**1. Introduction**

The work underpinning this article entailed a systematic comparison of the urban agriculture in the cities of Singapore and Kigali. Rwanda is one of the most dynamically developing African countries, with its capital Kigali being increasingly referred to as the 'Singapore of Africa'. The use of the term, most common in media discourse [1–5], results from the rapid economic growth and ease of doing business as well as the introduction of modern urban policies similar to those implemented in Singapore. As urban agriculture constitutes an important element of Kigali's urban tissue, it becomes valid to compare the follower and the precursor also in this aspect of urban life, which is more frequently discussed with regard to sustainable and smart development as well as urban resilience (see, for instance, [6–11]). The examples analyzed allow an assessment of the future prospects for urban agriculture in different economies, and different sociocultural and political contexts. Does the approach to managing urban agriculture in Kigali mirror that in Singapore? Are the patterns of urban agriculture development similar? In order to answer these questions, one should characterize and confront the policies toward urban agriculture in both cities. In the paper, we point to differences and similarities between Kigali and Singapore from the point of view of how the institutional and legal framework shapes the distribution and inherent features of urban agriculture, as set in the natural, socioeconomic and political

 Górna, A.; Górny, Singapore vs. the 'Singapore of Africa'—Different Approaches to Managing Urban Agriculture. *Land* **2021**, *10*, 987. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/land10090987

K.

**Citation:**

Academic Editors: Przemysław Sleszy ´ ´ nski, Maciej J. Nowak and Giancarlo Cotella

Received: 10 July 2021 Accepted: 15 September 2021 Published: 18 September 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

context. Such a framework is particularly important, given the general direction and rate of development of urban agriculture as well as the determining of its place and significance for the urban system. Beyond that, based on qualitative methods and an exploratory approach, the article determines the main features of urban agriculture in the two cities with regard to the methods and organization of production and distribution processes. The identified set of features in question also helps present how different forms of urban agriculture develop in Kigali and Singapore. The comparative analysis comprised the following:


Thus far, the scientific literature has not offered a presentation of this kind, even if the two cities have indeed been the frequent topic of discussion from the point of view of Kigali aspiring to become 'the Singapore of Africa'.

Though far apart in terms of their economic development, the two cities are linked by issues of geography, history and politics. For a start, Singapore and Kigali are at almost identical distances from the Equator, albeit in two different directions. This means that a very humid tropical climate holds sway in both (even if Singapore is more under a maritime influence, while Kigali is affected by altitude). Under the circumstances, similar conditions for the development of plants are present, mainly in terms of precipitation, high temperatures and length of the growing season (agricultural activity is possible yearround). Singapore and Rwanda are also relatively small—the former is a microstate and a city-state, while the latter is one of Continental Africa's smallest countries. Beyond these considerations, both states are constitutional republics governed in a similar fashion, on the basis of a unitary system with a dominant parliamentary party, while the whole economic system in each is founded upon the free-market economy, albeit one in which the state enjoys a strong position. Finally, the politics of both states are making use of 'smart' solutions at present.

Concepts such as *smart city*, *resilient city* or *soft city* that, albeit in different ways, stress the urgency for in-depth change of the prevailing paradigm of urban development, have gained in importance not only in the two cities selected, but also worldwide.

The term smart city was born in the 1990s, when the concept was linked with the incorporation of new information and communications technology (ICT) into urban infrastructure [12]. Currently, this kind of technocratic approach is criticized to the extent that modern technological solutions are no longer treated as the concept's central element [12–14]. Therefore, today, 'smart' is taken to denote a city that draws benefit from high technology, as it seeks to raise the level of sustainability, and improve living conditions for inhabitants, as well as the quality of the natural environment, while also generating better economic prospects [13]. Key emphasis is also placed on support for communitybuilding among urban inhabitants, as well as investment in human and social capital [12]. The relevant literature thus mentions six characteristics of smart cities, i.e., a smart economy, smart mobility, smart governance, smart environment, smart living and smart people [13]. D. Maye [14] in an article linking smart city planning and urban food systems (which also include urban agriculture), came up with the term 'smart food city'. The author notes that 'smart food city' modes of governance assume consideration to be given both to modern technologies and innovative methods of food production being deployed in the city as well as to social and civil forms of innovation, in line with the traditions of the urban food system. On the other hand, the resilient city concept refers to the ability of a city system, understood in environmental, economic, social and human terms, to cope with stresses and disturbances [15,16]. Although the term is rooted in ecological studies, it is considered a

complex and multidisciplinary phenomenon [16]. Not only is a resilient city able to mitigate and adapt to effects of climate change, but it is also one with less social inequalities, a fairer distribution of resources and inclusive decision-making processes. Finally, the soft city concept assumes improving the quality of life of residents and building sustainable and resilient communities not through development based on modern technologies, but on simple, low-cost, low-tech and human-centered solutions that increase urban densities and multifunctionality [17].

Urban agriculture, which constitutes the subject matter of this article, might serve as a solution to tackle many of the problems faced by modern cities, such as social inequalities, uneven and unfair distribution of food or even air pollution, and has increasingly been taken up by scientists, planners and city decisionmakers. The production of food within urban areas is considered to have many benefits for both the inhabitants and the whole urban system. When managed well, urban agriculture provides for the sustainable use of urban resources, increases the share of city space that is greenspace, improves living conditions for inhabitants and ensures the shortening of certain value and supply chains, bringing tangible economic profit [18–21]. It is also an important livelihood strategy in times of crisis and serves to maintain the adaptive capacities of cities [11]. Due to the benefits resulting from its integration within urban systems, it is often linked with the concept of sustainable development [7,8,20,22], and it also complies with assumptions where the smart, resilient and soft city concepts are concerned. The role of local food production in increasing urban resilience and sustainability in Asian and African cities has been analyzed by other authors, e.g., in Ilorin (Nigeria) [23], Tamale (Ghana) [24], and Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) [25]. J. Padgham et al. [26] provided a multi-stressor analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture in nine cities of the two continents, namely the following: Addis Ababa (Ethiopia); Chennai (India) Dakar (Senegal); Dar es Salaam (Tanzania); Dhaka (Bangladesh); Ibadan (Nigeria); Kampala (Uganda); Kathmandu (Nepal); and Tamale (Ghana).

Urban agriculture, however, is not arbitrarily advantageous. Poorly managed, it can lead to irreversible damage to the natural environment and pose a threat to the health of the inhabitants [27–29]. In order to maximize the positive effects of urban agriculture, it is necessary to include it in spatial planning and a long-term urban development strategy [20,21]. Considering the increased competition for space in both Kigali and Singapore, integrated actions that take into account both city authorities, planners and residents can contribute to building sustainable food systems in the city while reducing the risk of exacerbation of local conflicts. The future and role of agriculture in the city space are thus often in the hands of decisionmakers in the field of urban spatial planning [21,30,31]. It is worth mentioning a number of case studies that prove how important the institutional response is for shaping the directions of urban agricultural development. In Havana, urban agriculture appeared in the city as a grassroots response to the economic crisis in the early 1990s but the rapid institutionalization of this activity had a key impact on the maintenance of urban gardens in the urban space, and even their growing role in the spatial and functional structure [32–34]. On the other hand, A. P. Bopda, and L. Awono [35], based on the research carried out in Yaoundé, indicated that despite the omnipresence of agriculture in the capital of Cameroon, the lack of institutional response is a serious barrier to the creation of effective structures of its management. In turn, G. W. Nasinyama et al. [36], using the positive example of Kampala, emphasized that the cooperation between urban farmers and municipal policymakers can be beneficial for effectively managing urban agriculture and improving the health of urban populations. Finally, Diehl, J. A et al. [37], with regard to Singapore, also discussed in this paper, highlighted the important role of state policy, especially based on a cross-agency approach, in building sustainable forms of urban agriculture.

We argue that the institutional and legal framework plays an important role in shaping the distribution of urban agriculture across the space of two cities selected. The framework is considered to comprise legal regulations in force, especially regarding land ownership as well as planning documents that steer directions of spatial managemen<sup>t</sup> in cities. These

reflect the policies that central and urban authorities are pursuing, conferring rights of ownership or leaseholder rights, and the drawing up of planning documents indicating those urban areas in which it is possible to engage in agricultural activity. Legal regulations also have a direct influence on the internal features of urban agriculture, such as the selection of methods and techniques of production. Therefore, authorities are in a position to shape the presence, features and role of urban agriculture in the urban system, overall. However, they can do this solely in the given natural, socioeconomic and political conditions. The spatial distribution of urban agriculture, though steered by the authorities, depends on access to such natural resources as land and water, with this being a product of natural and economic factors.

Given the above issues, it is important to stress that urban agriculture in the two cities selected takes various forms and performs different functions. What is more, its prestige as well as the scope of its preservation in the city space differs and depends on local socio-economic and political conditions. Therefore, the comparison of Singapore and Kigali, the cities of dissimilar socio-economic characteristics, is justified, as it will enable an illustration of the full spectrum of functions performed by urban agriculture and the role it plays in achieving urban sustainability and resilience. Moreover, since the adoption of smart development is emphasized by decisionmakers in both Singapore and Kigali, this article presents different approaches toward the activity that is considered to be compliant with the concept.

The structure of the text is as follows. We start with the characteristics of the materials analyzed and the methods applied. Then, there is a presentation of the results of the research conducted in the two cities chosen. First, we characterize the socio-economic and political conditions as well as the legal and institutional framework shaping the role and position of urban agriculture in the spatial and functional structure. Secondly, we present the spatial distribution and inherent features of urban agriculture in both cities selected. Summary conclusions are then offered in the last part of the paper, where also the validity of the comparison of Singapore and Kigali is verified.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

The research, based mainly on qualitative methods, was carried out in two stages— firstly, desk-based and then in-the-field. In order to present and compare the institutional and legal framework of urban agriculture and the policy toward its development, the analysis of legal documents regarding land ownership and urban agriculture managemen<sup>t</sup> in both cities was conducted. Among the documents analyzed, the most important ones are the Singapore Master Plan 2019 and Kigali Master Plan 2013 (together with its updated version from 2020) [38–40]. They are the latest strategic planning documents that present the authorities' vision of the future of both cities and the place and role of urban agriculture in it. Then, a satellite and aerial imagery (available via Google Earth) analysis (manual and visual interpretation) was conducted in order to locate agricultural areas and urban farms in the two cities. Thanks to the high level of spatial resolution of the images provided by Google Earth, the method in question has already proved to be suitable for research on urban agriculture, where there is a diversity of plant cover [41–44]. The study area in Singapore comes within the city limits and was taken to exclude smaller islands, which are uninhabited, serve recreational functions (as is the case with Sentosa), or are industrial (like the artificial island of Jurong). In contrast, in Kigali, where the administrative limits encompass extensive rural-type areas and even undeveloped heights, the research area was deliberately limited to the continuously built-up area.

The second stage involved fieldwork carried out in January and February 2019 in Singapore, as well as in July 2019 in Kigali. It entailed the mapping of areas encompassed by urban agriculture and the collection of photographic documentation as well as semistructured interviews (described in more detail below). Field observations represent a very important element of the work done in this case, taking in particular farms and agricultural

areas, and their surroundings. As a result, it becomes possible to determine the features specific to places in which urban agriculture in the two cities is located.

In Singapore, semi-structured interviews based around a list of topics prepared in advance were held with representatives of 18 city farms, including either owners or employees. Due to a possibility (built into the method of research) for new subject-matter to be introduced by either the respondent or the researcher, comprehensive information on the operations of different farms was obtained and augmented by matters relating to the problems and challenges faced by actors in Singaporean urban agriculture. What is more, via the internet, an interview was also held with the Executive Manager of the Food Supply Resilience Group coming under the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore.

On account of the universality of urban agriculture in Kigali's urban space as well as difficulties with identifying those responsible for particular plots, it was decided to resign from semi-structured interviews with producers. An interview was, however, held with a representative of the Kigali City Hall responsible for implementing Kigali's 2013 Master Plan. The talk held allowed for a broader perspective on the role urban agriculture plays in the city's spatial and functional structure as well as policy directions in line with prospects for development.

In Singapore, the detailed research took place in 36 urban farms. Semi-structured interviews were run in 18 of these, while in the remainder, the work was confined to field observation and the gathering of photographic documentation. In turn, where Kigali was concerned, some 98 areas occupied by urban agriculture were analyzed in the course of the fieldwork.
