FOUA00059-00251 V. Ferrario - International Forum on Urbanism

The 5th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU)
2011 National University of Singapore, Department of Architecture
Global Visions: Risks and Opportunities for the Urban Planet
DESIGNING AGROPOLITANA.
AGRICULTURE-BASED EXPLORATIONS OF THE DISPERSED CITY
V. Ferrario*
*Università Iuav di Venezia, Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: The agro-urban mix is a long-lasting idea, nowadays inspiring the urban debate once again.
The role of agricultural space in food production and food security, energy production, environmental
conservation, flood protection and in providing urban services, makes it potentially very important in the
design of the contemporary territory. This might affect urban form, suggesting a new “agrarian” urbanism
(Waldheim, 2010). The Veneto “città diffusa” (Veneto, Italy) is an urban-rural continuous, outcome of a
particular kind of highly functionally mixed sprawl, that in the last few years has become a “small metropolis
with agriculture inside” (Ferrario, 2009). This makes it possible to look at the dispersed city in a partially
different way; to observe on the field and critically describe, trends, threats and opportunities of an
interleaving coexistence between urban spaces and agriculture; to explore the possibility of a more
sustainable and resilient way of letting agriculture, urban spaces and nature live together.
KEYWORDS: dispersed city, urban-rural continuous, urban agriculture, city form and design
1 AGRICULTURAL SPACE AND URBAN FORM
Sprawl is surely one of the most common urban forms in contemporary western countries (Sieverst,
2003; Ingersoll, 2003) but also one of the most discussed spatial phenomena at the dawn of the 21st century.
Considered as a degeneration of city growth, the sprawl has been largely criticized since at least the 1920s
(Bruegemann, 2005, also for a vast bibliography in the English language). This largely negative judgment is
generally based on its private-car-based mobility, high economic, social and environmental costs, both
private and public (among others Burchell et al. 1998), and makes the sprawl be considered basically as a
form of land misuse (Stamp, 1948). More recently, its higher unsustainability would lie in its larger
ecological footprint, compared with the sustainability of the compact city (among others Owen, 2009).
Among the reasons why sprawl is negatively judged, at least in Europe, there is the consumption of
agricultural land. Sprawl in fact is still considered a problem regarding the “protection of the countryside”
(Hall, 1973) as it generates a waste of agricultural land, a degeneration of rural landscapes and an
obliteration of the countryside by the technical progress of the town (Juillard 1973). Quite differently from
other parts of the world, in Europe in fact great value is still given to farmland, rural and undeveloped land,
and this is one of the main reasons why sprawl is hit with containment policies and farmland is somehow
“protected” from urbanisation in almost every European country (Beatley, 2000), although on different levels
and in different ways.
This negative judgment becomes even stronger when speaking about a particular kind of urban sprawl,
characterized not simply by the expansion of the city, but by the urbanization of large agricultural regions,
thus creating a very strong mix between a dispersed plurifunctional urban space and fragmented farming
space. This “rurbanisation” was observed since the Seventies (Bauer and Roux, 1976) and recognized in the
Nineties as a specific contemporary phenomenon, generally identified in Europe with neologisms as, among
others, “entre-ville” or “zwischenstadt” (in-between city) (Sieverts, 1998) and “città diffusa”
(diffused/dispersed city) (Indovina, 1990, Secchi, 1993). If sprawl is culpable for quantitatively consuming
fertile farming land, the “rurbanisation” is considered in adjunct responsible also for abandonment of
farming areas waiting to be urbanized and for the difficulty in rational cultivation of areas included within
the urbanized territory, as it promotes fragmentation of fields and farms, it makes agriculture become a
secondary job, in sum it undermines agriculture as an economic activity. Therefore, both in the urban debate
and from the agriculture point of view, an urban-rural continuous is largely perceived as an irrational model,
so that spatial policies generally try to physically distinguish and separate urban space and agricultural
space1.
Nevertheless this separation is not obvious. Several 20th-century urban planning projects aspired to
reconcile the seemingly contradictory impulses of the industrial metropolis with the social and cultural
conditions of agrarian settlement (Waldheim, 2010). In the past the mix between urbanization and
agricultural space inspired several famous urban theories - from Howard’s “garden-city” (1902), to
Schwartz’s “stadtlandschaft” (1946) - and fascinating predictions - from Wells’ “diffusion of cities” (1902)
to Sorokin and Zimmermann’s “rurbanisation” (1929), or to russian “disurbanists” theories. Urbanize
countryside as an alternative to city concentration was at the origin of social and spatial policies in North
America and in some European countries, as for example in the Flanders (Smets, 1977). More recently
agriculture is widely crossing urban planning international debate, where they start to propose considering
cities as potential food producers by means of urban agriculture (among others Garnett, 1999; Mougeot,
2005); or to improve the performances of open spaces devoted to urban and periurban agriculture to produce
urban services (Fleury, Donadieu,1997; Donadieu 1998); or to relegate agriculture in high-rise buildings,
freeing land for nature (Despommier, 2009). Several recent famous urban and territorial projects use
agriculture, horticulture, breeding, livestock farming as design materials, mixing urban materials with
cultivated space.
Figure 1 Some “agrourban” projects. From left to right: “Agronica” (A. Branzi, 1993-94);
“Hinterland”, FKL Architects, 2006); “Rethinking happiness” (A. Cibic, 2010)
As it is now largely recognized (Maier, Shobayashi, 2001), agriculture is in fact a multifunctional
activity that provide food production and energy production, but it can also be a guarantee for environmental
values, as well as supporting leisure and other social services. In this sense it is possible to talk about farming
space as a multifunctional landscape (Brandt, Vejre, 2003). A spatial and functional proximity between
agricultural space and urban space can shorten exchange chains between production and consumption (in
food, in energy, etc.) and gives the possibility to close urban cycles in a smaller area (Dewaelheyns, Gulinck,
2008), introducing a certain level of self-sufficiency that can make the city more resilient (UA, Building
resilient cities, 2009). It is maybe not by chance if the agro-urban mix idea periodically comes back in the
debate whenever we hit phases of economic crisis (Mantziaras, forthcoming), as this one indeed is.
These considerations can perhaps maintain open the debate between compact and dispersed city form,
questioning the idea of physical separation as the only one able to manage relationships between agriculture
space and urban space. In particular the extremely negative judgment on rurbanisation could be perhaps
softened, opening new possibilities for its future. Seen in this way, the dispersed city becomes in fact not an
enemy to fight, but rather a territory needing to be (re)designed, starting from the “materials” it is built with,
1
This is a largely shared opinion, even if urbanization is expanding all over Europe and to live in the
countryside is increasingly similar to live in the city, so that everyone agrees with the fact that it is no more
possible to distinguish city and countryside. Many examples of “separation” attitude could be mentioned,
from “green belts” to “urban edge agricultural parks”. In these experiences natural and semi-natural space
and periurban agriculture are used to create a sort of buffer in-between “rural agriculture” and the city. See
for example several French experiences of the last ten years.
agriculture included. The research presented above try to explore a real territory, the Veneto “città diffusa”
(Italy), to verify this possibility.
2 THE VENETO REGION DISPERSED CITY AS AN AGROURBAN CITY FORM
The central Veneto “città diffusa”, one of the best known Italian dispersed city, lays in an fertile alluvial
plane, in-between and around some medium-sized cities (100.000 to 250.000 inhabitants). The whole
territory is a wide urban-rural continuous with different urbanisation level, maximum in the main compact
cities, minimum at its borders and in some internal areas, whose actual urban form derived from a highly
functionally mixed densification of a pre-existent polycentric settlement structure. Residence, small and
medium size industries, tertiary activities and agriculture, live together in a "city" dispersed in a square area
of approximately 60x60 km. It has about 2.200.000 dwellers, the 50% of which live in municipalities with
less than 15.000 inhabitants. The demographic density, at the municipality level, goes from 80 to 2300
ab/kmq (2008), but 168 on 172 municipalities have a density higher than 150 ab/kmq, so that, according to
the OECD, the entire 60x60km area can be considered as “urban”. It is rapidly growing and facing a process
of metropolisation (Indovina et al., 2003). The public and private wealth, the good accessibility (two
international airport, three highways, the Pan-European corridor V), the considerable density in population,
infrastructures and services, advice against employing the word “rural”. Nevertheless agriculture is still very
important, both in terms of production and income and in amount of cultivated land (CORINE land cover,
class 2, at 1:10.000) - occupying more than the 65% of the 60x60km area in 2007. But what is really
impressive, is the strong interwoven pattern between cultivated land and developed land, very clearly
appearing both in aerial photographs and in the land use map.
Figure 2
Agro-urban interwoven pattern in the città diffusa (left). Right: Corine land cover classes 1
(urban, in black) and 2 (cultivated, in grey) in the 60x60 km central area.
2.1 Agropolitana: a work hypothesis
Although this strong interwoven pattern is nowadays officially presented by public administrations as a
problem, policies against land consumption are not so clearly defined and no thinking was done to really
considering it as a situation to dialogue with2. Moreover agricultural policies are not efficiently connected
2
In Italian zoning system the areas outside urban centers, devoted to agriculture or nature, are called Ezones. In these areas the legislation limits, even often unsuccessfully, the construction of buildings not
with spatial planning yet, especially at the municipality level, where the pressure to develop agricultural land
into urban land, is higher. The construction of several new roads recently provoked a considerable loss of
agricultural land. The incertitude that can be noticed in some recent planning experiences about this subject
(the regional plan, some provincial plans) (Ferrario, 2009), can be probably explained not simply with a lack
of political will, but perhaps with a real difficulty in imagining the future of a territory of this kind.
What I am going to highlight is that the presence of agricultural space inside the upcoming Veneto
metropolis should be strongly taken into account when designing its territorial project, because it can be
considered as a guarantee for a more sustainable future. Moving from some conclusions drawn from a
previous study about past and present transformations of the agricultural landscape in the Veneto region
(Ferrario, 2007), the research presented in this paper focus on a better understanding of the uncommon
relationships between urban/urbanized spaces and agricultural spaces in this area, and on the possibility to
govern their transformation in the future.
Agropolitana - the name was suggested for the new regional plan (Bernardi, 2004, probably quoting
Friedmann 1987) as a way to explain città diffusa agro/urban structure - could be a way to image its future,
better integrating agricultural space into the design of a metropolis, growing without losing its specific
“agro/urban” character and improving its now fragile sustainability.
2.2 The Veneto “città diffusa”: thirty years of studies and three new questions
This area has been referred to as “città diffusa” since the Nineties. The extensive urbanization process,
that started in the Sixties and strongly developed in the last thirty years, has been studied under different
viewpoints by many authors, coming from different scientific fields and focusing on different issues. Even
limiting the analysis to the urban literature, we can recognize some different seasons of studies: a first one, in
the Seventies, showed, with some morphological diachronic analysis, how “urban growth” here was
happening in-between the main cities (Mancuso, 1976). A second season was characterized by the
coexistence of two different issues: measuring “land consumption” in a quantitative way (Astengo, 1982)
and recognizing and describing its characters (Piccinato, 1983). A third season explored the possibility to
better understanding the phenomenon in itself and situate it in the national and international panorama
(Indovina, 1990, Secchi, 1993, 1996). More recently the attention of scholars focused on its transformations
and on-going trends, on its costs and environmental and social problems, on the possibility to design and
govern its transformations (among others: Micelli, 1999; Tosi, Munarin, 2001; Gibelli, 2002; Vallerani,
Varotto, 2005; Fregolent, 2005; Castiglioni, Ferrario, 2007; Viganò, 2010). In particular the costs and the
threats of this urban model were highlighted, especially and almost exclusively qualitatively: among others,
increasing traffic, air pollution, public costs for maintenance of sewage systems and waterworks, conflicts
between dwellers and administrations about certain new large transformation processes, water pollution due
to both intense agriculture activity and industrial and residential settlements, flood risk that could worsen
with global change.
In this panorama, agricultural space itself plays an important role (Ferrario, 2010). Farming space in the
“città diffusa” not only makes it an enjoyable place to live in: beside fodder (maize and soya) and food
production (wheat, fruits, vegetables, like the famous “red lettuce” of Treviso, and well known wines like
“Prosecco”), farming space hosts different functions like leisure, education and tourism - Veneto is the third
region in Italy for agritourism (Regione del Veneto, 2010) - but also energy production (mostly woody
biomass as combustible; increasingly, space to install PVs), and it can be used for safety (for example in case
of heavy rains, under certain conditions, it can be used as emergency flooding area); from the environmental
point of view it can contribute to biodiversity, connecting the mountain ecological network and the lagoon
with the coastal wet areas (Regione del Veneto, 2009). It must be said however that all these functions are
more potential than real, since agricultural production is not ecologically and productively diverse, not
connected and urban-related, not sustainable as it could be. On the other hand the urbanized areas do not take
the advantage they could from their proximity with agriculture space.
directly connected with agriculture. In the Veneto region several norms about this subject followed one
another in the last 30 years, never making a clear stand on it, probably also because of the strong pressure by
the population, the stakeholders and the developers.
Three questions are then open. First: how does the agro-urban interwoven pattern, that multiplies the
contact surface between agriculture and city, influence their interactions? What are the threats and the
opportunities that spring from this physical situation? Second: how can all these extreme demands (living,
food, fodder, energy, safety, environment, leisure, etc.) be satisfied upon the same space? How could we
manage the possible conflicts among them? Third: which kind of design strategies and territorial policies can
we put in place?
2.3 Some methodological considerations
This research consisted in two main moves. With the first one I tried to explore interactions between
urbanization and agricultural space in different parts of the città diffusa, combining an elementarist approach
(Viganò, 2003) with a specific attention to social practices and spatial/sectorial policies as driving forces in
spatial change. I could profit from some recent regional data about land use transformation and agricultural
policy implementation. Some diachronic comparisons among aerial photographs and some field survey with
“hermeneutic interviews” (Montesperelli, 1998) are some other tools applied to this part of the research.
The second move consisted in some scenario-based (Vettoretto, 2001; Hopkins Zapata, 2007; Buzzuto
et al. 2008) design explorations. This part aims on the one hand, to participate in the on-going debate about
the future of the Veneto “città diffusa” (academic debate but also local and regional planning and regional
implementation of the common agricultural policy); on the other hand, this very local case-study could
somehow contribute to the international debate about dispersed city, in the belief that design has its specific
way to produce knowledge (Viganò, 2010). In the following paragraphs I will present some of this research
first results.
2.4 agro-urb materials, trends, interactions: re-reading the Veneto dispersed city
As we noticed above, città diffusa is generally criticized as a countryside destroyer and a farming land
consumer. Its interaction with agricultural space is seen in terms of urban/rural conflict. But, as already
observed by some researchers since the Eighties (CNR-IPRA, 1988), the interaction between agriculture and
urbanization is not everywhere negative; actually, agricultural activities in urbanized areas often have the
impulse to improve themselves in terms of production techniques. Even if it is true that urban growth
generally do not take into account any of the natural needs of the farm and instead promotes the
fragmentation of farms, urbanized areas do not necessarily create the conditions for abandoning farming
activities. On the contrary certain characters of agriculture space, for example its diversity, found
“protection” in urban sprawl and in a less industrialized agriculture.
This is exactly what we observe in the “città diffusa” (Ferrario, 2009): agriculture as an economic
activity is still rentable, with production values per hectare higher than in the rural territory; agricultural
space has a higher ecological value inside the città diffusa than in the open countryside; historical
agricultural landscape is better preserved and it is often used by people who live nearby as a sort of territorial
park. In the città diffusa you rarely find “friches” - agricultural waste land - one of the typical problem of
weak periurban agriculture (Fleury, 1998). It was stated that agriculture in the città diffusa is “periurban”
only in a strictly physical sense (Regione del Veneto, 2007). In sum, it seems that a dispersed urban form
like the “città diffusa” is not necessarily a problem for agriculture activity, but the agro-urban interaction
should be better understood and improved.
It seemed than necessary to highlight: 1) urban and agriculture “materials” and their combinations; 2)
agro-urban mutual (or independent) transformations and trends; 2) physical and functional agro-urban
interactions. This move provided on the one hand a new reading of this territory, focused on its internal
differences and analogies, and on the other hand offered a repertory of existing and new materials belongings
to agricultural and seminatural space, that could be used in the second part of the research.
Dispersed city is often presented as a jam, a disordered melting whole, difficult to be understood and
governed. On the contrary, experience shows that it can be studied recognizing its “urban materials” and
their combinations (among others: Sartore, 1988; Secchi, 1996; Munarin, Tosi, 2001), an approach that, in
the past, produced some very efficient interpretative tools to describe certain typical situation, as for example
the “filaments” (Fig. 3). Nevertheless a catalogue of “agriculture materials” used inside agricultural space
have never been attempted before, nor a catalogue of interactions between urbanization and agricultural
space (Fig. 5).
Figure 3 “Filaments” as urban materials in the città diffusa,
recognized by Munarin and Tosi (2001) in an area 14 km large
Figure 4 Agro-urban mutual transformations in one 1,5x1,5 km areas of the città diffusa.
Observing urban transformation in figure 3 we can notice a change in the materials implied in the “città
diffusa” that are becoming larger and denser (see the industrial zone and the residential area on the left).
Looking at agricultural space transformation, after a radical loss of diversity in the sixties, due to
abandonment of “coltura promiscua” (mixed cultivation of grain, trees and vines), we can notice somewhere
a certain “rationalization” and industrialization of farming. The image suggests that, counter intuitively, large
and “rational” farms are easier to be urbanized massively. Elsewhere dispersed low density urbanization
seems instead to have carried out an action of “conservation” on the diversity of agricultural space.
Figure 5 What’s in 2,5 ha of città diffusa (500x500 m)? Agricultural and agro-urban materials and spaces,
and different spatial interactions between them. From the left: spot urbanization; filament with “home
agriculture” buffer; highly diversified agro-urban-mix; lowly diversified agro-urban mix; urban horticulture.
It is more difficult to study agro-urban functional interaction in the “città diffusa”. Even if literature offers
some references from an economical and social approach (Reho, 1988; Franceschetti, Tempesta, 2003), there
is a general lack of data on this subject, that should be collected from different and often non official sources.
Farm milk sell-point
Kmzero restaurants
G.A.S.
Farmer market
Figure 6
Some officially recognized places for “kmzero” food exchange within the “città diffusa”. G.A.S
(“gruppi di acquisto solidale”) are a sort of community supported agriculture
(source: Cordiretti; G.A.S. association; Milkymaps).
Among agro-urban functional interactions “kmzero” food exchange is one of the main opportunity of
the “città diffusa” (fig. 6). Proximity multiplies these kind of interaction, minimizing food transportation
costs and increasing the citizens’ control on food production. Figure 6 shows only the smallest part of places
where direct food exchange between producers and consumers takes place. For example there are a lot of
markets selling local products even if not “kmzero” labeled. A lot of exchanges take place directly into the
farms and are often completely informal. A lot of public and private (in the single house open space)
vegetable gardens provide free or barter-based exchange between citizen-producers.
In this, as in other cases, the multiplication of the contact surface between agriculture and the city due to
agro-urban interwoven pattern offers interesting opportunities as it multiplies the “periurban” condition.
Literature on urban and periurban agriculture underlined the potentialities and opportunities of this condition
(among others Donadieu, 1998).
Nevertheless agro-urban spatial and functional interactions are not always positive. On the contrary, the
agro-urban interwoven pattern multiplies also risks and threats: mutual pollution (urban pollution and
pollution due to the use of chemicals in agriculture); smell and noise of livestock agriculture, not always
appreciated by “città diffusa” dwellers; private cars and agriculture machinery should share the same roads;
the raise of the land costs makes difficult for young people to become farmers, and favors huge enterprises to
invest in a more industrialized agriculture; both industrialized agriculture and urbanization fragment the
ecological network.
An “agropolitana” with a high rate of agricultural land inside, and a high rate of agro-urban interactions
can be interesting, but should be better designed, “harmonizing” agriculture and urban requests. Agricultural
space and activities and urban space and activities in this territory should adapt one another. Many different
design strategies are possible. In the next paragraph I will briefly describe some of them.
2.4 Explorations: designing agropolitana
Design explorations experimented in the second part of the research interested some different parts of
the città diffusa, chosen following some spatial-functional criterion (different building and infrastructure
density, different agro and urban materials implied, diversity of the agricultural space and agricultural
activity), and a positional criterion (distance from the main city centers). On these areas I tried to explore the
possibility of agro-urban mutual transformation, trying to maximize opportunities and to minimize threats
due to the proximity between agriculture and urban space, through the following scenario-based strategies
(this part of the research being still in course, it must be considered as provisional).
Off the grid. The presence of the agricultural and natural space within the agropolitana could allow
some parts of it to be detached by public networks as water and energy supply, sewages. This strategy
includes the rationalization of biogas plants supplied with livestock agriculture waste; reuse of small local
hydroelectric plants (old mills); reforestation for biomass combustible; water storages; phytodepuration;
transformation of domestic waste as fertilizer.
Farming space/pubblic space. Agricultural space hosts public functions. This strategy works on the
margins of the fields, where more space can be found for: lineal parks, ecological connections, food marked
exchange and pathway network; water and flood security.
Feeding the city. Agropolitana goes towards a higher self-sufficiency in food supply. This strategy
include: changes in the leaning of farms and fields along the filaments (from fed to food); farming into the
old industrial areas, where to concentrate greenhouses and intensive livestock farming; organization of a
network of kmzero food markets connected with main roads nodes and railroad stops.
On single houses urban fabric. Agropolitana diversity in density is stressed, modifying the single house
urban fabric. This strategy include: raise buildings; densification on private gardens; replacement or
concentration of volumes; water and ecological network inside the “pavillionaire”.
On filaments. Filaments are one of the most interesting agro-urb materials of the future agropolitana.
They could be differentiated following their different morphological and/or spatial conditions, for example
density, connection to the public transportation network, functional mix. This strategy include: residential
filaments 30km/h; rarefaction; nuclear/comb densification; drive-in market streets.
All these strategies rationalize or stress some existent materials or trends. For example biomass and
biogas plants can be (and are) now built everywhere within the città diffusa, causing several conflicts
because of their dimension and traffic consequences. A more rational placement policy and a better
connection with urban requests could be easily previewed. Speaking about flood safety, the regional
administrations is now asking to the municipalities to include a certain quantity of programmed flooding
areas in their spatial plans, but it would need to be designed at a higher scale, as one of the “materials” of
agropolitana.
3. SOME PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS AND OPENINGS
Starting from the idea that it could be more useful to read the Veneto “città diffusa” not only as a rurban
sprawl region with rural/urban conflicts, but instead also as small metropolis with agriculture inside, this
research is trying to explore the possibly coexistence between urban spaces and agriculture in an interwoven
agro-urban pattern. This research is obviously not trying to solve all problems of the città diffusa. Its results
should be compared and integrated with other critical questions (like for example mobility or pollution), here
only mentioned. It must be considered only a way to highlight some opportunities embedded into a disperse
city form.
The results provided by the research moves – re-reading of the città diffusa through agro-urban
materials, trends, interactions; some scenario-based design explorations of agropolitana – cannot obviously
be considered as an argument to claim a higher sustainability of the a disperse city in comparison with dense
city. Nevertheless they seem to offer some arguments to the discussion 1) for the future of the Veneto città
diffusa e and maybe the future of other disperse cities; 2) to maintain the debate about compact/disperse city
form open, in the belief that it cannot be solved with one simple solution, and that the XXI century city
should and probably is able to collect and host different degree of density and compactness (Secchi, 2005)
and maybe many other things.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the Università Iuav di Venezia (IUAV) that is financing this research; the
colleagues involved in the research area “Governo e governance delle trasformazioni del paesaggio” for their
help, in particular the tutor prof. M. Reho, prof. C. Magnani, and prof. M. C. Tosi; prof. P. Viganò and the
other colleagues and students of the European Master in Urbanism; prof. B. Castiglioni from the University
of Padova; my students in urban design at the Faculty of Architecture of IUAV; Giovanni Gabai and Chiara
Quaglia, who actively collaborated in this research; Andrea Turato for his essential help.
REFERENCES
[1] Astengo, G., “Rapporto sullo stato dell'urbanizzazione in Italia e sulle politiche urbane e territoriali per
gli anni Ottanta. Sintesi del programma di ricerca”, Istituto Universitario di Architettura, Dipartimento
di Urbanistica, Venezia,1982.
[2] Bauer, G., Roux J.M., « La rurbanisation ou la ville eparpillé », Paris: Seuil, 1976.
[3] Beatley, T., “Green urbanism: learning from European cities”, Island press, Washington, 2000.
[4] Bernardi, U., 2004. “Per una valutazione globale dell’ambiente”, “Fondamenti del buon governo del
territorio. Carta di Asiago”, Regione del Veneto, Venezia, 2004.
[5] Brandt, J., Vejre, H., “Multifunctional landscapes. Motives, concepts and perceptions”, in J. Brandt, H.
Vejre, “Multifunctional landscapes, I, Theory, values and history”, Southampton, WitPress, 2004.
[6] Bruegemann, R., “Sprawl. A Compact History”, Chicago – London: University of Chicago press, 2005.
[7] Burchell, R. W., 2005. Sprawl costs. Economic impacts of unchecked development. New York: Island
Press.
[8] Buzzuto et al., “Storie del futuro. Gli scenari nella progettazione del territorio”, 4 Quaderno del
dottorato in urbanistica, Officina, Roma, 2008.
[9] Castiglioni, C., Ferrario, V., Où habite grand-mère? Une expérience à travers le paysage dans la «ville
diffuse» de Venetie (Italie). In: M. Berlan-Darque, Y.Luginbühl, D. Terrasson, eds. 2007. Paysages: de la
connaissance à l’action. Paris: Edition QUAE, pp. 69-82, 2007.
[10] CNR-IPRA, “Interazione e competizione dei sistemi urbani con l'agricoltura per l'uso della risorsa suolo
(Interaction and competition of urban systems with agriculture for the use of soil resources)”, Bologna,
Pitagora,1988.
[11] Despommier, “The Vertical Farm: reducing the impact of agriculture on ecosystem functions and
services”, in http://www.verticalfarm.com/more?essay1 (December 2010).
[12] Dewaelheyns, V., Gulinck, H., “Rurality near the city”, Proceedings of the international seminar,
Leuven, Departement of Earth and Environmetal Sciences, 2008.
[13] Donadieu, P., “Campagnes urbaines », Actes sud, Arles, 1998.
[14] Dudley Stamp, L., 1948. The Land of Britain. Its use and misuse. London: Longmans.
[15] Ferrario, V. “Lo spazio agrario nel progetto di un territorio. Trasformazioni dei paesaggi rurali nella
pianura e nella montagna veneta”, PhD tesis, tutors P. Viganò, B. Castiglioni, Università Iuav di
Venezia, 2007.
[16] Ferrario, V., “About agricultural space in the città diffusa and its importance for the future”, in “Extreme
city. Climate change and the trasformation of the waterscape”, edited by L. Fabian e P. Viganò,
Università Iuav di Venezia, Il Poligrafo, Venezia 2010.
[17] Ferrario, V., “Agropolitana. Dispersed City and Agricultural Spaces in Veneto Region (Italy)”, in “The
New Urban Question. Urbanism beyond Neo-Liberalism”, 4th Conference of International Forum on
Urbanism. November 26-29, Rotterdam, Papiroz, 2009.
[18] Fleury, A., Donadieu, P., « De l’agriculture péri-urbaine à l’agriculture urbaine », Le Courrier de
l'Environnement, No.31 (1997).
[19] Franceschetti, G., Tempesta, T. (eds), “La pianificazione del territorio rurale del veneto negli anni
Ottanta”, Unipress, Padova, 1993.
[20] Fregolent, L., “Governare la dispersione” Milano, Franco Angeli, 2005.
[21] Friedmann J., Douglass, M., “Agropolitan Development: Towards a New Strategy of Regional
Development in Asia”, N.Y. United Nations Center for Regional Development, 1975.
[22] Garnett, T., “City harvest: the feasibility of growing more food in London”, London: Sustain, 1999.
[23] Gibelli, M. C., “Forma della città e costi collettivi. L’insostenibile città dispersa”, archivio di Studi
Urbani e regionali, No. 83 (2005), pp. 19-38.
[24] Hall, P. (ed.), “The containment of urban England”, London: PEP, 1973.
[25] Hopkins, L.D., Zapata, M. (eds.), “Engaging the Future, Forecast, Scenarios, Plans, and Projects”,
Lincoln Institute of land Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007.
[26] Indovina, F., “La città diffusa”, Venezia: Daest, 1990
[27] Ingersoll, R., “Sprawltown”, Roma: Meltemi, 2004.
[28] Juillard E., « L’urbanisation des campagnes », Etudes Rurales, No. 49-50 (1973).
[29] Maier, L., Shobayashi, M. (eds.), “Multifunctionality. Towards an Analytical Framework”, Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, 2001.
[30] Mancuso, F., “Esplorazioni sulla crescita urbana nel Veneto: modelli morfologici in alcune situazioni
tipiche”, in “Sulla crescita urbana in Italia”, edited by A. Mioni, Milano: Franco Angeli, 1976.
[31] Mantziaras, P.,. forthcoming
[32] Micelli, E., I costi collettivi della città diffusa. Il caso dell’area metropolitana fra Padova e Venezia,
Archivio di studi urbani e regionali, No. 67 (2000).
[33] Mougeot, L.J.A. (ed.), “Agropolis: social, political and environmental dimensions of urban agriculture”,
London: International development research centre, 2005.
[34] Munarin, S., Tosi, M.C., “Tracce di città. Esplorazioni di un territorio abitato: l’area veneta”, Milano:
Franco Angeli, 2001.
[35] Owen, D., “Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to
Sustainability”, Riverhead Books, 2009.
[36] Piccinato G., De Luca G., “Verso una nuova città? Analisi dei processi di diffusione urbana”, Oltre il
Ponte, No. 2 (1983).
[37] Regione del Veneto, “Il Veneto in movimento, Rapporto statistico 2010”, Venezia, 2010.
[38] Regione del Veneto, Piano di Sviluppo Rurale, 2007
[39] Reho, M., “Modificazioni nell’uso del suolo: soggetti e comportamenti residenziali e insediativi”, Oltre
il Ponte, No. 16 (1986).
[40] Sartore, M., “Forme e processi di urbanizzaizone diffusa. Un’analisi della morfologia insediativa in
un’area rurale del Veneto centrale”, Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, No. 32 (1988), pp. 165-218.
[41] Secchi, B., “Le trasformazioni dell’habitat urbano in Europa. Alcune ipotesi”, Quaderno della ricerca
sulle trasformazioni dell’habitat urbano in Europa, 1 (1993).
[42] Secchi, B., “Veneto e Friuli Venezia Giulia”, in “Le forme del territorio italiano. Temi ed immagini del
mutamento” II, edited by A. Clementi, G. Dematteis, P. C. Palermo, Bari: Laterza, 1996.
[43] Secchi, B., “La città del XX secolo”, Laterza, Bari-Roma, 2005.
[44] Sieverts, T., 2003. Cities without cities. An interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. London-New York:
Spon Press.
[45] Smets, M., L’avènement de la cité-jardin en Belgique. Histoire de l’habitat social en Belgique de 1830 à
1930, Mardaga, Bruxelles, 1977.
[46] Sorokin, P., Zimmerman, C.C., “Principles of Rural–Urban Sociology”, New York: H. Holt, 1929.
[47] Urban Agriculture, “Building resilient cities” UA Magazine, 22 (2009).
[48] Vallerani, F., Varotto, M. (eds.), “Il grigio oltre le siepi. Geografie smarrite e racconti del disagio in
Veneto”, Portogruaro: Nuova dimensione, 2005.
[49] Vettoretto, L., “Scenari: un'introduzione dei casi ed alcune prospettive di ricerca”, in “ La costruzione di
scenari per la citta contemporanea: ipotesi e casi di studio” edited by Maria Chiara Tosi, Istituto
universitario di architettura di Venezia, Venezia 2001.
[50] Vidal, R., Vilan, L., « L'agriurbanisme: une spécialité professionnelle à construire », Anthos, No. 3
(2008), p. 56-57.
[51] Viganò, P., “I territori dell’urbanistica. Il progetto come produttore di conoscenza”, Officina, Roma,
2010.
[52] Viganò, P., “La città elementare”, Skira, Milano, 1999.
[53] Waldheim, Ch., “Notes Toward a History of Agrarian Urbanism”, in “Bracket 1: On Farming”, edited by
Mason White and Maya Przybylski, Barcelona, Actar, 2010.
[54] Wells, H. G., “Anticipations of the reaction of mechanical and scientific progress upon human life and
thought”, London: Chapman and Hall, 1902.