Catalogue on innovative governance practices and recommendations

Urban Agriculture Policy and Governance Catalogue of Good Practices 1 Grant Agreement No. 101132315 Project Acronym FOODCITYBOOST Project Title Integrated assessment of urban farming impacts and policies for boosting sustainable urban agricultural development linking urban, peri-urban and rural areas Type of action HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions Horizon Europe Call Topic HORIZON -CL6-2023-COMMUNITIES-01-5 Start –ending date 1 of January 2024 -31 of December 2027 Project Website foodcityboost .eu Work Package WP 4: Policy & Governance WP Lead Beneficiary Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Relevant Task(s) T 4.1 Understanding of current UF policies and governance aspects T 4.2 Exploring best governance practices for resilient UA Deliverable type | Dissemination level R –Report | PU : Public Due Date of Deliverable July 31st,2025 Actual Submission Date July 31st,2025 Responsible Author Beatrice Walthall, Anton Parisi & Barbara Schröter [ZALF] Contributors Charlotte Gallagher-Squires, Soledad Cuevas Garcia Dorado & Daniel López García [CSIC] Reviewer(s) Jan Eelco Jansma [WR]; Vincent O’Connell [PRPL]; Kevin Grauwels [VLM] Disclaimer Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Copyright message This document contains unpublished original work unless clearly stated otherwise. Previously published material and the work of others has been acknowledged by appropriate citation or quotation, or both. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. D4.1: Catalogue on innovative governance practices and recommendations 2 Date Version Changes Contributor(s) 27/06/2025 V0.1 First draft Beatrice Walthall, Anton Parisi & Barbara Schröter [ZALF] 26/07/2025 V0.2 Final version revised by partners (changes in introduction, illustrations, examples, formatting and language style) Jan Eelco Jansma [WR]; Vincent O’Connell [PRPL]; Kevin Grauwels [VLM] 31/07/2025 V0.3 Final version submitted Anton Parisi & Barbara Schröter [ZALF] ; Pierre Chopin [VU] 24/09/2025 V0.4 Reviewers’ comments addressed Anton Parisi & Barbara Schröter [ZALF] ; Charlotte GallagherSquires, Soledad Cuevas Garcia Dorado & Daniel López García [CSIC] ; Pierre Chopin [VU] Document History 3 Table of contents Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. •UA policy and governance •Living-Lab profiles and common challenges ❖Entretantos: Valladolid, Spain………………………………………………………………………… ❖Kalnciema Quarter: Riga, Latvia……………………………………………………………………… ❑Allocating and protecting land for urban agriculture in living labs………………….. ❖Fundacja EkoRozwoju: Wrocław, Poland………………………………………………………… ❖The Vlaamse Landmaatschappij: Flanders Region, Belgium ……………................ ❑Overcoming policy fragmentation …………………..…………………..……………………….. ❖Flevo Campus: Almere, Netherlands …………………..…………………..……………………. ❖Gorichka: Sofia, Bulgaria ………………….…………………..…………………..………………….. ❑Pathways to commercialisation and the importance of context …………………… ❑Common challenges across living labs …………………..…………………..…………………. Policy principles and process •Key principles of policy integration and multi-stakeholder approaches ………………. •Key phases of the policy process …………………..…………………..……………………………….. •People ..…………………..………………………………..…………………..………………..…………………. How to: Intro to the guide …………………..…………………..………………………………..………………….. Good governance and policy practices •Diagnosis & Commitment ❖Kick-off events ………………….…………………..…………………..……………………………….. ❖Situation analysis ………………….…………………..…………………..…………………………… ❖Visioning and agenda building …………………..…………………..…………………………… ❖Land use inventory ………………….…………………..…………………..………………………… ❖International agreement and agenda alignment ……………..…………………………. •Strategy & Action Planning ❖Participatory planning ………………….…………………..…………………..……………………. ❖UA and food strategies ………………….…………………..…………………..…………………… ❖Community green space design …….…………………..…………………..…………………… ❖Allocating monitoring …….…………………..…………………..………………………………….. •Implementing & Operationalizing ❖Institutional homes …….…………………..…………………..……………………………………… ❖Zoning reform ………………….…………………..…………………..………………………………… ❖Commoning ………………….…………………..…………………..…………………………………… ❖Municipal project funding ………………….…………………..…………………..……………… ❖Pilot projects ………………….…………………..…………………..…………………………………. •Monitoring & Evaluation ❖Performance evaluation models ……….…………………..…………………..………………. Recommendations for policy in practice •Key reflections …..…..………………………………..…………………..………………..…………………. •Recommendation for local governments ..…………………..………………..………………….. References ..…………………..………………..…………………. ..…………………..………………..………………. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 27 29 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 51 53 54 55 4 This catalogue, created as part of the FOODCITYBOOST project, aims to provide a comprehensive guide for integrating urban agriculture (UA) into city and spatial planning, focusing on effective practices for governance and policy. It evaluates activities or practices for UA governance and policy work based on two main criteria: policy integration and multi-stakeholder approaches, as these address the systemic coordination and inclusive decision-making essential for sustainable, equitable, and resilient outcomes. Supporting UA helps communities and local governments boost local food production, reduce reliance on external supply chains, and ensure fresh, healthy food is accessible, especially in foodinsecure areas. It also promotes environmental sustainability by improving biodiversity, reducing urban heat islands, and enhancing air quality. Additionally, urban agriculture fosters social cohesion and economic development by creating community spaces, generating jobs, and offering educational opportunities, contributing to a more resilient and engaged population. Designed to support policy officials, decision-makers, and advocacy groups, this catalogue presents examples of effective UA policy and governance, avoiding the pitfalls of one-size-fits-all solutions. Yet, the diversity of UA policies, instruments, and interventions makes it challenging to identify common models or types, as these vary widely across different locations. Policy goals, planning frameworks, governance structures, and the people involved are also very context specific, and play important roles in how policy and governance take shape. Nevertheless, the catalogue highlights a range of "good practices" that offer valuable options for UA planning and support. These practices have been selected because they meet several key criteria: they are informed by research, data, and empirical evidence, drawing on lessons learned from past experiences and expert insights. Additionally, they address specific challenges or needs identified by the FOODCITYBOOT living labs. While context is crucial, these practices are adaptable to different environments, with core elements that remain relevant and effective in new settings. Moreover, they are flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances or new evidence. The catalogue begins by exploring UA Policy and Governance, using examples from the FOODCITYBOOST Living Labs to highlight the context, challenges, and needs for UA in different settings. The Policy Principles and Process section outlines key principles for effective policy integration and multi-stakeholder arrangements, which are essential for creating sustainable and inclusive UA systems. It also covers the phases of the policy process, emphasising the importance of collaboration and teamwork at each stage. The How to Use the Guide section provides a clear template for navigating the catalogue, helping users understand how to apply the insights to their own contexts. This is followed by the Good Governance and Policy Practices section, which outlines critical steps such as engaging the motivated stakeholders, diagnosing challenges, committing to action, and developing strategic plans. It also offers guidance on implementation and operationalization, ensuring that policies are put into practice effectively, and stresses the importance of monitoring and evaluation to track progress and adjust as needed. Finally, the recommendations section summarises key takeaways and offers suggestions for policymakers and practitioners, helping informed decisionmaking to avoid common pitfalls in implementing urban agriculture policies. Summary 5 Introduction Welcome to this catalogue of good practices for policy and governance in urban agriculture (UA). This text is designed to provide insights and guidance for those wishing to begin or continue work related to UA leadership and decision-making (governance) or public administration and regulation (policy). The following pages are intended to support policy officials, decision-makers, advocacy groups, and others with a comprehensive overview that is evidence-based and actionable. We begin with contextual information in this introduction, including examples from the six Living Labs (LL) of the FOODCITYBOOST project to help identify current challenges which may be addressed through UA policy and governance. We then offer some conceptual frameworks - Key principles of policy integration and multi-stakeholder approaches and Key phases of the policy process (pp. 15-16) which help explain how practices are selected and organized. The bulk of the text is then dedicated to the 15 practices which are outlined in detail, followed by two summary recommendation pages (pp. 51-52). This catalogue aims to be comprehensive tool which can help people working towards better UA policy and governance, with general guidance that is informed by specific examples. These examples and the process of creating this catalogue were informed by coordination with colleagues and individuals in the FOODCITYBOOST living labs as well as targeted research within and beyond other European cases. The utility of this catalogue as a tool for decision-makers depends on the context and aims of local work, but the diverse examples are intended to give different options which may be tested and modified. In any case, understanding how the good practices are framed is essential to use this text effectively. For instance, the Key principles of policy integration and multi-stakeholder approaches provide the guiding criteria for the selection of practices, while the Key phases of the policy process show cyclical steps of engaging in UA policy and governance and provide the sections in which the practices are organized. It is important to note that those engaged in policy and governance work may find themselves in simultaneous or iterative work across these phases, and that you may decide to pursue one or multiple practices in a section. Another important note is that people are central to policy and governance. This work is dependent on the people involved and must consider the people who will be affected by a policy intervention, or who are the intended beneficiaries. This is one reason why the Key phases are prefaced by “Phase 0: People” (p.18). Understanding and bringing together local stakeholders is not only good practice, it is essential to the success of an initiative and how it is perceived locally. State of the art in urban agriculture policy and governance In recent years, there has been considerable attention and interest on the issue of UA governance in the EU, both in the academic literature and in policy processes, especially at the city and metropolitan levels. Across different cities, countries and administrative levels, policy fragmentation has been identified as a crucial challenge for UA (McEldowney, 2017; Piorr, 2018; López-García & González de Molina, 2020). Coherent policy visions are required that recognise the multifunctionality of agriculture as well as the different types of UA, from community gardens to rooftop gardens (Sanye Mengual, 2015; Jansma et al., 2024). Although indirect and fragmentary policies can provide some support, the marginal, contingent status of UA has for a long time been identified as an obstacle to overcome in achieving its potential for empowerment, education and community-building (Tornaghi, 2014), requiring the direct consideration of UA across policy domains. A growing strand of research focuses on the different policies deployed at the municipal and metropolitan levels to promote comprehensive transitions to sustainability in urban food systems (Doernberg, 2019; López-García et al., 2024), and stresses the conflicts raised by different priorities and aims of the policies at different administrative levels (López-García et al., 2025). At the EU level, UA is still scarcely addressed as an explicit policy priority, tending to fall between areas; not being sufficiently “rural” to be considered in the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (Rutt & Carstensen, 2022; Piorr et al., 2018), nor recognised as a multifunctional activity in the context of urban development and resilience (Renting, 2023). Another crucial political barrier is the lack of consideration and protection of agriculture and agricultural land in urban planning (Piorr et al., 2018; Vandermaelen et al., 2022; Marini et al., 2023; Cassatella et al., 2022,2023). Alongside the practical need to leverage urban planning for UA land access, there is a growing recognition of the need to overcome market logics and the lack of a comprehensive food systems approach (beyond a rural-urban divide), to liberate UA’s sustainability potential (López-García et al., 2020, 2025; Piorr et al., 2018; Tornaghi & Dehaene, 2021). Increased land access needs to take place together with financing, infrastructure provision, training and support for commercialisation (McEldowney, 2018; Renting & Segreto, 2023). In order to overcome the existing fragmentation and implement a coherent vision, new forms of governance, with an emphasis on participation and hybrid government-civil society structures have emerged, not without tensions, in multiple cities. Urban food strategies in particular have become key policy and political processes through which UA priorities can be articulated (Vara-Sánchez et al., 2021). The systems approach and multi-stakeholder character of urban food strategies lend themselves well to the multifunctional and multifaceted nature of UA. The emergence of translocal initiatives and networks has served to reinforce and connect a wide range of local multistakeholder processes (Moragues-Faus, 2021). However, urban food strategies have proven to be vulnerable to changes in political cycles, especially at the local city level. Much work remains to be done to build UA as a long-term priority, creating coherent visions, embedding associated priorities at different policy levels, and understanding the role of local circumstances in shaping policy and governance environments. 6 Living lab profiles and common challenges Evidence-based governance is essential in supporting and pursuing UA, with local context significantly shapes policy success. Good governance practices must therefore be adapted to consider social, cultural, political, ecological and historical aspects of a local area. To understand how local contexts shape governance and policy outcomes, we worked with FOODCITYBOOST living lab representatives (non-scientific project partners hosting local living labs within the project). Representatives helped provide research support via interviews, workshops and validating analysis of policy documents. They also helped recruit farmers, policy stakeholders and civil society as stakeholders in the process. The selection of the LL participating in the different activities and selection of topics to be discussed in each LL and activity were done along the co-creation process itself. Insights were synthesised and presented as brief snapshots below. The snapshots below describe UA policy and governance contexts and priorities in the six FOODITYBOOST city-regions, grounding the work in real-world contexts. Descriptions include the strengths, challenges and governance needs identified in each city-region. It also includes a description of challenges which we identified in multiple city-regions (Boxes 1, 2 & 3), with the understanding that they are also applicable outside of these living labs. Our hope is that these accounts and common challenges, while specific to Valladolid, Riga, Wrocław, Flanders, Almere, and Sofia, are relatable to people engaged in policy and governance work in other contexts. While this catalogue was created working alongside stakeholders in these city-regions, we expect that the principles we describe for policy integration and multi-stakeholder approaches, and the good practices outlined in this text are applicable in multiple settings. Living lab 1. Entretantos: Valladolid, Spain The Valladolid living lab is hosted by Fundación Entretantos, a national non-profit working across agroecology, food systems, territorial governance and environmental management. Entretantos has been working to promote UA in Valladolid for many years through network-building, capacity-building, environmental education and advocacy. They have worked with the City Council, Valladolid University, and local association of organic farmers -Vallaecolidto develop and deliver the Valladolid Local Food Strategy and related activities. Past UA promotion efforts, including the food strategy, consumer groups, seed bank, and organic market, have created a culture of partnerships around agriculture and food systems in Valladolid that is supportive of good dovernance. School and neighbourhood associations helped facilitate the establishment of community gardens in Valladolid, and local UA producers have formed an association to collectively sell produce. Valladolid’s larger metropolitan area accounts for a large extension of irrigated agricultural land where different vegetables are grown by professional farmers, some organic. The city benefits from generational food-growing knowledge and a relatively high amount of green space, although participants note a growing disconnect between city dwellers and food production in Valladolid, and insufficient awareness of UA benefits. Despite this progress, UA initiatives face challenges around limited access to land and limited opportunities for commercialisation, calling on policy in this area. Loss of agricultural land in peri-urban areas represents a key structural challenge, with legal protection identified as a prevention mechanism. Land banks and public shared food processing facilities have been implemented with limited success due to low demand by farming entrants. More integrated support packages are identified as a need, including infrastructure, entrepreneurship training and market access support. Innovative public procurement legislation prioritises local sourcing. However, if demand were to expand rapidly, supply would become a constraint in the absence of complementary initiatives. When selling food, local producers face legislation unsuited for small-scale production and the multi-functionality of markets is not always recognised. Key governance challenges include miscoordination between different departments and levels of the State. Priorities include revitalising the food strategy process, strengthening public procurement, and promoting greater recognition of UA multi-functionality in funding schemes and policy. Solutions could include longer-term funding for governance-oriented projects, and a strengthening of bottom-up grassroots UA momentum to build a social fabric that does not depend on institutions and can weather shifting priorities along the electoral cycle. 7 Living lab 2. Kalnciema Quarter: Riga, Latvia The Riga living lab is hosted by Kalnciema Quarter, a small-to-medium enterprise (SME) managing a food market for farmers and local producers and working to shorten supply chains between consumers and producers. It hosts two food markets in Riga –Kalnciema Quarter and Āgenskalns Market –one open air and one in a building belonging to the City Council. Āgenskalns market is also the site of a plant shelter garden, while both host educational and cultural activities. UA in Riga is heavily shaped by the local historical context and can be understood as having three broad types: family allotment gardens, community gardening and urban farms. Family allotment gardens date back to policies in the Soviet era, where families were provided by the municipality with allotment plots to grow food. Family gardens are often fenced off –although officially leased, they are regarded as private spaces, set apart from public areas to maintain a sense of personal territory and to reduce the risk of vandalism. Their original purpose –ensuring food provision for households –has gradually diminished. Although cultivation still occurs, these gardens are increasingly valued as spaces for leisure and spending time outdoors with family and friends. Community gardening and gardens refer to activities and spaces more oriented toward social and community benefits, alongside growing food for consumption. Finally, urban farms are mostly peri-urban initiatives where food is grown to be sold, including artisanal, organic, and locally marketed products brought to Kalnciema Quarter and Āgenskalns markets, and other markets in and around Riga. Food growing efforts in Riga are supported by the history of family allotment gardens and farms, with many people already possessing growing skills and actively growing already. Efforts to shorten supply chains are facilitated by private initiatives in the area, such as Kalnciema Quarter-run food markets offering cheaper rents for vendors than public spaces, and a number of centralised food storage spaces. Challenges faced by urban farmers and community gardeners in Riga include short-term land access agreements, which undermine long-term sustainability of initiatives and their ability to embed themselves as permanent community assets (Box 1). There are also challenges in how UA policy is approached, including fragmented responsibilities across multiple departments (Box 2), limited policy integration, a narrow focus on certain benefits (e.g. food production) at the expense of others (e.g. community-building), and challenges in implementation. There is a desire for new ways of governing food and urban gardening and farming in Riga, which build on local assets, including the existing family garden networks, intergenerational farming knowledge and wider sustainability strategies. Promising governance approaches for Riga include establishing longer-term land access agreements, creating umbrella organisations for coordinated advocacy, implementing demonstration pilots, and developing a united long-term vision, potentially connected to a wider food strategy. 8 Insecure and short-term land access emerged as a significant obstacle across different regions, with varying impacts depending on the type of UA and location. This is linked to inadequate protection and consideration of agricultural urban and peri-urban land. Relocated community gardens In Riga, Latvia, community gardeners faced forced relocations when their plots were repurposed for development projects. While alternative sites were typically offered, these relocations demanded substantial investments of time and resources. Gardeners had to rebuild infrastructure and adapt to municipal requirements, such as constructing fences at the new locations, creating significant disruption to their established growing systems. Loss of agricultural land at the urban-rural interface In Sofia, urban agriculture initiatives are classified like any other business in land-use and planning processes. This classification forces small-scale urban agriculture to compete directly with large commercial entities such as supermarkets and distribution centres for valuable land on the city's outskirts. Consequently, land that could support local food production has increasingly been developed for large-scale commercial purposes or subsumed by urban sprawl. In Almere, peri-urban land is being developed for housing and military purposes, forcing existing urban farmers to relocate. It is worth noting that Almere has tried to mitigate this by earmarking land for UA within the development zone. In Valladolid, urbanisation has attracted attention for its potential to degrade and contaminate soils, undermining the capacity of land to support nature and food in the future. Short-term arrangements disincentivise long-term sustainability In Flanders, despite land-banking pilot projects provided by the Flemish Land Agency, peri-urban farmers have struggled with limitations of short-term tenancy agreements. These short-term arrangements discouraged long-term investment in sustainable farming practices like agroecology, which requires multi-year commitments to soil health development and social-ecological systems. Together, these impacts highlight a need for policy to protect peri-urban agricultural and green spaces and implement secure, long-term support mechanisms adapted to local contexts to ensure that UA initiatives can invest in and transition to more ecological farming methods. These examples suggests some policy incoherence –a discrepancy between established rhetoric around UA, which emphasizes long-term societal benefits and a role in transformation towards liveable cities, and the often marginal and instrumental consideration of UA in actual policymaking. Incorporating UA benefits and priorities in long-term planning is important for future UA development and promotion. Good practices Taken together, these land-use challenges underscore the links between land tenure and policy coherence. The good practices described in the following pages offer different strategies that may help address these issues. In particular, Land use inventories and Community green space design may help foster the network-building and strategic planning activities showing promise in other city-regions. Box 1. Allocating and protecting land for urban agriculture in living labs 9 This guide evaluates urban agriculture governance and policies using two main criteria: policy integration and multi-stakeholder approaches. These two criteria were chosen because they address both systemic coordination and inclusive decision-making, which are critical for sustainable,equitable and resilient outcomes. Each criterion is further detailed through specific principles outlined below. Policy integration Territorial integration refers to how well policies consider different geographies and sectors. Key aspects include: •Cross-regional collaboration between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas •Spatial planning synergy with broader land-use strategies •Regional economic impact through coordinated agricultural, social, and economic efforts Coherence across scales and levels refers to how well policies align both vertically (from local to international levels) and horizontally (across sectors like agriculture, health, and environment within the same level of governance). Policy consistency involves reducing legal conflicts to support clear, reliable rules for UA, helping to align larger policy goals with implementation and building acceptance for local food systems. Multi-stakeholder approaches Diverse representation means involving a variety of stakeholders with different backgrounds, experiences, interests and perspectives. This diversity helps create a more comprehensive team for decision-making. Diverse representation can be assessed by looking at general inclusiveness, as well as engagement and participation of marginalised groups. Cross-disciplinary and sectoral collaboration focuses on diversity in professional backgrounds, sectors, and governance structures, complementing the earlier focus on inclusivity and marginalized groups. Conflict resolution and consensus building. When multi-stakeholder approaches in UA bring together diverse sectors and local actors with varying goals, needs, perspectives, and challenges, it becomes necessary to address potential conflicts and foster collaboration. This involves both resolving disagreements (conflict resolution) and promoting shared understanding and decision-making (consensus building). Good practices include transparency and accountability, with clear guidelines on when and how to engage in conflict resolution and consensus-building. Capacity building includes training, education, and empowerment. Some UA projects focus on education or empowerment, while others, like pilot programmes and network-building, offer valuable insights for capacity building in UA governance. Together, these principles help ensure urban agriculture is not treated as a fringe activity, but as a central, integrated component of local and regional policy that reflects needs and contributions of all stakeholders. Key principles of policy integration and multi-stakeholder approaches 16 Key phases of the policy process To present the good practices in this catalogue, we have chosen a general, cyclical model that reflects the common phases of policy work. This policy process is a structured approach that guides the development and implementation of effective policies. In an initiating phase of Diagnosis and Commitment, problems are identified, and their underlying causes are analysed. Stakeholders (food growers and producers, advocacy groups, NGOs, policymakers, researchers…) assess the need for action and build consensus and political will to address the issue, laying the foundation for policy development. Based on the diagnosis, Strategy and Action Planning continues designing clear goals, strategies, and actionable steps to tackle the issue. This is followed by Implementing and Operationalizing, where plans are put into action through programmes, regulations, or services. Finally, Monitoring and Evaluation track progress, assess the effectiveness and impact of the policy, and identify areas for improvement. The process then repeats itself with Diagnosis and commitment, and starts again. Stages 1-4 correspond to the four phases outlined in this catalogue but should not be considered a linear progression. For each phase of the policy cycle, we have selected good practices that are particularly wellsuited to that specific stage. However, as the cyclical nature of the model implies, the process is not strictly linear; some practices may be relevant across multiple phases or may be repeated throughout the entire process. Moreover, every city and region is different and while some actors might start with a situation analysis, others might begin by drafting a vision or jump directly into action. Nonetheless, the cycle offers a helpful framework for organising and navigating the good practices. As the cycle loops upward, the intention is that the process becomes more focused toward its aims, that policy becomes clearer, more refined and socially relevant. Figure 2: Policy Spiral (reframe.food, 2025) 17 Behind and throughout policy processes are those who are engaged in the work. The next page outlines “Phase 0: People”showing constellations of UA governance. Phase 0 may be seen as a preparatory step before entering stages 1-4, beginning perhaps with a stakeholder mapping activity or similar procedure. Or it could be viewed as a component of the other steps, with collaboration of a group as an ongoing activity. As the next page mentions, is may be also be framed more in terms of a good practice itself, focusing on stakeholder group formation and organization. While it may or may not fit clearly in the cycle outlined, it holds a core area not be neglected. People determine success of a policy process, in more ways than one. Phase 0: People Central to every UA initiative, project, or task, are the people taking part. Whether the topic is supporting peri-urban farming, testing community interest in hydroponic herbs, securing access to land for community gardens, or one of the other countless interests in UA, whoever is involved is key to the goals, decisions, and the potential for success. For policy and governance of UA, there are a number of different groupings, or types of arrangements between local actors or stakeholders. The creation and maintenance of these groups may constitute a good practice in itself, one which lays the foundation for future work. •Multi-Stakeholder forums and working groups: A multi-stakeholder forum should unite key actors (e.g. municipal departments, farmer groups, NGOs, universities, and relevant public and private sector organisations) to jointly develop and implement a shared vision and strategy for UA. Its core purpose is to foster communication and knowledge exchange among those involved, coordinate a common city agenda for UA, and support the creation of enabling policies while integrating UA into local and regional governments’ programmes and budgets. Although the forum should function independently of political structures, formal recognition by the municipality and a connection to relevant city council bodies are essential to ensure legitimacy and influence. For the forum to succeed, it requires clear and sustained commitments from participating organisations, strong local ownership and contribution of resources, and continuous trust-building. While external funding may support its activities, the forum should primarily be driven by local engagement and resourcefulness.(Dubbeling et al., 2010). Specific foodand agriculture-specific multi-stakeholder arrangements include: •Food policy councils: Food policy councils have a rich history of bringing together community members around the multifaceted topic of food, and in many cities have strong connections to UA. Starting in the United States as a model for civil empowerment and policy building (and with racial and social justice roots in some cities), these councils have grown around Europe and North America as one approach to bring civil society into local governance, attracting and mobilising people in alternative food networks, including urban and peri-urban food producers. Whether they are independent or formally integrated into city administrations, they actively bring together diverse links in food chains, diverse economic sectors, diverse government departments, and sometimes diverse representation for historically marginalised communities. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, they are associated together at the national level (Voedserraden.nl). •Food policy labs: Policy labs are one tool for developing, monitoring, and recommending policy through evidence and analysis. Food policy labs may take shape as part of academic curricula or departments (as at Dalhousie University, Canada; Stanford, USA), or they connect diverse stakeholders in different locations, as in the Food2030 online platform,Nordic Food Policy Lab,or the LUPPA Urban Lab of Public Food Policies in Brazil (see also: Tângari & Morales Curan, 2024). While focused more on testing ideas, these labs resemble food policy councils with integration of actors in understanding and impacting policy, working on a range of topics and around the globe: •Forest governance for food security in Nepal (Ojha et al., 2020) •Food system resilience in Hungary in the FIT4FOOD2023 project (Szűcs & Dudás, 2020) •Waste management and circular economy in the EU (Duquennoi & Martinez, 2022) •UA associations and producer networks: Associations and networks might be seen more as stakeholders than as a practice but also serve as a model for multi-actor governance. The practical side of UA associations and producer networks can be in how they are built, supported, engaged with, and empowered. These groups offer technical and professional support as well as channels through which collective actions may be pursued and communication across other stakeholder types (Marini et al., 2023; Ochoa et al., 2019). They can help with capacity building, specifically for political engagement (Dubbeling, 2007) as well as for exchange and negotiation with other actors (Dubbeling et al., 2006). Importantly, they also provide a platform for the needs and concerns of those involved in food production. Some countries, like France, have national networks specifically dedicated to UA (AFAUP). Using the Brussels area as an example from a FOODCITYBOOST living lab, these associations can also be seen operating at regional levels, for example: •The Brussels Federation of Urban Agriculture Professionals (FedeAU) •The Flemish Community Supported Agriculture Network (CSA-Netwerk) 18 19 Featured good practices ❖Kick-off events ❖Situation analysis ❖Visioning and agenda building ❖Land use inventory ❖International agreement and agenda alignment Phase 1: Diagnosis & Commitment 20 Scale Time Complexity Political will Local - International 3-6 months  Medium  Low Kick-off events Phase 1: Diagnosis & Commitment Good practice by / for whom? At the start of a new project or collaboration, or when seeking to inspire action for local UA goals, events can play a crucial role in bringing people together. These events can vary in scale, from community workshops to larger gatherings like an "urban agriculture summit" (Visser et al., 2006) or international trade fairs (Ishani & Khanbhai, 2007). Typically, these events focus on problem-solving and knowledge exchange around topics such as food security, waste management, and other related issues. They also serve as platforms to highlight successful initiatives, assess stakeholder involvement, and facilitate dialogue. While the term “kick-off” suggests a fresh start, such events can occur even after years of work, helping to reinvigorate community interest or reassess priorities. Large events can be valuable for broad engagement and recruitment, but smaller gatherings can be just as purposeful. Many successful projects begin with small, dedicated groups organising informal meetings or focused work sessions. High-profile summits and conferences may draw large crowds and generate excitement for UA, with more focused and meaningful policy and governance work often depending on the commitment of a core group of stakeholders. Before, during, or after larger events—especially those with multiple activities, such as trade fairs or week-long campaigns—smaller, targeted gatherings, including forums, roundtable discussions, strategic planning sessions, and workshops, become key. These person-to-person settings provide a space to focus on political and social goals, addressing core policy principles such as consensus-building and ensuring diverse representation. Policy Principles Territorial integration Coherencescales and levels Policy consistency Diverse representation Across disciplines and sectors Conflict resolution, consensus building Capacity building Preparing for a kick-off meeting Define objectives and agenda Identify key stakeholders Gather relevant information Set expectations Prepare presentation materials Public officials Citizens NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Private companies NGOs Private companies 21 First in-person meeting of the FOODCITYBOOST consortium in Amsterdam Photo: reframe.food Diagnosis & Commitment - Kick-off events Keys to success Human resources: Key knowledge and skills for kick-off events include outreach, networking, and event planning. It is important to engage the target audience, including stakeholders affected by policies or programmes and frequently also under-represented groups. Successful outreach efforts have included working with social service agencies, producer associations, and local NGOs, depending on the goals and local context. Physical resources: Event infrastructure includes basic needs like the hosting location, technical setup, and communication. For online or hybrid events, additional resources such as meeting platforms, audiovisual equipment, and translation services may be needed. Catering and entertainment can also act as incentives to participate and as gestures of goodwill to guests. Larger events require dedicated budgets, while smaller events can often rely on existing resources or support from local donors. Institutional resources: The level of institutional support and policy backing needed for a kick-off event depends on the organising entity. Partnerships with local organisations, government bodies, and other key stakeholders can be engaged to ensure the event aligns with broader community and policy goals. Events are also a strategic tool to cultivate interest and commitment for UA from policymakers and others in local governments, as well as the general public. Risks, Challenges & Mitigation One challenge for kick-off events is engaging diverse perspectives and individuals who are less interested in UA or have limited time to participate. Missing key perspectives could limit the broader applicability of the events outcomes in policymaking and practice. Therefore, carefully planned recruitment is crucial when organising an event. It is important to consider how to engage different target audiences, whether policymakers or members of marginalised groups. To ensure the event is valuable and accessible, planning and outreach are essential. This can involve forming a planning committee with members of the target audience or collaborating with organisations, such as NGOs, farmer associations, or previous project partners, to reach the right people. Needs & goals addressed •Raising awareness •Social & political engagement Concrete examples: •Governador Valardes, Brazil: A kick-off event took place after initial community engagement to bring together people in neighbourhoods where studies were conducted along with civil groups, the local University, and city council representatives to share "obstacles and opportunities" for local UA. An action plan was then drawn after recurring meetings and 7 months later, a political forum was created. This forum established regular plenary sessions twice a year thereafter (Lovo & Pereira Costa, 2006) •Cape Town, South Africa: Tackling the issue of poverty, the city government convened a UA summit to engage local communities as well as government agencies at different levels to begin the policy creation process, engage in awareness-raising for UA benefits, and consider how to address local needs (Visser, 2006) •Nairobi, Kenya: An international trade fair facilitated recruitment for a local farmers’ network, and provided the opportunity to engage in public exchange and outreach for a multi-stakeholder forum (Ishani & Khanbhai, 2007) •Milan, Italy: The highly regarded and successful creation of the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact was created, in part, thanks to community events and workshops in the years leading up to the creation of the agreement (Calori, 2015a & 2015b) •Toronto, Canada: The Toronto Food Policy Council has used a UA speaker series as well as a UA Summit for successful awareness raising and action planning (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013) 22 Scale Time Complexity Political will Local (up to National) 6-12 months  Medium-High - Low-High Situation analysis Phase 1: Diagnosis & Commitment Good practice by / for whom? Before setting goals and actions for UA initiatives and policy work, it is essential to understand the current context including existing practices, potential, and constraints. A situation analysis provides this understanding by examining the socio-economic, legal, and institutional landscape, identifying types and impacts of UA, and mapping where it currently exists or could be developed (Dubbeling et al., 2010). This can be initiated by a government mandate or an independent organisation or working group, with the level of political support varying based on the initiator. The level of political will may depend on whether local policy officials or departments are needed or involved in the task. A situation analysis typically includes stakeholder mappings, land use inventories, and policy and governance reviews. Tools such as interviews, surveys, document analysis, and governance mapping help identify who is involved, how they interact, and which policies support or hinder UA. While focused on the local level, the analysis can also consider national and regional policies and actors (Dijkshoorn-Dekker et al., 2024). The land use inventory is a key part of the situation analysis for promoting UA and is highlighted as a good practice in more detail in the following pages. The situation analysis provides a clear picture of UA’s current role, challenges, and opportunities, informing a summary report that highlights key issues, stakeholders, and their roles, along with possible actions such as campaigns, training, research, or policy changes (Dubbeling et al., 2010). Ultimately, the situation analysis promotes territorial cohesion by aligning UA with broader planning efforts such as land use and environmental protection. It can also enhance coordination across governance levels, support stakeholder collaboration, and foster conflict resolution, and capacity building by creating a shared understanding among all actors involved in UA. Policy Principles Space for an image/infographic Territorial integration Coherencescales and levels Across disciplines and sectors Conflict resolution, consensus building Public officials Citizens NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Researchers NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Public officials 23 Diagnosis & Commitment –Situation analysis Keys to success Human resources: Since it is unlikely that a single local partner can handle all aspects of the situation analysis, forming local sub-teams has proven more effective. Depending on the focus and the components of the analysis, different knowledge and skills might be required. This includes experts in urban agriculture, policy analysts, urban planners, researchers, facilitators for stakeholder engagement, and legal experts to assess relevant regulations and the legal framework. Physical resources: Data collection tools include surveys, interview guides, and GIS software for land use inventories. Technology for mapping, data analysis, and governance mapping is also essential. Office supplies are needed to organise data and reports, while meeting spaces are required for stakeholder consultations and workshops. Relevant publications, policy documents, and research papers will support the process. Institutional resources: The institutional resources needed vary based on the initiator of the situation analysis. Key institutional resources can include government agencies, NGOs, academic institutions, the private sector, legal bodies, and multi-stakeholder platforms, each contributing to urban planning, agriculture, research, data analysis, and policy dialogue. Risks, Challenges & Mitigation Conducting a situation analysis for UA is essential for informed planning, but it comes with several potential risks and challenges. These can include constrained financial and human resources, making it crucial to focus on collecting only the most relevant information that directly informs the development of UA. Additionally, UA often spans multiple legislative areas, leading to unclear responsibilities among authorities. This can complicate planning and implementation efforts. Finally, inadequate or inconsistent data on land use, water access, and other critical factors can undermine the analysis, leading to incomplete insights. Taking stock of available resources, and connecting the goals of the analysis with concrete inputs can help create realistic expectations and identify material barriers which should be planned for. For example, identifying the desired knowledge and skillsets for the focus of an analysis can guide where to target network building and possible collaborators for multi-stakeholder groups. Needs & goals addressed •Public engagement •Raising awareness •Protection and access to agricultural land •Support for existing farms and gardens •Addressing policy fragmentation and coherence Concrete examples: •Lima, Peru (Dubbeling et al., 2010) •Gampaha, Sri Lanka (Dubbeling et al., 2010) •Bergamo, Italy (Dijkshoorn-Dekker et al., 2024) 24 Scale Time Complexity Political will City-Region Up to 2 years  Medium  Moderate-High Visioning and agenda building Phase 1: Diagnosis & Commitment Good practice by / for whom? Building an agenda for UA requires collaboration among multiple stakeholders, such as municipal departments, community groups, farmers, and civil society organisations, to define the community’s vision, policy goals, and priority issues. An agenda offers a clear picture of long-term aspirations and guides the development of supportive laws, regulations, and action plans. Its aim is to ensure that urban agriculture contributes meaningfully to broader urban objectives, including poverty alleviation, food security, ecological improvement, and local economic development. Awell-crafted UA agenda typically begins with a clear and compelling vision that explains why the community is investing in UA. A strong vision addresses essential questions, such as:What type of urban agriculture do we envision? What role should it play in the city’s development? Who should benefit the most? (Dubbeling et al., 2010). Answering these questions helps to shape a vision that is inspiring, inclusive, future-oriented and capable of mobilizing a wide range of stakeholders. Beyond the vision, an effective agenda outlines key policy issues that need to be addressed. These may include access to land, capacity building, sustainable resource use, and institutional strengthening. To tackle these challenges, the agenda should propose strategies and interventions as well as identify target groups, expected impacts, funding sources, and an initial timeline for implementation and monitoring. Finally, the agenda should define an institutional framework, specifying the roles of involved actors and mechanisms for coordination. Once adopted by local government and stakeholders, the agenda serves as a policy foundation. It often leads to the establishment of dedicated UA units within municipal structures to ensure coordinated implementation, ongoing stakeholder engagement, and periodic review (Dubbeling et al., 2010; Dubbeling et al., 2011). Formulating an agenda for UA offers a key opportunity to promote territorial integration by connecting rural and periurban food production with urban markets, waste systems, and consumers. It also supports policy consistency by aligning UA with broader urban development goals like green infrastructure, climate resilience, and social equity. UA can foster cross-disciplinary collaboration among professionals in planning, agriculture, health, environment, and education, helping to design more integrated policies. The agenda-setting process further supports conflict resolution and consensus building by creating spaces to navigate competing priorities and diverse interests. Policy Principles Territorial integration Policy consistency Across disciplines and sectors Conflict resolution, consensus building Public officials Citizens Farmers/ gardeners Private companies Public officials 25 Scale Time Complexity Political will City - Region 5+ years  High  High Participatory planning Phase 2: Strategy & Action Planning Good practice by / for whom? Participatory planning refers to the engagement individuals and communities in addressing current and future challenges by using the knowledge and input of residents, leaders, farmers and gardeners, and other stakeholders to shape decisions that affect their environment (Specht et al., 2016; Kozina et al., 2017). Participatory planning aims to harmonize diverse perspectives, empower marginalised groups, and promote inclusive decision-making (Kozina et al., 2017). This collaborative approach seeks to foster innovation by integrating local knowledge and values, leading to creative and context-specific solutions. Participatory planning can also strengthen community networks, support mutual learning, and build a shared vision for sustainable urban agriculture and food systems (Specht et al., 2016). On an institutional level, participatory planning can improve responsiveness and efficiency by embedding community insight into planning processes, ultimately contributing to more resilient and adaptive urban environments (Kozina et al., 2017). A successful participatory planning process for urban agriculture involves a range of stakeholders, each bringing unique expertise, perspectives, and responsibilities. Key participants include municipalities, professionals (e.g. planners, landscape architects), NGOs, schools, citizens, neighbourhood councils, local associations, and farmers or gardeners themselves (Alampi, 2010; Kozina et al., 2017; Cassatella et al., 2022; Dubbeling et al., 2010). While local governments often lead the process, support is provided by external experts, consultants, and committees, while citizens, neighbourhood councils, and local associations help ensure the planning reflects community needs. Citizens and communities are often engaged through workshops and meetings, but also through online platforms, surveys, social media and voting procedures (Kozina et al., 2017). Involving stakeholders in observing and describing the area to be planned, helps integrate personal experiences with physical data, making urban agriculture planning more inclusive and accepted by the public (Alampi, 2010). Participatory planning can follow four common phases. It begins with selecting key stakeholders, including experts, planners, officials, activists, and community members (including those directly engaged in farming and/or gardening). Next, ideas and suggestions are gathered from these participants to help shape the planning goals. In the next phase, a concept document is outlined, and technical, social, economic, and environmental factors are discussed to create a clear project proposal, refined through public feedback. Finally, an operational plan or implementation roadmap is developed, providing a practical guide to carry the UA project from planning to completion (Alampi, 2010; Specht et al. 2016). These phases are illustrated for innovations as the selected projects in the figure below: Policy Principles Policy consistency Diverse representation Across disciplines and sectors Conflict resolution, consensus building Capacity building Participatory planning process, adapted from Specht et al., 2016, “Regional Open Innovation Roadmapping Process” Selecting key stakeholders Selecting the innovation Innovation planning and deliberation Creating a roadmap for implementation Public officials Citizens NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Private companies Researchers Public officials NGOs Farmers/ gardeners 32 Strategy & Action Planning –Participatory planning Keys to success Human resources: Successful participatory planning requires a range of human resources. Local or regional administrators must oversee the process and be trained in participatory approaches. Technicians provide expertise on urban planning and infrastructure, while external experts facilitate the process and ensure inclusivity. Representatives from local associations help bring community perspectives, and citizens, both local residents and stakeholders from neighbouring areas, must be actively engaged to ensure the plan meets their needs and priorities. Physical resources: Participatory planning requires key physical resources: accessible meeting venues equipped for inclusive activities like group discussions and feedback sessions, communication tools such as printed materials and digital platforms for outreach, and technical tools like GIS or community mapping software to visualize data and integrate community input. Municipal administrations must allocate the necessary financial resources to integrate participatory planning into their work processes. Institutional resources: A successful participatory planning process requires a clear legal and policy framework that supports community involvement in decision-making. Additionally, institutions must cultivate a culture of collaboration and inclusivity, with municipal administrations prioritizing participatory planning as a core mission. Risks, Challenges & Mitigation Participatory planning can face challenges, such as vocal, dissatisfied citizens dominating discussions, which can lead to off-topic debates and unproductive outcomes. This may cause frustration and disengagement from other stakeholders, weakening the process (Kozina et al., 2017). To address risks in participatory planning, it's essential to establish clear guidelines and ground rules to keep discussions focused. Skilled facilitators should manage the process, ensuring all voices are heard and conflicts are addressed. Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders, not just vocal individuals, helps reflect broader community needs. Defining clear objectives for each session keeps discussions relevant and on track. Additionally, ongoing communication ensures that participants stay informed, managing expectations and fostering sustained engagement. Needs & goals addressed •Public engagement •Support for existing farms and gardens •Raising awareness •Aligning local policy with community needs Concrete examples: •Along the Danube River of Eastern Europe: Participatory planning for Urban Agriculture was developed in the EU Interreg project AgriGo4Cities. In Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, and Montenegro, the project found community engagement and ability for participatory planning towards social inclusion and sustainable urban development through UA (Kozina et al. 2017) •Berlin, Germany: Participatory planning for zero-acreage farming followed the “ROIR” approach (see the previous page) as a planning tool (Specht et al., 2016). •Bologna, Italy: “Parco Città Campagna“ (City Countryside Park) has been developed in a participatory planning process protect and promote local agriculture in a wider landscape planning effort, recognising the multifunctionality of the landscape (Alampi, 2010) •Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: The local government integrated UA into the new zoning and planning framework, engaging community members, including local farmers in the process. Some results, however, suggest that despite some participatory elements, needs and concerns of some groups, like local farmers, were not fully integrated and indicated some limitations in the real-world social relevance (Halloran & Magid, 2013) 33 Scale Time Complexity Political will City - Region 2+ years  High  High Urban agriculture and food strategies Phase 2: Strategy & Action Planning Good practice by / for whom? The creation of a strategic document for UA can be approached in different ways: as atop-down, bottom-up, or cocreation process, depending on the actors involved and the goals of advancing a political agenda. In developing these documents, challenges, risks, opportunities, and goals for UA are identified, discussed, refined, and translated into actionable steps. Food strategies are another common approach, using food as a central theme to connect various social and political realms, with UA included according to its local relevance. Whether a community develops a food strategy or aUAspecific strategy, and at what scale (city, regional, etc.), depends on the needs and limitations of the involved actors. A crucial first step in this process is to assess and understand these needs and limitations. While the overarching goal is often to influence political will and agenda-setting, the focus may vary, addressing issues like food access, health, short food supply chains, community empowerment, environmental education, or other relevant topics. However, stakeholders often encounter political barriers or competing political solutions when discussing the challenges and opportunities within food and agricultural strategizing. An UA or Food Strategy can act as atool for territorial integration, connecting urban and rural areas by promoting short food supply chains that link production directly to consumption. Additionally, these documents can support policy integration, either aligning with broader frameworks like a city’s General Plan or targeting specific policy areas, such as building codes, food distribution regulations, health, and education, or often, a combination of these priority areas. By bringing diverse stakeholders together to co-create these strategic documents, common ground can be found across political agendas, paving the way for better policy consistency and coherence. Policy Principles Coherencescales and levels Policy consistency Diverse representation Across disciplines and sectors Conflict resolution, consensus building Public officials Citizens NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Private companies Researchers Public officials 34 Strategy & Action Planning –UA and food strategies Keys to success Human resources: Given the nature of strategic documents, the involvement of a diverse group of participants and specialized experts is crucial to enriching the process and its outcomes. While diversity helps establish legitimacy and broad support, skills in mediation, negotiation, and communication are equally vital, as is a deep understanding of the local political landscape. Depending on the context and the specific topics addressed, various stakeholders, such as those from academia, NGOs, and private sector groups, can play key roles in driving the process forward. Physical resources: Several physical resources are essential to ensure effective collaboration, research, communication, and public engagement. These include accessible venues for workshops and stakeholder consultations, such as public offices, community centres, local schools, or (peri-) urban farms and gardens. Administrative staff are needed to manage logistics, schedules, and documentation. Printed materials (flyers, brochures, reports) and presentation materials (slides, fact sheets, visual aids) help communicate key information. Additionally, depending on the scale of the event, catering services may be required for workshops or long meetings. Institutional resources: Strategy documents do not always require policymakers to write them but often see successful implementation by involving members of local administration or democratic representatives. Having government officials co-author or consult on the document helps shape its political reception and address potential barriers. However, some groups may succeed by creating their own strategy through coalitions or collaborations without direct government input. In these cases, political buy-in will still be necessary for local policy adoption. Risks, Challenges & Mitigation Securing sustained support and funding for a strategy throughout its development can be challenging. From the outset, participants’ viewpoints, needs, and understandings of the issues at hand will differ. As the process progresses, some may disengage if their interests are no longer addressed. To mitigate this, it’s crucial to identify shared values early on and consistently connect them to the strategy throughout the process. Another risk is in the clarity of defining recommendations. While establishing values and goals is important, the specific actions must be clearly outlined. This includes identifying beneficiaries, roles and responsibilities, timelines, and processes for follow-up, evaluation, and potential adjustments. Needs & goals addressed •Public engagement •Funding opportunities •Political will, stability and policy continuity for UA •Raising awareness •Aligning local policy with community needs Concrete examples: •London, UK: Public consultation for the local food strategy was overseen by the NGO London Food Link working locally in sustainable food systems (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013) •Multiple cities: Strategy building as a part of UA policy visioning, action, and institutionalization has been implemented through multi-stakeholder forums (Dubbeling et al., 2010) •Turin, Italy: A strategic plan for green infrastructure includes recognition and support of urban gardening and farming for food security (City of Turin, 2020). Living lab spotlight: Flanders In Flanders, the Go4Food strategy has 4 pillars: 1. Healthy and sustainable food for all 2. Food system within ecological limits 3. Full commitment to a resilient food economy 4. Food connects farmers to citizens These have been translated into 19 strategic objectives and 98 working pathways. A first step in implementation identified leverage points focusing on impact, added value, and support pathways. One of these high-impact leverage points is identified as ‘local food policies: food strategies as local, regional and provincial levels’, and seeks concrete measures for local authorities and vertical policy coherence across administrative levels. For their part as rural policy authority, the Vlaamse Landmaatschappij has worked with the Flemish Association of Cities and Municipalities to inspire and inform local food strategy creation with a policy memo which emphasises the importance of supporting urbanrural relationships through local food systems and periurban farms: De lokale honger stillen (in Dutch). Food strategies in other Living Labs: Almere‘s Voedselstrategie 2021-2025; Valladolid‘s Estrategie alimenta de Valladolid 35 Scale Time Complexity Political will Neighbourhood 1-3+ years  Medium - Low-Moderate Community green space design Phase 2: Strategy & Action Planning Good practice by / for whom? Green space design is largely a spatial planning task, but community design ensures that community needs and interests are met. Most design projects are site-specific, but some cities (like Rosario, Argentina; FAO et al., 2022) may adopt a wide-reaching approach of open government for public policy, and others (like Almere, the Netherlands) have incorporated UA into the design of a district (Oosterwold) through some participatory processes (Jansma & WertheimHeck, 2021). Key to this approach is the active engagement and recruiting of a diverse range of local actors. For UA projects with a focus on vulnerable populations, for example, this can include low-income residents alongside urban planners and others (FAO et al., 2022). Including different groups of people in design is one measure to ensure community needs are met while also recruiting engaged actors for eventual project development and management. A common first step in community or co-design activities is to use the group’s different backgrounds and experiences to inform the process. In practice, this may be a repeating task when the group determines that more stakeholders should be involved (for instance users of the space, or those with specialised skills like landscape architects). Due to diverse needs and interests, projects rely on early and ongoing negotiation of how the tasks are approached (Visser et al., 2009). Key activities may include discussions of shared values, goal-setting exercises, creative visioning methods for the space, or thematic workshops around green space functions, stakeholder mapping, environmental risks, or other focal points. Policy Principles Territorial integration Diverse representation Across disciplines and sectors Capacity building An example of community design: “The DEED framework” adapted from Visser et al., 2016. Describe Explain Collect information on the local context in terms of ecology, history, economy, policy, and social and environmental factors or drivers, as needed to understand the status quo. Leverage diverse actors to assess the local context and elaborate on interactions and dynamics of the social-ecological system. Investigate the key influences on the selected problem or goal. Explore Generate possibilities for the design outputs. Examine and deliberate on strengths, weaknesses, tradeoffs and risks of different design interventions, leaving room for alternatives. Design In ongoing consulting with stakeholders, develop a spatial design centered on established needs and priorities. Negotiation and compromise will impact the final outcome. Public officials Citizens NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Private companies Researchers Citizens 36 Strategy & Action Planning –Community green space design Keys to success Human resources: To truly engage in community design, it is essential that many people are involved in the process. While community consultation includes opinions or contributions through broad outreach, active and sustained participation, particularly for potential users of the space, marginalised groups, and those with specialty knowledge (e.g. architecture, ecology, zoning), requires someone to manage many voices. Physical resources: In terms of physical inputs, this undertaking may present a large demand for resources. These may be ultimately supplied by local governments, funded by organisations, donated by local businesses, provided by individuals, or some mixture of these, and the list of plant and construction materials and required tools required after the design phases may become quite large, depending on the complexity and size of the project. Creating this list and drafting a budget may be somewhat straightforward, but selecting materials, considering aesthetic aspects, and managing their supply require careful planning. Institutional resources: Since many community green spaces are on public land, government support or at least permission is typically required. Some projects start in government departments but need higher approval or interdepartmental coordination, while community-led initiatives may involve local officials early to secure endorsement. Even for those on private land, zoning issues may still arise. Risks, Challenges & Mitigation Risks and challenges in community green space design include limited participation, especially in UA projects targeting vulnerable populations, where the interests of low-income residents must be involved alongside those of urban planners. Engaging only a small group can result in designs that fail to reflect the community’s needs. To address this, active and sustained involvement, especially from marginalized groups, is crucial. Managing ongoing negotiations among stakeholders with diverse needs and interests needs continuous communication, including workshops and discussions. This helps align values, goals, and design preferences. Determining and supporting who takes the role of facilitation risks being overlooked, and if it falls to one of the stakeholders, it may need to be balanced with other interests and roles (i.e. researchers, see: Visser et al., 2009). Another important example of limited participation and communication is the risk that a plan is developed which lacks proper zoning consideration, demonstrating the need for practical and institutional experience to help ensure that a design may be implemented as intended. Needs & goals addressed •Public engagement •Protection and access to agricultural land •Support for existing farms and gardens •Raising awareness Concrete examples: •Rosario, Argentina: In “Urban and peri-urban agriculture sourcebook” community green space designed is described as a key factor for the success of UA policy work (FAO, Rikolto and RUAF. 2022) •"Co-designing Nature-based Solutions in Living Labs” shows the whole process of approaching ‘innovation and transformation’ with different UA projects in Dortmund, Germany, Turin, Italy, and Zagreb, Croatia (Hanania & Anton 2019) Living lab spotlight: Almere Through participatory work and utilizing the DEED framework (see previous page), the Agromere project brought together local farmers, policymakers at the city and regional levels, and other social and private interests in a series of workshops. This process helped agree upon shared principles for the project and create multiple urban farm designs for potential implementation. The project was one step toward the local government’s formal incorporation of UA into spatial planning documents (Jansma & Visser, 2011; Visser et al., 2009) Living lab spotlight: Flanders In Flanders, the “Open Space Offensive” (Het OpenRuimte Offensief) facilitated envisioning multifunctional land-use on a regional scale and engage a broad public in an ambitious, regional design project. The concept of “food-landscapes” (Voedsellandschap) has been an extension of this work, tackling multiple goals across local partnerships: local food production and sales, landscape aesthetics, biodiversity, climate measures, accessibility of the countryside, renewable energy, soil and water management, and others. The food-landscape approach centres cooperation among farmers and between farmers and other social, political, and economic actors as a starting point for tangible landscape re-design. 37 Phase 2: Strategy & Action Planning Monitoring and evaluation are helpful tools not only to assess the progress or outcomes of a strategy or action, but also to help internal and external communication. While monitoring and evaluation come after an idea is implemented (see Phase 4 of this guide), these activities need to be considered in advance, ideally during project or programme planning stages. Therefore, this guide includes Allocating monitoring in the Strategy & Action Planning stage. There are different approaches to monitoring the implementation and success of an intervention, but some recurring considerations help demonstrate common themes: -Connecting goals with measurable or observable outcomes -Determining who conducts monitoring and evaluation, and -Planning for difficulties UA projects, programmes, and activities can produce many different social and environmental benefits, but there are common risks that these benefits 1) may not be reached, 2) may not be considered or understood, 3) may encounter challenges which go unnoticed, and 4) are achieved but not communicated or broadly appreciated. By planning for and allocating the monitoring of tasks, UA initiatives can: -Understand and prepare for potential risks -Think about communicating results -Clarify roles, including ones that may be missing (for monitoring and possibly also implementation, communication, or management) Recommended/guiding questions: -What does success look like? -Do we measure success with certain key numbers? Or opinions and feedback? -Who can evaluate success of our activity or project? -Who needs to know about the progress and outcome of the activity or project? -How do we plan for success? How do we plan for failure? Allocation and collaboration: When considering the third question above (Who can evaluate success?), we know that there are different answers depending on the goals and resources of an UA initiative or governance group. There are two key actor groups which are commonly (and necessarily) considered: those with the experience or technical skills to monitor or measure success, and those who are intended to benefit. On the experience and technical skills side, UA initiatives have successfully fostered collaboration with faculty and students at local universities, public and private research centres, and dedicated staff in departments of local and regional governments. Intended beneficiaries of a policy intervention or programme may include those working in UA, students in a school district, at-risk and marginalised groups, other targeted stakeholders, or the general public. By including early input from each group or even fostering deep cocreation of strategy and action planning, monitoring and evaluation can become more pragmatic and more socially relevant. In cases where people join the monitoring and evaluation process as an educational activity (for instance, through internships, school and university programmes, job training, or citizen science), there is also the opportunity for capacity building. Allocating monitoring 38 Featured good practices ❖Institutional homes ❖Zoning reform ❖Commoning ❖Municipal project funding ❖Pilot projects Phase 3: Implementing & Operationalizing 39 Scale Time Complexity Political will City ~1 year  Low-Medium  High Institutional homes Phase 3: Implementing & Operationalizing Good practice by / for whom? The idea behind “institutional homes” refers to establishing a designated position or office for UA within a government body or department. This approach typically helps coordinate and focus engagement across various city agencies. The structure can be formal or informal, depending on the context. The placement of this institutional home within a city’s political and administrative framework varies based on factors such as political will, funding, level of interest, and stakeholder engagement. While more informal, collaborative arrangements may span multiple departments or offices, they often concentrate decision-making, funding, and leadership within a single entity. Examples of institutional homes include the mayor’s office, city council, departments of health, economic development, environmental management, or inter-agency committees. These variations reflect both the diverse possibilities for institutionalising UA and the importance of tailoring the approach to local contexts. See the box below for some possible examples in an organizational chart format. Establishing an institutional home supports policy coherence and consistency by assigning clear responsibility for UA. When a specific person or team is accountable for this area, they can work across departments to identify policy gaps, overlaps, or conflicting agendas or regulations. This focused attention fosters better communication within government and with the public, facilitating more effective problem-solving. Additionally, having an institutional home signals political and administrative support for both new and existing UA initiatives, while fostering capacity building for locally specific UA policy work within governments and providing a point of contact for collaboration across sectors. Policy appointment example Department position example Committee example City Council / Mayor’s office UA office Health department Senior services The public Education department Waste management Community services department The public UA office Environ. management Parks department Other departments Mayor’s office The public Planning department Youth services UA task force Other departments Policy Principles Policy consistency Across disciplines and sectors Public officials Citizens NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Private companies Researchers Public officials Capacity building Coherencescales and levels 40 Implementing & Operationalizing –Institutional homes Keys to success Human resources: In effect, this practice is about creating or steering human resources. Skilled personnel can develop and implement policies, engage stakeholders, and integrate UA into broader urban planning. Human resources are also crucial for establishing an institutional home for urban agriculture: Expertise, coordination, and commitment ensure that the position or home created for UA translates to leadership and practical relevance. Physical resources: Committees can be created using existing staff, but setting up a dedicated UA position takes time and budget planning. Local residents and departments may have more or less of a say in how budgets are made. Still, the diverse benefits of UA may enhance the likelihood that a mayor, administrator, or city council recognizes how supporting UA aligns with existing budget priorities. Institutional resources: Formal support to house an institutional home is the basis of this practice. Institutional backing ensures long-term support, access to funding, and the ability to collaborate across departments, making UA more effective, sustainable, and aligned with formal city plans and priorities., and continuity. Risks, Challenges & Mitigation One challenge for institutionalizing UA is ensuring transparency. Once roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, it becomes crucial to communicate how and why decisions are made to maintain legitimacy. When residents understand who oversees organising or developing UA policies or projects, their trust in the competence of the responsible office or committee can significantly influence the position’s perceived success. An important role for those positioned in the institutional home for UA is communication between actors about the successes and challenges of programmes and policies. A risk for institutional homes is limited capacity due to a lack of sufficient resources. The creation of a position can significantly help locate where UA policy and governance are focused in a local government, but without enough skilled staff or time allocated, success is likely limited. Needs & goals addressed •Political support •Political stability and policy continuity for UA •Funding opportunities •Addressing policy fragmentation and coherence Concrete examples: •San Francisco, USA: Policy work including a food strategy and zoning reform was pursued with a “Director of Food Systems” in the Public Health department, while input came from the local UA Alliance as well as members of city departments of Recreation and Parks, Environment, Planning, Aging and Adult Services, Children Youth and Their Families, and the Redevelopment Agency (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). •Lima, Peru: Peri-urban municipalities created a UA Unit under different city departments, focusing more on economic development, facilitating policy capacity building, building local alliances for UA, and networking on local to national and international scales (Merzthal, 2006; Koot, 2014). •Norway: Some larger cities in the country have institutionalised UA and pursued different funding strategies, along with creating positions in different formations. In Trondheim, a working group consisting of “city planning, infrastructure, public space management, land ownership, and agriculture“, while in Bergen, a “city-farmer” position co-funded with a local farmers’ association has created links between UA and other forms of agriculture, bridging rural and urban communities and practices (Saglie, 2024 ). •New York, USA: Through a mayoral directive, the city established the Office of Urban Agriculture for the purposes of addressing policy consistency and leveraging multiple benefits of UA across sectors (Smaal, 2023). 41 Scale Time Complexity Political will Site/District-City/Region 2-6+ years  Low-Medium  Low Pilot projects Phase 3: Implementing & Operationalizing Good practice by / for whom? While projects for UA may describe any activity or programme carried out by gardeners or farmers, pilots offer a chance to test ideas and innovations, identify and address challenges, and raise awareness and local engagement in a policy area and in UA generally. Pilot projects are important tests for UA ideas and innovations before scaling up to larger programmes. Due to their exploratory and experimental nature, they also have the benefit of empowerment and capacity building for those involved. Pilot projects are planned and implemented by many groups for many reasons: •A social agency testing gardening for economic benefit and integration of a vulnerable group •An association of farmers wanting to strengthen short food supply chains and local marketing •Communities wanting to start allotment or community gardens, or test new environmental techniques in them Since pilot projects can involve a range of people in not only the implementation but also in the planning and organisation, they serve as a learning opportunity in a number of ways: •Technical work and logistics •Budgeting •“Deep dive” into policy area/problem topic •Organisation, management, and governance •Local values and community interest Policy Principles Across disciplines and sectors Conflict resolution, consensus building Capacity building Citizens NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Private companies Researchers Private companies 48 Implementing & Operationalizing –Pilot projects Keys to success Human resources: Pilot projects require a leader or coordinator to oversee the activities, as well as the communication and organisation internally and externally. They also typically need the expertise and involvement of researchers, and target users (e.g. local farmers, vulnerable groups, urban consumers). Physical resources: Pilot projects require various physical resources to test ideas and innovations before scaling up. Key resources include secure land (either donated, co-financed, or through partnerships), funding for project costs (materials and staff), and essential infrastructure such as tools, irrigation systems, storage, or composting facilities. Institutional resources: The inclusion of local policymakers or administrators may help access some of the human and physical resources for a project, while having the important benefit of aligning the pilot with policy goals and priorities likely necessary for later institutionalisation and scaling up.“Ownership” of the project, whether formal or symbolic, can provide the necessary engagement of policymakers and residents alike. If city or regional agencies are not the initiating party, their expertise should be consulted in the planning stages, and they should be informed of the progress and outcomes throughout the process. Risks, Challenges & Mitigation Uncertainty is an inevitable part of pilot projects, and while the implementers and coordinators cannot foresee every possible problem, planning stages can try to identify possible or likely risks (for instance, with a SWOT analysis), draft potential prevention and contingency plans, and outline communication and transparent roles for when problems (and successes) do arise. As an example, sustaining engagement from people involved in the regular activities of a programme may be a common challenge. Project planners may engage in community outreach to understand peoples’ motivations for participating, incorporate engagement checks into status reports, outline who is responsible for recruitment, and draft a list of possible individuals and organisations to include for a pool of potential actors. Scaling up or continuing a project after the trial phase presents another challenge. To leverage success and learn from failures, identifying goals and drafting potential outcomes of the pilot should be done early on. Needs & goals addressed •Protection and access to agricultural land •Pathways and alternatives to commercialisation •Funding opportunities •Support for existing farms and gardens •Raising awareness Concrete examples: •Istanbul, Türkiye: Peri-urban farming for low-income migrant women worked with community groups and local universities for technical inputs and economic management (Korkmaz, 2007) •Casablanca, Morocco: Collaborations in 4 pilot projects framed different urban challenges where UA was a potential solution. Key lessons included defining and agreeing on the structure and roles, managing expectations, and good communication (Gerster-Bentaya et al., 2015) •Minneapolis, USA: Four gardens were tended by project staff and volunteers to show how a city addresses land access and racially-conscious equity through UA with both local municipal support and community action and governance. After the first trial, the project doubled in size and continued to grow (Ramer & Helson, 2023). •The Floating Deltas project (Drijvende Delta’s in Dutch) is one example from within the Almere living lab which tests development of floating agriculture. Being partially funded by local government, this pilot project also overlaps with municipal project funding. 49 Featured good practices ❖Performance evaluation models (impact evaluation, sustainability accounting) Phase 4: Monitoring & Evaluation 50 Scale Time Complexity Political will Neighbourhood - National Ongoing  Medium-High  Moderate Performance evaluation models Phase 4: Monitoring & Evaluation Good practice by / for whom? Policy monitoring and evaluation play a crucial role in assessing the outcomes and impacts of UA measures (such as pilot projects, policies, strategies, etc.), providing insights that can refine the measures and improve future implementation. They help identify deficiencies, track the progress of agricultural policy objectives, guide course corrections, and ensure accountability, especially in the use of public funds (Duric et al., 2023; Eiter et al., 2025). Creating an effective monitoring plan requires a clear understanding of the long-term goals for the results, including the right topics, indicators, methods, and data handling (Cassatella et al., 2022; Eiter et al., 2025). Monitoring models vary based on the specific goals of the evaluation. The most common model is Performance Evaluation, which focuses on tracking the effectiveness and impacts of agricultural policies by measuring their performance. Reports generated through this process highlight areas for improvement, allowing for adjustments in future agricultural planning (Duric et al., 2023). Impact Monitoring focuses on the outcomes of specific interventions, such as changes in the livelihoods of those affected by the policies. This helps assess whether the objectives of a policy or strategic agenda have been met, offering insights into the broader impacts on the community (Dubbeling et al., 2010). Another performance model is Sustainability Accounting, which assesses the environmental, economic, and social impacts of UA. This model helps policymakers make informed decisions about where to prioritise UA in the face of competing interests (Eiter et al., 2025). Monitoring in this context involves systematically tracking changes over time, ensuring that the balance between sustainability's economic, social, and environmental dimensions is considered. Tools and methods for evaluation and monitoring vary depending on the project but often involve a diverse group of stakeholders, each playing a crucial role. Academic institutions, such as universities, provide expertise in evaluating the ecological and socio-cultural impacts of UA projects. Local governments oversee policy implementation, offer funding, and ensure compliance. Community-based organisations represent local interests, assist in data collection, and foster community engagement. Multi-actor working groups, made up of farmers, urban planners, and civil society, help ensure that various perspectives are considered in evaluations (Dubbeling et al., 2011; Quaglia, 2024; Torre & Wallet, 2022). One innovative method is citizen science, where the public actively participates in data collection and research efforts, making monitoring more feasible and inclusive (Eiter et al., 2025). Regardless of the method used, the data gathered through these processes are essential for generating evaluation reports. These reports play a crucial role in assessing the effectiveness of policies and initiatives, identifying areas for improvement, and guiding adjustments for future planning. Policy Principles Policy consistency Diverse representation Across disciplines and sectors Conflict resolution, consensus building Public officials Citizens NGOs Farmers/ gardeners Private companies Researchers 51 Monitoring & Evaluation –Performance evaluation models Keys to success Human resources: The success of monitoring and evaluation relies on knowledgeable and committed individuals. For example, facilitators must understand existing procedures and ensure optimal use of gathered data. Universities or research centres often play a key role in assessing impacts and drawing lessons. Staff from various organisations need guidance to implement monitoring processes effectively. Additionally, a dedicated team with time and resources is necessary to carry out data collection, analysis, and reporting. In cases of limited resources, engaging actors with an internal drive to contribute can help sustain data collection through low-threshold systems. Physical resources: To collect and analyse data, physical resources like tools, technology for data management, and platforms for storage and analysis are needed. Access to infrastructure for gathering data (such as community-based information systems) and tools for tracking sustainability indicators is essential. Institutional resources: Effective monitoring requires institutional support, including frameworks for data collection, analysis, and dissemination. Collaboration with research institutions, policymaking bodies, and local organisations ensures that the right indicators are chosen and evaluated. Additionally, a coordinated approach among multiple stakeholders is crucial for gathering and analysing diverse data on UA policies and other measures. Risks, Challenges & Mitigation Monitoring and evaluation of UA policies encounter several challenges that can undermine their effectiveness. A key issue is the lack of knowledge from past evaluations, which makes it difficult to build on previous successes or learn from failures. Additionally, vague objectives and poorly defined beneficiaries complicate the ability to assess the impact of policies. The diverse nature of UA activities further complicates the selection of standardised indicators, making it hard to create a one-size-fits-all evaluation system. In particular, inconsistencies in data collection and limited resources present significant challenges in ensuring the quality and reliability of monitoring results (Eiter et al., 2025). Moreover, resistance to monitoring often arises due to the time and resources required, highlighting the need for open discussions to address concerns (Dubbeling et al., 2010). Communicating the outcomes of a policy or project may depend on proper monitoring and evaluation, or may fail to be fully integrated itself. Addressing these challenges requires clear objectives, commitment from all stakeholders, and effective systems to overcome resistance and ensure consistent data collection. Needs & goals addressed •Public engagement •Political stability and policy continuity for UA •Raising awareness and changing habits •Aligning local policy with community needs Concrete examples: For an example of Performance Evaluation which looks at agricultural policy at national and European levels (but gives an overview of indicators which might apply in multiple contexts) see: •“Monitoring and Evaluation as a Mechanism for Agricultural Policy Management” (Đurić et al., 2023) An overview of a Sustainability Evaluation process which looks at practical monitoring considerations (such as the scope and allocating roles) and using cases in five European cities, see: •“Monitoring sustainability of urban agriculture: Who is going to do it and how?” (Eiter et al. 2025) Impact Evaluation, as part of the overarching MultiStakeholder Policy formulation and Action Planning approach, can be seen as the 6th and final phase of the process, tested in multiple cities around the world in: •“Cities, poverty and food“ (Dubbeling et al. 2010) Living lab spotlight: Flanders In 2024, the VLM commissioned an evaluation of 25 projects under the rural development pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy working on transitioning towards more sustainable local food systems. This study produced key recommendations with implications for UA: 1. Provide a strategic framework that strengthens the leverage potential of local rural projects. 2. Ensure mechanisms that enable the sustainable continuation and growth of projects. 3. Treat farmers as full partners. 4. Involve all actors in the food chain. 5. Centralise infrastructure, cooperation and logistics in food hubs or other forms of collective organisation for upscaling efforts. 6. Create new holistic policy frameworks and instruments around food. 7. Strengthen coordinating and connecting roles in the food system. 52 Recommendations for policy in practice Key reflections ❖Context is key! This catalogue presents guiding information and an array of practices to promote and sustain positive UA policy and governance work, but experience and common sense tell us that what works in one city may not work or may need modification to achieve success in another. These pages should spark inspiration for policymakers and communities, while providing tangible considerations to approach good practices and determine or adapt their goodness in different locations. ❖Political will is key! Many of the practices outlined in this catalogue require moderate to high political will. In some cases (as in Agenda Alignment and others), political will is both a necessary condition and an outcome. In different contexts, institutional support is forged through the dedication of whichever department or agency has the capacity and interest, sometimes shifting over time. Where political landscapes are uncertain, alternative governance structures and collaborations that include municipal actors but remain independent can help outlast policy cycles and shifts in agendas. ❖Principled approaches are key! Recognizing and centring the values of UA policy and governance work is not just a matter of principle, but a practical consideration. Policy integration and multi-stakeholder approaches are emphasised here to bring good practices toward a common good. The practices selected and presented support accountability, efficient decision-making, adaptive learning, and meaningful collaboration, just as the principles guiding policy and governance contribute to transparency, equity, social resilience and sustainability. Complementing this, when communities identify and pursue social and environmental benefits of UA, these goals and values necessarily provide opportunities and areas for policy to demonstrate social relevance through UA. To close, we offer some parting words to the users of this catalogue. Our hope is that the content of these pages has illuminated some of the possibilities to pursuing and improving policy and governance work for UA, and in doing so, made this work more approachable. If we can offer one general recommendation to the decision-makers, advocacy groups, and others reading, it would be: do it! Policy and governance requires (and frequently benefits) those with the desire to press on. If you are reading this text, it is likely that you have the required interest and motivation to reach out to others to work on shared causes and test or try the phases and practices outlined in these pages. As you do so, we recognize that this catalogue is not a one-size-fits-all resource. You are encouraged to take what is useful and adapt the rest as needed. On that note, we share the following: 53 Recommendations for local governments People: ❖Establish or join multi-stakeholder platforms. Facilitate the creation of food councils or interagency committees that bring together diverse stakeholders, including government bodies, NGOs, researchers, local businesses, and community groups. These platforms should promote dialogue, collaboration, and consensus-building. ❖Enhance horizontal integration. Promote coordination between different sectors at the same governance level. Administrative departments with the same regional jurisdiction, along with a trusted NGO or community group with the same scope, help embed the governance work in realworld conditions. Diagnosis & Commitment: ❖Create synergies across sectors. Use UA as a bridge to explore synergies between various departments and projects (e.g. coordinating food systems with environmental sustainability, health, and education initiatives). Encourage cross-sector collaboration to maximise the impact of UA policies. ❖Foster trust and collaboration. Build and nurture relationships of trust among stakeholders by encouraging collaboration, joint problem-solving, and knowledge sharing. This will support ongoing learning and the successful implementation of policies. Strategy & Action Planning: ❖Define the role of local government. Clearly define and communicate the role of local governments in the UA agenda. This helps to streamline decision-making and ensures consistent leadership and responsibility at the local level. ❖Secure sustainable funding. Ensure that adequate and ongoing financial resources are allocated to UA initiatives, enabling long-term sustainability. Local and regional governments should also explore opportunities to increase funding and support through public-private partnerships with trustworthy, socially responsible partners. Implementing & Operationalizing: ❖Ensure vertical UA policy consistency. Align local UA policies with regional and national strategies to ensure that higher-level policies support local initiatives. This can be achieved by identifying a national lead agency for UA and connecting and networking across policy levels. ❖Align policies across administrative departments. Ensure that UA goals are supported by coordinated policies across various departments (e.g. agriculture, health, education, environment). Align administrative structures to effectively prioritise and implement UA initiatives. Monitoring & Evaluation: ❖Utilise existing monitoring systems. Make use of national or global monitoring systems where possible to track UA's progress and outcomes. Ensure that data is stored in accessible formats to allow for comparison and future learning across cities/regions and initiatives. ❖Leverage research, data, and citizen science. Collaborate with local universities, researchers, environmental organisations, and communities to collect data and monitor the impact of UA initiatives. Promote low-threshold citizen science systems to involve residents, schools, and universities in data collection. This approach will not only foster community engagement but also provide valuable, evidence-based insights to inform decision-making and adjust policies as needed. By adopting these recommendations, local and regional governments can foster effective, inclusive, and sustainable UA governance, ensuring that policies and practices contribute to resilient, equitable, and environmentally sustainable urban food systems. 54 References Alampi, B. (2010). Parco Città Campagna La riscoperta della pianura bolognese. https://www.fondazioneinnovazioneurbana.it/images/stories/collanaeditoriale/04_Parcocittacampagna.pdf, last accessed: June 10th, 2025. Alkhaja, N., Alawadi, K., Almemari, K., & Alshehhi, G. (2024). How is urban agriculture practiced, institutionalized, implemented, and sustained? A literature review. Progress in Planning, 192:100917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2024.100917. Brussels Environment, Brussels Regional Public Service's Agricultural Unit (2016). "Good Food Strategy– Towards a sustainable food system in the Brussels-Capital Region", Brussels. Cabannes, Y. & Ross, P. (2018). Food Planning in Garden Cities: The Letchworth Legacy, Pioneering urban agriculture and food integration into urban planning and design, RUAF, Leusden. Calori, A. (2015a). Sustaining grassroots initiatives and institutional roles in the urban food policy of Milan. City Region Food Systems, 24. Calori, A. (2015b). Do an urban food policy needs new institutions? Lesson learned from the Food Policy of Milan toward food policy councils. In Localizing Urban Food Strategies. Farming Cities and Performing Rurality. 7th International Aesop Sustainable Food Planning Conference Proceedings. Torino: Politecnico di Torino. Caridad Cruz, M. (2001). Participatory planning in the city of Havana, Cuba. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 5: 23-24. RUAF. Carsten, T. A., & Rutt, R. L. (2024). Expanding local urban agriculture through EU-level policy Instruments. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 41: 11-15. RUAF. Cassatella, C., Gottero, E., Cotella, G., Salizzoni E., Pede E., & Quaglia S. (2022). Report on in depth-analysis on UAs role in urban planning. (D4.2) EFUA. Cassatella, C. (2023). Policy tools for Urban Agriculture. An overview of experienced solutions. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 39: 27-29. RUAF. City of Rotterdam (2012). Food & the city. Stimulating urban agriculture in and around Rotterdam, Town planning, Urban Planning Departement, Rotterdam. City of Turin (2020). Piano strategico dell’infrastruttura verde [Strategic plan for green infrastructure], available from: http://www.comune.torino.it/verdepubblico/ Dijkshoorn-Dekker, M. W. C., Ciravegna, E., Maderson, S., Polman, N. B. P., Roticiani, C., & Termeer, E. E. W. (2024). Sharing innovations for urban food system transitions: A practical handbook. Food Trails, 133 p. Doernberg, A., Horn, P., Zasada, I. & Piorr, A. (2019). Urban food policies in German city regions: An overview of key players and policy instruments. Food Policy, 89:101782, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101782 Domínguez García, L., Fernàndez, X. S., & Swagemakers, P. (2015). Edible landscape: food and services from common-land use in the Vigo city region. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 29:54-46. RUAF. Dubbeling, M. (2007). An inter-regional action-research agenda: Recommendations for strengthening social organisations of urban and periurban producers. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 17, 8. RUAF. Dubbeling, M., Carey, J., & Hochberg, K. (2016). The role of private sector in city region food systems. RUAF. Dubbeling, M., & de Zeeuw, H. (2006). Interactive policy formulation for sustainable urban agriculture development. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 16, 20-26. RUAF. 55 References Dubbeling, M., & de Zeeuw, H. (2011). Multi-stakeholder Policy Formulation and Action Planning for Sustainable Urban Agriculture Development. RUAF. Dubbeling, M., de Zeeuw, H., & van Veenhuizen, R. (2010). Cities, poverty and food: multi-stakeholder policy and planning in urban agriculture. RUAF. Dubbeling, M., de Zeeuw, H., & van Veenhuizen, R. (2011). Multi-stakeholder policy formulation and action planning on urban agriculture. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 25, 18-20. Duquennoi, C. & Martinez, J. (2022). European Union's policymaking on sustainable waste management and circularity in agroecosystems: The potential for innovative interactions between science and decision-making. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems (6) 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.937802 Đurić, K., Bulatović, M. L., Simin, M. T., & Glavaš-Trbić, D. (2023). Monitoring and Evaluation as a Mechanism for Agricultural Policy Management. Journal of Agronomy, Technology and Engineering Management, 6(5), 934–943. Efe, M. (2003) Integration of Urban Agriculture into City Planning in Turkey. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 11. RUAF. EFUA European Forum for a Comprehensive Vision on Urban Agriculture (2022). European policies on Urban Agriculture. (D5.1). Eiter, S., Fjellstad, W., & Van Schaik, L. (2025). Monitoring sustainability of urban agriculture: Who is going to do it and how? Landscape and Urban Planning, 257: 105300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105300 FAO, Rikolto and RUAF (2022). Urban and peri-urban agriculture sourcebook –From production to food systems. Rome, FAO and Rikolto. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9722en Gerster-Bentaya, M., Giseke, U., & Amraoui, F. (2015). Testing synergies and stimulating action: The four pilot projects. In: Urban Agriculture for Growing City Regions. Routledge. Halloran, A., & Magid, J. (2013). The role of local government in promoting sustainable urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam and Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 113(2), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2013.848612 Hanania, S., & Anton, B. (2019). Co-designing Nature-based Solutions in Living Labs. Final report on codesign workshops in FRC, Deliverable No. 2.5, proGIreg. Horst, M., McClintock, N., & Hoey, L. (2017). "The Intersection of Planning, Urban Agriculture, and Food Justice A Review of the Literature." Journal of the American Planning Association 83(3): 277-295. Ishani, Z. & Khanbhai, Z. (2007). Organising Urban Farmers’ Groups in the City of Nairobi and Environs. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 17. RUAF. Jansma, J.E., Veen, E.J & Müller, D. (2024). "Beyond urban farm and community garden, a new typology of urban and peri‐urban agriculture in Europe." Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems 9.1: e20056. https://doi.org/10.1002/uar2.20056 Jansma, J.E., E.J. Veen, P. van der Kop, and O. van Eijk, 2014. ‘Dutch City Network Feeds the Innovation of Urban Agriculture’ RUAF Urban Agriculture Magazine 28 38-41 56 References Jansma, J. E., & Visser, A. J. (2011). Agromere: Integrating urban agriculture in the development of the city of Almere. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 25: 28-31, RUAF. Jansma, J. E., & Wertheim-Heck, S. C. (2021). Thoughts for urban food: A social practice perspective on urban planning for agriculture in Almere, the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 206:103976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103976 Jones, B. D. (2024). Developing Black Urban Agrarianism. In Radical Food Geographies (pp. 154-168). Bristol University Press. Kato, Y., Andrews, S., & Irvin, C. (2016). Availability and Accessibility of Vacant Lots for Urban Cultivation in Post-Katrina New Orleans. Urban Affairs Review, 54(2), 322-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416659157 (Original work published 2018) Kilduff, A., & Tensen, T. (2018). Measuring urban agriculture for sound policy in a North American City. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 34: 41-42, RUAF. Korkmaz, Y. (2007). The Development of a Women Producers’ Cooperative in Istanbul. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 18:27-28. RUAF. Koot, K. (2014). Participatory Planning for Edible Cities in Rosario and Groningen. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 28: 17-18. RUAF. Kozina, J.,Tiran, J., Istenič, S. P., Repolusk, P., Ercegović, J., Krušec, K., Kladnik, D., Šmid Hribar, M. Š., Ferk, M., Kumer, P., and Rus, P. (2017). Inventory report on the state of the art of participatory urban agriculture in pilot areas of the Danube region. Deliverable D 3.1.2, AgriGo4Cities. Available online: https://dtp. interreg-danube.eu/uploads/media/approved_project_output/0001/14/7c02b7b244ac5956113ccc70837 aeb951a5e2a45.pdf, last accessed: June 10th, 2025. López-García, D. & González de Molina, M. (2020). Co-Producing Agro-Food Policies for Urban Environments: Towards Agroecology-based Local Agrifood Systems. In M. Egerer & H. Cohen (Eds.), Urban Agroecology: Interdisciplinary Research and Future Directions. Boca Ratón, FL: CRC Press, p. 189-208. López-García D, Cruz-Maceín JL and DiPaula M (2024) Agri vs. food? Perceptions of local policymakers on agri-food policies from a multilevel approach. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8:1399746. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1399746 Lovo, I. C., & Pereira Costa, Z. R. (2006). Making laws for urban agriculture: the experience of Governador Valadares, Brazil. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 16: 45-47, RUAF. Mansfield, B., & Mendes, W. (2013). Municipal food strategies and integrated approaches to urban agriculture: Exploring three cases from the global north. International Planning Studies, 18(1), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2013.750942 Marini, M., Caro, D., & Thomsen, M. (2023). Investigating local policy instruments for different types of urban agriculture in four European cities: A case study analysis on the use and effectiveness of the applied policy instruments. Land Use Policy, 131, 106695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106695 McEldowney, J. (2017) Urban Agriculture in Europe: Patterns, Challenges and Policies: In-depth Analysis. European Parliament. Mendes, W., Balmer, K., Kaethler, T., & Rhoads, A. (2008). Using Land Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture: Experiences From Portland and Vancouver. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802354923 Merzthal, G. (2006). Integration of urban agriculture in municipal agendas, experiences from Lima, Peru. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 16: 27-31. RUAF. 57