The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLIII-B5-2020, 2020

XXIV ISPRS Congress (2020 edition)

GEOSPATIAL VALUATION OF URBAN FARMING IN IMPROVING CITIES

RESILIENCE: A CASE OF MALANG CITY, INDONESIA

T. Atmaja 1 *, M. Yanagihara 1, K. Fukushi 1, 2

1
Dept. of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Tokyo, Japan - (atmaja, meena)@env.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
2
Institute of Future Initiative (IFI), The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Tokyo, Japan - [email protected]

Commission V, WG V/3

KEY WORDS: Resilience, Land Inventory, Malang City, Service, Monetary, Geospatial

ABSTRACT:

Urban farming is recently acknowledged as a strategy with various services in improving cities resilience but facing cons such as
land competition and rapid urbanization. The study attempts to inventory available areas for urban farming implementation and
estimate the total values with case study in Malang city, Indonesia. The study divided urban farming into five forms i.e. nursery,
allotment, residential, institutional and rooftop farming based on its characteristics. Land inventory has been done by estimating
existing and potential areas. Existing area was manually delineated by Field Area Measure App through field visit and visualized by
ArcGIS. Potential area was identified through geospatial assessment considering land use and land cover map provided by the
Government of Indonesia and parcel zoning based on Guideline of Urban Farming development and literatures. The study employed
Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and Market Price Method to estimate total values of urban farming. Currently there is 1.38 ha
of urban farming which is equal to 0.01 % of city’s area distributed in 21 plots and 211.46 ha potential area or equal to 1.92 % of
city’s area. Urban farming has services for amount of US$ 28.68 m-2 yr-1, specifically 22.86, 3.60, 0.80, 1.10 and 0.34 US$ m-2 yr-1 in
terms of provisioning food; income generation; recreation and community building; education and learning; and maintenance urban
comfort, respectively. If existing and potential area used for urban farming, then it could contribute to US$ 395,095.68 annually for
existing and potentially up to US$ 60,646,800.35 annually for entire city.

1. INTRODUCTION Recently, urban farming which also known as urban agriculture

was acknowledged as strategy to improve cities resilience
1.1 Background associated by social and economic co-benefit (Elmqvist et al.,
2019; Gonçalves, 2013; Lehmann, 2019; Olsson et al., 2016).
The current city’s vulnerabilities are exposed by rapid Urban farming provides food and improve the food access and
urbanization which goes along with urban poverty (Burger et revitalizes local economy (Jonck et al., 2018; Pulighe and
al., 2012; UN, 2018). These phenomena most happen in Lupia, 2019). Urban farming also performs in increasing well-
developing countries like Indonesia and implicate to urban food being and social benefit (Wang and Pryor, 2019), contributes to
insecurity, land conversion and degradation of environmental the expansion of urban green spaces (Contesse et al., 2018),
quality. Resulted by urbanization, in 2020 almost 57% improves water and waste management and reducing energy
Indonesian’s inhabitants is predicted to live in cities exceeding use and GHG emissions for transportation (Lee et al., 2015).
the average share of urban population in the world (UN, 2018) Urban farming will enhance flexibility and contribute to social-
which lead to increase land conversion and degradation economic and environmental co-benefit as well as urban food
(Subadyo et al., 2019). In the other hand, there are accounted security and thus, urban resilience.
9.64% people living under poverty line in 2019. These One way to understanding the values of urban farming is to
situations go along with food insecurity especially for the poor inventory the land availability for it, in order to understand
people including malnutrition where 30.8% children under five whether it is valuable or not. Land inventory of urban farming
was stunted in 2018 (Bappenas, 2018; Orsini et al., 2013). was extensively documented (Clinton et al., 2018; Jantakat et
Study on impact assessment of climate change in Malang city, al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018; Lupia and Pulighe, 2015; Saha,
as case study, stated that Malang had highest vulnerability 2016). However, urban farming inventory in Indonesia is still
especially for urban heat island effects. The urbanization limited (Bryant, 2018; Hasyim and Hernawan, 2017). Globally,
coupled by climate change will increase coverage area of urban the latest study already done by Clinton et al., (2018) estimated
heat island effect up to 19% (IR3S, 2018). In addition, urban farming values through geospatial assessment where
urbanization coupled by urban activities become a key utilized Google Earth Engine and monetary valuation
contributor of more than 70% global GHG emissions including aggregated by country through replacement cost method and
food transportation and other energy consumption that benefit transfer method. There is gap on this study especially if
implicate to pollution (UN-Habitat, 2016). The tendency of applied in small or meso level i.e. city or community level. The
built-up area of Malang city to increase faster in conjunction value and its framework cannot be applied directly since the
with development expansion. These challenges require Malang study focused on global assessment. Parece et al., (2017)
to improve their resilience. estimated potential area for urban farming particularly in
vulnerable areas where more populated by urban poor in

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

This contribution has been peer-reviewed.

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-107-2020 | © Authors 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. 107
 The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLIII-B5-2020, 2020
XXIV ISPRS Congress (2020 edition)

Roanoke, Virginia, USA. The study delineated desire area

using GIS and manually by Google Earth with national spatial
data and population data. The results shown that Roanoke
includes 2,312 ha suitable for schoolyard gardens, urban farms,
community gardens, orchards, and home gardens, of which
189.4 ha are found in neighbourhoods with extremely high
rates of poverty. Although this study classified the urban
farming type already but there was no proportion of parcel
zoning of inventoried land. All inventoried land was considered
as urban farming area. Thereby, the result seemed to be
overestimated. Another research by Saha (2016) who assessed
UF in Boston for provisioning food supply through using
satellite dataset to evaluate suitability area in ground and
rooftop level. This study was most complex however only food
yield used as an indicator. Jantakat et al., (2019) assessed urban
agriculture (UA) areas by spatial-temporal analysis and types
of in city level. The study examined UA change with
segmentation-based classification method in QGIS to classify Figure 1. Malang city map
Google Earth images into thematic maps. In similar with this
work, Pulighe and Lupia, (2019) presented a spatiotemporal Malang city is a second biggest city in East Java, Indonesia.
quantification of UA in the city of Milan (Italy) for assessing The city already suffers from societal associated with
food self-provisioning potential. It was utilized high-resolution environmental challenges (Subadyo et al., 2019; Suroso et al.,
Google Earth images and ancillary data to create a detailed 2012), therefore city resilience should be addressed. Urban
cadastre of urban UA for the years 2007 and 2014. farming has chosen as one of the strategies in combating the
Interesting thing is Malang city as case study has been challenges (Direct discussion with stakeholders of Food
implemented urban farming initiative since 2013. However, Security and Agricultural Bureau of Malang city, March 2019).
there is no supporting data especially available area for The city has adopted this initiative since 2013 as part of
expanding urban farming and what is total urban values can be initiative called Kawasan Rumah Pangan Lestari or
obtained. Through enhancing previous researches and its Sustainable Food House Region and Initiative of Urban
finding, the study proposes to inventory existing and potential Farming Malang. The urban farming is also supported by
urban farming area associated by indicators of resilience in city National Law No. 26/2007 mandating to employing 30%
level. The study tried to convey the research questions i.e. what proportion of urban area as green space and Law No. 18/2012
potential areas for farming are and what are values of urban mandating diversification of food and nutrition. This initiative
farming in monetary unit. Remote sensing and GIS-based is also in line with SDGs target for Indonesia for next 10 years
analysis supported by google earth were utilized to estimate especially Goal 2 for zero hunger. Unique case in Malang city
available areas for urban farming. These methods enable users that developed ‘community-based urban farming region’
in estimating areas based on classification and farmland concept where they developed integrated urban farming such as
characteristics. nurseries, allotment farming or community farming and
residential farming that connecting it each other in
1.2 Objective neighbourhood level. However, there is gap between the target
implementation and current condition. In 2016, total occupation
This research aims to inventory existing and potential area for of green space in Malang city is only 15.9% of total area where
urban farming and its values by utilizing resilience indicators in less than the target, 30% (Hoff et al., 2016).
monetary unit. It is important to identifying land availability of
urban farming in order to maintain and expand as it is 2.2 Material and Data
mandated in the laws (Indonesia regulation) and necessity for
improving cities resilience. This also allows the stakeholders in The study utilized primary and secondary data. Primer data
estimating the total value of urban farming whether it is were derived from field survey and interview. Secondary data
valuable or not by comparing with land value as a benchmark such as socio-economic and urban farming-related data were
or not. earned from Statistics Indonesia and Agriculture Bureau of
Malang city. Whereas spatial data consist of several type and
2. DATA AND METHODOLOGY sources. For example, administration and city planning map,
the study utilized Masterplan of Malang city 2010-2030
2.1 Study site and collection of samples sourced from Research and Development, Local Planning and
Development Bureau of Malang city. Land Use and Land
The study assessed urban farming in city level where taken Cover data (built-up area, school distribution, cropland,
place Malang city, East Java, Indonesia as case study shown in plantation and dryland field) were sourced from Geographic
Figure 1. Malang city has 866,118 inhabitants and area Information Bureau of Indonesia – BIG Indonesia
approximately 10,988 ha and now there are 21 plots distributed (https://portal.ina-sdi.or.id/downloadaoi/). To acknowledged
in the city. The study considered all plots in the assessment domestic garden within residential area, the study also utilized
especially for field survey purpose. There are approximately distribution of building type map comprised residential,
210 active urban farmers involved in urban farming activities. commercial and public as complement data that sourced from
Open Street Map. This map was extracted on
https://extract.bbbike.org/.

This contribution has been peer-reviewed.

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-107-2020 | © Authors 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. 108
 The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLIII-B5-2020, 2020
XXIV ISPRS Congress (2020 edition)

2.3 Method The specific methods to capture the monetary value of

environmental values have been developed by economic
Figure 2 shows the research framework. science (Costanza et al., 2014; van der Ploeg et al., 2010).
However, it is not specifically to assess urban farming values.
Adopting the previous researches, the study developed
monetary valuation in two ways; direct and indirect. Direct
way is addressed to non-monetary indicators related i.e.
indicator of SE1, SE2, and H. This method employs Contingent
Valuation Method (CVM) through directly asking to urban
farmers their Willingness To Pay (WTP) regarding perceive
values derived from urban farming. The method enable to
capture non-priced social or environmental values (Toulmin,
2011; Wang and Pryor, 2019). For this purpose, the study
conducted survey to 60 urban farmers distributing in 21 plots of
urban farming in Malang city. While Indirect way – addressed
to other indicators that have market price. These indicators
applied to indicator E1 and E2, were calculated in metric value
first to figure out what are values of those indicators and then
converted it into monetary unit by using market price or
compare by another goods.

2.3.2 Identifying existing and potential area: This step

contains by two parts: (1) inventory for existing area shown in
Figure 3 and (2) identifying and inventory potential area of
urban farming shown in Figure 4 and Table 2. To inventory
existing area, first of all, we utilized Google Earth Image and
mapped distribution of urban farming. Then, it was confirmed
to the local authorizes and field visit. There are 21 plots
Figure 2. Procedure for the research distributed within city boundary. All plots were manually
delineated using Field Area Measure App to get area size then
2.3.1 Determining and estimating the indicators: A saved in accordance with urban farming form (i). Utilizing
central purpose of this work has been to narrow the long lists of smartphone in mapping areas is efficient way and cheap
possibilities to a shorter list of component and measures most however it takes time, but it is more precisely. After all
relevant to Malang city’s urban farming values as ecosystem mapping, the result was extracted to Google Earth Map (.kml)
services especially for improving cities resilience. Improving and then was converted from .kml in Google Earth to Shapefile
cities resilience means increasing ability and capacity of the (.shp) using Arc Toolbox in ArcGIS 10.5 (ii-iii). Converting
city from various urban challenges. Previous studies mentioned file into .shp aims to calculate area size and visualize spatially.
that in addition improving resilience (Elmqvist et al., 2019;
Gonçalves, 2013). Urban farming contributes to urban
ecosystem which has services i.e. provisioning, regulating,
supporting, and cultural services. Considering these terms, the
study proposed framework of measurement indicators that
consider economical (E), socio-ecological (SE), and human (H)
aspect shown in Table 1. The indicator then distinguished
based on its suitability with urban farming form. Urban farming
has multiple type as acknowledged already by previous
research (Clinton et al., 2018; Kennard & Bamford, 2020;
Lupia & Pulighe, 2015; Parece et al., 2017; Toulmin, 2011b).
Hence, considering existing urban farming in Malang city as
well, the research categorizes urban farming form. This
distinction also considered stakeholders and experts judgment.
Here, checklist means that the indicator is applied on certain
form.

Services Ns Al If Re Rf
E1. Provisioning food supply ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
E2. local income generation ✓ ✓
SE1. Recreational and ✓ ✓ ✓
community-building
SE2. Education and learning ✓ ✓ ✓
H. Maintenance urban comfort ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Total Services VA VB VC VD VE
Table 1. Measurement indicators for each urban farming form
Figure 3. Identifying and mapping existing urban farming areas
(Ns: Nursery; Al: Allotment; If: Institutional; Re: Residential;
and Rf: Rooftop farming)

This contribution has been peer-reviewed.

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-107-2020 | © Authors 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. 109
 The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLIII-B5-2020, 2020
XXIV ISPRS Congress (2020 edition)

In order to identify potential area of urban farming, the study Here are the detail screening layer, classification and parcel
was contained by two parts as shown in Figure 4. Part A means zoning for the research (Table 2). The classification was
screening layer and classification which aims to considered adjusted by urban farming form such as Nurseries, Allotment,
areas need to be eliminated and used for zoning. The data Residential, Institutional, and Rooftop Farming. This table tried
utilized in this part are indicated by number in the figure. to show the flow in estimating potential areas by emphasize the
Number 1) indicates that the data sourced from Statistics proportion or ratio from available areas.
Indonesia which contained by administration map, 2)
Geographic Information Bureau-BIG Indonesia 2018 which Urban
contained by land cover and land use type in Indonesia and 3) Screening layer and Parcel zoning for
Farming
Open Street Map 2018 that divided already based on building classification potential area
Form
type. These data then divided by three main land cover and Nurseries Minimum size of Nurseries will be
land use i.e. green space, build-up areas and water bodies. nurseries is 20 m2 per implemented in 36 villages
Since water bodies are not used for urban farming then it is village and 36 m2 for (targeted to be developed
omitted. It is indicated by grey colour. The green and blue average as desirable areas). Since
colour indicated that those land use type will be considered in (Sustainability Food nurseries area are in the
Parcel Zoning which is in Part B. Region Guideline next of allotment farming
Part B means parcel zoning which aims to determine proportion 2019). Thereby, it is (survey), then the part of
or ratio (%) of screened layer as certain potential area. The used 36 m2 as base of allotment area will be
detail zoning and proportion are shown in Table 2. For nurseries area. allocated as nurseries part.
allotment farming, it is considered 100% of brownfield or Allotment The study eliminates Vacant lots such as
vacant lots but part of them will be used as nursery. For farming land cover such as meadow and shrubs are
residential farming, it is only used 4.61% areas from residential impervious surfaces considered in the
space (house and yard areas). For rooftop farming, it is (built-up area), forest, categorization for
considered both residential building (house) and non-residential park and water allotment farming. Entire
building i.e. commercial or public. But since lack of data on bodies. Land use area of vacant lots is
rooftop house (residential) surface as well as limited cases on analysis then was considered as potential
residential rooftop, then this part was neglected. Based on done by eliminate all area. It is assumed that all
previous literature it is only 19% for maximum, the rooftop area that already area is suitable to be
surface can be used for rooftop garden. While for institutional sitting as agriculture implemented allotment
farming, it is considered 10% of school areas will be suitable land (cropland, farm.
for farming. In addition, Malang city has school garden dryland farm and
program which in line with urban farming initiative. plantation). Area that
not categorized in
above elimination are
considered in the
zoning.
Residential The study eliminate Based on spatial mapping,
farming building such as average area of house is
commercial, business, 86.75 m2. Considering
and public or household size, 4 people
government building. (average household size in
Only building Malang city based on
categorized as Statistics data) and
residential and house Ministry of Public Works
type considered in Regulation No.
parcel zoning. 5/PRT/2008 that we need
spare 1 m2/capita for green
space, then every house
needs spare 4 m2 or equal
to 4.61%. This proportion
used as ratio for potential
area of residential farming
Institutional School from Based on analysis of
Farming elementary to senior School Garden on the
high school study (Hartatik and Itaya,
considered as 2019) in collaboration with
institutional farming Urban Farming Initiative,
potential this study adopts 10%
proportion of total school
area as Institutional
Farming.
Rooftop Only building with a Only 19% of total
Farming minimum roof surface available roof that suitable
area (30 m2) and to be rooftop farming. It
surface slope (<5o). It considers green roofs and
Figure 4. Identifying and mapping potential urban farming
was used data sourced photovoltaics, in term of
areas

This contribution has been peer-reviewed.

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-107-2020 | © Authors 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. 110
 The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLIII-B5-2020, 2020
XXIV ISPRS Congress (2020 edition)

from BIG Indonesia accessibility, well Table 3. Profile and characteristics of urban farming form
illuminated, relatively flat, Note: Ground □ and Rooftop ○; Meso # and Micro *; Private
capable of load bearing as ♦ and Community ▲
necessary and water
resources accessibility Table 4 is the result of urban farming values especially in
(Clinton et al., 2018; Saha, certain indicator and form. Residential farming takes highest
2016) value cause mostly urban farmers have their own farm and can
Table 2. Identifying and mapping potential urban farming areas access as well as obtain the benefits directly i.e. harvest and
gain microclimate comfort (good air quality, humidity and
2.3.3 Estimating total value of urban farming: total value temperature). For community farming, allotment takes highest
was earned by multiplied urban farming services in unit area value. Allotment usually uses for many purposes by
(US$ m-2 yr-1) and land availability both in existing use and inhabitants. In addition, people can access or get training or
potential area (m2). The result was total services of urban knowledge from community through utilizing partial sites in
farming for entire city in monetary unit US$ annually. The allotment farming. The total value of urban farming if it is
results then were compared with land value as benchmark. implemented in square meter unit area is US$ 28.68 m-2
Land value was average bank interest in Indonesia if land in annually. This value has not excessed the land value yet as a
unit area pawned in the Bank. Indonesia Bank Rule (PBI) benchmark for US$ 29.25 m-2 yr-1. However, the difference
No.9/PBI/2007 states that land and buildings (houses) can between benchmark and the value is only US$ 0.57 m-2 yr-1. It
guarantee credit loans. Hence, it was used in this study as an indicated that urban farming is valuable however it is still
approach. Considering land price in Malang city, US$ 247.05 needed the support mechanism to cover the gap. The study
per square meter (https://www.atrbpn.go.id/Peta-Bidang- proposed incentive mechanism scheme by local government for
Tanah) and average interest of bank in Indonesia, 12%, then the amount the difference between benchmark and value. Through
land value per unit area in Malang city is US$ 29.25 m-2 yr-1 in the mechanism the government could maintain and enhance
2018. urban green private space and urban dwellers can be engaged to
participate to urban farming.
3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Urban Farming and Potential Services Services Ns Al If Re Rf

E1. Provisioning food 2.67 1.52 15.91 2.76
Urban farming was defined as registered practice of cultivating,
E2. local income
growing, and distributing food and derivative products by 2.16 1.44
generation
urban farmer or community through utilizing designated yard
SE1. Recreational and
called plot within city boundary. Each plot consists of one or 0.09 0.56 0.15
community-building
several sites. There are 2 types of ownership plot such as a plot
SE2. Education and
belongs to and managed by personal urban farmer and plot 0.12 0.77 0.20
learning
belongs to and managed by community. Urban farming takes
multiple forms (Lin et al., 2015; Parece et al., 2017). Hence, to H. Maintenance urban
0.03 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.05
minimize the complexity and considering multiple forms, here, comfort
the study divided urban farming into five (5) forms based on its Total Value 2.40 5.63 1.92 15.92 2.81
characteristics such as level (ground or rooftop), scale (micro Table 4. Monetary valuation of the indicators in each urban
or meso), actor (private or community), and intention. They are farming form in USD per m2 annually (Ns: Nursery; Al:
nurseries, allotment, institutional, residential and rooftop Allotment; If: Institutional; Re: Residential; and Rf: Rooftop
farming. Table 3 shows the detail of urban farming form. This farming)
distinction also decides each urban farming form performance
known as indicator as mention earlier. Every form has certain 3.2 Land Inventory
services, thereby the valuation of urban farming services in
monetary unit adjusted with particular indicator. Based on field visit and direct survey, the result shows that
recently Malang has urban farming areas in the amount of 1.4
ha or equal to 0.01% of total city’s area. These total areas are
Actor
Level
Scale

Size distributed by several urban farming form as shown in Table 5.

Form Profile (intention)
(m2) This occupation is very small contribution in the target of green
private space in Malang city of 10%. However, based on
Nurseries □ # ▲ 36 A greenhouse area for identifying potential area, there is 211 ha or 1.9% of total area
cultivation purpose could be implemented as urban farming. The highest
Allotment □ # ▲ 40~ Frequently for trade/ increasement is showed by allotment form followed by
residential, rooftop, institutional and nurseries farming form.
50 commercial, practice
and social purposes Allotment occupied the highest one because there are
brownfield areas in Malang city that possible to be converted
Residential □ * ♦ 6~ For family’s self- into farmland. However, it is still lacking information and
25 sufficient, hobby mechanism regarding land ownership and benefit sharing
Institution □ # ▲ 30~ Intended for education, between community farmer and landowner if it is converted
70 hobby into farmland. Moreover, there is still gap between current
condition and potential areas to the green space target. But this
Rooftop ○ * ♦ <10
92
Located in private or
institutional building
initial identification also indicated that there is chance to
# ▲ expand urban farming implementation as contribution as green
rooftop; For space private space. Here is the map of existing and potential areas
utilization and hobby (Figure 5) as well as the occupation area size (Table 5).

This contribution has been peer-reviewed.

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-107-2020 | © Authors 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. 111
 The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLIII-B5-2020, 2020
XXIV ISPRS Congress (2020 edition)

The future work will be suggested as follows: (1) develop

spatiotemporal analysis considering future urban development
as scenario such as increasing population, land use and climate
change and policies support, (2) identify suitable vegetables
that appropriate with the scenario, and (3) consider undesirable
effects of urban farming operation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is supported by Asian Development Bank – Japan

Scholarship Program (ADB-JSP) and Urban Sustainability
Science Laboratory, Department of Urban Engineering, The
University of Tokyo, Japan.

REFERENCES

Bappenas, 2018. Roadmap of SDGs Indonesia: A Highlight.

Jakarta, Indonesia.
Bryant, H.I. and T.D. and B.V. and M., 2018. Contribution of
urban farms to urban ecology of a developing city. IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 157, 12026.
Burger, N., Glick, P., Perez-Arce, F., Rabinovich, L., Rana, Y.,
Srinivasan, S., Yoong, J., 2012. Indonesia Urban Poverty
Analysis and Program: Review. California.
Clinton, N., Stuhlmacher, M., Miles, A., Aragon, N.U.,
Wagner, M., Georgescu, M., Herwig, C., Gong, P., 2018.
A Global Geospatial Ecosystem Services Estimate of
Urban Agriculture. Earth’s Futur. 6, 40–60.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000536
Contesse, M., van Vliet, B.J.M., Lenhart, J., 2018. Is urban
Figure 5. Existing and potential urban farming area agriculture urban green space? A comparison of policy
arrangements for urban green space and urban
agriculture in Santiago de Chile. Land use policy 71,
Urban
Existing Area (ha) Potential Area (ha) 566–577.
Farming Form
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2017.11.006
Nurseries 0.0686 0.1982 Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S.,
Allotment 0.8580 143.4354 Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, R.K.,
Residential 0.4021 58.2655 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.
Institutional 0.0166 2.3596 Glob. Environ. Chang. 26, 152–158.
Rooftop 0.0323 7.0610 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.
04.002
Total 1.3776 (0.01%) 211.32 (1.92%)
Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T.,
Table 5. Number of total areas per each urban farming form Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Takeuchi, K., Folke, C., 2019.
Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the
3.3 Actual and Potential Urban Farming Services urban century. Nat. Sustain. 2, 267–273.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1
Considering total value per unit area and land availability for
Gonçalves, C., 2013. Framework and Indicators to Measure
urban farming, then the actual and potential services of urban
Urban Resilience.
farming can be done. The total actual value of urban farming is
Hartatik, S.E., Itaya, A., 2019. The Current Status of Green
US$ 395,095.68 annually while potential value is US$
Space around Elementary Schools: A Case Study of
60,646,800.35 annually for entire city. This value indicates that
Malang, Indonesia. J. For. Plan. 25, 15–20.
urban farming could contribute to 2.16% of Malang city GDP
https://doi.org/10.20659/jfp.2019.001
and thus city’s resilience.
Hasyim, A.W., Hernawan, F.P., 2017. Distribution of green
open space in Malang City based on multispectral data.
4. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 70, 12001.
It was acknowledged that urban farming could improve cities https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/70/1/012001
resilience through various services such as provisioning food IR3S, 2018. Climate change impact assessment for regional
supply, generating local income, emerging recreational and adaptation plans in the Republic of Indonesia. Jakarta.
community-building, provisioning green education and Jantakat, Y., Juntakut, P., Plaiklang, S., Arree, W., Jantakat, C.,
learning, and maintaining urban comfort. The total value of 2019. Spatiotemporal Change of Urban Agriculture
urban farming in Malang city was US$ 395,095.68 annually Using Google Earth Imagery: A Case of Municipality of
and potentially up to US$ 60,646,800.35 annually. Malang has Nakhonratchasima City, Thailand. Int. Arch.
not achieved the target of green space especially for private Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XLII-2/W13,
space. Given the potential areas, this is an opportunity to 1301–1306. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-
extend urban farming initiative and engage more urban 2-W13-1301-2019
dwellers in maintaining green space associated with its benefit. Jonck, A.V., Ribeiro, J.M.P., Berchin, I.I., Perini, F.C., de
Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., 2018. Urban Agriculture

This contribution has been peer-reviewed.

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-107-2020 | © Authors 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. 112
 The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLIII-B5-2020, 2020
XXIV ISPRS Congress (2020 edition)

Practices as Initiatives for Mitigation and Adaptation to

Climate Change: Possibilities for Urban Farms in a
South American City BT - Theory and Practice of
Climate Adaptation, in: Alves, F., Leal Filho, W.,
Azeiteiro, U. (Eds.), . Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp. 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
72874-2_28
Lee, G.-G., Lee, H.-W., Lee, J.-H., 2015. Greenhouse gas
emission reduction effect in the transportation sector by
urban agriculture in Seoul, Korea. Landsc. Urban Plan.
140, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2015.03.012
Lehmann, S., 2019. Urban Regeneration: A Manifesto for
transforming UK Cities in the Age of Climate Change.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04711-5
Lin, B.B., Philpott, S.M., Jha, S., 2015. The future of urban
agriculture and biodiversity-ecosystem services:
Challenges and next steps. Basic Appl. Ecol.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.01.005
Liu, X., Hu, G., Chen, Y., Li, X., Xu, X., Li, S., Pei, F., Wang,
S., 2018. High-resolution multi-temporal mapping of
global urban land using Landsat images based on the
Google Earth Engine Platform. Remote Sens. Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.055
Lupia, F., Pulighe, G., 2015. Water Use and Urban Agriculture:
Estimation and Water Saving Scenarios for Residential
Kitchen Gardens. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 4, 50–58.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.03.0
07
Olsson, E.G.A., Kerselaers, E., Kristensen, L.S., Primdahl, J.,
Rogge, E., Wästfelt, A., 2016. Peri-urban food
production and its relation to urban resilience. Sustain. 8.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121340
Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Womdim, R., Gianquinto, G.,
2013. Urban agriculture in the developing world: a
review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 695–720.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0143-z
Parece, T.E., Serrano, E.L., Campbell, J.B., 2017. Strategically
Siting Urban Agriculture: A Socioeconomic Analysis of
Roanoke, Virginia. Prof. Geogr. 69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1157496
Pulighe, G., Lupia, F., 2019. Multitemporal Geospatial
Evaluation of Urban Agriculture and (Non)-Sustainable
Food Self-Provisioning in Milan, Italy. Sustainability 11,
1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071846
Saha, M., 2016. Geospatial Modeling of Urban Buildings and
Land Use for Climate Change Impacts and Resource
Productivity. Northeastern University.
Subadyo, A.T., Tutuko, P., Bimatyugra Jati, R.M., 2019.
Implementation Analysis of Green City Concept in
Malang - Indonesia. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 7,
36–52. https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.7.2_36
Toulmin, C., 2011. Urban Agriculture: Diverse Activities and
Benefits for City Society. Edited by C. Pearson, S.
Pilgrim and J. Pretty. London: Earthscan (2010), pp.
126, £65.00. ISBN 978-1-84971-124-1. Exp. Agric. 47,
576. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479711000317
UN-Habitat, 2016. Urbanization and Development: Emerging
Futures, in World Cities Report 2016. Norway.
UN, 2018. 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects.
van der Ploeg, S., de Groot, D., Wang, Y., 2010. The TEEB
Valuation Database: overview of structure, data and
results.
Wang, T., Pryor, M., 2019. Social Value of Urban Rooftop
Farming: A Hong Kong Case Study, in: Agricultural
Economics - Current Issues. IntechOpen.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89279

This contribution has been peer-reviewed.

https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-107-2020 | © Authors 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. 113