Next Article in Journal
Green Corridor Along the Chili River as an Ecosystem-Based Strategy for Social Connectivity and Ecological Resilience in Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru, 2025
Previous Article in Journal
Deriving Environmental Properties Related to Human Environmental Perception: A Comparison Between Aerial Image Classification and Street View Image Segmentation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Urban Science
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/urbansci9110487
urbansci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

A Perspective on Urban Agriculture at the Scale of the Urban Park: Landscape Architectural Strategies for Degrowth Transitions

by
Mohammad Reza Khalilnezhad
1,*,
Francesca Ugolini
2 and
Alessio Russo
3,*
1
Faculty of Arts, University of Birjand, Birjand 9717434765, Iran
2
Institute of Bioeconomy (IBE), National Research Council, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
3
School of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Urban Sci. 2025, 9(11), 487; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9110487
Submission received: 3 October 2025 / Revised: 11 November 2025 / Accepted: 14 November 2025 / Published: 18 November 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Urban agriculture is increasingly recognized not only for its role in enhancing ecological resilience, food security, and social inclusion, but also for its potential to challenge dominant urban development paradigms. Agroparks, as a spatial typology, have traditionally been associated with multifunctionality, productivity, and land preservation. This Perspective argues that agroparks can also serve as instruments for degrowth-oriented urban transitions, particularly in the context of climate emergency and the need to reconfigure urban land use beyond growth imperatives. Through landscape architectural analysis, the Bernex Agropark (now Parc des Molliers) in Geneva is examined as a spatial prototype that transforms underutilized land into a coherent system of crop zones, civic amenities, and ecological infrastructure. The project demonstrates how landscape architecture can contribute to the regeneration of urban edges while promoting ecological productivity, cooperative stewardship, and spatial limits to urban expansion. We introduce the concept of “Agroparks and Degrowth Urbanism”, framing Bernex as both a post-growth design strategy and a governance experiment. The Perspective concludes with recommendations for integrating agroparks into urban planning: connecting them to green infrastructure networks, prioritizing ecological over economic outputs, enabling commons-based management, and supporting climate adaptation through spatial design and food system relocalization.

1. Introduction

1.1. Urban Agriculture and the Spatial Politics of Degrowth

Urban agriculture (UA) has become a cornerstone of contemporary sustainability discourse, offering a nexus of ecological, social, and spatial benefits within increasingly dense urban fabrics. Defined as the cultivation, processing, and distribution of food in and around urban environments, UA spans a spectrum of typologies—including community gardens, rooftop farms, edible streetscapes, allotments, and productive landscapes embedded in parks, transportation corridors, and institutional campuses [1,2,3]. While the broader “edible city” paradigm embraces symbolic, educational, and esthetic interventions, UA is typically grounded in material production and spatial integration.
In recent decades, scholarly attention has grown substantially, particularly across Europe, North America, and China. Research has documented UA’s role in fostering social inclusion and cohesion, cultural expression and resilience, and civic participation, advancing food justice [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Complementary studies highlight its environmental ecosystem service contributions—ranging from pollination support and stormwater management to microclimate regulation and biodiversity conservation [2,10,11,12]. Yet, the spatial and design dimensions of UA remain critically underexplored [13,14,15]. Despite the UA multifunctional value, the existing literature tends to prioritize outcome-based evaluations—focusing on benefits rather than interrogating the spatial and design mechanisms that support UA’s integration into urban systems [13,14,15]. Even Riolo’s work on the Picasso Food Forest reinforces the argument that edible landscapes can serve as multifunctional platforms for addressing climate change, food insecurity, and social fragmentation, if properly supported by spatial vision and public policy [16].
UA also continues to operate at the periphery of formal urban governance. Coles & Costa [17] emphasize that most food-growing initiatives are activist-led and disconnected from dominant planning paradigms. While policy innovations such as Berlin’s Edible District [18], Victoria’s edible tree substitutions [19], and Seattle’s foraging networks [20] demonstrate institutional engagement, their adoption and effectiveness remain sporadic. Persistent challenges around land access, contamination, maintenance, and zoning constrain UA’s long-term integration. Reiß et al. [21] propose cooperative area activation as a planning mechanism, while Edwards et al. [22] stress the importance of inclusive governance and trust-building.
This has contributed to a limited conceptualization of UA, largely detached from urban planning and landscape architectural frameworks. Studies do acknowledge the importance of spatial factors such as site accessibility, visibility, and openness [23,24,25,26,27,28,29] but seldom analyze these components within a structured design methodology. In addition, the link between spatial design strategies and ecosystem service performance remains underexamined, particularly in relation to planting structure, and multifunctional zoning.
This conceptual gap is compounded by fragmented discourse on edible green infrastructure. Initiatives such as edible campuses [3], edible streets [30], and edible cities [2] highlight the diversity of edible urban landscapes but remain disconnected from unified planning paradigms. Design-based research on fruit trees and foraging practices identifies potential in spatial configuration, terrain adaptation, and signage [15,31], while participatory approaches advocate for stakeholder-led development of edible spaces [32]. Nevertheless, these models lack integration into a coherent urban design agenda, inhibiting cross-contextual implementation.
Among diverse typologies of UA, agroparks are permanent, multifunctional landscapes that choreograph food production alongside recreation, education, and ecological infrastructure [33,34]. Agroparks challenge conventional dichotomies between leisure and productivity and require design frameworks that reconcile ecological performance with civic programming and institutional stewardship [35,36,37,38].
This Perspective argues that agroparks—when designed through a landscape architectural lens—can support urban transitions aligned with degrowth principles. Degrowth, in this context, is not simply about economic contraction, but about reconfiguring urban land use to prioritize ecological regeneration, spatial equity, and cooperative stewardship over extractive development. As Guerrero Lara et al. [39] argue, degrowth-oriented agri-food systems must be understood not only as technical alternatives to industrial agriculture, but as part of a broader socio-political transformation that challenges capitalist imaginaries and reclaims food as a commons. Similarly, Kronenberg [40] situates urban green infrastructure within a degrowth agenda, calling for the repoliticization and decolonization of green spaces and advocating for conviviality, care, and multispecies justice as guiding principles. Agroparks, when framed as civic–ecological infrastructures, offer a spatial model for such transitions—limiting urban expansion, valorizing underutilized land, and embedding food systems within inclusive public space networks.
Yet despite their transformative potential, agroparks remain under-theorized within both degrowth and landscape architectural discourses. While their multifunctionality is often acknowledged, few studies critically examine how agroparks can be spatialized, governed, and designed to embody degrowth values such as care, commons, sufficiency, and multispecies justice. The spatial, institutional, and pedagogical dimensions of agroparks—particularly their role in reconfiguring urban metabolism and resisting the commodification of green space—are rarely addressed in a unified framework. Moreover, the contribution of landscape architecture as a discipline capable of operationalizing these values through spatial design remains largely overlooked. In addition, research on large-scale, formally designed agroparks remains scarce. Case studies such as the Belvedere Agricultural Park in Cologne [35] and the Setup Food Strip in the Rhenish Mining Area [14] offer innovative spatial responses to post-industrial land transformation, yet they are often treated as isolated or experimental rather than typologically representative of urban governance paradigms [14,21]. The absence of typological frameworks for agroparks limits their visibility as strategic and scalable models in the field of UA and degrowth urbanism.
Advancing a landscape-integrated approach to agroparks can be of aid to address these gaps and promote agroparks as instruments of degrowth urbanism. Drawing on the case of the Bernex Agropark in Geneva, this study reflects on how spatial design, ecological performance, and civic programming can be spatially organized to support regenerative, inclusive, and pedagogically rich urban transitions. Rather than offering a generalizable model, the paper positions Bernex as a situated experiment—one that reveals how agroparks can function as spatial catalysts for post-growth imaginaries and as platforms for repoliticizing urban green infrastructure.

1.2. Is Bernex Agropark an Example of Degrowth Urbanism? Conceptual Foundations

In recent years, degrowth has gained traction as a framework for rethinking the socio-ecological role of cities in the context of planetary boundaries [41,42,43,44,45,46]. As Kronenberg et al. [46] argue, urbanization has become a key driver of ecological overshoot, with cities externalizing environmental impacts and concentrating resource consumption. Degrowth urbanism responds to this crisis by calling for a radical transformation of urban systems—one that reduces material throughput, reconnects people with nature, and embeds ecological limits into spatial planning [41,43,45,46].
Recent research has started to define degrowth as a spatial and institutional strategy rather than as a fringe or idealistic concept. In order to operationalize degrowth in urban planning, Kaika et al. [43] provide a five-step approach that includes addressing unequal urban geographies in both the Global North and the South, scaling up grassroots practices, and including institutions. According to this perspective, degrowth is a shift in the logics of urbanization away from expansion and accumulation and towards sufficiency, care, and democratic control over urban resources rather than a retreat from it.
Therefore, degrowth urbanism must, crucially, be positioned within a variety of sociopolitical situations. Urban green spaces in the Global South are frequently influenced by colonial legacies and capitalist logics, as Anantharaman et al. [47] show in their research on park-making in Chennai and Metro Manila, but they also function as places of communing and daily resistance. These areas foreshadow different urban futures based on sharing, caring, and conviviality. In order to spatialize degrowth outside of the Global North, their work emphasizes the necessity of a situated urban political ecology that prioritizes routine activities, relational power, and radical incrementalism [47].
Kronenberg [40] advocates for a change from neoliberal governance to an urban future that is more equitable, inclusive, and ecologically based. This agenda is organized around three interconnected principles: (1) co-production instead of production, wherein egalitarian participation in greening initiatives is fostered by conviviality, care, and commons; (2) a focus on reducing economic throughput instead of facilitating commodified consumption; and (3) decentering the human by improving entanglements between species and rearranging the relationships between humans and nature.
Agroparks, as a typology of urban green space, align closely with this framework. When designed through a landscape architectural lens, they offer a spatial model that resists the commodification and green boosterism typical of neoliberal urbanism. Instead of functioning as elite amenities or speculative assets, agroparks can be governed as civic–ecological infrastructures that support food sovereignty, ecological restoration, and inclusive public programming. Their multifunctionality—combining productive, recreational, and pedagogical functions—embodies the degrowth imperative to reduce material and energy flows while enhancing social and ecological value.
We do not claim Bernex as a definitive model of degrowth urbanism. Rather, we use it as a critical case study—in Francis’s sense [48]—to reflect on how landscape architecture can engage with degrowth principles: reimagining urban green spaces not as commodities, but as commons; not as growth engines, but as infrastructures of care, sufficiency, and multispecies coexistence.
Indeed, Francis’s framework for landscape architecture highlights the importance of thoroughly documented, contextually aware, and critically reflective analysis of planned landscapes and serves as the foundation for the case study technique used in this Perspective. According to this paradigm, case studies are not only descriptive; they are also instruments for professional knowledge progression, theory development, and critique [48].
Therefore, in this study, we aim to assess whether the principles of degrowth urbanism, along with the spatial and institutional characteristics of Kronenberg’s work [40], are concretely represented in a specific agro-park design—the Bernex Agropark in Geneva, addressing a three-part framework:
-
Co-production: Does Bernex foster conviviality, care, and commons through its spatial design and governance?
-
Reduced throughput: Can its agroecological and civic programming be understood as a strategy to curb material and energy flows?
-
Multispecies justice: Does the park’s design support ecological regeneration and inclusive human–non-human relationships?

2. Methodology

2.1. Methodological Approach

To explore these questions, we conducted a two-phase analysis. The first phase involved collecting primary and secondary design materials, including master plans, technical drawings, zoning regulations, and design briefs from VWA publications [49]. Visual documentation, including recent photographs and updates, was obtained through direct correspondence with Craig Verzone, the project’s principal designer. The second phase focused on spatial-functional analysis, examining zoning hierarchies, circulation networks, water management strategies, planting design, and built infrastructure in relation to ecological and civic performance.
Bernex’s implementation phase offers methodological value by allowing observation of transitional design stages and partial realization. This status enables reflection on how conceptual intentions materialize in built form, and how agroparks might evolve as civic–ecological infrastructures over time. While Bernex was not designed explicitly as a degrowth project, its emphasis on multifunctionality, ecological integration, and public engagement invites consideration of its potential to contribute to a broader degrowth transition.
Building on this foundation, the second phase involved a systematic examination of the agropark’s spatial and functional dimensions. Key aspects analyzed included: spatial organization (e.g., zoning hierarchies, circulation networks, and accessibility patterns); topographical systems (e.g., water management strategies, grading, and visual sequencing); planting strategies (e.g., biodiversity integration, agroecological corridors); and built infrastructure (e.g., amenities, scale, and placement relative to landscape performance). Special attention was paid to how these spatial configurations align with functional objectives, particularly in supporting urban agriculture (UA), ecosystem services (provisioning and regulating), public recreation, and educational programming.

2.2. Case Study Profile: Parc Des Molliers (Formerly Bernex Agropark)

Parc des Molliers, inaugurated in 2023, is situated on the western periphery of Geneva, Switzerland. Previously referred to as Bernex Agropark during its design and implementation phases, the park now officially bears the name Parc des Molliers. The project originated as a compensatory measure in response to the planned urban expansion of the Bernex–Confignon municipality, where 114 hectares of farmland were designated for development to accommodate over 16,000 new residents. [49]. As a compensatory measure, the canton initiated an international design competition in 2013 to develop a new model of agro-urban landscape—one that would preserve agricultural productivity while enhancing public access, ecological function, and urban identity (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
The winning proposal by Verzone Woods Architects (VWA) offers a formally structured and interdisciplinary vision for urban agriculture. Drawing upon over three years of dedicated design research, their scheme positions Bernex Agropark as a multifunctional interface between urban and rural realms (Figure 1). This “hybrid seam” is achieved through layered spatial tactics: agricultural fields organized in modular plots, orchards planted to avoid shading crops, a public meadow, and recreational zones—all connected by a porous circulation network and linked to Geneva’s tram system [49].
Topography plays a critical role in shaping ecological and experiential functions: slopes are used to direct water flow (blue arrows in the grading map in Figure 1), frame viewpoints, and separate programs without physical barriers. Built infrastructure—including a restaurant, market, didactic kitchen, and farmer’s residence—is positioned along Route de Chancy (in the southern part), reinforcing the park’s visibility and accessibility. The design supports crop rotation and biodiversity, while enhancing public engagement and learning through urban farming.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the park under construction (in 2021) and in its final shape (2024), respectively, revealing how conceptual intentions translate into built form.
Bernex Agropark is particularly well-suited to this study’s design-centered research approach and questions. First, it embodies a deliberate effort to establish a replicable agropark typology—distinct from informal community gardens—through formal landscape architectural intervention. Second, its spatial design responds directly to multifunctionality goals, integrating ecological corridors, food-growing zones, and civic amenities within a coherent spatial framework. Third, the project is institutionally embedded in Geneva’s Grand Genève regional planning system, demonstrating the role of landscape design in facilitating agro-urban infrastructure within formal governance structures.

3. Interpretive Case Study Findings

3.1. Design Rationale: Spatializing Degrowth Values

As shown in Table 1, Bernex Agropark presents a nuanced spatial framework through the integration of productive, civic, and ecological functions. Covering approximately 9.44 hectares, the park is structured into a tripartite framework—public zones, agricultural core, and shared interface areas—arranged with a logic that fosters accessibility, spatial clarity, and multifunctional use. Rather than functioning as a detached green enclave, the park positions itself as an urban connector through deliberately porous boundaries, three major entry points, and a transverse pedestrian axis that links adjacent neighborhoods. This spatial logic resonates with degrowth principles of co-production and commons. The permeability of movement, layering of uses, and embeddedness within the urban fabric suggest a landscape designed not for consumption, but for convivial engagement and shared stewardship.
Spatial zoning reflects both operational intent and thematic cohesion. As Figure 1 (right hand side), Figure 3 (bottom), Figure 4 and Figure 5 show, public spaces—that support gathering, recreation and street-level interface, are arranged in the southern part of the park, near the main road, but also in the inner part of the agropark and connection pathways are placed along the agropark perimeter, close to the agricultural fields which form the productive heart of the landscape, representing an opportunity of raising awareness on agricultural landscape and management. These cultivated zones—including market gardens, chef’s plots, fallow fields, and collective beds—are organized in a mosaic layout that encourages crop rotation, seasonal fluctuation, and visitor engagement.
This centrality of agriculture marks a departure from conventional park models, where cultivation is often symbolic or marginal. Instead, Bernex positions food production as civic infrastructure, aligning with degrowth calls to reclaim food as a commons and embed provisioning systems within public space networks [39,47,50,51].
Circulation systems are calibrated for dual performance: enabling public movement while protecting agricultural operations. Pathways choreograph transitions between spatial programs without disrupting cultivation, creating a model for urban co-presence. Lighting strategies reinforce this dual identity—illuminating civic platforms while preserving nocturnal habitats in agricultural and forest zones.
The park’s design also supports multispecies justice through layered planting, biodiversity corridors, and sensory landscapes. Hens and apiculture systems enrich the site’s ecological and pedagogical functions, inviting visitors to engage with more-than-human urbanism.

3.1.1. Topography and Hydrological Choreography

Bernex’s topographic design plays a subtle yet critical role in shaping ecological performance and spatial experience. The site’s gentle south-to-north slope has been retained and adapted to guide surface runoff, enhance visual corridors, and choreograph movement across agricultural and civic zones. This natural gradient functions as latent infrastructure, quietly supporting hydrological cycles while framing the spatial rhythm of cultivation.
Water management systems are embedded through both visible and invisible means. Bioswales and retention basins flank crop beds, directing excess water into planted depressions that support biodiversity and microhabitats. Underground cisterns regulate irrigation cycles, balancing natural drainage with controlled distribution. Importantly, these systems are made legible—particularly near the chef’s garden and bistro—where ponds and wetland edges double as ecological teaching tools. This visibility aligns with degrowth principles of transparency, ecological literacy, and care [40].

3.1.2. Planting and Ecological Strategies

Vegetation is layered across three visual planes to enhance biodiversity, spatial rhythm, and microclimate functionality. Background canopy trees act as climatic buffers and enclosures, mid-ground shrubs and orchard species provide pollinator habitat and visual texture, and edible groundcover invites immediate tactile interaction. This stratification supports both ecological processes and landscape legibility. Trees are located predominantly along the edges, preserving sunlight exposure for crops while screening adjacent urban noise and infrastructure. A gentle elevation relative to surrounding streets also aids in acoustic mitigation and visual openness, allowing the park to maintain territorial continuity without physical isolation.

3.1.3. Built Infrastructure and Vernacular Expression

Architectural typologies are deeply rooted in vernacular design principles, drawing from local materials, construction techniques, and climatic responsiveness to create structures that are both functional and culturally resonant. Farm buildings and retail elements are intentionally modest in scale, harmonizing with the surrounding landscape while maintaining a strong sense of place. These structures are not merely utilitarian but are thoughtfully embedded in their context, serving as logistical hubs for food production while also preserving and reflecting regional identity.
As Figure 5 and Figure 6 show, strategically placed throughout the site, adaptive furniture systems—such as modular benches that can be rearranged for communal events and shaded resting platforms that provide respite from the sun—enhance usability without disrupting agricultural operations. These elements are carefully integrated along key circulation paths and gathering spaces, fostering social interaction and comfort while reinforcing the site’s dual role as a working farm and a vibrant community space (Figure 7). Their design supports conviviality and shared stewardship, key tenets of degrowth urbanism [40].

3.1.4. Programs and Public Life

Finally, the park will include a social program to foster the site’s identity as a civic–ecological infrastructure, prioritizing sufficiency, conviviality, and the decommodification of public life. The park supports a range of public behaviors—play, rest, education, purchase, and harvesting—that are intentionally interlaced rather than segregated (Figure 6 and Figure 7). This spatial mixing fosters a culture of sufficiency by demonstrating that fulfillment can be found in low-impact, socially rich activities close to home, reducing the need for resource-intensive leisure and consumption. Small-scale animal habitats like apiaries and hen coops are not merely attractions; they are integral components of a regenerative, convivial system that educates visitors on symbiotic human-non-human relationships and local provisioning, moving beyond a purely utilitarian view of nature.

3.2. Functional Analysis

As Table 2 shows, this analysis moves beyond spatial description to interpret Bernex Agropark as a landscape architectural system embodying degrowth principles—examining its logic as a prototype for a post-growth society. The park is analyzed not only as a composition of zones and paths but as a living system that enacts autonomy, care, and commons-based management. Table 2 synthesizes descriptive design elements to reveal their significance in creating a landscape that reduces material throughput, recenters social-ecological well-being over economic growth, and functions thanks to the richness of agro-urban infrastructure that can also be used for pedagogical purposes.

3.2.1. Cultivation as Civic Infrastructure and a Food Commons

At Bernex, agriculture is the core civic infrastructure, a direct application of the degrowth call to reclaim essential provisioning systems as commons. The mosaic of market gardens, chef’s plots, collective beds, and fallow zones reverses the conventional subordination of productive land, challenging the growth paradigm’s logic of maximizing economic yield from every square meter. This design supports crop rotation and biodiversity instead of monoculture, embodying an ethic of care for the soil and ecological limits. By making these functional areas esthetically legible and publicly accessible, the park dismantles the divide between producer and consumer, inviting urban dwellers to participate in the co-production of food and (re)learn agricultural rhythms. This transforms the park into a platform for nourishment and reflection, where food is experienced as a shared common good rather than a privatized commodity.

3.2.2. Spatial Legibility, Ecological Function, and Reduced Throughput

Bernex’s high spatial legibility—achieved through clear zoning and pathways that guide users into productive zones—is a design strategy for democratizing ecological knowledge. This supports the degrowth objective of fostering ecological consciousness by making regenerative processes visible and understandable. The expressive hydrological system of bioswales and cisterns is not just functional; it is a pedagogical tool that teaches sufficiency and circularity in water management, reducing dependence on external, energy-intensive infrastructure. The layered vegetation strategy serves multiple functions: canopy trees for buffering and microclimate regulation, and edible groundcovers for biodiversity and local food production. This multifunctional approach works with natural processes, significantly reducing the material and energy throughput typically required for the intensive maintenance of ornamental parks, aligning with degrowth’s imperative to shrink the urban metabolic flow.

3.2.3. Inclusive Programming and Convivial Public Engagement

Bernex’s program is a blueprint for fostering conviviality and challenging consumerist leisure. By interlocking activities like cooking, harvesting, and playing within agricultural territories, the park creates a shared commons where social interaction is centered around non-commercial, productive engagement. This directly counters the neoliberal model of parks as curated consumption arenas. The design’s embedded inclusivity—with agro-lounges and picnic terraces in cultivation areas—democratizes access to ecological resources, addressing urban inequality not through symbolic gestures but through the equitable distribution of use-value. This embodies the degrowth commitment to procedural and recognition justice, ensuring that the benefits of green space and food sovereignty are available to all urban inhabitants, regardless of background.

3.2.4. Governance as Embedded Design Logic for Commoning

The spatial form of Bernex is intrinsically linked to a collaborative, multi-stakeholder governance model that prefigures degrowth’s political ideal of polycentric governance and autonomy. The tri-party arrangement (Canton, Municipality, cooperative management) ensures that control is distributed, preventing elite capture and embedding systems of care and collective responsibility into the landscape’s daily operation. This model demonstrates how spatial design can scaffold collaborative maintenance and economic viability outside of a pure market logic. By integrating retail, education, and cultivation under shared routines, the park operates as a social-ecological commons, proving that landscape architecture is not just about form, but about designing the very systems of interaction and stewardship that sustain a community in a post-growth future.

4. Discussion: Agroparks as Territorial Instruments for a Degrowth Urbanism

The planning and design of the Bernex Agropark represent a seminal case study in the operationalization of a degrowth-oriented urbanism, as articulated by Kronenberg [40]. It moves beyond a mere critique of the neoliberal green space model to actively embody a transformative alternative. By synthesizing agricultural production, ecological infrastructure, and civic space into a single, integrated matrix [52,53], Bernex will offer a tangible blueprint for how cities can foster conviviality, radically reduce socio-ecological throughput, and advance multispecies justice. This discussion analyzes the agropark through the explicit lens of Kronenberg’s three core degrowth principles, demonstrating how its spatial and institutional design directly counters the production-consumption logic of neoliberal urban greening.

4.1. Co-Production: Cultivating Conviviality, Care, and Commons

Kronenberg [40] posits that a degrowth agenda must shift from the top-down production of green spaces to their collaborative co-production, emphasizing conviviality, care, and the management of resources as commons. The Bernex Agropark manifests this principle by architecting a landscape where these concepts are spatially encoded and institutionally embedded.
The agropark’s fundamental design strategy of dissolving traditional boundaries between agriculture, recreation, and ecology represents an act of repoliticizing the urban landscape. It resists the neoliberal tendency to create exclusive, consumption-oriented “world-class” parks and instead fosters what Kronenberg calls egalitarian opportunities to join greening efforts. The strategic placement of the main farm building at the urban edge, adjacent to a market plaza and transit stop, will constitute a spatial statement that positions agricultural production as a visible, accessible, and integral part of civic life. This functional transparency, as noted in research on civic food systems [54,55], should foster public trust and transform the space from a passive recreational site into an active platform for socio-agricultural interaction. The incorporation of a didactic kitchen, retail shop, and public-oriented architecture will turn the productive heart of the park into a convivial hub, facilitating direct interaction between producers and citizens and reclaiming citizenship and collective action over self-interested economic relationships.
The agropark’s viability as a commons will be secured through its sophisticated multi-stakeholder coordination and governance structures [56]. The tripartite model—with the Canton managing land, the Municipality maintaining infrastructure, and agricultural cooperatives managing daily operations—will constitute a practical application of communing. This territorially embedded governance system ensures that spatial interventions are matched with institutional capacity and accountability [57]. When farmers maintain public zones adjacent to their fields, it creates a circular economy of resource use and service provision [58,59] and fosters a sense of ownership among agricultural stakeholders. This aligns with degrowth values, replacing corporate actors as the primary managers and supporting emancipatory urban politics. The park’s design, emerging from public competitions and cooperative leasing agreements [60,61], demonstrates how spatial form can be a negotiated social contract, transforming the landscape into a platform for collective decision-making and adaptive management.
The pervasive educational dimension of Bernex embodies the degrowth focus on care—for the community, for the ecosystem, and for future generations. The park is explicitly designed as a pedagogical instrument where water infrastructure is displayed as “open hydrology” [62,63], with wetland swales and drainage channels serving as didactic tools [64,65]. Outdoor classrooms, modular furniture in agro-lounge platforms, and the strategic spatial proximity between educational and productive zones should facilitate experiential learning and ecological literacy [66,67]. This aligns with Kronenberg’s argument that degrowth promotes meaningful engagement, here realized through a landscape that invites mindful interaction and fosters environmental literacy [68]. By accommodating diverse user needs and reflecting Geneva’s multicultural demographics in its edible gardens [69], the park’s design also performs the care work of recognition justice, ensuring the needs of diverse urban inhabitants are acknowledged and valued.

4.2. Reducing Throughput: The Agropark as a Metabolic Regulator

A central tenet of degrowth is the reduction of societal material and energy throughput. The Bernex Agropark directly confronts the high-throughput model of neoliberal park maintenance and urban food systems, positioning itself as a metabolic regulator that works with nature to achieve sufficiency.
The park’s design fundamentally rejects the energy- and chemical-intensive upkeep of ornamental green spaces by employing principles of ecological intensification [70] to maximize ecosystem services within its boundaries. Practices such as compost loops, cover cropping, and minimal tillage improve soil health and water retention [71], eliminating the need for synthetic fertilizers. The use of layered vegetation, crop diversification, and modular zoning creates a resilient, self-sustaining system that mimics natural ecosystems. This approach stands in stark contrast to the neoliberal model criticized by Kronenberg [40], which relies on leaf blowers and pesticides to maintain a sterile esthetic. Here, maintenance is redefined as stewardship, working with nature, and reducing the need for complex gardening services. The integration of soil regeneration, crop rotation, and habitat diversity into spatial programming aligns with contemporary agroecological literature advocating for the incorporation of ecological processes into landscape architecture [72,73].
The agropark’s very purpose as a site of food production will constitute a direct intervention in reducing the metabolic throughput of the city. By integrating a landscape-based food system within the urban fabric, it will shorten supply chains and reduce the food miles and associated emissions of conventional agriculture. This supports the degrowth objective of “relocalizing activities.” Furthermore, the park’s strategic location along Geneva’s tram lines will encourage non-motorized access and connect to broader discourse on transit-oriented productive landscapes [74], thereby reducing reliance on private car travel for both recreation and food access. The park’s design, therefore, does not just reduce its own operational throughput; it helps lower the city’s overall material and energy footprint by satisfying needs for food, recreation, and nature connection locally, aligning with the degrowth emphasis on frugality and sufficiency.

4.3. Multispecies Justice: Decentering the Human in the Urban Fabric

The most radical aspect of the Bernex Agropark is its inherent commitment to multispecies justice, actively decentering the human to create a landscape that serves as a shared habitat.
Kronenberg [40] calls for a transformation that recognizes the needs of non-human urban inhabitants. Bernex achieves this by designing for ecological functionality first. The vertical structure of plant communities—integrating canopy trees, edible shrubs, and herbaceous layers—is not primarily for visual effect; it is a meticulously designed habitat. Research confirms that such vertical complexity fosters species richness, habitat diversity, and ecosystem resilience [75,76,77], even in urban green spaces [78,79]. Elements like orchard filters, permaculture edges, forest buffers, and wetland swales function as ecological corridors that support pollinators, beneficial insects, and other fauna [80,81]. This deliberate creation of layered habitats will ensure the park is not a human-dominated space but a novel environment where, as Kronenberg [40] advocates, justice should extend to the non-human inhabitants of cities. The strategic canopy placement, which balances shade provision with agricultural viability [82], and the use of groundcover vegetation to enhance arthropod diversity [83,84] will further exemplify this multispecies design approach.
The agropark’s design facilitates the long-term relationships with nature that are crucial for overcoming the human–nature disconnect. By making agricultural and ecological processes visible and accessible, it will allow for meaningful engagement on an everyday basis. Visitors will be able to observe the lifecycle of crops, the function of pollinators, and the flow of water through the system. This contact with a working ecosystem is a powerful form of convivial conservation, celebrating nature not as a distant spectacle but as an integral part of urban life. This has the potential to fundamentally alter how people connect to nature, cultivating the ecological consciousness that degrowth scholars argue is necessary for deep social-ecological transformation. The park’s operational beauty [85], derived from the legibility of its ecological and agricultural processes, will reinforce this connection, making the park’s function as a multispecies habitat a core part of its esthetic and civic identity.

4.4. Synthesis: The Agropark as a Degrowth Catalyst

In conclusion, the Bernex Agropark transcends its physical form to become a catalytic project for degrowth urbanism. It will demonstrate that the principles of co-production, reduced throughput, and multispecies justice are not abstract ideals but can be spatially articulated and institutionally supported. It also will offer a replicable model that challenges the neoliberal urban development paradigm by proving that landscapes can be productive, ecologically regenerative, and deeply civic without being subservient to economic growth logic. As called for by Kronenberg [40], it effectively reclaims the urban greening discourse, presenting a powerful alternative where urban green spaces are not engines of green growth but are foundational to building convivial, just, and ecologically viable cities for all species. The agropark, as a territorial device [86,87], thus mediates between urban and rural systems, allowing flows of people, goods, and knowledge in a way that prefigures a post-growth, metabolically balanced urban future.

5. Conclusions

The Bernex Agropark exemplifies how landscape architecture can mediate profound socio-ecological transitions, positioning itself as a tangible blueprint for a degrowth-oriented urbanism. Its integrated strategies move beyond mere sustainability to actively dismantle the neoliberal paradigm of urban green space, instead fostering a model built on co-production, reduced throughput, and multispecies justice.
First, its spatial hybridity and typological innovation—the tripartite system of cultivation, public space, and ecological buffers—is the physical manifestation of a repoliticized urban commons. This configuration rejects the socio-spatial selectivity of neoliberal parks, creating a convivial landscape where agricultural viability and civic engagement are synergistically intertwined without compromise, ensuring egalitarian opportunities for all urban inhabitants.
Second, the project’s participatory stewardship and novel governance model operationalize the degrowth principle of co-production. By distributing responsibilities across public and cooperative actors, it creates a management system that redistributes power from market-based developers to the community. This ensures the landscape is governed as a collective resource, embedding care and shared responsibility into its very institutional fabric and resisting the forces of commodification.
Third, Bernex achieves ecological resilience through regenerative systems that fundamentally reduce material and energy throughput. Its performative infrastructure—wetland swales that manage water and stratified planting that supports biodiversity—exemplifies a low-tech, ecosystem-based approach to maintenance. This stands in direct opposition to the high-input, sterile upkeep of neoliberal green spaces, working with nature to create a self-sustaining system that minimizes ecological costs.
Fourth, the deeply embedded civic engagement and landscape pedagogy foster the nature connectedness essential for a degrowth transition. By making agricultural and ecological processes visible and interactive, the park heals the human–nature disconnect, cultivating an ecological consciousness that challenges the anthropocentric and utilitarian worldview critiqued by degrowth scholars.
Finally, Bernex demonstrates that landscape architecture must function as a systemic practice for degrowth. Its success stems from the interlocking of all these strategies—multifunctional zoning enables co-production, which sustains regenerative, low-throughput systems that, in turn, foster a pedagogy of care and multi-species awareness. This integration shows that agroparks are not merely design projects but living socio-ecological platforms for a post-growth future. To embed such models within urban planning, planners and designers should integrate agroparks into green infrastructure strategies, prioritize ecological performance over economic outputs, and adopt commons-based governance frameworks. Agroparks should be conceived as multifunctional spaces—combining food production, recreation, and education—while advancing climate adaptation and food system relocalization through spatial planning.
While this Perspective offers a conceptual and design-based interpretation, it does not yet provide empirical evidence of performance. Future research should incorporate primary data collection—such as biodiversity monitoring, soil health assessments, and user engagement studies—to validate the ecological and social outcomes hypothesized here. These evaluations will be essential to determine whether the proposed strategies can deliver the intended benefits in practice and to refine the framework accordingly.
Ultimately, the project’s significance lies in demonstrating that a degrowth agenda can be spatially realized. By treating agriculture as a cultural and ecological commons rather than a purely economic sector, Bernex offers a replicable framework in which urban landscapes become drivers of conviviality, sufficiency, and multispecies justice. Future implementations must adapt these strategies to local contexts, particularly in the Global South, where community needs, cultural practices, and ecological conditions may differ substantially. Integrating local and Indigenous knowledge systems will be crucial to ensuring that degrowth urbanism evolves as a plural, context-sensitive practice rather than a singular model.
As Schmelzer and Nowshin [88] argue, degrowth must evolve into a global justice framework that integrates reparative and decolonial perspectives from the Global South. Only through such a systemic, degrowth-aligned synthesis can we create cities that prioritize the well-being of all their inhabitants, human and non-human, over the relentless pursuit of economic growth.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.R.K. and A.R.; methodology, F.U.; validation, M.R.K. and A.R.; formal analysis, M.R.K.; investigation, M.R.K., F.U. and A.R.; resources, M.R.K. and A.R.; data curation, M.R.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.K. and F.U.; writing—review and editing, A.R.; visualization, M.R.K.; supervision, A.R. and M.R.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We extend our sincere gratitude to Craig Verzone, principal designer of Bernex Agro-Urban Park, for his invaluable contribution to this research. His provision of critical data—particularly current photographic documentation of the park’s construction phase—was instrumental in grounding our analysis in real-world conditions. We also acknowledge the use of Copilot for proofreading the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lovell, S.T. Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2499–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sartison, K.; Artmann, M. Edible Cities—An Innovative Nature-Based Solution for Urban Sustainability Transformation? An Explorative Study of Urban Food Production in German Cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ding, X.; Zhao, S.; Yue, X.; Xing, Y.; Zhao, Z. Design Factors Promoting the Benefits of an Edible Campus in China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1267894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Speak, A.F.; Mizgajski, A.; Borysiak, J. Allotment Gardens and Parks: Provision of Ecosystem Services with an Emphasis on Biodiversity. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 772–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bendt, P.; Barthel, S.; Colding, J. Civic Greening and Environmental Learning in Public-Access Community Gardens in Berlin. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Keshavarz, N.; Bell, S.; Zilans, A.; Hursthouse, A.; Voigt, A.; Hobbelink, A.; Zammit, A.; Jokinen, A.; Mikkelsen, B.E.; Notteboom, B.; et al. A History of Urban Gardens in Europe. In Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 8–32. [Google Scholar]
  7. Shimpo, N.; Wesener, A.; McWilliam, W. How Community Gardens May Contribute to Community Resilience Following an Earthquake. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 38, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Veen, E.J.; Bock, B.B.; Van den Berg, W.; Visser, A.J.; Wiskerke, J.S.C. Community Gardening and Social Cohesion: Different Designs, Different Motivations. Local Environ. 2016, 21, 1271–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Koay, W.I.; Dillon, D. Community Gardening: Stress, Well-Being, and Resilience Potentials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lin, B.B.; Philpott, S.M.; Jha, S. The Future of Urban Agriculture and Biodiversity-Ecosystem Services: Challenges and next Steps. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2015, 16, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cabral, I.; Keim, J.; Engelmann, R.; Kraemer, R.; Siebert, J.; Bonn, A. Ecosystem Services of Allotment and Community Gardens: A Leipzig, Germany Case Study. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 23, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Adeyemi, O.; Shackleton, C.M. Understanding Foraging Practices in Lagos Metropolis to Redesign Urban Greenspaces in Support of Human-Nature Interactions. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 79, 127805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. John, H.; Artmann, M. Introducing an Integrative Evaluation Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Different Types of Urban Agriculture. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2024, 16, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wirth, T.M.; Heuschkel, Z.; Dorn, C.; Stabel, A.A.; Lohrberg, F. From Mining-Recultivation Towards Urban Agriculture Strategies: Learning from Informal Planning with Thematic Focus in the Rhenish Mining Area. Product. Process. 2023, 1, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Russo, A.; McCarthy, L. Designing Edible Cities: Exploring the Origins and Future of Urban Foraging and Wild Herbalism in the United Kingdom. In Urban Foraging in the Changing World; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 169–204. [Google Scholar]
  16. Riolo, F. The Social and Environmental Value of Public Urban Food Forests: The Case Study of the Picasso Food Forest in Parma, Italy. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 45, 126225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Coles, R.; Costa, S. Food Growing in the City: Exploring the Productive Urban Landscape as a New Paradigm for Inclusive Approaches to the Design and Planning of Future Urban Open Spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 170, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hajzeri, A.; Kwadwo, V.O. Investigating Integration of Edible Plants in Urban Open Spaces: Evaluation of Policy Challenges and Successes of Implementation. Land Use Policy 2019, 84, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kowalski, J.M.; Conway, T.M. Branching out: The Inclusion of Urban Food Trees in Canadian Urban Forest Management Plans. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 45, 126142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McLain, R.; Poe, M.; Hurley, P.T.; Lecompte-Mastenbrook, J.; Emery, M.R. Producing Edible Landscapes in Seattle’s Urban Forest. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Reiß, K.; Seifert, T.L.; Artmann, M. Initiating, Innovating and Accelerating Edible Cities. A Case Study Based on Two Transition Experiments in the City of Dresden (Germany). Urban Ecosyst. 2024, 27, 1323–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Edwards, F.; Manderscheid, M.; Parham, S. Terms of Engagement: Mobilising Citizens in Edible Nature-Based Solutions. J. Urban 2023, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Amani-Beni, M.; Khalilnezhad, M.R.; Mahdizadeh, S. Hierarchical Access to the Edible Landscape: The Akbarieh Garden in Iran. Landsc. Res. 2021, 47, 333–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Amani-beni, M.; Xie, G.; Yang, Q.; Russo, A.; Khalilnezhad, M.R. Socio-Cultural Appropriateness of the Use of Historic Persian Gardens for Modern Urban Edible Gardens. Land 2022, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ding, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Yue, X. Design and Social Factors Affecting the Formation of Social Capital in Chinese Community Garden. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. He, B.; Zhu, J. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening Constructing Community Gardens? Residents’ Attitude and Behaviour towards Edible Landscapes in Emerging Urban Communities of China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 154–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khalilnezhad, M.R.; Amani-Beni, M.; Shen, Z.W. Accessibility, Visibility and Connectivity between Urbanites and Edible Landscape in the Persian Gardens. Acta Hortic. 2022, 1374, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Khalilnezhad, M.R.; Tobias, K. The Productive Landscape in Persian Gardens; Foundations and Features. Bagh-E Nazar 2016, 13, 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  29. Khalilnezhad, S.M.R. Distinctive Features of Productive Landscapes in Persian Gardens. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1189, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. de la Salle, J. Great Food Streets: Planning and Design for Urban Magnetism in Post-Agricultural Cities. Urban Des. Int. 2019, 24, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Świąder, K.; Čermak, D.; Gajewska, D.; Najman, K.; Piotrowska, A.; Kostyra, E. Opportunities and Constraints for Creating Edible Cities and Accessing Wholesome Functional Foods in a Sustainable Way. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zheng, Z.W.; Chou, R.J. The Impact and Future of Edible Landscapes on Sustainable Urban Development: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 84, 127930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pérez Campaña, R.; Valenzuela Montes, L.M. Agro-Urban Open Space as a Component of Agricultural Multifunctionality. J. Land Use Sci. 2014, 9, 82–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, Z.; Cai, J.; Sliuzas, R. Agro-Tourism Enterprises as a Form of Multi-Functional Urban Agriculture for Peri-Urban Development in China. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Timpe, A. Cultivating the Cologne Green Belt: The Belvedere Agricultural Park. In AgriCultura: Urban Agriculture and the Heritage Potential of Agrarian Landscape; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 205–224. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bohn, K.; Viljoen, A. The Edible City: Envisioning the Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL). Field 2011, 4, 149–162. [Google Scholar]
  37. Fanfani, D. Agricultural Park in Europe as Tool for Agri-Urban Policies and Design: A Critical Overview; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; ISBN 9783319955766. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dubbeling, M.; Bracalenti, L.; Lagorio, L. Participatory Design of Public Spaces for Urban Agriculture, Rosario, Argentina. Open House Int. 2009, 34, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Guerrero Lara, L.; van Oers, L.; Smessaert, J.; Spanier, J.; Raj, G.; Feola, G. Degrowth and Agri food Systems: A Research Agenda for the Critical Social Sciences. Sustain. Sci. 2023, 18, 1579–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kronenberg, J. From Neoliberal Urban Green Space Production and Consumption to Urban Greening as Part of a Degrowth Agenda. Cities 2025, 159, 105739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Savini, F. Towards an Urban Degrowth: Habitability, Finity and Polycentric Autonomism. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2021, 53, 1076–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kallis, G.; Kostakis, V.; Lange, S.; Muraca, B.; Paulson, S.; Schmelzer, M. Research On Degrowth. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2018, 43, 291–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kaika, M.; Varvarousis, A.; Demaria, F.; March, H. Urbanizing Degrowth: Five Steps towards a Radical Spatial Degrowth Agenda for Planning in the Face of Climate Emergency. Urban Stud. 2023, 60, 1191–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cattaneo, C.; Kallis, G.; Demaria, F.; Zografos, C.; Sekulova, F.; D’Alisa, G.; Varvarousis, A.; Conde, M. A Degrowth Approach to Urban Mobility Options: Just, Desirable and Practical Options. Local Environ. 2022, 27, 459–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Anguelovski, I.; Brand, A.L.; Connolly, J.J.T.; Corbera, E.; Kotsila, P.; Steil, J.; Garcia-Lamarca, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Cole, H.; Baró, F.; et al. Expanding the Boundaries of Justice in Urban Greening Scholarship: Toward an Emancipatory, Antisubordination, Intersectional, and Relational Approach. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2020, 110, 1743–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kronenberg, J.; Andersson, E.; Elmqvist, T.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Xue, J.; Khmara, Y. Cities, Planetary Boundaries, and Degrowth. Lancet Planet. Health 2024, 8, e234–e241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Anantharaman, M.; Sahakian, M.; Saloma, C. Spatialising Degrowth in Southern Cities: Everyday Park-Making for (Un) Commoning. Urban Stud. 2023, 60, 1266–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Francis, M. A Case Study Method For Landscape Architecture. Landsc. J. 2001, 20, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Verzone, C.; Woods, C. Food Urbanism Typologies Case Studies Strategies; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tornaghi, C.; Dehaene, M. The Prefigurative Power of Urban Political Agroecology: Rethinking the Urbanisms of Agroecological Transitions for Food System Transformation. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 44, 594–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Roman-Alcalá, A. Anarchism, Degrowth, and Food Sovereignty: Exploring Overlaps and Tensions. Degrowth J. 2025, 3, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abu Hatab, A.; Cavinato, M.E.R.; Lindemer, A.; Lagerkvist, C.-J. Urban Sprawl, Food Security and Agricultural Systems in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Cities 2019, 94, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alves, A.; van Opstal, C.; Keijzer, N.; Sutton, N.; Chen, W.-S. Planning the Multifunctionality of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Spaces. Cities 2024, 146, 104751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hassen, N.; Kaufman, P. Examining the Role of Urban Street Design in Enhancing Community Engagement: A Literature Review. Health Place 2016, 41, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Russ, A.; Gaus, M.B. Urban Agriculture Education and Youth Civic Engagement in the U.S.: A Scoping Review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 707896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Boru, E.M.; Hwang, J.; Ahmad, A.Y. Governance and Institutional Frameworks in Ethiopian Integrated Agro-Industrial Parks: Enhancing Innovation Ecosystems and Multi Stakeholder Coordination for Global Market Competitiveness. Economies 2025, 13, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Reed, J.; Ros-Tonen, M.A.F.; Adeyanju, S.; Wahid Arimiyaw, A.; Asubonteng, K.; Baatuwie, B.N.; Bayala, E.R.C.; Tom-Dery, D.; Ickowitz, A.; Issaka, Y.B.; et al. From Conflict to Collaboration through Inclusive Landscape Governance: Evidence from a Contested Landscape in Ghana. Glob. Environ. Change 2024, 88, 102909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cassatella, C.; Gottero, E. Integrating Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Planning Systems. Barriers, Policy Tools and Recommendations. Plan. Pract. Res. 2025, 40, 683–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sirowy, B.; Ruggeri, D. Setting the Stage: Urban Agriculture, Public Space, and Human Well-Being. In Urban Agriculture in Public Space: Planning and Designing for Human Flourishing in Northern European Cities and Beyond; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lu, P.; Wang, C. Participation beyond a Form of Urban Tactics—Examining Contemporary Urban Spatial Development Strategies through Taipei PCC’s Street Play Activities. Cities 2024, 150, 105076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yazar, M.; York, A. Nature-Based Solutions through Collective Actions for Spatial Justice in Urban Green Commons. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 145, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fouad, S.S.; Heggy, E.; Abotalib, A.Z.; Ramah, M.; Jomaa, S.; Weilacher, U. Landscape-Based Regeneration of the Nile Delta’s Waterways in Support of Water Conservation and Environmental Protection. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 145, 109660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Riaz, A.; Nijhuis, S.; Bobbink, I. Toward Landscape-Based Groundwater Recharge in Arid Regions: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kirnbauer, M.C.; Baetz, B.W.; Kenney, W.A. Estimating the Stormwater Attenuation Benefits Derived from Planting Four Monoculture Species of Deciduous Trees on Vacant and Underutilized Urban Land Parcels. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Richards, P.J.; Farrell, C.; Tom, M.; Williams, N.S.G.; Fletcher, T.D. Vegetable Raingardens Can Produce Food and Reduce Stormwater Runoff. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Khan, M.; McGeown, S.; Bell, S. Improving Outdoor Pedagogy through Design: Reflections on the Process of Redesigning a School Landscape. J. Landsc. Archit. 2024, 19, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kondo, J.; Baars, R.C. Transforming Pedagogical Landscapes in the Anthropocene: Perspectives on More-than-Human Agency and Nature as a Co-Teacher in Vernacular Ways. Environ. Educ. Res. 2025, 31, 1658–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Spatial Planning for Multifunctional Green Infrastructure: Growing Resilience in Detroit. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 159, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Artmann, M.; Sartison, K.; Ives, C.D. Urban Gardening as a Means for Fostering Embodied Urban Human–Food Connection? A Case Study on Urban Vegetable Gardens in Germany. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 16, 967–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhen, H.; Qiao, Y.; Zhao, H.; Ju, X.; Zanoli, R.; Waqas, M.A.; Lun, F.; Knudsen, M.T. Developing a Conceptual Model to Quantify Eco-Compensation Based on Environmental and Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis for Promoting the Ecologically Intensified Agriculture. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 56, 101442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hughes, H.M.; Koolen, S.; Kuhnert, M.; Baggs, E.M.; Maund, S.; Mullier, G.W.; Hillier, J. Towards a Farmer-Feasible Soil Health Assessment That Is Globally Applicable. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 345, 118582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gu, Y.; Deal, B.; Larsen, L. Geodesign Processes and Ecological Systems Thinking in a Coupled Human-Environment Context: An Integrated Framework for Landscape Architecture. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Makhzoumi, J.M. Landscape Ecology as a Foundation for Landscape Architecture: Application in Malta. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 50, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, R.; Wu, W.; Yao, Y.; Tan, W. “Green Transit-Oriented Development”: Exploring the Association between TOD and Visible Green Space Provision Using Street View Data. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 344, 118093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pinto, M.Q.; Varandas, S.; Cohen-Shacham, E.; Cabecinha, E. Birds, Bees, and Botany: Measuring Urban Biodiversity After Nature-Based Solutions Implementation. Diversity 2025, 17, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Selwyn, M.; Lázaro-González, A.; Lloret, F.; Rey Benayas, J.M.; Hampe, A.; Brotons, L.; Pino, J.; Espelta, J.M. Quantifying the Impacts of Rewilding on Ecosystem Resilience to Disturbances: A Global Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 375, 124360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, L.; Wei, F.; Tagesson, T.; Fang, Z.; Svenning, J.-C. Transforming Forest Management through Rewilding: Enhancing Biodiversity, Resilience, and Biosphere Sustainability under Global Change. One Earth 2025, 8, 101195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gebru, T.; Solomon, N.; Siyum, Z.G.; Gufi, Y.; Gidey, T.; Newete, S.W.; Manaye, A.; Birhane, E. Evaluating Urban Green Spaces for Biodiversity and Carbon Sequestration in Rama Town, Tigray, Ethiopia. Ecol. Front. 2025, 45, 1729–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wu, Z.; Zohner, C.M.; Zhou, Y.; Crowther, T.W.; Wang, H.; Wang, Y.; Peñuelas, J.; Gong, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zou, Y.; et al. Tree Species Composition Governs Urban Phenological Responses to Warming. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 3696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Morris, R.; Davis, S.; Grelet, G.-A.; Gregorini, P. Multiscapes and Urbanisation: The Case for Spatial Agroecology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Villavicencio-Valdez, G.V.; Jacobi, J.; Schneider, M.; Altieri, M.A.; Suzán-Azpiri, H. Urban Agroecology Enhances Agrobiodiversity and Resilient, Biocultural Food Systems. The Case of the Semi-Dryland and Medium-Sized Querétaro City, Mexico. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1066428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nyelele, C.; Kroll, C.N. A Multi-Objective Decision Support Framework to Prioritize Tree Planting Locations in Urban Areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bayegan, Z.A.; Fathi, S.A.A.; Golizadeh, A.; Razmjou, J.; Hassanpour, M. Alfalfa as Cover Crop Enhances Predators and Biological Control of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly in a Citrus Orchard. Arthropod Plant Interact. 2025, 19, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ruggeri, R.; Provenzano, M.E.; Rossini, F. Effect of Mulch on Initial Coverage of Four Groundcover Species for Low Input Landscaping in a Mediterranean Climate. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 19, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. van Etteger, R.; Thompson, I.H.; Vicenzotti, V. Aesthetic Creation Theory and Landscape Architecture. J. Landsc. Archit. 2016, 11, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rujuan, K.; Jiusheng, C. The Impact of Modern Agricultural Parks on Regional Agricultural Economic Growth: A Case Study of Modern Agricultural Parks in Southwest China. Agric. Sci. 2025, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, K.; Mell, I.; Carter, J. Exploring the Development of Community Parks in Urban–Rural Fringe Areas in China: Expert and Policy Perspectives on Sustainable Design and Strategy Planning. Land 2025, 14, 1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Schmelzer, M.; Nowshin, T. Ecological Reparations and Degrowth: Towards a Convergence of Alternatives Around World-Making After Growth. Development 2023, 66, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Urbansci 09 00487 g001
Figure 1. Grading plan (left) and illustrative site plan (right) of Parc des Molliers (formerly Bernex Agropark) (Image from [49] Craig and Woods, 2021).
Figure 1. Grading plan (left) and illustrative site plan (right) of Parc des Molliers (formerly Bernex Agropark) (Image from [49] Craig and Woods, 2021).
Urbansci 09 00487 g001
Urbansci 09 00487 g002
Figure 2. Ground remodeling during the initial construction phase of Bernex Agropark (now Parc des Molliers). Photo by [49].
Figure 2. Ground remodeling during the initial construction phase of Bernex Agropark (now Parc des Molliers). Photo by [49].
Urbansci 09 00487 g002
Urbansci 09 00487 g003
Figure 3. Aerial view of the Bernex Park, highlighting its integration with regional traffic arteries and the residential fabric of the Bernex-Confignon municipality (upper) and the diversity of agricultural covers integrating agroforestry, meadows, and crops (bottom). Photo by Craig Verzone, April 2024.
Figure 3. Aerial view of the Bernex Park, highlighting its integration with regional traffic arteries and the residential fabric of the Bernex-Confignon municipality (upper) and the diversity of agricultural covers integrating agroforestry, meadows, and crops (bottom). Photo by Craig Verzone, April 2024.
Urbansci 09 00487 g003
Urbansci 09 00487 g004
Figure 4. The Bernex park’s pathway network ensures universal accessibility, making the agricultural park inclusive for all visitors, including elderly users. Photo: Craig Verzone, 2024.
Figure 4. The Bernex park’s pathway network ensures universal accessibility, making the agricultural park inclusive for all visitors, including elderly users. Photo: Craig Verzone, 2024.
Urbansci 09 00487 g004
Urbansci 09 00487 g005
Figure 5. Modular benches of Bernex agro-park along the connection paths. Photo: Craig Verzone, 2024.
Figure 5. Modular benches of Bernex agro-park along the connection paths. Photo: Craig Verzone, 2024.
Urbansci 09 00487 g005
Urbansci 09 00487 g006
Figure 6. Shading structures within the public space, surrounded by agricultural fields, demonstrating a sophisticated integration between productive landscapes and social spaces. Photo: Craig Verzone, 2024.
Figure 6. Shading structures within the public space, surrounded by agricultural fields, demonstrating a sophisticated integration between productive landscapes and social spaces. Photo: Craig Verzone, 2024.
Urbansci 09 00487 g006
Urbansci 09 00487 g007
Figure 7. Playground at the heart of Bernex Agro-Park—where recreational and agricultural landscapes intersect. Photo: Craig Verzone, 2024.
Figure 7. Playground at the heart of Bernex Agro-Park—where recreational and agricultural landscapes intersect. Photo: Craig Verzone, 2024.
Urbansci 09 00487 g007
Table 1. Multifunctional landscape system, spatial and programmatic evaluation of Bernex agropark.
Table 1. Multifunctional landscape system, spatial and programmatic evaluation of Bernex agropark.
DomainDesign AttributeSpatial FunctionEvaluation Highlights
Contextual integrationurban-edge positioningterritorial connectorseamless interface with transit and residential areas
Zoning compositiontripartite layout: public, agricultural, sharedmultifunctional landscape layeringclear spatial hierarchy; aligns with system design
Access and circulationmultiple entry points; transverse axispermeable movement and co-presencechoreographs engagement without disrupting cultivation
Vegetation strategylayered planting structureclimatic modulation and biodiversity supportstratified visuals; ecological function
Topographic coordinationflat core; steep forest bufferssoil access; ecological enclosurespatial logic responsive to slope and program
Agricultural typologieseight distinct crop zonesproductivity, pedagogy, seasonal rhythmmosaic layout supports variety and thematic clarity
Animal landscapehens and apiculture systemssensory and biodiversity enrichmentliving exhibit supports experiential engagement
Rotation strategyseasonal crop cyclessoil resilience; visual changeenhances authenticity and agroecological health
Architectural elementsvernacular farm structurescultural anchoring and spatial identitybuilt features harmonize with productive themes
Public programmingrecreation, events, commerce zonessocial interaction and civic engagementmultigenerational utility; programmatic richness
Human activity diversityagricultural and leisure fusionbehavioral flexibility and shared stewardshipreinforces civic ecology and adaptive design
Productivity evaluationrich cropping and themed gardensoperational and ecological valueprogrammed richness elevates multifunctionality
Table 2. Degrowth Principles as Design Logic in Bernex Agropark.
Table 2. Degrowth Principles as Design Logic in Bernex Agropark.
Spatial FeatureDegrowth Principle and Interpretive FunctionDesign Outcome
Agricultural Core PositioningCommons and Decommodification: Positions food production as a vital, shared common good, challenging its status as a mere commodity.Fosters food sovereignty, community engagement, and re-embeds local provisioning into the urban fabric.
Open-Access CirculationConviviality and Spatial Justice: Creates a democratic platform for co-presence and shared experience, breaking down barriers between producer and consumer.Facilitates observational learning, normalizes agricultural practice, and ensures equitable access to the landscape of production.
Expressed Water SystemsEcological Metabolism and Sufficiency: Makes the park’s metabolic flows (water) visible and circular, educating on resource limits and regenerative management.Reduces reliance on external infrastructure, supports stormwater autonomy, and fosters ecological literacy.
Integrated Program ZoningCare and Post-Consumerist Leisure: Interlaces productive, social, and educational acts to valorize care work and create fulfilling, low-impact leisure.Creates a multifunctional commons that builds social cohesion and reduces the demand for resource-intensive recreation.
Edge-Based Canopy StrategyAppropriate Technology and Care for More-Than-Human Urbanism: Uses simple, biological systems (trees) for climate regulation and buffering, working with nature rather than dominating it.Improves microclimates for crops and people, enhances biodiversity, and reduces energy-intensive maintenance needs.
Vernacular Built StructuresAutonomy and Cultural Resilience: Draws on local materials and forms to ensure functional adaptability and tether the landscape to cultural identity, resisting homogenization.Creates a sense of place, ensures structures are repairable and suitable for their use, and reduces embodied energy.
Governance Embedded in FormPolycentric Governance and Care Work: Spatial design anticipates and enables collaborative, multi-stakeholder management, distributing responsibility and embedding care into daily operation.Ensures the long-term maintenance, ecological accountability, and social relevance of the park as a lived commons.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khalilnezhad, M.R.; Ugolini, F.; Russo, A. A Perspective on Urban Agriculture at the Scale of the Urban Park: Landscape Architectural Strategies for Degrowth Transitions. Urban Sci. 2025, 9, 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9110487

AMA Style

Khalilnezhad MR, Ugolini F, Russo A. A Perspective on Urban Agriculture at the Scale of the Urban Park: Landscape Architectural Strategies for Degrowth Transitions. Urban Science. 2025; 9(11):487. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9110487

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khalilnezhad, Mohammad Reza, Francesca Ugolini, and Alessio Russo. 2025. "A Perspective on Urban Agriculture at the Scale of the Urban Park: Landscape Architectural Strategies for Degrowth Transitions" Urban Science 9, no. 11: 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9110487

APA Style

Khalilnezhad, M. R., Ugolini, F., & Russo, A. (2025). A Perspective on Urban Agriculture at the Scale of the Urban Park: Landscape Architectural Strategies for Degrowth Transitions. Urban Science, 9(11), 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9110487

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop