additional monetary and time expenses for the enterprise.

Ed3 For educational organizations working with children, funding opportunities are diverse. These grants are often tied to specific purposes, such as work with immigrants, school children or disadvantaged groups. The indoor agriculture association Ed3 struggles with the difficulty of accessing grants when teenagers instead of younger children are involved. While Ed3 collaborates with Ed2 for educational purposes, the association would like to work more with high school students, who have more technical understanding, which is helpful in working with aquaponics and hydroponics cultivation systems. Founded as a study circle, Ed3 is still connected to the organization Studiefrämjandet, which hosts these circles. As the respondent reports, Studiefrämjandet pays Ed3 for weekly courses and, therefore, provides a small additional income. The most important source of income for the association are annual fees from their 90 members and revenue from course participants, as well as volunteers who contribute their time to working with and for the association. To gain additional access to knowledge, Ed3 participates in several aquaponics and vertical farming networks. According to the respondent, there is a dense grid between the growers as the industry or movement is still relatively small. While this circumstance implies positive effects for the distribution of knowledge, low awareness of aquaponics and vertical farming is also a limiting factor in terms of funding. Ed3 aims to tackle this dilemma by collaborating with a Swedish gardening tool producer. Both parties developed a small-scale hydroponics system together and intend to profit financially while raising public awareness for soilless agriculture. Ed3 has also experimented with a CSA model, however, with a different motivation than Com1: Usually, it’s six slots that are taken, and that’s really nice because then it doesn’t put any pressure on us and that’s just… it’s not a good financial deal for us. It’s mostly fun. It tells us what it takes to run an operation like this, and it’s a lot of hard work. So, I don’t think there’s… there are some good things about the CSA model, but I think there are better models that we would use in the future if we decided to go that way. (PC Ed3, 2017) Lastly, one of the most crucial sources of support is HC. This public company is not only relevant as the association can rent space in their premises for a reduced price, but also because HC is well connected, very engaged regarding UA experiments, and involves Ed3 in several projects. Such an alternative funding opportunity constitu- ted an assignment in a neighborhood greenhouse project in one of Malmö’s low-income neighborhoods, funded for several years by Vinnova. While the link between Ed3 and HC is firm, connections to municipal departments are not as strong as those of other organizations. Ed3 has been mainly supported by the Environmental Department through two Environmental Grants: It is different because don’t have any land in that regard. We are really renting from HC they are part of the municipality, but still, I think it is different. We talked more to people more involved in the environmental side, which is not a day to day activity basis, but it’s more an overview of it all. So, we have some connections with them. But no, we are pretty different if you compare us to [other farming organisation]. (PC Ed3, 2017)

Ed4 The social enterprise Ed4 is focused on bee- and insect keeping for education, job creation, and the production of honey and related food and non-food goods. Unlike other organizations, who choose the legal framework of non-profit associations, Ed4 operates as an economic association, a model, which is also known from cooperative tenant and housing associations (Bolagsverket, 2018). Hence, the organization can be supported either as a consumer of apiary products or through membership. To become a member, 100 Swedish Crowns (10 Euros) must be paid to become part of the cooperation. There is no annual fee, and leaving members receive a full refund of their deposit. This enables the participation of people with lower financial means. As the respondent elaborates, other forms of membership include “rent a bee” or “buy a bee” schemes, which are being marketed to offices. From 2014 till 2017, Ed4 and its sister association as the central organization ran a project in collaboration.

69 Here, two goals were targeted: the development of inclusive new job opportunities for disabled to work with bee and insect cultivation and the development of new methods and material for environmental education with children. To do so, different resources (knowledge, funding, and space) were accumulated and offered hands-on learning opportunities to pupils in a park. As a public urban space, this required the collaboration with the Street and Park Department. Like in other social projects, the Heritage Fund provided the primary source of monetary support. Several partners joined, for instance, the Job Center in Malmö, an educational institution, as well as a social enterprise business consulting firm, and other social enterprises. Unlike other organizations, Ed4 does not actively seek the connection with the Environmental Department. The respondent reasons this with distrust and recalls projects which have been “hijacked,” stolen or appropriated by the department in the past. In connection, Ed4 stresses the significance of a unique selling proposition that is paramount to generate income and to keep a business running. Apparently, the appropriation of individual ideas through public offices seems to undermine this logic and threatens the existence of small enterprises and organizations. Ed4’s and its sister association’s intend for their collaborative project is likewise to create job opportunities for people with different disabilities. Therefore, the organizations interact with the Swedish Social Insurance Agency and the Employment Office in Malmö. According to the respondent, this connection does not exist without conflicts and discontent. For instance, the system, in which the civil servants in both agencies work, is mainly adjusted to large-scale companies with more established processes than small entrepreneurs and organizations. However, the latter organizations reduce pressure on the social system by generating jobs, while at the same time, lacking the (financial) acknowledgment for this service. Lastly, an important income source is furthermore the sale of raw honey and honey-related products (e.g., wax). Herewith, Ed4 also collaborates with a local store with fair trade and organic goods. Even though Ed4’s products are not certified fair trade, the respondent highlights his motivation to acquire this certification for his enterprise as his social organization would meet the requirements and would benefit. However, fair-trade certifications are not available because Sweden is regarded as a save country. To address these issues and to build a foundation of collective action an international organization that connects urban farmers, is missing. Ed4, therefore, gradually works towards building up such a network (Ed4, 2017).

Coordination focus Actors in the following subchapter are mainly facilitators, organizers, and coordinators for residents in housing areas. They work on a regular basis with community groups and are socially oriented.

Code Est. Focus Co1 2009 Community gardens Co2 2010 Growing crops, green space maintenance

Table 3: Organizations with coordination focus

Co1 Co1 coordinates two farming sites in Malmö. While one is owned by HC, the other is public and therefore under the administration of the Street and Park Department. The organization overtook the first-mentioned land from another gardening group, which does not exist anymore. HC provides not only necessary land for Co1 but also a basement apartment, where the organization can store equipment, process and pack the honey, give lectures, and meet with their members. The organization has had a supporting municipal coordinator several years ago. After the assignment ended, no formal leadership had been implemented ever since. Today, Co1 is lead mainly by the board and volunteers. In the summer of 2017, volunteers became active members or even the president of the board, because the former president resigned from the operational position in favor for work in another UA organization. Even though Co1 relies on voluntary work, the organization still raises money to realize distinct projects and sustain itself. Additionally, they work with beekeeping and sell honey at local farmers’ markets and in specialty shops in Malmö. Beekeeping also serves as another income source: Co1 collaborates with Ed2, an organization that is tightly connected through personal relationships. The head of Ed2 is a founding member and part of the board in Co1. In this collaboration, Co1 gives hands-on lectures on beekeeping for school children. More revenue comes from visitors, sometimes even from Dubai. For the conversion of parts of a living wall into an insect hotel, the organization received one of several 2017 Environmental Grants from the Environmental Department. By doing so,

70 they aim to contribute to more bio-diversity, which also has positive effects on the surrounding farming plots. To increase community participation, Co1 invites children from the surrounding buildings, urban growers, as well as kindergartens and school classes (Malmö Stad, 2017b). Lastly, the organization furthermore receives manure from horse stables for the fertilization of the fields.

Co2 This for-profit business works mainly as UA coordinator in areas with high social problems. The company was founded from the same founding members as Ed2, since the demand for UA services was rising, but Ed2 did not provide an ideal legal framework for these contracts. Partners included private housing companies in Malmö, which offered not only a salary for the employees but also equipment and resources for social events like barbeques. In the past, the organization hired two long-term unemployed women, partially paid by the Employment Services. Those women, a founding member of Co2 claims, have not only been employees but valuable gatekeepers for the communities they worked with. Both immigrated more than two decades ago and benefitted from this work. In 2017, however, they had to leave the company as the funding was not sufficient to employ them further. Other funding sources from projects with social enterprises were dropped due to their unpaid invoices. Lacking sufficient income sources, the business is struggling. Today, HC is the closest partner and supports Co2 financially and with equipment. Usually, HC hires external firms to tend the green spaces of their properties. However, in some areas, Co2 takes over this task, engaging children and residents. Besides this cooperation, the head of Co2 hesitates to apply for short-term projects, such as the Environmental Grant. According to the informant, one or two years, the usual funding period, are not enough to establish necessary and valuable ties with the residents. However, building these networks and strong relations is important. He emphasizes the difficulty with leaving after a project has ended. Past experiences with a private housing company have shown that it is not possible to stay with a project group without funding. Hence, the organization had to disconnect with negative repercussions for the participants: “People feel like there is only attention as long as there is money” (PC Co2, 2017). Eventually, the premise was sold to another housing company which did not show interest in UA. Being dropped all over again, so the interviewee, makes people lose their trust in the authorities. As a taxpaying business, that is not necessarily dependent on projects but would run under several long- term contracts, Co2 could provide coordination aid and support until the group can coordinate itself. In neighborhoods where Co2 is engaged, the inner-yards are well exposed to the surrounding apartments. Ac- cording to the project leader, the growers do not cultivate merely for fun, but rather to supplement their grocery bag with vegetables and herbs which are cheaper to grow than to buy. While there are several municipal gardening parcels close-by, these are formalized by contracts with the municipality and not easy to get due to long waiting lists. Hence, inner-yards are a more attractive option, also because they are within reach. This circumstance also allows to identify thieves more easily. Strategies applied in this case inhibited the inclusion of the thief in the farming activities, hence, was solved not by punishment but through invitation and openness. What makes the work of both coordinating organizations additionally challenging, is the difficult social situation in areas where Co2 and Co1 are active. In fact, respondents reported that they had to spend additional money on insurance. Lastly, the interview partner further emphasizes another factor, which according to him, is decisive over funding opportunities: purpose. While projects or programs with children have access to more grants, this business works with people of all ages. The organization could have adapted to the demands and trends to gain better access to funding, but this was not an option.

Environmental focus Aside from the categories mentioned above, one can also find organizations that are not as prominent in the UA landscape. This is mainly because they experiment and pursue cultivation of vegetables, herbs, and other plants on rooftops or work with residents on bio-diversity projects with edible plants. Such practices are often underestimated regarding UA. Yet, these organizations contribute to a broader understanding of agro-ecological processes. They have very distinct characteristics and must be analyzed and discussed individually.

Code Est. Focus Env1 2001 Bio-diversity, rooftop growing Env2 2015 Bio-diversity, guild free technique

Table 4: Organizations with environmental focus

71 Env1 This organization works with rooftop cultivation, has been founded by the City of Malmö more than a decade ago, and has a strong member base consisting of municipalities and large companies who support the organization through annual fees. Additionally, several hundred paying visitor groups learn about rooftop cultivation against a fee each year. The association furthermore collaborates with HC, with which they have developed a rooftop garden and educated residents of the adjacent building. In the summer, the rooftop is open on specific days for visitors without guided tours to have picnics and barbeques. Researchers from the Agricultural University of Sweden (SLU) in Alnarp collaborate and work on test-beds hosted by the organization. While the association seems to have a stable and secure network, the respondent mentions the lack of participation and support by the Street and Park De- partment. The respondent argues, that rooftop cultivation can contribute to solving current and future challenges related to heavy rains which cause significant expenses for the Street and Park Department. By investing in rooftop growing, these implications can be reduced, and at the same time, by growing edible and accessible rooftops, social benefits would arise. However, while the Environmental Department is the central alliance, the Street and Park Department did not acknowledge the potential for collaboration yet.

Env2 A second organization, Env2, is a start-up company which works with guild trees and the aim to create and preserve bio-diversity in urban areas. Currently, about 90% of the enterprise’s income is earned from assignments in private gardens, mainly due to the “law of attraction,” which corresponds with Env2’s avoidance of “selling” their services. For the remaining 10%, this enterprise collaborates with HC in a project funded by Vinnova. Here, Env2 is hired to work with HC tenants on building edible and species-attracting landscapes on HC’s property. The cooperation with HC is highly valued. At the same time, the respondent emphasizes strong interest in being more involved in urban planning projects, because he critiques the destruction of bio-diversity in Malmö. According to the respondent, there is little value in “repairing the damaged” and recommends working preventively instead. However, HC claims to lack the essential and influential personal contacts to forward their suggestions and the time to approach municipal departments as potential customers. These two obstacles are restrictive factors for getting more and larger contracts in comparison to the current small-scale assignments in private gardens.

Social network modelling In the preceding section was demonstrated that Malmö hosts a wide range of different UA types with diverse focuses and goals, embedded in overlapping social, economic, and environmental contexts. The actors in this network are categorized into external associations (ASO), UA organizations (UA), coordination and intermediaries (COM), individuals (IND), educational institutions (EDU), and governmental and municipal bodies (GOV).

Figure 3: UA network in Malmö: The most central actors are three municipal departments. Clusters can be found around the incubator program and among organisations with coordination and education focus.

72 Despite relatively broad and stable support networks of some UA organizations, there are several principal actors who play essential roles in this network (Figure 3). The most central and powerful actors, as can be seen in the graph, are the Street and Park Department, the Real Estate Department and the housing company HC. These own or administrate land, a prerequisite of UA. All depend on these alliances to get access to land. One can furthermore identify a clustering on the left bottom corner, which consists of the participants of the Stadsbruk program, as well as on the upper right, where most educational and organizational organizations are located. In the following paragraphs, the most central actors, as mentioned above, are presented and their relevance in the network and for the UA micro-systems discussed.

HC The public housing company HC is very active in facilitating opportunities for UA. Accordingly, the organization provides space and other resources to residents who want to grow on HC’s property on request and coordinates with the Street and Park Department in cases where the green area around the company’s buildings are public land. The organization offers different “models,” based on the interest of the residents. This is enabled by keeping in close contact with customers: We have the local offices. [The residents] know us, they can just come -the re and speak about their ideas. Sometimes they feel like the municipality is far away. We know them face to face. Someone had an idea, and they spoke with someone from HC because we are easy and we are quick. (PC HC, 2017) Besides these bottom-up initiatives, HC furthermore coordinates projects and measures on different scales and areas in Malmö, yet mainly focused on neighborhoods with social challenges. HC contracts UA organizations to carry out educational, organizational, and “hands-on” tasks with HC’s tenants. These collaborations entail, for instance, gardening with after-school programs, inner-yard farming with residents with economic and social purpose, and large-scale projects which go beyond the value for residents, but have a representational and experi- mental character for HC. While internal budgets mainly fund smaller projects, either allocated decentralized in the respective neighborhood offices or centralized in the social or environmental department of HC, more extensive projects require additional financial resources. For this, HC applies for funding by Vinnova, often in collaboration with municipal actors: Sometimes and often in these Vinnova applications, we use [civil servant’s name] in the Environmental Department. She is often a part. She is not very active in the project, but it’s good for us to write “Environmental De- partment”, that they are a part. It looks better. But she has great knowledge and the Street and Park Department as well. And sometimes the Street and Park Department owns the land, so we need to discuss with them. (PC HC, 2017) These funds are also beneficial for some UA organizations examined in this work, as HC outsources UA related tasks and, therefore, provides additional revenue for them. As one respondent states, these Vinnova funds are not accessible to small-scale enterprises and organizations. Hence, HC as agent marks a valuable partner. What is exceptional in the case of HC is their decision making and action capabilities that are relatively independent from the governance and public administration, despite being in 100% ownership of the City of Malmö. Therefore, the demand for an articulated political commitment is not as high as in the case of the UA incubator or the municipal departments.

Real estate department The Real Estate Department in Malmö functions in two ways as a crucial actor for UA: One team of the department manages the regular allotments and gardening colonies (“kolonilotter”). The allotment tenants sign individual contracts with the municipality and are selected from a waiting list through a lottery system (Malmö Stad, 2017c). The land in gardening colonies is organized from independent associations which elect board members and presidents, who communicate and deal with the municipality (Malmö Stad, 2017d). Another team manages land for commercial UA, rented by BI and used by the farmers of the incubator program. This property, however, is only

73 available until the end of 2018. Thereafter, another stakeholder, the Swedish Church, will claim its rights to develop the farming site to become a graveyard. While the contact with the farmers has been only indirectly in the past, the Real Estate Department currently cooperates with them to find new agricultural land and negotiate responsibilities (RED, 2017), an opportunity which is highly desired by the farmers, as mentioned in the preceding chapter.

Street and park department Owning and administrating public space, the Street and Park Department is a significant partner of many UA organizations, regardless of their focus. Some civil servants’ in the department are dedicated to organizing and planning UA in Malmö, for instance, developing the cultivation in a public park, organizing an annual gardening event, where UA organizations contribute and present themselves, and managing the farmers’ market for the Stadsbruk program. The team was also responsible for arranging the possibility for UA organizations to apply for funds from the Leisure Department. It furthermore interacts informally with other municipalities in the region of Skåne to exchange information and experience from their UA landscape. Representatives meet twice a year. However, the future of UA work in both, Real Estate Department and Park and Street Department is not secured. According to the respondents, both departments are expected to experience a restructuring or merging phase in mid 2018. The exact strategy, structure and the repercussions are not known yet.

BI One important bridging institution in terms of land tenure is the green urban agriculture incubator program by the social enterprise BI. The incubator itself is supported by a grant from the Swedish Innovation Agency Vinnova, worth several Million Euros over the term of three years. This grant is only accessible with several partners, in this case, municipal and research institutions, such as the Environmental Department and the Real Estate Department in Malmö, the Environmental Department in Gothenburg, and the Swedish Agricultural University (SLU). Several large-scale projects in Malmö received this funding and partnered up within and beyond city boundaries. Nota- bly, the collaboration with the City of Gothenburg is regarded as important since the political and administrative commitment to UA is more sophisticated and firm than in Malmö. In other cases, the work with municipalities is difficult when a passionate civil servant with power is lacking. To carry out the operations, the incubator must act like a business itself, creating publicity through appealing marketing material, events, and workshops. As the incubator is a start-up and must be economically stable after the funding period, there is certain financial pressure, which requires a durable and profitable business model. Large-scale foundations, such as Vinnova, have the ability to coach and give their advice on ways to make and keep a business model prosperous. It was Vinnova who told us: Ok, shouldn’t you, who has access to selling this as a concept, go hand in hand with some national or international partner. They recommended White Architects. And I got in contact with them, and they thought that it was interesting. What they do is that they often come into municipalities in a very early stage of planning a city. What they mean is when they have this knowledge and know that they can provide and if they talk to municipalities: Ok, you want to have a green area, why don’t you plan with Stadsbruk? (PC BI, 2017) This support would inhibit the inclusion of information brochures in the architect’s portfolio, which would be presented at the early stages of urban planning projects in different municipalities. The incubator hopes for more attention towards the concept and increased revenue. While the farmers struggle with BI’s business focus and “selling the product” – as the product is their farm – they also emphasize advantages of the intermediary position of BI: “But they are also going out and talking about urban farming. They are doing a lot of conferences and stuff. I don’t know what they talk about, but it’s good that people are talking about it and create awareness” (PC Com2, 2017). Here, one can clearly identify the inter-dependence between BI and the commercial farmers. Currently, the Real Estate Department is indirectly renting to the farmers through BI, which means additional administrative labor for the company. Furthermore, the municipality receives shares of the Vinnova funding. As demonstrated in the sub-chapter about commercial farming, there have been some issues with the maintenance of the land by the incubator program, which lead to dissatisfaction among the farmers. For the future, however, INT aims to sell the incubator scheme to municipalities, having the respective departments organize land-tenure themselves with the farmers. This model not only brings in money for BI, but also reduces the work load. This business model might have significant repercussions on the power distributions, systems dynamics, and the network structure.

74 Environmental department An important institution is the Environmental Department, which neither has any land ownership nor an official budget to distribute among farmers. However, the Environmental Department has the capacity of applying to large-scale grants which would not be accessible to individual organizations. If you compare the budget between the different departments, the En- vironmental Department has a very low one. So, what they do instead, is they include us in different projects. For example, we were involved in a project now in an application for an EU project for years, where the total funding we get is nearly half a million crowns per year from that EU project. Let’s say we get at least 400.000 crowns per year from that, and that is mainly with the help from the Environmental Department. So, them helping us to be included in these projects is the best way they can support us from their capacity. We have a lot of cooperation with them, but that is the best way. We are very happy with that kind of cooperation. Because that’s better for us than actually getting some money from them. (PC Env1, 2017) By doing so, the Environmental Department not only stimulates the overall UA system, but furthermore generates new network connections. For instance, the Environmental Department oversees a project which has the goal to find better ways to organize and sustain UA in Malmö. The funder “Vinnova” sets collaboration as one of the conditions for receiving the grant. Hence, the Environmental Department partnered with Malmö University, the Street and Park Department, and the Real Estate Department. This three-year project contains several steps and working packages which include excursions to projects in Sweden and beyond. During the summer of 2017, the project also surveyed UA organizations. However, there are some limitations to mention. First, not all of Malmö’s UA actors participated in this survey. Thus, some actors were empowered while others did not have the chance to bring forth their issues. Secondly, as the survey was not anonymous in terms of organization and was associated with a municipal actor, respondents might have had an interest to leave out critique or “polish“ some points, thus, creating an image that attracts the municipalities attention. From the network perspective, the actors that were included in this survey also show high connectivity within the municipality already and thus, stabilize or even improve their position. Lastly, organizations received reimbursement for filling out the questionnaire. This could be regarded as an appreciation of their time, but also be a disadvantage for non-participants. Besides the before-mentioned improvement project, the Environmental Department has an essential position within the UA order as it fosters networking and the conversation between different municipal departments. It furthermore enables field visits to other municipalities, which offers the opportunity for civil servants and UA actors to learn and gain inspiration. Another way to connect, yet not particularly formal, are the Urban Agriculture Network meetings which have been held for several years with different organizational layouts. Attempts to set up a more structured organization with working groups were not successful. Furthermore, civil servants, who are regular participants in the network meetings, proposed the foundation of an umbrella association, where all interested actors can become members. On the one hand, this would have promoted accountability and commitment, which, so the interviewed civil servant, is important for the formation of stable networks. On the other hand, a larger and more formal association would enable the joint application for more substantial funds to which most micro-enterprises and associations do not have access to, either because of their focus or a lack of capacity to work on applications. However, this option was not welcomed by the network members (PC Environmental Department, 2017). Cur- rently, the network meetings are organized in turns, where one organization hosts an event every second or third month. This setup allows to connect and network with participants, regardless of organization leaders, civil servants or private citizens. Many meetings have guests from outside of Malmö.

Discussion This exploratory work started off with the aim to analyze how UA organizations in Malmö interact and connect within a network, based on systems dynamics. Who are the components or nodes of these networks? How are they connected? Which implications do these network structures have on the system? The following paragraphs will discuss and summarize the results in relation to the conceptual and analytical frameworks of this study.

75 Collaboration and symbiotic relationships When investigating networks, it is not possible to neglect the phenomena of collaboration, cooperation, and alliance building. This project revealed that alliances between commercial farmers, at least the ones in the main farming site, are particularly strong. This is an interesting case as these enterprises operate in the same market segment and would be competitors, following classical economics. The reasons for cooperation could be linked to the geographical proximity and the ability to share tools, as well as the collective experience of participating in the incubator program and the current disagreements or miscommunication with BI. Hence, the common goal of making a living from UA and their search for ways to deal with mismanagement is stronger than the sense of competition. Furthermore, the farmers highlight transparency and trust as a crucial aspect of their co-existence. While trust and reliance are gained between these farmers and other relevant small-scale organizations, collaboration with actors from conventional food supply chains and governmental institutions is not desired: “We want better food on better terms, and because the state will not solve it for us, we simply have to fix it on our own. In general, I think we are a little bit too state-fixed here. We must be better at doing things together in Sweden” (PC Com1, 2017). Here, the farmers seek to find loop-holes in the hierarchical structures of the food system in indu- strialized countries, where intermediaries occupy powerful positions. The “Do-it-yourself”- motivation prevents collaboration with these actors. Instead, farmers implemented their alternative marketing system REKO-ring. Still, the assumption that collaboration among members of similar type (“birds of a feather flock together”) is always a highly demanded and desired state is far from reality in this case. In some instances, organizations do not want to connect and exchange information as they fear negative repercussions from their competitors. This is not limited to for-profit organizations. Given the limited funding for non-profit organizations, a competitive advantage is decisive in getting the needed grants. This circumstance is not limited to “birds of a feather.” In one case, the head of an organization recalls a situation where a civil servant took pictures and shared it with others to set up a similar project, which decreased “the competitive advantage” of this organization. In summary, even though many organizations, particularly in UA, reject business-as-usual and found organizations and companies which are “different,” the pressure to generate income can whitewash all good resolutions and intentions eventually. What seems to weigh out this fact to some extent is the geographical factor. Connections between similar organizations appear to be more common when actors are not in the same city. As UA is a place-based and place-bounded activity, there is little risk of interference from “competitors” in other cities. Going beyond the municipal boundaries, one can also observe the evolving network between several departments in the City of Malmö and other municipalities within Sweden and Europe. There is no evidence that these networks cause the uprising of UA. Nevertheless, the mutual commitment, and collaboration, to some also competition between cities, could create an “institutional security net” and stabilizes, maybe even causes resilience in the UA landscape. Lastly, traces of symbiotic relationships are visible in Malmö’s UA network and apparently important for system homeostasis. Here, the mutual dependence between incubator and farmers serves as a good example. While the commercial farmers would not have access to the land without BI, the incubator relies on the success and resilience of the market farmers in the program, whose purpose is to not only provide aid to willing urban farmers but also to sell the program to other municipalities.

Finding the right partners Discussing UA systems and networks is not necessarily limited to financial struggle. One must also touch upon the question of creating the “right” ties. This refers specifically to the dependence on public or private actors. In- creasingly, there is a trend towards the non-exclusivity of environmental protection and economic growth which is taking hold in institutions and businesses (Langhelle, 2000). Environmental services are not only a means to sustain financial viability, but also a business opportunity (Seippel, 2000). However, this perspective could lead to a problematic pressure towards marketization of such services. There is consent between the two most dedicated municipal departments in Malmö, that organizations, regardless which focus or legal frame, must be independent and cannot rely on public support solely. The city cannot give away salary or funding. Hence, more entrepreneurial thinking is demanded. However, when looking at the network structure, all organizations are entirely dependent on land owned directly or indirectly by the municipality. In this sense, it is questionable whether a marketization of UA is desirable and, above all, even possible. When it comes to funding, the links between UA organizations and funders, customers, and collaborators are often based on the access to monetary sources, for instance, schools pay for student activities, people with more disposable income can afford a CSA share, and so on. However, these examples lead to the idea of alternative funding which is based on the effects for the public of that service (environmental protection, biodiversity, education,

76 self-sufficiency, safety). Here, the municipal department, a governmental agency or another actor that administrates tax money would pay for these positive effects, similar to other areas in a social welfare state. An example for this model already exists: HC, who engages in and arranges social and environmental UA projects. Additionally, the focus should move from “cleaning up” to “prevention.” This would untie funding opportunities, particularly for non-profit organizations which provide services that governments cannot offer themselves to society. Funding based on effects rather than (social) projects would furthermore remove the dilemma in terms of “gatekeepers.” During the interviews, personal ties, next to organizational ones, have been emphasized as crucial. However, the difference lies more in the quality rather than the quantity. Counter-intuitively, knowing many people does not guarantee a better outcome. Particularly when it comes to funding from the municipality, the role and power of alliances is important. On one hand, public managers created agency for sustainability-related organizations and businesses. On the other hand, nearly every interviewee recalled a situation in the history of its organization where alliances left their positions, which made cooperation impossible. From several narratives can be concluded that essential resources were either released or cut depending on the person with decision-making abilities. Organizations then had to adapt to this loss and stall project ideas. Indeed, there appears to be a split between those who benefit from contacts and others who are frustrated by the fact that knowing the right people makes a difference. Within the first group, some acknowledge that this creates unfair conditions for others who have less or no powerful connections. Disadvantages that come with the collaboration and dependence on authorities must be mentioned, too. One grower team elaborates on the concerns in relation to these ties: It’s always difficult when there is an authority involved, because, […] then authority is putting their name to… some kind of control over what’s happening. Then it also usually creates this kind of classroom mentality, where the people who are under control look for ways to resist that control. It sounds a bit childish now but I think it happens in every occasion where there is some kind of power and some kind of group that’s a bit subordinate and exposed to that power. Action and reaction. (PC Com4, 2017) Lastly, when working in areas with high immigrant numbers, so a UA educator, it helps to have a person with a gatekeeper function, who “knows the people” and can build trust. This is important to create a structure of mutual exchange of demands and experiences.

Mutual influence between network and system The examples in the preceding chapters and paragraphs indicate how the UA actors do not function as isolates or independent micro-systems, but build a system around themselves and are embedded in a system that contains barriers and opportunities, leading to innovations and failures at the same time. However, on a more theoretical note, several examples also highlight the mutual influence between the two concepts “system” and “network”. The respective processes can look very different though. For instance, in the case of commercial farmers, implementing REKO-Ring meant the adjustment of their marketing system, which had consequences on the number and type of nodes they relate to. Au contraire, the lack of accessibility to funds forced the indoor agriculture association to reduce their project work to “volunteering scope.” What is described as a limited cause-effect relationship is, in fact, a continuous cycle. That is, the indoor agriculture association could change their internal system and work with school children to gain access to funders like the Heritage Fund. This would require a change in the purpose and set up of the organization, which could furthermore have influences on the network structure within the organization as this new focus would attract volunteers and make others leave. Hence, a change in the network has repercussions on the system, and a change in the system has implications for the network.

Conclusion UA is not an established business branch. Socio-economic, climatic, and topographic conditions play a significant role in the cultivation and are challenging to manage without appropriate resources. Therefore, there is a lack of knowledge about fruitful procedures, processes, and adequate supporting mechanisms. This leads to experimentation, innovation, and collaboration among farmers. At the same time, most participants in commercial UA do not have long-term experience with farming but practice it as a second career. These factors require the adjustment of

77 elements into the microsystems of individual producers as well as on the more extensive “bio-system,” compiled of attached organizations and individuals. This project aimed to investigate UA networks and systemic dynamics, resulting from the efforts of organizations to develop and fulfill their goals. In Malmö, UA micro-enterprises and non-profit associations are embedded in social, economic, and environmental systems and networks to which they contribute and from which they benefit. The most central resource for UA organizations is funding, which is often challenging to retrieve from municipal actors. UA organizations sometimes hit institutional borders which cannot be by-passed, even with innovative solutions. In conversations with UA actors in Malmö, the progressive UA program of the City of Gothenburg is often (p)raised. Unlike there, the political representatives in Malmö do not commit to an official UA vision or strategy. This circumstance is viewed as limiting since it restricts centralized financial support of UA from the municipality. More centralized solutions are requested. In this work, I stepped away from the reductionist perspective and visualized the decentralized power in Mal- mö’s UA landscape with many different sources of land, funding or revenue, and external aid. At first glance, the dominant institutions are municipal departments and for-profit companies, with the respective land rights, which are supported by other public or private actors. At the same time, this research has shown that entrepreneurs and organizers have specific powers that they can attain and use. UA actors are very diverse, connect in often uncon- ventional ways, and innovate the field of UA activities in the city and beyond. By finding ways to sustain and develop within Malmö’s UA structure, organizations create and alter networks and systems of economic, social, and environmental type. Despite the perception of powerlessness among some organizations, those alteration processes can also be regarded as a type of power and decision-making capability. This leads to the hypothesis that decentralized decision making and separation of responsibilities could have advantages, for instance, when UA committed civil servants leave the office or budget cuts are implemented. Here, researchers could employ the “Starfish and Spider” theory by Brafman and Beckstrom (2006) to investigate the resilience in centralized and decentralized UA landscapes through longitudinal studies. Additionally, Koestler’s theory (1967) states that social systems require stabilizing institutions, which need hierarchies and power relationships but, at the same time, a flexible structure with sub-components that are difficult to disrupt. Future work should address, who these stabilizing institutions in UA are (or could be) and how they function. In return, the multi-functionality, power, and capacities of UA allows (even requires) the development of innovative governance and policies, institutions and synergies, created through inclusive processes with multiple stakeholders involved (Dubbeling & Merzthal, 2006, Van den Berg & Van Veenhuizen, 2005) or affected by UA. This is not limited to financial questions. UA can have negative implications for humans (Van Vennhuizen, 2006), resulting from heavy metals or unhygienic handling. Hence, municipal departments and research institutions must step in and ensure a safe and hazard-free activity, which is an important prerequisite for the resilience of UA. There is a high demand for more research on how UA enterprises organize and position themselves within an existing environment, where mutual adaption is necessary. Prior scholarship in organizational and business studies did not delve into the fields of outdoor enterprises combining UA, ecosystems services, and education yet. Hence, theories ought to be expanded to understand better the drivers of such organizations, the limitations, and consequences of dependence and independence for entrepreneurs, clients, customers, and public administration.

78 References Ackoff, R.L. (1981). Creating the corporate future. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing Within Networks. Washington D.C., MD: Georgetown University Press. Arvsfonden. (2017, December). Om Arvsfonden. Retrieved from http://www.arvsfonden.se/om-arvsfonden Barthel, S. & Isendahl, C. (2013). Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics 86. 224-234. Bielefeld, W., Perry, J.L. & Thomson, A.M. (2010). Reluctant Partners? Nonprofit Collaboration, Social Entrepreneurship, and Leveraged Volunteerism. In R. R. Durant (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy. (pp. 421-446). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bolagsverket. (2018, January). Vad är en ekonomisk förening? Retrieved from http://www.bolagsverket.se/fo/foreningsformer/ ekonomisk/vad-1.1700 Borgatti, S.P. & Lopez-Kidwell, V. (2011). Network Theory. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 40-54). London: SAGE Publications. Borgatti, S.P. & Halgin, D.S. (2011). Analyzing affiliation networks. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Hand- book of Social Network Analysis (pp. 417-433). London: SAGE Publications. Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cabannes, Y. (2006). Financing and investment for urban agriculture. In R. van Veenhuizen (Ed.), Cities Farming for the Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities (pp. 87-123). RUAF Foundation. Leusden, the Netherlands. Cabannes, Y. (2012). Financing urban agriculture. Environment and Urbanization 24. 665-683. Carrington, PJ. & Scott, J. (2011). Introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 1-8). London: SAGE Publications. Casey, J. (2016). Comparing Nonprofit Sectors Around the World. What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership 6(3). 187-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.18666/JNEL-2016-V6-I3-7583 City of Malmö. (2010). Policy for sustainable development and food [PDF file]. Retrieved from http://malmo.se/downlo- ad/18.d8bc6b31373089f7d9800018573/Foodpolicy_Malmo.pdf. City of Malmö. (2014) Comprehensive Plan for Malmö: Summary in English. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Third Edition. California: Sage Publications. De Certeau, M. (1980). L’invention du quotidien: Arts de faire. Paris, FR: Gallimard. Dubbeling, M. & Merzthal, G. (2006). Sustaining Urban Agriculture Requires the Involvement of Multiple Stakeholders. In R. van Veenhuizen (Ed.), Cities Farming for the Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities (pp. 19-52). RUAF Foundation. Leusden, the Netherlands. Emirbayer, M. & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. American Journal of Sociology 99(6). 1411-1454. European Commission. (2017). Sweden: Cap in your country. [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ sites/agriculture/files/cap-in-your-country/pdf/se_en.pdf. European Network for Rural Development. (2017, December) LEADER/CLLD. Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/ leader-clld_en Galaskiewicz, J. (1996). The “New Network Analysis” and Its Application to Organizational Theory and Behavior. In D Iacobucci (Ed.), Networks in Marketing (19-31). Thousand Oaks, CA; London, UK; New Delhi, IN: Sage Publications. Ghose, R. & Pettygrove, M. (2014). Urban Community Gardens as Spaces of Citizenship. Antipode 46(4). 1092-1112. Graham, T. (2010). Guidoum, Y. (2010). URBACT Cities Respond to the Economic Crisis: Malmö. [PDF file] Retrieved from http://urbact.eu/ sites/default/files/import/general_library/Crise_urbact__16-11_web.pdf. Hall, A.D. & Fagen, R.E. (1956). Definition of system. General Systems, Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Rese- arch. Hanneman, R.A. & Riddle, M. (2011). A Brief Introduction to Analyzing Social Network Data. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 331-339). London: SAGE Publications. Huang, D. & Drescher, M. (2015). Urban crops and livestock: The experiences, challenges, and opportunities of planning for urban agriculture in two Canadian provinces. Land Use Policy 43. 1-14.

79 Jacobs, D. (1974). Dependency and Vulnerability: An Exchange Approach to the Control of Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 19(1). 45-59. Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Koestler, A. (1967). The Ghost in the Machine. New York, NY: Macmillan. Krashinsky, M. (1997). Stakeholder theories of the non-profit sector: one cut at the economic literature. Voluntas 8(2). 149- 161. Langhelle, O. (2000). Why ecological modernization and sustainable development should not be conflated. Journal of Environ- mental Policy and Planning 2(4). 303–322. doi:10.1002/1522-7200(200010/12)2:4<303::AID-JEPP60>3.0.CO;2-0 Laszlo, E. (1996). The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time. Second revised edition. New York, NY: Hampton Press. Laszlo, A. & Krippner S. (1998). Systems theories: Their origins, foundations, and development. In J.S. Jordan (Ed.), Systems Theories and A Priori Aspects of Perception (pp. 47-74). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Laumann, E.O., Galaskiewicz, J. & Marsden, PV. (1978). Community Structure as Interorganizational Linkages. Annual Review of Sociology 4. 455-484. Lelong, B. & Nagel, M. (2017). Netzwerkanalyse in der Stadtforschung. Soziologie 46(1). 40-43. Malmö Stad. (2017a, December). Föreningsstöd för stadsodling. Retrieved from http://malmo.se/Kultur--fritid/Idrott--fritid/ Natur--friluftsliv/Stadsodling-i-Malmo/Foreningsstod-for-stadsodling.html. Malmö Stad. (2017b, December). Miljöanslag 2017. Retrieved from http://malmo.se/Bo-bygga--miljo/Miljoarbete-i-Malmo/ Miljoanslaget/Om-projekt-som-fatt-miljoanslag/Miljoanslag-2017.html Malmö Stad. (2017c, December). Odlingslotter. Retrieved from http://malmo.se/Kultur--fritid/Idrott--fritid/Natur--friluftsliv/Natur--parker/Kolonier/Odlingslotter.html Malmö Stad. (2017d, December). Trädgårdskolonier. Retrieved from http://malmo.se/Kultur--fritid/Idrott--fritid/Natur--friluftsliv/Natur--parker/Kolonier/Odlingslotter.html Malmö Stad. (2018a, January). Befolkning. Malmö Stad. Retrieved from Malmö Stad. (2013). Befolkning. Malmö Stad. Re- trieved from https://malmo.se/Kommun--politik/Fakta-och-statistik/In-english/Demographics/Population-growth.html Malmö Stad. (2018b, January). Food for Sustainable Cities. Sustainable City Development Conference 2016: Programme. Retrieved from http://malmo.se/Nice-to-know-about-Malmo/Sustainable-Malmo-/Sustainable-City-Development-2016/ About-the-conference/Programme/Food-for-sustainable-cities.html Malik, A.U., Willis, C.D., Hamid, S., Ulikpan, A. & Hill, P.S. (2014). Advancing the application of systems thinking in health: advice seeking behavior among primary health care physicians in Pakistan. Health Research Policy and Systems 12(43). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-43 Malmberg, S., Uddenberg, E., Lewan, N., & Svensson, H. (2001). Skånes värdefulla jordsbrukmark - tätortsexpansion och utbyggnad av infrastruktur på högt klassad åkermark – från 1960 till nutid. Rapportserie Skåne i utveckling. Länsstyrelsen I Skåne Län. Marin, A. & Wellman, B. (2011). Social Network Analysis: An Introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 11-25). London: SAGE Publications. Meadows, D.H. (2008). Thinking in Systems. A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. Mitchell, J.C. (1969). Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Moreno, J.L. (1934). Who Shall Survive? New York: Beacon Press. Mougeot, L. (2000). Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella & H. De Zeeuw (Eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture (pp. 99–117). Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ETC. Mougeot, L. (2005). Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. London, UK: Earthscan. NCAT. (2016). Urban Agriculture in the United States: Baseline Findings of a Nationwide Survey. ATTRA Sustainable Agri- culture. Report. Nohria, N. (1992). Information and Search in the Creation of New Ventures: The Case of the 128 Venture Group. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Peters, D.H. (2014). The application of systems thinking in health: why use systems thinking? Health Research Policy and Systems 12(51). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-51 Pope, C. & Mays, N. (1995). Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 311(42). doi: https://doi-org.proxy.mah.se/10.1136/bmj.311.6996.42

80 Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. (2000). The Food System: A Stranger to the Planning Field. American Planning Association Journal 66(2). 113-124. Rantanen, H., & Kahila, M. (2009). The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management 90. 1981-1990. Robienau, O. (2015). Toward a systemic analysis of city-agriculture interactions in West-Africa: A geography of arrangements between actors. Land Use Policy 49. 322-331 Rowley, T.J. (1997). Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences. The Academy of Management Review 22(4). 887-910. RUAF. (2017, November). Urban agriculture: what and why? Retrieved from http://www.ruaf.org/urban-agriculture-what-and-why Ruesch, J. & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Com- pany, Inc. Saldivar-Tanaka, L. & Krasny, M.E. (2004). Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values 21. 399-412. Seippel, Ø. (2000). Ecological modernization as a theoretical device: strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2 (4). doi:10.1002/1522-7200(200010/12)2:4<287::AID-JEPP59>3.0.CO;2-V Stadsbruk. (2016). Stadsbruk: En Guide för Kommersiell Odling I Staden [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://www.slu.se/ globalassets/ew/org/inst/lapf/stadsbruk/stadsbruk.pdf Stadsbruk. (2017, December). Stadsbruk Website. Retrieved from http://stadsbruk.se/ Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Tran- saction Publishers. Trochim, W.M., Cabrera, D.A., Milstein, B., Gallagher, R.S. & Leischow, S.J. (2006). Practical Challenges of Systems Thinking and Modeling in Public Health. American Journal of Public Health 96(3). 538–546. http://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.2005.066001 Van den Berg, L. & Van Veenhuizen, R. (2005). Multiple Functions of Urban Agriculture. Urban Agriculture Magazine 15. 1-3 Van Veenhuizen, R. (2006). Cities Farming for the Future. In R. van Veenhuizen (Ed.), Cities Farming for the Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities (pp. 19-52). RUAF Foundation. Leusden, the Netherlands. Vinnova. (2018, January). Stadsbruk. Retrieved from https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/stadsbruk/ Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York, NY: Geroge Bra- ziller. Walker, B.H. & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington DC, MD: Island Press. Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some Basic Principles. Sociological Theory Journal 1. 155-200. Wellman, B. (1988). Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. In B. Wellman & S.D. Ber- kowitz (Eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach (pp. 19-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. William, M.E. (1965). Toward a Theory of Inter-organizational Relations. Management Science 11(10). 217-230.

81 Appendix

Code Role Legal Interview date Ed1 Education Non-profit 27.09.17 Ed2 Education Non-profit 03.10.17 Ed3 Education Non-profit 27.09.17 Ed4 Education Non-profit 16.10.17 Co1 Coordination For-profit 12.10.17 Co2 Coordination Non-profit 03.10.17 Com1 Commercial For-profit 04.09.17 Com2 Commercial For-profit 05.10.17 Com3 Commercial For-profit 13.09.17 Com4 Commercial For-profit 15.10.17 Com5 Commercial For-profit 17.10.17 Env1 Environment Non-profit 18.10.17 Env1 Environment For-profit 20.10.17 BI 1 Intermediary For-profit 05.09.17 BI 2 Intermediary For-profit 21.11.17 BI 3 Intermediary For-profit 22.11.17 Street and Park Department Administration Municipality 13.10.17 Environmental Department Administration Municipality 03.10.17 Environmental Department Administration Municipality 18.10.17 Real Estate Department Administration Municipality 28.11.17 HC 1 Intermediary Municipality 28.09.17 HC 2 Intermediary Municipality 06.10.17 O1 Other Non-profit 29.09.17 O2 Other Municipality 20.10.17 O3 Other Municipality 24.10.17

82 Social impact generated by urban farming A study on the application and purpose of SROI to communicate the value of urban farming

Louise Ekman

Acknowledgements I am very grateful to have been offered the chance to participate in this project. I have learned so much about a topic I was previously quite unfamiliar with. I appreciate all the time and support my supervisors have invested in me and my research. I am of course also grateful to the project group inviting me to take part of their meetings, field visits etc., and generously sharing their knowledge and experience. A special thank you to all informants, who took time out from their busy schedules to provide not only information, but also shared their perspective and expressed their passion for farming. It has been really helpful to my work. And a final word of mention to my colleague, peer and friend Kerstin Schreiber; thank you for all the insight and reflection you have provided.

83 1. Introduction Farming has been one of the most influential factors for human civilization. In the western discourse this has developed into a dichotomy, where it is usually referred to either mass production of food or leisurely gardening. However, there has been a surge in the interest for urban farming; possibly an effect of the growing importance of ecology and sustainability. Many case studies indicate that the output created by urban farming is to a larger extent social impact, than production of crop. Though, due to a lack of understanding or insight into the extent and value of this impact, the matters relating to urban farming seem to be given lesser recognition than deserved and is therefore not a prioritized investment. There are different methods to map out and measure the value of social impact; one the most important -be ing SROI (Social Return on Investment). This is the method studied in the following report. The ambition is to illustrate the function, method and purpose of the model, and the possible applicability of SROI in the context of urban farming. Furthermore; in the discussion attempts are made to reflect on the knowledge a SROI-analysis could generate, the benefits of this knowledge and the suitability of conducting a SROI-analysis to achieve the desired effects. The study is part of a larger research project on urban farming in Malmö called ‘Malmö växer’ (Malmö is growing); a continuation of another project with a similar approach ‘Odling över gränser’ (Growing across borders). The overarching aim of the project is finding models, possibly originally from other branches or sectors, to coordinate the city’s and other stakeholders’ involvement in urban farming. The main participating agents in the project are: The Environmental department (Miljöförvaltningen), the Streets and Park department (Gatukontoret), Proper- ty Management department (Fastighetskontoret), city district North (Stadsområde Norr), and Malmö university (Malmö kommun, 2016). Within this project there are 8 sub-projects, where the one relevant to the scope of this paper is focused on measuring and calculating the values of urban farming (arbetspaket 4); more specifically acquiring a better overview over values of urban farming for 1. The city, 2. The citizens and 3. The environment. In the project application to Vinnova (Malmö kommun, 2016) it is stated: We also want to find ways to measure and evaluate the sustainability value of urban gardening from a social, ecological and economic perspective. With these measurements as a starting point, we will, as correctly as possible, find ways to reward urban gardening actors for the value they deliver. Urban farming generates many effects that are difficult to measure and assign value to, which makes it difficult to decide who should be paid or be paying for urban farming-services and how much. When the value of the impact is unclear, it is also problematic obtaining support on a political level. The following research questions have been phrased to concretize and structure the research: 1. What is SROI, how is it applied and what does it contribute with? 2. What knowledge would a SROI-analysis on urban farming generate, and how could it be useful in the case of Malmö? Research question nr.1 is primarily answered in the theoretical chapter, which explains what it is, the reasons for SROI, relevant literature, the method, the advantages and disadvantages of the model, and its relevance in the context of urban farming. Other uses of urban farming are also mentioned, like placemaking, to provide a wider perspective on how it can aid in urban development. Research question nr.2 is reviewed in the discussion, where the first section briefly summarizes information presented in the previous chapters. The second is dedicated to -rea soning on the meaning and implications of an increased sense of legitimacy. This is relevant since legitimacy seems to be the most probable reason for conducting a SROI in relation to urban farming, since one of the aims to make it a more prioritized matter on the political agenda. The concluding section means to establish whether, and if so why, a SROI-analysis would generate the desired results.

84 2. Theoretical framework and relevant concepts

2.1 SROI This chapter aims to describe the setup, usage and limitations of the SROI-model. It needs to be noted that the model is, in its simplicity, complex and in some cases quite abstract; there are economic and practical parameters that are essential to attain qualitative results. The purpose of this chapter is to learn and convey a greater and deeper understanding of the model, and applying it to urban farming in a Swedish context.

2.1.1 What is SROI? In 2009 the Office of the third sector (UK) made ‘A guide to social return on investment’ commissioned by the British Cabinet office; a kind of ‘How to’. It is considered to be key in the use and development of SROI, and will therefore be one of the prime references in this chapter (the latest edition from 2012), supported by other relevant literature. The ‘guide’ and much of the other literature refer primarily, but not exclusively, to SROI in relation to the third sector, i.e. not the public nor the private sector, but rather other organizations as NPOs or social enterprises. SROI is one of the most commonly used tools or models in the search of impact and evidence of other factors than the purely financial ones (Office of the third sector, 2012:8) Society is largely controlled and influenced by capitalist structures and economic theory, which means that actors are rational, but it is not rational to; invest unless it generates a positive yield or, make decisions based on faulty or incomplete information (Arvidson et.al. 2013:3). The purpose of SROI is to provide information on the value of the impact of social investments (expressed in monetary terms), which can indicate if an investment is ‘good’ or not. Arvidson et.al. (2013), among others, liken it to a traditional cost-benefit analysis (CBA), since it too quantifies and compares the costs and benefits to evaluate the desirability of a given intervention, for example an investment (p.6). However, CBA and SROI differ in many senses, for example; the latter is primarily focused on the third sector and relies on stakeholders being involved in every step of the process (Millar & Hall 2013:927). For a long time, the main focus of investments has been on (mainly short-term) profit making, but especially actors in the private sector are now experiencing increased expectations on contributing to society, via for instance social efforts. The same shift of focus applies to the measuring of value; previously the environmental issue has been the main interest, but now social values seem to be brought to the fore (Hahn et.al. 2016:15). SROI is based on the concept of ‘theory of change’, which can be illustrated by mapping the impact of investments. It means to clarify how resources invested in specific activities are converted to values; be it social, environmental or economic. The theory of change attempts to demonstrate shared value, which means social investments are not intended to be a zero-sum game, where value or benefits shift from one organization, department or sector to another. Rather, it is about combating societal challenges and increasing the general ‘profit’ or benefit by social investment (ibid:8). Many sectors and organizations have as their goal to create sustainable values, but note that having a sound process with good intentions does not guarantee shared value. What distinguishes those who are successful from those who are not is the ability of creating benefits; both to the public and in business. The SROI model is one tool to achieve this (ibid:12). The course of the theory of change is as follows: input → activities → performance → effects → impact → creation of value. This course corresponds with the method of SROI explained below (see 2.1.3). The strength of the theory of change is that it reveals what changes in value that are created by certain interventions and activities (ibid:26, 32-33). Hahn et.al. 2016 explain its relevance as: The theory of change can for example be used to spread a holistic image of a project’s effects, identify successful aspects or initiatives of a business, but also highlight aspects that does not create expected value. The theory of change is thereby an important tool for decision-makers like heads of local government, managing directors, managers in sustainability issues and CFOs as it provides relevant basis for decision-making, enabling management focused on sustainable creation of value (own translation, p.39). SROI is one of the most commonly used methods to measure social values and apply the theory of change to, as it is flexible in its applicability and simple to understand (even though the application might be demanding). There are many definitions, and the exact wording obviously determines how it is understood as well as the design of the analysis. The following explanations provide quite a good overview of how SROI should be understood and read in the scope of this paper: Kara (2013 in Maier et.al. 2015) describe it as a: “mixed method approach to assess

85 the social, economic, and environmental impact of interventions. Its most prominent feature is the SROI ratio… [which] determine how many Dollars/Euros/… worth of social value is created for one Dollar/Euro/… invested in a particular intervention” (p.1807). This ratio is quite frequently used in a slightly faulty and thereby problematic manner (this will be described more in-depth in later sections). However, an essential point is that SROI measure the social values of an activity, investment or performance of organization in monetary terms and that it is method for recognizing and calculating value, not converting impact to monetary terms. By incorporating social, environmental and economic costs and benefits, SROI attempts to minimize inequality and instead promote ecological and social progress by (Office of the third sector, 2012: 8). In addition, SROI is an efficient method to generate knowledge on intangible social impact, which can provide policy makers and funders with overview and insight to the efficacy of their efforts (Arvidson et.al. 2013: 15). There are a few basic factors to take into consideration when starting to understand SROI: firstly, it can be either evaluative or forecasting. From what I can gather from the literature the former is more common than the latter. Se- condly, the theory of change, which SROI is founded on, is based on 7 principles (Office of the third sector, 2012): 1. Involve stakeholders 2. Understand what changes 3. Value the things that matter 4. Only include what is material 5. Do not over-claim 6. Be transparent 7. Verify the result Before going into any detail, it is clear that the model is based on fairly subjective notions and assumptions: 1. It relies on views, judgement and opinions of the subjects/users/researchers on what matters, the purpose, the incentive etc. Moreover, what is measured are those involved or affected’experience of change (ibid: 8). 2. A com- plicating factor is that, depending on the case, it can be quite difficult to decipher who the relevant stakeholders are, whose experience is to be included in the analysis. This choice will naturally control the results. 3. Some of the expected externalities or factors of impact might not be as important as initially thought and other more unexpec- ted or unlikely ones might be more relevant. Different groups of stakeholders need to be consulted to ensure that the right factors are investigated and included in the analysis. 4. The causality might be different than one might first expect. Unfortunately, “the claims to causality that underlie SROI analyses usually fall behind gold standards of scientific research [...] it is not uncommon for SROI analyses to neglect the qualitative illumination of impact value chains necessary to understand the mechanisms leading to desired outcomes” (Maier et.al. 2015:1821). This makes it more important to understand deadweight and attribution (see 2.1.3). The above mentioned aspects taken into consideration demand that the researcher adopt an open-minded and investigative approach to his or her research (ibid).

2.1.2 What is the purpose of SROI? The purpose of SROI is to prove the value of, as well as improve the activities and the outcome of the investment or venture: the result of an analysis can function as a basis for more well-informed decision-making, planning, communicating internally and externally. It can aid in optimizing resource allocation by finding what and where it has the greatest impact, attracting investment, legitimizing organizations with less business-like credibility or authority, etc. For instance, the credibility or legitimacy is supposed to be increased by using a language that communicates the importance of social value (Arvidson et.al. 2013:6). A stronger sense of legitimacy could be a competitive advantage for organizations when attracting funding which, according to Arvidson et.al. (2013), is one of the most common reasons for undertaking an SROI. On a more general level, hope has been expressed that the use of SROI might highlight usually overseen social effects, and translate the value of them into economic terms (Maier et.al. 2015:1816). It can be a method to communicate, in a more accessible manner, with the public or investors/funders, and show them that “money spent on this [venture] is not wasted” (ibid:1825) The level of detail required to attain relevant results, naturally depend on the purpose and scope of the analysis; a short analysis for internal purposes will be less time-consuming than a full report for an external audience that meets the requirements for verification (Office of the third sector, 2012:9). Most of the authors I have encountered are in agreement that SROI is not necessarily the best choice of method for smaller organizations, as analyses can be time-consuming, costly and the results might be too complex to apprehend and anchor. Maier’s et.al. (2015)

86 research indicate that the best results are actually attained when a funder/donor commission an SROI, which is carried out within an organization: the donor is likely to earn benefits of legitimacy and for the organization the SROI might contribute to the outset of an intra-organizational learning curve.

2.1.3 Method of SROI The ‘guide’ (Office of the third sector, 2012:17-77) includes a methodological process of six steps to follow to perform a SROI: 1. Establishing the scope and relevant stakeholders Limiting the extent of the analysis, i.e. what will it contain, who will be involved, who will take part of the results, the context, the time frame of the investigation, the purpose of the analysis (also whether it is evaluative or forecasting), and what is hoped to be achieved. Regarding the stakeholders, i.e. people or organizations that experience change as a result of the activity being analyzed; their relevance will depend on the scope of the investigation/analysis. Ideally data is collected straight from stakeholders, and possible methods of doing so are surveys, interviews, participant observation etc. 2. Identifying and valuing inputs and mapping the outcomes The ‘guide’ recommends creating an Impact Map; resources are invested to perform activities, which will generate a certain output. The relationship between input and output is referred to as ‘theory of change’: how an action causes a reaction. Non-monetized input is categorized as volunteer-time and contributions of goods and services. The end of the chain ‘theory of change’ is the outcome (note: different from the output). 3. Confirming and valuing the outcomes To deduce and measure outcome, i.e. what SROI is attempting to measure, one has to identify the relevant indicators of outcome (e.g. by involving the stakeholders), and thereafter collect the data, determine the value of the outcome and estimate how long the effects will last. The scope of the analysis decides the sample of data-providers, i.e. the stakeholders. 4. Defining the impact To limit the risk of exaggerating results (principle 5), it is important to determine whether the outcome is a result of the analyzed activities. Also, to establish the extent of impact that can be attributed to a certain outcome, what effects would have occurred anyway, in SROI termed ‘deadweight’, and whether one outcome displaced another. With these factors taken into consideration, it is possible to calculate the total impact. 5. Calculating the SROI The SROI is the result of the investment of the activity subtracted by the financial value of the social costs and benefits. The result is calculated to convey projecting into the future, calculating the net present value, calculating the ratio, sensitivity analysis or payback period. The net product is supplemented by other qualitative data collected from stakeholders. 6. Reporting, using and embedding the results The communication of the results has to be accessible, relevant and directed at the right audience, as one of the intended purposes are to create accountability with the stakeholders. For further reading on the method and how SROI can be applied, please see ‘A guide to Social Return on In- vestment’ (Office of the third sector, 2012) or Millar and Hall (2013). The ‘guide’ (2012) suggest a process that can function as way to standardize the procedure of carrying out a SROI. As mentioned in previous sections it is an attempt to measure intangible benefits (positive externalities), which are not actually quantifiable. It is only a biased interpretation of the stakeholders’ experience, e.g. a change in wellbeing or confidence. It clouds the sense of objectivity, and in the strive for it we need to “understand it as a quality criterion for social research with every competent analyst coming to the same result” (Maier et.al. 2015: 1819). Maier et.al. (2015) claim that to avoid this, some kind of standardization of the method is necessary. Also, it simplifies procedures and makes them scientifically more transparent and increase the validity of comparisons (ibid). The disadvantage is that standardization would only be applicable to a few cases, and it prevents customizing the analyses to fit the cases, and thereby the analysis would probably be more superficial and the result would be of lower quality (ibid: 1823). However, even though SROI can function as a structure of ‘standardized’ principles, Arvidson et.al. (2013) claim that to achieve qualitative results, the researcher need to have the necessary competence and skills, have clear access and understanding of the

87 case, as well as a sense of creativity, since analyses like SROI “are more craftwork than set recipes” (p.12). There are a few aspects taken into consideration when calculating the SROI ratio, to make it more objective and hence better adapted for comparative purposes: Deadweight: the extent to which the outcomes would have occurred without the investment. Displacement: how much of the value generated is actually the result of a shift in value from one investment to another. Attribution: how much of the outcome is due to the work can be attributed to this organization vs. how much was caused by the contribution of others. Benefit period and drop-off: how long the outcome will have effect, and what is the expected rate for it to wear off. (Ecology Action Centre 2016)

2.1.4 Advantages This section will be dedicated to the merits, which Maier et.al. (2015) in their article on merits and limitations categorize as 1. Legitimacy; SROI enables an organization or project communicate their process, investments or other inputs and the effects of it, and thereby possibly achieve a certain status or image (p.1811), and 2. More efficient resource allocation; providing information and appropriating knowledge of what efforts have the largest return (p.1814). A material share of SROI is carried out by third sector-actors (we assume that this could include urban farming organizations), which might lack a certain ‘business-like’ legitimacy or competence, according to their possible funders, commissioners or collaborators. Conducting a SROI could provide a third sector actor with a competitive advantage, since achieving a higher sense of legitimacy secures the investors’ confidence in the organization or project, and thereby improves their position when attracting investments. The legitimacy-perspective is underlined by the fact that the entire concept of SROI is dependent on the stakeholder involvement, sharing their experience or understanding of the impact of social values. Maier’s et.al. (2015) research indicate that SROI generally do not contribute to attracting new investments, but could to some extent prevent funding from being cut, and maybe even increase it in the long run - except in cases where the funders took the initiative to carry out SROI. Moreover, they also suggest that funders could acquire an increased sense of legitimacy by commissioning a SROI (ibid:1813). SROI can also aid organizations in improving their allocation of resources, thus provide a better overview. A greater overview and knowledge on their performance can strengthen the decision-making process and bring attention to opportunities of improvement (Millar & Hall 2013:932). Since stakeholders are involved in the process, it can trigger an intra-organizational learning experience for the organization as a whole. The extent and impact of this learning experience depends on the scope of the analysis, who takes part of the material and how well it is embedded within the organization. In addition, it gives the ones actually affected by the impact in question a voice and an opportunity to influence, since including relevant stakeholders is a distinctive element of SROI (Maier et.al. 2015:1815).

2.1.5 Disadvantages As with any theoretical concept or model, there are at least as many points of criticism as there are points of merit. Most of the critique that is presented in the following section seem to also apply to other models or analytical tools attempting to measure social impact. SROI has its roots in economic theory and is therefore often treated as a comparable measure. However, it is based on principles of social science, which does not allow for the same quantification, objectivity and comparability as economic measurements. The ‘guide’ (Office of the third sector, 2012) actually advise against comparing ratios, but it is done anyway since third sector organizations are unfortunately often “under pressure to demonstrate their value in an environment that emphasizes ‘value for money’ and where competition for resources is characterizing their relations to other third sector organizations as well as private organizations and public bodies” (Arvidson et.al. 2013:13). It is of course possible to compare SROI ratios for the same efforts, organizations or projects at different points in time. Comparisons between different objects, on the other hand, can be misleading as they will differ in terms of environment, scale etc. (Maier et.al. 2015:1818). Moreover, the ratio is actually quite meaningless in itself, as it needs to be interpreted in relation to the methodology, and complemented with contextual information for it to give a proper indication on whether a particular investment will generate the expected return (ibid:1814). (Figure 1: the equation of the SROI ratio, source: Ecology Action Centre)

88 Another feature making it problematic to use the SROI-ratio for comparative purpose is the model’s subjective approach: choice of variables and dependence on the interpretation of a user’s experience (Maier et.al. 2015:1818). Furthermore, attempting to provide an exact and complete image of how resources are converted to impact and generating value is not possible. The connections and relations are too complex to be seized within the scope of the model (Hahn et.al. 2016:40). Exact guidance on how long the process is expected to be is difficult to estimate as it depends on the scope, data availability and purpose, but a period of 1-5 years is to be expected. However, it can take even longer to implement and notice the effects of investments in or initiatives aimed at creating social values. For any organization, but especially smaller ones, this is a long period and the initial purpose of performing a SROI might be lost by the time the analysis is completed (Arvidson et.al. 2013:12). Certain activities are ‘priceless’ but not without a value; for example volunteering. Since it is unpaid, the willingness to pay for it might not correspond with the actual ‘value’ of the return, which makes it more difficult to make a correct estimate (Arvidson et.al. 2013:9). Also, the monetary expression of value stands in conflict with the non-profit principles and values that are characteristic of many third sector organizations, where one attempts to transfer methods that are based on structures from the private sector. Millar & Hall (2013) write “[Third sector] organizations were not built on the business and financial principles underpinning SROI, but on different episte- mological assumptions; those emphasizing qualitative experience and tacit knowledge that may be unexpressed and immeasurable” (p.936). Finally, depending on the scope, a SROI can be an expensive venture to take on as it can be quite complex, and practical or implementation problems are highlighted by the major inputs in time and other resources. This can make a measurement of social impact more of a burden than an asset or competitive advantage (Millar & Hall 2013:928). The scope and quality of the result will be reflected by the organization and their budgetary constraints (Arvidson et.al. 2013:14).

2.1.6 SROI in Urban farming Why would it be relevant to apply SROI in an urban farming context? Again, as the city of Malmö state in their application to Vinnova (Malmö kommun, 2016), it is not in the direct exchange of crop where the real value lies. Even in cases of commercial farming, the business model usually relies on other sources of income than simply that of the crop. The real value lies in the social output; of increased well-being and quality of life, in the improved sense of community and safety, understanding and feeling closer to your roots, creating a greener city etc. By applying a SROI or other models calculating and expressing social value in monetary terms, one could map the effects and gather information to increase the legitimacy of the activity or optimize the allocation of resources. SROI is most commonly used to analyze third sector activities and organizations, which organized urban farming would fall in the category of. Urban farming can, to the uninitiated, be thought of as merely gardening, i.e. a hobby for the elderly or a leisure activity done in private, by garden-owners. This means that the deeper layers of value might not be properly understood or appreciated. One of the aims of the Malmö Växer-project is to expand the view of urban farming and what it can contribute with. A SROI can provide a better set of tools to communicate the sometimes hidden values to the general public, to illustrate the impact of urban farming. Similar attempts to apply SROI to urban farming have been made before, for example a study made by the Ha- lifax Food Policy Alliance (HFPA), in cooperation with Our Food Project and the Nova Scotia Health Authority, with the aim of finding the social impact of their effort. The HFPA is a partnership of individuals and organizations that represent different sectors related to the food system, and their aim is to further the “program and policy initiatives that build positive food environments and community food security across the Halifax Region”, which in more concrete terms included promoting urban agriculture (ibid:6, 16). The SROI ratio that was calculated in this study was $5.53, i.e. for every dollar that was invested, the return (in social values) was five-fold. The result confirmed that it was a sound investment and that the continuation of their work was validated (Ecology Action Centre, 2016:4). The groups of stakeholders that were investigated where members of the HFPA and the Halifax residents (Ecology Action Centre, 2016). The impact claimed to be experienced by the former was: increased knowledge and awareness of food security, increased trust and belonging, increased meaning and purpose etc., and by the latter: improved public policy, including more green areas, eating healthy-strategy etc. (ibid:10). Troy D. Glover is strong advocate for urban farming activities to be used and appreciated for the social impact they generate, and has written several research reports and articles on the subject. For further reading please see:

89 • Glover, T.D. and Parry, D.C. (2005). ‘Building Relationships, Accessing Resources: Mobilizing Social Capi- tal in Community Garden Contexts’, Journal of Leisure Research. Vol.37, No.4, pp.450-474. • Glover, T.D. (2003). ‘The Story of the Queen Anne Memorial Garden: Resisting a Dominant Cultural Nar- rative’, Journal of Leisure Research. Vol.35, No.2, pp.190-212. • Glover, T.D., Shinew, K.J. and Parry, D.C. (2005). ‘Association, Sociability, and Civic Culture: The Demo- cratic Effect of Community Gardening’Journal of Leisure Research. Vol.27, pp.75-92. There are also a number of Swedish cases on the same subject, enforcing the claim of urban farming generating social impact. Please see: • Larsson, M. (2009). ‘Stadsdelsträdgård - plats för gemenskap och kreativa processer’. Alnarp: Sveriges Lant- bruksuniv, Doctoral thesis. • Molin, A. (2014). ‘Stadsodling via brukarmedverkan: Att skapa mötesplatser och trygghet i det offentliga rummet’. Uppsala universitet, Kulturgeografiska institutionen • Vidner, S. (2015). ‘Bostadsnära odling: En fallstudie av bostadsområdet Herrgården i Malmö utifrån fast- ighetsägare, koordinator och brukare’, Alnarp: Sveriges Lantbruksuniv., fakulteten för landskapsarkitektur, trädgårds och växtproduktionsvetenskap.

2.2 Urban farming

2.2.1 Urban farming contextualized and why? Our civilized society has always depended on organized food production, initially farming. As cities have grown exponentially and transport systems have developed, we developed our food culture and habits so that it necessarily does not have to come from our local community or environment. The health levels are worsening in the western world, due to higher general stress levels, meaning more people are on long term sick leave, and an increase in lifestyle related diseases like diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular diseases. But as a response to this, we are currently experiencing a wave of strong focus on ecological living; i.e. altering our consumerist behavior to counter global warming and the general degradation of mother earth, and hopefully improving our health. One of these efforts is; trying to invest in our local food production, and eating more seasonal and locally produced food. Food activist Jennifer Cockrall-King (2012) writes For the longest time, we’ve planned our cities around transportation needs, housing, needs, recreational needs, and sanitation needs, all the while hoping that the rural lands around us would continue to produce food and that the cheap fuels would continue to flow to transport it from farther and farther away. Urban agriculture [...] is going to change how cities are planned; how they work; how they look, smell and feel. And with our rapidly urbanizing population, how cities feed themselves is going to be the defining obsession of the current century” (Cockrall-King 2012:49) This ecological enthusiasm can thus also be thought of as a reaction to urban development in general, but more specifically to urbanization: as cities expand, they swallow a lot of the countryside. The already diminished local agriculture (due to economic effects of globalization) is losing land to increased land value (lessened supply and increased demand of land causes the land values to rise). Densification of urban areas is a commonly used strategy to preserve rural areas. However, more people living in the same amount of space means that we need prioritize, i.e. there might not be so much room for parks, gardens or other green areas if more housing and social services are needed to support a larger population (Deelstra and Girardet 2001:43f). Although there have been some epochs throughout history where green areas have been an important influence, in urban planning today it is argued, by some, that urban farming is underrated. The ecological advantages of urban farming are that it can improve the microclimate and conserve soil, minimize waste, improve nutrient recycling and water management. In addition, greenery can help the balance of O2 - CO2, capture dust and fumes, break wind, work as a buffer of sound pollution from traffic, provide shadow, etc. There are naturally some urban areas that are considered less suitable for farming, due to air pollution or soil being contaminated by e.g. heavy metals, etc. Though, in many cities that have experienced industrial decline, even though some of the soil is contaminated, there is plenty of patches of residual land that is suitable for smaller farms. This makes it possible to establish a

90 planning strategy where you can both make the most out of available land, suffice urban farmers needs of plots and aesthetically improve neglected areas. Placemaking is an example of an urban planning strategy to realize this. The concept of placemaking refers to developing and using public spaces, focusing on the identity of the place or area rather than the design of it. The approach is based on utilizing the local assets, opportunities and needs, to create public spaces that promote people’s health, happiness, and wellbeing (Project for Public Spaces, 2009). The reasons for placemaking are highly contextual and dependent on the socio-economic and political circumstances of the area, city or region in question. Arefi (2014:6) classifies it as need-based, opportunity-based or asset-based. The first is probably the most common and most relevant in the scope of this research. It refers to a city responding to needs of, for example a growing urban, population by developing new urban areas, to supply housing, services, health care etc. For further reading on the topic, refer to ‘Deconstructing Placemaking: Needs, Opportunities and Assets’ (Arefi, 2014). Urban farming can be used as a strategy for placemaking, as it can function as point of attraction for an area of land that has previously been unused. Empty plots of land can give the impression of a city being disintegrated. An urban area risks being isolated from the rest of the city, if it is surrounded by unexploited land; it creates a cut off, and urban residents might hesitate to visit as they do not want to leave their urban sphere. Urban farming can provide a temporary function; farmers will develop a relation to the area, and by-passers are more inclined to consider a part of the city. Moreover, investing in urban ecology can further a circular metabolism instead of, like many cities have a today, a linear one. This means that resources in the urban system are recycled, much like in nature’s own metabolism. It is thus a more sustainable way of in living and reduces the ecological footprint of cities (Deelstra and Girardet 2001:47f, 50).

2.2.2 Theory of metabolic rift McClintock (2010) reflects on above mentioned surge in ecologic interest over a longer timeline; he points to the fact that in any time of economic crisis, e.g. the world wars or the financial crisis of 2008, food production escalates - possibly a mode of seeking resilience in a shaky economic system. Even the discourse has changed, from referring to ‘community gardening’, it is now termed ‘urban agriculture’. This discourse is the same worldwide, although the function, method and motivation varies vastly between the Global North and South. The theory of metabolic rift is an analytic structure that connects perspectives of political economy, urban geography, agroecology and public health. It can be helpful from both an academic and a practical perspective (policy making and planning) to understand “the dynamics giving rise to UA [urban agriculture] in various settings in both the North and South, as well as the ways in which UA has developed as a multifunctional response to these dynamics” (ibid). Put differently this theory can aid our understanding of the reasons for urban farming. This is relevant to this report since the purpose of applying the SROI-model is mapping, measuring and communicating the value of urban farming. Furthermore, the communication of these values can raise the legitimacy, which in turn can make urban farming a more prioritized matter in urban development. The theory on metabolic rift is based on Marx’s ideas of social metabolism and the thought or created separation of the rural and the urban. McClintock (2010) distinguishes three dimensions of metabolic rift, which are not independent but rather co-produced: the ecological, the social and the individual. The ecological refers to the rift between man/urban and nature/rural, as a result of capitalism demanding spatial expansion. That is; urban areas depend on the production and resources of rural areas, and as capitalist structures expand, for them to be maintained the scope of dependence eventually shifts from a city-country scale to a global scale, i.e. the North and South. The same goes for ecological crises; addressing the metabolic rift means simply geographically displacing it elsewhere. It is not sustainable as it keeps generating new rifts, the loop in the city’s metabolic system never closes, and the resources are depleted instead of being recycled. Inspired by Engels, McClintock (2010) suggests that in order to remedy the rift, organic waste need to be recycled and thereby nutrients returned are to agricultural soil, i.e. by urban agriculture. In the Global south this is done to optimize the exploitation of resources while in the North it is done as a moral obligation. The social rift has traditionally been viewed as ecological rift correlating with social processes, while McClintock (2010) argues that Marx initially meant that understanding social rifts was necessary to see the link between the agro-food system and urbanization. Land and labor was commodified, and eventually industrialization made manual labor superfluous and “in the Global South, a host of pressures [...] has dispossessed rural populations over the last several decades and fueled the growth of megacities” (ibid). Caused by social rift, unemployment levels are high in these megacities and hence urban agriculture has become a livelihood for some economically weaker groups,

91 e.g. rural migrants. The consequence is that when the workers feed themselves, the wages can stay low, and capital accumulate. So, urban agriculture is a reaction to social rift, by using residual land, while simultaneously aiding accumulation of capital on a macro-level. These developments took place much earlier in the global North, where industrialization caused a strong wave of urbanization, urban agriculture was a strategic move to cope against social dislocation. As mentioned initially in this section, this pattern was over time more significant for periods of crisis. The individual rift, complementary to the previous two, explain urban agriculture in the North also as a choice of lifestyle. Marx termed it ‘alienation’ and McClintock expresses it as ‘getting in touch with nature’ or ‘learning where our food comes from’. Basically, the less involved the worker is, the less she understands, which in turn erodes her ability to be creative. At the same time, central to the theory of metabolic rift is that man cannot be alienated from nature, as we are a reflection of the nature around us. So, when we cannot connect with ‘who we are’, the aforementioned material rift also becomes an inner rift. In addition, urban agriculture could be a tool for us to reconnect with nature and mend the rift, both in the concrete way of working with nature, and in the abstract way of experiencing nature. The author concludes with arguing that “important steps towards the gradual ‘abolition of the antithesis between town and country’, intellectual and manual labor, humans and nature, are underway in gardens worldwide” (ibid).

2.2.3 What urban farming is Urban farming is farming, cultivating, processing in, or close to, an urban area, and can involve animal husbandry, beekeeping, agroforestry and horticulture. Essentially it is about using the city’s natural resources in a sustainable manner and supporting the biological diversity. It can contribute with evening out differences in temperature, reducing sound pollution, and depolluting soil, air and water (Smit and Nasr 1992:141). Moreover, production and consumption take place in geographically close proximity, but there are also other benefits of farming in urban areas, e.g. it’s usually few degrees warmer, meaning that the growing season is longer, it’s is usually done in smaller patches which allows ecological weeding etc. (Uppsala kommun, 2017:6). Urban farming can be done in many different ways; hosted and organized by a housing organization, private allotments, gardens, in private homes, in parks or on previously unused spaces like an abandoned parking spot in an old industrial area (the case of Sandra’s garden on Ringön, 4.1.2). It can be done commercially, as a trading community, as a takeover of available land (known as guerilla farming) or simply as a hobby. Kristina Schaffer, researcher at Stockholm university, categorize urban farming in five different groups: ordinary household farming (allotments or gardens), agroforestry (copies nature’s own way of growing), innovative farms (window farming, aquaponics, vertical farming, etc.), commercial farming and community farming (tillsammanso- dling in Swedish: the public take part in how public space should be used, and it thought to make city development more sustainable). Schaffer claim that both food and a sense of community can be grown in cities (UR Samtiden 2014). Another category of farming, not included by Schaffer, is guerilla farming: farmers take over land to which they have no legal right to claim. An interesting case of this is Ron Finley, who one day got tired of driving 45 min to buy organic fruits and vegetables, and planted his own garden (see his Ted talk: Guerilla gardener in South Central LA, 2013). A problem, from the farmers’ point of view, is that there seems to be land available and possibly suitable for farming, but it cannot be utilized for bureaucratic reasons or because the owners will not allow it. An argument for why this resistance is unnecessary is that urban farming does not have to be a permanent endeavor - in fact. depending on how it is done, arrangements can be made mobile (Smit and Nasr 1992:143). Even more so, growing in cities also promotes ecological circulation: recycling urban waste such as heating from buildings, nutrition in sewage water, food waste and waste from building (UR Samtiden 2014). Regardless of the type of farming, it closes the ‘metabolic loop’ and allows resources to proceed in the next stage of the system, instead of being wasted, and thereby minimizes the urban area draining the rural hinterlands. Following this line of argument; since rural-to-urban migration has caused the majority of the global population living in cities, the only way to manage sustainable development is to urbanize sustainably - and urban agriculture can be an important key to achieve sustainability (Smit and Nasr 1992:151).

92 2.2.4 Different terms describing urban farming and their normative connotations There many different terms used to refer to urban farming (the term chosen for this paper), and the connotations, norms, understanding and meaning they embody define the discourse of the activity. Put differently: is it strategy to further sustainable development, or merely retirees potting around in their garden? • Urban farming or city farming: growing or producing food in a city or heavily populated town or municipality (Greens grow, n/d). Seem to be the term with most neutral connotations, i.e. is used and treated by all groups without any real preconceptions, etc. • Urban agriculture: include production (beyond that which is strictly for home consumption or educational purposes), distribution and marketing of food and other products within the cores of metropolitan areas and at their edges. An alternate term to urban farming, still broadly covering the activity and the agenda, although slightly more frequently used in academic literature (RUAF Foundation n/d). • Urban gardening: is more associated with homeowners, and as a leisure activity. • Community gardening: tillsammans-odling in Swedish: the public take part in how public space should be used, and it thought to make city development more sustainable (UR Samtiden 2014). The Swedish term most commonly used is ‘stadsodling’ which is, compared to the English terms, vaguer and more nonspecific. Literally it translates to urban cultivation, farming or growing, which seems to best correspond with ‘urban farming’, which is why that is the term used throughout this report (the exception being the section on metabolic rift, as the author himself chose to use the term urban agriculture). It is a general term, referring to both commercial and leisure activities like private gardens, allotments, community gardens etc., in urban or peri-urban areas, covering cultivation of plants and vegetables as well as husbandry (for further information, please see Karin Hörnstein’s (2014) report on the subject).

2.3 Relevant concepts As already mentioned, it is not the direct production and exchange of crop that seem to be of importance in this case of urban farming - it is the thought that it generates positive social and environmental impact. This impact creates shared value; not simply shifting from one factor, aspect, actor or part to another, but an increase in positive impact in general. This section of the chapter is devoted to creating a theoretical framework for a selection of social concepts relevant for describing the outcome of urban farming in Malmö.

2.3.1 Sustainability In any kind of discussion or description of human activity or societal development, this conceptual framework seems almost inevitably relevant, and hence any introduction or explanation might seem superfluous. Therefore, a brief definition will suffice, borrowed from one of the most recognized sources; the Brundtland Commission report (1987), which states that sustainable development is “to ensure that humanity meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p.16). In other words; live in a manner today which will allow us to live as well tomorrow. This definition has received quite a bit of critique through the years, mainly for being too vague, in order to satisfy all stakeholders, and hence being merely an alibi to claim one is actually working actively for sustainability (McKenzie 2004:2). Still, it is suitable in the scope of this report as it provides a general understanding of the concept.

2.3.2 Social sustainability It naturally takes into consideration the social dimension of sustainable living and development, often deployed in an urban context. Many of the expected outcomes of urban farming are in some sense covered under the umbrella of social sustainability. The social dimension of sustainability has proven to be much more difficult to quantify than the economic and environmental. Models measuring social impact like the SROI can contribute to socially related variables no longer being treated subordinate to e.g. economic ones (McKenzie 2004:7). On the other hand, in modern public policies, social sustainability is almost unavoidably mentioned as part of the vision, and communities assumed to lack such are at risk and in need of support (ibid:13) At large, it entails creating a society where people’s needs are met and where everybody’s rights are respected, also in a long term perspective. It is about creating and facilitating a functioning interaction between people and with their environment. Inherently, the definitions of the concept include dimensions like sense of safety, stability

93 in the community, sense of belonging and participation in networks and collective groups. It can be divided up into categories of physical and non-physical factors, where the former is connected to sustainable communities; “places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life” (OPDM 2006, in Dempsey et.al. 2009:290). The other side of the coin, non-physical factors, is according to Dempsey et.al. (2009) more related to social equity, i.e. policy and political concerns, include a great variety of factors from education, to local democracy, to safety, to social cohesion, to cultural traditions. Although both the physical and non-physical fits in the framework of social sustainability, the two aspects need to be viewed independently. Researchers often argue that a beneficial physical environment will often foster urban social sustainability. But to presume so, that it can only take place in environmentally well-kept areas and districts, is short-sighted. Moreover, Dempsey et.al. (2009) assert that social sustainability, like sustainability, is neither “an absolute nor a constant”, it has to be considered interpretative and ever-changing (p.292).

2.3.3 Social capital Social capital is relevant in the scope of this study since it can function as a sort of umbrella term for the social impact of urban farming: interaction between people, their engagement in the activity, what they can learn from it and each other. One of the most classical and theoretically refined definitions of social capital is by the acknowledged sociolo- gist Pierre Bourdieu: “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (cited by Portes 1998:3) The OECD insights (2007) provide a more straightforward explanation of the concept: “the links, shared values and understandings in society that enable individuals and groups to trust each other and so work together” (p.102) and “networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate co-operation within or among groups” (ibid:103), where the existence of norms or common understandings might not become apparent until broken. The concept is used interchangeably with ‘Human capital’, but should not be thought of as a syno- nym, but rather one does not exist without the other. Social capital refers to the positive externalities of relationships between individuals or groups of people; a potential consequence of urban farming, and could therefore be a possible finding in a SROI-analysis. It is often used as a core element in policy strategies aimed at reducing poverty However, social capital or bonds can also function as an excluding factor, meaning it can risk the members of a tight-knit group not relating with outsiders or the wider community in general (OECD Insights 2007:104). Some critics argue that social capital has not only been considered an indisputable solution for any kind societal problem, its application has also been so varied it is starting to lose meaning. Nonetheless, it does allow us to view the consequences of ‘sociability’ in a theoretical framework, permitting a broader discussion on the value of non-monetary resources of power or influence (Portes 1998:2). Although, like any other form of capital, building or acquiring social capital also require conscious investments of economic and cultural resources. For further reading: Portes (1998) provides a good overview of the meaning, development and current applications of social capital. In addition, note the use of the term ‘trust’ in the OECD insight quote; it can be considered an indicator of the character of a relationship, a positive effect of striving and working for a mutual goal. Knack and Keefer (1997) conclude that increased social capital can contribute to stronger economic performance, as higher levels of trust between actors lessens the need for protecting or making insurances and thereby is less resource-demanding. This is of course more applicable for trust-sensitive transactions (p.1252), which on the other hand could be true for many different kinds of contexts and relationships.

3. Methodology

3.1 Choice of methods The methodological design in this study is partially based on Burke Johnson’ and Onwuegbuzie’s (2004) ideas on a mixed method approach, and includes three forms of data collection, namely; semi-structured interviews, a survey with urban farmers in Malmö conducted earlier this year by the project Malmö växer, and two field visits with the project group, which I was fortunate enough to be invited to. These were done to collect inspiration and data for their external analysis. The interviews were done both to acquire a better contextual understanding as a researcher, but also to improve my understanding of different perspectives on urban farming in Malmö, problems

94 and challenges the different actors are experiencing and the informants’ stance to the issues dealt with in this report (Longhurst, 2003:144f). The survey ended before my research was initiated, however the questions posed corres- ponded very well with data needed in this research, and there was therefore no need to complement it with further quantitative data collection. The survey provides insight into the farmers’ reasons for farming, what it gives them and the effects it has on their neighborhood etc. on a general level. Quantitative information is an important aspect of the empirical foundation as it extends the perspective and gives an indication on the general sentiment of the urban farming-actors (Phillips et.al. 2013). The semi-structured interviews on the other hand, is a forum appropriate for questions like ‘why’, and provides more context to the issue at hand. Finally, the field visits were opportunities to see urban farming in practice and to see the farmers in their natural habitat, which brought up other kinds of issues and questions. Moreover, seeing how cities are viewing and treating urban farming differently, provides a larger perspective on the current situation and possible development of urban farming in Malmö. Perspectives of positionality has been taken into consideration, but it is not relevant in the scope of this research to provide any elaborate descriptions on the subject (Punch, 2012).

3.2 Semi-structured interviews The semi-structured interviews were planned, designed and conducted completely independently for this report, that is not in collaboration with the Malmö växer-project. They were done during the period October to November in 2017. Since, as a researcher, I was dependent on my respondents’ availability, the interviews had to be spread out over a longer period of time than first expected. In addition, the transcription of the interviews proved to be very time consuming. The interviews were all but one was done in Swedish, as it is the primary language for both me as an interviewer, as well as for the interviewees. To allow for the information gathered in the interviews to be properly incorporated in this report, it has obviously been translated. This inevitably includes some elements of interpretation, and thereby some insecurity, and risk of misrepresentation. This has been consciously treated with care and respect for the informants, to avoid misinterpretations and misunderstandings. All of the informants have been given access to a summary of their respective interview, to allow for corrections of any misunderstanding or misrepresentation. The informant Cyrille Gaubert is originally French, and per his request the interview was conducted in English, to allow for the conversation to flow as smooth as possible. The same considerations to avoid misrepresentation as those mentioned above of course also apply when referring to this interview. Moreover, in the scope of this research, it was more fitting for the interviews to be treated more as informal conversations than following a formal structure (ibid). After asking for permission, all of the interviews were recorded and later transcribed. All were carried out in the daytime in either the offices of the respondents or in group activity rooms in the University’s school library, depending on what seemed the most practical for me and the respondents. There were individual sets of questions prepared for each interview, although these functioned more as a line of reference and support in the actual interview. The questions were asked in a manner for the respondent to open up, allowing him- or herself to reflect on the issue or question, using his or her own words, and thereby avoid leading questions. In some instances, I was compelled to add a certain context for the question to make sense. This was however attempted to be done in an as neutral manner as possible.

3.2.1 Choice of informants

Malmö stad Annette Larsson was the project manager of Odling över gränser (Farming across borders), the predecessor to Malmö växer, the findings of which has come to work as a pre-study to ongoing project. Annette has for many years worked at one of the district departments of the city of Malmö (Kirseberg), as a project manager and has had a special interest for issues concerning urban farming and social and environmental development. She is a relevant informer in the scope of this report as she has particular insight into how the previous project was structured, the findings of that research, and how urban farming has developed in Malmö over the last few years. Moreover, in the role as project manager she travelled abroad to visit several urban farms, and she could thereby provide an even wider and international perspective on urban farming. Helen Nilsson’s relevance to the empirical data is key as she is the project manager of the ongoing project Malmö växer. Although to a lesser extent than Annette, she was also involved in Odling över gränser. Since Malmö växer was initiated she has been in touch with many of the actors in urban farming, and has furthermore worked with

95 issues of environmental development and sustainability for the last many years. In addition, she took part in both of the field visits I was invited to and has thereafter provided some further reflections on those experiences. Andreas Anderholm Pedersen is the project manager in Malmö Innovationsarena (MIA); a project aimed at finding new forms of acquiring capital to finance city development initiatives. In order to achieve this, models measuring or accounting for values other than financial ones are also highly interesting and relevant. His input is relevant as MIA has an interest in urban farming as an example of an activity where alternative models of measuring value are applicable. Although urban farming is not the main objective of MIA, it has been suggested that there could be some sort of collaboration between the two project groups in conducting some sort of analysis measuring the social values of urban farming in monetary terms, and SROI is one suggestion.

Farmers and actors in the farming community The urban farming actors chosen for in-depth semi-structured interviews, were to a lesser extent chosen for already established connections and their availability to partake in interviews, and to greater extent for their very different perspectives, functions and stances to urban farming Niclas Mörck is an active member of the urban farming association Hemmaodlat (‘Grown at home’), a non-profit association focused primarily on aquaponics. In addition to this, he has a degree from Malmö University in Environmental Science, making him an even more interesting informant as he could provide a larger perspective than merely his personal interest. I initially got in touch with him at a science pop up-shop arranged by, among others, Malmö University. Hemmaodlat’s role in the urban farming community in Malmö is not only interesting due to their special interest, but also because their association and the members’ participation is as much, if not more, focused on workshops and sharing and exchanging knowledge, and slightly less on actually farming together. So, the interview with Niclas revealed, among other things, that it is not only the activity of farming that generates social values, but also sharing an interest with peers. Malin Nilsson is since this spring an active member of Odlingsnätverket Seved, and since a few months ago also a member of the board. As a new member she is a valuable asset in the scope of this research as her perspective on the organization and its relational structures is more likely to be unfiltered and more objective, than older members with a longer commitment and possibly more emotional engagement. On the other hand, this also means that she knew less about how the organization has developed. Enskifteshagen in Annelund is another of Odlingsnätverket Seved, and she had thereby some, although limited, insight into the workings of that association. Cyrille Gaubert works for the social company Xenofilia, part of the Botildenborg foundation. He is the project manager in Stadsbruk; an initiative aiding commercial urban farming, functioning as an incubator. Bothildenborg is a small area in Rosengård, temporarily ‘unused’ but planned as an extension to the closely situated graveyard. Cyrille also has connections in the Stadsbruk initiatives in Gothenburg and Växjö, and thus good insight into development of and structures of urban farming there. Besides his understanding of urban farming in a larger geographical context, he views urban farming not only as an activity that has positive social impact, but also treats it as a valuable business opportunity.

3.3 Survey The survey was conducted by the Malmö växer-project earlier this year, as an initial step in understanding why you farm, what value you see in it and what you take with you from it. The results were meant to be used in the investigation of why urban farming is important. Six different associations participated, chosen carefully to cover as wide a specter as possible; two of them working with children using a pedagogical approach, two using farming as an integration strategy, and two where the association is a forum for farming as a hobby. The total participation ended up at around 60-70 respondents, approximately a third of them children who were involved via their school. The association administered the survey by themselves and were paid for their input as agreed. This was also done for the city to demonstrate that the different associations can actually charge for their work or contribution (see 4.2.2). The survey-form consisted of 17 question relating to different aspects of farming, such as what you appreciate with it, what do you farm, would you be willing to pay for it, how do you wish to see your association develop, etc. Further information on the specific questions will be provided in the empirical chapter (4.3). The survey was meant to be answered anonymously, however some did write down their names and some of the children received help filling it in.

96 3.4 Field trips Both of the field visits which I partook in were per invitation by the project group, and arrangements of guides and locations to visit were arranged beforehand, meaning I had no influence on any of it. It was one full day in each city and the visits were made a few weeks prior to the semi-structured interviews. The findings were documented in a field diary and the level of notes were attempted to be kept quite descriptive and as objective as possible. Both locations proved to be very relevant to the scope of my research; even though the close proximity to Mal- mö, the structure and culture of urban farming in Copenhagen, and how the city relates and works with the urban farming actors differs greatly from Malmö. What I gathered from our visit and since then is that their setup could be an inspiring example. The second case, Gothenburg, is also very different to Malmö, primarily due to a completely different level of investment and the fact that there urban farming seems to be used more as a conscious strategy to connect the city (this will be further described in the next chapter). This difference seems to a high degree be a result of political prioritization. In neither of the visits were any sort of models measuring social values mentioned, not to be carried out in the future or in having been carried out in past.

4. Empirical data The following chapter is not merely an account of the empirical findings. Rather, it includes elements of personal reflection, that would usually belong in the analysis chapter. However, since much of the findings are collected via a lens of interpretation, it is impossible to describe it objectively, and therefore analytical and subjective considerations are incorporated. In addition to this, the reflections are more likely to become clear presented in the empirical context. To aid the reader and maintain the scientific stance, great effort is made to clarify what is empirical material and what is more inductive.

4.1 Field visits

4.1.1 Copenhagen

Miljøpunkt Amager The project group went to Copenhagen the 19th of September. The first stop was in Amager where we visited Miljøpunkt Amager; a local environmental center working as a middleman between the city and local residents and actors, promoting sustainability and environmental consideration. The project group were introduced to the area with a short meeting in the Miljøpunkt offices, which was followed by a longer walk around the central Amager city district, guided by center manager Claus Knudsen and project manager Maja F. Guldager. What we learned from our walk is that there are a number of local interesting urban farming activities and projects in the area, some started on the initiative of housing organization, some of local schools and some by the organization itself. The extent to which the organization is involved differs between the different initiatives, but mostly they have a coordinating role in dealings with the city, and can aid in search of funding, administrative structure etc. This part of the visit was concluded with a visit at Amager Sunhedscenter, an alternative form of rehabilitation center for homeless people. One part of their program is the homeless being invited to partake in farming in the center’s garden. It is meant to work as a meeting place for local residents and the homeless, to lessen the bridge between them

Personal reflections My impression by the Miljøpunkt Amager was that their function as a kind of intermediate between the city and the local environmental activity and interest was quite positive. It allows the city to have a locally anchored channel, with good knowledge of the area promoting values they consider important, working to network and co-operate both vertically and horizontally. From the local actors’ point of view, there is an accessible and present agent, independent enough to not be controlled by bureaucracy while still having a certain amount of influence on the local development. Some questions that were raised when looking back at our visits were: how independent is Miljø- punkt in reality? It must be highly affected by changes on the political level. On a negative note, both Miljøpunkt and Sundhedscenter Amager seemed to experience some of the same issues that most of the urban farming associ-

97 ations I have encountered in Malmö have, namely lacking some resources, constantly searching for more funding and bureaucratic struggles. To clarify, this was not spoken openly about while visiting Miljøpunkt Amager, these are personal deductions and interpretations from what was said.

Østergro The second visit was to a former garage for car auctions. The sturdy construction of the building allowed for a rooftop farm, which is quite rare as urban farming risks being too heavy for most structures. It was a pretty landscape, with a great view of Østerbro. The farm is a Community Supported Agriculture-setup (CSA), meaning members pay a fee in the beginning of the season for the share of the harvest they are expecting to get throughout the season. When establishing the farm, the vision was to create a local and sustainable food production where the urban dwellers would have the opportunity to farm and eat ecologically grown crop. The farm also holds hens and beehives, and so also offer their members eggs and honey. Moreover, the roof also houses a well-acknowledged restaurant, serving dishes prepared mostly on their own crop.

Personal reflections What is interesting about this case is not only the food production, but also the financial sustainability of it, which seems to be quite sought after by the non-profit organizations. The restaurant is an interesting and important point of attraction, not only for the farm but possibly even for the entire area. The positive aspects of this initiative definitely includes the interesting and innovative use of space, which would otherwise have been simply an empty, dead space in an old industrial and slightly deteriorated area. The social effects are however limited to the members of the association and the visitors of the restaurant, as its location is quite hidden. One could argue that it improves a sense of safety in the area, as it attracts more people, but not to a great extent. Challenges the association seem to be facing are similar to those described by Malin Nilsson in Odlingsnätverket Seved, which are those relating to confusion around when, what and how much to harvest. Misunderstandings, lack of communication and guideli- nes can lead to conflict within the group, a natural reaction as these people are brought together not by personal liking, but rather by a common interest.

Grønttorvet The FB-group (Fokus på Boliger in Danish) is a Danish construction and housing development company, currently developing huge housing blocks intended to support and promote a ecologically and socially sustainable lifestyle. It is located at Grønttorvet (green square) in Valby, which was initially a local farmers market, but was up until the start of the redevelopment by the FB-group mainly dominated by industrial warehouses and such. The entrepreneurs Stig Nørnberg and Hans-Bo Hyldig, owners of the FB-group, envision that this will become a modern vital neighborhood for families as well as single-households and elderly. Some examples of services and facilities offered are greenhouses on some of the rooftops, gardens with berries and herbs for everyone to pick at ground level, and even an ‘eatery’, i.e. a shared dining hall to promote interaction between the residents and thereby build social capital. During our visit with them Hans-Bo and Stig spoke at length about how regulations and requirements for housing development are outdated - in their case the issue was that there were too many parking spaces were required, compared to the needs of the new residents. This point indicates very clear marketing of the area as modern, green and innovative. Moreover, a consultant (our guide during the visit) has been hired to further embed the structure of social sustainability they are striving for.

Personal reflection Possibly due to how it was presented, or simply because of the stark contrast to the previous, more organically oriented examples of urban farming we visited that day, Grønttorvet came of as a more artificial development. How I perceived it was that the FB-group were trying to facilitate a certain kind of lifestyle for their coming residents, which does not fit in very well with the image of urban farming I have acquired so far. More so, it seems as these ideas of sustainability are more based on the entrepreneurs’ idealist ideas of what it should be, rather than scientific research. However, one can argue that it is no different than e.g. political aims and visions to prioritize ecological sustainability in general, or specifically urban farming. As soon as capitalist mechanism enters the equation I think it is common for third sector tend to oppose it, while at the same time to achieve sustainability any organization need to consider economical as well as environmental and social aspects.

98 4.1.2 Gothenburg Arriving in Gothenburg, we were met by Annette Gustavsson, the project manager of urban farming-matters at the Property management department, who guided us all throughout the day. An important aspect for the contextual understanding of the following section is that unlike Copenhagen and Malmö, Gothenburg is a geographically dispersed city, following almost a satellite structure or smaller urban hubs, outside of the central nucleus. What became apparent in our conversations with Annette, and important for the reader to note, is that the political support for, and thereby also investments in urban farming, are much larger and on a very different level in Gothenburg than in Malmö.

Lärjeåns trädgårdars odlarförening Our first visit was to Lärjeåns trädgårdars odlarförening, which is located just south of the district Angered in Gothenburg. It is originally a non-profit farming association, where smaller groups have separate plots side by side. One plot is for example managed by a group elderly Asian ladies, who are farming oriental herbs, flowers and vegetables, another is a community garden for the locals. The association also house and support work training and integration efforts, one example being a lunch restaurant and café where unemployed receive work experience. The restaurant and café is very popular, and has therefore expanded to also cater local businesses. Moreover, they host smaller events, conferences and workshops on sustainability, farming etc.

Personal reflections It is a very interesting example of utilizing the nature resources of the closely located conservation area and the gardens. The restaurant and café seemed busy while we were there, but a lot of the credit for this was given to their newly recruited head chef Emma. Though she might be competent, it does not seem to be a sustainable setup when it relies on one person and her capabilities. Moreover, the work experience-efforts seemed well-functioning from a relations-point of view. Though, despite the fact that association and their activities to some extent are supported by the city of Gothenburg, they gave the impression of struggling financially. On the other hand, the restaurant, conservation area and gardens combined becomes a seemingly popular point of attraction, which could aid in the place making that a disintegrated district like Angered could use. Not only attracting the locals from nearby, but from the larger Gothenburg region could function as small boost to the rest of the district, if it made visitors develop some sort of relation to the area.

Testbäddarna i Angered (trial bed for farming) The city of Gothenburg has initiated a small scale trial-project, where they lease a plot of land to urban farmers to use for recreational or commercial purposes, in an attempt to increase the local, ecological food production and hopefully create some employment opportunities. The land is old farmland, walking distance from Lärjeån’s gardens and Angered centrum. At the time of our visit, the project was still in an early phase, and they were at the end of their first season. Olof Olsson, who is the project manager employed by the property management department in Gothenburg, was enthusiastic about their results so far, but admitted they had encountered some challenges. For instance, finding the right tenants had been problematic. After one year the project was hoping to offer some of the more successful and established tenants larger plots, but there were few who were eligible. Also, the neighbors right next to the plots were not content with the development, as they did not find the new aesthetics appealing and did not appreciate the new surge of people in the area. Lastly, a reliable solution for water supply was still not established at the of our visit, which is naturally key for the project to continue.

Personal reflections The location looked to be rural, except in that it is in such close proximity to urban areas that it has to be classified as peri-urban. In such a loosely knitted urban structure like Gothenburg’s it would seem reasonable that the city development strategy would be to tie it closer together. This could avoid creating or enforcing already existing deso- late urban islands. In addition to countering urban sprawl it would also counter the infrastructural challenges to the current structure. Even though it is too early to deem its success, the project has a sound reasoning and fills a need. It is not described as an integration project, but partially has that function, which in practice meant that some of the tenants had found themselves a source of income cultivating and selling crop from their native countries. This means they were sharing their culture while acclimating to Swedish culture, in a very natural manner.

99 Sandra’s farm on Ringön Our final visit went to an industrial area, fairly central in Gothenburg, called Ringön. Sandra Holmes has experience as a garden journalist, who turned entrepreneur and started her own urban farm on an old parking lot. She receives financial and other support from the city of Gothenburg in her endeavor. Except farming and selling flowers and vegetables to restaurants and regular customers, her business plan also involves events, plant swaps, collaborating with a ‘food incubator’ (a small facility for new food businesses) right outside her farm, etc. She utilizes an otherwise empty space, one others would consider a poor location, to her advantage by being one of the early settlers in this area. The area is expected to go through some sort of redevelopment because of its central location. Despite being a new, quite small business, Sandra has already received positive attention from the media.

Personal reflections It is a prime example of how a city can demonstrate that they support urban farming, and can be a source of inspiration for future projects. However, it seems like it would be a model that is quite difficult to copy since it, just as described in the case of Lärjeån’s café and restaurant, relies heavily on one person’s competence and capabilities. Even though Sandra receives some support from the city, she seemed extremely driven, independent and entrepre- neurially minded - qualities rare but necessary for future similar projects. We were told that in Gothenburg, like in Malmö, individuals and associations turn to the Property Management department for money without being prepared to show what they can give in return, which turns out to be a problematic setup for the city in question. On another note, Sandra’s business could become a point of attraction, which again would aid in improving the public’s image and relation to the Ringön area. This could be crucial if or when, Ringön was to be redeveloped, as it wouldn’t be known as an unattractive industrial area, but rather a familiar, cultural and happening neighborhood. Possibly a form of placemaking strategy.

4.2 Interviews

4.2.1 Annette Larsson - Labor and Welfare administration Annette became the project manager of Odling över gränser (Farming across borders), a preceding project to the ongoing Malmö Växer. It had a similar agenda of working with urban farming and finding out how to organize it. She had previous experience from her work with ‘Education on sustainable development’, much of it concerning green playgrounds and so on. One of the main conclusions from ‘Odling över gränser’ was that for urban farming to be sustainable it has to be done with a genuine interest for urban farming, not to solve problems of integration, issues with interaction etc. According to many of the farmers Annette has met through her work the most important output, except the producing your own ecological crop, is a sense fellowship, exercise, cohesiveness in the community and interacting. This could be true for so many other activities, but what urban farming can offer, that other activities and efforts cannot, are the ecosystem services. Simultaneously, even if the social effects are not the main purpose of urban farming, it does not mean that they are not desirable - it is not the purpose, but it is an argument for urban farming. The point is for the city to provide the opportunity. There is however, a more bureaucratic issue; land ownership. This means that departments own different plots of land, which are designated for different purposes. Some are for purely public usage, others are restricted for other activities. But it is not the most efficient use of land. For instance, a school playground could maybe be used as a football field after school hours? Annette mentions briefly that a submission for comment has been sent out, in an attempt to find a possible solution to this problem. One of the aims of both Malmö växer and Odling över gränser has been to increase the legitimacy and general interest in urban farming, in order to make it a more prioritized investment on the political agenda. Annette mean that there is an interest for ecological development and farming in Sweden and around the world, but this does not necessarily mean that it will become a prioritized effort. There are also other challenges, to which farming might not seem the obvious solution. However, farming could be an aid to solve some problems like homelessness, bad results in schools and alienation. The mission in this project is to work on a organizational level to make urban farming more sustainable - how can the city offer urban farming, and in what form? When describing her international experiences of urban farming from the Netherlands, France etc., it seems like the common denominator for success is for the farming-actors to have a drive and a will of their own. It makes it easy for a city to cooperate and support their efforts. Furthermore, it changes the aesthetics of the city, and there is someone to take care of the urban farm or organization after the project has finished. This form of ‘caretaking’ can

100 then be done with many different purposes; educating children, employment efforts etc. Regarding models measuring values of urban farming, in this case SROI, Annette explains that what one needs to examine is a change from before farming to after. She says that they have in fact, seen this change, but it’s quite difficult to measure as it is rather intangible. What an analysis like SROI could contribute with is basically showing the benefits of urban farming, and thereby present it as an issue that is worth being treated earnestly and give it some weight in the political and public debate. The result of the previous project was a form of umbrella-organization, which unfortunately never came to be realized as it was not approved by the farming-actors. They requested a more liberal structure. In this new project they are looking for alternatives to the previous suggestion. What they hope to find is a way to allow a thousand flowers to blossom, but in some sort of organizational structure.

4.2.2 Helen Nilsson - Environmental department I asked Helen about some of the difficulties many associations seem to experience in attracting funding and creating a sustainable economic model. She means that the farming associations can offer different forms services, and that they can and should charge for it. An example is the survey included in this report, where the associations were paid for their participation. It could also be as simple as a field visit by the city administrates to the farms, where the association are paid for their time and the resources that are put into the visit. There is no reason why they should not be paid for what they do, i.e. demand a fair wage. Because they do contribute; the sense of safety is improved, many projects educate children, and they use farming as a way to do so. Helen was also involved in Odling över gränser, and as mentioned in the section above, they came to the conclusion that a form of umbrella-organization or network could be a could be a good solution. A structure like that would make for a much more efficient relationship between the city and the farming actors, maybe similar to Miljøpunkten in Copenhagen (see field visits). Helen asserts that it is crucial that urban farming should not be by the city’s initiative and it should not be controlled by the municipality. For it to work the responsibility needs to lie with the urban farming-actors. Since the interest for urban farming has been increasing, and many are faced with the decision of if and how to develop their associations, the city took upon themselves to investigate possible forms for this. An option that seems interesting is adopting an entrepreneurial approach. According to Helen, it is not to change to a capitalist focus, but that a business plan can aid in structuring their work. Doing so would also make it easier for an association to present the values they create, since the city needs to see a return on their investments - not money but results. To encourage and enable the associations to change their approach, possible measure could be offering entrepreneurial or business coaching. Another suggestion has been IOP-contracts (idea-driven public partnerships), which in practice allow contracts to run for longer than a year, which is usually the case at the moment. On the other hand, Helen argues, no business can expect contracts to run indefinitely. Regardless, the associations are probably better off being self-sustaining than relying on funding from the city. Nevertheless, IOP´s are an interesting alternative which is being investigated, and will hopefully be positively received by the politicians. I inquire whether the city is using other strategies to encourage or facilitating farming. For instance, by offering beneficial land-lease contracts, but that is not the case. Some of the land, like parks and such, are public land, which means it does not cost anything to use the land, and it is available to the general public. The private land is leased out by the city at same cost rate as to rural farmers, which is only around 2kr/m2 per year. There are some exceptions for some associations that engage children and have a pedagogical approach, they have a certain framework agreement with the Streets and Parks department. Applying a business-mindset to the running of the urban farming-associations relates to the willingness to pay; e.g. for the services the association supply. But one also need to consider the members’ willingness to pay. This is discussed in more detail in the next section of the chapter, presenting the findings of the survey (see 4.3). In this interview we touched upon how the respondents’ willingness to pay differs; some were willing to pay quite a lot and some nothing at all, and it did not seem to necessarily correspond with their financial situation. This is quite contradictory compared to the stance of stakeholders in various CSAs, who generally seem to agree that they do not only pay for the vegetables they harvest. Rather they invest in the larger purpose of contributing to a more sustainable way of life. One could argue that those who are willing to pay for urban farming, not considering their financial capabilities, value urban farming more - and in extension paying for an activity increases the value of it. Meanwhile, many consider urban farming to be an activity that should be available to any- and everyone, not something you need to afford to be engaged in. An interesting reflection is if a conversion to a more entrepreneurial structure would affect themembers’ willingness to pay, and what would that mean?

101 I ask Helen whether urban farming has been considered a possible tool for placemaking in urban development, and thereby another argument for further investments in urban farming. She means that it falls under the category of meeting places, which is almost inherent to urban planning and development in Malmö - and meeting places is definitely considered a meaningful effect of urban farming. One of the goals of the Malmö växer-project is to increase the relevance of urban farming on the political agenda, especially as an urban development strategy. As a lot of money has already been dedicated to first Odlingöver gränser and later Malmö växer, one could argue that there is already a certain interest for it. However, if the positive side-effects were presented and made clear, it might be made a higher priority. This could indicate that the unwill- ingness to invest further in urban farming stems more from a lack of knowledge and understanding to the social impact generated by urban farming, rather than a negative attitude towards it. Helen has already contacted the city council and presented this case as an official matter, and it is currently under process. When it all comes down to it, it is the city council’s responsibility to, via the city administration, create opportunities and possibilities for the interests of the residents in Malmö, and there seems to be a large and growing interest for farming. Moreover, it is undeniable that urban farming also contributes with ecosystem services; understanding where food comes from, ‘greenifying’ the city etc., something the is an important aspect in the vision of the future Malmö.

4.2.3 Andreas Anderholm Pedersen - Environmental department Andreas is, unlike the respondents from Malmö stad, not directly involved in the Malmö växer-project. He is the project manager of Malmö Innovationsarena (MIA), previously Malmö Innovationsplattform Sydost. It is an urban development project aimed at finding new approaches, especially alternative financing models, both in terms of acquiring capital and lending capital to other stakeholders. He is, among other things, involved in investiga- tions regarding green bonds and city development funds. The reason why Andreas is a relevant informant to this report is because the MIA-project is reviewing different models measuring social value, i.e. models like the SROI. They are therefore interested in how and what e.g. SROI could contribute with to a project like Malmö växer. A SROI-analysis could emphasize what activities are important in Malmö, other than those generating economic value. Moreover, it is interesting in the scope of MIA, how models like SROI can affect the will to invest, when or if it is made clear what actors who accrue the benefits. An example of this is degraded urban areas; the environmental standards are usually lower, and the will to invest is lower since possible investors might doubt a full return on their investment. But if a SROI, or the likes of it, indicated that there was a return on investments in this area, the will to invest might be higher. If this was proven and communicated, economic agreements could be made to change the causality or pattern of the return. The problem with social returns is that the causality is often not clear, in the same way as it might be with an economic return. In addition, it might not always be the actual investor who accrues the return, it might fall to another actor. Furthermore, unlike environmental effects, like lower CO2-emissions, it is difficult to put a specific number or value on social effects, which might also affect investors will to engage in social efforts negatively - it is more difficult to show results, black-on-white. Andreas does however, express some skepticism to whether a conversion of social value to monetary terms is desirable, as it in a way signifies that value needs to be viewed as money to matter. Should not the social effects that we can see from e.g. urban farming be valuable anyway? And if so does that enhance the capitalist structures in society? From a more philosophical point of view; is that something we want to strive for?

4.2.4 Niclas Mörck - Hemmaodlat Hemmaodlat started as a study group on hydraponics. It has today expanded to a non-profit association of around 100 members (usually 10-12 active members), where they host lectures and workshops on urban farming in general, but with a special focus on hydraponics. Until recently the association were also hosts to a CSA, but due some damage to their equipment, it is currently not active. In the future they would like to expand, both in terms of active members and in taking on assignments, for instance as consultants. Their most pressing problem seem to be that they currently lack capacity to evolve since applying for funding etc. is too time- and resource-consuming. Simultaneously Niclas alludes that they as an association have reached a point where they need to decide how they would like to continue their work - if they were to convert to a more business-like structure, what would it then look like? Since there are not so many active members, the exchange of knowledge is limited, but definitely relevant, both in terms of information and experience. Niclas argues that if less time was put on administrative tasks and applying for funding, they could focus on experimenting with aquaponics, and share this knowledge. Niclas also mentions

102 that they have considered the possibility of cooperating with other urban farming associations, but from what I could gather from our conversation, this is unfortunately quite limited at the moment. Niclas joined Hemmaodlat a few years ago, out of personal interest and as a way to explore a mutual hobby with his wife. As an active member of the urban farming community, Niclas is especially passionate the spreading of knowledge about farming, ecology and sustainability. In our developed society we have lost our understanding of nature and where our food comes from. It has become so simple to just enter a grocery store and buy anything we need, and so we have lost a certain respect for what it takes to grow e.g. carrots or chili. The point is not for Malmö to be self-sustaining in cultivating vegetables, but for the average Malmö-resident to understand and value food. If this understanding and respect is reinstated, we might actually be willing to pay what it costs to produce an ecological, organic, locally produced carrot. I asked Niclas whether they receive any form of support or help from the city of Malmö and if so, what it looks like. First of all, they rent their association premises from MKB at quite generous rates, and so it is an indirect form of support. Secondly, the city funded a project called ‘Bota din klimatångest’ (Cure your climate anxiety), where Hemmaodlat visited schools and gave talks and workshops on the environment and climate change. It was very well received and there was some interest from the schools that took part in the project and from Hemmaodlat to continue the project. However, the funding only lasted one year. Niclas mean that with longer funding contracts, or if the ‘clients’ arranged the funding (according to him they have better possibilities to do so), Hemmaodlat would be able to develop and continue their services. In the case of this project, they were quite limited, as curriculums etc. are set well in advance. Unfortunately, when in contact with the schools about continuing the project, but rearranging the setup so the school would apply for funding, there was no response. This indicates that taking part in projects like ‘Bota din klimatångest’ seems like a good way to engage students, from the schools’ point of view, but only if it requires a minimal effort on their part. Maybe raising the value of activities relating to urban farming, like the project mentioned, would also make clients more inclined to pay for the services?

4.2.5 Malin Nilsson - Odlingsnätverket Seved In the interview with Malin Nilsson we talked about Odlingsnätverket Seved, where she is an active member and a member of the board. She explained that there is a neighborhood garden with both smaller private plots and a larger common plot, where all members are meant to be pitching in a few times during a season. In the neighborhood there are also pallet rim-plantations in connection to housing, setup up by the housing company MKB. Odlingsnätverket Seved have another branch of their association in Enskifteshagen, located in Annelund. The common garden is an important contributing factor to the socio-ecological farming the association is dedicated to create, namely making people in the neighborhood interact and work together. She does not live on Seved herself, but still goes there to enjoy farming with others and the sense of sharing it entails, even though she has a small farm at home where she farms for herself. The reason she started farming stems from a genuine interest in food and her education as a nutritionist. When the time came for an internship, she wanted to learn where food comes from, create a better understanding and relationship to it, as she feels it is unnatural to eat without knowing how or why it came to be. Other important aspects are of course how farming makes the aesthetics of a neighborhood greener and it works as a tool of interaction between the residents in an area. Moreover, neighbors have reported ecological influence the farm on Seved has had; the biological diversity has increased, they see birds, insects and flowers that they haven’t seen before, which is something the whole neighborhood can enjoy. In the Seved-neighborhood Malin has not heard anything but positive feedback. In Enskifteshagen there have been some smaller conflicts within the association, which can be expected as the structure and the composition of members differs a bit. In both cases there is an interesting mix in age and culture among the members, families and elderly, possibly slightly younger in Enskifteshagen. Malin mean that you can witness a wonderful exchange of experience, culture and knowledge. Malin explains that originally she chose this association because she had an interest and was eager to start farming, but there was a fairly long waiting time for a private allotment. Now she is happy that she ended up there, as she enjoys working together with the others in the neighborhood garden more, than just taking care of her own pallet rim. However, there seem to have been some confusion around how much the members are meant to be helping out with the shared garden, some seem to focus more on their own plot, while others are much more engaged in the common garden. The idea is for them all to meet up and then spend some time working together on the garden. The reason for this not being the case, could be caused by some general irregularity within the association and poor communication with the members regarding what is expected of them. They are planning on improving this next year.

103 Due to these irregularities, the association has also had to struggle a bit financially, since they have lacked some structure and time to apply for funding from different entities. Malin mentions that in order for the association to become more economically sustainable they might have to look at new ‘business’-models. One suggestion was to convert the current non-profit association into a economic association (ekonomisk förening), but during our interview we did not go into detail on what this would entail or if that would mean any real changes for the members. They’re are gathering some inspiration from a similar example; a social entrepreneur called Nils Phillips in Rör- stånga. We touched upon the fact that this is a choice many other urban farming associations in Malmö are faced with; should it be more of a business-like structure or should it be for free and more ‘organic’. Malin explains that for them it is very important that their association is not too expensive, as they want it to be accessible to everyone, no matter their financial situation. The purpose of Odlingsnätverket is to spread knowledge around farming, and exactly how it is done in the future is not as important. In board meetings it has also been suggested that they could bring back the workshops that they offered before, coordinated by a ‘farm coordinator’ hired by the association, and possibly charge non-members to partake. To reassume this setup, they would have to hire a new coordinator, which can of course also be slightly problematic; who should it be, the salary, hierarchical issues, etc. Another suggestion is to cooperate with other associations, since they share both interest and to a certain extent challenges, e.g. finding funding. It is however meant to be dealt with further next year. At the time of our interview, it is in the very end of the season, and it makes more sense for Odlingsnätverket to make structural changes in the beginning of next season. Odlingsnätverket Seved also have beehives placed on rooftops around Malmö, which is an activity that is fascinating but unfortunately also time-consuming and is primarily run by a selective few, as it requires a lot of knowledge. It affects the sense of cohesiveness in the group, as everyone is not as involved. Since bee-caretaking does offer some difficulties, they are unfortunately not sure if they will be able to keep maintaining it, and if they do they might put in some more effort in teaching about bee-keeping. The result of the project ‘Odlingöver gränser’ was, as mentioned in the summary of the interview Annette, a suggestion of a sort of umbrella organization for all the urban actors in, where the city administration had a supporting but not controlling role. Malin mentioned an already established network, similar to the umbrella organization in its structure, for urban farmers in Malmö, where the different actors meet 3-4 times a year and talk about how and what they are working with, their progress, etc. It is an opportunity to interact and communicate with other associations, share and exchange knowledge and experiences, and the city is invited to follow the progress of urban farming.

4.2.6 Cyrille Gaubert - Xenofilia Cyrille has a background in small-scale entrepreneurship, and started out with the goal to set up his own urban farm. He is originally from France, but after travelling for a period he decided to settle in Sweden to learn about urban farming, before starting his own. After volunteering for Happy Onion Farm, one of the farms incubated by Stadsbruk, Cyrille offered his services as a consultant and now works with the strategic planning of business development. He is hired as a project manager by the social company Xenofilia, where his main project is Stadsbruk. It is a project funded by Vinnova, and is an incubator for smaller, commercial urban farms. It has been running for about 5 years. The farms and Stadsbruks activities are located at Botildenborg in Västra Skrävlinge, in Rosengård. Xenofilia have and have had some projects in Rosengård, mainly relating to integration efforts, e.g Odla kompis (Grow friend) and Kryddor från Rosengård (Spices from Rosengård). Xenofilia, at large, work with creating meeting places; that is opportunities for different groups in society to interact. There is an ongoing example of this in Bothildenborg called ‘Växtplats Rosengård’ (Habitat Rosengård), where newcomers are taken in to a 22 week-work training program; the first 10 weeks is a training period with Växtplats Rosengård, and during the remaining 12 weeks the participants are engaged in an internship with a building company to refurbish an old house which will be the new head office for Xenofilia’s activities in Malmö. In this process both groups develop a relationship and understanding of the other, which will hopefully improve the newcomers’ chances of entering the labor market and it is a better use of resources for the building company. Stadsbruk’s work can be explained as a method to create integration, greener cities, knowledge health and jobs through entrepreneurship using urban farming as a tool. What Stadsbruk can provide is a model for cities to adopt to make them ‘urban farming-friendly’. As urban farming is a low investment-type of business, in this setup it is not sustainable to treat the farmers as the client, but rather the cities. This is because it is in the cities’ interest to create the positive effects mentioned above as well as providing the residents of their city the possibility to farm. There are branches of this project active in Gothenburg, Växjö, Malmö, soon in Landskrona, and hopefully eventually in Lund, Ängelholm and Copenhagen. The most successful and interesting case is Gothenburg which, as described in

104 the Field visit-section, is a fairly dispersed city, where placemaking has been used as a strategy to make better use of space and create a more tightly knit urban structure. What urban farming can offer that other activities or integration efforts cannot, is use of land. According to Cyrille, the city of Malmö for example, own larger and smaller plots of land which are currently not in use, meaning it is an inefficient use of available land. I suspect that there might even be a risk that the public either develop a weak or a negative relation to these areas and plots, if they do not ever go there. Urban farming can counter this process by making it a point of attraction, and could possibly function as a bridge to further urban development in that area later on. Cyrille mentions that he hopes that in the future, urban farming will be treated as a vital part of urban planning. The success of a local Stadsbruk-branch seems to be quite influenced by the level of support they receive from the city administration which is, in extension, from the political level. Cyrille explains that the setup of the administration, the strategy and the level of engagement from the city’s side is quite different in Gothenburg compared to Malmö. In Gothenburg one department is responsible for all urban farming activities, while in Malmö it falls on different departments depending on the type of activity, which seem to be make the cooperation more confusing and difficult. An example in the case of Stadsbruk is that in Malmö they function as an intermediate in tenant-agreements between the city and the farmers, while in Gothenburg farmers are able to rent land directly from the city. Like so many others, Cyrille also do not consider the produce to be the primary value of urban farming - basically they produce so much more than merely food. He explains it as a combined score, where food production is merely one category. Urban farming earns a higher combined score in categories of economic value, social value, knowledge etc. than many alternative activities. Some of the incubated farms earn next to nothing on their produce, but the aim is to make their business models sustainable so they make money on other activities than merely farming.

4.3 Survey The following section is a descriptive outline of the answers to the survey. Quite a few of the questions were misun- derstood or interpreted in different ways, and the results can therefore not be expressed in exact numbers, as this would be an exaggeration of the precision of the data. Instead it will be described in more general terms, as an indication of the overall direction of the answers. Moreover, as not only did some of questions render different kinds of answers, but many were also openly phrased, i.e. set answering alternatives were not provided. I therefore made a categorization of the most common answers to each question, and created a tally and to obtain an overview. Finally, many provided more than one answer for some questions, which means all their answers were included in the tally. The first question concerned how the respondents first started farming. The majority of the respondents had done so in ways that fit into what I categorized as ‘Other’, meaning not via media, social media, interest or friends and family. The category other included more contextual influences like previous education or other interest, scouting by an association at events or just in the neighborhood, or for most of the children, via their schools. The second most common reason was because there was a personal interest in farming, or a connection to someone who had an interest. The conclusion is that you are most likely to start farming because there is some sort of will to farm, personally or because you are inspired by friends and family, or by the association. More interestingly, it seems to have less to do with external influences like media, official promotion etc. The main reason given forwhy the respondents farm is quite simply because they find it interesting. The second most frequent answer has to do with harvesting and consuming crop you’ve grown yourself. This is connected to both knowing and understanding where your food comes from, and having produced it yourself. Moreover, a lot of people seem to value the ‘togetherness’ of farming. This response is however slightly more difficult to decipher: the children don’t seem to consider the value of this as much as the adults, which skews the result slightly. However, when asked what farming gives you, providing the three alternatives of: products, a sense of togetherness or other, including a blank space for elaboration or examples, togetherness is more frequently mentioned than produce. This is even more remarkable when considering that some respondents farm alone, without much exchange from the other members in the association. Though produce does not seem unimportant. In the ‘other’-category aspects like satisfaction, knowledge, fellowship, and to a lesser degree; health, were often mentioned. This emphasizes that most farmers seem to value the more social effects, which in turn proves that if one was to assign value to urban farming, it would have to include more than merely the value crop. What most respondents farm is quite varied, but the majority mentioned vegetables, herbs and a quite a few also cultivated flowers, beans, berried and so forth. It was an openly-phrased question where respondents only listed either more general categories (flowers, vegetables) or specific examples (strawberries, eggplant), but didn’t elaborate any further. Without being able to draw any real conclusions from this, it seems most people farm what they find interesting and what the climate and other circumstances allow them to farm.

105 The respondents were also asked how they farm. Since the interpretation of the question, and in extension also the answers differed a lot, the answers were categorized as at home or with the association. A small majority indicate that farming with the association was more popular, which is natural since they were contacted via their association. Quite a few obviously checks both boxes, where it is not clear if at home means on their balcony or in their garden. This emphasized is by the response to the question on whether the respondents would have farmed even if the association did not exist. A majority claimed that they definitely would, and substantial part of the respondents said they would to a certain degree (respondents were interpreted to fit in one of these categories, not both). A few answered maybe, and about as many answered that they would not farm if their association did not exist. Yet, it is important to consider that is not clear if the respondents contemplated on whether they would have started farming if it was not for this particular organization. Moreover, claiming that you would farm anyway could also be a way of expressing one’s passion and enthusiasm in farming. For instance, on the question “do you think you will still be farming in 5 years?”, all but three said they would, and many had added excited comments such as “definitely” and “urban farming is my life”. This is probably true. However, in the context of a survey like this one, it might make sense to some to exaggerate their interest, for instance to make even more of an impression on the receivers, i.e. the city of Malmö, who have resources to support urban farming. This is merely a critical reflection on the responses, considering how the respondents might have treated the survey. Out of the three who gave a negative response, one thought he/she would be too old in 5 years, one was not very interested in urban farming all together, and one gave the reason that he/she would be a teenager in 5 years (maybe be preoccupied with other activities). In addition, many respondents included comments expressing hope to expand their current farming activities, some even hoping to pursuing it on a commercial level. Some responded that they would like to do it more at home in a garden they did not yet own. Contradictory to the reasoning above, most claim that a possibility to farm has not influenced their choice of location of residence. It could be that they have lived in the same area for many years, since before they started farming. What I found surprising was how many of the respondents who claim that farming possibilities actually has influenced; almost half the amount of those who said it had not, said it had. Some other said that it has affected to a certain extent or that it could in the future, meaning that all in all more people than not feel that the possibilities of farming have or will in the future have some sort of influence on where they live. Though, the responses to the question how much the respondents are willing to pay for farming provides quite an interesting perspective on the reasoning in the paragraph above; the grand majority are willing to pay between 100-500 SEK/year, and an important proportion mean that farming should be for free. Those who claim to be willing to pay more than 500 SEK/year seem to be in need of to more expensive equipment (e.g. aquaponics), or other materials they can use to farm. This indicates that urban farming generates a certain value, but the willingness to pay for farming does not necessarily correlate stringently. The willingness to pay and the amount one is willing to pay naturally depends on your personal economical resources. On the other hand, that should not be reflected in the results of the survey, as it includes residents from different areas in Malmö, and thereby different socioeconomic groups. It seems more likely that most of the members would like to pay more than they are today, or that urban farming is not considered to be a very costly activity. Moreover, the grand majority of the respondents claim that farming has had a positive effect on their neighborhood, including factors such as variety of culture, esthetic appeal, neighbors and residents interacting briefly or creating more long-term relations, farms being a place to meet, a sense of responsibility, and a sense of mutual interest. Those who said it has not had an effect mostly did not live in the area where the farm was located. Quite a few did not respond to if and how urban farming has affected their area, especially the children. The reason for this could be that they have not reflected on it. The few who had experienced negative effects mentioned theft or farming being a source of conflict, people not “following the common consensus”, or stealing. However, those who did mention negative effects usually also had a positive input. The survey also inquired into why the respondents find their form of farming suitable, and it has mostly to do with it being in close proximity to their home, making it accessible or it being a practical setup where you help out as much as you have time for, the association organize the activities, it is not too demanding, etc. As many of the children were involved via their school and might not have actively chosen this particular setup, many of them skipped answering this question. On another more practical note, the kind of help the respondents feel that they receive from their association is mostly linked to advice, knowledge and practical help, either that they receive from each other or from the organizers. Otherwise, many mention materials such as soil, tools, water and such. A significant, but smaller proportion mention that the association gives them ideas, inspiration and contribute in the form of administrative services. It seems as though the association keep in touch and spread information mostly via mail and electronic newsletters, and in quite a few cases via social media (mostly Facebook), which could be an indication of association

106 actively trying to include and activate their members. In contrast, it seems that the second most common mode of sharing information is via word of mouth, i.e. when at the plots or meetings - a more informal approach. Finally, the survey included three questions: “are there any more services that you would wish to see”, “how would like to see the association/organization to develop” and “what do you expect from the association/organization”, which seemed to be quite confusing and difficult to differentiate between. A lot of respondents even chose to not answer all or any of these questions. This means that the results on these questions are quite ambiguous. What can be said is that most members hope to see their association develop, get more established, improve its network, expand the association and range of services (café, garbage collection and such), increase the possibilities to farm, work to encourage and spread the word about farming, etc. Quite a few hope to see the association maintain its work on the same level. Some respondents even seemed worried that the association would be able to keep their land.

5. Discussion The first section of this chapter will be dedicated to briefly summarizing the information presented in the empirical chapters, emphasized by references to the theory. The following section aims to reflect on the meaning and implications of an increased sense of legitimacy. This is the stepping stone for the final section, which means to establish whether, and if so why a SROI-analysis would generate the desired results. What we have seen so far is that it seems almost undisputed that urban farming has a social impact, which creates value, both to the farmers themselves, but also to the neighborhood at large. This is confirmed by literary sources as well as by the public sector and the urban farming community. Moreover, viewing this from the perspective of metabolic rift; we have become distanced and alienated from nature, which means that we to some extent have lost our understanding and appreciation of food and the production of food. Niclas Mörck (4.2.4) passionately asserted that this absence of understanding and appreciation has thwarted the value we assign to it, and if was restored we might e.g. be more inclined to pay the higher production costs for organically farmed foods. From the city administrative level there is engagement; several investments and projects have been dedicated to support urban farming activities in Malmö, and more are underway. Again, one of the aims of Malmö växer-project is to create the same recognition on a political level, and make urban farming a more highly prioritized issue on the political agenda. In the project’s application to Vinnova one of the strategies suggested to achieve this is to conduct a SROI. Though, what would this result mean in the scope of the Malmö växer-project? What is the purpose of it and how would the result be applied practically? As described in the theoretical chapter, a SROI can measure the more intangible values of urban farming-activities, and express it in economic terms, i.e. what is it worth. This is done for one of two reasons: to increase legitimacy or to optimize resource allocation. In this case, what seems most relevant is the former; increasing the legitimacy of urban farming, by showing its value, it can prove to be a relevant investment from a political point of view.

5.1 The point of legitimacy As previously stated, it is not uncommon with issues of legitimacy in the third sector, partially since results are not demonstrated as directly and with the same intentions as their private- or public sector counterparts. SROI could be a useful and suitable tool to increase the legitimacy of urban farming on a political level, as it functions as a tool for third sector-actors to communicate their competency, process, impact and hence return on investments. One could argue, which is also indicated by the results in this study, that urban farming lacks some legitimacy, as their generated social impact is not being given proper acclaim, according to several parties. On the other hand, the reason for this might be caused by deficiencies in communication, and their contribution is not conveyed clearly enough. Regardless, these reasons are both compatible with the potential purpose of conducting a SROI. What is important to discern though, is what increased legitimacy could render the urban farming community in Malmö? And would that correspond with their needs and wishes? The interviews and the survey imply that one of the more common struggles for the associations is the ongoing search for funding. Increased investments from the public sector could, if not solve, then aid in tending to issues relating to funding. However, these issues are also highly associated with a too heavy administrative burden and in some cases a need of restructuring within the associations. Several of the urban actors approached in this study have stated or suggested that their association are at a point where they need to consider the next step in their development; possibly through taking on an entrepreneu-

107 rially oriented approach, stagnating or downsizing. The entrepreneurial approach could be a path which could also tend to the needs of restructuring, and offer a more sustainable mode of financing activities, i.e. decreasing their -de pendence on public investments. Instead urban farming associations could present their work as a form of service, which would allow them to demand a certain charge in exchange for supplying said services. Nonetheless the city administration has expressed expectations on a return of their investments; meaning evidence of the social outcome generated, not a monetary repayment. This argument is brought up in the context of attempting an entrepreneurial approach, since that would also involve urban farming-associations putting some effort into ‘selling’ their services, i.e. a different incitement of proving or demonstrating the return they generate. What an entrepreneurial approach would entail more specifically is not within in the scope of this report. However, it seems as though there is some opposition, maybe from the third sector in general, but at least from the urban farming community, to enter what could be thought of as a more capitalist structure. My interpretation of their concerns is that their interest ends up revolving around profit-making, and not contributing to the community, being charitable and partaking simply for enjoyment. Basically, there might be a risk of sacrificing some of the ideology to favor commercial interests. Furthermore, there is the moral concern of whether social impact need to generate an economic value to be considered valuable? From the perspective of SROI; the value of a sense of safety, fellowship or wellbeing is priceless, since it depends on the stakeholders’ experience of change. The urban farming community and its supporters are hoping that increased legitimacy, would generate further investments and make urban farming a prioritized issue in relation to other investments or projects. According to Cyrille (interview 4.2.6) urban farming is today an excellent temporary use of land; it can be a tool for placemaking, it can secure a more efficient use of land, it provides ecosystem services etc. Today some associations seem to worry whether they will get to keep the land they are farming on, and even more problematic are their prospects of expanding their farming activities. Malmö is a city known for having relatively much free land, but the strategy to cope with a swiftly expanding population is to densify the city. This intensifies the competition for land: with this increase in population, there is for example a pressing need for land for school playgrounds. Compared to this issue, expanding farming activities might not be considered as important. Another issue in Malmö is that much of the ground and soil is contaminated, due to many years of industrial production. This means that the available land suitable for farming is limited. Increased legitimacy by recognizing the value of the social impact urban farming creates, could be a way of making it a part of urban planning.

5.1.1 Comparing with Gothenburg for perspective The conditions for urban farming in Gothenburg is, compared to Malmö, quite different. As briefly mentioned in the Field visit-section (4.1.2) all projects and matters concerning urban farming are dealt with at the Property development department, where it is the main task of two civil servants, who (fortunately) are also personally invested in the development of urban farming in Gothenburg. These factors naturally make for a more efficient and less complicated handling and communication on urban farming issues. The same setup is unfortunately not possible in the city administration of Malmö at the moment. Furthermore, Gothenburg seem to be treating urban farming as a more highly prioritized matter on the political agenda than Malmö; a telling indication of this are the large differences in funding of urban farming-projects and -efforts. Moreover, several influential actors on the political level have publicly shown their personal interest and support for the matter. During our visit it was clear though, that much of the success in execution of their different projects is related to good the communication between the political level, the city administration and the urban farming actors. Finally, one could easily argue that since urban farming also has the function of aiding in creating a more tightly knit urban structure, the importance of it as a strategy is also more pertinent in the case of Gothen- burg. Urban farming does not have the same purpose in Malmö, since there the issues, needs and resources are quite different. What is clear however is that the degree of legitimacy seems closely correlated with how urban farming is prioritized as a matter on the political level, and by extension, on the city administrative level.

5.2 The applicability of SROI What a SROI-analysis could concretely contribute with is conveying intangible social impact and thereby value in a relatable and, to a certain extent, comparable way. During the interview with Andreas (4.2.3) we touched upon the fact that efforts and projects of social character, like urban farming, might be a less interesting alternative for investments, than for instance environmental efforts where changes can be measured more specifically; the change in ph-value in a lake, etc. To make social efforts like urban farming a comparably attractive investment, one would

108 also have to be able to offer evidence of impact - black-on-white. Moreover, because SROI expresses the value of social impact in monetary terms it facilitates the possibility of evaluating it as an investment, which makes it an even more relevant tool. The results though, are not as accessible as they may seem; it is important to note that SROI does not convert the social impact into a monetary value, but rather expresses it in monetary terms. Also, even with a numeric result it is not necessarily directly comparable to other cases as they are highly dependent on the context. Finally; can a numeric value fully demonstrate the complete social impact or effect? In addition, the extent to which this kind of result is actually interesting to the city council (among others naturally), in the scope of Malmö växer, is highly unclear. Recently, members from the city council were invited to take part in a workshop on urban farming that will be held later this year. Considering that the shortage of priority might be due a lack of insight or understanding, introducing city council members, who are in a position of influence, to what urban farming is and means to those involved or affected, could be a first and meaningful step to increase legitimacy. A more practical issue is how the SROI-analysis would actually be designed and conducted. The development sought after is on a structural level, while SROI is modelled to investigate individual organizations, efforts and projects. In other words; one analysis cannot encompass all urban farming organizations and actors in Malmö. One could argue that the results from one analysis would function as a case study, assuming that other projects and association contribute with a similar social impact. However, even though the conditions of urban farming are de- cidedly dependent on the local circumstances (the support from the local government etc.), the effects of urban farming in Malmö could resemble that of cases in other cities. If there are other analyses measuring the social impact of urban farming, would that not also indicate that the same activities would have an impact in Malmö? Would further research complementing the existing research on the value that urban farming creates not be more relevant? These queries could be the foundation of future research projects, possibly where a type of SROI is conducted. The conclusion of this research is that it might not be the social value expressed in monetary terms that is of interest, but rather one that shows that urban farming has contributed with some kind of change. Otherwise one risks com- plicating the process by adding an extra layer to the analysis, which purpose is quite unclear. “Money talks”, but in this case the meaning of it can be misleading. Finally, what would we learn from the results of a SROI-analysis? The intention is that it would highlight and clarify the social impact and effects of urban farming in Malmö. This could aid in proving the value, which in turn could function as a tool for the associations to communicate it more clearly to the city administrates, and more importantly, to the city council. This would hopefully strengthen the sense of legitimacy in relation to urban farming activities, and make it a more prioritized matter on the political agenda.

5.2.1 Further research Theory of change (2.1.1) is the foundation of the SROI-model. It attempts to illustrate the shared value, i.e. focuses on increasing the general, rather than profit-making within separate units. It is quite a utilitarian idea, but seem to fit better in with idealism of third sector organizations. Like the SROI, it can provide information on what value is created by certain interventions. It would be interesting for further research to investigate if and possibly how the theory of change could be used to map out the social impact, and so also the value generated by urban farming.

6. Conclusion Given the data and the information presented in this report, there seem to be a fair amount of evidence supporting the claim that there is not only a growing interest for urban farming, but it also generates a social impact, for those participating and for the city at large. The main focus of the report has not been to express in concrete terms what this social impact is, but with the perspective of social capital and social sustainability it can briefly be summarized as kinship in the neighborhood, an increased sense of safety, enjoyment of working together, greenery etc. It can be used as tool for integration and as an opportunity for employment. Moreover, which was emphasized especially in the semi-structured interviews, there are ecosystem benefits (see 2.2.1 and 2.2.3), that cannot be compared with other activities creating the same kind of social impact. In the light of this, it also seems reasonable to argue that this social impact generates some kind of value. However, whether it is possible or necessary to properly express this value in monetary terms remains inconclusive. SROI is a tool to measure the social, economic and environmental impact of certain interventions. It has been the suggested method of measuring and calculating the economic value of social impact of urban farming. The intended effect is either an increased sense of legitimacy or optimized resource allocation, and what seems most

109 relevant in this context is the former, since one of the aims of Malmö växer is to make urban farming a more prioritized matter on the political agenda, along with anchoring it with the public of course. SROI could be a suitable method to achieve this, as it can function as a tool of communication and provide results that are accessible. People of influence might respond well to some sort of actual ‘proof’ of the impact, and numbers is a clear way of expressing that. However, there is a risk of when expressing social value in monetary terms, it becomes a tool of justifying an investment instead of legitimizing a cause. The social impact of urban farming should desirable to us regardless if they hold a monetary or not. It would be a dystopian society if we were always looking for the investment that generated the largest return, instead of developing our sense of community, welfare and social relations. Initial steps have been taken to present urban farming and what it entails, to the city council. Merely demonstrating the workings and the meaning could light a spark of interest, which could lead to increased support, like in the case of Gothenburg where the level of investment in urban farming is very different. Another way of achieving legitimacy could be for the urban farming associations adopt a more entrepreneurial model, where they concretize the value they contribute with, as an argument for why stakeholders can expect a return on their investments. Mor- eover, this approach could be beneficial as several associations are at a crossroad where they are need more structure within the organization, and make it more economically sustainable, so that they can dedicate their time to their actual interest: urban farming. If a SROI-analyses was to be conducted, there would be some point needed to take into consideration: 1. How can it be designed so it gives a correct reflection of the results? Can one analysis be representative of the urban farming in general in Malmö? Or is it preferable to conduct more, but smaller in scope? 2. What is the purpose of conducting a SROI-analysis? Will it provide the knowledge sought after? Are we looking to optimize allocation of resources or is the need an increased sense of legitimacy? 3. And most importantly, are those who this knowledge will be presented to interested in this kind of result? How will they respond to it and possibly use it? This report has attempted to describe and explain what SROI is, how it is used, the results and considerations for interpretation, and what one can hope to achieve with these results. Moreover, the aim has been to provide a contextual and theoretical understanding of urban farming and the social impact it can generate.

110 Bibliography

Literary sources Arefi, M. (2014). ‘Deconstructing Placemaking : Needs, Opportunities, And Assets’. Florence: Taylor and Francis. [E-book]. Arvidsson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S. and Moro, D. (2013). ‘Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring the social return on investment (SROI)’, Voluntary Sector Review, vol.4 (1), pp.3-18. Burke Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J., (2004). ‘Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come’, Educational Researcher, vol.33 (7), pp.14-26. Cockrall-King, J. (2012). ‘Food and the City: Urban Agriculture and the New Food Revolution. New York: Prometheus Books. Deelstra and Girardet (2001). ‘Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Cities’, International System for the Agricultural and Techno- logy, pp.43-66. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. and Brown, C. (2009). ‘Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Planning Urban Social Sustainability’, Sustainable Development, vol.19, pp.289-300. Hahn, G., Hök, L. and Janesson, E. (2016). ‘Så mäts socialt hållbart värdeskapande’. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Hörnstein, K. (2010). ‘Stadsodling som begrepp i Sverige: bakgrund, nulägesbeskrivning och tänkbar utveckling’, (Master’s thesis). Alnarp: Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. Available:https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/954/1/hornstein_k_100322.pdf. Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1997). ‘Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol.12 (4), pp.1251-1288. Longhurst, R. (2003). ‘Semi-structured interviews and focus groups’. in N. Clifford and G. Valentine (editors),Key methods in geography (pp. 143–156). London: Sage Publications. Maier, F., Schober, C., Simsa, R. and Millner, R. (2015). ‘SROI as a Method for Evaluation Research: Understanding Merits and Limitations’, International Society for Third Sector Research, vol.26, pp.1805-1830. McClintock, N. (2010). ‘Why farm the city’ Theorizing Urban Agriculture through a Lens of Metabolic Rift’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, vol.3 (2), pp.191-207. McKenzie, S. (2004). ‘Social Sustainability: Towards some definitions’. Magill: Hawke Research Institute, University of South Australia. Millar, R. and Hall, K. (2013). ‘Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Performance Measurement’, Public Management Review, vol.15, pp. 923-941. OECD Insights (2007). ‘What is social capital?’ Human capital. Collected: 2017.12.12, from: https://www.oecd.org/insights/ humancapital-tableofcontents.htm. Phillips, P., Aaron, B., and Phillips, J. (2013). ‘Survey Basics’. Alexandria, Va: American Society for Training & Development. Portes, A. (1998). ‘SOCIAL CAPITAL: Its origins and Applications in Modern Sociology’, Annu. Rev. Sociol., vol.24, pp.1-24. Punch, S. (2012). ‘Hidden struggles of fieldwork: Exploring the role and use of field diaries’,Emotion, Space And Society, vol.5 (2), pp.86-93. Smit, J and Nasr, J. (1992). ‘Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources’, Urban Agriculture, vol. 4 (2), pp.141-152.

Electronic sources Project for Place Spaces (2009). What is Placemaking? Project for Public Spaces. Available: https://www.pps.org/reference/what_ is_placemaking/. RUAF Foundation (n/d). Urban agriculture: what and why? Available: http://www.ruaf.org/urban-agriculture-what-and-why. Uppsala Kommun (2017). Inspirationsguide - för dig som vill odla i Uppsala. Available: https://www.uppsala.se/contentas- sets/83b17ed652e74e2c9c6958360e616299/stadsnara_odling_2017.pdf.

Moving picture Finley, R. (2013). A guerilla gardener in South Central LA, [Film]. TED talks. Available: https://www.ted.com/talks/ron_fin- ley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la/up-next. Schaffer, K. (2014). Odla mat och gemenskap, [Film]. UR Samtiden. Available: https://urskola.se/Produkter/182446-UR-Sam- tiden-Odla-i-stan-Odla-mat-och-gemenskap.

111 Official documents Malmö kommun (2016). Malmö, the growing city – new governance models for urban gardenin., Ansökan till Vinnova, reg.nr: 2016-03041. Ecology Action Centre (2016). The Halifax Food Policy Alliance - A Social Return On Investment (SROI) Study. Office of the third sector (2009).A guide to Social Return on Investment. UK: Cabinet office. Office of the third sector (2012).A guide to Social Return on Investment. UK: Cabinet office.

Suggested further reading on why urban farming generates social impact Glover, T.D. and Parry, D.C. (2005). ‘Building Relationships, Accessing Resources: Mobilizing Social Capital in Community Garden Contexts’, Journal of Leisure Research, vol.37 (4), pp.450-474. Glover, T.D. (2003). ‘The Story of the Queen Anne Memorial Garden: Resisting a Dominant Cultural Narrative’, Journal of Leisure Research. Vol.35 (2), pp.190-212. Glover, T.D., Shinew, K.J. and Parry, D.C. (2005). ‘Association, Sociability, and Civic Culture: The Democratic Effect of Community Gardening’ Journal of Leisure Research. Vol.27, pp.75-92. Larsson, M. (2009). Stadsdelsträdgård - plats för gemenskap och kreativa processer (Doctoral thesis, 1652-6880). Alnarp: Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. Available: www.pub.epsilon.slu.se/2009/1/MarieLarsson_lowres.pdf. Molin, A. (2014). ‘Stadsodling via brukarmedverkan: Att skapa mötesplatser och trygghet i det offentliga rummet’ (Mas- ter’s thesis). Uppsala: Kulturgeografiska institutionen, Uppsala universitet. Available: www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/ diva2:729534/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Vidner, S. (2015). ‘Bostadsnära odling: En fallstudie av bostadsområdet Herrgården i Malmö utifrån fastighetsägare, koordinator och brukare’ (Master’s thesis). Alnarp: Fakulteten för landskapsarkitektur, trädgårds och växtproduktionsvetenskap, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. Available: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/8341/1/vidner_s_150529.pdf.

112 Reports from Urban Studies Research Internships 2017

MAPIUS 22

113