Integrated Decision-Making of Urban Agriculture within the Greyfield Regeneration Environments (UAGR)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Problem
1.1.1. Crisis in Contemporary Urban Development
1.1.2. Urban Agriculture on the Rise
1.2. Urban Agriculture in Regeneration Environments
1.2.1. The Intersection of Urban Regeneration and Urban Agriculture
1.2.2. Decision-Making of Urban Agriculture in Regeneration Environments and Progressive Urban Regeneration Processes
1.3. Research Aim
1.4. Research Design and Methodology
2. Literature Review on Urban Agriculture: A Corresponding Strategy for Cities in the Context of Climate Change?
2.1. Impacts of Climate Change on Urban Agriculture
2.2. Impact of Urban Agriculture on Climate Change Mitigation
2.3. Climate Adaptation in Urban Agriculture
3. The Processes and Influencing Factors of UAGR
3.1. Identification of Multiple Benefits from UAGR
3.2. Identification of the Process for Urban Regeneration in Urban Agriculture
3.2.1. Inception Phase of UAGR Project
3.2.2. Construction phase of the UAGR Project
3.2.3. Operation and Management Stage of UAGR Project
3.3. Identification of Factors Influencing Decisions in UAGR
4. Integrated Decision-Making Methods
4.1. Overview of Decision-Making Methods in Urban Agriculture
4.2. Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) Methodology
4.3. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) Approach
4.4. Research Design
4.4.1. Fuzzy Delphi Method Questionnaire Design and Research
Questionnaire Design
Research Scope and Subject Selection
4.4.2. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) Questionnaire Design and Research
5. Analysis Results
5.1. Analysis Results of Factors Affecting UAGR Decision-Making Based on the Fuzzy Delphi Method
5.1.1. Analysis of Initial Questionnaire Results
5.1.2. Analysis of the Results of the Second Round of Questionnaires
5.1.3. Identification of Influencing Factors and Analysis of Findings
Screening of Influencing Factors
Discussion
5.2. Results of Decision-Making Modeling in UAGR Based on Explanatory Structural Modeling Approach
5.2.1. Analysis and Modeling Results of Explanatory Structural Models
Creating an Adjacency Matrix
Computing Reachable Matrices Using MATLAB
Using MATLAB to Delineate the Hierarchy and Model the Explanatory Structure
5.2.2. Analysis and Conclusions of the Decision-Making Model
Direct Impact Factors
Intermediate Layer Influencing Factors
Underlying Influences
Conclusion of the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) Application
5.3. Case Study Results on Shanghai Chuangzhi Agricultural Park
5.3.1. Empirical Research Results from Hangzhou Cases
5.3.2. Case Study Results on Shanghai Chuangzhi Agricultural Park
6. Discussion
6.1. Policy and Risk Perspectives
6.2. Lack of Existing Regulatory Basis for UAGR in Chinese Cities
6.3. The Exploration of Policies for UAGR in China
7. Conclusions
7.1. Research Summary and Results
7.2. Innovations
7.3. Limitations of the Study
7.4. Application Prospects of Research Results
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dong, W. Greyfield regeneration and its research progress in urban greyfield with agriculture in recent decades. Archit. Cult. 2015, 10, 113–115. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J. Urban Renewal and Disadvantaged Groups from the Perspective of Social Exclusion. Ph.D. Thesis, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, J.; Chen, Y.; Mou, W. Review and Prospect of Urban Agriculture Research. Urban Dev. Res. 2011, 18, 57–63. [Google Scholar]
- Shiro, A. Agricultural Economic Geography; Jungwenkaku: Tokyo, Japan, 1935. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, T. Research on Urban Agricultural Activities and Design Strategies. Ph.D. Thesis, Shandong University of Architecture, Jinan, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, X. On Development of Urban Agriculture Tourism in Guangzhou. Agric. Mod. 2002, 23, 124–126. [Google Scholar]
- Alborzi, A.Z. Feasibility of Urban Agriculture in Existing Cities: The Case of Gainesville, Florida. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, G.; Doick, K.J.; Burningham, K.; France, C. Brownfield regeneration to greenspace: Delivery of project objectives for social and environmental gain. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 586–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whiteman, E.D.Z. Managing Urban Vacancy: Decision Strategies for Vacant Lot Reuse in Baltimore, Maryland. Ph.D. Thesis, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, J. Research on the Interaction between Urban Marketing and Architectural Planning in China’s Urban Renewal. Ph.D. Thesis, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Su, S.; Zhuang, W. Research significance of spatial prediction and spatial evaluation in architectural planning. J. Archit. 2010, 4, 24–26. [Google Scholar]
- Khouma, M.; Ndour, Y.; Ndong, M.S.; Niang, Y.; Dial, M.; Niang, I.; Diagne, M.O.; Fall, J.P.Y.; Padgham, J. Knowledge Assessment on Climate Change and Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in Dakar, Senegal. In Water, Food, Energy Security and Urban Liveability: Challenges and Opportunities for the Future of Peri-Urban Areas; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 341–354. [Google Scholar]
- Dube, T.; Sibanda, S.; Chiwara, P. Adapting peri-urban agriculture to climate change in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: A qualitative assessment. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 1944486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, C.M.; Troutman, J.P.; Awal, R.; Habibi, H.; Fares, A. Climate change-induced variations in blue and green water usage in US urban agriculture. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 348, 131326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naazie, G.K.; Agyemang, I.; Tampah-Naah, A.M. Characterization of urban agriculture and farmers’ climate change adaptation: The case of Urban Wa, Ghana. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, B.; Hauschild, M.; Fernández, J.; Birkved, M. Testing the environmental performance of urban agriculture as a food supply in northern climates. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chari, F.; Ngcamu, B.S. Climate change and its impact on urban agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: A literature review. Environ. Socil-Econ. Stud. 2022, 10, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pande, C.B.; Moharir, K.N.; Varade, A.M.; Abdo, H.G.; Mulla, S.; Yaseen, Z.M. Intertwined impacts of urbanization and land cover change on urban climate and agriculture in Aurangabad city (MS), India using google earth engine platform. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 422, 138541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fertas, L.; Alouat, M.; Benmahamed, H. The Emergence of Irrigated Agriculture in Semi-Arid Zones in the Face of Climate Change and Urbanization in Peri-Urban Areas in Setif, Algeria. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lwasa, S.; Mugagga, F.; Wahab, B.; Simon, D.; Connors, J.P.; Griffith, C. A meta-analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry in mediating climate change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 13, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucertini, G.; Di Giustino, G. Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture as a Tool for Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: The Case of Mestre. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mensah, J.K. Urban agriculture, local economic development and climate change: Conceptual linkages. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2023, 15, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begum, M.S.; Kumar Bala, S.; Saiful Islam, A.K.M. Effect of Performance of Water Stashes Irrigation Approaches on Selected Species of Plant’s Water Productivity in Urban Rooftop Agriculture with Respect to Climate Change. Water 2022, 14, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nkrumah, B. Africa’s future: Demarginalizing urban agriculture in the era of climate change. Future Food. J. Food Agric. Soc. 2019, 7, 8–20. [Google Scholar]
- Miljkovic, J.Z.; Crncevic, T. Multifunctional Urban Agriculture and Agroforestry for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the Context of Climate Change in Serbia. In Climate Change-Resilient Agriculture and Agroforestry: Ecosystem Services and Sustainability; Castro, P., Azul, A., Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 197–213. [Google Scholar]
- Amin, S.M.A.; Rahman, A. Opportunities and Challenges of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture to Face Climate Change: A Critical Analysis of Policy and Urban Governance of Dhaka City. In Security of Water, Food, Energy and Liveability of Cities: Challenges and Opportunities for Peri-urban Futures; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 365–382. [Google Scholar]
- Chisita, C.T.; Fombad, M. Knowledge Management for Climate Change Adaptation to Enhance Urban Agriculture Among Selected Organisations in Zimbabwe. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 19, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chitakira, M.; Ngcobo, N.Z.P. Uptake of Climate Smart Agriculture in Peri-Urban Areas of South Africa’s Economic Hub Requires Up-Scaling. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 706738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubbeling, M.; de Zeeuw, H. Urban Agriculture and Climate Change Adaptation: Ensuring Food Security Through Adaptation, In Resilient Cities: Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change—Proceedings of the Global Forum 2010; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 441–449. [Google Scholar]
- Small, G.E.; Jimenez, I.; Salzl, M.; Shrestha, P. Urban heat island mitigation due to enhanced evapotranspiration in an urban garden in Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 243, 39–45. [Google Scholar]
- Florke, M.; Schneider, C.; McDonald, R.I. Water competition between cities and agriculture driven by climate change and urban growth. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittenzwei, K.; Gustavsen, G.W.; Grimsrud, K.; Lindhjem, H.; Bjørkhaug, H. Perceived effects of climate policy on rural areas and agriculture: A rural-urban-divide. J. Rural Stud. 2023, 100, 103001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enache, C.; Popa, A. Urban Agriculture. Perception-Awareness-Necessity. In Rethinking Social Action. Core Values; Lumen: Iasi, Romania, 2015; pp. 531–535. [Google Scholar]
- Alon-Mozes, T.; Amdur, L. Urban Agriculture in Israel: Between Civic Agriculture and Personal Empowerment. Acta Hortic. 2010, 779–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Codato, D.; Grego, D.; Peroni, F. Community gardens for inclusive urban planning in Padua (Italy): Implementing a participatory spatial multicriteria decision-making analysis to explore the social meanings of urban agriculture. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1344034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haloui, D.; Oufaska, K.; Oudani, M.; Yassini, K.E.; Belhadi, A.; Kamble, S. Sustainable urban farming using a two-phase multi-objective and multi-criteria decision-making approach. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, L.; Genovese, P.V. Using Multicriteria Evaluation and GIS for the Land-use of Urban Agricultural Development in Delft, The Netherlands. Adv. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2012, 518, 6056–6060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazemi, F.; Hosseinpour, N. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis for urban agriculture development based on pollution distributions. Land Use Policy 2022, 123, 106426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.P.; Meerow, S.; Turner, B.L., II. Planning urban community gardens strategically through multicriteria decision analysis. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.H.; Park, M.S.; Tae, Y.L. Collaborative and participatory model for urban forest management: Case study of Daejisan in Korea. J. Korean For. Soc. 2006, 95, 149–154. [Google Scholar]
- Ghandar, A.; Theodoropoulos, G.; Zhong, M.; Zhen, B.; Chen, S.; Gong, Y.; Ahmed, A. An agent-based modelling framework for urban agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2019 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), National Harbor, MD, USA, 8–11 December 2019; pp. 1767–1778. [Google Scholar]
- Srinivasan, K.; Yadav, V.K. An empirical investigation of barriers to the adoption of smart technologies integrated urban agriculture systems. J. Decis. Syst. 2023, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Han, J.; Li, J.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, K.; Huang, Y. Building resilient cities with stringent pollution controls: A case study of robust planning of Shenzhen City’s urban agriculture system. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Hu, C.; Chen, N.; Xiao, C.; Wang, C.; Chen, Z. Spatio-temporal enabled urban decision-making process modeling and visualization under the cyber-physical environment. Chin. Sci. Inf. Sci. 2015, 58, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseinpour, N.; Kazemi, F.; Mahdizadeh, H. A cost-benefit analysis of applying urban agriculture in sustainable park design. Land Use Policy 2022, 112, 105834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Lee, A.H.I.; Peng, L.P.; Wu, Z.L. An integrated decision making model for district revitalization and regeneration project selection. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 54, 1092–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, W.; Wu, L.; Li, W. Research on the evaluation of the implementation of protection planning of famous historical and cultural cities based on fuzzy Delphi method. J. Zhejiang Univ. (Sci. Ed.) 2017, 44, 749–756. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, T. Neighbour avoidance conflict inter-subjective cognitive difference assessment framework and construct method–based on the comprehensive application of fuzzy Delphi method. J. Beijing Univ. Aeronaut. Astronaut. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2015, 2, 24–30. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, G.; Du, H.; Dan, Y.; Peng, B.; Wu, W. Research on the relationship between risk factors of urban renewal projects based on ISM. Constr. Econ. 2018, 39, 89–95. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, M.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, F. Research on factors influencing service level of public bicycle stations based on explanatory structural model. Jiangsu Archit. 2016, 6, 16–19. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, F.; Liu, M.; Nie, Q. Interface risk evaluation of urban rail transit PPP projects based on ISM-ANP-Fuzzy. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 35, 167–172+191. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Y. Research on Risk Evaluation of Urban Rail Transit Project in PPP Mode Based on ISM-ANP-Grey Clustering. Ph.D. Thesis, Shandong University of Architecture, Jinan, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, R.; Ren, Z. Fuzzy Delphi method and its application. China Sci. Technol. Forum 2009, 5, 102–103+122. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Yin, K.; Wei, M.; Fan, H. Community Garden Practice in High-density Central Cities—A Case Study of KIC Garden and Herb Garden in Shanghai. Landsc. Archit. 2017, 9, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, D.; Yang, H. A Study on Urban Agriculture Development Mechanism. Agric. Mod. 2002, 23, 65–68. [Google Scholar]
- Moschitz, H.; Kueffer, C. Urban Agriculture: Passing Fad or New Prospects for Agriculture and Cities? . Gaia-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2016, 25, 128–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Contesse, M.; van Vliet, B.J.M.; Lenhart, J. Is urban agriculture urban green space? A comparison of policy arrangements for urban green space and urban agriculture in Santiago de Chile. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 566–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. No. 880, Urban Land Use Classification and Planning and Construction Land Use Standards (GB50137–2011); Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2011.
- Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. No. 1749, Standards for Classification of Urban Green Space (CJJ/T85-2017); Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2017.
- Gao, N. Research on Planning Ideas and Spatial Patterns Based on Agrarian Urbanism Theory. PhD Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Urban Green Space Planning Standards (Opinion Draft); Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2018.
- Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Urban and Rural Land Classification and Planning and Construction Land Use Standards (Draft for Opinion); Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2018.
Phases of UAGR | Factors |
---|---|
Project initiation phase (A) | Permissibility of local regulations (A1) |
Local government regulatory tolerance (A2) | |
Clarity of land tenure relationships (A3) | |
Original environmental condition of the land (A4) | |
Land location conditions (A5) | |
Strength of ties with the local population (A6) | |
Strength of links with local community organizations (A7) | |
Updating the construction phase (B) | Degree to which the design incorporates the needs of the population (B1) |
Degree of design integration with original site (B2) | |
Degree of design integration with the local environment (B3) | |
Design aesthetics (B4) | |
Quality of site construction (B5) | |
Filled soil mass (B6) | |
Utility of agricultural tools (B7) | |
Utility of pollution treatment facilities (B8) | |
Sustainable facility utility (B9) | |
Operations management phase (C) | Operational capacity of managers (C1) |
Participation of the population in planting (C2) | |
Environmental adaptation of planted crops (C3) | |
Crop diversity (C4) | |
Extensiveness of agricultural marketing channels (C5) | |
Degree of implementation of agricultural knowledge and skills training (C6) | |
Degree of popularization of science education for children (C7) | |
Degree of community cultural activities (C8) | |
External visibility (C9) |
Norm | Single Value M | Conservative Perceived Value C | Optimistic Perception O | Check Value A | Consensus Value | Convergence or Not | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MIN | MAX | ||||||||||
A1 Local regulations | 6 | 10 | 3 | 6.314 | 10 | 8 | 9.516 | 10 | 1.202 | 8.462 | |
A2 Government Regulation | 5 | 10 | 2 | 5.694 | 10 | 7 | 8.801 | 10 | 0.107 | 8.071 | |
A3 Land tenure relations | 6 | 9 | 3 | 5.318 | 8 | 8 | 8.813 | 10 | 3.495 | 7.500 | |
A4 Original environmental conditions of land | 5 | 10 | 2 | 4.896 | 8 | 6 | 7.994 | 10 | 1.098 | 7.071 | |
A5 Land area | 4 | 9 | 1 | 3.370 | 7 | 5 | 7.560 | 10 | 2.190 | 6.286 | |
A6 Contact with the local population | 5 | 9 | 3 | 4.985 | 8 | 6 | 8.345 | 10 | 1.359 | 7.071 | |
A7 Connecting with local community organizations | 3 | 9 | 2 | 4.172 | 7 | 4 | 7.108 | 10 | −0.064 | 6.214 | not |
B1 Design incorporates residents’ needs | 6 | 10 | 3 | 6.605 | 10 | 7 | 9.259 | 10 | −0.346 | 8.071 | not |
B2 Design incorporates original site | 4 | 9 | 2 | 4.904 | 8 | 6 | 7.978 | 10 | 1.075 | 6.786 | |
B3 Designing for local context | 4 | 9 | 3 | 5.220 | 8 | 6 | 8.055 | 10 | 0.835 | 6.857 | |
B4 Aesthetics of design | 3 | 9 | 1 | 3.368 | 8 | 4 | 7.234 | 10 | −0.134 | 5.714 | not |
B5 Site construction quality | 4 | 9 | 2 | 4.282 | 8 | 5 | 7.406 | 10 | 0.124 | 6.357 | |
B6 Filled soil quality | 3 | 10 | 2 | 4.520 | 8 | 5 | 7.744 | 10 | 0.223 | 6.714 | |
B7 Utility of agricultural tools | 2 | 7 | 1 | 2.500 | 6 | 4 | 5.735 | 8 | 1.235 | 4.571 | |
B8 Utility of pollution treatment facilities | 3 | 9 | 2 | 3.935 | 7 | 5 | 7.369 | 10 | 1.435 | 6.143 | |
B9 Sustainable facility utility | 6 | 9 | 2 | 4.935 | 8 | 6 | 8.147 | 10 | 1.212 | 6.929 | |
C1 Managers’ operational capacity | 4 | 8 | 1 | 4.184 | 8 | 5 | 8.062 | 10 | 0.878 | 6.571 | |
C2 Resident Planting Participation | 5 | 9 | 3 | 6.295 | 9 | 6 | 9.384 | 10 | 0.089 | 8.154 | |
C3 Environmental adaptation of planting crops | 5 | 10 | 3 | 5.752 | 8 | 6 | 8.672 | 10 | 0.920 | 7.643 | |
C4 Crop Diversity | 3 | 10 | 2 | 4.120 | 8 | 4 | 7.391 | 10 | −0.729 | 6.286 | not |
C5 Agricultural marketing channels | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3.467 | 8 | 5 | 6.654 | 10 | 0.187 | 5.692 | |
C6 Degree of implementation of agricultural skills training | 4 | 10 | 2 | 4.950 | 8 | 5 | 7.639 | 10 | −0.311 | 6.643 | not |
C7 Degree of popularization of science education for children | 4 | 10 | 2 | 4.808 | 9 | 6 | 7.977 | 10 | 0.170 | 6.857 | |
C8 Degree of community cultural activities | 4 | 7 | 2 | 3.817 | 6 | 5 | 7.277 | 10 | 2.460 | 5.615 | |
C9 External Communications Visibility | 2 | 8 | 1 | 2.863 | 8 | 3 | 6.210 | 10 | −1.653 | 5.000 | not |
Norm | Single Value M | Conservative Perceived Value C | Optimistic Perception O | Check Value A | Consensus Value | Convergence or Not | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MIN | MAX | ||||||||||
A1 Local regulations | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5.96 | 9 | 9 | 9.74 | 10 | 3.782 | 9.000 | |
A2 Government Regulation | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5.733 | 9 | 9 | 9.487 | 10 | 3.754 | 9.000 | |
A3 Land tenure relations | 7 | 8 | 5 | 5.207 | 6 | 8 | 9.105 | 10 | 5.899 | 6.836 | |
A4 Original environmental conditions of land | 5 | 8 | 3 | 3.797 | 5 | 7 | 8.332 | 10 | 6.535 | 5.949 | |
A5 Land area | 6 | 9 | 3 | 3.853 | 5 | 8 | 8.841 | 10 | 7.988 | 6.731 | |
A6 Contact with the local population | 6 | 8 | 4 | 4.515 | 6 | 8 | 8.712 | 10 | 6.196 | 7.352 | |
A7 Connecting with local community organizations | 5 | 7 | 3 | 4.141 | 6 | 7 | 7.956 | 10 | 4.815 | 6.660 | |
B1 Design incorporates residents’ needs | 7 | 10 | 4 | 6.365 | 10 | 9 | 9.558 | 10 | 2.193 | 9.133 | |
B2 Design incorporates original site | 4 | 8 | 3 | 4.733 | 7 | 6 | 8.404 | 10 | 2.671 | 6.515 | |
B3 Designing for local context | 6 | 9 | 3 | 4.603 | 7 | 8 | 8.958 | 10 | 5.355 | 7.714 | |
B4 Design Aesthetics | 3 | 6 | 2 | 3.219 | 5 | 6 | 7.430 | 9 | 5.211 | 5.555 | |
B5 Site construction quality | 4 | 7 | 3 | 4.196 | 5 | 6 | 8.066 | 9 | 4.870 | 5.280 | |
B6 Soil quality | 5 | 7 | 3 | 3.778 | 6 | 7 | 8.210 | 10 | 5.432 | 6.647 | |
B7 Utility of agricultural tools | 3 | 6 | 2 | 2.671 | 4 | 6 | 6.341 | 8 | 5.670 | 5.592 | |
B8 Utility of pollution treatment facilities | 5 | 9 | 4 | 4.681 | 6 | 7 | 8.455 | 10 | 4.774 | 6.475 | |
B9 Sustainable facility utility | 7 | 9 | 4 | 5.089 | 6 | 8 | 9.091 | 10 | 6.002 | 6.910 | |
C1 Managers’ operational capacity | 7 | 9 | 4 | 5.508 | 7 | 8 | 9.105 | 10 | 4.597 | 7.575 | |
C2 Resident Planting Participation | 8 | 9 | 6 | 6.831 | 8 | 9 | 9.613 | 10 | 3.782 | 8.656 | |
C3 Environmental adaptation of planting crops | 6 | 9 | 5 | 6.318 | 8 | 8 | 9.348 | 10 | 3.030 | 8.000 | |
C4 Crop Diversity | 5 | 8 | 3 | 4.292 | 6 | 6 | 7.449 | 9 | 3.157 | 6.000 | |
C5 Agricultural marketing channels | 3 | 7 | 1 | 2.747 | 5 | 5 | 6.790 | 8 | 4.043 | 5.000 | |
C6 Degree of implementation of agricultural skills training | 6 | 9 | 3 | 4.667 | 6 | 7 | 8.455 | 10 | 4.788 | 6.478 | |
C7 Degree of popularization of science education for children | 5 | 8 | 3 | 4.027 | 6 | 6 | 8.038 | 10 | 4.011 | 6.000 | |
C8 Degree of community cultural activities | 4 | 8 | 2 | 3.386 | 5 | 5 | 7.345 | 10 | 3.959 | 5.000 | |
C9 External Communications Visibility | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3.562 | 5 | 6 | 6.590 | 8 | 4.028 | 5.709 |
Primary Impact Factors | Secondary Impact Factors | |
---|---|---|
Project initiation A | Relevant local regulations A1 | 9.000 |
Government regulator tolerance A2 | 9.000 | |
Clarity of land tenure relationships A3 | 6.836 | |
Land Location Advantages and Disadvantages A4 | 6.731 | |
Closeness of contact with the local population A5 | 7.352 | |
Project construction B | Degree to which the design incorporates the needs of the population B1 | 9.133 |
Degree of design integration with the local environment B2 | 7.714 | |
Sustainable facilities utility B3 | 6.910 | |
Operations and management C | Managerial Operational Capability C1 | 7.575 |
Resident Cultivation Participation C2 | 8.656 | |
Degree of environmental adaptation of planted crops C3 | 8.000 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | B1 | B2 | B3 | C1 | C2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C3 | O | O | O | O | O | O | E | O | O | M |
C2 | O | O | O | O | O | E | E | A | O | |
C1 | E | E | E | O | M | A | A | O | ||
B3 | O | O | O | O | O | E | E | |||
B2 | O | O | O | O | E | M | ||||
B1 | O | O | O | O | E | |||||
A5 | O | O | E | E | ||||||
A4 | O | O | O | |||||||
A3 | O | O | ||||||||
A2 | M |
Level r | Factor Ai |
---|---|
1 | 8 |
2 | 10, 11 |
3 | 6, 7 |
4 | 5, 9 |
5 | 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Considerations | |||
---|---|---|---|
A1 | 1, 2, 5 to 11 | 1, 2 | 1, 2 |
A2 | 1, 2, 5 to 11 | 1, 2 | 1, 2 |
A3 | 3, 5 to 11 | 3 | 3 |
A4 | 4, 5 to 11 | 4 | 4 |
A5 | 5 to 11 | 1 to 5, 9 | 5, 9 |
B1 | 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 | 1 to 7, 9 | 6, 7 |
B2 | 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 | 1 to 7, 9 | 6, 7 |
B3 | 8 | 1 to 11 | 8 |
C1 | 5 to 11 | 1 to 5, 9 | 5, 9 |
C2 | 8, 10, 11 | 1 to 7, 9, 10, 11 | 10, 11 |
C3 | 8, 10, 11 | 1 to 7, 9, 10, 11 | 10, 11 |
Middle Class | Subcategory | Element |
---|---|---|
G11 General Park | - | Green areas with rich contents, suitable for various outdoor activities, and with comprehensive recreational and supporting management and service facilities. |
G12 Community Park | - | Green space with basic recreational and service facilities on separate sites, mainly serving the daily recreational activities of residents in the vicinity of a certain community area. |
G13 Specialized parks | G131 Zoo | A green space with good facilities and interpretive signage system for the protection of wild animals in the area under artificial breeding conditions, for scientific research on animal breeding and propagation, and for popularization of science, viewing, and recreational activities. |
G132 Botanical Gardens | Green areas with good facilities and interpretive signage systems for plant scientific research, introduction and domestication, plant protection, and activities such as ornamental, recreational, and popularization of science. | |
G133 Historic Gardens | Gardens that embody the representative gardening art of a certain historical period and require special protection. | |
G134 Heritage Park | Green areas formed mainly by important sites and their background environments, which are of exemplary significance in terms of site protection and display and have cultural and recreational functions. | |
G135 Amusement Park | Separate green space with large play equipment and good ecological environment. | |
G139 Other specialized parks | In addition to the above specialized types of parks, green spaces with specific thematic content. They mainly include children’s parks, sports and fitness parks, waterfront parks, memorial parks, sculpture parks and scenic parks, urban wetland parks, and forest parks located in urban construction sites. | |
G14 Garden Tour | - | In addition to the above parks and green spaces, there are also green spaces that are independent, small in size, or diverse in shape; convenient for residents to access in the vicinity; and have a certain degree of recreational function. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dong, W.; Lin, G. Integrated Decision-Making of Urban Agriculture within the Greyfield Regeneration Environments (UAGR). Buildings 2024, 14, 1415. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051415
Dong W, Lin G. Integrated Decision-Making of Urban Agriculture within the Greyfield Regeneration Environments (UAGR). Buildings. 2024; 14(5):1415. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051415
Chicago/Turabian StyleDong, Wenli, and Gangjian Lin. 2024. "Integrated Decision-Making of Urban Agriculture within the Greyfield Regeneration Environments (UAGR)" Buildings 14, no. 5: 1415. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051415