1. General information Location and description of the intervention City or FUA Göteborg (FUA) Region Europe Short description of the intervention The municipal real estate company Higab partnered with The Foodprint Lab Architects, an architecture firm specialising in food system design, in a three-year pilot project to create urban farms in three of their properties in Gothenburg. The Foodprint Lab designed the urban farms based on the conditions of each property and connected Higab with potential farmers. The urban farms are located at Slakthuset (an old industrial area), Kviberg (by an empty building undergoing renovation) and Musikens hus (an old building used for music events and a restaurant). The farms are established in unused, mostly grey areas such as parking lots. In all sites, the farming is run by local farming associations; some sell vegetables on site and in Kviberg, there has also been a commercial production of vegetables. Sustainable food production, entrepreneurship opportunities, a nicer and safer environment, and the promotion of biodiversity are highlighted as benefits of the project. In total, about 50 different plant species are found across the locations. The establishment of the urban farms was part of the Grow Gothenburg project within the Sharing Cities Sweden program, which provided some of the funding [Ref. 1-5, 7]. Website of the intervention https://www.higab.se/nyhetsarkiv/pressmeddelande-nya-stadsodlingar-vid-higabs-h… Principal problems Environmental Degradation Biodiversity loss Land use and Socio-economic change Agriculture/ crop production Health, Well-being and Social cohesion Insecurity in public spaces Resource Scarcity and Competition Food insecurity due to disruptions in food production and distribution Implementation area characterization Climate Temperate ( Humid subtropical, Hot-summer Mediterranean, Warm-summer Mediterranean, Warm-temperate with dry winter) Ecosystem Urban or built environment Address Djurgårdsgatan 13 414 62 Göteborg Sweden Location The NBS is situated in an area, with clear delineation of boundaries and a specific shape (polygon). The NBS project can also have more than one area location (more than one polygon, situated close by). Area boundary (map-based) Source of NBS area image The project is spread across three locations in the city, marked by points in the map. Each site covers a small area around the point that can not be precisely identified based on the references. The address reported above refers to the site at Musikens hus. Area description Urban (main city) Type of area before implementation of the NBS Mixed-use development (combination of residential, commercial, and/or industrial) Timeline of intervention Start date of the intervention (planning process) 2017 Start date of intervention (implementation process) 2019 End date of the intervention 2021 Present stage of the intervention Completed 2. Objectives of the intervention Objectives of the intervention Goals of the intervention - Utilise unused areas and create a more pleasant and safe environment around the properties [Ref. 1, 3] - Grow food locally through regenerative agriculture to reduce climate impact from food production and transport [Ref. 2-4] - Contribute to biodiversity and pollination by growing a diverse set of plants [Ref. 1-3] - The Foodprint Lab refers to SDG:s in their descriptions of the projects: the projects are intended to contribute to biodiversity, food security, health, community and climate [Ref. 3, 4] Key Priorities Climate action (adaptation and/or mitigation) Social Justice and community Sustainability challenge(s) addressed Climate action for adaptation, resilience and mitigation (SDG 13) Climate change adaptation Climate change mitigation Green space, habitats and biodiversity (SDG 15) Green space creation and/or management Social justice, cohesion and equity (SDG 10) Social interaction Sense of community and community engagement Economic development and employment (SDG 8) Economic development: agriculture Sustainable consumption and production (SDG 12) Sustainable production Food scarcity / security Climate change adaptation: What activities are implemented to realize the conservation goals and targets? Improved agricultural practices for improved food security and prevention of food scarcity Climate change mitigation: What activities are implemented to realize the conservation goals and targets? Improve agricultural practices (e.g. cover cropping, no-till farming, improved manure management) to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and increase carbon storage in soils. Implementation activities and NBS focus Implementation activities 1. On behalf of Higab, The Foodprint Lab conducted a spatial study to identify farmable areas based on micro-climate and movement patterns [Ref. 2]. 2. Potential growers were identified and matched with each site, and associations were formed. 3. The farms were designed with modules for cultivation and seating areas, in some cases in collaboration with the future growers [Ref. 1, 3-4]. 4. Farms were constructed, and farming associations took over operations to grow vegetables and other plants, in some cases to sell to restaurants or the public [Ref. 1-5]. 5. Evaluation of the results of the project [Ref. 2]. Type of NBS project Creation of new green areas Creation of areas for food production (community gardens, allotments) 3. NBS domains, ES and scale NBS domain and interventions Ecological domain(s) where the NBS intervention(s) is/are implemented Community gardens and allotments Community gardens Horticulture Amenities offered by the NBS Benches and drinking water stations Design elements for well-being None of the above Services Expected ecosystem services delivered Provisioning services Food for human consumption (crops, vegetables) Habitat and supporting services Habitats for species Cultural services Social and community interactions Scale Spatial scale Sub-microscale: Street scale (including buildings) Beneficiaries Demographics in implementation area No information found Socio-economic profile of the area Unknown Communities vulnerable to environmental hazards or climate change impacts Unknown Non-government actors Other Primary Beneficiaries Private sector/Corporate/Company Citizens or community groups Food producers and cultivators (i.e. farmers, gardeners) Specify primary beneficiaries The primary beneficiaries are the people growing food on urban farms, which are associations of citizens with varying backgrounds and a common interest in growing food. Vegetables are sold to restaurants or to the public, which can provide some economic benefits. There are also social and health benefits being reported. The urban farms mean that the environment around the buildings in question is more appealing and has more activity, which has safety benefits and benefits both the general public and the property owner (Higab) [Ref. 1-2, 5]. Marginalized groups Unknown Other beneficiaries Local wildlife (e.g., birds, pollinators) Public health (e.g. increased physical activity opportunities, reduced stress) 4. Governance and financing Governance Governance arrangements Government-led Please specify other non-government actors involved The leading actor is Higab, a real estate company run as a corporation but owned by the City of Gothenburg. The company receives directives from the municipal parliament [Ref. 6]. Please specify the roles of the specific government and non-government actor groups involved in the initiative Higab owns the properties where the NBS takes place and seems to be the initiator. The Footprint Lab Architects, a private company, designs the project and identifies potential growers. Growers' Associations are formed to run the urban farms and contribute to the design process. Some businesses have been formed to grow and sell vegetables commercially. A web platform, Grow Here (formerly Grow Gothenburg) is used to advertise the opportunity for citizens to join the urban farming associations in different locations. Key actors - initiating organization Local government/municipality Key actors - Other stakeholders involved (besides initiating actors) Citizens or community group Private sector/corporate actor/company Stages of citizen and community engagement Planning and design (e.g. site selection, identification of key priorities) On-the-ground implementation Level of citizen and community engagement High Community empowerment or capacity-building initiatives Formation of community-led groups responsible for the the implementation, maintenace or monitoring of the project Participatory methods/forms of stakeholder involvement (all stakeholders) Co-planning (e.g. stakeholder workshops, focus groups, participatory mapping) Joint implementation (e.g. tree planting) Uncommon actors ("Missing actors") Unknown Land owners Public space owned by the city Policy drivers NBS intervention implemented in response to a Regional Directive/Strategy Unknown NBS intervention implemented in response to a national regulations/strategy/plan Yes Please specify the national regulations/strategy/plan Sharing Cities Sweden [Ref. 7] If there is a relevant strategy or plan, please specify the theme/type of the plan SDGs National Strategy NBS intervention implemented in response to a local regulation/strategy/plan Yes Please specify the "local regulation/strategy/plan" The Grow Gothenburg initiative is part of the Sharing City Göteborg testbed, which is coordinated by the City of Gothenburg. The Gothenburg testbed, in turn, is part of the national program Sharing Cities Sweden, which promotes the sharing economy in cities within the Viable Cities innovation program [Ref. 7]. Relevant strategy or plan Urban agriculture or food security plans, policies, guidelines Mandatory or voluntary intervention Voluntary (spontaneous) Enablers & Barriers Type of enablers Capacity-building projects Other Please provide details (e.g, name of the plan or strategy) for the selected policies or initiatives. 1. Capacity-building projects: The Grow Gothenburg project is a platform to allow citizens/farmers to connect with land owners who can provide an area for urban farming. The urban farms at the Higab properties is being used as a good example of how that can happen and what benefits it provides [Ref. 2, 7]. 2. Other: The Sharing Cities Sweden project is a national research/innovation program, which does not focus exclusively on NBS. It tests the role of sharing economy in sustainable cities and the Agenda 2030. Governace and decison-making instruments Strategic instruments (e.g. GI strategies, green space strategy or plans) Educational and knowledge sharing instruments (e.g. science/ living labs, awareness raising campaigns, specific educational programs, green hubs) Arrangements for governance cooperation Unknown Barriers The commercial businesses that formed on some of the farms and sold vegetables to restaurants found it difficult to sell during the pandemic. They then resorted to growing for themselves instead [Ref. 5]. One of the initiators at Grow Gothenburg/The Foodprint Lab stated that it can be difficult to explain the value of urban farms to real estate companies since they might not provide a direct economic benefit [Ref. 8]. Financing Total cost Unknown Please specify total cost (EUR) No relevant information on Higab Urban Farms found. The Grow Gothenburg project, which includes other urban farms and services, reported costs of 48 000 EUR in 2018 and 2019. Funding sources for Grow Gothenburg are reported below, but the contribution from Higab is not known. Source(s) of funding Public national budget Other Please specify other source of funding The Grow Gothenburg project was financed within the Sharing Cities Sweden programme, which is funded by the Swedish innovation agency Vinnova, the Swedish Energy Agency and the FORMAS research council [Ref. 7] Type of fund(s) used Direct funding (grants, subsidies, or self-financed projects by private entities) Non-financial contribution Yes Who provided the non-financial contribution? Public authorities (e.g. land, utility services) Citizens (e.g. volunteering) Type of non-financial contribution Provision of land Provision of labour Co-finance for NBS Unknown Entrepreneurship opportunities Yes What entrepreneurship opportunities have arisen from the NBS project? Sustainable agriculture or agroforestry businesses What types of actors are leading the entrepreneurship activities linked to the NBS project? Local community groups/ citizens What types of support are provided to entrepreneurs engaged in NBS-related activities? Unknown Business models Business models Green densification model Vacant space model Which of the involved actors was motivated by this model? Public actor (e.g. municipality) Citizens / local communities 5. Evaluation and learning Impacts, benefits Environmental impacts Climate change Reduced emissions Achieved reduced emissions Green space and habitat Increased green space area Achieved increased green space area Increased number of species present Achieved increased number of species present Enhanced support of pollination Expected enhanced support of pollination Description of environmental benefits 1. Achieved reduced emissions: Calculated 100 kg of saved CO2 emissions from reducing food transport distance [Ref. 2]. 2. Achieved increased green space area: Growing beds were constructed on former parking lots and similar, increasing green space area. The "green space factor" of the properties increased from <0,4 to about 0,65 [Ref. 1-4]. 3. Achieved an increased number of species present: The number of identified plant species increased from <5 to 50+ [Ref. 2]. 4. Expected enhanced support of pollination: An increased presence of flowering plants is expected to support pollination [Ref. 2]. Environmental impact indicators Total number of vascular plant species protected or introduced 45 Economic impacts Generation of other type of work opportunities (e.g. voluntary, work for rehabilitation) Achieved generation of other type of work opportunities (e.g. voluntary, work for rehabilitation) Reduce financial cost for urban management Expected reduce financial cost for urban management Increase in agricultural production (for profit or not) Achieved increase in agricultural production (for profit or not) Generation of income from NBS Expected generation of income from NBS Description of economic benefits 1. Achieved generation of other type of work opportunities (e.g. voluntary, work for rehabilitation): The farming associations are made up of voluntary workers, who recieve a share of the vegetables produced [1-2, 5]. 2. Expected reduce financial cost for urban management 3. Achieved increase in agricultural production (for profit or not): 500 kg of vegetables were produced in areas where there was no food production before [Ref. 2]. 4. The associations sell some of the vegetables to the public or restaurants [Ref. 1, 5]. Economic impact indicators Increase in agricultural production (kg or %) 500 kg Social and cultural impacts Social justice and cohesion Improved access to urban green space Achieved improved access to urban green space Increased opportunities for social interaction Achieved increased opportunities for social interaction Increased involvement of locals in the management of green spaces Achieved increased involvement of locals in the management of green spaces Increased access to healthy/affordable food Achieved increased access to healthy/affordable food Increased sustainability of agriculture practices Expected increased sustainability of agriculture practices Education Increased knowledge of locals about local nature Expected increased knowledge of locals about local nature Safety Increased perception of safety Expected increased perception of safety Social and cultural impact indicators Number of community events, gatherings, or volunteer activities organized in green spaces 25 Description of social and cultural benefits 1. Achieved improved access to urban green space: Green space has been created in formerly grey areas, such as parking lots [Ref. 3, 4] 2. Achieved increased opportunities for social interaction: Members of the growing associations emphasize social interaction in taking care of the farms together. Activities and tours at the farms are organised [Ref. 2, 5]. 3. Achieved increased access to healthy/affordable food: The members of the growing associations get organic vegetables to bring home, and some are available to the local public to buy [Ref. 2, 5]. 4. Expected increased sustainability of agriculture practices: The farms are small-scale and organic and use regenerative methods. There is a diversity of plants grown. Less transport compared to conventional food production. In total, it's expected to be better for the climate and for biodiversity [Ref. 1-4]. 5. Expected increased perception of safety: The establishment of the farms in previously empty environments increases the activity, which is expected to increase the perception of safety [Ref. 1-2]. 6. Achieved increased involvement of locals in the management of green spaces: Locals can become members of their local grower's association and become active in managing the urban farms [Ref. 2, 5]. 7. Expected increased knowledge of locals about local nature: Those active in the grower's associations are expected to learn about farming and plants. There are also guided tours held of the farms [Ref. 5]. Evidence for use of assessment Presence of an assessment, evaluation and/or monitoring process Yes Actors involved in the assessment, monitoring or evaluation of NBS impacts Local government/municipality Private sector/corporate actor/company Presence of indicators used in reporting Yes Type of indicators Outcome indicators Presence of monitoring/evaluation reports Yes Link to monitoring/evaluation reports https://grow-here.com/en/transforming-land-to-urban-farms/, https://static1.squ… Availability of a web-based monitoring tool No evidence in public records Name of any specific impact assessment tools Unknown Use of GIS in mapping impacts No evidence in public records Cost-benefit analysis Unknown Transparency Clear communication channels for stakeholders to provide feedback, raise concerns, and ask questions about the project Justice Community satisfaction Positive: The majority of feedback and reports indicate high levels of satisfaction and appreciation for the NBS project within the community. Description of locals satisfaction with the project References report that both the growers and the real estate company were happy with the initiative. The people getting involved in the association are described as having a strong interest in growing their own food. The urban farms are also reported to attract visitors from the public, both spontaneously and in organised tours [Ref. 1, 2, 5]. Trade-offs & Negative impacts Unknown Emphasis of existing social inequalities or injustices No information reported related to negative social justice-related impacts of the NBS project Measures to prevent gentrification or displacement No initiatives or policies were implemented High-quality & Transformative NBS Multiple impacts delivery (climate, biodiversity, just community) Yes Goal setting and impacts delivery No, although benefits were delivered in all the 3 key areas, but in the planning phase, the project did not aim to address issues in all the 3 key priority areas. Long-term perspective Unknown: No information about the project's long-term sustainability. Cost-effective solutions Unknown Equitable impacts A. All stakeholders benefit fairly from the project Transformative capacity Social change (e.g. social relationships, networks and dynamics within them) Ecological change (e.g. ecosystem functions and their distribution) Magnitude of change Incremental: shallow; that is, mostly maintaining business-as-usual approaches to adaptation Application of lessons learned The NBS has been shared or used as a good practice to trigger transformative change Perception of Environmental Change Unknown 6. Sources References 1. Higab (2019). Pressmeddelande: Nya stadsodlingar vid Higabs hus. Accessed on August 15, 2024, [Source link] [Archive]; 2. Grow Here (n.d.). Finding passionate growers – how Higab turned unused land into urban farms. Accessed on August 15, 2024, [Source link] [Archive]; 3. The Foodprint Lab Architects (n.d.). DESIGN OF PUBLIC PLACES. Accessed on August 15, 2024, [Source link] [Archive]; 4. The Foodprint Lab Architects (n.d.). EDIBLE MEETING PLACES. Accessed on August 15, 2024, [Source link] [Archive]; 5. Möller, V, (2021). Glädjen i att odla tillsammans. Landets fria tidning, Accessed on August 15, 2024, [Source link] [Archive]; 6. Higab (n.d.). Om Higab. Accessed on August 15, 2024, [Source link] [Archive]; 7. Naraine, J. (2019). Grow Gothenburg Slutrapport testbädden Sharing City Göteborg, 2018–2019 . Grow Gothenburg, [Source link] [Archive]; 8. Möller, V. (2021). ”Visionen är en stadsodling i varje kvarter”. Landets Fria Tidning, Accessed on August 16, 2024, [Source link] [Archive]; Comments and notes Public Images Image The urban farm at Musikens hus Ref. 2 Image The urban farm in Kviberg https://grow-here.com/farm/stalltappan-i-kviberg/
