Social perception of Urban agriculture and integrated rooftop greenhouse projects

The reason to implement a garden or rooftop greenhouse in a city or building can be commercial, but, more often than not, the social aspects behind it play an essential role. 

Many garden and greenhouse initiatives have a social purpose as one of the project’s main focuses, considering a specific scope of stakeholders or beneficiaries for using the final space as a learning site, therapeutic experience, or recreational area. 

On the other hand, new and integrated agricultural sites whit a primary focus on commercial production also need to consider the social aspect of the project not only in its initial stages but also during their development and exploitation. 

A social impact assessment is crucial to determine the potential effect on the society of the product or production system installation. Social perception studies can target specific stakeholders depending on the final purpose of the project or even on the stage of the project implementation. The elaboration of a social study for potential customers or visitors will help prevent possible risks or impacts on the installation or exploitation. 

While the increase of vegetation and creation of access to fresh produce might signify an improvement, the acceptability to install these production systems in a person’s immediate proximity might generate a contrary reaction defined as “NIMBY” (standing for: Not in my backyard). On the other hand, legal feasibility and barriers can also help determine possible constraints in the project implementation and address social compliance with existing obstacles. 

Novel projects like Rooftop Greenhouses (RTGs) and the use of nontraditional growing systems like hydroponics and aeroponic systems might need to determine their social acceptance rather than other known or traditional projects. 

This social perception among stakeholders has been determined before in previous research using quantitative and qualitative methods (Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2016; Specht et al., 2016; Specht & Sanyé-Mengual, 2017) as well as existing barriers and opportunities of the project implementation on urban roofs (Zambrano et al., 2020; Cerón-Palma et al., 2012).

At the beginning of the project, a recommendation is to perform a bi-directional reflection, contemplating the consumption patterns of the people living in the urban area where want to establish the RTG, which can vary considerably depending on the employment status, age group, or type of family structure (Toboso-Chavero et al., 2020) for which we can use a survey.

​The second reflection focuses on the residents’ opinions on the successful implementation of the RTG. Different opinions are essential, and collecting their diversity can help to overcome possible issues. To do that, one can collect different opinions using participatory processes or questionnaires.

The previous step is understanding who are the key players or stakeholders in the project. Therefore, a stakeholder mapping has to be made taking into account users, clients, construction businesses, architects, municipalities, and other public figures, among others.

The identified stakeholders can then be placed into different tears within a matrix depending on their influence or power over the project: 

The first phase consists of two main activities, one being the creation of the forementioned survey to obtain information on the potential clients of the project or surrounding population.

The second activity consists of a participatory process with the identified relevant stakeholders. 

The participatory process will analyze whether implementing a rooftop greenhouse (RTG) is relevant. 

The World café can be a suitable methodology following three main steps:

Invite participants to take part in a face-to-face session:

Organize a working team to prepare the session (4/5 people) depending on the number of participants. This team will prepare the topics for discussion in each small-group conversation and provide technical support. The hosts will coordinate the groups and note down all the comments.

Prepare the discussion tables and where the discussion will take place so that all the participants feel comfortable, with a 4/5 people table and a projector to show the questions. All participants sit at all tables, answer all questions, and mix with all other participants to reach more richness and criticism in the answers. One host table collects all opinions; the maximum discussion time is 15 minutes. The hosts is then in charge of collecting all information which the experts can code and analyze later.

The second phase of the social study can occur during the project’s building and exploitation phase, with a follow-up questionnaire to visitors, the community, or/and customers.

This questionnaire can tackle the operational and production aspects of the activity, like, for instance, the perception of hydroponic production systems or the perception of taste and properties of the food produced and the perception of the price and willingness to pay.

Considering the previous steps, it is essential to understand that the personal implication in projects can change opinions over time. The more people know and understand about a project, the greater the implication and interest they will have.

This more critical information and experience can occur with a transparent outlook towards the public and through organizing participatory and social events. This way, the project looks beyond initial preconceptions and asks the participants and visitors about the RTG experience. 

Finally, further analysis of the project’s social repercussions can occur through social indicators. The impact of the activity on consumers, employees, and other stakeholders can be interesting in understanding the benefits of urban agricultural activities more broadly and systematically. 

Some of the proposed social indicators are:

Coverage of residents’ diet (in % and/or absolute values)

Maintenance investment (hours/household/year) (Toboso-Chavero et al., 2020)

Community engagement- Organizational support for community initiatives, using questionnaires/interviews) (Benoît-Norris et al., 2013)

Local Employment (in % and/or absolute values) (UNEP/SETAC, 2013)

Increase well-being using questionnaires/interviews (Ambrose et al., 2020)

The strategy of the analysis changes depending on the scale of the project. When managing a small-scale project with more local engagement, a recommendation is to use social indicators that are comprehensible and easy to measure, which can be quantitative or qualitative. Also, keeping a shorter list of indicators for easy but meaningful data management is essential. 

For large commercial projects, a more in-depth methodology can suit better with social life cycle assessment (SLCA). This methodology defines five stakeholder groups: workers, the local community, society, consumers, and value chain actors. 

Six impact categories: human rights, working conditions, health and safety, cultural heritage, governance, and socio-economic aspects, 

And finally, impact subcategories and social indicators. 

SLCA studies usually target sectors, company scales, or products produced in developing countries with social conflicts or special interests