Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Is urban agriculture urban green space? A comparison of policy T

arrangements for urban green space and urban agriculture in Santiago de
Chile
⁎
Maria Contessea, Bas J.M. van Vlietb, , Jennifer Lenhartc
a
Wageningen University, Knowledge Technology and Innovation Group Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
Wageningen University, Environmental Policy Group Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
c
Världsnaturfonden WWF/WWF Sweden Ulriksdals Slott, 170 81 Solna Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Urban green spaces are crucial for citizens’ wellbeing. Nonetheless, many Latin American cities struggle to
Urban agriculture provide sufficient and equitable green space distribution for their citizens. By looking at the Chilean capital
Urban green space Santiago as an example, this paper examines whether the growing urban agriculture movement provides a
Planning feasible opportunity to increase public urban green space access. It does so by using the policy arrangement
Policy arrangement
approach to analyse change and stability in two policy domains: urban green space planning and urban agri-
Santiago de Chile
culture. The paper investigates urban green spaces and urban agriculture and the role of practitioners, urban
planners and policymakers. The analysis found opportunities for urban agriculture to facilitate the expansion of
urban green spaces in Santiago if policy mechanisms enable private or public spaces to be maintained by citizen
organizations. Such mechanisms may, however, encounter resistance from public agencies, as it is unresolved
who is involved and who benefits from urban agriculture. The paper concludes that urban agriculture is an
opportunity for urban greening in Santiago, although changes are needed in how green areas are planned and
conceived. Additionally, urban agriculture should not be understood as a substitute for parks but as a com-
plementary form of green space provision with a distinctive value.

1. Introduction recreational opportunities to engage in sports, relax, or simply have an

Urban green spaces are important for sustainability and citizens’
wellbeing in increasingly urbanized societies (Bolund and Hunhammar,
1999; Chiesura, 2004). These spaces vary in size, vegetation cover,
environmental quality, facilities and services, and other aspects (Wolch
et al., 2014). For the purpose of this research, urban green spaces are
defined as public goods that allow free access and represent pockets of
nature for all residents (De la Barrera et al., 2016a) and that are gen-
erally maintained by public agencies for citizenś leisure and recreation
(Rojas et al., 2016). In Chile, typical green spaces include urban parks,
squares or plazas, median strips, roadsides, sidewalks, and sometimes
urban wetlands (De la Barrera et al., 2016a; Rojas et al., 2016).
Urban green spaces deliver a wide range of urban ecosystem ser-
vices in all Millennium Ecosystem Assessment categories: provisioning,
regulating, supporting and cultural services (Wolch et al., 2014;
Kabisch, 2016). Green spaces remove pollution, attenuate noise, and
cool temperatures, amongst others (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). In
terms of cultural ecosystem services, urban green spaces provide
experience with nature (Chiesura, 2004). They are also important to
foster social interactions, contributing to neighbours’ and communities’
integration (Huang, 2006; Kázmierczak, 2013). In Latin America,
public spaces, including green spaces, constitute instruments to provide
equity in the access to recreational amenities among citizens from dif-
ferent socio-economic levels, being “classless” spaces; public green
space investments are ostensibly made to benefit the whole city popu-
lation (Berney, 2010 in Wright-Wendel et al., 2012).
In many Latin American cities, public green spaces are scarce or
inequitably distributed (Reyes-Paecke and Figueroa, 2010; Wright-
Wendel et al., 2012; Krellenberg et al., 2014; De la Barrera et al., 2016a,
2016b). For instance, in Santiago de Chile, the five wealthiest munici-
palities have access to an average of 11 m2 of public urban green space/
inhabitant, while the five poorest municipalities have an average of
2 m2/inhabitant. As a reference, the World Health Organization (WHO)
recommends 9 m2 of unpaved green space/inhabitant (Reyes-Reyes-
Paecke and Figueroa, 2010). This is partially the result of explosive and
precarious urbanization from the middle of the 20th century onward,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Bas.vanvliet@wur.nl (B.J.M. van Vliet).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.006
Received 10 November 2016; Received in revised form 30 October 2017; Accepted 1 November 2017
Available online 07 November 2017
0264-8377/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Contesse et al.
wherein limited public budgets for green space maintenance and high
competition for land use hindered the planning of extensive green
spaces. The city’s green space governance is characterized by frag-
mentation in the decision making process, little coordination among the
public institutions involved (Reyes-Paecke et al., 2011), and un-
demanding regulations with respect to public green space provision in
housing development (Valenzuela et al., 2009). Santiago is undergoing
the kind of rapid urbanization attributed to megacities, which reduces
valuable green spaces, including natural reserves and agricultural lands
(Weiland et al., 2011). Under such pressures, it is urgent to explore
alternatives to expand and improve the quantity, quality, distribution
and access to urban green spaces.
Urban agriculture sites are increasingly perceived as a recreation
space for urban dwellers to enjoy nature (Van Leeuwen et al., 2010).
Citizens do not engage in urban agriculture only for food production
but for a variety of reasons, including urban greening, neighbourhood
improvement, or leisure (Rosol, 2010; Thibert, 2012; Cohen and
Reynolds, 2014). Grassroots organizations are making use of UA to
transform the city by reclaiming underused spaces (Thibert, 2012).
They are also contributing to city beautification by converting under-
utilized sites into valuable green spaces (Tidball and Krasny, 2009) and
providing ‘green areas’ where municipal parks are lacking (Schukoske,
2000). Already, some cities have adopted urban agriculture as an urban
green strategy. In Montreal, Canada, and Portland, USA, community
gardens are officially recognized within the cities’ definition of ‘Parks
and Open Areas’ (Schukoske, 2000). In Berlin, the ‘Urban Landscape
Strategy’ develops green spaces under three themes: ‘Beautiful City’,
‘Productive Landscape’ and ‘Urban Nature’. The ‘Productive Landscape’
theme connects allotments, agricultural and urban gardening spaces
with interim users and space pioneers (Thierfelder and Kabisch, 2016).
Integrating urban agriculture within common green spaces can be good
for the design of green areas where citizens can learn about nature
(Colding and Barthel, 2013) and for offering them recreational oppor-
tunities such as gardening that parks do not provide (Francis, 1987).
Previous studies emphasize urban agriculturés potential to foster
social cohesion (Armstrong, 2000; Cohen and Reynolds, 2014; Saldivar-
Tanaka and Krasny, 2004) and community development (Schukoske,
2000). In UA, the garden’s participants come together in an activity,
sharing tools, responsibilities and concerns and fostering contacts and
bonds among them (Fisher et al., 2000; Francis et al., 1984; Saldivar-
Tanaka and Krasny, 2004; Veen, 2015). Parks, instead, may not provide
all those opportunities for community development, because people are
not encouraged to jointly engage in their management (Saldivar-
Tanaka and Krasny, 2004). Systems wherein citizens are active in green
space management −including urban agriculture gardens–are referred
to under concepts such as ‘active land management’ or ‘community
management of open space’ (Schukoske, 2000; Colding and Barthel,
2013, respectively). Pearson et al. (2010) refer to this as a ‘recreational
continuum from passive parkland to active urban agriculture’.
In recent years, urban agriculture has become an attractive land use
alternative because of its potential to address multiple needs. Often, this
research has focused on urban food planning (McClintock et al., 2012;
Pothukuchi, 2015). In Latin America, urban agriculture usually remains
linked to “food security” or “poverty alleviation” discourses
(Knoblauch, 2012), regardless of its urban greening potential. Ad-
ditionally, research concerning access to and planning of urban green
space has primarily focused on parks (Chiesura, 2004; Wright-Wendel
et al., 2012; Wolch et al., 2014; De la Barrera et al., 2016a, 2016b)
rather than on other forms of urban greening. What is lacking is an
understanding of the practical planning and policy implications of
urban agriculture as a public urban green space, particularly in a South
American context. As food production becomes more integrated into
the urban landscape, planning and policymaking need to address urban
agriculture’s diversity and multi-functionality (Thibert, 2012; Cohen
and Reynolds, 2014).
This paper explores whether urban agriculture provides an
567
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577
opportunity to increase public green spaces − in terms of spatial
quantity, access and distribution–in an industrializing country, using
the example of Santiago de Chile. It thus aims to contribute to planning
policies concerning urban green space in such a context. The study fills
an existing knowledge gap on the current and potential roles of urban
agriculture in managing the practices of green spaces −usually parks
and squares −that are planned and conceived in Santiago. It analyses
the opportunities, barriers and innovations that urban agriculture
brings to the current planning policies of urban green spaces, by an-
swering two main research questions:
i What are the similarities and differences between current green
spaces − usually parks and squares − and urban agriculture as
modes to provide public urban green spaces to the City of Santiago?
ii Which modifications in planning policies are needed to integrate
urban agriculture within Santiago’s definition of a green space?
To answer these questions, we applied the Policy Arrangement
Approach (Arts and van Tatenhove, 2004), which is further developed
in Section 2. In Section 3, we explain the research design and meth-
odologies used. In the following section, we present the results on urban
green space and urban agriculture policy arrangements, and we address
the relations between parks and urban agriculture as forms of urban
greening. Finally, the discussion connects our findings on the combined
analysis of urban agriculture and green space policy arrangements to
the literature on urban agriculture by zooming in on the spatial and
social dimensions of urban agriculture. Section 6 presents the conclu-
sions and recommendations for research and policy.
2. Theoretical approach
2.1. The policy arrangement approach (PAA)
The policy arrangement approach (PAA) has its roots in environ-
mental policy and is a theory for analysing organization and substance
as well as stability and change in policy domains (Arts and van
Tatenhove, 2004). In this paper, we used the PAA to analyse how
Santiago’s urban agriculture initiatives are coping within the city’s
green space policy domain. First, we applied the PAA to examine two
policy domains concerning urban green space planning and urban
agriculture in Santiago de Chile. Second, because of its capacity for
analysing both stability and change in policy domains, we used the PAA
to examine change that emerging urban agriculture initiatives bring to
the city’s green space policies. We first assumed that there is a current
and temporally stabilized green space planning policy domain in San-
tiago that conceives green spaces mainly as parks and squares. Sec-
ondly, we hypothesized that urban agriculture practices may bring
change and innovation within this rather stable green space policy ar-
rangement.
In previous studies, the PAA has proved useful as an analytical tool
for environmental policy change (Van der Zouwen, 2006; Wiering and
Arts, 2006; Wiering and Immink, 2006; Arnouts, 2010) and as an
evaluative tool for governance capacity assessment (Dang et al., 2016).
It has been applied in various environmental policy fields, including
natural resource and forest policy (Veenman et al., 2009; Arnouts,
2010; Ayana et al., 2013; Dang et al., 2016), water management
(Wiering and Immink, 2006), agriculture and rural development
(Liefferink, 2006).
Arts et al. (2006) define a policy arrangement as the ‘temporary
stabilization of the content and organization of a policy domain’. While
the two aspects of content and organization are further elaborated, the
PAA distinguishes four dimensions: (1) actors, (2) rules of the game, (3)
power and resources and (4) discourses. The ‘actors’, ‘rules of the
game’, and ‘power and resources’ refer to organizational aspects of the
policy arrangement, whereas ‘discourses’ refer to the substantive as-
pects (Veenman et al., 2009). Actors might act individually or in
M. Contesse et al.
coalitions in trying to influence the ‘rules of the game’ that guide the
policy process. They tend to act individually if they have the power to
mobilize resources (e.g., money, technology). If no single actor dom-
inates the control of resources, coalitions will need to be formed in
order to share, control, and re-distribute resources (Veenman et al.,
2009). The ‘rules of the game’ dimension consists of the regulations,
legislation and procedures relevant to a certain policy domain. These
may be either formal procedures of decision-making and implementa-
tion or informal rules of interaction (Van Tatenhove et al., 2000). The
‘power and resources dimension’ refers to the division and distribution
of resources between actors involved, leading to differences in power
and influence. Power refers to the mobilization and deployment of
available resources, which will influence the ability of actors to de-
termine policy outcomes (Liefferink, 2006). Generally, resources are
unequally distributed among actors, resulting in unequal influence to
achieve outcomes. Finally, the ‘discourse’ dimension entails the views
and narratives of the actors involved (norms, values, definitions of
problems and approaches to solutions) (Liefferink, 2006). According to
Arts and Buizer (2009), discourses encompass a wide variety of topics,
from formal policy concepts and texts to popular narratives and story
lines, giving meaning to a policy domain.
In the PAA, these four dimensions are inextricably interwoven
(Fig. 1), meaning that any change to one of them induces a change to
the other dimensions (Arts et al., 2006). Hence, although a policy ar-
rangement is a ‘temporary stabilization’ of a policy domain, the theory
also assumes that policy domains are dynamic and constantly evolve
due to the pressure for change and policy innovation (Arts and van
Tatenhove, 2004).
3. Methodology
This study is a qualitative study based on cases selected in Santiago
de Chile.
3.1. Study site
Santiago is Chile’s capital and largest urban agglomeration, with
more than 6.5 million inhabitants. The institutional fabric of Chile
distinguishes three levels of governance: national, regional and local.
Hence, rather than being an administrative unit, Santiago is an ag-
glomeration of 34 municipalities that together form the Metropolitan
Area of Santiago (MAS) (De la Barrera et al., 2016a, 2016b). These 34
municipalities are autonomous, with their own elected mayor, council,
budgets and socio-economic characteristics (Escobedo et al., 2006).
Because Santiago is a spatially segregated city socio-economically
(Sabatini et al., 2001), there are high economic resource inequalities
among the 34 municipalities, and these inequalities are directly related
to the unequal green space distribution among them (Escobedo et al.,
2006; Reyes-Paecke and Figueroa, 2010). In this study, we conducted
research in four municipalities (Fig. 2; Table 1).
Fig. 1. The tetrahedron as a symbol for the connections among the dimensions of a policy
arrangement (adapted from Arts et al., 2006).
568
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577
During the last few years, municipalities and civil organizations
−including NGOs, artists, neighbourhoods and university groups– have
been developing urban agriculture (UA). By 2012, a coalition of civi-
lians involved in some of these UA initiatives was formed: the Urban
Agriculture Network (RAU − Red de Agricultura Urbana). The RAU
elaborated a cadastre registering 39 urban agriculture gardens across
different municipalities and spaces from Santiago, including homes,
schools, public sidewalks, vacant plots, university gardens, and green
spaces (Heitmann, 2014). Some municipalities also support urban
agriculture in public spaces, although UA remains unconsidered as a
potential green space by ministerial public agencies responsible for
green area planning and management (Fig. 3).
3.2. Operationalization of the PAA
We used the PAA to reconstruct both green space and urban agri-
culture policy arrangements in Santiago, identifying the actors involved
and their discourses, the operating rules, and the needed resources for
both urban agriculture and green spaces.
First, we identified the ‘actors’ involved in each policy arrangement.
Attention was given to whether they collaborate with other actors and
with what aims. Secondly, we operationalized ‘the rules of the game’ in
terms of the existing procedures (whether formal or informal) for en-
abling both green spaces and urban agriculture, for instance, the
planning instruments and actors’ responsibilities concerning space al-
location, implementation, and maintenance processes. As part of this
dimension, we included the different urban agriculture gardens’ own
rules. Third, we operationalized the ‘power and resource’ dimension in
terms of the most limiting resources for providing green and UA spaces
(e.g., space, funding, legal resources). We understand ‘power’ as actors’
influence in mobilizing these resources for green space or urban agri-
culture (e.g., in relation to their economic resources or the rules of the
game that support them). Finally, we examined the discourse vis-à-vis
the relevance that parks and UA sites have for Santiago and the needs
and motivations of citizens for these spaces. We included the potential
causes and solutions for the unequal green space distribution across the
city as part of the discourses as well as the extent to which urban
agriculture is considered a public green space in the opinion of UA
developers, practitioners and planners from academia and the public
sector.
Once reconstructed, we compare both policy arrangements in order
to find similarities and differences between parks and urban agriculture
as modes to provide urban green space (Fig. 4). Further analysis al-
lowed us to identify opportunities, barriers and innovations that urban
agriculture brings to current green space planning in Santiago.
3.3. Data gathering
Guided by the PAA’s theoretical concepts and based on qualitative
research methods, we conducted our fieldwork in Santiago in 2012. We
gathered data from written sources, 22 semi-structured interviews (in-
cluding urban policy officers, academics, and UA developers), seven
group discussions with UA practitioners, and a focus group session with
UA developers.
To examine Santiago’s public green space policy domain, we re-
viewed academic papers and green space-related legal and planning
policy documents.1 Through this process, we identified key actors for
interviews. We conducted open-ended and semi-structured interviews
with public-sector policymakers and other actors involved, such as civil
society (Fundación Mi Parque) and research institutions academics. The
academics were university professors from different urban disciplines,
such as planning, design, landscape and ecology. Policymakers included
planning officers from the Ministry of Urbanism and Household
1
Reviewed Urban Green Space legal and planning policy documents:
M. Contesse et al. Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577

Fig. 2. Overview map of the city of Santiago, including boundaries among municipalities, main streets and river, existing green spaces (not necessarily public), and the location of
selected urban agriculture case study sites. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Source: Geospatial Infrastructure Data of Chile (www.ide.cl)

Table 1 were the following: functioning for at least two years; having a year-
Characteristics of studied municipalities. round activities calendar; and being freely accessible to all citizens
Source: National System of Municipal Indicators (www.sinim.cl) and the Association of
during opening hours. Gardens differed in the type of responsible
Market Researches from Chile (AIM, 2008).
leading organization, including the following: municipalities, either
Municipality Population (inhab.) Average family income carrying out or supporting urban agriculture; Chilean NGOs; and self-
organized neighbourhood organizations.
La Pintana 213.702 Lower
Each case study UA garden received a site visit, during which we
Renca. 152.399 Lower and lower-middle
Santiago 372.330 Median and middle-high held group discussions (7 in total) with non-selected volunteer practi-
La Reina 101.614 Middle-high and high tioners in their respective gardens. The group discussions enabled
conversations with practitioners about their motivations to practice
urban agriculture. Separately, developers from each UA garden case
(MINVU) and from the four municipalities of Santiago corresponding to study and the president of the RAU were individually interviewed. In
the municipalities where urban agriculture case studies were located total, we conducted eight individual semi-structured interviews −
(La Pintana, Renca, Santiago and La Reina). In total, we conducted 14 guided by semi-structured questions − with UA developers, including
interviews with public planning policy officers and academics. The PAA the RAU president. Furthermore, we conducted a focus group session in
was operationalized as described above to question interviewees about, which the developers of each UA garden initiative and the RAU pre-
inter alia, the failure/success rates of urban green planning in Santiago, sident jointly discussed, guided by a semi-structured topic list, their
how they perceive the results and potential solutions, and their per- perception about the relevance of UA for Santiago, its potential and
ception of urban agriculture’s relevance for Santiago and as a possible challenges as a green space, and what is needed from planning policies
green space strategy. to encourage urban agriculture.
To study the emerging UA policy arrangement, we conducted seven
case studies (Fig. 2; Table 2). The case studies correspond to UA garden
initiatives. The sampling criteria for the selection of UA garden sites

569
M. Contesse et al. Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577

Fig. 3. a and b: Examples of urban green and urban agriculture spaces in Santiago. 3.a) Parque Forestal, a classic park located in the Municipality of Santiago. 3.b) Huertas Urbanas de La
Reina, located in the Municipality of La Reina (Source: pictures by the author and by Julia Franco, respectively). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

4. Reconstructing Santiago’s current green space and emerging
urban agriculture policy arrangements
We present our empirical findings in the three following sub-sec-
tions. The first two sub-sections describe the green space and the urban
agriculture policy arrangements, respectively. A third section analyses
relations between parks and urban agriculture as forms of urban green
space (Fig. 5).
4.1. The urban green space policy arrangement
4.1.1. Actors
Public, private and civil society actors are involved in the urban
green space policy domain. Among the public agencies are munici-
palities and governmental agencies, including the Ministry of Urbanism
and Household (MINVU– Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo), the
Ministry of Public Works (MOP–Ministerio de Obras Públicas), and the
Regional Metropolitan Government of Santiago (GORE RM–Gobierno
Regional Metropolitano de Santiago). Governmental agencies provide
funding for the creation and improvement of green spaces, especially in
low-income municipalities. Also, the MINVU −through its Parque
Metropolitano office– administrates and maintains parks belonging to
the “Urban Parks Programme”. Municipalities must allocate space and
must implement and maintain green spaces within their territory.
However, in every housing development, real estate corporations de-
cide and design green space layouts. They do so by complying with

Fig. 4. Urban green space and urban agriculture policy arrangements and their relations. Similarities are represented in the areas that overlap, differences in those that do not. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

570
M. Contesse et al.
Table 2
Overview of urban agriculture case study sites.
Source: author’s interviews with the respective developer of each UA case study site.
Name Size
m2 Number of participants
Huerto Urbano Antumalal 91 aprox. 6 Neighbourhood organization
Huerto Catedral 95 aprox. 20
Huerto Maturana con Mapocho 415 aprox. 15
Plantabandas 168 15
Huerto Urbano Yungay 300 10
Huertas Urbanas de La Pintana 700 aprox. 25
Huertas Urbanas de La Reina 2500 146
green space requirements set up in national planning instruments. The
respective municipality must implement and maintain these spaces
thereafter.
During the last few years, civil society organizations have emerged
in an aim to expand urban green spaces in low-income municipalities
(Mi Parque) or in deforested urban areas (Cultiva). Mi Parque does so via
private sponsorships, recovering unmaintained green spaces due to
municipalities’ budget constraints, and integrating the respective
neighbours and other volunteers within these sites’ design and im-
plementation. The respective municipality has to maintain these spaces
once implemented.
Several interviewees, including public planning officers and land-
scape academics, stated that there are no official coalitions among the
actors involved, although they do collaborate informally. For instance,
Mi Parque and the MINVU coordinate their activities to avoid working
in the same neighbourhoods. However, according to a planning re-
searcher, “municipalities work separately and do not find frameworks or
incentives to plan and maintain a park together” (Interview 19). The lit-
erature has found little coordination among the public institutions in-
volved and fragmentation in the decision-making process (Reyes-
Paecke et al., 2011).
4.1.2. Rules of the game
There are two national legal planning instruments for public green
space allocation and one regional instrument.2 In addition, each mu-
nicipality has an office Land Use Plan. Another instrument is the ‘Re-
gional Green Space Policy’ (GORE RM, 2014), launched in 2013, which
aims to guide public investment in green space implementation, al-
though it is not a mandatory instrument for green space development.
None of these instruments give public agencies the competence to zone
for green space. To allocate space, public agencies must buy it at market
prices. According to most planning officers and academics, this is nearly
impossible for the majority of municipalities, and most are constrained
to plan green spaces in idle spaces belonging either to them or the state,
although, as stated by public officers and urban researchers, few spaces
still belong to these institutions. To increase green space in low-income
municipalities, the central government (via the MINVU) has created
different programs. The first was the “Urban Parks Program” in 1992
(Programa de Parques Urbanos), under which 15 parks were constructed
in different middle-low-income municipalities from Santiago. There-
after, in 2014, the “Chile Green Space Plan” (Chile Plan Area Verde) was
launched, which aims to create or improve a total of 34 urban parks in
abandoned or disused urban spaces across Chile, including 5 parks in
low-income municipalities from Santiago. The Urban Parks Program
was positively evaluated for its ample coverage and for increasing the
amount of green spaces in low-income municipalities, although one of
2
The national instruments are the LGUC–Ley General de Urbanismo y
Construcción–General Law of Urbanism and Construction (MINVU, 2016a); and OGU-
C–Ordenanza General de Urbanismo y Construcción–General Law of Urbanism and Con-
struction (MINVU, 2016b). The regional instrument is the PRMS–Plan Regulador Me-
tropolitano de Santiago–Santiago Metropolitan Master Plan.
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577
Responsible Organization Municipality Location
Renca
Neighbourhood organization Santiago
Neighbourhood organization (with support from the Municipality of Santiago) Santiago
NGO Plantabanda Santiago
NGO Cultivos Urbanos (with support from the Municipality of Santiago) Santiago
Municipality of La Pintana La Pintana
Municipality of La Reina La Reina
its weaknesses was that this planning was not necessarily in accordance
with the needs per municipality (NU-CEPAL, 2005). Urban researchers
and public sector informants indicated that this is because green space
planning is limited to urban spaces that public agencies can afford, such
as public brownfields, former dumping sites and along rail corridors.
Another procedure for space allocation occurs by private initiative.
In every housing development, real estate corporations must comply
with green space requirements, as set up in national planning instru-
ments. However, according to a MINVU officer, “a strip of 3 m width in
the middle of the street counts as a green space; the law does not oblige us to
construct a green space where children can play, etc.” (Interview 13). As
stated by an urban landscape researcher as well as some public officers,
although it is informal, real estate agencies often do invest and imple-
ment nice green spaces in high-income neighbourhoods where custo-
mers can pay for it. In contrast, in social housing developments, real
estate corporations comply with the minimum standard allowed and
avoid implementing green spaces, which is a duty of the respective
municipality. Hence, low-income residents are most affected by low-
quality green space standards.
After construction, green spaces are maintained by different public
agencies. The 15 parks created by the “Urban Parks Program” and the
new ones to be constructed by the “Chile Green Space Plan” are directly
maintained by Parque Metropolitano, a MINVU office. All other green
spaces must be maintained by the respective municipality where they
belong. The high inequality in the availability of economic resources
among public agencies involved directly affects the quality of these
spaces. We discuss this further below.
4.1.3. Power and resources
Several planning officers and landscape and planning academics
identified space access and funding for both implementation and
maintenance as the most limiting resources. According to an urban
landscape academic, “even if parks were created in all currently available
spaces, Santiago (the city) would continue to have a green space deficit”
(Interview 16). Due to the lack of both legal and economic resources,
public agencies have a very limited influence in trying to allocate space
for urban greening, and they cannot compete against developments
involving more economic resources, as signalled by multiple public
sector and urban researchers. As a result, green spaces are set aside for
urban spaces in disuse or without a more profitable use (e.g., public
brownfields, former dumping-sites and along rail corridors).
Public agencies’ economic resources directly impact their ability to
provide urban green space. There is high inequality in the economic
resources available to different public agencies. Parks maintained by
MINVU or wealthy municipalities are in a better condition than those
maintained by middle-low-income municipalities (Reyes-Paecke and
Figueroa, 2010). As indicated by many interviewees from the public
sector and research institutions, in social housing and low-income
municipalities, it is common to find ample areas intended to be green
spaces that are never constructed, as municipalities cannot afford their
construction. Moreover, even though municipalities can apply for
571
M. Contesse et al. Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577

Fig. 5. a, b, c, d. Relations between the green space planning and urban agriculture policy arrangements in the four dimensions of PAA: a) Actors, b) Rules of the Game, c) Power and
Resources, d) Discourses. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

governmental funding3 to construct or improve these spaces, it is often
the case, according to an urban researcher, that “they cannot thereafter
maintain the green space; consequently, these spaces face rapid deteriora-
tion” (Interview 15). The executive director of Mi Parque indicated that
one of their challenges is to find municipalities that count with the
budget to thereafter maintain the green spaces they implement. Thus,
3
The main economic instruments for urban green development are the FNDR (Fondo
Nacional de Desarrollo Regional–National Fund for Regional Development) and, even-
tually, the MINVÚs programme “Quiero mi barrio”. However, none of these funds are par-
ticularly intended for urban green construction or improvement.
multiple interviewees, from both the academic and public sectors, agree
that a main problem is the absence of funding and support for low-
income municipalities to maintain their green spaces.
4.1.4. Discourses
Numerous interviewees related green spaces to discourses on:
“quality of life,” “contact with nature,” “leisure and recreation,” “re-
laxation” and “contemplation.” Nonetheless, none of these aspects are
included within legal and official planning instruments’ green space
definition. There, green space is defined as “land mainly intended for
recreation or pedestrians, generally composed by vegetation species

572
M. Contesse et al.
Fig. 5. (continued)
and other complementary elements”.4 The MINVU, the Ministry of the
Environment (MMA, 2011), and the GORE RM (GORE RM, 2013) have
proposed new green space definitions indicating that these are spaces
mainly covered by vegetation and are for citizens’ recreation. However,
these are still unofficial legal definitions. As signalled by planners from
both the public sector and academia, the lack of a proper definition has
led to the implementation of low-quality green spaces that are unable to
provide citizens “contact with nature”. Most planners interviewed
suggested that current green space definitions and standards should be
improved and stressed that green spaces must be predominantly
4
Art. 1.1.2. from the General Ordinance of Urbanism and Construction–Ordenanza
General de Urbanismo y Construcción–OGUC (MINVU, 2016b).
573
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577
composed by vegetation and must fulfil at least recreational or en-
vironmental services.
4.2. The urban agriculture policy arrangement
4.2.1. Actors
Public agencies and civil society groups drive urban agriculture.
Among public agencies, some municipalities are involved and are re-
levant in facilitating space and, in some cases, funding for im-
plementation and site maintenance (e.g., La Reina, La Pintana). Most
gardens are maintained by NGOs or neighbourhood groups that are also
relevant in mobilizing space and in implementation.
Developers indicated that NGOs and municipalities collaborate to
spread urban agriculture practice, but mainly to diffuse their own
M. Contesse et al.
organizationś projects. They also revealed that there is competition
among NGOs and some municipalities in order to be an urban agri-
culture referent or for implementing UA projects demanded by other
public or private institutions. The group discussions held with the
neighbourhood UA organizations indicated that among neighbourhood
groups, collaboration is important for exchanging inputs (i.e., seeds,
compost) and knowledge and that they do not compete with other or-
ganizations.
4.2.2. Rules of the game
There are no formal instruments for allocating space for urban
agriculture, although no policies prohibit its practice either. According
to a developer, whether one can practice agriculture in a public space
depends on the mayor’s willingness. Under the absence of official fra-
meworks, developers must find space and negotiate its use with the
respective space owners. In the view of all developers, this is an ex-
hausting process. In general, gardens are located in available disused
spaces such as un-maintained sidewalks (Plantabandas), or they belong
to the municipality (La Reina, La Pintana, Yungay) or to the same
neighbourhood group exercising urban agriculture in their common
owned space (Maturana-Mapocho, Antumalal, Catedral). It is unlikely
that developers can access other public or private vacant plots or un-
maintained green spaces, as no frameworks exist to encourage owners
−private or public–to lend these spaces.
With the exception of neighbourhood projects, all other gardens
need to deal with temporal land tenure permissions, based on trust.
Developers from both municipalities and NGOs indicated that they face
land tenure insecurity, which in their view hinders the expansion of
urban agriculture. They also signalled that starting a garden is ex-
hausting, not necessarily in terms of money, but in terms of labour, time
and organizing the community. Many developers agreed that formal
long-term policy frameworks for land use are crucial.
Each garden sets up its own rules, which usually concern how space
is distributed among participants and how funding and maintenance
are arranged. There are community gardens where the space, harvests
and maintenance labour are shared among participants (e.g., Yungay,
Antumalal, Catedral, La Pintana). In these cases, practitioners come and
go whenever they want, without any formal or major commitment. In
other gardens (e.g., Maturana‐Mapocho, La Reina, Plantabanda), parti-
cipants are formally registered and receive, for free, an agreed-upon
period of time as an allotment to harvest and maintain the garden. In
exchange, they must contribute to the whole garden’s maintenance. In
all gardens, participants and developers collaborate on maintenance.
However, in La Pintana and La Reina, the respective municipality pays
salaries to personnel who assist in maintenance and administration.
Another model is that of the municipality of Santiago. Here, the mu-
nicipality facilitates space and, in some cases, funding to UA civil or-
ganizations under the condition that they maintain these spaces. This is
the case of the UA garden Yungay, where the NGO (Cultivos Urbanos)
maintains the garden and the municipality of Santiago facilitates the
space and pays the water bills. In all other gardens, both developers and
practitioners are responsible for maintenance and costs (e.g., Antumalal,
Catedral, Maturana-Mapocho, Plantabanda). All developers agreed that
they would like to work with more participants. The exception is La
Reina UA garden, where there is a waiting list for receiving an allot-
ment.
4.2.3. Power and resources
The most limiting resources were found to be access to space and, in
some cases, funding. Concerning space, urban planning researchers
indicated that there is no chance for urban agriculture to compete with
other land uses. According to several planning officers and academics,
this should not constrain urban agriculture’s development, as in their
view, UA can adapt to various spaces, including vacant plots, sidewalks,
un-maintained and well-maintained parks, roofs, and schools.
Nonetheless, the developers stated that they have too little influence to
574
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577
mobilize these spaces. Neither developers from the NGO Cultivos
Urbanos nor the neighbourhood group Antumalal could access their
preferred spaces, such as private vacant plots and public un-maintained
green areas. Eventually, their projects were implemented in available
unused spaces. In practice, civilians and public agencies can rarely
mobilized the varied spatial opportunities for urban agriculture
Santiago offers.
With regard to economic resources, all planning municipality offi-
cers opposed the idea that UA gardens should be maintained by public
agencies. In their view, and as signalled by landscape academics, urban
agriculture is more expensive and laborious to maintain compared to
most parks. For instance, according to a municipality of Santiago
planning officer, “We cannot maintain most sidewalks: we are less capable
of maintaining something that demands permanent sowing, harvesting,
weeding, etc. I believe urban agriculture is a work that the municipality must
support, but citizens have to maintain it” (Interview 10). As signalled by
group discussions, economic resources are not necessarily a limiting
resource in neighbourhoods’ projects, where every participant con-
tributes to the maintenance costs and work. Moreover, urban agri-
culture gardens run by neighbourhood groups consider economic in-
dependence important for their projects to endure.
4.2.4. Discourses
As indicated by group discussions from all gardens, most practi-
tioners engage in urban agriculture in order to “reconnect with nature”,
“have contact with nature”, “relax”, or “socialize”. All practitioners
agreed that the possibility to socialize with others is an important as-
pect when choosing an urban agriculture project. According to a
practitioner, “The food objective is secondary; it is relevant to relax and
share with others. This garden helped us form a group of women that listen
and help each other” (Group Discussion 1). Most neighbourhood UA
projects launched their projects not necessarily with an aim to produce
food but to unite with others in the improvement and beautification of
their neighbourhood and to provide spaces for social interaction.
Most developers signalled that in Santiago, urban agriculture is re-
levant for food and environmental education. Developers and several
planners from academia and the public sector agreed that UA has the
potential to improve neighbourhoods by providing green spaces for
social interactions and developing a sense of place. According to an
urban academic, “urban agriculture’s greatest relevance is its capacity to
improve public and private spaces in terms of beauty, safety, and community
encounter. So, there is something in urban agriculture that is not food but
that is part of social projects” (Interview 19). Likewise, according to the
MINVU officer and some urban researchers, while beautifying public
spaces, urban agriculture may become a valuable means to foster a
sense of place and citizens’ participation in the care of their public and
common spaces.
4.3. Relations between urban green spaces and urban agriculture policy
arrangements and the provision of public green spaces in Santiago
We can now employ the dimensions of PAA to compare current
urban green spaces in Santiago −usually parks and squares– and urban
agriculture as forms of urban greening. Fig. 5 summarizes the com-
parison developed in the following sections.
Both public and civil society actors are involved in both green space
and UA policy arrangements. In the green space policy arrangement,
public agencies prevail, whereas in the UA policy arrangement, both
municipalities and civil organizations are drivers (Fig. 5a). Civil orga-
nizations have also arisen within the green space policy arrangement
and have introduced participatory approaches wherein neighbours and
volunteers are included in the design and implementation of green
space. However, urban agriculture goes a step further by requiring ci-
tizens’ involvement not only in the design and implementation pro-
cesses but also in the management and maintenance of these spaces.
According to some planning experts from academia and the public
M. Contesse et al.
sector, as a green space, urban agriculture represents a shift from a
policy domain where state agencies supply green spaces to one in which
citizens are key actors in urban green space provision.
Concerning the rules of the game (Fig. 5b), different instruments
exist for green space allocation that do not apply to urban agriculture.
Nonetheless, in practice, both urban agriculture and common green
spaces are planned in disused urban spaces that lack a more profitable
use. Regarding the differences, by rule, parks are conceived of as public
spaces for everyone to enjoy. Instead, as signalled by most planning
officers, it is unclear to what extent urban agriculture sites can function
as public spaces. For instance, in the experience of a developer, “we tried
to introduce urban agriculture in the neighbours’ common space, but it was
impossible, as most perceived it as if it would benefit only a few” (Interview
1). The fact that one citizen has a self-owned allotment represents an
appropriation of the public space, as noted by many planning officers
and landscape academics. In their view, this can hinder the integration
of UA within Chilean green space planning policies. In response, a
planning researcher signalled that UA developers need to work and
highlight the public benefits of urban agriculture gardens: “maybe only
some have an allotment, but the beautification and safety of the space
benefits all. Which is better, that the space is maintained only by a few but is
pretty for all or that it is there for everyone but abandoned and unsafe?”
(Interview 19)
Concerning the power and resources dimension (Fig. 5.c.), a major
constraint for both the implementation of parks and urban agriculture is
physical space. In part, this is due to the lack of legal, planning and
economic resources that support public and civil society actors in mo-
bilizing space, as compared to private real estate interests and high
influence to determine green space allocation in housing developments.
As a result, UA and parks cannot compete for space against actors with
higher economic resources, and their planning is limited to disused
urban spaces without a more profitable use. Within the UA policy ar-
rangement, new forms of space so far unconsidered by the green space
policy arrangement arise (e.g., private and public vacant plots, roofs),
but rarely can UA developers mobilize these spaces. Planning officers,
planning and landscape academics, and some UA developers have sig-
nalled that UA can be an opportunity to deliver green spaces in low-
income municipalities that struggle to maintain green spaces. A lack of
economic resources may lead to involving citizens in maintenance of
these sites. UA might be an opportunity to deliver green spaces at lower
cost only if citizens assume responsibility for these sites’ maintenance.
Otherwise, as signalled by interviewed planning officers and academics,
urban agriculture would be more expensive for public agencies to
maintain when compared to parks.
In terms of discourses, both common green spaces and urban agri-
culture are related to ‘relaxation’, ‘contact with nature’, and ‘leisure and
recreation’. According to an urban ecology academic, common green
spaces and UA gardens may provide similar ecosystem services, such as
biodiversity enhancement, heat island effect regulation, and water in-
filtration. However, urban agriculture should not be understood as a
replacement but rather a complement to parks, as emphasized by some
planning officers; planning, urban ecology and landscape academics; as
well as some UA developers and practitioners. In the view of most of
them, parks remain unique spaces for contemplation, relaxation and
simply doing nothing. Urban agriculture instead demands that citizens
work and follow the rules established by developers. Under some cir-
cumstances, UA may be a better green space alternative compared to
parks. According to a landscape academic, “where to put urban agri-
culture or a park should depend on the objectives for a certain neighbour-
hood; if these are in social risk areas or enhance social cohesion, then urban
agriculture could have an advantage over parks” (Interview 16) (Fig. 5d.).
5. Discussion
The outcomes of our combined analysis of policy arrangements on
urban agriculture and green space planning can now be discussed and
575
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577
related to the current literature on urban agriculture. Two major di-
mensions stand out here: the spatial and the social.
5.1. Spatial dimensions of urban agriculture in the metropolitan area of
Santiago
As this study has demonstrated, green space provision constitutes a
relevant field for studying urban agriculture. While current literature
on urban agriculture is mostly related to food planning (McClintock
et al., 2012; Pothukuchi, 2015) and production (Deelstra and Girardet,
2000; Taylor and Lovell, 2013), poverty alleviation (Knoblauch, 2012),
and the social functions UA can deliver (Cohen and Reynolds, 2014;
Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny, 2004; Armstrong, 2000; Macias, 2008;
Madaleno, 2001; Veen, 2015), our findings resonate with the relatively
scarce research on UA that considers urban agriculture as a method of
creating green space in disused urban spaces (Clausen, 2015;
McClintock et al., 2013; Taylor and Lovell, 2013). With Cohen and
Reynolds (2014), Rosol (2010), Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny (2004),
Thibert (2012) and Tidball and Krasny (2009), we found that both
parks and urban agriculture beautify urban spaces and provide in-
habitants with benefits such as leisure and recreation, relaxation, and
the enjoyment of nature. Parks and urban agriculture deliver other
ecosystem services as well (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999; Kabisch,
2016), with vegetation as a key provider of these services (Zhou and
Kim, 2013). Consequently, there is evidence for planners, designers and
city officers to consider urban agriculture as an important part of urban
green space (Francis, 1987). However, our findings also align with
previous studies (Francis, 1987; Huang and Drescher, 2015; Lovell and
Taylor, 2013; McClintock et al., 2013) in that urban agriculture cannot
produce all the services that public green spaces can offer.
5.2. Social dimensions of urban agriculture in the metropolitan area of
Santiago
Our analysis of urban agriculture and urban greening in Santiago
revealed that the distribution of green space is highly unequal and is
directly related to municipalities’ and citizens’ socio-economic status. In
such a context, encouraging low-income citizens to be active in their
green space maintenance (e.g., through the practice of UA), while
wealthy citizens continue to enjoy publicly maintained green spaces, may
sustain Santiago’s inequitable green space policy domain. Voluntary en-
gagement within green space management might be a limited resource in
general, as regards time, skills and work, whereas a long-lasting com-
mitment of residents can be difficult to achieve (Rosol, 2012). The latter
coincides with our findings in Santiago, where UA developers considered
the process of involving and organizing a community of participants
within UA projects as exhausting. Other studies also refer to negative
perceptions towards urban agriculture for its exclusive use in parks
(Colding and Barthel, 2013; Huang and Drescher, 2015; McClintock,
2014). Similarly to what some planning academics from Santiago sug-
gested, Schukoske (2000) emphasizes that to justify public support for
urban agriculture, public purposes must be emphasized (e.g., beau-
tification, vacant space recovery, ecosystem services, and others). Policy
frameworks may need to warrant that these spaces remain publicly ac-
cessed rather than appropriated only by those involved (Rosol, 2012).
Several planning and landscape academics and practitioners in
Santiago associated urban agriculture with ‘social cohesion’ or ‘sense of
place’. In neighbourhoods where there is a need to enhance social co-
hesion, UA gardens can indeed present a better alternative to parks in
the view of some of them. Previous studies have addressed urban
agriculture as a means to foster social cohesion (Armstrong, 2000;
Cohen and Reynolds, 2014; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny, 2004) and
community development (Schukoske, 2000). However, UA sites can
also be places of social exclusion (Glover, 2004) or places where
broader social disparities are replicated (Reynolds, 2015). The extent to
which UA gardens enhance social cohesion varies depending on garden
M. Contesse et al.
types, designs, shapes and sizes (Veen, 2015). In that sense, UA sites are
similar to parks, whose contribution to the development of social ties
among residents will vary according to the quality, maintenance and
safety of these spaces, and it is dependent on other neighbourhood
characteristics conducive to the establishment of social ties
(Kázmierczak, 2013).
6. Conclusions
This paper has taken stock of similarities and differences between
current green spaces and urban agriculture as modes to provide urban
green spaces in Santiago de Chile. We also explored whether and how
urban agriculture provides an opportunity to increase public green
spaces in the city.
Similarities and differences were found in the following: Both urban
agriculture and new green spaces are mostly planned in disused urban
spaces that lack a more profitable use. While the status of parks as
public green spaces is evident, the status of most urban agriculture sites
is still unresolved. They both offer cultural ecosystem services, such as
‘relaxation’, ‘contact with nature’, ‘leisure and recreation’, and a
number of other ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, heat island
effect regulation, and water infiltration. Although both public and civil
society actors are involved in green space and UA provision, civil so-
ciety is much more involved in the latter, not only in the design and
implementation processes but also in the management and maintenance
of these spaces.
To analyse the opportunities for UA to increase public green spaces
in Santiago, the policy arrangement approach was employed: a theory
aimed at analysing change and stability within policy domains in four
analytical dimensions of actors, rules of the game, power and resources,
and discourses. A first opportunity builds on the finding that including
UA in green space management means that many civil actors will take
an active role. This is new for the city’s green space policy arrangement,
where green space management has so far been limited to public actors,
despite the unequal distribution in economic resources among them.
Secondly, we found UA garden models that combine public and in-
dividual use at the same time. Opening up the Chilean green space
policy arrangement, which so far only acknowledges private and public
green spaces, would stimulate green space provision through UA in-
itiatives. Access to space was found to be a main barrier for urban
greening and even more so for UA expansion. Nevertheless, urban
agriculture might be an opportunity to expand the amount of urban
green spaces in urban spaces so far not considered in green space po-
licies. Lastly, while practitioners do not consider urban agriculture so-
lely or mainly for food production but as spaces for leisure and social
activity, policy makers could also emphasize the multiple functions UA
could provide. Together with public and civil society organizations,
policy actors can support UA for various purposes, including the
greening of neighbourhoods and citizens’ interaction with urban green
space management.
6.1. Theoretical contribution and research recommendations
The PAA helped frame urban green space planning and urban
agriculture in Santiago as well as to structure interviews and data
collection to reconstruct both urban green and UA policy arrangements.
Once reconstructed, the approach’s analytical distinction of four di-
mensions while simultaneously emphasizing their interconnectedness
allowed for a thorough understanding of both policy arrangements.
This comparison revealed opportunities, barriers and changes asso-
ciated with the integration of urban agriculture as a green space in
Santiago. Future studies related to other environmental fields may
apply the PAA as a comparative framework for analysing stability,
change and innovation within different, yet related policy arrange-
ments for that environmental field.
Further research may also explore the effectiveness of different UA
576
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577
garden models (i.e., community gardens, private allotments, public
allotments) in terms of their strengths, weaknesses and outcomes and
the challenges for green community management of open space. In
addition, an economic assessment of parks and UA site maintenance or
the integration of vacant lands and other marginal spaces for urban
green expansion in Latin American cities may inform policy makers in
planning urban green spaces.
6.2. Policy recommendations
Next to questioning what the opportunities are for including UA in
urban green space, this paper questioned what modifications are
needed in planning policies to integrate urban agriculture within
Santiago’s policy definitions of a green space. The general re-
commendation drawn from the findings of this paper is that policy
makers should conceive urban agriculture as a complementary form of
urban greening rather than a substitute for parks. Both urban agri-
culture sites and parks have their own distinctive values in providing
urban green spaces. In addition, we present three more specific re-
commendations below.
For the integration of UA in the provision of green space in Santiago,
green space standards and definitions need to be enhanced in spatial
policies. They should include the fulfilment of recreational and other
ecosystem services next to the claim that green space should be pre-
dominantly covered by vegetation. Urban agriculture would fit within
such a green space definition due to its potential capacity to deliver
ecosystem services and recreation values. This implies broadening the
currently homogenous offer of green areas planned and conceived in
Santiago, which is so far limited to parks, squares, and sidewalks.
To overcome the lack of legal and financial resources to create ex-
tensive green spaces, planning policies in Santiago should allow and
facilitate different forms of vacant space − either private or public − to
be maintained by citizen organizations. Planning may include the al-
location of various vacant spaces for urban agriculture, which, nor-
mally, public agencies and civilians can hardly mobilize (e.g., vacant
plots, railroads, un-maintained green spaces and rooftops). Local au-
thorities could work on land-leasing frameworks for civil organizations
to manage green spaces collectively.
Lastly, acknowledging urban agriculture means accepting a model
where collective and individual purposes and uses mix, which is so far
absent in Chile. While urban agriculture depends on bottom-up en-
gagement, local authorities should also support its practice or enable a
hybrid top-down/bottom-up supportive structure (Lenhart, 2015). An
example of such a model is the La Reina UA gardens, where each par-
ticipant has its own (fenced) allotment, while the whole space allows
free access to every citizen. Also, public access community gardens
(PACs) may serve as a model for urban agriculture as a public green
space (Bendt, 2010; Bendt et al., 2013; Colding and Barthel, 2013).
These are gardens located on vacant or publicly owned land (e.g., by
the local municipality), open for anyone at all times, collectively
managed by various interest groups, and in which formal obstacles to
ad hoc participation by the public are low or absent.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Doctor Sonia Reyes-Paecke and two anon-
ymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of
this paper. Our thanks to Valeria Osorio for developing the figures and
to all interviewees and urban agriculture case studies for their valuable
contributions.
References
Asociación de Investigadores de Mercado de Chile, AIM, 2008. Grupos Socioeconómicos.
(In Spanish). http://www.aimchile.cl/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Grupos_
Socioeconomicos_AIM-2008.pdf.
M. Contesse et al.
Armstrong, D., 2000. A survey of community gardens in upstate new York: implications
for health promotion and community development. Health Place 6 (4), 319–327.
Arnouts, R., 2010. Regional Nature Governance in the Netherlands: Four Decades of
Governance Modes and Shifts in the Utrechtse Heuvelrug and Midden-Brabant
(Doctoral Thesis). Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Arts, B., Buizer, M., 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions: a discursive-institutional
analysis of global forest governance. J. For. Policy Econ. 11, 340–347.
Arts, B., van Tatenhove, J., 2004. Policy and power: a conceptual framework between the
‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms. Policy Sci. 37 (3–4), 339–356.
Arts, B., Leroy, P., van Tatenhove, J., 2006. Political modernisation and policy arrange-
ments: a framework for understanding environmental policy change. Public Organiz.
Rev. 6, 93–106.
Ayana, A.N., Arts, B., Freerk-Wiersum, K., 2013. Historical development of forest policy
in Ethiopia: trends of institutionalization and deinstitutionalization. Land Use Policy
32, 186–196.
Bendt, P., Barthel, S., Colding, J., 2013. Civic greening and environmental learning in
public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape Urban Plann. 109, 18–30.
Bendt, P., 2010. Social Learning and Diversity of Practice in Community Gardens in Berlin
Master Thesis Stockholm Resilience Centre. Stockholm University, Stockholm
(pp. 73).
Berney, R., 2010. Learning from Bogota: how municipal experts transformed public space.
J. Urban Des. 15 (4), 539–558.
Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29,
293–301.
Chiesura, A., 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape Urban
Plann. 68 (1), 129–138.
Clausen, M., 2015. Urban agriculture between pioneer use and urban land grabbing: the
case of Prinzessinnengarten Berlin. Cities Environ. (CATE) 2 (8) (Article 15).
Cohen, N., Reynolds, K., 2014. Urban agriculture policy making in New York’s new po-
litical spaces: strategizing for a participatory and representative system. J. Plann.
Educ. Res. 34 (2), 221–234.
Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2013. The potential of ‘Urban Green Commons’ in the resilience
building of cities. Ecol. Econ. 86, 156–166.
Dang, T.K.P., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Arts, B., 2016. A framework for assessing gov-
ernance capacity: an illustration from Vietnam’s forestry reforms. Government and
Policy 34 (6), 1154–1174.
De la Barrera, F., Reyes-Paecke, S., Banzhaf, E., 2016a. Indicators for green spaces in
contrasting urban settings. Ecol. Indic. 62, 212–219.
De la Barrera, F., Reyes-Paecke, S., Harris, J., Bascuñan, D., Farias, J.M., 2016b. People’s
perception influences on the use of green spaces in socio-economically differentiated
neighbourhoods. Urban For. Urban Green. 20, 254–264.
Escobedo, F.J., Nowak, D.J., Wagner, J.E., De la Maza, C.L., Rodríguez, M., Crane, D.E.,
Hernández, J., 2006. The socioeconomics and management of Santiago de Chile’s
public urban forests. Urban For. Urban Green. 4 (3), 105–114.
Fisher, K., Carrion, A., Miller, G., 2000. Proposed Legislation on Community Gardens.
Community Garden Legislation City Council of New York Int. No. 742 (April).
Francis, M., Cashdan, L., Paxson, L., 1984. Community Open Spaces: Greening
Neighborhoods Through Community Action and Conservation. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Francis, M., 1987. Some different meanings attached to a city park and community
gardens. Landscape J. 6 (2), 101–112.
GORE RM, 2013. Politica Regional de Áreas Verdes. Last accessed: 8.26.2017. (In
Spanish). https://www.gobiernosantiago.cl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/doc/
estrategia/Politica_Regional_de_Areas_Verdes, _2014.pdf.
Glover, T.D., 2004. Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardeners.
Leisure Sci. 26, 143–162.
Heitmann, J., 2014. Red de Agricultura Urbana: identificando la agricultura urbana en
Santiago de Chile. In: Fuentes Palacios, A. (Ed.), Traduciendo el Zumbido del
Enjambre, pp. 26–35 Santiago, Chile, (In Spanish).
Huang, D., Drescher, M., 2015. Urban crops and livestock: the experiences, challenges:
and opportunities of planning for urban agriculture in two Canadian provinces. Land
Use Policy 43, 1–14.
Huang, S.C.L., 2006. A study in outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing.
Landscape Urban Plann. 78, 193–204.
Kázmierczak, A., 2013. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties.
Landscape Urban Plann. 109, 31–44.
Kabisch, N., 2016. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban
green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 42, 557–567.
Knoblauch, J., 2012. Agriculture in urban planning: generating livelihoods and food se-
curity. Plann. Perspect. 27 (4), 656–657.
Krellenberg, K., Welz, J., Reyes-Päcke, S., 2014. Urban green areas and their potential for
social interaction: a case study of a socio-economically mixed neighbourhood in
Santiago de Chile. Habitat Int. 44, 11–21.
Lenhart, J., 2015. Urban Climate Governance: The Role of Local Authorities. PhD Thesis.
Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands, pp. 111–133.
Liefferink, D., 2006. The dynamics of policy arrangements: turning round the tetra-
hedron. In: Arts, B., Leroy, P. (Eds.), Institutional Dynamics in Environmental
Governance. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 45–68.
Macias, T., 2008. Working Toward a Just, Equitable, and Local Food System: The Social
Impact of Community-Based Agriculture. Social Sci. Q. 89 (5), 1086–1101.
Madaleno, I.M., 2001. Cities of the future: urban agriculture in the third millennium.
Food Nutr. Agric. 29, 14–21.
MINVU, 2016a. LGUC–Ley General de Urbanismo y Construcción. Last accessed:
8.26.2017. (In Spanish). http://minvu.cl/opensite_20070212170153.aspx.
577
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 566–577
MINVU, 2016b. OGUC-Ordenanza General de Urbanismo y Construcción. Last accessed:
8.26.2017. (In Spanish). http://www.minvu.cl/opensite_20070317162627.aspx.
MMA, 2011. Disponibilidad de Áreas Verdes. Last accessed: 8.26.2017. (In Spanish).
http://www.mma.gob.cl/1304/articles-52016_Capitulo_6.pdf.
McClintock, N., Wooten, H., Brown, A., 2012. Toward a food policy first step in Oakland,
California: a food policy council’s efforts to promote urban agriculture zoning. J.
Agric. Food Sys. Community Dev. 2 (4), 1.
McClintock, N., Cooper, J., Khandeshi, S., 2013. Assessing the potential contribution of
vacant land to urban vegetable production and consumption in Oakland, California.
Landscape Urban Plann. 111, 46–58.
McClintock, N., 2014. Radical, reformist, and garden-Variety neoliberal: coming to terms
with urban agriculture’s contradictions. Local Environ. 19 (2), 147–171.
Experiencias emblemáticas para la superación de la pobreza y precariedad urbana:
espacio público. In: NU-CEPAL (Ed.), Comisión Económica para Latinoamerica y el
Caribe, Naciones Unidas, Santiago, Chile (In Spanish).
Pearson, L.J., Pearson, L., Pearson, C.J., 2010. Sustainable urban agriculture: stock take
and opportunities. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 8 (1–2), 7–19.
Pothukuchi, K., 2015. Five decades of community food planning in detroit: city and
grassroots, growth and equity. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 35 (4), 419–434.
Reyes-Paecke, S., Figueroa, I.M., 2010. Distribución, superficie y accesibilidad de las
áreas verdes en Santiago de Chile. EURE 36 (109), 89–110.
Reyes-Paecke, S., Ibarra, M., Miranda, M., Precht, A., Salamanca, C., 2011.
Institucionalidad para la creación, mantención y conservación de parques urbanos.
In: Centro Políticas Públicas UC (Ed.), Concurso Políticas Públicas: Propuestas para
Chile, pp. 145–172 Santiago, Chile (In Spanish).
Reynolds, K., 2015. Disparity despite diversity: social injustice in New York city’s urban
agriculture system. Antipode 47 (1), 240–259.
Rojas, C., Páez, A., Barbosa, O., Carrasco, J., 2016. Accessibility to urban green spaces in
Chilean cities using adaptive thresholds. J. Transp. Geogr. 57, 227–240.
Rosol, M., 2010. Public participation in post-Fordist urban green space governance: the
case of community gardens in Berlin. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 34 (3), 548–563.
Rosol, M., 2012. Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy? Green space production
in Berlin. Antipode 44 (1), 239–257.
Sabatini, F., Cáceres, G., Cerda, J., 2001. Segregación residencial en las principales ciu-
dades chilenas: Tendencias de las tres últimas décadas y posibles cursos de acción.
EURE 27 (82), 21–42 (In Spanish).
Saldivar-Tanaka, L., Krasny, M.E., 2004. Culturing community development, neighbor-
hoods open space, and civic agriculture: the case of Latino community gardens in
New York City. Agric. Human Values 21 (4), 399–412.
Schukoske, J.E., 2000. Community development through gardening: state and local po-
licies transforming urban open space. Legislation Public Policy 3, 351–392.
Taylor, J.R., Lovell, S.T., 2013. Mapping public and private spaces of urban agriculture in
Chicago through the analysis of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth.
Landscape Urban Plann. 108 (1), 57–70.
Thibert, J., 2012. Making local planning work for urban agriculture in the North
American context: a view from the ground. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 32 (3), 349–357.
Thierfelder, H., Kabisch, N., 2016. Viewpoint berlin: strategic urban development in
Berlin −challenges for future urban green space development. Environ. Sci. Policy
62, 120–122.
Tidball, K.G., Krasny, M.E., 2009. Community gardens as contexts for science, steward-
ship, and civic action learning. Cities Environ. 2 (1), 8–18.
Valenzuela, L., Andrade, M., Araos, C., Gatica, M., Justiniano, C., Katz, C., 2009.
Sustentabilidad en espacios colectivos de barrios vulnerables, lineamientos para una
política de espacios públicos, directrices de gestión, diseño y mantención. In: Centro
Políticas Públicas UC (Ed.), Concurso Políticas Públicas: Propuestas para Chile, pp.
187–222 Santiago, Chile (In Spanish).
Van Leeuwen, E., Nijkamp, P., De Noronha-Vaz, T., 2010. The multifunctional use of
urban green space. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 8 (1–2), 20–25.
Van Tatenhove, J., Arts, B., Leroy, P. (Eds.), 2000. Political Modernization and the
Environment. Kluwer, The Netherlands.
Van der Zouwen, M., 2006. Nature Policy Between Trends and Traditions: Dynamics in
Nature Policy Arrangements in the Yorkshire Dales, Donana and the Veluwe. PhD
Thesis. Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Veen, E.J., 2015. Community Gardens in Urban Areas: A Critical Reflection on the Extent
to Which They Strengthen Social Cohesion and Provide Alternative Food. PhD Thesis.
Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands, pp. 178–221.
Veenman, S., Liefferink, D., Arts, B., 2009. A short history of Dutch forest policy: the ‘de-
institutionalisation’ of a policy arrangement. For. Policy Econ. 11, 202–208.
Weiland, U., Kindler, A., Banzhaf, E., Ebert, A., Reyes-Paecke, S., 2011. Indicators for
sustainable land use management in Santiago de Chile. Ecol. Indic. 11 (5),
1074–1083.
Wiering, M., Arts, B., 2006. Discursive shifts in Dutch river management: ‘Deep’ institu-
tional change or adaptation strategy? Hydrobiologia 565, 327–338.
Wiering, M., Immink, I., 2006. When water management meets spatial planning: a policy
arrangements perspective. Environ. Plann C: Government Policy 24, 423–438.
Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., 2014. Urban green space public health, and en-
vironmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape
Urban Plann. 125, 234–244.
Wright-Wendel, H.E., Zargerb, R.K., Mihelcica, J.R., 2012. Accessibility and usability:
green space preferences, perceptions: and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in
Latin America. Landscape Urban Plann. 107, 272–282.
Zhou, X., Kim, J., 2013. Social disparities in tree canopy and park accessibility: a case
study of six cities in Illinois using GIS and remote sensing. Urban For. Urban Green.
12 (1), 88–97.