Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban agriculture: the potential impact on food and nutrition security, biodiversity and other ecosystem services in the city of Bologna Francesco Orsini & Daniela Gasperi & Livia Marchetti & Chiara Piovene & Stefano Draghetti & Solange Ramazzotti & Giovanni Bazzocchi & Giorgio Gianquinto

1. CASE STUDY
Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs)
in urban agriculture: the potential impact on food and nutrition
security, biodiversity and other ecosystem services
in the city of Bologna
Francesco Orsini & Daniela Gasperi & Livia Marchetti &
Chiara Piovene & Stefano Draghetti & Solange Ramazzotti &
Giovanni Bazzocchi & Giorgio Gianquinto
Received: 3 April 2014 /Accepted: 15 September 2014
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and International Society for Plant Pathology 2014
Abstract The present work, focusing on the theme of food
production and consumption in urban areas, analyses the
relationships among three factors: city, human well-being
and ecosystems. A case study was carried out addressing the
quantification of the potential of rooftop vegetable production
in the city of Bologna (Italy) as related to its citizens’ needs.
Besides the contribution to food security of the city, the
potential benefits to urban biodiversity and ecosystem service
provision were estimated. The methodology consisted of: 1)
experimental trials of potential productivity of simplified soil-
less systems in rooftop gardens (RTGs); 2) detection of all flat
roofs and roof-terraces and quantification of the potential
surfaces that could be converted into RTGs; 3) identification
of the city’s vegetable requirements, based on population and
diet data; 4) calculation of the proportion of vegetable require-
ment that could be satisfied by local RTG production; 5)
identification of other benefits (improvement of urban biodi-
versity through the creation of green corridors and estimation
of carbon sequestration) associated with the increased area of
urban green infrastructure (GI). According to the present
study, RTGs could provide more than 12,000 t year−1
vegeta-
bles to Bologna, satisfying 77 % of the inhabitants’ require-
ments. The study also advances hypotheses for the
implementation of biodiversity roofs enabling the connection
of biodiversity rich areas across and close to the city: these
would form a network of green corridors of over 94 km length
with a density of about 0.67 km km−2
.
Keywords Rooftop gardens . Urban food security . Green
corridors . Urban biodiversity . Urban agriculture
Introduction
Just over half the world’s population now lives in urban as
opposed to rural environments. As the rate of urbanization
increases over time, food production sites should be increas-
ingly located near main consumption centers. Consequently,
urban agriculture is gaining relevance all over the world
(Orsini et al. 2013) and it is necessary to devise new strategies
to ensure the food supply and food security of those who live
in urban environments (Tixier and de Bon 2006). The concept
of ecological citizenship (Wackernagel and Rees 1996) uses
the metaphor of ‘ecological footprint’ in which each of us is
responsible for taking up a certain amount of ecological
‘space’ (both for resource use and capacity burden), expressed
as a personal footprint left on the Earth. Although it is as-
sumed that an equal allocation of the available space on Earth
would result in 1.8 available global hectares per person, the
footprint of the average European citizen is actually 4.9 ha,
and in the USA up to 9.2 ha (Global footprint network 2005;
Seyfang 2006). In Italy, there are around 42 million urban
citizens, representing 68.4 % of the total population (DESA-
UN 2012). Many of these citizens are already trying to take
back some unused and abandoned areas and convert them into
green spaces (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Tei et al.
F. Orsini (*) :D. Gasperi :L. Marchetti :S. Draghetti :
G. Bazzocchi :G. Gianquinto
DIPSA, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
e-mail: f.orsini@unibo.it
D. Gasperi :L. Marchetti :C. Piovene
BiodiverCity, Bologna, Italy
S. Ramazzotti
Faculty of Bioscience and Technologies for Food Agriculture and
Environment, University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy
Food Sec.
DOI 10.1007/s12571-014-0389-6

2. 2010). Their functions include a range of ecosystem services
beneficial to people, including food supply (Braat and De
Groot 2012; La Greca et al. 2011; Jim 2004). Throughout
the city area, urban green spaces can be linked to one another,
forming a network of Green Infrastructures (GIs) (Mahmoud
and Mohammed 2012). Urban GIs have a clear role in defin-
ing the city ecosystem (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999),
whose complexity (and consequently stability/resilience)
stands to be improved by urban agriculture. A range of studies
have addressed the role played by urban vegetable gardens in
improving human well-being through the provision of both
ecosystem services and food supply to the city dwellers (Ma-
tsuo 1995; Brown and Jameton 2000; McClintock 2010;
Orsini et al. 2013). Urban gardens are found across cities in
a range of different systems such as plots on public land
assigned to individuals or families, community gardens real-
ized in abandoned and/or vacant areas and individual or
common gardens in yards and balconies or even on the roof-
tops of buildings (RoofTop Gardens, RTGs). The possible
green cover of most of the empty areas of a city could be a
new ecological frontier, and could become a reality in many
cities (Peck 2003; Kaethler 2006; Grewal and Grewal 2012).
GIs may reduce a city’s Ecological Footprint (EF) by reduc-
tion of pollution and noise, the absorption of CO2 emissions
and the control of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect by
shading. (Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Malcevschi et al.
1996; Shin and Lee 2005; Wilby 2003). Thus, RTGs can
reduce the expense of heating and cooling and at the same
time improve urban air quality (Peck et al. 1999). Further-
more, RTGs, while being aesthetically appealing, can contrib-
ute to biodiversity in the urban environment, achieve more
sustainable conditions, including those necessary for the pro-
duction of food and improve the overall quality of urban life
(Bennett 2003; Miller 2005; Maas et al. 2006; Khandaker
2004; Sanyé-Mengual et al. 2013). Urban GIs may contribute
to the restoration, preservation and increase of functional
biodiversity, with the creation of green corridors that allow
some species, especially the less mobile ones, to improve their
capacity of dispersion, thus limiting the negative impacts of
fragmentation (Vergnes et al. 2012). These corridors consist of
a system of hubs and links, where hubs are ‘destinations for
the wildlife and ecological processes moving to or through
them’ and links are ‘connections tying the system together and
enabling GI networks to work’ (Uslu and Shakouri 2013).
The contributions of urban horticulture to city food supply
have been estimated in a number of cities across the world. In
Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), urban agriculture provides the city
with about 100,000 t year−1
of fresh food (Ratta and Nasr
1996) and in Shanghai, a municipal programme promoting
urban agriculture enabled cereal supplies of about 2,000,000 t
year−1
(Yi-Zhang and Zhangen 2000). In Toronto (Canada),
Peck (2003) found that from 650,000 m2
of “greened” roof-
tops growing vegetable crops, a yield of 4.7 million kg of
produce per year could be generated. Not surprisingly,
Kaethler (2006) states that in Vancouver (Canada), it is easy
to find RTGs producing food above supermarkets, restaurants
and social housing. Also in Cleveland (Ohio, USA), a study
comparing different systems for producing food in urban areas
showed that hydroponic RTGs can produce an average of
19.5 kg m−2
year−1
against 1.3 kg m−2
year−1
found in con-
ventional urban gardens (Grewal and Grewal 2012). In the
present study, the city of Bologna is taken as an example for
estimating how the green covering of flat roof surfaces in the
city could provide nutritional, ecological and economic ben-
efits. In particular, the potential yield of fresh vegetables,
mainly from simple soilless production systems in RTGs, is
analyzed and the percentage of self-reliance for food produc-
tion, if all identified flat roofs were converted into RTGs, is
estimated. Moreover, as these newly created GIs could be
integrated into a network of green corridors, possible benefits
for urban biodiversity are explored. Bologna has always been
at the forefront in Italy of urban green management, especially
with regard to urban agriculture and horticulture, and, in 2010,
the city was the first to test RTGs on public housing buildings.
The present manuscript describes the first three years of
experimentation and advances ideas for future strategies to
implement new, sustainable and greener urban environments.
Materials and methods
Cultivation trials to test plant productivity
Experiments were performed on the 10th floor rooftops of two
public housing buildings in Bologna, where community gar-
dens were installed within the project GreenHousing (whose
partners were the Alma Mater Studiorum - University of
Bologna, the city Council and the non-profit body
BiodiverCity). The trials evaluated the productivity of differ-
ent growing systems on the flat roofs. Species monitored
between April 2012 and January, 2014 were lettuce, black
cabbage (non-headed cabbage), chicory, tomato, eggplant,
chili pepper, melon and watermelon. The growing systems,
illustrated in Fig. 1, were a modified Nutrient Film Technique
(NFT), realized on PVC pipes, a floating system (plants
growing on polystyrene panels floating over a nutrient solu-
tion in a tank) and a solid substrate cultivation, realized in
wooden containers (1.2 m length, 1.0 m width, 0.24 m3
vol-
ume) made from recycled pallets and filled with commercial
soil and compost. Nutrients were continuously supplied as a
nutrient solution for NFT and the floating system (composi-
tion: N 19 mM; P2O5 0.3 mM; K2O 2.8 mM; SO3 3.7 mM;
Mg 0.6 mM + micronutrients). In the substrate cultivation
system, 30 g m−2
of granular fertilizer were supplied once
per year, consisting of Nitrophoska NPK in the proportions
15-5-20 + 2 MgO + 20 SO3 + microelements. In each
F. Orsini et al.

3. experiment, measures were performed on at least 9 plants per
treatment. In the substrate and floating system, about 35 % of
rooftop space was taken up with non-productive matter such
as walking and working spaces and previously existing struc-
tures. Therefore productivity data from these systems were
adjusted accordingly. On the other hand, no spatial corrections
were needed for the NFT system, as this was hung from
rooftop railings. Briefly, the experimental design was as
follows:
– Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.): three experiments were con-
ducted on lettuce cvs. Canasta, Gentilina and Batavia).
Seedlings (20 day-old) were transplanted on July 11,
2012 (exp. #1), June 28, 2013 (exp. #2) and September
24, 2013 (exp. #3). Experiments addressed the compari-
son of the productivity in three growing systems (modi-
fied NFT, floating and substrate cultivation), and seasonal
variation. Due to the differences in growing systems
typologies and nutrient supply and according to previous
literature, planting densities ranged from 9 plants m−2
(substrate) to 24 plants m−2
(modified NFT) and 42 plants
m−2
(floating).
– Black cabbage (Brassica oleracea Acephala Group): one
experiment was conducted on black cabbage (cv. Riccio
toscano). Seedlings (20 day-old) were transplanted on
October 18, 2013 to substrate (9 plants m−2
).
– Chicory (Cichorium intybus L.): one experiment was
conducted on radicchio (cv. Treviso precoce). Seedlings
(20 day-old) were transplanted on October 18, 2013 (exp.
#1), into modified NFT (24 plant m−2
) substrate (9 plants
m−2
) and floating system (42 plants m−2
).
– Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.): two experiments
were conducted on plum tomato (cv. San Marzano) and
beefsteak tomato (cv. Caramba). Seedlings (40 day-old)
were transplanted into substrate cultivation systems on
April 26, 2012 (exp. #1) and May 15, 2013 (exp. #2).
Planting density was 9 plants m−2
.
– Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): one experiment was
conducted on eggplant (long slender shape, cv. Nilo F1).
Seedlings (40 day-old) were transplanted into the sub-
strate cultivation system on May 16, 2012 at a planting
density of 3.6 plants m−2
.
– Chili pepper (Capsicum annum L.): one experiment was
conducted on green chili pepper (cv. Cayenna F1), Seed-
lings (40 day-old) were transplanted into the substrate
cultivation system on May 16, 2012. Planting density
was 5.5 plants m−2
.
– Cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.): one experiment was con-
ducted on cantaloupe (cv. Honeymoon). Seedlings
(40 day-old) were transplanted into the substrate cultiva-
tion system on April 27, 2012 at a planting density of 2
plants m−2
.
– Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus Thumb.): one experiment
was conducted on watermelon (cv. Sugar belle). Seed-
lings (40 day-old) were transplanted into the substrate
cultivation system on May 16, 2012 at a planting density
of 2.8 plants m−2
.
Identification of flat roofs and terraces across the city
The area covered by all flat roofs and roof-terraces of the city
was quantified in order to detect the potential surface area that
could be converted into RTGs. First, Google™ Earth was used
to identify all flat roofs. Vector boundaries were used to define
the Bologna municipality and flat roofs were identified and
labeled. By direct comparison on AutoCAD®, all surfaces
Fig. 1 Growing systems used in
the experiments (a, b modified
NFT; c floating system; d
substrate wooden container )
Exploring the potential productivity of rooftop gardens

4. were recognized in the CTC (Carta Tecnica Comunale, City
technical map) of Bologna. To simplify the procedure, the
urban area was divided into uniform sections and in each of
them the roof area was quantified. Finally, the total roof area
of Bologna (in ha) was determined and a complete map was
obtained.
Quantification of total food requirements of the city
The total food requirement of inhabitants of the Municipality
of Bologna was calculated, based on INRAN nutritional data
(Leclercq et al. 2009). Consumption data of fresh vegetables
found in the INRAN survey were extracted, and classified
according to age and sex of the Bologna city population.
Creation of urban green corridors: GreenSpots and GreenNest
A network of green corridors was designed to connect three
previously existing biodiversity reservoirs (GreenNests, iden-
tified as the two EU Habitat Natura 2000 sites, namely Golena
del Lippo SIC-ZPS I T4050018 and Boschi di San Luca SIC-
ZPS IT4050029 and the biggest urban park, namely Giardini
Margherita) through the network of newly implemented
RTGs. The aim was to define a network across the city,
enabling the beneficial fauna (pollinators, entomophagous
species and pest parasitoids) to surmount urban physical bar-
riers and spread throughout the city (Shrewsbury and Leather
2012). Potential hotspots (RTGs located within forage flying
distance) were identified and classified as GreenSpots. The
main features and locations for both GreenNests and
GreenSpots are described and discussed within the
manuscript.
Evaluation of ecosystem services provided by RTGs
Based on the available literature, other ecosystem services
associated with the implementation of RTGs were estimated
and described.
Results and discussion
Potential productivity of a RTG in Bologna
The experiments conducted in the pilot RTGs from April 2012
to January, 2014 enabled the definition of potential yield of
specific vegetable crops (Table 1). Yields varied dramatically
across cultivated species (mean production of 45.0, 5.6, 9.0,
143.0, 106.5, 51.3, 37.6 and 59.5 g m−2
d−1
respectively for
lettuce [mean of eight cultivars], black cabbage, chicory
[mean of three cultivars], tomato [mean of two cultivars],
eggplant, chili pepper, melon and watermelon) and growing
system (e.g. yield of Canasta lettuce was 40.9, 29.5 and 34.1 g
m−2
d−1
when cultivated in autumn on the floating system,
NFT and substrate, respectively; Table 1). Furthermore, sea-
sonal variation in daily productivity was observed (Fig. 2a),
with greatest variability when plants were grown on substrate
Table 1 Crop yields in the
experimental trials
DAT Days After Transplanting,
Wi Winter, Sp Spring, Su Sum-
mer, Au Autumn. Yield expressed
as kg m−2
. Daily productivity
expressed as g m−2
d−1
Crop Cultivar Season System DAT Yield Daily
productivity
Lettuce Batavia Su Floating 21 2.5 119.0
Gentilina Su NFT 21 1.1 52.4
Gentilina Su Floating 25 1.3 52.0
Gentilina Su NFT 62 1.5 24.2
Canasta Au Floating 44 1.8 40.9
Canasta Au NFT 44 1.3 29.5
Canasta Au Substrate 44 1.5 34.1
Canasta Au-Wi Substrate 62 0.5 8.1
Black cabbage Riccio toscano Au-Wi Substrate 89 0.5 5.6
Chicory Treviso Au, Wi Floating 83 1.5 18.1
Treviso Au, Wi NFT 62 0.1 1.6
Treviso Au, Wi Substrate 83 0.6 7.2
Tomato San Marzano Sp, Su Substrate 99 13.4 135.4
Caramba Sp, Su Substrate 95 14.3 150.5
Eggplant Nilo F1 Sp, Su Substrate 77 8.2 106.5
Chili pepper Cayenna F1 Sp, Su Substrate 80 4.1 51.3
Melon Honeymoon Sp, Su Substrate 101 3.8 37.6
Watermelon Sugar belle Sp, Su Substrate 82 4.8 58.5
F. Orsini et al.

5. (yield ranging from 10 to 98 g m−2
d−1
respectively in winter,
November to January, and spring-summer, April to July).
Production peaks were also experienced in the floating system
in summer (mean productivity of 70 g m−2
d−1
in July-August
as compared to a mean of 25 g m−2
d−1
in the remaining
months). Less seasonal variability was observed in the pro-
ductivity of plants grown on NFT (13 to 40 g m−2
d−1
in
January and July, respectively; Fig. 2a). Across the year, mean
productivity of the growing systems used was 25, 52 and 33 g
m−2
d−1
for NFT, substrate and the floating system, respec-
tively, resulting in a yearly yield of 9.2, 18.9 and 12.0 kg m−2
,
respectively (Fig. 2b). These yields were obtained by com-
bining cultivation of lettuce (year round), chicory and
black cabbage (October to April) tomato and cantaloupe
(April to August) and eggplant, chili pepper and watermel-
on (May to August).
Based on the productivity results, the optimal rooftop gar-
den was designed (Fig. 3), considering a range of elements.
First, the optimal garden should ensure that seasonal variation
in productivity would be reduced to a minimum in order to
better satisfy food requirements throughout the year. Second-
ly, specific features of each of the growing systems to be used
should be taken into account: substrate growing systems are
necessary for cultivation of fruit crops. They may also be
appropriate for leafy vegetables, although with generally low-
er yield compared with NFT and floating systems, mainly as a
consequence of the reduced/delayed water/nutrient availabil-
ity, which translates into lower planting densities (Savvas et al.
2013). Both floating and modified NFT systems could be
efficiently used for growing leafy vegetables, although higher
temperatures could result in low oxygenation of nutrient so-
lution (Savvas et al. 2013) and consequent reduced plant
growth and eventual death. The floating system always
yielded better than the NFTsystem. However, due to its linear
shape and being hung on rooftop railings, the NFT system
could allow vegetable production where surface area is limit-
ed. Based on these considerations, the first step toward iden-
tification of the optimal garden design was the creation of an
NFT system along the railings surrounding the rooftop garden
(about 5 m2
growing surface in a rooftop of 216 m2
). Substrate
and floating cultivation systems were then placed on the
remaining surface. Mean daily production was calculated on
a yearly basis and across the different seasons (winter, spring,
summer and autumn), and related to changing ratios between
substrate and floating cultivation systems (Fig. 3a and b).
Optimal ratio was defined as the one that would maximize
yield and concurrently reduce variation of seasonal yield (as
expressed by the standard error across seasonal yield (Fig. 3b).
A ratio of 43:57 (substrate:floating systems) would allow the
maximal yield (41.7 g m−2
d−1
or 15.2 kg m−2
year−1
) and
minimize seasonal variation in monthly productivity (standard
error of 23 g m−2
d−1
). These results seem to be realistic as
previous studies of a similar nature reported production of
7 kg m−2
year−1
(Peck 2003), 18 kg m−2
year−1
(Altieri et al.
1999) and up to 50 kg m−2
year−1
(Drescher 2004). The results
were used to design an optimal rooftop garden, given a surface
area of 216 m2
. This consisted of 155 growing structures (67
substrate and 88 floating system, Fig. 3c) which would enable
the annual production of 3,283.2 kg year−1
.
Vegetable requirement of the city
Calculation of the fresh vegetable requirement of the city
was performed by multiplying consumption data accord-
ing to age and sex by the city population (Leclercq et al.
2009; USP-BO 2013; Table 2). The overall vegetable
requirement of Bologna was calculated to be about
44,300 kg d−1
(=16,169 t year−1
). Greatest consumption
was observed in male and female adults (aged between 18
Fig. 2 Daily (a, g m−2
d−1
) and cumulated (b, kg m−2
) yield of the
simplified soilless systems (Substrate, Floating and NFT) used in the
experiments according to crops grown in each season. Data calculated on
mean values of tested crops in each growing system. Vertical bars
indicate standard errors
Exploring the potential productivity of rooftop gardens

6. and 65 years), whose consumption (10,362 t year−1
) rep-
resented about 64 % of the city’s fresh vegetable require-
ments. This volume of fresh food has environmental im-
plications for both production and post-harvest manage-
ment. In a comparative study that considered the environ-
mental impact of onion production and post-harvest
management in both UK and New Zealand, the latter’s
post-harvest (grading, storage and shipping) was respon-
sible for 68 to 75 % of the total carbon emission (kg CO2
t−1
FW; Saunders et al. 2006). Traditional systems for
vegetable production and distribution in the UK were also
reported to result in 0.10 to 0.80 kg CO2 per kg of fresh
Fig. 3 Optimum ratio between
floating system and substrate
cultivation system. Mean daily
productivity (g m−2
d−1
) within
seasons (a, winter, grey; spring,
green; summer, red; and autumn,
orange) and across the year (b,
blue symbols). Vertical bars
indicate standard errors of mean
yearly productivity. Dotted
vertical bar represents optimum
ratio (43:57 for substrate: floating
system) enabling satisfactory
yield and reduced seasonal
fluctuations in productivity. c
graphical representation of the
garden to be implemented in this
case study rooftop according to
optimum growing system ratios
Table 2 Supply requirements for
fresh vegetables of Bologna in-
habitants (based on consumption
data)
Daily intake expressed as Kg d−1
person−1
. Total daily requirement
expressed as kg d−1
Category Age Daily intake Population Total daily
requirement
Male infant 0–3 0.019 7,970 147.45
Female infant 0–3 0.019 7,449 137.81
Male children 3–9 0.060 7,574 457.47
Female children 3–9 0.060 6,846 413.50
Male teenager 9–18 0.091 13,843 1,254.18
Female teenager 9–18 0.085 13,044 1,112.65
Male adult 18–65 0.128 112,049 14,308.66
Female adult 18–65 0.121 116,761 14,081.38
Male elderly ≥65 0.131 39,703 5,189.18
Female elderly ≥65 0.120 60,090 7,198.78
Total 44,301.05
F. Orsini et al.

7. produce (Milà i Canal et al. 2008). Other studies associ-
ated with tomato cultivation reported similar values (0.14
to 0.81 kg CO2 kg−1
; Antón 2004; Roy et al. 2008).
Another study reported that packaging contributed about
45 % of the total carbon emission associated with
traditional tomato cultivation. RTGs could limit CO2
production to about a third (0.26 vs 0.70 kg CO2
kg−1
, respectively for rooftop greenhouses and conven-
tional rural greenhouse cultivation; Sanyé-Mengual et al.
2013). The fresh vegetable market in northern Italy
mainly relies on national products (mostly from Sicily,
Puglia and Emilia-Romagna regions), although net im-
port also exists from other European and Mediterranean
countries (De Luca and Dever 2011; Perito 2006).
Imported tomatoes (about 80,000 t year−1
) are mainly
from other European countries (mostly Spain and Hol-
land, 32,000 and 22,000 t year−1
, respectively). Fresh
vegetables are also imported from non-European coun-
tries. Supermarket chains, responsible for about 45 to
50 % of the vegetables currently sold in Italian cities,
import between 1 and 5 % of their vegetables e.g.
tomatoes, beans, eggplants, zucchini and cantaloupe
from other Mediterranean Countries, mainly Egypt and
Morocco (Perito 2006). RTGs could therefore dramati-
cally reduce the ecological footprint of fresh vegetables
by reducing transport requirements, re-using packaging,
and the reduction of product storage between harvest
and consumption (Sanyé-Mengual et al. 2013).
Estimation of the city’s flat roof surfaces and potential
productivity
There are about 3,500 flat rooftops in Bologna with a total
surface area of about 82 ha (Fig. 4 and Table 3). Based on the
production results of the current case study (41.7 g vegetables
m−2
d−1
), the entire rooftop surface of Bologna could produce
about 12,505 t vegetables year−1
, which is 77 % of the
calculated vegetable requirement of the city (16,169, t year−1
;
Table 3). Thus, RTGs could provide an important contribution
to food availability in cities, as well as being instruments for
socialization and community building.
Creation of a network of green corridors
In rural environments, beneficial insects benefit agricultural
production when their habitats e.g. green field edges and bee-
hives are within certain distances from crops. In urban GI
management, recognition of the value of biodiversity has been
growing in recent years, with the main aim of reducing pest
incidence in both vegetable and ornamental gardens (Buczacki
and Harris 2005). Even so, evidence for the benefits associated
with the creation of urban green corridors is still missing. The
EU Habitat Policy identifies GIs as the most crucial element for
promoting ecological connections of the wild flora and fauna
(EU-Environment 2014). In the present study, the first step
towards the identification of a strategy to improve urban biodi-
versity was considered to be valorisation of the city’s
Fig. 4 Procedure for flat rooftop
surface detection. Identification of
flat rooftops on GoogleEarth® (a,
b), as represented on urban city
maps (c) and calculation of
available surfaces through
Autocad® (d)
Exploring the potential productivity of rooftop gardens

8. biodiversity reservoirs. GreenNests e.g. greenhouses and indoor
structures should be increased to house and increase the popu-
lations of appropriate fauna, which could be dispersed within the
city. Furthermore, RTGs can be used to increase urban biodi-
versity, for example by becoming hotspots (GreenSpots) of a
network of GIs. In order to enable beneficial fauna to take
advantage of the GreenSpots, RTGs should be provided with
shelters, wild flowers for pollen and nectar as well as plants with
alternative preys for predators (Burgio et al. 2004; Gurr et al.
2012). In the present study, a network of green corridors was
designed to connect flat rooftops located within 500 m of each
other (Fig. 5). Such a distance is appropriate as most common
Apoidea pollinators (with only a few exceptions) have a flight
foraging distance of between 750 and 1,500 m (Gathmann and
Tscharntke 2002; Osborne et al. 2008; Zurbuchen et al. 2010).
Moreover, when it comes to beneficial predators e.g. ladybirds,
flying distances are much greater, as these species may rely on
alternative sources of food (Lundgren 2009).
Accordingly, the three biodiversity reservoirs (GreenNests
Fig. 5) would be connected by a network of green corridors with
a total length of about 94 km within the city boundaries. These
flying routes would constitute a substantial element for ensuring
long-term persistence and resilience of urban biodiversity.
Green corridor density was defined as the ratio between the
linear distance covered by green corridors (94 Km) and the city
surface area, (140.73 km2
), giving a value of 0.67 km km−2
(Zhang and Wang 2006; Comune di Bologna 2014; Table 3).
Other ecosystem services associated with increased urban
GIs
Given that more than half of the world’s population live in
urban areas (Orsini et al. 2013), the world’s cities are respon-
sible for the majority of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmo-
sphere (Girardet 1999). Despite urbanization being a major
global driver of change in land-use, there have been few
attempts to quantify provision of ecosystem services for cities.
One service that is an increasingly important feature for mit-
igation of climate change is the biological carbon storage
associated with urban GIs. Indeed, given that urban gardens
may exhibit higher levels of vegetation productivity than the
farmed areas they replace (Zhao et al. 2007), the role of RTGs
in storing carbon should not be overlooked. In a recent study
(Davies et al. 2011), it was estimated that domestic gardens
would enable storage of about 0.76 kg C m−2
. Based on these
Table 3 Potential RTG vegetable production in Bologna. Available flat
surfaces (number and hectares), potential productivity and extent of city
requirements satisfied if those surfaces were converted into RTGs
Element Value
Flat rooftops 3,500
Flat area 82 ha
Potential rooftop yield 41.7 g m−2
d−1
Potential vegetable daily production 34,233 kg d−1
Potential vegetable yearly production 12,505 t year−1
Urban vegetable requirements 16,169 t year−1
Contribution to city needs 77 %
Green corridors 94 km
Green corridor density 0.67 km km−2
Potential carbon storage 624 t CO2
Fig. 5 Localization of three GreenNests (1, Bosco di San Luca SIC-ZPS
IT4050029, 2, Golena del Lippo SIC-ZPS I T4050018, 3 Giardini
Margherita) and flat surfaces identified for RTG implementation (black
spots) (a). Green corridors across the city of Bologna connecting RTGs
within 500 m distance of each other. (b)
F. Orsini et al.

9. figures, it was possible to estimate that turning Bologna’s flat
roof surfaces into RTGs would enable the capture of 624.42 t
CO2 (Table 3).
Beyond the benefits associated with food production and
the natural environment, community gardening is claimed to
improve human well-being (Okvat and Zautra 2011). Togeth-
er with the urbanization process, there has been a trend in the
quest for the green experience: throughout history, both gar-
dening and more passive forms of contact with nature (e.g.
taking a walk in a garden) have been recognised as having
mental health benefits (Davis 1998). Although limited scien-
tific reports are available to date on the therapeutic role of
community gardening, the gardening-related benefits in re-
ducing psychological disorders e.g. against dementia (Simons
et al. 2006), enabling stress recovery (Kingsley et al. 2009), or
fostering cardiac rehabilitation (Wichrowski et al. 2005) are
well known. It is also true that certain features of city neigh-
borhoods (e.g. crime rate, levels of noise, crowding) are
correlated with a lack of neighborhood social ties (Kuo and
Sullivan 2001). When vegetable gardens become catalysts of
community building in cities, the implications for the well-
being of the urban population may be described within the
concept of socio-ecological space (Okvat and Zautra 2011).
For instance, community gardens can contribute to the crea-
tion of resilient urban neighborhoods and facilitate a city’s
recovery when faced with a sudden crisis (e.g. natural disas-
ters, conflicts or economic downturns; Tidball and Krasy
2007). As the concept of resilience is associated with diversity,
it may be well described by a RTG grouping together the
inhabitants of a building (being an inter-generational and
inter-ethnical blend of people), which inevitably will grow a
range of different plants (Fraser and Kenney 2000), yielding
considerable biodiversity within the garden. Under these cir-
cumstances each of the proposed RTGs may group residents
together into a dense network (Glover 2003), decreasing iso-
lation through sharing of gardening inputs and knowledge
(Wakefield et al. 2007) and promoting a participatory ap-
proach to community development (Saldivar-Tanaka and
Krasny 2004). Furthermore, a RTG may promote resilience
through a series of social features (communication, informa-
tion-sharing, deliberate co-learning and produce exchange)
and ecological phenomena (reducing the environmental im-
pact of food production and promoting self-sufficiency). Fi-
nally, RTGs may play an important role in offering aesthetic
enjoyment and increased property values (Noss 1987).
Conclusions
The present manuscript explores the multifaceted benefits
associated with the implementation of RTGs in Bologna.
Through experimental trials on a pilot RTG, potential vegeta-
ble yields were defined over a three year period, enabling
determination of daily productivity per unit surface area
(41.7 g m−2
d−1
). Furthermore, through mapping and quanti-
fying urban flat roof surfaces, it was determined that the area
of RTGs in Bologna was 82 ha, potentially enabling the
annual production of 12,495 t vegetables year−1
, 77 % of the
urban vegetable requirement. As well as the evident contribu-
tion to city food security, such newly planted gardens would
allow the interconnection of centres of biodiversity in the city
by creating a network of green corridors with a total length of
94 km and a density of 0.67 km km−2
. Finally, based on
potential carbon storage estimates, these RTGs would result
in the annual capture of about 624 t CO2
.
Acknowledgments The present research was partially funded with the
support of EU projects HORTIS (Horticulture in Towns for Inclusion and
Socialisation) and HYBRID PARKS and with the support of Bologna
City Council and the Emilia Romagna Region. This publication reflects
solely the views of the authors, who are not responsible for any use to
which the information contained therein is put.
References
Altieri, M. A., Compagnoni, N., Cañizares, K., Murphy, C., Rosset, P.,
Bourque, M., & Nicholls, C. I. (1999). The greening of the “barri-
os”: Urban agriculture for food security in Cuba. Agriculture and
Human Values, 16, 131–140.
Antón, A. (2004). The use of life cycle assessment methodology to
environmentally assess Mediterranean crops in greenhouses. PhD
dissertation, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona.
Bennett, A. F. (2003). Linkages in the landscape: The role of corridors
and connectivity in wildlife conservation. Gland: International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas.
Ecological Economics, 29, 293–301.
Braat, L. C., & De Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda:
Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation
and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem
Services, 1, 4–15.
Brown, K. H., & Jameton, A. L. (2000). Public health implications of
urban agriculture. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21, 20–39.
Buczacki, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Pests, diseases & disorders of garden
plants. New York: HarperCollins.
Burgio, G., Ferrari, R., Pozzati, M., & Boriani, L. (2004). The role of
ecological compensation areas on predator populations: An analysis
on biodiversity and phenology of Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) on
non-crop plants within hedgerows in Northern Italy. Bulletin of
Insectology, 57, 1–10.
Davies, Z. G., Edmondson, J. L., Heinemeyer, A., Leake, J. R., & Gaston,
K. J. (2011). Mapping an urban ecosystem service: Quantifying
above‐ground carbon storage at a city‐wide scale. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 48, 1125–1134.
Davis, S. (1998). Development of the profession of horticultural therapy.
In S. P. Simson & M. C. Straus (Eds.), Horticulture as therapy:
Principles and practice (pp. 3–18). New York: The Haworth Press.
De Luca, A., & Dever, J. (2011). Italy tomatoes and products report 2011.
Rome: USDA.
DESA-UN (2012). World Urbanization Prospect. http://esa.un.org/unup/
CD-ROM/Urban–rural-Population.htm. Accessed 9 April 2013.
Comune di Bologna (2014). Iperbole. Bologna Welcome. Sito turistico
Ufficiale. http://www.bolognawelcome.com/guida-turistica/indice-
Exploring the potential productivity of rooftop gardens

10. completo/params/Ambiente_2/Famiglia_2.01/ref/Localit%C3%A0.
Accessed 4 March 2014.
Drescher, A. W. (2004). Food for the cities: Urban agriculture in devel-
oping countries. Acta Horticulturae, 643, 227–231.
EU-Environment. (2014). Communication from the commission to the
European parliament, the council, the european economic and
social committee and the committee of the regions Green
Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital COM/
2013/0249 final. Bruxelles: European Commission.
Fraser, E. G. G., & Kenney, W. A. (2000). Cultural background and
landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest.
Journal of Arboriculture, 26, 106–113.
Gathmann, A., & Tscharntke, T. (2002). Foraging ranges of solitary bees.
Journal of Animal Ecology, 71, 757–764.
Girardet, H. (1999). Toward urban sustainability. In United Nations
Environment Programme’s Cultural and spiritual values of
biodiversity (pp. 255–258). Nairobi: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
Global footprint network (2005). http://www.ecofoot.net. Accessed 4
March 2014.
Glover, T. D. (2003). The story of the Queen Anne memorial garden:
Resisting a dominant cultural narrative. Journal of Leisure
Research, 35, 190–212.
Grewal, S. S., & Grewal, P. S. (2012). Can cities become self-reliant in
food? Cities, 29, 1–11.
Gurr, G. M., Wratten, S. D., Snyder, W. E., & Read, D. M. Y. (2012).
Biodiversity and insect pests: Key issues for sustainable
management. Chichester: Wiley.
Jim, C. Y. (2004). Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable
greening of compact cities. Cities, 21, 311–320.
Kaethler, T. M. (2006). Growing space: the potential for urban agriculture
in the city of Vancouver. School of community and regional plan-
ning. University of British Columbia. bitsandbytes.ca/sites/default/
files/Growing_Space_Rpt.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2014.
Khandaker, M. S. I. (2004). Rooftop gardening as a strategy of urban
agriculture for food security: The case of Dhaka City, Bangladesh.
Acta Horticulturae, 643, 241–247.
Kingsley, J., Townsend, M., & Henderson-Wilson, C. (2009). Cultivating
health and well-being: Members’ perceptions of the health benefits
of a Port Melbourne community garden. Leisure Studies, 28, 207–
219.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner
city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33,
343–367.
La Greca, P., La Rosa, D., Martinico, F., & Privitera, R. (2011).
Agricultural and green infrastructures: The role of non-urbanised
areas for eco-sustainable planning in a metropolitan region.
Environmental Pollution, 159, 2193–2202.
Leclercq, C., Arcella, D., Piccinelli, R., Sette, S., Le Donne, C., & Turrini,
A. (2009). The Italian national food consumption survey INRAN-
SCAI 2005–2006: Main results in terms of food consumption.
Public Health Nutrition, 12, 2504–2532.
Lundgren, J. G. (2009). Nutritional aspects of non-prey foods in the life
histories of predaceous Coccinellidae. Biological Control, 51, 294–
305.
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., De Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg,
P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation?
Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 60, 587–592.
Mahmoud, N., & Mohammed, G. (2012). Green infrastructure connec-
tivity within social sustainability: Case studies around the world.
Canadian Journal on Computing in Mathematics, Natural Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine, 3, 225–232.
Malcevschi, S., Bisogni, L., & Gariboldi, A. (1996). Reti ecologiche ed
interventi di miglioramento ambientale. Milano: Il Verde Editoriale.
Matsuo, E. (1995). Horticulture helps us to live as human beings:
Providing balance and harmony in our behavior and thought and
life worth living. Acta Horticulturae, 391, 19–30.
McClintock, N. (2010). Why farm the city? Theorizing urban agriculture
through a lens of metabolic rift. Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, 3, 191–207.
Milà i Canal, L. L., Muñoz, I., Hospido, A., Plassmann, K., & McLaren,
S. (2008). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of domestic vs. imported
vegetables. Case studies on Broccoli, salad crops and green beans.
Surrey. UK: University of Surrey, CES.
Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of
experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 430–434.
Noss, R. F. (1987). From plant communities to landscapes in conservation
inventories: A look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological
Conservation, 41, 11–37.
Okvat, H. A., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Community gardening: A parsimo-
nious path to individual, community, and environmental resilience.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 374–387.
Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Womdim, R., & Gianquinto, G. (2013).
Urban agriculture in the developing world. A review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 33, 695–720.
Osborne, J. L., Martin, A. P., Carreck, N. L., Swain, J. L., Knight, M. E.,
Goulson, D., Hale, R. J., & Sanderson, R. A. (2008). Bumblebee
flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. Journal of
Animal Ecology, 77, 406–415.
Peck, S. (2003). Towards an integrated green roof infrastructure evalua-
tion for Toronto. The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor, 5, 4–7.
Peck, S., Callaghan, C., Kuhn, M. E., & Bass, B. (1999). Greenbacks
from green roofs: Forging a new industry in Canada. Ottawa:
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Perito, M. A. (2006). La distribuzione moderna e il global sourcing:
l’acquisto di prodotti orto-frutticoli dai Paesi Terzi del
Mediterraneo. Economia Agroalimentare, 3, 1–9.
Ratta, A., & Nasr, J. (1996). Urban agriculture and the African urban
food supply system. New York: TUAN.
Roy, P., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Orikasa, T., & Shiina, T.
(2008). Life cycle inventory analysis of fresh tomato distribution
systems in Japan considering the quality aspect. Journal of Food
Engineering, 86, 225–233.
Saldivar-Tanaka, L., & Krasny, M. E. (2004). Culturing community
development, neighborhood open space, and civil agricultural: The
case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture
and Human Values, 21, 399–412.
Sanyé-Mengual, E., Cerón-Palma, I., Oliver-Solà, J., Montero, J. I., &
Rieradevall, J. (2013). Environmental analysis of the logistics of
agricultural products from roof top greenhouses in Mediterranean
urban areas. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture, 93, 100–
109.
Saunders, C., Barber, A., & Taylor, G. (2006). Food miles - comparative
energy/emissions performance of New Zealand’s agriculture indus-
try, research report no. 285. Città: Lincoln University.
Savvas, D., Gianquinto, G., Tüzel, Y., & Gruda, N. (2013).
Chapter 19. Soilless culture. In M. Quaryoti, W. Baudoin,
R. Nono Womdin, C. Leonardi, A. Hanafi, & S. De Pascale
(Eds.), Good agricultural practices for greenhouse vegetable
crops. Principles for Mediterranean climate areas (AGP series,
Vol. 217). Rome: FAO-UN.
Seyfang, G. (2006). Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption:
Examining local organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies,
22, 383–395.
F. Orsini et al.

11. Shin, D. H., & Lee, K. S. (2005). Use of remote sensing and geographical
information system to estimate green space temperature change as a
result of urban expansion. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 1,
169–176.
Shrewsbury, P. M., & Leather, S. R. (2012). Using biodiversity for pest
suppression in urban landscapes. In G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, W. E.
Snyder, & D. M. Y. Read (Eds.), Biodiversity and insect pests: Key
issues for sustainable management. Chichester: Wiley. doi:10.1002/
9781118231838.ch18.
Simons, L. A., Simons, J., McCallum, J., & Friedlander, Y. (2006).
Lifestyle factors and risk of dementia: Dubbo study of the elderly.
The Medical Journal of Australia, 184, 68–70.
Tei, F., Benincasa, P., Farneselli, M., & Caprai, M. (2010). Allotment
gardens for senior citizens in Italy: Current status and technical
proposals. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS), 639, 51–55.
Tidball, K. G., & Krasy, M. E. (2007). From risk to resilience: What role
for community greening and civic ecology in cities? In A. E. J. Wals
(Ed.), Social learning towards a sustainable world: Principles,
perspectives and praxis (pp. 149–164). Wageningen: Wageningen
Academic Publishers.
Tixier, P., & de Bon, H. (2006). Urban horticulture. In R. van Veenhuizen
(Ed.), Cities farming for the future – Urban Agriculture for green
and productive cities (pp. 316–347). Leusden: RUAF Foundation,
IDRC and IIRR.
Uslu, A., & Shakouri, N. (2013). Chapter 17: Urban landscape design and
biodiversity environmental sciences. In M. Özyavuz (Ed.),
Advances in Landscape Architecture. Winchester: InTech Open.
doi:10.5772/55761. ISBN 978-953-51-1167-2.
USP-BO. (2013). Popolazione residente al 31/12/2012 nei comuni della
provincia di Bologna per sesso ed età. Ufficio di statistica della
Provincia di Bologna su dati delle Anagrafi comunali. Bologna:
Comune di Bologna.
Vergnes, A., Le Viol, I., & Clergeau, P. (2012). Green corridors in urban
landscapes affect the arthropod communities of domestic gardens.
Biological Conservation, 145, 171–178. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.
11.002.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint:
Reducing human impact on the Earth. Philadelphia: New
society publisher.
Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007).
Growing urban health: Community gardening in South- East
Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22, 92–101.
Wichrowski, M., Whiteson, J., Haas, F., Mola, A., & Rey, M. J. (2005).
Effects of horticultural therapy on mood and heart rate in patients
participating in an inpatient cardiopulmonary rehabilitation pro-
gram. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, 25, 270–274.
Wilby, R. L. (2003). Past and projected trends in London’s urban heat
island. Weather, 58, 251–260.
Yi-Zhang, C., & Zhangen, Z. (2000). Shanghai: Trends towards
specialised and capital intensive urban agriculture. In N. Bakker,
M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, & H. de Zeeuw
(Eds.), Growing cities, growing food, urban agriculture on the
policy agenda (pp. 467–475). Feldafing: DSE.
Zhang, L., & Wang, H. (2006). Planning an ecological network of
Xiamen Island (China) using landscape metrics and network analy-
sis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 449–456.
Zhao, T., Brown, D. G., & Bergen, K. M. (2007). Increasing gross
primary production (GPP) in the urbanizing landscapes of south-
eastern Michigan. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing, 73, 1159–1168.
Zurbuchen, A., Landert, L., Klaiber, J., Müller, A., Hein, S., & Dorn, S.
(2010). Maximum foraging ranges in solitary bees: Only few
individuals have the capability to cover long foraging distances.
Biological Conservation, 143, 669–676.
Francesco Orsini Dr. Francesco
is a post-doctoral researcher with
experience in promotion of urban
farming and training. He was the
winner of the young researcher
award 2010 of the Italian Society
for Horticultural Sciences (SOI).
Together with Prof. Gianquinto,
Francesco Orsini coordinates ur-
ban horticultural activities in the
Municipality of Bologna, promot-
ing school gardens and providing
technical assistance to urban gar-
dens managed by elders and im-
migrants. The group also coordi-
nates the project “Green Housing” for the realization of a pilot roof garden
for fruit and vegetable production in the popular buildings of Bologna. Dr.
Orsini has been involved in urban horticultural projects in Peru, Brazil,
Myanmar, Kenya, Kosovo, Mauritania, Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso.
He has been an FAO consultant in the Ivory Coast and Cape Verde.
Daniela Gasperi Daniela Gasperi
has an M.Sc. in International Hor-
ticulture from the University of
Bologna and is currently studying
ecological functions of RTGs in
the urban environment, imple-
mentation of Life Cycle Analysis
(LCA) and Social LCA of urban
horticulture. Daniela Gasperi is
currently President of the Associ-
ation Biodivercity.
Livia Marchetti Livia Marchetti
has an M.Sc. in International Hor-
ticulture from the University of
Bologna and is studying for her
Ph.D. in design, application and
productivity of simplified soilless
cultures for urban vegetable culti-
vation, as well as food security
and food safety aspects of urban
horticulture.
Exploring the potential productivity of rooftop gardens

12. Chiara Piovene Chiara Piovene
has an M.Sc. in International Hor-
ticulture from the University of
Bologna and is studying simpli-
fied soilless cultivation systems
and carrying out research on arti-
ficial lighting for home vegetable
cultivation. She is co-founder of
Spin-Off Bulbo, specializing in
the production of LED lighting
systems for indoor hydroponics.
Stefano Draghetti Dr. Stefano
Draghetti graduated in Natural
Sciences with a thesis concerning
the development of mosquitoes in
the plain of Bologna and in 2010
was awarded the PhD degree in
Agricultural Entomology with a
thesis entitled “Responses of in-
sect pests and natural enemies to
olfactory and visual stimuli.” His
main topics of research and inter-
est are Medical and Veterinary
Entomology, Urban Ecology, Ur-
ban Horticulture and Environ-
mental Educational Programs.
He worked from 1995 to 2002 in the G. Nicoli Environment Agriculture
Center (CAA) in the field of Veterinary Medical Entomology. He co-
founded Eugea S.r.l. (a Bologna University spin-off working on Urban
Ecology). He has been a member of Horticity S.r.l. since 2012 and is
Founding Member and former President of the Association BiodiverCity,
with responsibility for the development and implementation of events,
meetings and projects in Ecology, Horticulture and Biodiversity in Urban
Areas.
Solange Ramazzotti Dr. Solange
Ramazzotti is a researcher in tree
crops at the University of Teramo.
She has an M.Sc. cum laude in
Agricultural Sciences, University
of Ancona (Italy) with a final dis-
sertation on “Molecular character-
ization of some local vine grape
cultivars through microsatellite
markers”. Her PhD was obtained
at the Department of Fruit Tree
and Woody Plant Sciences, Uni-
versity of Bologna, Italy with a
final dissertation entitled “Bio-
chemical and molecular charac-
terization of the anthocyanin pathway in Sangiovese spots with different
colour of berry skin”. She also has an M.Sc. in International Co-operation
in Rural Areas from the University of Padova. Her research experiences
are in urban garden design and implementation and conducting research
trials in urban vineyard cultivation. Her teaching experiences are in
agricultural faculties and adult and third age intensive courses.
Giovanni Bazzocchi Dr.
Giovanni Bazzocchi gradu-
ated in Biological Sciences
cum laude in 1993 at the
University of Bologna with
a thesis on Entomology. His
PhD is in Agricultural Ento-
mology and concerned the
Chemical Ecology in
Tritrophic interactions in
agroecosystems. He was
Professor of General Ento-
mology at the University of
Modena and Reggio Emilia
(2002/2003) and has carried
out research in the following fields: general and urban entomology,
biological control in small and soil-less gardens, urban biodiversity,
landscape entomology, chemical ecology, pheromones and semiochemi-
cals. He co-founded Eugea S.r.l. (a Bologna University spin-off working
on Urban Ecology) and is a member of Horticity S.r.l. where he is
currently head of the research and development department, and project
manager and coordinator of HORTIS - Horticulture in Towns for Inclu-
sion and Socialisation, an EU-LLP program (Horticity partner). Dr.
Bazzocchi has been involved in urban horticultural projects in Brazil
(University of Bologna) and Mauritania (Horticity).
Giorgio Gianquinto Giorgio
Gianquinto is a full professor of
Horticulture at the University of
Bologna, Director of the Research
Centre on Urban Agriculture and
Biodiversity (RESCUE-AB,
http://rescue-ab.unibo.it/)
P r e s i d e n t o f t h e I S H S
commission on Landscape and
Urban Horticulture; Convenor of
the 2nd International Conference
on Landscape and Urban
Horticulture; Coordinator of LLP
HORTIS project 526476-LLP-1-
2012-1-ITGRUNDTVIG-GMP.
He is an FAO consultant in Cape Verde, Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso
and scientific coordinator of international cooperation projects on urban
community farming in Brazil, Peru, Myanmar, Burkina Faso and
Mauritania.
F. Orsini et al.