research paper on urban agriculture

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Sociological impact, economic impact, public health impact, conservation impact, conclusions, acknowledgments, references cited.

• < Previous

The Role of Urban Agriculture in a Secure, Healthy, and Sustainable Food System

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Theresa Nogeire-McRae, Elizabeth P Ryan, Becca B R Jablonski, Michael Carolan, H S Arathi, Cynthia S Brown, Hairik Honarchian Saki, Starin McKeen, Erin Lapansky, Meagan E Schipanski, The Role of Urban Agriculture in a Secure, Healthy, and Sustainable Food System, BioScience , Volume 68, Issue 10, October 2018, Pages 748–759, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy071

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Investments in urban agriculture (UA) initiatives have been increasing in the United States, but the costs and benefits to society are poorly understood. Urban agriculture can link socioeconomic and health systems, support education and societal engagement, and contribute to a range of conservation goals, including nutrient recycling and biodiversity conservation. Urban agriculture is spatially dispersed and small scale, creating opportunities to redirect underutilized land, water, and nutrient resources. Urban agriculture reduces water and carbon footprints when it replaces lawns. Labor and time requirements, potential for environmental and nutrient pollution, and scarce water resources are challenges that UA must address. Based on our review of the literature, it is unclear whether UA provides economic or nutritional benefits to urbanites, but our case study shows that UA can provide some benefits when replacing other land uses.

Investment in urban food production systems has increased with growing consumer interest in where and how food is produced and increasing pressure on agricultural lands to provide food with fewer environmental impacts. Urban agriculture (UA) may play an important role in sustainable food systems through a diverse array of potential benefits. Although UA is unlikely to provide most of the world's food, food systems that include some production in urban areas may help achieve society's health, economic, and conservation goals. Urban gardens can produce a substantial amount of food (e.g., Ghosh 2014 , Eigenbrod and Gruda 2015 ), and indeed, during the Second World War, households produced approximately 40% of the United States’ demand for fresh vegetables as part of the Victory Garden movement (Brown and Jameton 2000 ).

The US government shapes food systems today as it did during the Victory Garden movement. Government policies and subsidies have far-reaching impacts on the type of agriculture we practice in both urban, periurban, and rural areas. For example, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) provided almost $57 billion in subsidized crop insurance payments between 2009 and 2015 that primarily supported the production of major commodity crops (USDA RMA 2016 ). In this same period, the USDA also invested more than $1 billion in activities related to local food systems, including UA initiatives (Vilsack 2016 ). Most recently, Senator Debbie Stabenow introduced the Urban Agriculture Act of 2016. The program extends the availability of support from many existing USDA programs into urban areas and is purported to create new economic opportunities for urban communities, provide new financial tools and support for urban farmers and gardeners, increase urban consumer's access to healthy food, and create a healthier environment.

Despite growing interest in UA, its impacts are poorly understood. There is a need to assess the potential for UA to provide the multiple food production, community development, and societal benefits that these investments and community initiatives seek. In this article, we discuss the benefits and challenges of UA as part of a broader food system. Our definition of UA includes community, home, and market gardens located within urban areas and includes the production of vegetables, fruits, and livestock (most commonly, chickens kept for eggs; figure 1 ). We take a multidisciplinary approach, highlighting the economic, sociological, human health, and conservation impacts of UA (table 1 ). Using a case study and spatial analysis, we quantify the potential impacts of UA in a midsized city of Fort Collins, Colorado, on nutritional, land-use, and economic outcomes and also quantify the potential for rainwater collection in different climatic regions to support UA without supplemental irrigation.

An illustration of the variety of food production activities included under the broad umbrella of urban agriculture (from Santo et al. 2016 ). Figure courtesy of John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.

Total water required to be added to garden from January to June (a) and from January to December (b). Only the western United States is shown because no water in addition to precipitation is needed in the rest 
of the country.

Change in stored water for 4 example months. Orange indicates negative balance, yellow is slightly positive, green is strongly positive. For example, in July in the southwestern United States, water would be removed from the rainwater barrel each day, whereas in the eastern United States, water would be added to the barrel each day.

Potential benefits and challenges for urban agriculture as part of sustainable food systems.

Urban agriculture has received attention from planners, policymakers, practitioners, institutions, activists, and community residents as a way to improve urban communities, as well as their connection to broader social and natural processes. As a result, UA is a component of many urban community development efforts, commonly with a focus on fruit and vegetable production for urban dwellers. In addition, UA efforts can educate urban dwellers about food while encouraging civic engagement and increasing social involvement, all of which contribute to overall societal health and well-being (Hale et al. 2011 , Carolan 2016 ).

Emerging evidence from studies approaching UA with a more critical lens reveals that some projects perpetuate inequality and cultural insensitivities. For example, UA may unfairly burden farmers and farm labor (Jarosz 2008 ) and may not grow culturally appropriate food (Guthman 2008 ). Alkon and Mares ( 2012 ) showed that many local food efforts relied heavily on creating alternative food markets rather than engaging in direct efforts to build civil society and civic capacity. Differing objectives of various municipal agencies and supporting partners also create challenges for UA. City officials often prioritize economic viability, but UA initiatives frequently rely on grants from government and local foundations, donations, and typically low-paid, young, and enthusiastic workers.

Time can be either a barrier or a social network benefit of UA. Issues of food access and poverty are important for understanding who participates in UA. The tacit skills needed to garden, raise chickens, and prepare fresh fruits and vegetables are no longer widely held among average households and cannot be simply conveyed via “how to” documents and instructional videos. Acquiring skills for UA requires hands-on training (Carolan 2011 ), and it is difficult to convey this knowledge among populations that are time poor and as such requires careful thought and well-directed policy. Conversely, time spent gardening is identified as helping to build social networks and pass on cultural practices (Calvet-Mir et al. 2012 ).

Urban agriculture affects local economies when it (a) creates jobs; (b) strengthens local economic linkages, including attracting new capital and opportunities for business development; and (c) improves property values and therefore the local tax base. However, there are very few studies that rigorously assess the economic impacts of UA (Hodgson et al. 2011 ).

Part of the challenge is that the overall volume and value of food produced in urban regions is unclear. USDA data are based on metropolitan areas, which include suburban and exurban as well as urban areas. Although over one-half of all farms with local food sales were located in metropolitan counties in 2008 compared with only one-third of all US farms, the extent to which these farms are located in urbanized environments is unknown (Low and Vogel 2011 , Johnson et al. 2013 , Jablonski and Schmit 2016 ).

Studies of economic impacts of UA show mixed results. Dimitri and colleagues (2016) provided the most comprehensive, peer-reviewed national study of UA operations that includes financial information. In total, 370 farmers responded to their 2015 survey, with 315 self-reporting operating an urban or periurban farm, 89 operating a community garden, and 34 operating both an urban farm and community garden. The respondents were located all across the country and reported average farm sales of $54,000 (although the median was $5000, indicating the small nature of the majority of the operations). The study asked about the type of structures used on the farm (greenhouse, high tunnels, raised beds, containers, rooftop, aquaponics, hydronic, and vertical farm). Of these structures, raised beds were the most common (64%), but hydroponic operations had the highest on average farm sales ($112,071), although they may also have the highest expenses. Only 28% of the respondents reported that the primary farmer earns a living from the farm. Importantly, the authors also note that the majority of the survey respondents cited prioritizing social rather than financial objectives. In fact, only 26% of the respondents stated that the main goal of the UA operation was “for market.”

One case study revealed that the presence of urban gardens raised property values by as much as 9.4% within 5 years of establishment and tax revenues from these property increases were estimated at half a million dollars per garden over 20 years, making initial investments from ­government agencies for community garden and farm projects cost productive (Voicu and Been 2008 ). In contrast, Vitiello and Wolf-Powers ( 2014 ) found limited economic impacts of UA on job creation, capital attraction, and ­adjacent property values through in-depth case studies across six US cities in the Northeast and Midwest.

Proponents of UA point to the potential positive financial impact to households from growing and consuming food. Data from the USDA (National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey, FoodAPS) show that six% of households acquired food from gardening, hunting, and fishing, with increased likelihood of acquisitions in rural areas and decreased acquisitions in low-income households (Todd and Scharadin 2016 ). Given the small amount of production by urban households, relatively high land costs in urban areas, and costs and time associated with gardening, UA is unlikely in the current environment to have a significant financial impact to individual households (see box 1 ).

We conducted a case study of home gardening impacts in Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. We utilized gardening trend data (CoDyre et al. 2015 ) to design a typical 3.05 by 3.05 meter (10 by 10 feet; 9.3 square meter) raised bed garden. We then estimated productivity, yield, and nutritional value. We also estimated the capacity for land within city limits to supply residents’ entire fresh vegetable and egg intake.

Fort Collins has a population of 161,000 and a total of 36,222 single-family homes. Our example garden used common spacing guidelines (Rabin et al. 2012 ) and crop varieties predicted to have the best yield in Fort Collins (Shonle 2014 ). The crops selected were tomato, cucumber, musk melon, cabbage, potato, sweet potato, squash, peppers, bush peas, lettuce, spinach, kale, carrots, onions, and beets. High and low costs for seeds were approximated using prices listed by a major retail store and seed supplier (Home Depot and www.Burpee.com ). The high and low costs of raised bed construction were calculated using information from Alabama Extension fact sheet no. ANR-1345 (supplemental table S1; Harris et al. 2012 ). The value of crops produced was gathered from the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (Todd and Scharadin 2016 ), which tends to quote the lower end of price ranges, and multiplied by the estimated approximate yield for each crop grown in a home garden (Rabin et al. 2012 ). We did not include labor requirements in our economic estimates.

Our estimates suggest that the small garden plot could yield 18 kilograms of produce per season, or 16% of the recommended minimum of 110 kilograms of annual fruit and vegetable for a single person (Martellozzo et al. 2014 , citing FAO/WHO). This quantity of produce translated to approximately $70 saved per year by not purchasing this produce at the supermarket (table 3 ). The cost of setting up a raised bed varied from (a) only the price of seeds if a homeowner used existing garden soil, homemade compost, and scrap building material to (b) $270 if basic materials were purchased new. Using our estimated yield of 2.8 kilograms per square meter, 100% of each Fort Collins resident's minimum recommended vegetables could be met if 18% of the total unimproved land area of all the single-family residential home lots (34 million square meters) in the city were to be cultivated.

A single garden plot and a few hens contributed to an individual's annual nutritional needs, providing 9.2% of protein, 23% of vitamin K, 20% of vitamin C, and smaller amounts of other nutrients and vitamins (see table 2 ). A family keeping a small flock of chickens could easily produce all their egg needs. To supply all of Fort Collins’ egg needs, each of the single-family residential homes in Fort Collins would need to keep approximately 5 laying hens. Including chickens in our calculations not only improved the potential for household gardens to provide nutritional benefits, it did so economically. We calculated initial purchase cost of a 6-month-old laying hen, replacement costs to ensure highest productivity, bedding, and feed costs, resulting in a cost of producing a dozen eggs to $2.75 and $3.92 for non-organic and organic varieties respectively (table 3 ; supplemental material). A survey of local retailers and farmers’ markets revealed prices for a dozen eggs from $1.25 for concentrated egg operations to as high as $8 for free-range organic. Although backyard chicken keepers could sometimes save money producing their own eggs, they typically choose to keep chickens for other reasons, such as to “establish sustainable backyard agro-ecosystems, build sociability, resist consumerism, and work simultaneously to improve the life and health of animals, humans, and the urban environment” (Blecha and Leitner 2014 ).

Nutritional contribution of a 9.3-square-meter garden and 264 eggs for an average adult with a daily recommended intake of 2000 calories per day. See complete nutritional contributions in the supplemental material.

Potential costs, savings, and quantity produced in home gardens.

Urban agriculture has the potential to influence human health both directly and indirectly. For example, the experience of growing food locally is positively correlated with consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables (Patel 1996 ). Urban agriculture also supports health by contributing to safe, healthy, and green environments in neighborhoods, schools, and abandoned areas (McGuinn and Relf 2001 ). In developing countries, an association exists between UA and dietary adequacy and increased dietary diversity (Zezza and Tasciotti 2010 ). However, in limited-income households throughout the world, a focus may be placed on buying foods that will be satiating rather than just nutritious or healthful. Therefore, urban farming can help households save food dollars spent on produce, but how they promote nutritional security is unclear because families need to spend cash on staple, nongarden foods (e.g., whole grains). Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption is important for meeting public health nutrition guidelines, and our case study suggests that UA can contribute to meeting these guidelines at a household level (box 1 ). However, recent evidence supports that daily total fiber intakes from staple foods such as whole grains and legumes are also critical indicators of overall health when compared with fiber that is primarily derived from fruits and vegetables (Park et al. 2011 ). Methods used for receiving and assessing nutritional intakes across the spectrum of UA activities warrant continued attention in public health because of potential inaccuracies and recall bias, including heavy reliance on self-reporting. Finally, there is a lack of reliable data on overall macronutrient (i.e., carbohydrates, protein, and fat) and micronutrient (e.g., iron, zinc, calcium, and phosphorus) intake from vegetables grown under different agricultural practices.

Environmental health is another facet of public health that can include but is not limited to measures of food safety (i.e., microbial and chemical contaminants). An emerging body of literature highlights the importance of comonitoring emerging environmental chemicals of concern, both agrochemicals and heavy metals such as lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd). Determining the soil levels for Pb has raised concerns in multiple settings to date, and that could pose health risks, particularly if ingested by young children. Although growing garden crops in contaminated soils may increase dietary metals, the specific claims about health risks from urban soil concentrations for growing food are not always accurate because various chemical forms may have limited bioavailability and uptake by plants (Brown et al 2016 ). In a study of 96 samples of produce from seven urban farms, three suburban farms, and three grocery stores in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2011–2012 (Kohrman and Chamberlain 2014 ), Cd and Pb concentrations in produce from urban farms were not significantly different from produce from suburban farms or grocery stores. Although many urban garden soils may not have high levels of heavy metals and other toxins (Hough et al. 2004 ), the installation of raised beds with imported soils could be considered a limited exposure reduction method (Clark et al. 2008 ). Although raised beds may be a common strategy in areas with contaminated soils to avoid human health risks, this is not classified as a remediation technique. Testing soils for contaminants prior to establishing urban gardens or measuring toxicant loads in food can be expensive, leading to increased consumer costs. Practitioners of UA must balance the need for assessments of macronutrient and micronutrient quality (i.e., protein, vitamins, or minerals) and food safety (i.e., pathogen screening and contaminants).

Food safety measures, including postharvest processing and handling, can pose unintentional risks to public health and vary by food types in different urban locations. Producer education has gained increased attention over enforcing regulations. Practices to enhance food safety for fruits and vegetables, which are the most common food products from UA, may become more complicated if livestock rearing is integrated into the system. Given that food recalls are generally on the rise, cost-effective precautions and guidelines for UA are needed.

The public health impacts of UA, such as physical activity, overall dietary caloric intakes, socioeconomic status, and underlying chronic and infectious disease risk factors, also merit attention as integral players in overall human health outcomes. For example, behavioral and mental health assessments have been conducted for various individuals and groups related to UA practices (Ober Allen et al. 2008 ) but are usually separated from nutritional assessments and food diaries that reveal sources of all foods consumed in the daily diet. Finally, assessing and reporting the level of community engagement that can lead to physical and mental health rewards related to UA are equally important aspects of public health impacts.

A number of studies have investigated the impact of urban gardening on food security (e.g., Kortright and Wakefield 2011 , Eigenbrod and Gruda 2015 ), but few have included gardener preference and nutritional impact. Urban areas have enough land to provide a large proportion of city residents’ vegetable, poultry, and egg needs (box 1 ; Grewal and Grewal 2012 ). Researchers have suggested that for food security in urban areas, emphasis should be placed on productivity in cities with low population density because they have potential to become self-sufficient (Ghosh et al. 2008 ), especially regarding contributions of home gardens (Taylor and Lovell 2014 ).

Urban agriculture, in aggregate, has potentially large impacts, both positive and negative, on the conservation of biodiversity, water, and land. Agriculture (i.e., the land area and resources allocated to food and fiber production) contributes between 20% and 33% of global greenhouse gases (GHGs; IPCC 2007 , Vermeulen et al. 2012 ), uses 70% of global freshwater supplies (FAO 2015 ) and 90% of mined phosphorus (Jasinski 2006 ), and is a major contributor to the more than 400 marine hypoxic zones worldwide (Diaz and Rosenberg 2008 ). These effects, in turn, have large impacts on biodiversity (Green et al. 2005 ). Urban agriculture could have an impact on carbon and water footprints, climate resilience, nutrient recycling and loading into surface waters, habitat value of urban landscapes for pollinators and other wildlife, and demand for land for food production elsewhere. These effects will depend on the location and methods of production. Despite these myriad effects, UA has been widely ignored by the conservation community.

Climate change and urban agriculture

Projected changes in climate, especially extreme weather events, threaten food security. Specifically, climate change can disrupt food availability, access, processing, storage, and consumption, especially for time-poor populations (Brown et al. 2015 ). Urban agriculture provides an alternative production source and diversifying food sourcing options can serve as a buffer to climate change variability that may disrupt trade and global food markets (Ostrom 2010 ).

In a thorough life cycle assessment of GHG emissions of urban household gardens, Cleveland and colleagues (2017) found that although producing vegetables in home gardens does create some GHG emissions, these emissions are more than offset by reducing the GHG footprint of consumers buying produce through the conventional agribusiness system. In addition, further GHG savings were realized when researchers accounted for lawn replacement, recycling gray water, and recycling organic household waste. However, home composting can produce methane and nitrous oxide, which are strong GHGs (Cleveland et al. 2017 ). Other studies that performed similar analyses for urban community farms also demonstrated reductions in GHG emissions compared with conventional systems, especially when vegetable production replaced lawns (Kulak et al. 2013 , Fisher and Karunanithi 2014 ). In developed countries, postproduction processes such as storing, refrigerating, and transporting produce over long distances can contribute as much to the GHG emissions as do the actual production processes (Vermeulen et al. 2012 ). These postproduction emissions are reduced or eliminated when vegetables are grown where they are consumed, as in the case of UA.

Water impact

Agriculture accounts for the majority of current freshwater withdrawals (Scanlon et al. 2007 , FAO 2015 ). The immense demands for water by agriculture impacts freshwater biodiversity through many mechanisms, including dam construction, dewatering of wetlands and rivers, reduced river flow to coastal areas, changes in the timing and intensity of flows, and aquifer depletion (Gordon et al. 2010 ). In dry climates, local agricultural production could have significant negative impacts on limited local water resources, thereby arguing for importing water-intensive produce from wetter regions. Irrigation needs for conventional agriculture will only continue to grow, whereas UA has the potential to depend largely on collected rainwater in some regions (see box 2 below) and, furthermore, to reduce the use of water for processing, packaging, and transporting food. Collected rainwater, although generally of high quality (Bakacs et al. 2013 ), has some potential for introducing pollutants into the food supply (Lye 2009 ).

Growing food locally is often touted as ecologically friendly, but how much water does a home garden require? We mapped the amount of additional water needed by a 9.3-square-meter vegetable garden if the owner collected rainwater and used it to water the crops. We determined the potential capacity of rainwater collection barrels to water a home garden on the basis of spatially explicit precipitation and evapotranspiration data. Using the Simplified Landscape Irrigation Demand Estimation method developed by the University of California Extension (Kjelgren et al. 2016 ) to determine the water need of a typical 9.3-square-meter home vegetable garden, we modeled the amount of supplemental water that would be needed by that garden using daily time steps. We used a water recharge model with a 0.42-cubic-meter (110-gallon) storage capacity (2 typical, home-use rainwater collection barrels) and a modest roof collection area of 93 square meters (1000 square feet). We used monthly precipitation (PRISM 2004 ) and evapotranspiration (IWMI 2016 ) data at daily time steps for 1 year.

Nutrient conservation and pollution

Phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) fertilizer use has increased dramatically in the past century and is predicted to continue to do so (Tilman et al. 2001 ). The global nature of agricultural trade means that some soils are becoming P depleted, whereas excess P and N application is polluting water bodies in other regions. There is therefore a need to increase the recycling of nutrients to contain them within the systems in which they occur, thereby closing nutrient loops (Schipanski and Bennett 2011 ). The feasibility of food waste recycling is highly dependent on the distance between production and consumption activities because of the logistics and cost of transporting heavy food waste or composted materials. Urban agriculture can contribute to closing nutrient loops by composting and feeding vegetable wastes to animals and then applying animal (e.g., chicken) manures back to garden areas. Household food waste recycling also prevents such wastes from entering landfills. Distributed UA with chickens could improve nutrient recycling efficiencies relative to concentrated poultry operations that are often too far from a sufficient land base to economically distribute chicken manure at recommended rates to avoid nutrient pollution (Ribaudo et al. 2003 ).

The environmental impact of nutrient management practices in home gardens has not been extensively studied. Fertility management was rated as the most important management challenge for urban gardeners in New York City (Gregory et al. 2016 ), highlighting the need for collaborative research and education on urban garden nutrient management practices. Home garden effects on nutrient recycling and nutrient losses to the surrounding environment depend on the quantity, quality, and timing of manure and compost applications. Urban gardens and lawns can be a net sink of nutrients and carbon, particularly during early conversion from more degraded soils (Kaye et al. 2005 ). However, urban gardens can also become a nutrient pollution source if compost, manure, and other fertilizer applications exceed nutrient removal in harvested produce resulting in elevated soil P levels and N leaching losses (Dewaelheyns et al. 2013 , Cameira et al. 2014 ). For example, average annual household food waste in the St. Paul–Minneapolis region of Minnesota contained approximately 300 grams of N and 36 grams of P (Baker et al. 2007 ). Applied to a 3-meter-by-3-meter raised garden bed as used in our case study (box 1 ), this would represent annual application rates of 337 kilograms of N per hectare and 39 kilograms of P per hectare, which would far exceed nutrient removal by harvested produce. Home gardens are often considered to have minimal impact on overall urban nutrient cycling and losses because of their limited spatial extent (Lin et al. 2014 ); however, this could shift with increased conversion of urban areas to fertilized gardens. Consequently, urban food waste nutrient recycling would benefit from (a) increased infrastructure, awareness, and education to reduce food waste, as well as (b) municipal recycling programs that then distribute compost to urban landscaping, gardens, golf courses, and other facilities to apply at rates that balance removals.

Biodiversity

Urban food gardens could contribute positively to conservation of biological diversity by increasing and improving habitat within urban areas, averting habitat loss elsewhere, contributing to crop diversity, and reducing pollution and nutrient loading. Replacing lawns with gardens increases habitat heterogeneity, which would be expected to increase wildlife diversity (Benton et al. 2003 ). These green spaces also provide seminatural habitats in the extensive human altered landscapes (Lin et al. 2015 ), especially for pollinators and species that benefit from small, patchy resources. For successful and sustainable UA, it is vital to maintain essential ecological processes such as pollination, nutrient acquisition and flow, and biological control of pests. Although leveraging the habitat value of large numbers of small plots can be a challenge, this can be overcome with effective, coordinated management (Goddard et al. 2010 ).

Home gardens in developing countries have long been considered hotbeds of crop diversity, with known links to dietary diversity and quality, but less is known about the contributions of urban gardens in more developed countries (Taylor and Lovell 2014 ). Widespread availability of stable cultivars in small seed packs removes the need to save seed from year to year or experiment with novel crosses. Despite the lack of incentive, novelty is a coveted trait in home garden products, and amateur plant breeders have formed organized groups and seed exchanges. Immigrant populations contribute to a unique form of germplasm conservation; for example, novel crosses between grocery store varieties of sweet corn and landrace maize cultivars have been found in the home gardens of Mexican immigrants residing in southern California (Heraty and Ellstrand 2016 ).

The problem of hunger is more one of poverty and access than of sufficient food produced (Schipanski et al. 2016 ). In addition, we do not efficiently use the food that we currently grow: One-third is wasted, and one-third becomes animal feed (Tscharntke et al. 2012 ). But a growing world population will necessitate additional land be converted to agriculture (Tilman et al. 2001 ), and converting lawns in urban areas rather than biodiverse habitat in developing nations could reduce agriculture's negative impact on biodiversity. Researchers predict that large amounts of land will be converted to agricultural uses from 2001 to 2050, a net projected increase of 5.4 × 10 8 hectares for pasture and 3.5 × 10 8 hectares for cropland (Tilman et al. 2001 ). Most of the associated habitat loss (10 9 hectares by 2050) will be in developing countries, whereas 1.4 × 10 8 hectares of land is projected to be removed from agriculture in developed nations (Tilman et al. 2001 ). Much of the food demand by developed nations results in losses to biodiversity in developing nations (Lenzen et al. 2012 ), with each dollar spent on agricultural products estimated to displace between 0.1–1 individual birds or mammals (Kitzes et al. 2016 ).

Furthermore, analyses suggest that many developed nations have enough land within urban areas to meet much of their food needs; for example, Martellozzo and colleagues (2014) found that the United States would need to use less than 10% of its urban land to meet all vegetable needs, and see our case study (box 1 ). Growing more food in urban areas of developed countries is also positively correlated with increased awareness of the environmental impacts of food production (Martinez et al. 2010 ).

This review indicates that UA could serve as part of a sustainable food system despite challenges and knowledge gaps. Carefully designed UA can provide conservation benefits, especially when it replaces lawns (e.g., box 2 ), but other conservation impacts are poorly understood and require more research. Although our Fort Collins case study (box 1 ) demonstrates that home gardens provide limited contributions to nutrition and money saving, the majority of farmers engaged in UA are motivated by social goals in addition to food production (Dimitri et al. 2016 ). Barriers to UA include access to suitable land for growing and gardening knowledge (Kortright and Wakefield 2011 ), time, and expense. Urban agriculture can also contribute to food security and encourage dietary intake of nutritious foods and strong social networks (Kortright and Wakefield 2011 ). Urban agriculture designed by diverse social, economic, and ethnic groups would likely have greater multifunctional societal benefits and potentially greater economic benefits. Improved public education could decrease UA public health risks in food safety and facilitate improved soil fertility management.

The question remains: Is UA an activity that society should encourage, through government subsidies, planning, nonprofit activities, and education? Both research and promotion of UA suffer from the “local trap,” which assumes that there is something inherently good about local-scale agriculture: that UA will promote ecological sustainability, social justice, nutrition, food security, and food quality (Born and Purcell 2006 ). In reality, the context of the system determines its benefits or downfalls, and importantly, who benefits and who does not (Born and Purcell 2006 ).

Conventional wisdom tells us that large-scale agriculture will benefit from efficiencies of scale, but our interdisciplinary perspective points to the need for an assessment of multifunctional efficiency. That is, a system that can function to provide benefits across a variety of economic, societal, health, and environmental benefits while using currently underutilized resources can play a role in furthering societal goals. Urban home gardens use resources (land, water, nutrients, and human energy) that would otherwise be either unused, underutilized, or (in the case of waste) become pollutants or that produce positive externalities (using human energy in the garden in place of carbon energy in conventional systems produces health benefits and happiness from being outdoors). But other resources, such as tools and infrastructure, might end up costing more in terms of both money and resources for home production systems. The benefits are clearer when water, carbon, and human resources that have traditionally been directed toward lawns are instead directed toward food production: In these cases, we are producing additional food while still lowering the environmental impact of these lands.

The benefits of home gardens, in terms of food security, health, and income, have been well documented in developing countries (Taylor and Lovell 2014 ), but the impact of home and urban gardens in developed countries is underexplored. Further research is needed to determine how to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impacts of UA. A lack of data on small home gardens is a particular challenge for researchers and policymakers. In light of current pressures on food systems and successful examples such as Victory Gardens, when civilian populations were encouraged to produce food at home, the potential for home gardens to improve human health and nutrition, conserve or improve biological diversity, and reduce or mitigate food waste and pollution merits further evaluation.

Thanks for support from Colorado State University's School of Global Environmental Sustainability for funding a course and working group that directly resulted in this article. Also thanks to the American Association for University Women American Fellowship for funding TN-M while working on this project. John Sheehan, Ragan Adams, Dawn Thilmany, Brad McRae, and Rod Adams provided valuable insights.

Alkon A , Mares T . 2012 . Food sovereignty in US food movements: Radical visions and neoliberal constraints . Agriculture and Human Values 29 : 347 – 359 .

Google Scholar

Bakacs M , Haberland M , Yergeau S . 2013 . Rain Barrels Part IV: Testing and Applying Harvested Water to Irrigate a Vegetable Garden . Rutgers University . Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet no. FS1218 .

Google Preview

Baker LA et al.  2007 . Effect of consumption choices on fluxes of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus through households . Urban Ecosystems 10 : 97 – 117 .

Benton TG , Vickery JA , Wilson JD . 2003 . Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18 : 182 – 188 .

Blecha J , Leitner H . 2014 . Reimagining the food system, the economy, and urban life: New urban chicken-keepers in US cities . Urban Geography 35 : 86 – 108 .

Born B , Purcell M . 2006 . Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research . Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 : 195 – 207 .

Brown KH , Jameton AL . 2000 . Public health implications or urban agriculture . Journal of Public Health Policy 21 : 20 – 39 .

Brown ME et al.  2015 . Climate Change, Global Food Security, and the US Food System . US Department of Agriculture . (22 June 2018; www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/FoodSecurity2015Assessment/FullAssessment.pdf) .

Brown SL , Chaney RL , Hettiarachchi G . 2016 . Lead in urban soils: A real or perceived concern for urban agriculture . Journal of Environmental Quality 45 : 26 – 36

Calvet-Mir L , Gómez-Baggethun E , Reyes-García V . 2012 . Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens . A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics 74 : 153 – 160 .

Cameira MR , Tedesco S , Leitão TE . 2014 . Water and nitrogen budgets under different production systems in Lisbon urban farming . Biosystems Engineering 125 : 65 – 79 .

Carolan M. 2011 . Embodied Food Politics . Ashgate .

Carolan M. 2016 . More-than-active food citizens: A longitudinal and comparative study of alternative and conventional eaters . Rural Sociology 82 : 197 – 225 .

Clark HF , Hausladen DM , Brabander DJ . 2008 . Urban gardens: Lead exposure, recontamination mechanisms, and implications for remediation design . Environmental Research 107 : 312 – 319 .

Cleveland DA et al.  2017 . The potential for urban household vegetable gardens to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . Landscape and Urban Planning 157 : 365 – 374 .

CoDyre M , Fraser EDG , Landman K . 2015 . How does your garden grow? An empirical evaluation of the costs and potential of urban gardening . Urban Forestry and Urban Greenery 14 : 72 – 79 .

Dewaelheyns V , Elsen A , Vandendriessche H , Gulinck H . 2013 . Garden management and soil fertility in Flemish domestic gardens . Landscape and Urban Planning 116 : 25 – 35 .

Diaz R , Rosenberg R . 2008 . Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems . Science 321 : 926 – 929 .

Dimitri C , Oberholtzer L , Pressman A . 2016 . Urban agriculture: Connecting producers with consumers . British Food Journal 118 : 603 – 617 .

Eigenbrod C , Gruda N . 2015 . Urban vegetable for food security in cities: A review . Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35 : 483 – 498 .

[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . 2015 . AQUASTAT . FAO . (5 June 2018; www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/index.stm )

Fisher S , Karunanithi A . 2014 . Contemporary comparative LCA of commercial farming and urban agriculture for selected fresh vegetables consumed in Denver, Colorado . 405 – 414 in Schenck R , Huizenga D , eds. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector . American Center for Life Cycle Assessment .

Ghosh S. 2014 . Measuring sustainability performance of local food production in home gardens . Local Environment 19 : 33 – 55 .

Ghosh S , Vale R , Vale B . 2008 . Local food production in home gardens: Measuring on-site sustainability potential of residential development . International Journal of Environment and Sustainainable Development 7 : 430 – 451 .

Goddard MA , Dougill AJ , Benton TG . 2010 . Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments . Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 : 90 – 98 .

Gordon LJ , Finlayson CM , Falkenmark M . 2010 . Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services . Agricultural Water Management 97 : 512 – 519 .

Green RE , Cornell SJ , Scharlemann JPW , Balmford A . 2005 . Farming and the fate of wild nature . Science 307 : 550 – 555 .

Gregory MM , Leslie TW , Drinkwater LE . 2016 . Agroecological and social characteristics of New York City community gardens: Contributions to urban food security, ecosystem services, and environmental education . Urban Ecosystems 19 : 763 – 794 .

Grewal SS , Grewal PS . 2012 . Can cities become self-reliant in food? Cities 29 : 1 – 11 .

Guthman J. 2008 . Bringing good food to others: Investigating the subjects of alternative food practice . Cultural Geogrraphies 15 : 431 – 447 .

Hale J et al.  2011 . Connecting food environments and health through the relational nature of aesthetics: Gaining insight through the community gardening experience . Social Science and Medicine 72 : 1853 – 1863 .

Harris S , Mitchell C , Patton D , Upham W . 2012 . Raised Bed Gardening . Alabama Cooperative Extension System . Report no. ANR-1345. (5 June 2018 ; www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-1345/ANR-1345.pdf )

Heraty JM , Ellstrand NC . 2016 . Maize germplasm conservation in Southern California's urban gardens: Introduced diversity beyond ex situ and in situ management . Economic Botany 70 : 37 – 48 .

Hodgson K , Caton Campbell M , Bailkey M . 2011 . Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places . American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service .

Hough RL , Breward N , Young SD , Crout NMJ , Tye AM , Moir AM , Thornton I . 2004 . Assessing potential risk of heavy metal exposure from consumption of home-produced vegetables by urban populations . Environmental Health Perspectives 112 : 215 – 221 .

[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . 2007 . Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC . Cambridge University Press .

[IWMI] International Water Management Institute . 2016 . World Water and Climate Atlas . IWMI . (18 April 2016; www.iwmi.cgiar.org )

Jablonski BBR , Schmit TM . 2016 . Food hubs: Expanding food to urban consumers . 179 – 190 in Dawnson JC , Morales A , eds. Cities of Farmers: Urban Agricultural Practices and Processes . University of Iowa Press .

Jarosz L. 2008 . The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas . Journal of Rural Studies 24 : 231 – 244 .

Jasinski SM. 2006 . Phosphate Rock: Statistics and Information . US Geological Survey .

Johnson R , Aussenberg RA , Cowan T . 2013 . The Role of Local Food Systems in US Farm Policy . Congressional Research Service . Report for Congress no. 7–5700 .

Kaye JP , McCulley RL , Burke IC . 2005 . Carbon fluxes, nitrogen cycling, and soil microbial communities in adjacent urban, native and agricultural ecosystems . Global Change Biology 11 : 575 – 587 .

Kitzes J et al.  2016 . Consumption-based conservation targeting: Linking biodiversity loss to upstream demand through a global wildlife footprint . Conservation Letters 10 : 531 – 538 .

Kjelgren R et al.  2016 . Simplified Landscape Irrigation Demand Estimation: SLIDE Rules . Applied Engineering in Agriculture 32 : 363 – 378 .

Kohrman H , Chamberlain CP . 2014 . Heavy metals in produce from urban farms in the San Francisco Bay Area . Food Additives and Contaminants B 7 : 127 – 134 .

Kortright R , Wakefield S . 2011 . Edible backyards: A qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security . Agriculture and Human Values 28 : 39 – 53 .

Kulak M , Graves A , Chatterton J . 2013 . Reducing greenhouse gas emissions with urban agriculture: A Life Cycle Assessment perspective . Landscape and Urban Planning 111 : 68 – 78 .

Lenzen M et al.  2012 . International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations . Nature 486 : 109 – 112 .

Lin BB , Philpott SM , Jha S . 2015 . The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity–ecosystem services: Challenges and next steps . Basic and Applied Ecology 16 : 189 – 201 .

Lin T et al.  2014 . Managing urban nutrient biogeochemistry for sustainable urbanization . Environmental Pollution 192 : 244 – 250 .

Low SA , Vogel S . 2011 . Direct and intermediated marketing of local foods in the United States . US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service . Economic Research Report no. (ERR-128) .

Lye DJ. 2009 . Rooftop runoff as a source of contamination: A review . Science of the Total Environment 407 : 5429 – 5434 .

Martellozzo F et al.  2014 . Urban agriculture: A global analysis of the space constraint to meet urban vegetable demand . Environmental Research Letters 9 (art. 64025).

Martinez M et al.  2010 . Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues . US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service . Report no. ERR-97 .

McGuinn C , Relf PD . 2001 . A profile of juvenile offenders in a vocational horticulture curriculum . HortTechnology 11 : 427 – 433 .

[NCSL] National Conference of State Legislatures . 2016 . State Rainwater Harvesting Laws and Legislation . NCSL . (5 June 2018; www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/rainwater-harvesting.aspx )

Ober Allen J , Alaimo K , Elam D , Perry E . 2008 . Growing vegetables and values: Benefits of neighborhood-based community gardens for youth development and nutrition . Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 3 : 418 – 439 .

Orsini F et al.  2014 . 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 . Food Security 6 : 781 – 792 .

Ostrom E. 2010 Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change . Global Environmental Change 20 : 550 – 557 .

Park Y , Subar A , Hollenbeck A . 2011 . Dietary fiber intake and mortality in the NIH–AARP diet and health study . Archives of Internal Medicine 171 : 1061 – 1068 .

Patel IC. 1996 . Rutgers urban gardening: A case study in urban agriculture . Journal of Agricultural and Food Information 3 : 35 – 46 .

[PRISM] PRISM Climate Group Oregon State University . 2004 . (18 April 2016; http://prism.oregonstate.edu )

Rabin J , Zinati G , Nitzsche P . 2012 . Yield expectations for mixed, small-scale agriculture . Sustainable Farming on the Urban Fringe . (5 June 2018; https://sustainable-farming.rutgers.edu/yield-expectations-for-mixed-stand-small-scale-agriculture )

Ribaudo M et al.  2003 . Manure Management forWater Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land . US Department of Agriculture . Economic Research Service. Report no. AER-824.

Santo R , Palmer A , Kim B . 2016 . Vacant Lots to Vibrant Plots: A Review of the Benefits and Limitations of Urban Agriculture . Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future .

Scanlon BR , Jolly I , Sophocleous M , Zhang L . 2007 . Global impacts of conversions from natural to agricultural ecosystems on water resources: Quantity versus quality . Water Resources Research 43 (art. W03437).

Schipanski ME , Bennett EM . 2011 . The influence of agricultural trade and livestock production on the global phosphorus cycle . Ecosystems 15 : 256 – 268 .

Schipanski ME et al.  2016 . Realizing resilient food systems . BioScience 66 : 600 – 610 .

Shonle I. 2014 . Vegetable Gardening in the Mountains . Colorado State University Extension. Fact Sheet no. 7 . 248 .

Taylor JR , Lovell ST . 2014 . Urban home food gardens in the Global North: research traditions and future directions . Agriculture and Human Values 31 : 285 – 305 .

Tilman D et al.  2001 . Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change . Science 292 : 281 – 284 .

Todd J , Scharadin B . 2016 . Where Households Get Food in a Typical Week: Findings from USDA’s FoodAPS . US Department of Agriculture Report no. EIB-156 .

Tscharntke T et al.  2012 . Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification . Biological Conservation 151 : 53 – 59 .

[USDA RMA] US Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency . 2016 . FCIC Fiscal Year 2015 Financial Statements and Summary of Business Reports . US Office of the Inspector General . Audit Report no. 05401-0007-11 .

Vermeulen SJ , Campbell BM , Ingram JSI . 2012 . Climate Change and Food Systems . Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 : 195 – 222 .

Vilsack T. 2016 . New markets, new opportunities: Strengthening local food systems and organic agriculture . Medium . (4 June 2018; https://medium.com/usda-results/new-markets-new-opportunities-strengthening-local-food-systems-and-organic-agriculture-17b529c5ea90#.rk658vsm9 )

Vitiello D , Wolf-Powers L . 2014 . Growing food to grow cities? The potential of agriculture for economic and community development in the urban United States . Community Development Journal 49 : 508 – 523 .

Voicu I , Been V . 2008 . The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values . Real Estate Economics 36 : 241 – 283 .

Zezza A , Tasciotti L . 2010 . Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: Empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries . Food Policy 35 : 265 – 273 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, consumers' perception of urban farming—an exploratory study.

• 1 Morrison School of Agribusiness, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States
• 2 School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States
• 3 School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States

Urban agriculture offers the opportunity to provide fresh, local food to urban communities. However, urban agriculture can only be successfully embedded in urban areas if consumers perceive urban farming positively and accept urban farms in their community. Success of urban agriculture is rooted in positive perception of those living close by, and the perception strongly affects acceptance of farming within individuals' direct proximity. This research investigates perception and acceptance of urban agriculture through a qualitative, exploratory field study with N = 19 residents from a major metropolitan area in the southwest U.S. Specifically, in this exploratory research we implement the method of concept mapping testing its use in the field of Agroecology and Ecosystem Services. In the concept mapping procedure, respondents are free to write down all the associations that come to mind when presented with a stimulus, such as, “urban farming.” When applying concept mapping, participants are asked to recall associations and then directly link them to each other displaying their knowledge structure, i.e., perception. Data were analyzed using content analysis and semantic network analysis. Consumers' perception of urban farming is related to the following categories: environment, society, economy, and food and attributes. The number of positive associations is much higher than the number of negative associations signaling that consumers would be likely to accept farming close to where they live. Furthermore, our findings show that individuals' perceptions can differ greatly in terms of what they associate with urban farming and how they evaluate it. While some only think of a few things, others have well-developed knowledge structures. Overall, investigating consumers' perception helps designing strategies for the successful adoption of urban farming.

Introduction

At present, the number of people living in urban areas worldwide is over three billion, or 55% of the world population, and it is projected that 68% of the world's population will be living in urban areas by 2050 ( United Nations, 2018 ). In the United States alone, 82% of the population currently lives in urban areas ( World Bank, 2016 ). The continued expansion of cities nationwide places a heavy toll on the demand for resources, such as sustainable infrastructure and affordable food retail options, to meet the basic needs of households living within city limits. Within the food sector, the accelerating rate of migration into cities coupled with a growing population imposes the challenge of producing sufficient quantities of food ( Satterthwaite et al., 2010 ). This challenge needs to be addressed to ensure everyone has access to high-quality, nutrient-dense food. Simultaneously, it raises the question of how to provide satisfactory nourishment while consumers are increasingly asking for fresh and local foods ( Grebitus et al., 2017 ).

With urbanization on the rise, one solution to this challenge is the development and expansion of urban agriculture 1 . Figure 1 below shows the replacement of agricultural areas (yellow) by urban areas (red) in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Urban agriculture is a growing sector within the farming industry that aims to increase overall food production in urban and peri-urban areas through the conversion of available land into agricultural farms. As reported in Smith et al. (2017) , there are 67,032 vacant parcels (19,592 hectares) potentially suitable for urban agriculture in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.

Figure 1 . Land use map showing the replacement of agricultural areas (yellow) by urban areas (red). Data from the 2006 and 2016 USGS National Land Cover Dataset.

Cities across the United States have already begun to integrate food production, such as commercial urban farms and private or community gardens, into communities ( Hughes and Boys, 2015 ; Printezis and Grebitus, 2018 ). To predict whether urban farming will be successful and to influence its longevity, it is important to understand consumer perception ( Grebitus and Bruhn, 2008 ). Hence, the objective of this research is to investigate how consumers perceive urban farming and to evaluate whether they would accept this form of commercial agriculture close to their residence.

Food produced in urban and peri-urban communities has various implications. For example, for small- to mid-size farmers, the profitability of urban farmers can be dependent on producing local foods that can be (exclusively) sold through direct channels, such as farmers markets. Urban agriculture also has an effect on societal health. Direct access to local produce through direct-to-consumer marketing channels affects the dietary quality and diversity of food choices of urban consumers. Unlike large agricultural production facilities that occupy 75% of the land in the U.S. and predominantly grow commodity crops used for animal feed, biofuels, and industrial inputs ( DeHaan, 2015 ), outputs from urban agricultural production are largely specialty crops, which require comparatively minimal processing before consumption. Specialty crops, which include most fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts, are rich in nutrients, vitamins, and minerals and are constituents of an optimal diet ( WHO, 2018 ). In this way, both the increased consumption of fruits and vegetables along with the diversity of produce consumed is closely linked with positive human health outcomes and serves as a measure of societal health. Finally, urban agriculture affects environmental quality through changes in urban-vegetation-atmosphere interactions, e.g., the reduction in food miles and the mitigation effects of urban heat islands, as a result of urban agriculture practices. Overall, urban agriculture has the potential to provide a number of benefits, for instance, improving sustainability, and local ecology ( Wakefield et al., 2007 ), assisting with food security ( Dimitri et al., 2016 ; Freedman et al., 2016 ; Sadler, 2016 ), and contributing to healthy dietary patterns ( Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010 ; Warren et al., 2015 ).

Alternatively, urban agriculture may produce negative externalities ( Brown and Jameton, 2000 ; Wortman and Lovell, 2013 ). For example, a farmer growing food in a city might encounter pushback by the people living next to the farm who might be bothered by dirt and noise from machinery, odors from organic fertilizers, or they might be afraid that pesticides and fertilizers are polluting the air they breathe and the water they drink. A recent study by Wielemaker et al. (2019) showed urban farmers apply fertilizers in excess of crop needs by 450–600%, potentially leading to negative public perceptions. At the same time, urban farms might be preferred due to access to fresh, local, nutrient-dense food which enhance positive perceptions. This suggests that consumers' perception and acceptance of urban farms is vital to ensure that urban agriculture can be successful ( Grebitus et al., 2017 ).

Previous empirical research on urban agriculture has focused on investigating the relationship between urban agriculture and nutrition (variety, food security, and nutrition status), with a particular emphasis on its role in developing countries [see Warren et al. (2015) for a broad review of previous studies]. Mougeot (2005) compiles case studies of development strategies used by developing countries and pays specific attention to the potential that urban agriculture has in meeting development goals (e.g., increased food availability, decreased poverty, increased health status) in each respective country. Studies focused on developed countries highlight the social context of urban agriculture. They assess how community gardens affect communities ( Armstrong, 2000 ; Wakefield et al., 2007 ; Firth et al., 2011 ), analyze what urban farmers need when only limited resources are available ( Surls et al., 2015 ), and examine success factors of urban agriculture, such as positive consumer attitudes and increased knowledge regarding local food production ( Grebitus et al., 2017 ).

Recently, Grebitus et al. (2017) found in a quantitative online consumer survey that consumers perceive urban agriculture positively based on food quality characteristics, such as food safety and health. More generally, related to perception, they find the three sustainability pillars (economy, society, and environment) are important with regards to consumer perception. Nevertheless, the authors state that consumers' perception is sometimes conflicting. For example, some consumers perceive produce from urban farms as less expensive while others perceive it as more expensive. Our research builds on the study by Grebitus et al. (2017) by investigating the in-depth perception of urban farming using qualitative, exploratory methods in a face-to-face study. While Grebitus et al. (2017) used a word association test, we employ the method of concept mapping. Concept maps can uncover cognitive structures related to urban farming and show differences between individuals regarding their knowledge structures.

The implications of our findings will offer several insights to those charged with designing and implementing food and agricultural policy. Such policies have the potential to affect new and emerging trends in urban communities, stimulate the growth of direct-to-consumer marketing channels where small- to mid-size farmers sell their products and address the effects of urban agriculture on the environment. Our results will provide insight into how urban farming is perceived by individuals to ensure that incorporating farms in urban areas is accepted by those living there. For example, if our analysis shows that consumers are apprehensive and afraid, e.g., of pesticides or fertilizer run-off, targeted communication can be used to alleviate such tensions.

In the following section, the methodological background is described covering concept mapping, counting, and content analysis. Section three presents the results and section four concludes.

Materials and Methods

Concept mapping.

In consumer behavior research, perception is defined as subjective and selective information processing ( Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009 ). Whether something is positively or negatively perceived by consumers is determined by cognitive structures, i.e., semantic networks, which capture a part of the knowledge (associations/concepts) in memory ( Martin, 1985 ; Joiner, 1998 ). A semantic network is composed of nodes, which represent concepts and units of information, and links, connecting the concepts, which represent the type and the strength of the association between the concepts ( Cowley and Mitchell, 2003 ). To investigate perception toward urban farming we aim to provide insight into consumers' individual cognitive structures, i.e., semantic networks ( Kanwar et al., 1981 ; Jonassen et al., 1993 ).

Associative elicitation techniques are appropriate to analyze semantic networks ( Bonato, 1990 ). By presenting stimuli, spontaneous reactions and unconscious thoughts are evoked and enable us to analyze individual cognitive structures ( Grebitus and Bruhn, 2008 ). A great variety of associative elicitation techniques exists, ranging from the most qualitative techniques like word association technique ( Roininen et al., 2006 ; Ares et al., 2008 ) to more structured techniques such as repertory grid ( Sampson, 1972 ; Russell and Cox, 2004 ) or laddering ( Grunert and Bech-Larsen, 2005 ).

For this study, the qualitative graphing procedure concept mapping was chosen. Concept mapping is a method that produces a schematic representation of the relationships of stored units of information, which are activated by the stimulus ( Zsambok, 1993 ). The interviewees are asked to recall freely their associations concerning a certain stimulus ( Olson and Muderrisoglu, 1979 ). Additionally, they are asked to directly link the associations to each other, which allows the visualization of the semantic networks ( Bonato, 1990 ). The open setting of tasks optimizes the variety of associations of the interviewees ( Joiner, 1998 ). Concept map diagrams are two-dimensional and show relationships between units of information concerning a certain theme. The concepts are understood as terms, i.e., associations, which come to mind regarding the stimulus ( Jonassen et al., 1993 ).

Concept mapping is supported by semantic network theory and can be explained using the spreading activation network model ( Rye and Rubba, 1998 ). Retrieving stored knowledge can be explained by the spreading activation ( Collins and Loftus, 1975 ; Anderson, 1983a , b ). When consumers perceive/associate something with a stimulus, information-processing takes place and cognitive structures are activated for interpretation, assessment, and decision-making. The stored knowledge is retrieved by spreading activation from associations ( Anderson, 1983b ). In this context, existing networks are active cognitive units that can, once activated, influence behavior directly ( Olson, 1978 ). How much and what information is integrated into the information-processing depends on the construction of the semantic network ( Cowley and Mitchell, 2003 ).

The spread of activation constantly expands through the links to all connected nodes (associations) in the network, starting with the first activated concept. At first, it expands to all the nodes directly linked to the first node, and then to all the nodes linked to each of those nodes. This way, the activation is spreading through all nodes of the network, even through those nodes that are only indirectly associated with the “stimulus node” ( Collins and Loftus, 1975 ). The stronger the link between two nodes, the easier and faster the activation passes to the connected nodes ( Cowley and Mitchell, 2003 ). How far the activation spreads also depends on the distance from the stimulus node. Concepts that are closely related and directly linked will be activated faster and with higher intensity ( Henderson et al., 1998 ). See Figure 2 for an illustration of nodes and links in a semantic network.

Figure 2 . Illustrative figure of a semantic network.

The concept mapping technique elicits respondents to recall knowledge from long-term memory and to write down what they know, which stimulates the spread of activation in memory ( Rye and Rubba, 1998 ). The more linkages a semantic network contains, the higher is the dimensionality and complexity of cognitive structures. The higher the dimensionality of the cognitive structures, the larger the number of concepts that can be activated and the more differentiated and complex the networks ( Kanwar et al., 1981 ). Depending on personal relevance and involvement, consumers' semantic networks are more or less extensively structured ( Peter and Olson, 2008 ).

Concept Mapping Application to Urban Agriculture

To conduct the concept mapping procedure, we adapted the instructions used by Grebitus (2008) . Respondents received an instructions page. At the top of the page, the respondents read the following passage:

Researchers believe that our knowledge is stored in memory. The knowledge we have can be described through central concepts and the relationship between them. These concepts depict our belief of different knowledge domains such as food or vacation. These beliefs can also be related to each other. For example, when you think of a car, you may spontaneously think of “tires”, “white”, or “traffic”. If you then think further, “gas” and “expensive” may come to mind. These can also be related to each other and thus are indirectly related with a car. People have a lot of such associations. To find out yours is one objective of this study .

Respondents were then given a blank piece of paper and started by writing the term “Urban Farming” in the center of the paper. They were then instructed to start thinking of anything that comes to mind, related to the key concept and write it down. After writing down the concepts, the interviewees had to construct the concept map by connecting all the words that they believe, in their minds, are related to each other and belong to each other (i.e., drawing links). Then, they had to add a plus or minus to associations they thought to be positive or negative.

To investigate how many associations and what kind of information is stored in memory concerning urban farming, the items were counted and aggregated ( Kanwar et al., 1981 ; Martin, 1985 ; Grebitus, 2008 ). Next, the individual associations were evaluated using qualitative content analysis following Mayring (2002) . This allowed us to make assumptions, and investigate intent and motivation regarding the topic in a formal way ( Stempel, 1981 ; Hsia, 1988 ). Content analysis is an objective and systematic way to apply quantitative measures to qualitative data ( Stempel, 1981 ; Wimmer and Dominick, 1983 ; Hsia, 1988 , p. 320).

The aim of this study is to provide meaning to the participants' associations. Hence, we classified the content according to categories. This offers a framework to assess the perception of urban farming. The associations written down by the respondents in the concept maps regarding the key stimulus, urban farming, were organized and categorized, then they were added up into frequencies ( Bonato, 1990 ; Lamnek, 1995 ). The categories are the core of the perception analysis. They are used to investigate the topic further ( Wimmer and Dominick, 1983 ). Therefore, the categories should be closely related to the research topic. They have to be practical, reliable, comprehensive (each word fits into one of the categories) and mutually exclusive (each word fits only one category) ( Stempel, 1981 ; Wimmer and Dominick, 1983 ). In this research, we used the categories provided by Grebitus et al. (2017) who used a word association test for the key concept: urban agriculture, a close proxy for the one used in our study “urban farming.” Accordingly, we used the three sustainability pillars Economy, Society, and Environment, as well as, Food and Attributes, and Others as categories to group the data for urban farming in a meaningful way.

Empirical Results

Design of the study and sample characteristics.

To investigate consumer perception of urban farming, exploratory, face-to-face interviews were conducted. The qualitative graphing procedure concept mapping was used to reveal consumers' associations regarding urban farming. In addition to concept mapping, participants filled out a survey to collect socio-demographic information. For detailed information on the data collected, refer to Table S1 in the Supplementary Material.

We collected data in Phoenix, AZ. We chose this location because the Phoenix metropolitan area is ideal for a case study as it is home to a large and growing urban population. Phoenix provides context that has many similar natural and social complexities and barriers (e.g., climate challenges, a lack of food access, rapidly growing, diverse, multi-cultural population), with a large variance in educational and economic levels of residents compared to other urban areas in the U.S. The Phoenix metropolitan area (i.e., Maricopa and Pinal Counties) is the eleventh largest metro area in the U.S. with Maricopa County identified as the fastest-growing county in the U.S. ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 ). This rapid population growth demonstrates an important need for sustainable urban farming practices, given the benefits of food security, economic stability, and environmental conservation. Phoenix has a climate where food can be grown all year round, with multiple growing seasons. The extended growing season allows harvest year-round and may affect consumer purchasing patterns and related dietary quality differently than when food is grown only during certain seasons. Meanwhile, Phoenix experiences unique climatic extremes: from being an urban heat island, experiencing short and long-term drought, while simultaneously dealing with seasonal monsoons that can bring rapid and devastating flooding. Hence, urban farming might have different environmental impacts compared to cities where this is not the case. Also, within urban planning and development, Phoenix has begun to recognize urban agriculture as an attractive fixture in revitalizing communities, especially since urban expansion has replaced nearby agriculture at a large rate ( Shrestha et al., 2012 ). Also, Phoenix has vacant land available that can potentially be used for urban farming ( Aragon et al., 2019 ).

We interviewed a total of 19 participants in the summer of 2019 at two locations. A total of 14 participants were interviewed at a large public farmers' market. Another five participants were interviewed at a second location near an open green space 2 . All interviews were carried out by one interviewer. The sample is a convenience sample. Participants were reimbursed for their time with $10 each.

In terms of sample characteristics, 47% of the sample were female, the average age was 38 years old. Household size was on average three persons in the household, with 26% having children in the household. 21% were graduate students and 21% were undergraduate students. In terms of the level of education, 26% had some college education, 32% a Bachelor's degree, and 42% a graduate degree.

Perception of Urban Farming: Results From Content Analysis

This paper aims to analyze consumers' perception of urban farming. This objective is based on the notion that for urban farming to be more fully and successfully integrated into urban and peri-urban communities, consumers need to perceive it positively.

Table 1 depicts the descriptive findings for the counting of the concepts of the two groups and the total over both samples. The results show a total of 333 associations were written down when considering all participants. The mean is 17.5 concepts with a standard deviation of 13.5. The lowest number of concepts associated with urban farming is eight, the highest 68. The farmers' market sample had a higher mean (18.4) than the second location ( M = 15). The standard deviation, however, was considerably smaller at the second location ( SD = 5.1) compared to the farmers' market sample ( SD = 15.5).

Table 1 . Descriptive statistics for the associated concepts.

Among the 333 concepts were single terms (e.g., community, convenience, microclimate) and whole phrases [e.g., “Creates ‘villages' (people work together)”]. Following Grebitus et al. (2017) , the concepts were grouped into five categories: Economy, Society, Environment, Food and Attributes, and Other shown in Table 2 . Note, Grebitus et al. (2017) had a sixth category, Point of Sale, but this did not apply to our data. Findings show that participants primarily think of environment-related associations (36%) followed by specific foods and attributes associated with urban farming (25%), and society (20%). The category economy ranks fourth with 11%.

Table 2 . Content categories.

Table 3 shows the associations that were organized in the categories. To reduce the large number of associations, concepts were merged based on similarity using content analysis. For example, “community,” “community centered,” and “community experience” were aggregated up to “community” (see the complete list of associations in Appendix A included in the Supplementary Material). The strongest category, “environment” is dominated by associations related to production (33% of category associations) and conservation (14% of category associations), as well as agriculture (8% of category associations) and waste (8% of category associations). “Sustainability,” “environment,” “beautification,” and “pollution” are also included in this category. The category “food and attributes,” is dominated by associations related to health (14% of category associations) and fresh (11% of category associations), as well as convenience (10% of category associations) and food security (10% of category associations). “Local,” “plant,” and “produce” are also mentioned, as well as, “location” and “organic.” The category “society” is dominated by associations related to community building (39% of category associations), education (27% of category associations), family (9% of category associations) and municipality (8%). “Advocacy,” “research,” “migration trends,” and “youth” also fit this category. The category “economy” is dominated by associations related to cost (35% of category associations) and labor (16% of category associations), as well as economics (14% of category associations) and externalities (14% of category associations). “Policy,” “benefits,” and “vocation” are the remaining associations in this category. The category “other” entails associations, such as “positive feelings” and “gratitude,” that did not fit in the other established categories. Out of all associations, community and sustainability are among those associated most with urban farms. The result that these two concepts are the most prevalent among our responses suggests the importance of environmentally sustainable farms in urban communities.

Table 3 . Results of concept mapping and content analysis.

Overall, findings show that consumers mainly associate production and environmentally related concepts with urban farming. Many food attribute associations can be considered as generally positive, such as “fresh,” “healthy,” “convenient,” “organic,” and “local.” Participants also associate sustainability and conservation with urban farming. They think of social aspects, such as “flourishing neighborhood,” “friend development,” and “meet other gardeners,” when asked about urban farming. Furthermore, urban farming evokes thoughts of “the economy,” “saving money,” “reducing grocery cost,” and “cost effectiveness.” In this regard, we find some differing opinions with some participants believing that they can save money while others consider urban farming is expensive. This is an indicator that urban farming most likely will not be perceived positively by everyone. Some citizens will be in favor of urban farming and others not. This could be resolved using educational measures given that previous studies have shown that individuals do not feel very knowledgeable with regards to urban agriculture ( Grebitus et al., 2017 ).

To get a better understanding of consumer acceptance of urban farming and whether they perceive urban farming as predominantly positive or negative, they were asked to indicate with a plus (+) those associations they think are positive, and with a minus (–) those they consider to be negative. Table 4 summarizes the number of positive and negative evaluations that were given. Appendix A provides a complete list of all associations including the evaluations. As shown in Table 4 , urban farming is mainly perceived as positive. Seventy-three percent (73%) of all associations are evaluated positively while only 15% are evaluated as negative. Less than two percent (1.5%) of the associations fall in the category where individuals felt it could go either way. Except for ID 7, all participants that evaluated their associations have a larger share of positively perceived characteristics. ID 7 has 20% positive and 80% negative associations. Only a small share of associations was left unevaluated. Examples of positive associations are “community,” “environment,” “fresh,” “local,” “green,” “farmer's market,” “healthy,” “organic,” and “sustainability.” Meanwhile, “cost,” “expensive,” “pollution,” “smell,” “possible bacteria,” “disease,” and “pesticides” are examples of negative associations.

Table 4 . Evaluation of Urban farming.

Perception of Urban Farming: Results From Semantic Network Analysis

After considering what associations are stored in memory regarding urban farming, this section aims to give insight into how the information is stored and what relationships exist between the stated concepts described in the section Perception of urban farming: Results from content analysis. In this regard, figures 3 through 7 show five different concept maps as examples of semantic networks from five different participants, illustrated by the use of the software UCInet ( Borgatti et al., 2002 ). The concept maps differ in shape and complexity.

Figure 3 is a star-shaped semantic network ( Wasserman and Faust, 1994 ). Based on the spreading activation network theory, this pattern means that when “urban farming” is activated, i.e., the individual thinks about it all related associations will be activated and included in thoughts, evaluations and decision making. In this case, sustainability, jobs, information, livestock, possible pesticides, aesthetic and food. These associations can then lead to further associations if the activation is strong enough. For example, possible pesticides can lead to thoughts about runoff in public areas.

Figure 3 . Example of an individual network 1 (location 1, ID 10).

Figure 4 depicts a graph that contains three cycles but is also mainly in a star-shaped composition ( Wasserman and Faust, 1994 ). Here, urban farming is seen as family-oriented, providing fresh food with less pollution and less space, e.g., when using hydroponics.

Figure 4 . Example of an individual network 2 (location 2, ID 19).

Figure 5 depicts a graph in a tree-shaped composition ( Wasserman and Faust, 1994 ). In this case, more activation is needed to reach associations that are further away from the key stimulus. For example, self-sufficient adults might not be activated, and hence not be included in decisions unless the activation is strong. That said this individual has a semantic network that is more developed in terms of linking associations further. For example, the individual thinks that urban farming is a community experience that can lead to youth interaction, which then should ultimately lead to self-sufficient adults.

Figure 5 . Example of an individual network 3 (location 2, ID 16).

Figure 6 displays a more complex semantic network as displayed by the larger number of associations that are more connected to each other. This individual thinks urban farming can save money, land, and resources in general. The individual also associates organic and easy access, i.e., convenience with urban farming. Community is linked to urban farming and then has links to togetherness and beneficial. Togetherness, in turn, is linked to family and neighbors which are both connected to understanding. This suggests that urban farming could play a role in the communication of people living together, the family and the neighbors.

Figure 6 . Example of an individual network 4 (location 2, ID 17).

Figure 7 displays the most complex semantic network of the participants with over 60 associations. In this case, a lot of activation would be needed so that the individual would access all stored information regarding urban farming. For example, between intermittent fasting and urban farming, six other associations need to be activated and processed before intermittent fasting is accessed. This individual points out less favorable associations, such as “neighbor complaints,” which are related to “smell” and “noise.” Overall, this concept map is highly differentiated and complex.

Figure 7 . Example of an individual network 5 (location 1, ID 12).

These examples are by no means exhaustive. There is a wide variety of different network structures among the 19 individuals. However, there are few visual differences observed between the concept maps of the two groups in terms of shapes and structures. Each group varies in complexity. Some participants have complex cognitive structures using a great number of associations, while others hold simple cognitive structures, i.e., semantic networks, which can be explained by the use of key information. In this case, urban farming is related to several key associations, so that the activation of a lower amount of stored information is sufficient for its perception. The rather simple network structures can also result from low familiarity with urban farming or a potential lack of interest by some individuals.

Urban agriculture offers a promising opportunity to provide direct access to fresh produce close to urban residents. This may enhance dietary quality and food diversity while addressing consumers' preference for local food. However, urban agriculture will only be successful if it is accepted and perceived positively by those living in close proximity. Therefore, one must account for consumer perception. Hence, our research provides an exploratory analysis of consumer perception regarding urban farming catering to the success of urban agriculture.

To better evaluate consumers' perception, we employ the method of concept mapping in an exploratory and qualitative study of 19 participants from the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. This analysis provided 333 associations with urban farming. Using content analysis, five categories—Environment, Food and Attributes, Society, Economy and Other—were distinguished to group the concepts/associations in a meaningful way. Participants offered a great variety of perceptions, such as organic, local, community, family, agriculture, and sustainability. One of the overarching themes that emerged from our study was the myriad positive perceptions, e.g., fresh, local, and green. Though negative associations exist, e.g., expensive, possible disease, and pollution, these were fewer in comparison. From a marketing standpoint, highlighting those positive aspects of urban agriculture could incite a more favorable perception and willingness to accept urban agriculture. This could also present opportunities for cities to offer incentives to households who do perceive urban farming negatively. The negative associations also deserve further research as they have the potential to deter the further development of urban agriculture.

In terms of individual semantic networks concerning urban farming, we found that there are vast differences regarding how many associations individuals hold and how connected the associations are. Generally, the more associations and the more links in a network the greater the expertise and involvement. Investigating this more deeply could be used to infer educational strategies.

The use of concept mapping offers detailed insight into participants' semantic networks. It serves as an important, theoretically motivated tool to demonstrate what individuals think and how different concepts are related to each other. Individuals' evaluations of positive and negative associations enables the researcher to determine if the researched area (e.g., urban farming) is perceived favorably or not. That said, knowledge structures are complex, and, with increasing sample sizes, analysis on topics that induce many associations – both positive and negative – can quickly become computationally intensive.

This research is not without limitations. While our findings are encouraging toward acceptance of farming in the city, it should be kept in mind that this is an exploratory study. The present study analyzes stored information, i.e., semantic networks regarding urban farming using qualitative methods for a small sample size from only two study locations, so the results might be dependent on the study area. A more robust approach would be sampling from different regions in the U.S. Future research should include a larger number of participants and expand to more study sites. In doing so, recommendations to stakeholders can be made for the successful integration of sustainable urban agriculture. Garnering an understanding of regional perceptions is of importance, as minimizing the length of the supply chain is associated with a number of benefits, especially in resource-limited environments like the Southwest, and improved well-being at the individual level. Future research could examine the multi-scalar dynamics of urban agriculture, shedding light on market opportunities for agricultural producers and regulators, while simultaneously identifying those factors that could lead to market rejection, e.g., consumer reactance, or practices that may reduce the long-term environmental sustainability of the urban farm. Ultimately, there is a need for interdisciplinary research, for instance, between social scientists, economists, and agroecologists to provide insight into different perspectives that underscore the future success and adoption of urban agriculture.

Data Availability Statement

All datasets generated for this study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material .

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Arizona State University IRB, Study Number STUDY00010463. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

CG contributed to conception and design of the study, organized the database, performed the analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. LC served as secondary writer of the manuscript and contributed to study design. LC and RM contributed to initial discussions of methods and the review of the concept categorization. RM reviewed and revised the draft for important intellectual content and created Figure 1 . AM contributed to conception and design of the study. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

This work was supported by EASM-3: Collaborative Research: Physics-Based Predictive Modeling for Integrated Agricultural and Urban Applications, USDA-NIFA (Grant Number: 2015-67003-23508), NSF-MPS-DMS (Award Number: 1419593), and by the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, Arizona State University.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00079/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ The FAO defines urban agriculture as “a dynamic concept that comprises a variety of livelihood systems ranging from subsistence production and processing at the household level to more commercialized agriculture. It takes place in different locations and under varying socioeconomic conditions and political regimes” ( FAO, 2007 , p. 5).

2. ^ Note the relatively small sample size in this study. While this would be a drawback for a quantitative study targeting to be representative, our objective is to provide an exploratory study on the perception of urban farming. The aim is not to uncover the perception of the whole population. In that case, a method such as concept mapping would not be well-suited, rather one would use free elicitation technique. That said, free elicitation technique does not allow for a depiction of cognitive structures. This could be tackled by future research. In this research, we set out to conduct qualitative research. The sample size for qualitative studies often ranges from 5 to 50 participants, as pointed out by Dworkin (2012) : “An extremely large number of articles, book chapters, and books recommend guidance and suggest anywhere from 5 to 50 participants as adequate.” Participant numbers are similarly small, for example in studies by Sonneville et al. (2009) ; Lachal et al. (2012) ; Bennett et al. (2013) ; Van Gilder and Abdi (2014) ; Takahashi et al. (2016) ; Hunold et al. (2017) , and Mitter et al. (2019) ranging from 12 to 21.

Anderson, J. R. (1983a). Retrieval of information from long-term memory. Science 220, 25–30. doi: 10.1126/science.6828877

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1983b). A spreading activation theory of memory. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 22, 261–295. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90201-3

Aragon, N. U., Stuhlmacher, M., Smith, J. P., Clinton, N., and Georgescu, M. (2019). Urban agriculture's bounty: contributions to phoenix's sustainability goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:105001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab428f

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ares, G., Gámbaro, A., and Giménez, A. (2008). Understanding consumers' perception of conventional and functional yoghurts using word association and hard laddering. Food Qual. Prefer . 19, 636–643. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.05.005

Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: implications for health promotion and community development. Health Place 6, 319–327. doi: 10.1016/S1353-8292(00)00013-7

Bennett, J., Greene, G., and Schwartz-Barcott, D. (2013). Perceptions of emotional eating behavior. A qualitative study of college students. Appetite 60, 187–192. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.09.023

Bonato, M. (1990). Wissensstrukturierung mittels struktur-lege-techniken, eine graphentheoretische analyse von wissensnetzen, europäische hochschulschriften. Psychologie 6:297.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., and Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis . Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Brown, K. H., and Jameton, A. L. (2000). Public health implications of urban agriculture. J. Public Health Policy 21, 20–39. doi: 10.2307/3343472

Collins, A. M., and Loftus, E. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol. Rev . 82, 407–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407

Cowley, E., and Mitchell, A. (2003). The moderating effect of product knowledge on the learning and organization of product information. J. Consum. Res . 30, 443–454. doi: 10.1086/378620

DeHaan, L. R. (2015). “Perennial crops are a key to sustainably productive agriculture,” in Food Security: Production and Sustainability . Institute on Science for Global Policy, ISGP Academic Partnership with Eckerd College. Available online at: https://www.scienceforglobalpolicy.org (accessed May, 2020).

Google Scholar

Dimitri, C., Oberholtzer, L., and Pressman, A. (2016). Urban agriculture: connecting producers with consumers. Br. Food J. 118, 603–617. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-06-2015-0200

Dworkin, S. L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Arch. Sex. Behav. 41, 1319–1320. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6

FAO (2007). Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture . Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper 19.

Firth, C., Maye, D., and Pearson, D. (2011). Developing “community” in community gardens. Local Environ. 16, 555–568. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2011.586025

Freedman, D. A., Vaudrin, N., Schneider, C., Trapl, E., Ohri-Vachaspati, P., and Taggart, M‘. (2016). Systematic review of factors influencing farmers' market use overall and among low-income populations. J. Acad. Nutr. Dietetics 116, 1136–1155. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.02.010

Grebitus, C. (2008): Food Quality from the Consumer's Perspective - An Empirical Analysis of Perceived Pork Quality . Göttingen: Cuvillier Publisher.

Grebitus, C., and Bruhn, M. (2008). Analysing semantic networks of pork quality by means of concept mapping. Food Qual. Prefer. 19, 86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.07.007

Grebitus, C., Printezis, I., and Printezis, A. (2017). Relationship between consumer behavior and success of urban agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 136, 189–200. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.010

Grunert, K. G., and Bech-Larsen, T. (2005). Explaining choice option attractiveness by beliefs elicited by the laddering method. J. Econ. Psychol. 26, 223–241. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2004.04.002

Henderson, G. R., Iacobucci, D., and Calder, B. J. (1998). Brand diagnostics: mapping branding effects using consumer associative networks. Eur. J. Operat . Res. 111, 306–327. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00151-9

Hsia, H. J. (1988). “Mass communications research methods: a step-by-step approach,” in Communication Textbook Series. Mass Communication , eds J. Bryant and A. M. Rubin (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.).

Hughes, D.W., and Boys, K. A. (2015). What we know and don't know about the economic development benefits of local food systems . Choices 1–6 . Available online at: http://choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/community-economics-of-local-foods/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-the-economic-development-benefits-of-local-food-systems (accessed May, 2020).

Hunold, C., Sorunmu, Y., Lindy, R., Spatari, S., and Gurian, P. (2017). Is urban agriculture financially sustainable? An exploratory study of small-scale market farming in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commun. Dev. 7, 51–67. doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2017.072.012

Joiner, C. (1998). Concept mapping in marketing: a research tool for uncovering consumers' knowledge structure associations. Adv. Consum. Res. 25, 311–317.

Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., and Yacci, M. (1993). Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Conveying and Acquiring Structural Knowledge . Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge.

Kanwar, R., Olson, J. C., and Sims, L. S. (1981). Toward conceptualizing and measuring cognitive structures. Adv. Consum. Res. 8, 122–127.

Kroeber-Riel, W., Weinberg, P., and Gröppel-Klein, A. (2009). Konsumentenverhalten, 9th Edn . München: Vahlen.

Lachal, J., Speranza, M., Taïeb, O., Falissard, B., Lefèvre, H., Moro, M. R., and Revah-Levy, A. Q. (2012). Qualitative research using photo-elicitation to explore the role of food in family relationships among obese adolescents. Appetite 58, 1099–1105. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.045

Lamnek, S. (1995). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Band 2: Methoden und Techniken, 3rd Edn. Weinheim Verlag.

Martin, J. (1985). Measuring clients' cognitive competence in research on counseling. J. Couns. Dev. 63, 556–560. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1985.tb00680.x

Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu Qualitativem Denken, 5th Edn . Weinheim: Beltz Studium.

Mitter, H., Larcher, M., Schönhart, M., Stöttinger, M., and Schmid, E. (2019). Exploring farmers' climate change perceptions and adaptation intentions: empirical evidence from Austria. Environ. Manag. 63, 804–821. doi: 10.1007/s00267-019-01158-7

Mougeot, L. J. (Ed.). (2005). Agropolis: The Social, Political, and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture . London: IDRC.

Olson, J. C. (1978). Inferential belief formation in the cue utilization process. Adv. Consum. Res . 5, 706–713.

Olson, J. C., and Muderrisoglu, A. (1979). The stability of responses obtained by free elicitation: implications for measuring attribute salience and memory structures. Adv. Consum . Res. 6, 269–275.

Peter, J. P., and Olson, J. C. (2008). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 8th Edn. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin Series in Marketing.

Printezis, I., and Grebitus, C. (2018). Marketing channels for local food. Ecol. Econ. 152, 161–171. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.021

Roininen, K., Arvola, A., and Lähteenmäki, L. (2006). Exploring consumers' perceptions of local food with two different qualitative techniques: laddering and word association. Food Qual. Prefer. 17, 20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.04.012

Russell, C., and Cox, D. (2004). Understanding middle-aged consumers' perception of meat using repertory grid methodology. Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 317–329. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00073-9

Rye, J. A., and Rubba, P. A. (1998). An exploration of the concept map as an interview tool to facilitate the externalization of students' understandings about global atmospheric change. J. Res. Sci. Teach . 35, 521–546. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199805)35:5<521::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO2-R

Sadler, R. C. (2016). Strengthening the core, improving access: bringing healthy food downtown via a farmers' market move. Appl. Geogr. 67, 119–128. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.12.010

Sampson, P. (1972). Using the repertory grid test. J. Market. Res . 9, 78–81. doi: 10.1177/002224377200900117

Satterthwaite, D., McGranahan, G., and Tacoli, C. (2010). Urbanization and its implications for food and farming. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Series B Biol. Sci. 365, 2809–2820. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0136

Shrestha, M. K., York, A. M., Boone, C. G., and Zhang, S. (2012). Land fragmentation due to rapid urbanization in the phoenix metropolitan area: analyzing the spatiotemporal patterns and drivers. Appl. Geogr. 32, 522–531. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.04.004

Smith, J. P., Li, X., and Turner, B. L. (2017). Lots for greening: identification of metropolitan vacant land and its potential use for cooling and agriculture in phoenix, AZ, USA. Appl. Geogr. 85, 139–151. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.06.005

Sonneville, K. R., La Pelle, N., Taveras, E. M., Gillman, M. W., and Prosser, L. A. (2009). Economic and other barriers to adopting recommendations to prevent childhood obesity: results of a focus group study with parents. BMC Pediatr 9:81. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-81

Stempel, G. H. III. (1981). “Content analysis,” in Research Methods in Mass Communication , eds G. H. Stempel III and B. H. Westley (New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc.).

Surls, R., Feenstra, G., Golden, S., Galt, R., Hardesty, S., Napawan, C., et al. (2015). Gearing up to support urban farming in California: preliminary results of a needs assessment. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30, 33–42. doi: 10.1017/S1742170514000052

Takahashi, B., Burnham, M., Terracina-Hartman, C., Sopchak, A. R., and Selfa, T. (2016). Climate change perceptions of NY state farmers: the role of risk perceptions and adaptive capacity. Environ. Manag. 58, 946–957. doi: 10.1007/s00267-016-0742-y

U.S. Census Bureau (2019). Annual Estimates of the Resident Population. American FactFinder . Available online at: https://www.factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.%20xhtml?src=CF (accessed February 10, 2019).

United Nations (2018). 68% of the World Population Projected to live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN. Available online at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html (accessed April 12, 2019).

Van Gilder, B., and Abdi, S. (2014). Identity management and the fostering of network ignorance: accounts of queer Iranian women in the United States. J. Intercult. Commun. Res. 43, 151–170. doi: 10.1080/17475759.2014.892895

Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., and Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health: community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promot. Int. 22, 92–101. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dam001

Warren, E., Hawkesworth, S., and Knai, C. (2015). Investigating the association between urban agriculture and food security, dietary diversity, and nutritional status: a systematic literature review. Food Policy 53, 54–66. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.03.004

Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815478

WHO (2018). WHO . Available online at: http://www.who.int/elena/titles/fruit_vegetables_ncds/en/ (accessed August 23, 2018).

Wielemaker, R., Oenema, O., Zeeman, G., and Weijma, J. (2019). Fertile cities: nutrient management practices in urban agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 1277–1288. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.424

Wimmer, R. D., and Dominick, J. R. (1983). “Mass media research. An introduction,” in Wadsworth Series in Mass Communication , ed R. Hayden (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company).

World Bank (2016). Urban Population (% of total) . Available online at: https://www.data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS (accessed January 15, 2017).

Wortman, S. E., and Lovell, S. T. (2013). Environmental challenges threatening the growth of urban agriculture in the United States. J. Environ. Qual. 42, 1283–1294. doi: 10.2134/jeq2013.01.0031

Zezza, A., and Tasciotti, L. (2010). Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy 35, 265–273. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.007

Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Implications of a recognitional decision model for consumer behavior. Adv. Consum. Res. 20, 239–244.

Keywords: cognitive structures, concept mapping, exploratory, semantic network, urban agriculture

Citation: Grebitus C, Chenarides L, Muenich R and Mahalov A (2020) Consumers' Perception of Urban Farming—An Exploratory Study. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:79. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00079

Received: 22 December 2019; Accepted: 01 May 2020; Published: 12 June 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Grebitus, Chenarides, Muenich and Mahalov. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Carola Grebitus, carola.grebitus@asu.edu

This article is part of the Research Topic

Current Status and Trends in Urban Agriculture

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.8(11); 2022 Nov

A review on urban agriculture: technology, socio-economy, and policy

Grace ning yuan.

a College of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University, Kita-ku, Kyoto 603-8577 Japan

Gian Powell B. Marquez

b College of Global Liberal Arts, Ritsumeikan University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-8570 Japan

Haoran Deng

Anastasiia iu, melisa fabella.

c Graduate School of Economics, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Shiga, 525-8577 Japan

Reginald B. Salonga

d Institute for Advanced Education and Research, Nagoya City University, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8501 Japan

Fitrio Ashardiono

e College of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-8570 Japan

Joyce A. Cartagena

f Graduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464 -8601 Japan

Associated Data

Data included in article/supp. material/referenced in article.

It has been a challenge to support the expansion of urban agriculture (UA) in cities due to its poor economic profitability. However, it is also hard to deny the increasing benefits of UA in improving the socio-environmental dimension of cities. Hence, in this review, different aspects of UA were examined to highlight its value beyond profitability such as social, health and well-being, disaster risk reduction, and environmental perspectives. A case study and relevant policies were analyzed to determine how policy makers can bridge the gap between current and future UA practices and sustainable development. Bridging these policy gaps can help the UA sector to sustainably grow and become successfully integrated in cities. Moreover, advancements in UA technologies and plant biotechnology were presented as potential solutions in increasing the future profitability of commercial UA. Consequently, as new UA-related technologies evolve, the multidisciplinary nature of UA and its changing identity from agriculture to digital technology, similarly require adaptive policies. These policies should maximize the potential of UA in contributing to resiliency and sustainability and incentivize the organic integration of UA in cities, while equally serving social justice.

Urban agriculture; Vertical farming; Sustainable city; Policy; Genetically modified plants.

1. Introduction

Agriculture has long been the major source of food for mankind. It has the potential to end world hunger and boost the economies of developing nations. It is also an essential industry that will remain at the center of human activity for many centuries to come. However, the agricultural system practiced today can hardly be called sustainable due to the increasing strain it puts on our planet's scarce resources. Especially with the growing population projected to peak at nearly 11 billion by 2100, agriculture will struggle to meet the needs of the world population ( UN, 2019 ). To shoulder the increasing pressure, expansion of agriculture is necessary, but it is a challenging endeavor in the context of climate change, which requires transition to a model compatible with sustainable development. Urban agriculture (UA), which was practiced since ancient times, captured attention as a potential solution. According to Smit et al. (1996) , UA can be defined as “ an industry that produces, process and markets food and fuel, largely in response to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city or metropolis, on land and water dispersed throughout the urban and peri-urban area, applying intensive production methods, using and reusing natural resources and urban wastes, to yield a diversity of crops and livestock .” UA is being positioned as a sustainable alternative for the traditional methods that require colossal amounts of scarce natural resources such as water.

Preliminary to addressing the contemporary interests in UA, it should be noted that though not as readily exemplified in the modern, developed world, agriculture does in fact have a longstanding history in urban spaces ( Smit et al., 1996 ). Take for instance the widespread implementation of “war gardens” in the United States during the World Wars to bolster domestic food production during times of financial hardship. These gardens were later associated with themes of victory due to their contributions to the war effort and representation of civilian patriotism ( Mares and Peña, 2010 ). Yet another documented example is the use of garden areas in Japan during the Edo era both in and around castles which were cultivated by the local farmers and tenants. Many Japanese cities during this time had integrated land use layouts, employing a combination of farmland and residential space ( Yokohari et al., 2010 ). As Fuji et al. (2002 in Yokohari et al., 2010 ) stated, such systems supplied residents not only with fresh local produce, but with improved standards of sanitation due to their simultaneous utilization of night soil as fertilizer.

When placed in modern discourses however, UA has evolved as an effective tool and commonly cited solution to many contemporary challenges. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out by the United Nations for the year 2030 is a direct manifestation of the types of initiatives in which UA can be employed for developed and developing countries alike. Nicholls et al. (2020) examined urban and peri-urban agriculture by applying relevant sustainable development goals as a framework to consider the “synergies and tradeoffs across multiple objectives.” In doing so, the impacts of UA within society were identified in relation to specific targets such as no poverty, zero hunger, sustainable communities and cities, and climate action. As this review will seek to detail, UA's extensive relation with such a set of goals is demonstrative of the sector's significance in a sustainable future.

The growing number of urban farm initiatives may be attributed largely to its importance in food security efforts. This has coincided with a simultaneous emergence of local food production movements in developed countries with populated metropolitans ( Nicholls, 2020 ). That is, many cities in the Global North have become isolated from the food supply chain which reduced access to commercial fresh produce, and simultaneously limited volume and variety of nutritional foods for the wider public ( Opitz et al., 2016 ). As nearly 68% of the world's population is projected to migrate to urban areas by the year 2050, UA offers the potential to help these vulnerable, populated cities grapple with the subsequent challenge on food insecurity ( Nicholls et al., 2020 ).

Alongside food security, and as this review will also seek to explore, urban and community farming efforts encompass a wider range of beneficial services which require appropriate implementation. In many cities, community farms have offered alternative social benefits to the residents. For example, a study conducted on farms in New York found a wide range of shared goals exhibited by the local farmers. Significantly, it outlined the numerous ways in which practitioners contributed to social, political, economic, and environmental problems external to food production. Some such activities included educational programs and workshops on health and nutrition, environmental restoration, and political activism within the realm of UA ( Cohen and Reynolds, 2014 ).

On the contrary, when coupled with the UA's recent resurgence, the ramification of such diverse approaches and experiences has been the UA's incompatibility with a rather narrowly defined legislative system. This has in turn slowed down or completely inhibited the incorporation of initiatives into cities ( Orsini et al., 2020 ). On the extreme end of this, farming and gardening activities can, and have, become engulfed by unchanging systems making them a part of socially unjust phenomena such as gentrification. For instance, some lower income neighborhoods in San Francisco have become subject to “environmental gentrification” on account of community garden startups which were originally intended to serve the residents. Respective municipalities began noticing the pleasant environment generated by the greenery and open space, and initiated remodeling efforts to conform the neighborhood with middle- and upper-class tastes ( Marche, 2015 ).

Even in instances where UA is not actively contributing to gentrification processes, farms have run into other problems. For instance, small communities or family farms often utilize labor-intensive methods because of a lack of access to necessary equipment or limited awareness of more efficient alternatives. Economic viability is thus compromised due to the low efficiency of material and labor inputs ( McDougall et al., 2019 ). Conversely, some large-scale commercial farms employ newly developed agricultural methods or advanced technological systems to manage large scale urban farms. However, many such operations are still in the developing stage, and may lack policy regulation. Because these systems are still being researched and developed, they can have unintended consequences or implications that require further alterations to make them sustainable. Barbosa et al. (2015) determined the substantial energy consumption of urban hydroponic farms as an example, which offsets its potential for greater yields and water conservation methods. Carolan (2020) also emphasized how tech-based or digital farming is often capital-intensive in nature, which lacks economic viability in the absence of guaranteed long-term profits.

This paper has conducted an integrative review of the literature to identify the multifarious aspects of UA and how these have directly or indirectly contributed to the viability of its application. It seeks to update and contribute to the UA topic by employing a multi-perspective approach and providing an integrated look into UA as a whole ( Artmann and Sartison, 2018 ; Haigh and Amaratunga, 2010 ; Snyder, 2019 ; Torraco, 2016 ). To achieve this, the paper has drawn on two broad, yet related categories of literature. First, it accounts for research examining the most recent developments in the field by offering a detailed analysis of emerging practices such as vertical farming and plant biotechnology ( Kalantari et al., 2018 ; Kwon et al., 2020 ; Lobato-Gómez et al., 2021 ; O'Sullivan et al., 2020 ). Having constructed a stable, conceptual framework of the most up-to-date practices, the paper turns to literature exploring the multidimensional contributions made by UA through practical applications ( Carolan, 2020 ; Chang and Morel, 2018 ; Dubbeling et al., 2019 ; Foodtank, 2017 ; McClintock, 2016 ; McDougall et al., 2019 ; Siegner et al., 2018 ; Tomkins et al., 2019 ; Yoshida and Yagi, 2021 ). The literature is disaggregated into five major subcategories covering, economic, social, disaster risk reduction, health and wellbeing, and environmental perspectives. In building upon these observations, the final section presents possible recommendations by identifying suitable technologies and government policies that might help farmers make UA more economically viable and socially relevant moving forward.

The paper adopts a holistic approach by considering both theoretical and empirical research, with each perspective offering alternative insights into the potentials and perils of UA implementation. It therefore aims to provide an overview and analysis of relevant literature that is available to date. To this extent, the recommendations are based on and limited to the conclusions drawn by selected literature. Further empirical research would thus be required to substantiate these claims and better assess the practicality of implementation.

2. Recent status of urban agriculture

UA is considered a common feature of cities in developing countries. Particularly in the Global North, a resurgence of UA in recent years have been associated with socioeconomic benefits including but not limited to food security, social justice, environmental quality, and health, and in some cases “ experimenting with radical alternatives to the capitalist neoliberal organization of urban life ” ( Tornaghi, 2014 ). Furthermore, problems associated with traditional agricultural practices, which can be separated roughly into two categories: those (1) concerning loss of wildlife to expand the arable land and (2) consequences from the intensified land use ( Lubowski et al., 2006 ), had pushed UA as a way to lower the reliance on traditional agriculture. This interest in UA as a sustainable alternative to traditional agriculture, particularly in highly urbanized developed nations, was further highlighted due to UA's role as food source in cities where food supply had been cut due to production and logistic disruption brought by COVID-19 pandemic in 2019. Yet, while having positive prospects, UA also has its own limitations and disadvantages. First and foremost, the concern is the amount of available land in the urban area given the expansion of the cities ( FAO, 2011 ). While the search for a solution for this problem is in progress with new technologies allowing for vertical cultivation of crops, the price of the initial setup remains a relevant concern as it will be inaccessible for the poorer population. Certain special knowledge is required for the large-scale operation of UA installations for commercial gain as well.

By utilizing innovative methods and technologies, UA can alleviate the pressure from rural agriculture and secure food supply within a sustainable framework. With industrial-scale production, rural agriculture is focusing on monocultures which sacrifices diversity of the cultivated crops and accelerates soil degradation. UA, on the other hand, can provide sufficient variety of crops and vegetables for a person's daily consumption while occupying only 10% of urban space ( Hernandez and Manu, 2018 ).

Previously, cities were regarded as incompatible with agriculture due to the lack of available land required for farming. This perception began to change as people discovered ways to creatively use limited space, such as designing rooftop gardens and farms and adopting for agricultural practices underutilized land in the urban areas which is not sufficient for construction or other purposes. Technological advancement significantly contributed to the expansion of UA with various vertical farming techniques being developed, allowing for better management of space. Also, biotechnological advancement has been simultaneously developing and contributing to the development of more varieties of crops which can grow suitably in urban setting and conditions. Hence, this review will present advances in vertical farming and plant biotechnology which are important drivers in UA's adoption in cities.

2.1. Vertical farming

Vertical farming is a UA technique that allows for an indoor cultivation of crops where factors such as lighting, temperature, and nutrients can be controlled and administered with precision. This revolutionary method reduces the required amount of freshwater in addition to conservation of land and soil. The technology is constantly being improved, and as a result urban farmers can choose from different types of vertical farming techniques varying in their levels of sophistication and cost. Thus, even without specific allocation of land by the municipal governments, UA farmers can still integrate sustainable agricultural practices into cities and engage in commercial activities. Given that UA expansion will continue, vertical farming can become a reliable source of food for urban dwellers.

In the conditions of the urban space where land is an expensive asset, urban farmers who pursue commercial gains inevitably encounter the problem of finding locations large enough to ensure profit for the business. Technologies of vertical farming present a viable solution which also has a potential to offer a sustainable solution for the future development of agriculture. Traditional horizontal spread of the farming fields over the centuries caused great damage to the environment, encroaching on the forest territories thus destroying and upsetting other ecosystems ( WHO, 2005 ). Vertical farms, on the other hand, do not require large horizontal space and are able to fit in the urban landscapes thus potentially eliminating the need for further sprawl of the traditional rural farms ( Figure 1 ). However, it is not the only benefit vertical farms have to offer to environmental sustainability. It also allows to sufficiently reduce the amount of the freshwater consumption while still producing greater yields as compared to conventional farming methods ( Kalantari et al., 2017 , 2018 ). One of the relevant concerns regarding discussion of vertical farming, and urban farming in general, is their economic competitiveness vis-a-vis conventional rural farming that can produce a larger amount of yield due to the vast space the farmlands occupy. However, it is argued that urban farms can achieve economic sustainability even without additional sources of income if they undergo a process of farm diversification ( Yoshida et al., 2019 ).

A vertical farm of vegetable crop to increase food resiliency of cities. Photo by Aisyaqilumaranas/Shutterstock.com .

Among other advantages of vertical farming is that the food is free from harmful pesticides and herbicides since in the controlled conditions of indoor farming, the risk of pest infection is substantially reduced, which maximizes the overall nutrition of the product ( Al-Kodmany, 2018 ). However, pests such as downy mildew, molds, spider mites, insects, and others, have still been reported to occur and their control follows the same chemical pesticides as employed in conventional farms. But the controlled environment of vertical farms made it easier for the use of biological pest control as an environmentally benign option ( Currey, 2017 ), which can be integrated in the system using banker plants ( Roberts et al., 2020 ). Nevertheless, for commercial-scale vertical farms, it is still more economical and environmentally safe to employ prevention strategies against pests than combatting them ( Currey, 2017 ). Also, the use of fertilizers in vertical farming has different forms with each method having its own benefits and limits. In this review, hydroponics, aeroponics, aquaponics, and digeponics will be on focus.

2.1.1. Hydroponics

Hydroponics can be considered a form of vertical farming that grows plants in nutrient solutions instead of soil, which can be done with or without the use of inert medium. This is a relatively easy technique that eliminates the possibility of soil-borne disease and stimulates faster growth of the plants ( Figure 2 ). However, while it reduces the amount of water required for irrigation and prevents pests from infecting the plants, it does not rule out the possibility of water-borne diseases, which might spread quicker than soil-borne and destroy the entire yield ( Sharma et al., 2018 ).

A hydroponic farm of leafy vegetables using LED light. Photo by Nikolay_E/Shutterstock.com .

Moreover, hydroponics offers farmers a wide variety of other production advantages that should also be noted briefly here. The most prominent of which is its efficient allocation of land and water. This is notable when compared with conventional farming methods that are often land-use intensive and may utilize inefficient means of irrigation ( Barbosa et al., 2015 ). Additionally, many studies have highlighted significantly higher output rates for hydroponic farms. For example, Barbosa et al. (2015) found that lettuce yields from hydroponic farms were 11 times higher than traditional methods. However, this came at the cost of higher energy consumption. According to the same study, yields of lettuce per greenhouse unit can have energy demand up to 90,000 ± 11,000 kJ/kg/y while traditional methods only demand up to 1100 ± 75 kJ/kg/y. This translates to 82 times more energy consumption of hydroponic farms compared to the traditional ones. On the side note, researchers and scientists are continuously developing optimization schemes for efficient energy consumptions. One example of this scheme is the use of Internet of Things (IoT) based systems which can also provide solutions towards agricultural modernization, as cited in Khudoyberdiev et al. (2020) . These are in the form of sensors and microcontrollers, which can be found in smart cities, environmental monitoring, smart farming, and are responsible for improving the overall system efficiency and automization processes ( Mehmood et al., 2019 ). However, the integration of IoT may further diminish the environmental performance of hydroponic systems when energy sources are of non-renewable. But if these are replaced with renewable alternatives, GHG emissions and the negative environmental impact of hydroponic farms can be greatly reduced ( Martin et al., 2019 ). The same observation on the analysis of overall efficiency of urban hydroponics was pointed out by Romeo et al. (2018) . They echoed notions of higher energy demands of hydroponic farms. But, since the system is powered by electricity which can easily be generated by renewable sources, the hydroponic system can perform better than the heated greenhouses and open field farms in terms of higher production yield and minimal environmental impact ( Romeo et al., 2018 ). The higher production yield of 23 crops in hydroponic system compared with soil-based farming has been further summarized by Sathyanarayana et al. (2022) .

2.1.2. Aeroponics

Aeroponics is another form of vertical farming that does not require soil but, unlike hydroponics, uses mist sprayed on the roots of the plants to supply necessary nutrients. This method requires even less water than hydroponics and 95 % less than traditional agricultural methods which makes it a viable solution in cities experiencing water scarcity ( Al-Kodmany, 2018 , Figure 3 ). A study of Otazu (2010) shows that in aeroponic systems, only 1/10 th to 1/30 th of water are used in field production of crop plants such as potatoes. The thin layer of water acts as a buffer to the plants and allows oxygenation to the roots. In addition, on top of eliminating the soil-borne diseases, it also solves the problem of water-borne diseases which is still a possibility with the hydroponic method.

An aeroponic farm of leafy vegetables where water is directly sprayed to the roots. Photo by Globe Guide Media Inc/Shutterstock.com .

In Thailand, Srihajong et al. (2006) established a mathematical model for operating an aeroponic system for agricultural products. In their simulation, total electric energy consumption per day is 8.46kWh, with an initial cost for heat pipes of 13 000 Baht (40 Baht ≅ 1 USD). When compared with hydroponic system, the start-up cost of aeroponics is more expensive. Aeroponic systems also require constant monitoring, particularly when pumps used in aeroponic systems operate under a steady high pressure (80 pounds per square inch) with required nutrient flow. The high pressure is required to spray an ideal droplet size (20–100 microns) of water and nutrient mixtures for plant growth ( Gopinath et al., 2017 ). The droplet size is an important factor to aeroponic systems as the amount of oxygen available to the root system depends on it. Still, Gopinath et al. (2017) emphasized that aeroponic systems with larger pumps require greater energy requirements compared with other hydroponic systems.

2.1.3. Aquaponics

Another form of vertical farming is aquaponics which combines aquaculture and hydroponic systems ( Figure 4 ). The main advantage of this system is the integration of the fish and crop farming, which creates the exchange of nutrients through the water that is shared between the two. It has similar advantages to the hydroponic and aeroponic systems in its efficient use of water, soil-less cultivation, but in addition, it allows plants and fish to grow simultaneously without increasing water consumption ( Gooley and Gavine, 2003 in Lennard and Goddek, 2019 ). When it comes to energy requirements, aquaponic systems are likely dependent on system configuration (e.g., design, species, scale, and technologies) and geographic location ( Goddek et al., 2015 ). A combination study of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in Belgium found that energy consumption, infrastructure, and water consumption are the main critical issues in an aquaponic system ( Forchino et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, the main economic burden was associated with the energy consumption, which was responsible for about half of the whole production cost. Therefore, designing a system with a less energy and water demand component is needed towards economic and environmental sustainability.

An aquaponic farm where vegetables and fish are grown for food. Photo by HarJac20/Shutterstock.com .

2.1.4. Digeponics

While aquaponics combines the aquaculture and hydroponics systems, the term “digeponics” is coined by replacing the aquaculture with anaerobic digester in a similar system. More specifically, anaerobic digestion is a process by which organic matter is broken down by anaerobic microorganisms to produce biogas and by-product digestate ( Marquez et al., 2020 ). Digestate is composed of solid and liquid fractions which contains nutrients and can be used as bio-fertilizer. Ehmann et al. (2018) reported 0.58 % and 0.38 % of total nitrogen, 0.26 % and 0.24 % of NH 4 + -N, 0.22 % and 0.07 % of phosphorus, 0.46 % and 0.41 % of potassium, and 0.47 % and 0.16 % of calcium contents in fresh solid digestate and liquid digestate fractions, respectively.

One remarkable application is the ‘Food to waste to food’ project which was claimed to be the first efficient method for the utilization of digestate as a growing medium and bio-fertilizer in greenhouses ( Stoknes et al., 2016 ). This project integrated food waste treatment through biogas production, while using the digestate as bio-fertilizer to grow crops, and a new closed dynamic bubble-insulated greenhouse technology where biogas is burned for temperature control. A small-scale bubble-insulated greenhouse was constructed in Norway as a prototype. A heat loss of 0.9 W/m 2 K (watt per meter squared per kelvin) was measured in a bubble-insulated greenhouse, compared to typical conventional greenhouses which have a heat loss of about W/m 2 K. This makes the energy demand for the small-scale greenhouse lower of only 10–20 % of the energy consumed (usually derived from fossil fuels) by conventional Nordic greenhouses. Also, the incorporation of anaerobic digestion is advantageous in upcycling the organic agricultural wastes such as the roots and stems of crops, which are regularly produced after each harvest in the farm. However, further studies are needed to successfully up-scale the system and optimize growing conditions of crops in terms of substrate microbiology.

On the other hand, seamless and compact biogas digester design which can be operated in urban setting while not compromising energy production is already under development ( unpublished ). Upon commercialization, anaerobic digestion system can easily be integrated to UA, providing better efficiency to any types of farming system. The same compact system platform can also provide wastewater treatment function to remove excess fertilizer before a necessary water disposal.

2.2. Plant biotechnology

Urban community farms also face climatic challenges such as extreme heat and cold. Moreover, crops grown in urban farms can also be threatened by pests and diseases. Aside from factors that can affect the growth of plants, some of the other challenges faced by urban farms include limited space, high labor costs, and high operation costs. While open community farms are subject to environmental factors, vertical farms including indoor farms and greenhouses are operated with full control of conditions such as temperature, humidity, light, water, and nutrient input. The major challenges in such farms are limited space and high operational costs.

How can plant biotechnology address such challenges faced by urban agriculture? Plant biotechnology has paved the way for the development of disease-resistant and climate-ready crops to address the current environmental changes faced by farmers in growing their crops. Biotech plants can be developed by marker-assisted selection (MAS), genetic modification (GM) or genome editing (GE). In MAS, conventional breeding can be made faster by using DNA markers to select for hybrids instead of using phenotypic selection which usually requires longer periods of time. On the other hand, GM involves the use of recombinant DNA technology to change the genetic makeup of organisms. Recombination is the insertion of DNA molecules from different distinct species to produce an improved version of the organism. Finally, GE is the most recent technology that has shown immense potential for application in plant biotechnology. Genome editing is based on the precise identification of short DNA sequences and their deletion, then insertion of new DNA sequence to correct errors or to change the genetic information.

Using plant biotechnology tools, it is now possible to develop crops with desired traits such as resistance to pests and diseases, tolerance to drought, heat, cold or salinity, improved flavor, rapid cycling as well as other superior growth traits. For urban agriculture, the limited space for cultivating crops can be addressed by developing plants with compact architecture and rapid life cycle ( O'Sullivan et al., 2020 ). Using the GE tool CRISPR-Cas9 , Kwon et al. (2020) targeted the genes responsible for stem length and flowering in tomatoes to create a smaller plant size that can produce fruits in a shorter time span. Dwarfism is a trait that naturally exists in some varieties of crops and has been used to improve other commercial crops. The gene responsible for dwarfism has been identified and characterized in many plant species and used in plant breeding for decades now. Similarly, the genes that are involved in the regulation of flowering time have been extensively studied and shown useful in crop improvement. Targeting these traits, Kwon et al. (2020) created compact varieties of cherry tomato and ground cherry that have the same productivity as the wild-type varieties. This strategy can be applied to other vegetable and fruit crops that can be cultivated either in indoor or outdoor community urban farms. Maintaining a high flowering/fruiting rate for agricultural crops in urban farms can compensate for the high operation costs and will not put the burden on the consumers. Table 1 shows some plants which have undergone genetic modification that may be suitable for UA. Further, Lobato-Gómez et al. (2021) compiled a list of genome-edited fruit-bearing crops of which can be explored for their suitability in UA application.

Table 1

Genetically modified plants suitable for urban farming.

While crops that are developed by conventional breeding are more easily accepted by the public, those that involve GMs are still not accepted by the Japanese consumers even though the Japanese government has approved the commercial cultivation of GM crops. The same is true for genome edited agricultural products. However, it is interesting to note that Japan remains one of the top importers of food and feed products developed using genetic engineering from the US. According to USDA Foreign Agricultural Service report, Japan imports 100 % of its corn supply and 94 % of soybean supply, which are mostly GM ( Sato, 2020 ). Genome edited crops are still being evaluated for commercial cultivation in many countries while regulations in different countries are still being established. In 2021, the first GE crop was successfully launched to the Japanese market after Ezura and co-workers developed a GABA-enhanced tomato, making it the world's first GE crop to be commercialized ( Ezura, 2022 ). GABA or γ-aminobutyric acid is an amino acid with human health benefits, particularly useful in the prevention of hypertension. Since GE crops does not contain a “foreign gene” (i.e., transgene-free), consumers might have less bias against them. Once the appropriate regulatory framework for the commercialization of GE crops is established, they could eventually be accepted by the consumers ( Ishii and Araki, 2016 ). Nevertheless, these GM and GE crops have enormous potential in maximizing the productivity of urban agriculture in Japan and other countries.

2.3. How can UA help?

Despite the necessity of integrating UA into sustainable city planning, it is only relatively recently that the topic began to gain attention. With the rapid urbanization, the concept of sustainable cities that “emphasise a balance among economic development, environmental protection, and equity in income, employment, shelter, basic services, social infrastructure and transportation” became prominent ( Hiremath et al., 2013 in Azunre et al., 2019 ). Although somewhat included in the policy planning, UA was generally moved to the periphery of the discourse with the policies focusing on other aspects of urban development. In particular, the governments in the global south are reluctant to allocate land for UA integration. Therefore, most of the relatively big urban farms are located on the peripheries of the cities due to lower land prices ( Azunre et al., 2019 ).

However, the situation is gradually changing with the realization that UA has profound implications for the sustainability of cities in terms of its economic, environmental, and social contribution. Expansion of green zones in the cities improves air quality, and partial reliance on urban agriculture decreases emissions of greenhouse gases. UA also contributes to local trade development, creating full time employment and additional sources of income. For instance, in Ghana, urban farmers produce most of the exotic vegetables for the region, such as lettuce and spring onions, and supply them to urban markets ( Azunre et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, UA has the potential of becoming a source of sustenance for urban communities and providing impoverished population with necessary nutrition. It gives people access to fresh and chemical-free products while reducing their food expenditures. In developing regions, the percentage of poor households engaging in UA substantially exceeds average-income households ( Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010 ). However, it is not to imply that UA alone can fully sustain urban population, instead, a balance between urban and rural agriculture should be reached to secure cities’ food supply through sustainable practices.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted numerous distribution channels and food production processes all over the world, highlighted the urgency of the food security issue. Although no significant fluctuation of the food prices on the global level was recorded during the pandemic, inflation of food prices was present, with low- and middle-income countries sustaining majority of the damage ( World Bank, 2021 ). Population in the developing countries spend a larger portion of their income on food compared to the high-income countries, which puts an additional strain on the vulnerable groups ( World Bank, 2021 ). Restriction on the movements of people and goods further inhibited the access to food on urban markets, thus creating food deficits and causing inflation ( FAO, 2020 ). Unemployment is also on the rise during the pandemic due to the production processes being put on hold in attempts to stop the spread of the disease.

With the combined impact of the reduced income and higher food prices, many households were forced to reduce their expenditure on food and lower their quality standards as a sustenance measure ( World Bank, 2021 ). According to the World Bank (2021) , by the end of 2020, approximately 130 million people will face acute food insecurity. Prior to the pandemic, such drastic global-scale reduction in life quality due to food insecurity problems was hardly imaginable. However, the current global food crisis and its repercussions fully demonstrated the urgency of the problem. Hence, the next section will examine how UA can increase its role in playing its part in solving these challenges.

3. Different contributions of urban agriculture to city

3.1. economic perspective.

UA can be defined as a variety of livelihood systems such as subsistence production and processing which can be adapted to urban situations from the household level to a more commercialized sector ( van Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007 ). From subsistence-oriented motives to large scale commercial production facilities, UA has many different roles for communities in the cities and urban areas. While UA economic benefits are marginal at the community level, it has the potential to contribute to building the resilience of urban communities, especially in coping with economic challenges.

In measuring the economic viability of UA, its economic impacts and profitability are distinguished in three levels: (a) household level, (b) city level, and (c) macro level ( van Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007 ).

At the household level, economic benefits and costs involved in agricultural production such as self-employment, exchange of products, income from sales, savings on food and health expenditures are directly incurred by the urban households. A study in four West African capitals showed that rainfed crops such as maize and cassava are mainly produced for household consumption, while short-cycle and long-cycle crops such as lettuce, cabbage, carrots, and onions can generate monthly income from sales ( van Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007 ). Furthermore, in Ghana, income from irrigated urban vegetable farming was found to be two to three times higher than the average income earned from rural farming ( Danso et al., 2002 ).

At the city level, there are: (a) direct benefits and costs which are not carried by the farmers, and (b) indirect benefits and costs which are in the form of positive and negative externalities. These externalities include the social, health, and environmental impacts of UA in the urban setting. However, comparing different city situations remains a challenge as these impacts depend on policies and legislation existing in the city. One common approach for economists to examine or quantify these impacts is by using cost-benefit framework ( Nugent, 1999 ) although such method should be applied more extensively in analyzing UA's impacts.

At the macro level, effects of UA are felt through its contribution to the national's gross domestic product (GDP) and to the efficiency of the national food system. Moreover, UA products can supplement rural agriculture's limited supply, substitute for food imports, and boost export production of agricultural commodities ( Mougeot, 2000 ). In Kenya, UA has generated the highest self-employment to small-scale enterprises and the third highest earnings overall ( House et al., 1993 ). Unfortunately, studies on economic impacts of UA in the macro level are limited since most research are focused on the household level.

The term ‘economic viability of UA’ can also be ambiguous. Copious literature has discussed the economic viability of either micro-farms, rooftop gardens, greenhouses, or vertical farms to examine the cost and gains of these specific types of UA ( Whittinghill and Rowe, 2012 ; Thomaier et al., 2014 ; Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2015 ; Chang and Morel, 2018 ). These authors realized that different types of UA can have significant variations in economic viability, but they usually take part for the whole and generalize the economic viability of UA based on their specified discoveries. To better understand the difference, some literature of UA's economic viability using different approaches has been summarized in Table 2 . It indicates that UA's economic viability is apparent, albeit several economic factors (e.g., proximity, investment and operation costs, capital, and consumer knowledge) should be taken into consideration to assess the benefits and costs in engaging into UA.

Table 2

The economic potential of different types of urban agriculture.

3.2. Social perspective

Regarding the implementation of UA systems within developed countries it is important to acknowledge that integration is taking place within pre-established socioeconomic structures, and not the other way around. In the Global North, the physical and cultural environments encountered by the UA narrative are often distinguished in part by deeply rooted societal structures and potential injustices requiring attention. To this end, systems of inequality can distort the “sustainable” and “social justice” front commonly adopted by UA initiatives, by engulfing operations within socially detrimental processes like eco gentrification ( McClintock, 2016 ). In other words, the new entity is forced to work around pre-existing frameworks, a transition that is often facilitated by policies ( Siegner et al., 2018 ).

Food insecurity and gentrification in cities highlight many of the challenges targeted by urban farming, yet point to external social issues which necessitate attention if UA is to become truly economically viable. Specifically, food insecurity is a manifestation of wider, and deeply embedded inequities, to the extent that expanding agricultural systems into cities does not automatically guarantee improved food security for the residing population ( Horst et al., 2017 ). This is because low-income communities are likely already subject to underinvestment and discriminatory patterns. Farms are thus left vulnerable to falling into “ a corporate food system model of profit maximization and resource use efficiency, subscribing to capitalist logics rather than alternative, social-justice-oriented practices ” ( Siegner et al., 2018 ). These problems are exacerbated when met with the high cost of development pressures, rendering urban produce either unattainable or unaffordable for many. Thus, dialogue surrounding urban farms and inherent potentials becomes unproductive when it is conflated with generalized notions of increased access ( Siegner et al., 2018 ).

Several studies have shown a concentration of urban or community farms in places where they are not most needed to improve food security. That is, organizations have not been strategically distributed throughout the cities in question to the advantage of those who need it most ( Horst et al., 2017 ). There exists a contradiction between utilizing UA to combat food insecurity, and a preconceived notion which employs “greening” as a tool in gentrification to make neighborhoods more attractive to the upper class. That is, the development and presence of green spaces is often followed by increasing property values ( Daftary-Steel et al., 2015 ). In San Francisco, community garden initiatives started by minority groups have grown in recent years, onsetting neighborhood remodeling processes in response to the “beautification” brought about by green spaces ( Marche, 2015 ). Therefore, if UA is to become economically viable by improving upon societal inequities, its implementation needs to be structured to resist gentrification, not contribute to it.

In terms of external social conditions, the most optimal solutions involve attacking systemic inequalities at the core, still policy mechanisms and strategies exist which can help prevent UA integration from succumbing to harmful capitalist tendencies. McClintock (2014) observed the effects of neoliberal policies which served more radical variants of agricultural entrepreneurialism that “ return the means of production to urban residents. ” Regardless of top-down versus bottom-up distinctions, endeavors reflecting a degree of municipal liberalism in practice display the capacity to meet residential needs because of a continued engagement with civic activism ( Marche, 2015 ). This is indicative of a boundary wherein policy capabilities meet the need for civic participation in order to optimize the benefits offered by UA within a society which manifest themselves on a couple of fronts.

The intersection with social injustices is inevitable in the integration process of UA, therefore it becomes beneficial for local governments to include the voices of residents. Given the pernicious tendency to favor “beautified” variations of community farms, the deliberate inclusion of the community in the decision-making process helps to ensure a service-based system geared towards the society. In accordance with approaches posited by neoliberal policies, the secession of regulations thereby clears a space for local voices, enabling structure that is self-sustaining and less susceptible to gentrification ( Marche, 2015 ). Municipal working groups offer a potential solution by filling gaps in formal policy, while departments or focus groups can be organized to meet specialized needs ( Deelstra and Girardet, 2000 ). Food policy councils in Portland and Vancouver for instance are composed of local activists that advise municipal governments in navigating related issues, and draft proposals for project development ( Mendes et al., 2008 ). Meanwhile, councils in New York have held policy makers accountable, providing communities with an extra layer of protection from extensive development or becoming exclusionary ( Cohen, 2016 ). Subsequently, what emerges are channels that propagate mutual relations between public officials and civil society. Co-dependency between the two entities is thus reliant upon active civil participation without absolving government responsibility.

Although UA in isolation is not a viable solution, producers can be situated to work against social injustices rather than being absorbed to uphold an already corrupt system. Attuning control and responsibility of government officials helps make space for grassroot efforts and sufficient interaction with relevant social justice movements taking place in the community. With the support of local councils, policy approaches would benefit by recognizing the intersections and resultant variables within the agricultural sector which allow UA to encompass more than food production and security. Further, utilizing policies in such a manner to extract commonly, or uncommonly, theorized benefits of UA will enable the future economic viability of these projects. However, this is predicated not only upon an inward-looking understanding of the sector itself but a comprehensive perception of the surrounding society to make the most of UA's characteristics in each respective case.

3.3. Disaster risk reduction perspective

Here it is worth briefly mentioning the specific functions of UA in the context of emergency crises and post disaster reconstruction. The impacts of disasters on urban areas have been exacerbated by the effects of global warming. Effects are particularly acute in developing countries, water-stressed countries, as well as coastal and low-lying regions. Many cities are also predisposed to the risk of food supply chain disruptions, which in turn often disproportionately affects the urban poor, elderly and the disabled ( Dubbeling et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, rapid urbanization and mass migration into city centers in developing countries can often lead to competing demands, diminishing resources, and overextended infrastructure systems. On these points, UA offers several potential benefits to help mitigate the negative impacts incurred by disasters, expedite post-disaster reconstruction processes, and contribute to overall urban and livelihood resilience.

As mentioned, one of the primary impacts of disasters on urban areas relates to supply chain disruptions. Dependence on imported food often leaves even very developed cities vulnerable to sudden food depletion. The severity of import-dependence in many cities is exemplified by the fact that cities such as London are never more than five days away from food depletion ( Adam-Bradford, 2010 ). Meanwhile, economic crises can result in rising food prices compounded by unstable incomes, which can push the urban poor further into poverty ( Adam-Bradford, 2010 ). Thus, following a crisis, urban populations may resort to informal markets to sustain their livelihoods, this includes UA.

The existence of local agricultural food production helps to reduce vulnerability to supply chain disruptions in times of crisis. For example, urban areas in developed countries have experienced first-hand the impacts of food supply shortages during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. In Tokyo, the existence of UA has helped to mitigate some of these negative effects by shortening the supply chain and providing residents with direct access to local produce ( Yoshida and Yagi, 2021 ). In several cases, UA farms have been able to increase sales since the start of the pandemic due to the country's stay-home campaign and increasing consumer demands for local marketing channels ( Yoshida and Yagi, 2021 ). These short supply chains or direct marketing schemes employed by Tokyo's urban farms thus represent a specific resilient attribute of UA that has supported food security in a time of crisis.

In addition to enhancing food security, much of the literature has emphasized the role of UA as a livelihood strategy. Specifically, that its contributions during disaster risk reduction and management extend beyond addressing the immediate challenges of food insecurity. For example, during economic crises, UA can help to subvert income insecurity and marginalization by stimulating ‘green job’ creation and diversifying income sources for many households. This helps to alleviate some of the immediate pressures faced by the urban poor by expanding their coping capacity in times of financial distress ( Dubbeling et al., 2019 ).

Besides economic benefits, UA also presents numerous social benefits that should not be overlooked in the context of risk reduction and urban resilience. The experiences of refugee camps offer a constructive illustration of UA's social dimensions. A study conducted by Tomkins et al. (2019) traced the role of UA in Iraqi refugee camps as many have evolved into ‘accidental cities’ since the start of the Syrian Civil War in 2011. Of the camps surveyed, refugees generally had adequate access to food supplies due to the prominence of humanitarian aid. Therefore, instead of relying on UA for sustenance purposes, gardens were often associated with benefits such as promoting social cohesion and providing a healing space from trauma. These multifaceted benefits are further exemplified by the 16 different types of gardens identified in the study, which range from street gardens to ornamental planting practices ( Tomkins et al., 2019 ).

Given the wide-ranging functions of UA in disaster risk reduction practices, its implementation should be situated within a more comprehensive risk reduction strategy. In other words, UA should be integrated with wider development objectives if municipalities are to make the most of all it has to offer. For example, in the case of the refugee camps, the existence of UA has stimulated development of other constructive infrastructure thereby bolstering sustainable practices within camps. This has included Sustainable Drainage Systems, which have facilitated water mobility, improved water quality, greywater management and reduced pollution and erosion ( Tomkins et al., 2019 ). In other cities such as Beijing and Toronto, UA has been incorporated into municipal climate change action plans, while its economic benefits have supported “slum-upgrading” programs in many South American countries ( Dubbeling et al., 2019 ). In particular, arid climates such as in Burkina Faso, UA has been implemented as a part of efforts to lower surface temperatures and reduce impacts of the urban heat island effect ( Dubbeling et al., 2019 ). It can therefore be seen how the efficient integration of UA can help municipalities meet multiple development objectives simultaneously. However, it is important to note that many such benefits are predicated on government involvement and effective coordination between municipal authorities and local civil society groups.

Oftentimes, the realization of UA's full potential has been inhibited by a lack of governmental recognition and technical assistance. This is especially true in post-disaster contexts, wherein agricultural production is easily overlooked in times of crisis. It is not uncommon for relief operations to leave recovering communities dependent on external food aid. It is for these reasons that agriculture-related activities should be implemented during early stages of the post-disaster cycle ( Adam-Bradford, 2010 ). The fragility of UA systems has more recently been highlighted by the impacts of COVID-19. One study conducted on urban and peri-urban farms in São Paulo found that a lack of municipal support exacerbated pre-existing shortcomings. Namely, a lack of technical assistance, an inability to diversify commercialization channels, and difficulty accessing inputs. Furthermore, noncommercial community gardens were unable to significantly contribute to food security due to restrictions and lack of formal recognition by the government ( Biazoti et al., 2021 ). Thus, if UA is to advance disaster risk reduction, it will require more direct engagement with government authorities to promote integration with long term development goals.

3.4. Health and well-being perspective

UA can alleviate poverty and food insecurity, while also improving the health of city residents and preserving the environment ( Foodtank, 2017 ). In addition, urban green space is a necessary component for delivering healthy, sustainable and livable cities for all population groups, particularly among lower socioeconomic groups ( WHO, 2017 ). Because of the continuing shift of population to urbanized areas, studies on how urban nature can be utilized as a tool to reduce health risks have been increasing but with varying results.

Most urban areas, like for example New York City, lack vacant land for green space, making rooftops an important space for greening. In such a case, UA has great potential to help mitigate the city's public health problems on obesity and diabetes which are correlated to inadequate access to fresh, healthy food retail ( Ackerman et al., 2014 ). Fruits and vegetables are the most common types of food that can be cultivated on a rooftop greening. Through the increase in fruit and vegetable cultivation and consumption, improving health conditions, and reducing poverty may be achieved ( Orsini et al., 2013 ). In Tokyo, other than as a source of fresh and safe products, UA serves as a resource for recreation and well-being, including a space for personal leisure and spiritual comfort ( Moreno-Peñaranda, 2011 ).

Studies on the association between green spaces and general health, and the mediators of this association have been reported as well. Dadvand et al. (2016) investigated whether the presence of green space can attenuate negative health impacts of stressful life events using a quantitative data of a representative sample of Dutch residents. The results showed that only the relationships of stressful life events with the number of health complaints and perceived general health were significantly reduced by the amount of green space in a 3-km radius. However, buffering effects of green space were less pronounced for mental health than for physical and general health indicators and provided a conservative and rather limited test of the buffering effects of green space that is close to home. Another study assessed the association between greenness exposure and subjective general health (SGH) through evaluation of their mediators such as mental health status, social support, and physical activity ( van den Berg et al., 2010 ). Using the data obtained from a population-based randomized sample of adults residing in Barcelona, Spain, the study revealed mental health status, perceived social support, and to less extent, physical activity, to be more impacted by residential surrounding greenness than subjective proximity to green spaces ( van den Berg et al., 2010 ). Further, a study among youth living in the city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria was conducted to compare single and parallel mediation models— estimate the independent contributions of different paths— with several models that posit serial mediation components in the pathway from green space to mental health ( Dzhambov et al., 2018 ). The researchers found that higher restorative quality in the neighborhood brought by higher perceived green spaces was directly associated with better mental health and promoted more physical activity and more social cohesion, and in turn, indirectly led to better mental health. Hence, direct and indirect positive effects of green spaces, and in extension UA, on the health and well-being of urban dwellers should incentivize UA's integration in urban planning because their long-term impact on the population's economic productivity and healthcare cost can bring the city's finances into better position when compared with short-term gain from allowing maximization of urban space for commercial use.

3.5. Environmental perspective

Environmental risks often emerge as agricultural practices shift into city centers. Such risks may pertain to the production of goods and services by farms, or they may appear as negative externalities in the surrounding community. For instance, increased levels of pollution in cities can diminish the quality of urban-grown products, generating health risks for consumers ( Tuijl et al., 2018 ). Meanwhile, the use of certain pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in the process of farming can generate additional risks for residents and damage local biodiversity. Under such circumstances, farming practices may become environmentally detrimental, or unwanted in heavily populated regions, particularly of those commercial urban farms ( McDougall et al., 2019 ). While these additional risks are minimal for small-scale UA, the practice of commercial-scale UA using soil-base farming will bring the same risks as agro-industrial farms do on their surrounding environment. Buscaroli et al. (2021) identified three cases where plant protection products (PPP) used in UA may cause harm to its environment, these are, “ 1) disregard for precautionary limitations, 2) misuse of authorized active substances, and c) use of unauthorized substances. ” While these are preventable, the lack of supervision and regulation on backyard UA may suggest that the risks are still present albeit minimal. To avoid risks, it is highly recommended to regulate the type and size of farming in cities. For example, mandating the use of vertical farm technique when establishing a commercial-scale UA will prevent these PPP risks in urban communities while bringing commercial-scale source of food within cities.

The relationship between the agricultural sector and the environment is defined in two senses by the latter. Namely, the environmental impact induced through alterations made by farming practices, and subsequently the kind of environment that is produced by incorporating food production in the given region. This is true of urban and rural systems alike, illuminating the push to reconcile modern agrarian methodologies with environmental conscious regulations ( Kalen, 2011 ). Regarding environmental risks, though many of the associated negative externalities are well researched, and a degree of precedence exists in this policy sphere, exemptions have often been made in agriculture, generating harmful regulatory gaps ( Schneider, 2010 ). It is therefore important that farming methodologies being brought into city centers act in harmony with wider environmental policies and standards rather than go unregulated. Such policies can be deemed as an effective solution to help correct negative externalities and risks placed on the environment.

One of the most prominent environmental risks faced by UA in contemporary societies has been the navigation and risk management associated with environmental contamination. Specifically, the anthropogenic pollution of soil and air as a result of industrial activities, transportation, mining, sewage, and fossil fuel combustion. The ultimate impact of environmental contamination of produce is dependent on several factors such as the quantity and type of pollutant present, how long the produce remains in the soil, and similarly the kind of crop being exposed. Vegetables like lettuce and cabbage risk greater exposure to atmospheric particles on account of the greater surface area of leaves, while root vegetables are more vulnerable to soil contaminants. Duration of growth will also increase or reduce the amount of exposure to any pollution present, and so herbs like thyme, which are grown year-round, become more susceptible to absorption ( Aubry and Manouchehri, 2019 ).

Regarding contamination, lead is a commonly cited concern for urban farmers utilizing soil-based methods of crop cultivation. Leaded-gasoline and paints were widespread several decades ago, despite the phase-out of such products many urban sites today continue to test positive for varying levels of contamination ( LaCroix, 2014 ). However, aside from low-growing and root vegetables, the lead uptake of plants is generally low, and risks of bioaccumulation remain small ( Brown et al., 2016 ). One study concluded it to be highly unlikely that human consumption of food grown in lead-contaminated soils would result in elevated blood levels of the component. Additionally, that elevated levels present within the soil pose minor risk to UA in general ( Brown et al., 2016 ).

Still other forms of urban air and soil pollution do exist that could impede more seriously upon the uptake of UA systems in certain cities. For instance, old industrial sites may be more prone to different forms of contamination depending on the type of activities once conducted on the land ( LaCroix, 2014 ). While produce grown near roads may risk contamination from vehicles. One study in Italy found a higher uptake of elements such as, Ba, Cu, Pb, Sb, Sn, V, Zn in vegetables grown within close proximity to roads ( Antisari et al., 2015 ). Simultaneously, a high soil pH has also been documented to accelerate plant uptake of contaminants found in the earth, especially the bioavailability and toxicity of Pb and Cd ( Chang et al., 2014 ). Finally, though the presence of these pollutants may pose health risks by way of vegetable consumption, another significant pathway for exposure is through the direct ingestion of soil and dust particles ( Paltseva et al., 2020 ).

However, these risks may be subverted depending on the type of UA that is being utilized. For instance, farming technologies associated with indoor farming, hydroponics, aquaponics, may help to minimize the impacts of soil and/or air pollutants generated by human activity. Though the use of alternative farming mechanisms can help mitigate risks posed by urban pollution, its employment is succeeded by other changes in production that can affect the overall economic viability and sustainability of UA. A simple example of this might be how the use of indoor farming shields crops from air and soil pollution in cities, but may simultaneously require greater energy consumption for climate control systems ( Aubry and Manouchehri, 2019 ).

From the opposite perspective, agricultural practices which are focused in producing high-quality products, especially those which are utilizing terroir approach, will be more inclined to improve the environment and local ecosystem condition where the UA are located. Using terroir concept, the interaction between local environment and ecosystem characteristics as well as the local agriculture knowledge and practices can directly influence the characteristics of agricultural products ( Ashardiono, 2019 ). In the premise that these high-quality products command better profit, UA which utilize terroir approach will have more incentive in demanding urban policies which promote better environmental condition around their site. As the following example illustrates, UA production tradeoffs can be overcome through policies, thereby heightening long term viability.

4. Policies in urban agriculture

To accommodate the multiple functions of UA, in addition to the sector's intrinsic diversity, respective urban policies require a degree of structural robustness in ensuring proper integration. By and large however, policies remain limited in scope, and incapable of sufficiently implementing systems within respective municipalities ( Orsini, 2020 ). The more recent emergence of UA initiatives helps to explain some of these policy gaps and lack of formal recognition. Respectively, since the adoption of the Support Group on Urban Agriculture (SGUA) in 1992 by the UNDP's Urban Agriculture Advisory Committee (UAAC), developed states have begun to gradually incorporate policy support for UA into national legal frameworks ( van Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007 ). Take for instance, the lack of specific provisions for city farms in the EU's rural development policy between the years 2007 and 2013 ( McEldowney, 2017 ). Similarly, in the United States, formal recognition of urban food production in the context of planning only took hold in 2007 with the establishment of the Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning ( American Planning Association, 2007 ). Moreover, despite the growing popularity of community gardens, farmer's markets, and urban farms in Australia, the country had yet to implement similar strategies or policy mechanisms as of 2019 ( Sarker et al., 2019 ).

Siegner et al. (2018) contrasted supposed implementations with observed realities as a product of shortcomings within urban planning political frameworks. Theoretical work in cities like Cleveland has shown the production capacity of urban farms to meet local demands almost entirely on the assumption of robust policy and planning support. This observed disparity between theory and practice, is underpinned by issues of inequality that have yet to be directly addressed ( Horst et al., 2017 ). Once again, much of this can, and has been attributed to the nascent industry and developing foundation of related academic literature. Fully fledged legislative systems, extending beyond surface level benefits of UA and into issues of economic inequities, therefore need to be established on the grounds of empirical analysis to improve functions of future adaptations ( Stewart et al., 2013 ).

Whilst evolution in urban planning has taken place during the 21st century, development has remained within boundaries defined by the knowledge and intention of policymakers. A substantial amount of academic literature exists introducing social benefits of UA, and how policy mechanisms may help realize such potential Horst et al. (2017) , e.g., outlined food justice goals in the United States and Canada, a characteristic of UA that is often celebrated and looked into by initiatives in developing countries. In other words, it is deployed as a solution to food injustice, or a strategy to minimize economic disparities in urban spaces. Despite this, Horst et al. (2017) noted that “ without explicit valuation of food justice ” policy mechanisms existing congruent to this common, well-researched stance will ultimately fall short of uplifting the disadvantaged communities they seek to target. Additionally, UA is only part of a food justice solution, and that “ there is a distinction between alleviating symptoms of injustice . . . and disrupting social and political structures that underlie them ” ( Reynolds, 2015 ).

To this extent, even with commonly referenced and targeted goals such as food justice, purported benefits of UA are not a given in the absence of robust policy frameworks. The researched socioeconomic benefits of UA extend beyond such mainstream functions, and the sector's rapid development has onset advancements currently not accounted for in policy regimes. Consequently, as the next section seeks to detail, this stifles development of legislation targeting lesser-known features in need of support, such as hygiene or regulatory challenges presented by livestock and digital farming, respectively.

4.1. Policy challenges

4.1.1. livestock rearing as part of urban agriculture.

The inclusion of agriculture into populated metropolitan areas has given rise to hygiene concerns particularly around raising livestock. Though less of an issue for plant-based farming, discourses for animal husbandry center predominantly on tradeoffs made between food security as a benefit of UA and maintaining public health standards ( Butler, 2012 ). Thus, there exists a dichotomy whereby overly strict standards can result in a restrictive, exclusionary space, whilst undeveloped ones may promote volatile developments subject to inconsistencies ( Butler, 2012 ). Urban livestock initiatives have engendered a kind of shock to municipal policy systems on account of reintroducing animals into city centers. This is in direct contradiction with the expulsion of farm animals to rural spaces at the height of the industrial revolution specifically for sanitation reasons ( Butler, 2012 ).

The city of Oakland's attempt to amend its home occupation permit provides one such example whereby the products of animal husbandry were overlooked by policy makers. McClintock et al. (2014) observed that in the state of Seattle, residents are not required to obtain a permit to sell produce grown directly from their property. At the state level this law is inclusive of plant and animal farming alike. However, the amendment made by the city of Oakland in 2011 to its related local ordinance on home occupation failed to mention the inclusion of animal products such as eggs and honey from these permit exemptions. So, although state permits were not required, failure of explicit omission on behalf of the local jurisdiction complicated the process for its respective residents seeking to sell such products. Such transitory processes of including animal farming in developing UA policies has highlighted the fact that there remains a dearth of certain regulations and specifications tailored to livestock.

Although municipal codes have evolved substantially, they continue to require reconfiguration to accommodate the possibility of urban livestock. Several variables including species type, real estate, and animal cruelty laws exist on this front to structure codifications. One study conducted on livestock owners in several cities across the United States found considerable diversity in the types of regulations faced by farmers ( McClintock et al., 2014 ). Ordinances between states ranged from area requirements, restrictions on animal numbers, noise, hygiene, to some combination of regulations, or none at all. A vast majority of respondents with chickens were found to be in violation of municipal setback codes, with some making the case that distance from property should be contingent upon other factors such as agreements with neighbors ( McClintock et al., 2014 ). To this end, the argument is made to establish a middle ground wherein policy mechanisms adopt a case-by-case basis while simultaneously leaving room for potential variants that may emerge ( McClintock et al., 2014 ).

4.1.2. Digital farming as new form of urban agriculture

As UA systems have evolved, they have come to intersect with other industries, such as the tech sector, which has enabled the development of new dimensions. This includes elements such as automation, software integration, and silicon-based hardware ( Carolan, 2020 ). Digitized alternatives are being adopted by rural and urban farmers alike as they can help increase output and optimize production. Vertical farming offers several common examples of how technologies have been integrated into the agricultural sector thus far. For instance, the use of HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems helps to maintain suitable environments for vertical farm crops. In order to do so, systems make use of automated monitoring operations that help track environmental variables like temperature and humidity ( Kalantari et al., 2017 ). Such systems make use of sensors and actuators to build up a database of information about the surrounding environment, eliminating the need for human management ( Kalantari et al., 2017 ). However, as a study conducted by Carolan (2020) on the topic of digital urban agriculture (DUA) exemplifies, these advancements have complicated regulatory efforts so desperately needed.

Notably, farms associated with DUA were found to enjoy greater ease of integration on the policy-front due to blurred definition lines and the absence of laws specifically targeting the emerging sector. Findings from the study suggested that due to the hybrid nature of DUA, farms often do not fall neatly into either agriculture or technology sectors. This presented planning challenges when it comes to zoning laws. Rather than being classified with traditional UA, by taking on the identity of the tech sector, digital farms were almost indiscriminately faced with fewer zoning restrictions. Again, this was because initiatives were perceived as categorically different from UA practices that lacked the “digital” tag at the front ( Carolan, 2020 ).

Subsequently, lax zoning approaches often favored land allocation to digital farms over traditional UA. In doing so, growing numbers of digital farms were more likely to depress local market prices by selling commodities at breakeven prices. Such phenomena threaten other local sellers as “digitized” operations grow and ramp up production in the absence of adequate policies ( Carolan, 2020 ). DUAs are just one instance of UA's rapid expansion into other industries, a characteristic requiring diligence and consideration on behalf of policymakers to combat harmful regulatory grey areas. To this end, achieving economic viability hinges upon the decision-making process to create an environment that is not only conducive, but responsive to these types of changes.

4.1.2.1. The case of Gotham Greens

Established in 2009, Gotham Greens offers one such example of a “digital” urban farming operation. The organization's flagship greenhouse, situated in Greenpoint Brooklyn, New York, is characterized as a rooftop hydroponic commercial farm. Otherwise referred to as Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) the farm utilizes various advanced technologies to help ensure high output efficiency alongside year-round production. This is inclusive of computer systems that manage internal temperatures and irrigation. Moreover, the installation of solar photovoltaics, advanced ventilation systems, and high efficiency pumps and fans further seeks to optimize energy efficiency of the greenhouse ( Al-Kodmany, 2018 ). Since its establishment the organization has opened additional farms at two other locations in New York as well as one in Chicago, expanding production and its consumer base ( Reynolds and Darly, 2018 ).

Construction of the flagship farm at Greenpoint was completed in 2011 following the introduction of new zoning regulations within the state of New York. Specifically, those that enabled Gotham Greens to secure zoning approval eliminated height and bulk restrictions that had previously affected rooftop farms and gardens in the city. Changes in said laws emerged in 2010 in response to increasing awareness for UA initiatives, and particularly sought to encourage and accommodate the development of CEA in urban areas ( Meier, 2011 ).

Policy development in favor of vertical farms is reflective of a trend in the recent decade to support farms associated with high-tech systems like that of Gotham Greens. Accordingly, this resulted in the emergence of other CEA farms around the same time in New York, including Brooklyn Grange, Eaglestreet Rooftop Farm, and Square Roots to name a few ( Reynolds and Darly, 2018 ). The driving force behind policy development, or the relaxation of restrictions specifically pertaining to “digital” operations, has been on the assumption of their sustainability and energy efficiency. However, though Gotham Greens has sought to optimize its energy use through advanced computer systems, some studies have suggested that energy efficiency is not ubiquitous across all CEA initiatives. For instance, a study conducted by Barbosa et al. (2015) found that compared to traditional, soil-based farms, rooftop farms heavily reliant on artificial lighting provided by LEDs were less energy efficient.

In terms of its economic viability, Gotham Greens has been recorded to “produce 7–8 times more food than traditional farming” on account of its technology-dependent efficiencies, and year-round production. Coupled with the fact that the organization was the only supplier of fresh food during Hurricane Sandy, these characteristics appear promising in the context of food security ( Al-Kodamy, 2018 ). However, as Carolan's study highlighted, it was the production surpluses by large commercial “digital” farms like Gotham Greens which can harm smaller agricultural businesses (2020). Furthermore, in observing the growing prominence of rooftop and hydroponic farms, Dimitri et al. (2016) discovered that many displayed a tendency to be profit-oriented and reported higher sales than their more traditional competitors.

Regarding employment, Goodman and Minner (2019) noted that opportunities generated by CEAs overall in New York have proven limited. This is on account of the dominance Gotham Greens currently withholds over the sector, a vast majority of which are in low-paying positions. Even more so, having received an automation grant in 2016, seeking to improve efficiency further, many of these jobs became vulnerable to replacement by machinery. To such an extent, policy development has taken place in New York in support of UA. However, as the example of Green Gotham demonstrated, many of these policies have acted predominantly in favor of initiatives backed by advanced technologies on the assumption that they offer more sustainable and economically efficient alternatives.

The aforementioned instances highlighted a tendency for political frameworks to lack the functionalities that prompt efficient incorporation of agriculture into cities as they overlook the nuances of emerging practices. Here urban planners may benefit in drawing from the related experience of recreational green spaces. Such green spaces have thrived in recent years under comparatively greater social and political support. As Orsini (2020) noted, “ policies exist for the promotion of green spaces in the city for ecological-environmental, aesthetic-recreational, and social-educational purposes. ” One study conducted in the United States found that between the years 2001 and 2007, a total of 204 bills related to park improvement and green space support were passed. The bills covered a wide range of dimensions including, funding, outreach, preservation, recreational activities, and safety. The diversity and quantity of bills passed were thus indicative of “ a continued commitment to improvement and reinvention of existing policies ” in the states represented by the study ( Kruger et al., 2010 ). Should a similar foundation be tailored towards agricultural purposes, UA may become more readily accessible ( Orsini, 2020 ).

Considering the multifaceted potentials of UA integration, the fundamental dimension of policy becomes apparent in addressing the current realities and challenges. Urban land allocation to agriculture can have social, economic, and environmental value-added benefits, necessitating consideration for landscape multifunctionality. These are inclusive of ecological functions like biodiversity protection and nutrient cycling, as well as social cohesion factors such as recreation, health and well-being, and educational opportunities ( Artmann and Sartison, 2018 ). Specific instances exemplifying such multifaceted potentials have been discussed in section 3, which prompted the need of further support in constructing more robust legislative systems to improve initiatives for future adaptations ( Krikser et al., 2019 ).

4.1.3. Educational opportunities

Similar to the environmental protection and development of UA, policymakers also withheld the capacity to promote educational opportunities for urban farmers. In supplying individuals with the necessary knowledge and tools to make the most sustainable decisions, cities can cultivate human capital and ensure maintained success of UA initiatives irrespective of external policy changes ( Deelstra and Girardet, 2000 ). It should be noted that even when left unregulated, farmers have begun reducing pesticide use independently, showing a preference for more organic alternatives ( Brown and Jameton, 2000 ). Community gardens have also opted out of synthetic chemicals in favor of less environmentally damaging methods such as composting and hydroponics ( Tendero and Phung, 2019 ). These more sustainable, eco-friendly alterations are often a product of the intentions that commonly motivate the demographics entering the UA sector.

The values generated by environmental conservation and activism efforts are compatible with those put forth by UA and can therefore influence the behavioral intentions of urban farmers. Educational background, in particular, has a notable impact on the perceived behavioral intentions of farmers ( Kopiyawattage et al., 2019 ). Accordingly, while producers may act on the best of intentions, a lack of knowledge and access to resources can result in mistakes or poor decisions in the context of environmental well-being ( McDougall et al., 2019 ). Given the gravity of educational opportunities, governmental policies can and should situate themselves to promote sufficient pedagogical means for urban producers so that they may more effectively carry out these intentions ( Siegner et al., 2018 ).

In this context, the conduct of UA may be divided into two broad categories, those operated by small or family farms, and commercial size operations. Different operational scales of UA require different skill sets and knowledge. Educational approaches should therefore take into consideration these esoteric distinctions to better equip farmers with information that is relevant to the type of farming at hand. For instance, small-scale farmers may benefit from a detailed understanding of composting practices and cultivation methods to improve overall efficiency and reduce labor costs ( McDougall et al., 2019 ). Similarly, to reduce environmental impacts, improving the carbon literacy of small-scale and community farmers could also improve consumer choices made by these farms ( Sharp and Wheeler, 2013 ).

In particular, some countries and cities seeking to expand UA projects have already started implementing educational and training programs to support local farmers. For instance, the state of California's Cooperative Extension has adopted educational and assistance programs geared towards the support of UA. One such example is the Small Farm Program (SFP) which assists and supports the state's smaller scale urban food producers ( Reynolds, 2010 ). Additionally, California adopted the Urban Agricultural Incentives Zone Act in 2013 which has allowed cities to employ tax incentives for agricultural land-use in designated zones. Significantly, the act encompasses the use of land for educational purposes relating to agriculture ( Reynolds and Darly, 2018 ).

The achievement of high sustainability in urban farms is contingent upon the training and knowledge procured by producers. This contrasts the tendency of recreational farmers to make less sustainable choices, resulting in low efficiency of material and labor inputs ( McDougall et al., 2019 ). This may be addressed by developing education policies and training opportunities for farmers and the community as a whole. Regarding developments within the sector itself, such as new technologies, training programs and workshops aid farmers in updating applied methodologies. Subsequently, the presence of direct farm-to-consumer markets can incentivize farmers by ensuring the profitability of operations. Governments can help ensure that organizations and institutions have the necessary financial means of providing educational opportunities for the surrounding community. Similarly, educating community members helps in creating jobs for low-income households ( Carolan, 2020 ).

Conversely, while local governments can bolster productivity and sustainability of UA, education becomes another benefit of integration as awareness is generated amongst residents concerning topics like nutrition and food production ( Tuijl et al., 2018 ). Promotion of education through agriculture on the policy front thus comes full circle as farmers are equipped with techniques which improve production quality whilst exposure to such practices helps generate more conscious consumers in the community ( Horst et al., 2017 ). Such advantages are demonstrative of alternate societal contributions UA has to offer.

5. Conclusion

The economic profitability of UA is highly dependent on its size, type, price competitiveness, and consumers’ perceived value of produce beyond uses as food. Despite its highly relative profitability, UA has many different roles for communities in cities and urban areas, from subsistence-oriented motives to large scale commercial production facilities. Through UA, a household can reduce its expenses by producing its own food, thus leading to savings in their household budgets ( Smit and Bailkey, 2006 ). Furthermore, for a household that produced more than their consumption needs, they can sell the production surpluses and generate additional income for their household. In a more commercially oriented UA, the local community and households will be able to receive income by becoming agricultural laborers in the production facilities or by producing the necessary agricultural inputs such as compost and fertilizer for UA. Additionally, these community and household members can also conduct food processing activities and market food products to gain further income. Among these economic benefits beyond profit, UA can also help provide a healthier diet and nutrition to the urban poor ( Zezza and Tasciotti, 2008 ). Based on these potentials, the level of food security and health conditions of the urban poor communities can be increased through UA activities ( Poulsen et al., 2015 ). For the general urban communities, UA will increase the availability of fresh and affordable foods like vegetables. UA complemented the urban food supplies from the rural agriculture by lessening its dependence on off-seasons food imports, while also act as a buffer when there are reduced supplies, thus flattening the price/variety seasonality ( Battersby and Marshak, 2013 ). Other roles of UA can be embedded as one of the elements in the urban infrastructure, providing several ecosystem services to the urban environment as part of the green and blue infrastructure, whereby maintaining green open spaces and vegetation cover, UA can help improve the urban microclimate, and physical and mental health of urban dwellers. On risk-prone areas such as floodplains, UA can help in stormwater management by controlling the infiltration rate of excess stormwater ( Dubbeling and de Zeeuw, 2011 ). Local food production can reduce GHGs emissions and contribute to a low carbon economy because of shorter supply chains and the amount of fossil fuels used in transportation. Encouraging food production close to cities helps in reducing the ecological footprint of the city, increasing the synergy between urban domestic, industrial sectors, and agriculture ( Smeets et al., 2007 ). With a local food provision, cities will be able to strengthen their resilience ( de Zeeuw et al., 2011 ) and self-reliance in coping with natural disasters and increasing their capacity in adapting to climate change. Local food production will act as a safety net for urban communities during disasters and emergencies when the flow of food distributions from the rural areas failed to reach the urban areas. UA will also reduce the vulnerabilities in urban communities during times of economic hardship ( McClintock, 2010 ), as UA will not only serve as a buffer for food security but also alleviating potential unrest in the communities ( Moore, 2006 ). Therefore, while UA may not be directly profitable, its economic viability is brought by its multidimensional beneficial impacts on the urban environment, social well-being, disaster preparedness, and sustainability.

On the other hand, UA has a potential to be economically profitable as a commercial-scale food producer in a closed system and controlled environment such as vertical farms, plant factories, and greenhouses ( Specht et al., 2016 ). The technologies for this type of UA are already rapidly advancing to increase efficiency and consequently profitability. The integration of digital technology into vertical farms to increase automation, control, and efficiency, incorporation of compatible urban renewable electricity and bio-heating to sustainably power the increasing energy demand of more complex system, and utilization of CRISPR-Cas 9 genetic editing tool to design crops with compact architecture and rapid life cycle to grow in confined space are the current development pushing UA to not only be profitable, but also produce high-quality agricultural products where urban consumers will have assurance on the safety standards of food products.

While the resurgence of UA among cities worldwide has been mainly driven by the public and private sectors, the role of policy makers is an integral part of UA revolution to successfully integrate UA practices in cities. Existing policies and regulations, land prices, availability of urban markets, as well as the prices for agriculture commodities strongly influenced UA activities ( de Zeeuw et al., 2011 ). Its current situation is similar to the early days of renewable energy in the market, particularly solar power. Part of solar power success, aside from the technological and manufacturing advancement, is the monetary incentive policy on both the adopters of technology and their consumers. Hence, government policies which are conducive for UA and properly formulated in the framework of systems approach, can further help increase economic viability of UA while bringing positive impact on food security, social justice, environmental quality, health and well-being, climate change mitigation, and disaster risk reduction.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Declaration of interest's statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

The corresponding author would like to acknowledge Ritsumeikan University for their internal research grant support. G.P. Marquez and R.B. Salonga would like to acknowledge Ritsumeikan University and Nagoya City University, respectively, for their internal research grant support.

• Ackerman K., Conard M., Culligan P., Plunz R., Sutto M.P. Sustainable food systems for future cities: the potential of urban agriculture. Econ. Soc. Rev. 2014; 45 (2):189–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adam-Bradford A. In: Proceedings: Emerging Issues along Urban/rural Interfaces III. Laband D.N., editor. Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences; 2010. Urban agriculture and its function in urban environmental management in the context of adaptation, food security and climate change; pp. 92–99. (Auburn University Center for Forest Sustainability, USDA Forest Service, Centers for Urban and Interface Forestry, Auburn University Forest Policy Center). [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Kodmany K. The vertical farm: a review of developments and implications for the vertical city. Buildings. 2018; 8 (2):24. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Planning Association . APA; 2007. APA Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning. https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/food.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Antisari L.V., Orsini F., Marchetti L., Vianello G., Gianquinto G. Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables grown in urban gardens. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015; 35 :1139–1147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Artmann M., Sartison K. The role of urban agriculture as a nature-based solution: a review for developing a systemic assessment framework. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (6):1937. [ Google Scholar ]
• Asciuto A., Schimmenti E., Cottone C., Borsellino V. A financial feasibility study of an aquaponic system in a Mediterranean urban context. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019; 38 :397–402. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashardiono F. Protecting Japanese tea growers from the devastating effects of climate change: a terroir-based ecosystem approach for rural development. J. Asiatique-Japan Res. Inst. Ritsumeikan University. 2019; 1 :29–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aubry C., Manouchehri N. Urban agriculture and health: assessing risks and overseeing practices. Field Actions Sci. Rep. 2019; 20 :108–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azunre G.A., Amponsah O., Peprah C., Takyi S.A., Braimah I. A review of the role of urban agriculture in the sustainable city discourse. Cities. 2019; 93 :104–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbosa G.L., Gadelha F.D.A., Kublik N., Proctor A., Reichelm L., Weissinger E., Wohlleb G.M., Halden R.U. Comparison of land, water, and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2015; 12 (6):6879–6891. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Battersby J., Marshak M. Growing communities: integrating the social and economic benefits of urban agriculture in Cape Town. Urban Forum. 2013; 24 :447–461. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertier L.D., Ron M., Huo H., Bradford K.J., Britt A.B., Michelmore R.W. High-resolution analysis of the efficiency, heritability, and editing outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-induced modifications of NCED4 in lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ) G3 (Bethesda, Md.) 2018; 8 (5):1513–1521. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biazoti A.R., Nakamura A.C., Nagib G., Leão V.O.P.S., Giacchè G., Mauad T. The impact of Covid-19 on urban agriculture in São Paulo, Brazil. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (11):6185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown K.J., Jameton A.L. Public health implications of urban agriculture. J. Publ. Health Pol. 2000; 21 (1):20–39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown S.L., Chaney R.L., Hettiarachchi G.M. Lead in urban soils: a real or perceived concern for urban agriculture. J. Environ. Qual. 2016; 45 (1):26–36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buscaroli E., Braschi I., Cirillo C., Fargue-Lelièvre A., Modarelli G.C., Pennisi G., Righini I., Specht K., Orsini F. Reviewing chemical and biological risks in urban agriculture: a comprehensive framework for a food safety assessment of city region food systems. Food Control. 2021; 126 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler W.H. Welcoming animals back to the city: navigating the tensions of urban livestock through municipal ordinances. J. Agric. Food Sys. Commun. Dev. 2012; 2 (2):193–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carolan M. Urban farming is going high tech: digital urban agriculture’s links to gentrification and land use. American Planning Association. 2020; 86 (1):47–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang M., Morel K. Reconciling economic viability and socio-ecological aspirations in London urban microfarms. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018; 38 :9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang C.Y., Yu H.Y., Chen J.J., Li F.B., Zhang H.H., Liu C.P. Accumulation of heavy metals in leaf vegetables from agricultural soils and associate potential health risks in the Pearl River Delta, South China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014; 186 :1547–1569. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen N., Reynolds K. Urban agriculture policy making in New York’s “new political spaces”: strategizing for a participatory and representative system. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 2014; 34 (2):221–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen N. CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute; New York City: 2016. Policy Brief: New Directions for Urban Agriculture in. https://www.cunyurbanfoodpolicy.org/news/2016/10/19/policy-brief-new-directions-for-urban-agriculture-in-new-york-city [ Google Scholar ]
• Currey C.J. Produce Grower; 2017. An Introduction to Pests in Hydroponic Production. https://www.producegrower.com/article/an-introduction-to-pests-in-hydroponic-production/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Dadvand P., Bartoll X., Basagaña X., Dalmau-Bueno A., Martinez D., Ambros A., Cirach M., Triguero-Mas M., Gascon M., Borrell C., Nieuwenhuijsen M. Green spaces and general health: roles of mental health status, social support, and physical activity. Environ. Int. 2016; 91 :161–167. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daftary-Steel S., Herrera H., Porter C.M. The unattainable trifecta of urban agriculture. J. Agric. Food Sys. Commun. Dev. 2015; 6 (1):19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Danso G., Keraita B., Afrane Y. Consultancy report submitted to FAO-Ghana office via International Water Management Institute; 2002. Farming Systems in Urban Agriculture, Accra, Ghana. With Special Focus on its Profitability, Wastewater Use and Added Malaria Risk. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deelstra T., Girardet H. In: Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. Bakker N., Dubbeling M., Gündel D., Sabel-Koschella U., Zeeuw H., editors. German Foundation for International Development; 2000. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities; pp. 43–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• de Zeeuw H., Van Veenhuizen R., Dubbeling M. The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities in developing countries. J. Agric. Sci. 2011; 149 (S1):153–163. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dimitri C., Oberholtzer L., Pressman A. Urban agriculture: connecting producers with consumers. Br. Food J. 2016; 118 (3):603–617. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dubbeling M., de Zeeuw H. In: Resilient Cities. Otto-Zimmermann K., editor. Vol. 1. Springer; Dordrecht: 2011. Urban agriculture and climate change adaptation: ensuring food security through adaptation. (Local Sustainability). [ Google Scholar ]
• Dubbeling M., Veenhuizen R., Halliday J. Urban agriculture as a climate change and disaster risk reduction strategy. Field Actions Sci. Rep. 2019; 20 :32–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dzhambov A., Hartig T., Markevych I., Tilov B., Dimitrova D. Urban residential greenspace and mental health in youth: different approaches to testing multiple pathways yield different conclusions. Environ. Res. 2018; 160 :47–59. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehmann A., Thumm U., Lewandowski I. Fertilizing potential of separated biogas digestates in annual and perennial biomass production systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018; 2 :12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ezura H. Letter to the Editor: the world’s first CRISPR tomato launched to a Japanese market: the social-economic impact of its implementation on crop genome editing. Plant Cell Physiol. 2022; 63 (6):731–733. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization; 2011. The place of urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) in national food security programmes. https://www.fao.org/3/i2177e/i2177e00.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization; Rome: 2020. Covid-19 and Smallholder Producers’ Access to Markets. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foodtank . 2017. Foodtank 2016-2017 Annual Report. https://foodtank.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Annual-Report_web.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Forchino A.A., Gennotte V., Maiolo S., Brigolin D., Mélard C., Pastres R. Eco-designing aquaponics: a case study of an experimental production system in Belgium. Procedia CIRP. 2018; 69 :546–550. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuji M., Yokohari M., Watanabe T. Identification of the distribution pattern of farmlands in Edo. J. City Plan. Inst. Japan. 2002; 37 :931–936. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glavan M., Schmutz U., Williams S., Corsi S., Monaco F., Kneafsey M., Guzman Rodriguez P.A., Čenič-Istenič M., Pintar M. The economic performance of urban gardening in three European cities – examples from Ljubljana, Milan and London. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018; 36 :100–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goddek S., Delaide B., Mankasingh U., Ragnarsdottir K.V., Jijakli H., Thorarinsdottir R. Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability. 2015; 7 (4):4199–4224. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman W., Minner J. Will the urban agricultural revolution be vertical and soilless? A case study of controlled environment agriculture in New York City. Land Use Pol. 2019; 83 :160–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gooley G.J., Gavine F.M. 2003. Integrated Agri-Aquaculture Systems: a Resource Handbook for Australian Industry Development. http://backyardaquaponics.com/Travis/03-012.pdf RIRDC Publication No. 03/012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gopinath P., Vethamoni P.I., Gomathi M. Aeroponics soilless cultivation system for vegetable crops. Chemical Sci. Review Letters. 2017; 6 (22):838–849. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grebitus C., Printezis I., Printezis A. Relationship between consumer behavior and success of urban agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2017; 136 :189–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haigh R., Amaratunga D. An integrative review of the built environment discipline’s role in the development of society’s resilience to disasters. Int. J. Dis. Resil. Built Environ. 2010; 1 (1):11–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez M., Manu R. International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2018. Growing Greener Cities: Urban Agriculture and the Impact on SDG 11. https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/generation-2030/growing-greener-cities-urban-agriculture-and-the-impact-on-sdg-11/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Hiremath R.B., Balachandra P., Kumar B., Bansode S.S., Murali J. Indicator- based urban sustainability—a review. Energy for Sustainable Dev. 2013; 17 (6):555–563. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horst M., McClintock N., Hoey L. The intersection of planning, urban agriculture, and food justice: a review of the literature. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2017; 83 (3):277–295. [ Google Scholar ]
• House W.J., Ikiara G.K., McCormick D. Urban self-employment in Kenya: panacea or viable strategy? World Dev. 1993; 21 (7):1205–1223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishii T., Araki M. Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing. Plant Cell Rep. 2016; 35 (7):1507–1518. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalantari F., Tahir O.M., Joni R.A., Fatemi E. Opportunities and challenges in sustainability of vertical farming: a review. J. Landscape Ecol. 2018; 11 (1):35–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalantari F., Tahir O.M., Mahmoudi Lahijani A., Kalantari S. A review of vertical farming technology: a guide for implementation of building integrated agriculture in cities. Adv. Eng. Forum. 2017; 24 :76–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalen S. Agriculture, food, and environmental policy. Nat. Resour. Environ. 2011; 26 (1):3–7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23054892 [ Google Scholar ]
• Khudoyberdiev A., Ahmad S., Ullah I., Kim D. An optimization scheme based on fuzzy logic control for efficient energy consumption in hydroponics environment. Energies. 2020; 13 (2):289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kopiyawattage K.P.P., Warner L., Roberts T.G. Understanding urban food producers’ intention to continue farming in urban settings. Urban Agric. Reg. Food Sys. 2019; 4 :1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krikser T., Zasada I., Piorr A. Socio-economic viability of urban agriculture: a comparative analysis of success factors in Germany. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (7):1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruger J., Lankford T., Schmid T. State Legislative Support for parks. Environ. Health Insights. 2010; 4 :27–31. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kwon C.-T., Heo J., Lemmon Z.H., Capua Y., Hutton S.F., Van Eck J., Park S.J., Dubbeling Lippman Z.B. Rapid customization of Solanaceae fruit crops for urban agriculture. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020; 38 (2):182–188. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LaCroix C.J. Urban agriculture and the environment. Urban Lawyer. 2014; 46 (2):227–248. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24392805 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lennard W., Goddek S. In: Aquaponics Food Production Systems. Goddek S., Joyce A., Kotzen B., Burnell G.M., editors. Springer; Cham: 2019. Aquaponics: the basics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lobato-Gómez M., Hewitt S., Capell T., Christou P., Dhingra A., Girón-Calva P.S. Transgenic and genome-edited fruits: background, constraints, benefits, and commercial opportunities. Horticulture Research. 2021; 8 :166. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubowski R.N., Plantinga A.J., Stavins R.N. Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2006; 51 (2):135–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marche G. What can urban gardening really do about gentrification? A case-study of three San Francisco community gardens. Eur. J. Am. Stud. 2015; 10 (3):1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mares T.M., Peña D.G. In: Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. Hou J., editor. Routledge; 2010. Urban agriculture in the making of insurgent spaces in Los Angeles and Seattle; pp. 241–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marquez G.P.B., Takeuchi H., Montaño M.N.E., Hasegawa T. Performance of rice straw as mono- and co-feedstock of Ulva spp. for thalassic biogas production. Heliyon. 2020; 6 (9) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin M., Poulikidou S., Molin E. Exploring the environmental performance of urban symbiosis for vertical hydroponic farming. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (23):6724. [ Google Scholar ]
• McClintock N. Why farm the city? Theorizing urban agriculture through a lens of metabolic rift. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010; 3 (2):191–207. [ Google Scholar ]
• McClintock N. Radical, reformist, and garden-variety neoliberal: coming to terms with urban agriculture’s contradictions. Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Public. Present. 2014; 19 (2):147–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• McClintock N., Pallana E., Wooten H. Urban livestock ownership, management and regulation in the United States: an exploratory survey and research agenda. Land Use Pol. 2014; 38 :426–440. [ Google Scholar ]
• McClintock N. Cultivating (a) sustainability capital: urban agriculture, ecogentrification, and the uneven valorization of social reproduction. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2016; 108 (2):579–590. [ Google Scholar ]
• McDougall R., Kristiansen P., Rader R. Small-scale urban agriculture results in high yields but requires judicious management of inputs to achieve sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2019; 116 (1):129–134. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McEldowney J. European Parliamentary Research Service; 2017. Urban Agriculture in Europe: Patterns, Challenges and Policies. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2017)614641 [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehmood F., Ullah I., Ahmad S., Kim D.H. Object detection mechanism based on deep learning algorithm using embedded IOT devices for smart home appliances control in CoT. J. Ambient Intell. Hum. Comput. 2019 [ Google Scholar ]
• Meier S. NYSERDA; 2011. Gotham greens farms, Llc. Sustainable Urban CEA. https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Business-and-Industry/Agriculture/CEA-Completed-Projects [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendes W., Balmer K., Kaetheler T., Rhoads A. Using land inventories to plan for urban agriculture: experiences from Portland and Vancouver. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2008; 74 (4):435–449. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore S. Forgotten roots of the green city: subsistence gardening in columbus, Ohio, 1900–1940. Urban Geogr. 2006; 27 (2):174–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moreno-Peñaranda R. United Nations University; 2011. Japan’s Urban Agriculture: Cultivating Sustainability and Well-Being. https://unu.edu/publications/articles/japan-s-urban-agriculture-what-does-the-future-hold.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Mougeot L.J.A. International Development Research Center (IDRC); 2000. Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks, Main Policy Challenges. Cities Feeding People Series. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/26429/117785.pdf?sequence=12.%20 Report 31 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicholls E., Ely A., Birkin L., Basu P., Goulson D. The contribution of small-scale food production in urban areas to the sustainable development goals: a review and case study. Sustain. Sci. 2020; 15 :1585–1599. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nugent R. In: For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Koc M., MacRae R., Mougeot L.J.A., Welsh J., editors. International Development Research Centre; 1999. Measuring the sustainability of urban agriculture; pp. 95–99. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/23475/IDL-23475.pdf?sequence=1 [ Google Scholar ]
• Opitz I., Berges R., Piorr A., Krikser T. Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the global north. Agric. Hum. Val. 2016; 33 :341–358. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orsini F., Kahane R., Nono-Womdim R., Gianquinto G. Urban agriculture in the developing world: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013; 33 :695–720. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orsini F. Innovation and Sustainability in Urban Agriculture: the Path Forward. J. Consumer Prot. Food Safety. 2020; 15 :203–204. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orsini F., Pennisi G., Michelon N., Minelli A., Bazzocchi G., Sanyé-Mengual E., Gianquinto G. Features and functions of multifunctional urban agriculture in the global north: a review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020; 4 [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Sullivan C.A., McIntyre C.L., Dry I.B., Hani S.M., Hochman Z., Bonnett G.D. Vertical farms bear fruit. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020; 38 (2):160–162. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otazu V. International Potato Center; Lima, Peru: 2010. Manual on Quality Seed Potato Production Using Aeroponics; pp. 1–42. (CIP) [ Google Scholar ]
• Paltseva A.A., Cheng Z., Egendorf S.P., Groffman P.M. Remediation of an urban garden with elevated levels of soil contamination. Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 722 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrea S.M., Coadă M.T., Cristea V., Dediu L., Cristea D., Rahoveanu A.T., Zugravu A.G., Rahoveanu M.M., Mocuta D.N. A comparative cost – effectiveness analysis in different tested aquaponic systems. Agric. Agric. Sci. Proc. 2016; 10 :555–565. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poulsen M.N., McNab P.R., Clayton M.L., Neff R.A. A systematic review of urban agriculture and food security impacts in low-income countries. Food Pol. 2015; 55 :131–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds K., Darly S. CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute; 2018. Commercial urban agriculture in the global city: perspectives from New York City and Métropole du Grand Paris. https://www.cunyurbanfoodpolicy.org/news/2018/12/11/lscislvsr7spj7834v9ls796n6xm7h [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds K. University of California; Davis: 2010. Urban Agriculture as Revolution: an Action Research and Social Movement Analysis of Food Production in Alameda County. Doctoral dissertation. https://cityfarmer.info/ph-d-thesis-urban-agriculture-as-revolution-an-action-research-and-social-movement-analysis-of-food-production-in-alameda-county-california/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds K. Disparity despite diversity: social injustice in New York City’s urban agriculture system. Antipode. 2015; 47 (1):240–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts J.M., Bruce T.J.A., Monaghan J.M., Pope T.W., Leather S.R., Beacham A.M. Vertical farming systems bring new considerations for pest and disease management. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2020; 176 (3):226–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Romeo D., Vea E.B., Thomsen M. Environmental impacts of urban hydroponics in Europe: a case study in Lyon. Procedia CIRP. 2018; 69 :540–545. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanyé-Mengual E., Orsini F., Oliver-Solà J., Rieradevall J., Montero J.I., Gianquinto G. Techniques and crops for efficient rooftop gardens in Bologna, Italy. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015; 35 (4):1477–1488. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarker A.H., Bornman J.F., Marinova D. A framework for integrating agriculture in urban sustainability in Australia. Urban Sci. 2019; 3 (2):50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sathyanarayana S.R., Gangadhar W.V., Badrinath M.G., Ravindra R.M., Shriramrao A.U. Hydroponics: an intensified agriculture practice to improve food production. Reviews in Agric. Sci. 2022; 10 :101–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sato S. 2020. Japan: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Tokyo_Japan_10-20-2019 USDA-FAS GAIN Report. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider S.A. A reconsideration of agricultural law: a call for the law of food, farming, and sustainability. William Mary Environ. Law Pol. Rev. 2010; 34 (3):935–963. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol34/iss3/5/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma N., Acharya S., Kumar K., Singh N., Chaurasia O.P. Hydroponics as an advanced technique for vegetable production: an overview. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2018; 17 (4):364–371. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharp A., Wheeler M. Reducing householders’ grocery carbon emissions: carbon literacy and carbon label preferences. Australian Marketing J. 2013; 21 (4):240–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegner A., Sowerwine J., Acey C. Does urban agriculture improve food security? Examining the nexus of food access and distribution of urban produced foods in the states: a systematic review. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (9):2988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smeets P.J.A.M., van Mansfeld M.J.M., Zhang C., Loohuis R.O., Broeze J., Buijs S., Moens E., van Latesteijn H., van Steekelenburg M., Stumpel L., Bruinsma W., van Megen T., Mager S., Christiaens P., Heijer H. 2007. Master Plan. Greenport Shanghai Agropark. https://edepot.wur.nl/222976 [ Google Scholar ]
• Smit J., Bailkey M. In: Cities Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities. van Veenhuizen R., editor. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR); Philippines: 2006. Urban agriculture and the building of communities; pp. 145–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smit J., Ratta A., Nasr J. The Urban Agriculture Network, United Nations Development Programme; 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. http://urban.agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/UNDP-Urban-Agriculture-Part-one-1.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019; 104 :333–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Specht K., Weith T., Swoboda K., Siebert R. Socially acceptable urban agriculture businesses. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016; 36 :17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Srihajong N., Ruamrungsri S., Terdtoon P., Kamonpet P., Ohyama T. Heat pipe as a cooling mechanism in an aeroponic system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006; 26 (2–3):267–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sroka W., Pölling B., Mergenthaler M. City adjustments as the main factor of success of urban and peri-urban farms–empirical evidence from the Ruhr Metropolis. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 2019; 89 (1):1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart R., Korth M., Langer L., Rafferty S., Silva N.R.D., Rooyen C. What are the impacts of urban agriculture programs on food security in low and middle- income countries? Environ. Evid. 2013; 2 :7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoknes K., Scholwin F., Krzesiński W., Wojciechowska E., Jasińska A. Efficiency of a novel “food to waste to food” system including anaerobic digestion of food waste and cultivation of vegetables on digestate in a bubble-insulated greenhouse. Waste Manag. 2016; 56 :466–476. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tendero M., Phung C.G. The revival of urban agriculture: an opportunity for the composting stream. Field Actions Sci. Rep. 2019; 20 :40–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomaier S., Specht K., Henckel D., Dierich A., Sawicka M. Farming in and on urban buildings: present practice and specific novelties of zero-acreage farming (ZFarming) Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2014; 30 (1):43–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomkins M., Yousef S., Adam-Bradford A., Perkins C., Grosrenaud E., Mctough M., Viljoen A. Cultivating refuge: the role of urban agriculture amongst refugees and forced migrants in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Int. J. Des. Nat. 2019; 14 (2):103–118. https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/cultivating-refuge-role-urban-agriculture-amongst-refugees-and-forced-migrants-kurdistan [ Google Scholar ]
• Tornaghi C. Critical geography of urban agriculture. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2014; 38 (4):551–567. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torraco R.J. Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2016; 15 (4):404–428. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuijl E.V., Hospers G.J., van der Ber L. Opportunities and challenges of urban agriculture for sustainable city development. Eur. Spatial Res. Pol. 2018; 25 (2):5–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations [UN] 2019. Global Issues: Population. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population [ Google Scholar ]
• Vagneron I. Economic appraisal of profitability and sustainability of peri-urban agriculture in Bangkok. Ecol. Econ. 2007; 61 (2-3):516–529. [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Berg A., Maas J., Verheij R., Groenewegen P. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010; 70 (8):1203–1210. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Veenhuizen R., Danso G. Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper, Food and Agricultural Organization. Food and Agricultural Organization; 2007. Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture. https://ruaf.org/document/profitability-and-sustainability-of-urban-and-peri-urban-agriculture/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Varkonyi-Gasic E., Wang T., Voogd C., Jeon S., Drummond R.S.M., Gleave A.P., Allan A.C. Mutagenesis of kiwifruit centroradialis-like genes transforms a climbing woody perennial with long juvenility and axillary flowering into a compact plant with rapid terminal flowering. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019; 17 (5):869–880. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagstaff C., Clarkson G.J.J., Zhang F., Rothwell S.D., Fry S.C., Taylor G., Dixon M.S. Modification of cell wall properties in lettuce improves shelf life. J. Exp. Bot. 2010; 61 (4):1239–1248. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whittinghill L.J., Rowe D.B. The role of green roof technology in urban agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2012; 27 (4):314–322. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26332344 [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization [WHO] Ecosystems and human well-being: health synthesis: a report of the millennium ecosystem assessment/core writing team: C. Corvalan, S. Hales, A. McMichael; extended writing team: C. Bulter et al.; review editors: J. Sarukhán, et al. World Health Organization; 2005. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43354 [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization [WHO] 2017. Urban green Space Interventions and Health: a Review of Impacts and Effectiveness. https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/urban-health/publications/2017/urban-green-space-interventions-and-health-a-review-of-impacts-and-effectiveness.-full-report-2017 Full report. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Bank . 2021. Food Security and Covid-19. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-and-covid-19 [ Google Scholar ]
• Yokohari M., Amati M., Bolthouse J., Kurita H. Restoring urban fringe landscapes through urban agriculture: the Japanese experience. disP - The Planning Review. 2010; 46 (181):51–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshida S., Yagi H. Long-term development of urban agriculture: resilience and sustainability of farmers facing the covid-19 pandemic in Japan. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (8):4316. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshida S., Yagi H., Kiminami A., Garrod G. Farm diversification and sustainability of multifunctional peri-urban agriculture: entrepreneurial attributes of advanced diversification in Japan. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (10):2887. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zezza A., Tasciotti L. Does urban agriculture enhance dietary diversity? Empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food and Agric. Organ. United Nations. 2008 https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/283318/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Zezza A., Tasciotti L. Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security. Food Pol. 2010; 35 (4):265–273. [ Google Scholar ]

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 31 May 2019

Scoping review of the impacts of urban agriculture on the determinants of health

• Pierre Paul Audate   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2475-6799 1 , 2 ,
• Melissa A. Fernandez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3464-4870 3 , 4 ,
• Geneviève Cloutier   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9697-3648 1 , 2 &
• Alexandre Lebel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6774-7633 1 , 2 , 5  

BMC Public Health volume  19 , Article number:  672 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

47k Accesses

62 Citations

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

There has been an increasing interest in urban agriculture (UA) practice and research in recent years. Scholars have already reported numerous beneficial and potential adverse impacts of UA on health-related outcomes. This scoping review aims to explore these impacts and identify knowledge gaps for future UA studies.

A systematic search was conducted in seven electronic bibliographic databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies. Articles were screened and assessed for eligibility. From eligible studies, data were extracted to summarize, collate, appraise the quality and make a narrative account of the findings.

A total of 101 articles (51 quantitative, 29 qualitative, and 21 mixed methods studies) were included in our final analysis. Among these articles, 38 and 37% reported findings from North America and Sub-Saharan Africa respectively. Quantitative studies revealed evidence of positive impacts of UA on food security, nutrition outcomes, physical and mental health outcomes, and social capital. The qualitative studies reported a wide range of perceived benefits and motivations of UA. The most frequently reported benefits include contributions to social capital, food security, health and/or wellbeing. However, the evidence must be interpreted with caution since the quality of most of the studies was assessed as weak to moderate. While no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the adverse impacts of UA on health, paying particular attention to contamination of UA soil is recommended.

More peer-reviewed studies are needed in areas where UA is practiced such as Latin America and Caribbean. The inconsistency and the lack of strong quality in the methodology of the included studies are proof that more rigorous studies are also needed in future research. Nevertheless, the substantial existing evidence from this review corroborate that UA can influence different determinants of health such as food security, social capital, health and well-being in a variety of contexts.

Peer Review reports

Until recently, food systems were given little attention in the agenda of urban planners [ 1 ]. Urban agriculture (UA) is an example of food system components with little or no existing regulations in many cities worldwide. In the last decades, practitioners have been advocating for the inclusion of UA in urban planning policies [ 2 ]. This has opened new avenues for research on UA in a wide range of disciplines.

Numerous beneficial and potential adverse impacts of UA have been reported in urban planning and public health fields [ 3 , 4 ]. Studies on urban gardens in high-, middle-, and low-income countries suggest they influence several food security and nutrition outcomes [ 5 , 6 ]. For example, in the United States (US), participation in community gardening (a type of UA intervention when it is practised in urban settings) increased fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption of gardeners in comparison to their non- gardening counterparts [ 7 , 8 ]. Greater F&V consumption is associated with health improvements and prevention of chronic diseases [ 9 ]. UA related activities have also demonstrated an influence on physical and mental health outcomes.

A study conducted in two large community garden networks in Salt Lake City, Utah has demonstrated that UA is a good physical activity that can prevent obesity. This study revealed that the community gardener participants had significantly lower body mass index (BMI) compared with their neighbors who did not participate in community gardening activities [ 10 ]. The positive role of urban gardening in human well-being has also been explored [ 11 ]. Additionally, urban gardening has been proven to positively influence stress reduction outcomes [ 12 ], foster social cohesion while providing participants the opportunity to build social networks and connect to their community [ 13 ].

Despite these potential positive effects on a variety of health determinants, researchers are demanding for further clarity on the benefits of UA [ 14 ]. Adverse impacts of UA have also been reported by the public health community and urban planners. Several studies showed UA practices can influence food safety because of the risks associated to urban soil or water contamination [ 15 , 16 ]. Other studies have pointed out the facts that urban gardening can be a place where certain participants feel excluded or it can also be a place where existing race and social class-based disparities are replicated [ 17 ]. All these assumptions and evidence make the literature on UA impacts on health outcomes very diverse.

The diversity of evidence in the literature could be explained by different methodological approaches, a focus on a specific aspect of UA, or the socioeconomic context where UA is implemented. This scattered knowledge makes it difficult to help urban planning stakeholders and could possibly misguide decision making; and would benefit from a synthesis of scientific knowledge on this matter.

To our knowledge, there is only a limited number of systematic reviews on this topic [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. While three literature reviews [ 18 , 19 , 21 ] have focused on the beneficial impacts of UA on specific food security or nutrition outcomes such as dietary intake, nutritional status, or healthy food access, they have not considered potential adverse impacts. Guitart et al. [ 20 ], has taken a broader approach to synthetize the existing knowledge by also including the adverse impacts. However, this review only considered urban community gardening which is a specific type of UA that does not include other types such as backyards, domestic gardening, or individual owned farms.

Furthermore, beyond how UA was defined by authors, reviews showed a lack of diversity in the socioeconomic context and geographic scope in included primary studies. While Poulsen et al. [ 19 ] and Warren et al. [ 18 ] mainly included studies from low- and middle-income countries from Sub-Saharan Africa’s region, most of the primary studies included by Guitart et al. [ 20 ] were from the US, a high-income country. Only one primary study [ 22 ] from Sub-Saharan Africa’s region was included into the final analysis of Guitart et al. [ 20 ]‘s study. While Poulsen et al. [ 19 ] only explored low-income countries, in Warren et al. [ 18 ], socioeconomic contexts were not an exclusion criterion. Three primary studies from high- income countries identified [ 7 , 8 , 23 ] were purposely excluded from Warren et al. [ 18 ] final analysis because the number was considered too low in terms of studies to include.

Based on these observations, there is still a need for systematic reviews that explore the impacts of UA in a broad socioeconomic context and geographic scope. By synthesizing vast amounts of literature, a systematic review can provide insights into understanding the general or common characteristics of individuals and communities involved in UA and how this activity affects their health.

For this paper, the determinants of health are personal, socioeconomic, environmental and cultural factors that influence a person’s or community’s health. They include lifestyle, food, social and community networks, sanitation, environment etc. [ 24 ].

The aim of this study was to explore the impacts of UA on the determinants of health and identify knowledge gaps for future UA studies by conducting a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature. The following research questions were investigated: i) what are the impacts of UA on the determinants of health? and ii) how do these impacts differ according to countries’ income level (high-, middle-, and low-income) and sociodemographic characteristics of participants? The responses to these questions will allow us to present the geographical location of UA studies, the type of impacts (positive or adverse) studied, and the methods utilized by scholars to assess the impacts of UA on the determinants of health.

A systematic literature review on the impacts of UA on health determinants was performed. The wide range of health determinants, methods and results used in UA research suggests the use of a scoping review as described by Arksey and O’Malley [ 25 ] and Levac et al. [ 26 ]. A scoping study adopts a broader search strategy while allowing reproducibility, transparency, and reliability on the current state of literature. The detailed protocol of this scoping study that includes the search strategy and steps of the systematic review process has been published elsewhere [ 27 ]. Briefly, the search strategy included a set of keywords on UA, and determinants of health identified with the help of a library specialist for electronic bibliographic search. An additional file shows the keywords in detail (see Additional file  1 ).

Identification of relevant studies

Original peer-reviewed articles published in English language journals from January 1980 to December 2017 were obtained from systematic searches of seven electronic bibliographic databases that include: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE (Embase), CINAHL Plus with full text, Academic search premier (EBSCO host), CAB Abstract (ovid), and Web of science in January 2018. The final search strategy for PubMed can be found in an additional file (see Additional file 1 ). All identified articles from the searches were transferred to a reference manager software (EndNote, X8 Thomson Reuters) and all duplicates and titles in other languages were removed. The EndNote (X8 Thomson Reuters) file was later transferred to an online systematic review software (Distiller SR, Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada) for screenings. The PICOS (participants, intervention, context, outcomes, and study design) framework [ 28 ] was used to establish eligibility criteria.

In order to be included, original peer-reviewed articles had to meet five criteria. First, the study considered UA as a food growing initiative that involves participants. Soil and water contamination studies that did not specifically assess risks for humans were excluded. Second, the focus of the study was UA defined as a food growing initiative in urban settings. Studies that combined other interventions with food production (e.g. school gardening programs that include cooking lessons [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]) were excluded due to our inability to ascertain the independent effect of UA on the targeted health outcome. Third, the study was conducted in urban areas. All studies that explicitly stated they consider rural, peri-urban, or suburban areas were excluded unless the results were desegregated to make comparisons with urban areas. Fourth, at least one of the outcomes measured or findings reported in the study were determinants of health as listed in Table  2 . Fifth, only peer-reviewed articles written in English that describe original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods research were considered. Grey literature, narratives, commentaries, or other document types such as reports, and essays were excluded. Systematic reviews were also excluded; however, the reference lists of all eligible ones were carefully revised for additional relevant studies.

Selection of relevant and reliable studies

By applying the eligibility criteria, two reviewers (PPA with background in agriculture and MAF with background in nutrition) have screened the articles for selection. The first selection was from title and abstract screening and the second one was from a full-text screening. All conflicts generated through the screening stages between the two reviewers were discussed until consensus was reached. When needed, a third opinion from two other authors (AL and GC) was consulted to reach consensus.

Data extraction from included studies

Once the articles were selected, the following data were recorded in a spreadsheet: author(s), year, city, region, country’s income level, level of influence (e.g. individual, household or community), characteristic of participants (e.g. children, adults), type of UA (e.g. community gardening, home gardening, allotment, school gardening, and urban farming), study purpose, study design (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods), measurement methods, outcomes measured, and key findings. One author extracted the data, and another validated them to ensure accuracy prior the quality appraisal phase.

Study quality appraisal

For the quality appraisal of the included articles a checklist (see Additional files  2 and 3 ) was developed using Wallace et al. [ 127 ] criteria and a modified rating system as suggested by Ohly et al. [ 128 ] for the qualitative studies. Given the mix of study methods found in the quantitative studies (cross-sectional, randomized controlled trials, before and after surveys, risk assessment), it was not appropriate to consider only one existing quality assessment tool to appraise the quality of quantitative studies. The authors have instead opted to develop a 12-item checklist based on criteria and questions from the following three quality assessment tools sources: i) assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies, and assessment tool for before-after studies with no control groups [ 129 ], ii) quality assessment tool for quantitative studies from the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP), and iii) study limitations and ethical criteria [ 127 ]. We used the same overall rating system for quantitative and qualitative studies. The first author (PPA) appraised the quality of the included studies and obtained validation from the second author (MAF). When needed, a third opinion from the other two authors (AL and GC) was consulted.

Collating, summarizing and reporting the findings

A narrative account of the included studies was prepared to present patterns in UA impacts on the determinants of health. A numerical analysis presented the number, geographical distribution, and type of UA of the included studies. Since the outcomes were broad, they were synthetized thematically to record the overall impacts of UA as positive, adverse, neutral, or mixed for the quantitative or mixed methods studies in some cases. The neutral impact was assigned to studies that presented quantitative measurement tools but did not present significant results as positive or adverse effect of the measured outcomes in their findings. The mixed impact was used to classify studies that presented both positive and adverse effects of the measured outcomes. On the other hand, the terms perceived benefits, challenges or motivations were used to classify the outcomes of the qualitative and the remaining mixed methods studies. The reported outcomes and findings were synthetized and grouped into specific themes defined by the authors to alleviate the narrative account (Table 2 ).

Identification of potential studies

The searches from the seven electronic databases hit a total of 8697 records (Pubmed: 674, Embase: 791, Medline: 637, CINAHL Fulltext: 295, Academic search premier: 692, CAB abstract: 2506, Web of science: 3102) that led to a total of 6683 titles and abstracts that were screened after the removal of duplicates. We retrieved a total of 418 full-text articles from our different libraries. Six records were unable to be obtained in full-text format. The full-text screening’s stage led to 118 potential articles relevant to our scoping review. Additional articles were excluded after full-text assessment for the reasons mentioned in the flowchart (Fig.  1 ). A total of 101 articles were therefore included in our final data extraction, quality appraisal, and narrative account stages.

Flow chart of the studies identification and selection process

Characteristics of the included studies

The peer-reviewed literature on the impacts of UA on the determinants of health is recent and it has considerably increased in the last few years (Table  1 ). Among the included studies, 61% were published in the last five years of this current study (2013–2017) and approximately, 90% have been published in the last decade (2007–2017) of this current study.

In terms of geographic scope of the included studies, they are mainly from two world regions where 38 and 37% were conducted and reported findings from North America and Sub-Saharan Africa respectively (Fig.  2 ). Research in North America was predominantly from the US which alone has 33 of the 101 included studies. In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa’s region, the studies are divided among several countries. For example, the country with the highest number of included studies in this region is Nigeria with a total of nine studies. In addition, at least 12 other countries from this region are represented in our list of included studies.

Number of included studies by world regions

Out of the 101 included studies, 59% were focused on high- income countries, 32% in middle- income, 8% in low- income and 1% in both (middle- and low- income) countries. In addition, there is a diversity of countries n  = 34 in total where the impacts of UA on health-related outcomes have been studied.

Type of methods and design

The included studies in our research have used three types of study design: n  = 51 used quantitative methods, n  = 29 used qualitative methods, and n  = 21 have explored mixed methods (Table 2 ). Among the quantitative studies n  = 14 are health assessments, n  = 25 used cross-sectional surveys, n = 2 used both health assessment and cross-sectional surveys, n  = 4 quasi-experimental designs, n = 1 randomized control trial, n = 1 before and after or pre and post surveys, and n = 4 case studies. The qualitative and mixed methods used a wide range of measurement methods to collect data such as in-depth and semi-structured interviews, focus groups, surveys, and observation questionnaires (see Additional file  4 ). They have also used a wide variety of qualitative approaches that include ethnography, grounded theory, and case studies. However, in most of the cases, it was difficult to identify the qualitative approaches because the authors did not provide enough details on their methodology.

Quality appraisal of the included studies

All types of included studies were assessed for the quality of the outcomes and findings reported. Those which quality was appraised as strong are identified in Table 2 . The quality of quantitative and qualitative aspects of mixed-methods studies was appraised separately (see Additional files 2 and 3 ). Overall, the majority of studies reporting quantitative data were appraised with weak or moderate quality ratings. Only four quantitative studies were rated as strong. Most of the studies that scored weak or moderate did not provide enough information and details to justify their population size and used cross-sectional study designs without repeated measurements or control groups. More than half of them did not address limitations and ethical issues related to their study design. Similarly, more than 90% of the studies that reported qualitative data were also rated as weak or moderate. Only, seven qualitative studies were rated as strong studies. The majority scored moderate or weak because they do not provide enough information on their data collection, theoretical approach, methods, and did not address limitations or ethical issues (see Additional file  3 ).

Type of UA studied

The included articles used a variety of terminology to study UA. Among the most commonly type of terminology used: n  = 36 partly or entirely explored community gardening, n  = 19 studied urban or commercial farming, n  = 9 explored home or backyard gardening, n  = 7 used the term allotment gardening, n = 7 were focused on institutional type of UA such as school gardening, church gardening, or gardening on university campuses. Urban livestock, urban rooftop farming, sack gardening, are also among other terms used to identify UA activities (see Additional file 4 ).

Type of health-related outcomes assessed

The quantitative outcomes assessed and qualitative themes that emerged were grouped into ten categories inspired from the determinants of health model [ 24 ] (Table 2 ). Most studies investigated multiple determinants of health such as food security, nutrition, social capital. Among the studies that measured food security outcomes, 7 (5 quantitative, 1 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods study) reported findings only on food security outcomes. Among the ones focused on nutrition, there are three quantitative studies that assess only nutrition outcomes (see Additional file 4 ).

Quantitative studies

Food security and nutrition outcomes.

Among the studies that investigated food security outcomes 75% reported findings that demonstrated the positive impacts of UA on food security. Two studies [ 42 , 43 ] reported findings that influenced participants both positively and negatively. Three studies [ 36 , 39 , 47 ] were neutral because they did not provide evidence of any impacts on food security.

Eleven quantitative studies investigated nutrition outcomes (Table 2 ). Among them, UA was reported to positively influence F&V intake of participants in five studies [ 7 , 8 , 33 , 44 , 80 ], nutritional status of children in two studies [ 49 , 124 ], and food diversity in one study [ 40 ]. Two studies [ 47 , 123 ] did not provide any evidence of impacts of UA activities on nutrition outcomes. For example, Christian et al. [ 123 ] used a strong quantitative study design to measure F&V intake among children that do school gardening activities. However, its findings failed to support that school gardening improves children’s daily F&V intake.

Social capital

Eight quantitative studies explored social capital (Table 2 ). All of them have reported positive impacts or benefits of UA activities on social capital. Soga et al. [ 82 ] used a Social Cohesion and Trust Scale to statistically demonstrate that gardeners have greater social cohesion than non-gardeners. Litt et al. [ 80 ] reported on the social capital by exploring outcomes such as social involvement or collective efficacy of gardeners and the study concludes that urban gardeners have more involvement in social activities than non-gardeners. Based on the findings from the other studies, we can claim that UA gardeners have higher social support than non-gardeners [ 78 ]. UA can also positively influence friendship and adaptability between friends [ 79 ] or different ethnic groups [ 81 ].

Health and/or wellbeing

Among the studies that reported findings and outcomes related to health and/or wellbeing, some reported positive impacts of UA on physical health in general [ 33 , 78 ] or physical health-related outcomes such as BMI and obesity risk [ 10 ] and improved muscle mass [ 98 ]. But UA activities do not always influence positively BMI as three studies [ 33 , 78 , 82 ] did not find significant positive impacts of UA on BMI. Other studies reported outcomes that were related to the health of people with mental disabilities [ 97 ] or mental health [ 82 ]. Three studies [ 45 , 78 , 98 ] also reported well-being as UA benefits. For example, Park et al. [ 98 ] found that UA activities improve psychological health of women by demonstrating that women participants of UA activities exhibit lower depression score compared to their control groups. Hawkins et al. [ 78 ] reported significant difference in perceived stress levels between allotment gardeners and other participants of indoor activities. One study [ 43 ] mentioned some health problems such as headache related to UA activities.

Sanitation and food safety

Among the quantitative studies that addressed issues related to health concerns or food safety, one [ 37 ] positioned food safety as one of the most important motivations for UA practitioners. Three studies [ 104 , 109 , 110 ] that assessed health risk due to heavy metal contamination were neutral because they found that the contamination of the soil or produce pose no risk to human groups assessed. The remains reported potential adverse impacts of UA. Matthys et al. [ 111 ] and Stoler et al. [ 117 ] found significant associations between UA activities and the risk of malaria among urban farming households in Sub-Saharan Africa’s region. Antwi-Agyei et al. [ 105 ] found that use of wastewater in UA can expose farmers in Africa to pathogenic agents such as E. coli . Grace et al. [ 108 ] studies urban livestock and found that children under five years in dairy households were exposed more to Cryptosporidium oocysts . Other authors assessed potential contamination of urban soil and UA produce by heavy metals. Most of them agreed that accidental ingestion of UA soil [ 106 , 115 , 116 , 119 ] or consumption of vegetables or other produce grown in contaminated UA soil [ 15 , 16 , 106 , 107 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 118 ] may represent a risk for the health of different population groups (e.g. children and/or adults).

Income and cost savings on food

Quantitative studies also reported findings on income, cost savings on food, and/or employment. UA was reported as an activity that provides income to farmers in the African context [ 32 , 122 ], other studies preferred to relate UA as an activity that allow practitioners to save money on food expenses and this statement has been put into evidence in different world region such as North America [ 36 , 47 ] or Sub-Saharan Africa [ 41 ]. A study conducted in the US by Algert et al. [ 34 ] states that UA allows gardeners to save $339.00 by growing their own vegetables. Other studies [ 42 , 43 , 45 ] have reported the income related findings in terms of motivations and perceived benefits of UA practitioners.

Qualitative studies

Perceived benefits of ua.

Out of 29 qualitative studies, 26 addressed several perceived benefits of UA for practitioners. The most commonly mentioned benefits include: contribution to food security and nutrition, in terms of access to fresh or healthier foods [ 51 , 53 , 92 ], enhanced health and wellbeing, foster social capital, strengthen cultural connections, education, savings on food expenses, and/or a source of income (Table 2 ).

Motivations on UA

The remaining three qualitative studies included mainly discussed the motivations of people involved in UA. Among the wide range of motivations expressed by people engaging in UA, the studies mentioned: food or savings on food expenses, opportunity to build social connections, environmental consciousness, stress reduction, leisure, and other health related reasons (e.g. healthier lifestyle and/or diet diversity).

Challenges related to UA

Seven studies discussed challenges related to UA (Table 2 ). Among the main challenges discussed: insecure land tenure, violence perception, and food safety concerns of community-garden participants, and social exclusion due to people who feel excluded in some community gardens are concerns that may require attention from UA stakeholders.

Mixed methods studies

The evidence from mixed methods studies presents a set of UA impacts similar to those described in the previous sections for the quantitative and qualitative studies. However, the findings were dominated by qualitative evidence. Only six of the studies [ 64 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 125 ] presented quantitative evidence in their findings. Panneerselvam et al. [ 73 ] and Mkwambisi et al. [ 71 ] presented findings that demonstrate UA activities positively influence food security outcomes. For example, in Malawi, low-income female-headed households consumed 34.3 and 11% of the total UA harvest. The UA impacts have also positively influenced savings on food. In India, 30% of the farmers experienced 20–40% reduction in food expenditure [ 73 ]. Mlozi [ 72 ] also reported positive impacts of UA activities on food security and income, arguing that the profits of urban farmers were seven times higher than a senior government’s official. However, it also addressed some concerns related to environmental damage of urban livestock. Miura et al. [ 70 ], who studies a set of nutrition and food security outcomes, was not able to conclude whether or not UA activities improved the diet of the participants. One study found that UA positively influenced social capital. For example, 87% of participating farmers agreed that relationship with their neighbours improved because of UA [ 73 ].

The remaining studies described a wide range of motivations, perceived benefits, and challenges of UA. Among the challenges documented is the fear due to potential food contamination and exposure of UA practitioners and their families to contaminants [ 77 ]. Gallaher et al. [ 120 ] and Kaiser et al. [ 121 ] assessed health risk perception due to UA activities in potential contaminated soil and found respectively that farmers and urban residents were aware and worried that potential hazards such as heavy metals could contaminate food grown in the gardens. Finally, other perceived burdens as barriers to participate in UA activities such as: hard work, getting dirty, and feeling unsafe [ 65 ] are also reported.

Level of influence of the outcomes

The included studies were categorized into three different influence levels (individual, household, and community) to measure or demonstrate the influence of UA on the determinants of health. Most of the studies from high-income countries demonstrate or measure the impacts at individual or community levels. On the other hand, studies from middle- and low- income countries explored the impacts mostly at household and individual levels (Fig.  3 ).

Number of included studies based on levels of influence of the impacts of UA on the determinants of health and country-income levels

This scoping review used standard systematic review methods to identify, select, and synthesize findings from 101 studies that reported impacts of UA on the determinants of health. We documented the state of UA peer-reviewed literature by analyzing the geographic scope, country-level income, type of UA activities, and key findings on the main reported determinants of health. Below, we provide important information on the implications of the findings and the gaps that emerged from the results of this review that can be relevant for UA practitioners, researchers, and policy makers.

The results from the included quantitative and mixed method studies revealed some substantial evidence on the positive impacts of UA on food security and nutrition outcomes with increasing F&V consumption, improving food security status of urban farmers or nutritional status of children, food diversity, and/or dietary intake. However, this evidence has to be interpreted with caution. The outcomes reported are mainly based on cross-sectional surveys that rely on the participants’ self-reported responses. Most studies did not use validated tools for food security and nutrition outcomes’ measurement. In addition, in most cases, the authors do not always provide rigorous statistical evidence to sustain their findings. Other studies [ 39 , 47 , 70 , 123 ] were not able to find enough evidence that justify the positive impacts of UA on food security or nutrition outcomes.

Although social capital is a determinant of health with limited reliable and valid measurement tools [ 130 ], it is less common to find studies that only use quantitative methods to measure social capital. In this review, social capital was an important determinant of health where the positive impacts of UA have been strongly supported by quantitative studies [ 79 , 82 ]. Nevertheless, some caution regarding methodological limitations (cross-sectional studies without repeated measurements, sample size justification) should be considered when interpreting these findings as more rigorous studies are needed to corroborate the evidence.

Several studies reported the adverse impacts of UA on health by assessing the risks related to consumption of food grown in contaminated urban soil. However, the findings do not allow to draw definitive conclusions on this topic. Most of the findings are based on authors’ assumptions of the amount of produce consumed or soil accidentally ingested by the population. This method is limited since it does not always reflect reality. In addition, in regard to ethics, it may be difficult to find the right way to assess health risks. This is because it is unethical for researchers to intentionally ask participants to consume contaminated produce in order to take the correct measurements. In order to improve the reliability of this type of data, it is probably better to record the real amount of produce consumed by the studied population.

The findings from qualitative studies highlight a wide range of perceived benefits and motivations of UA. The benefits reported by UA practitioners were similar to their motivations. Supplying food in adequate quantity or quality, building social capital, improving physical and mental health, and saving on food expenses were the most common reasons and benefits perceived by UA practitioners. Other less common but important reasons include income, heathy lifestyle, and education and environmental consciousness [ 58 , 83 , 90 , 101 ]. Other benefits of UA activities such as personal development have already emerged from other systematic reviews [ 131 ]. On the other hand, each study showed findings from their specific context. But the results showed heterogeneity in the types of UA activities and diversity of the methods used. Unfortunately, we were not able to appreciate much difference between countries’ income level and the outcomes assessed.

In this case, most of the determinants of health’ themes emerged were explored in high-, middle-, and low- income countries. Lifestyle and cultural connection were the only two themes that appeared in high-income countries but did not in middle- or low- income countries. We expected some outcomes such as food security and nutrition to be associated more with middle- and low- income countries. However, they were also importantly assessed in various studies from high- income countries. This highlights a fact that other authors have already pointed out that food is also an important function of UA in the context of high-income countries [ 132 ].

We also found that scholars from high- income countries are more likely to study the impacts of UA at individuals and/or community levels while studies from middle- and low- income countries are more likely to explore the contributions of UA on determinants of health at household and individual levels without considering the community aspect. This trend can be explained by the fact that community gardening is a type of UA with more presence in high-income countries [ 20 ] compared to other low- and middle- income countries where other types of UA such as home gardening or urban farming are more common. In other words, the urban farming as a larger type of UA practiced in middle- and low- income countries, is more likely to engage the entire household unlike the community gardens where sometimes the plots are smaller and only one member of the household is involved.

Another important aspect that was observed from our review is the lack of transnational or multi-city studies. Only one included study, Frayne et al. [ 39 ], which published findings from the same data as Crush et al. [ 6 ], was conducted in more than one country. Only seven out of 101 included studies have been conducted in more than one city. These finding prove that despite the diversity in the geographic scope and types of UA of the existing academic literature, UA remains a topic studied in specific or local contexts and that partly limits the capacity to generalize its potential impacts on specific determinants of health.

Aside from the US and Sub-Saharan Africa, there is limited peer-reviewed research in other world regions where UA is highly recognized and practised. For example, we did not find eligible studies in the Latin American and Caribbean’s region. However, cities such as Belo Horizonte in Brazil, Havana in Cuba, Rosario in Argentina and Quito in Equator from this region have been widely recognized as successful UA cases for their urban and peri-urban food practice and policy [ 133 ]. Among the possible explanations for the lack of studies from other world regions are the dominance of the academic literature on UA by countries from North America and Sub-Saharan Africa, and the exclusion of peri-urban area in our definition of UA. In addition, our review only considers English language bibliographic databases and journals, which may have overlooked relevant studies published in other languages. However, since English is considered a hegemonic language in the international scientific literature [ 134 ], we also expected to retrieve more eligible papers published in English from other world regions where English is not the first language.

All types of studies (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods) were predominantly qualified as weak or moderate. The inconsistent or incomplete reporting of results from some included studies were due to lack of details on study settings, sample size justification, data collection, ethical issues, statistical evidence for quantitative studies, and theoretical approaches for qualitative studies. These arguments strongly support a lack of methodological rigor in the evidence of the impacts of UA peer-reviewed literature and add on the evidence already mentioned by several authors [ 18 , 19 , 21 ].

Strengths and limitations of this scoping review

This review applied a systematic and rigorous search strategy that retrieves several articles to answer our research questions and objectives. As our topic was focused on UA and health, several well-known electronic bibliographic databases related to health, nutrition, and agriculture were used as primary sources. Each element from the PICOS framework was searched with multiple keywords in order to target all relevant studies [ 27 ]. However, we may have omitted some relevant studies published in other languages. Based on the geographic scope of the included studies, it is important to point out the existence of English language academic literature on the impacts of UA, but it is mostly focused on the US and some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

No study on air pollution and UA was included in our final analysis. This can be explained by the fact that we have unintentionally omitted air pollution as a key word in our search strategy. Additionally, we only considered peer-reviewed articles without assessing the existing evidence in the grey literature. The non-consideration of the grey literature restricts our findings to what was reported by scientific journals and possibly prevent the analysis of relevant cases that were rejected for publication by scientific editors.

Study implications

Our study reveals a need for more rigorous studies to demonstrate the impacts of UA on health-related outcomes and the possibility of exploring more transnational and multi-city research approaches to enrich the understanding on different contexts. This will help document best practices that can be implemented across different settings and contexts. As we stated earlier, UA remains a topic studied in specific or local contexts and that partly limits the capacity to generalize its potential impacts on specific determinants of health.

By combining positive and adverse impacts of UA on the determinants of health, this review takes a holistic approach to invite practitioner, and policy makers to address UA challenges while promoting it. The insights gained from this study will encourage practitioners to test the urban soils prior to growing UA produce.

This study illustrates a global picture of the current academic literature on the impacts of UA on the determinants of health. The study also designs the paths for future research in public health and urban planning domains. The inconsistency and the lack of strong quality in the methodology of the included studies are proof that more rigorous studies are needed to demonstrate the positive and adverse impacts of UA on different determinants of health. Nevertheless, the substantial existing evidence from this review corroborate that UA can influence different determinants of health such as food security, social capital, health and well-being in a variety of contexts (high-, middle-, low- income countries). In addition, UA practitioners can be motivated by social benefits such as supplying quality food and building social capital. There are also many physical and mental health benefits to different population groups. In a holistic sense, the evidence suggests benefits of UA on multiple dimensions of health with few adverse effects; thus, UA can be recommended as an intervention that positively influence the determinants of health. Concerns regarding urban soil contamination have to be addressed by analyzing physical and chemical proprieties of the soil and applying decontamination techniques when needed to ensure that there are no health risks to UA users.

Finally, we advocate for greater impact assessments by including transnational and multi--city approaches to compare the findings in different countries’ income level and geographic contexts. We also need a unified language to deal with heterogeneity in different types of UA identified.

Abbreviations

Body mass index

Fruit and vegetables

Participants, Intervention, Context, Outcomes, and Study design

Urban agriculture

Pothukuchi K, Kaufman JL. The food system: a stranger to the planning field. J Am Plan Assoc. 2000;66(2):113–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976093 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Dubbeling M. Zeeuw Hd, Veenhuizen Rv: cities, poverty and food: multi-stakeholder policy and planning in urban agriculture: practical action publishing; 2010.

Google Scholar  

Brown KH, Jameton AL. Public health implications of urban agriculture. J Public Health Policy. 2000;21(1):20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3343472 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lovell ST. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability. 2010;2(8):2499–522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2082499 .

Wakefield S, Yeudall F, Taron C, Reynolds J, Skinner A. Growing urban health: community gardening in south-East Toronto. Health Promot Int. 2007;22(2):92–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dam001 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crush J, Hovorka A, Tevera D. Food security in southern African cities: the place of urban agriculture. Prog Dev Stud. 2011;11(4):285–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/146499341001100402 .

Alaimo K, Packnett E, Miles RA, Kruger DJ. Fruit and vegetable intake among Urban Community gardeners. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2008;40(2):94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2006.12.003 .

Litt JS, Soobader MJ, Turbin MS, Hale JW, Buchenau M, Marshall JA. The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):1466–73. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300111 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Boeing H, Bechthold A, Bub A, Ellinger S, Haller D, Kroke A, Leschik-Bonnet E, Müller MJ, Oberritter H, Schulze M. Critical review: vegetables and fruit in the prevention of chronic diseases. Eur J Nutr. 2012;51(6):637–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-012-0380-y .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zick CD, Smith KR, Kowaleski-Jones L, Uno C, Merrill BJ. Harvesting more than vegetables: the potential weight control benefits of community gardening. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):1110–5. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301009 .

Dunnett N, Qasim M. Perceived benefits to human well-being of urban gardens. HortTechnology. 2000;10(1):40–5.

Hofmann M, Young C, Binz TM, Baumgartner MR, Bauer N. Contact to Nature Benefits Health: Mixed Effectiveness of Different Mechanisms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;15(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010031 .

Kingsley JY, Townsend M. ‘dig in’ to social capital: community gardens as mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban Policy Res. 2006;24(4):525–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140601035200 .

Webb NL. When is enough, enough? Advocacy, evidence and criticism in the field of urban agriculture in South Africa. Dev South Afr. 2011;28(2):195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2011.570067 .

Kouame PK, Nguyen-Viet H, Dongo K, Zurbrugg C, Biemi J, Bonfoh B. Microbiological risk infection assessment using QMRA in agriculture systems in cote d'Ivoire, West Africa. Environ Monit Assess. 2017;189(11):587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6279-6 .

Murray H, Pinchin TA, Macfie SM. Compost application affects metal uptake in plants grown in urban garden soils and potential human health risk. J Soils Sediments. 2011;11(5):815–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-011-0359-y .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Reynolds K. Disparity despite diversity: social injustice in new York City's urban agriculture system. Antipode. 2015;47(1):240–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12098 .

Warren E, Hawkesworth S, Knai C. Investigating the association between urban agriculture and food security, dietary diversity, and nutritional status: a systematic literature review. Food Policy. 2015;53:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.03.004 .

Poulsen MN, McNab PR, Clayton ML, Neff RA. A systematic review of urban agriculture and food security impacts in low-income countries. Food Policy. 2015;55:131–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.002 .

Guitart D, Pickering C, Byrne J. Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban For Urban Green. 2012;11(4):364–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.007 .

Garcia MT, Ribeiro SM, Germani ACCG, Bógus CM. The impact of urban gardens on adequate and healthy food: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2017;21(2):416–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017002944 .

Wills J, Chinemana F, Rudolph M. Growing or connecting? An urban food garden in Johannesburg. Health Promot Int. 2010;25(1):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dap042 .

Blair D, Giesecke CC, Sherman S. A dietary, social and economic evaluation of the Philadelphia urban gardening project. J Nutr Educ. 1991;23(4):161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182(12)81191-5 .

Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Background document to WHO - Strategy paper for Europe Institute for future studies. Arbetsrapport. 2007;14:1991.

Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 .

Audate PP, Fernandez MA, Cloutier G, Lebel A. Impacts of urban agriculture on the determinants of health: scoping review protocol. JMIR research protocols. 2018;7(3):e89. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.9427 .

O'Connor D, Green S, Higgins JP. Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series; 2008. p. 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch5 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Brown J, Colson G, CBdl S, Magnan N. Summer garden programs improve children's food knowledge and preferences: evidence using stated and revealed preference measures. HortTechnology. 2016;26(2):133–40.

Davis JN, Martinez LC, Spruijt-Metz D, Gatto NM. LA Sprouts: A 12-Week Gardening, Nutrition, and Cooking Randomized Control Trial Improves Determinants of Dietary Behaviors. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016;48(1):2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2015.08.009 .

Lautenschlager L, Smith C. Beliefs, knowledge, and values held by inner-city youth about gardening, nutrition, and cooking. Agric Hum Values. 2007;24(2):245–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-006-9051-z .

Adedeji OA, Olarewaju CA. Enhancing contributions, and challenges of home gardening practices of households in Ondo. J Home Econ Res. 2010;13:169–76.

Algert S, Diekmann L, Renvall M, Gray L. Community and home gardens increase vegetable intake and food security of residents in San Jose, California. Calif Agric. 2016;70(2):77–82. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v070n02p77 .

Algert SJ, Baameur A, Diekmann LO, Gray L, Ortiz D. Vegetable output, cost savings, and nutritional value of low-income Families’ home gardens in San Jose, CA. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2016;11(3):328–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2015.1128866 .

Ango AK, Abdullahi AN, Abubakar BB. Role of socioeconomic parameters in determining the efficacy of urban agriculture in providing food security in Birnin Kebbi metropolitan area, Kebbi state, north western Nigeria. Int Res J Agric Sci Soil Sci. 2011;1(6):185–92.

CoDyre M, Fraser EDG, Landman K. How does your garden grow? An empirical evaluation of the costs and potential of urban gardening. Urban For Urban Green. 2014;14(1):72–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.001 .

da Silva IM, Fernandes CO, Castiglione B, Costa L. Characteristics and motivations of potential users of urban allotment gardens: the case of Vila Nova de Gaia municipal network of urban allotment gardens. Urban For Urban Green. 2016;20:56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.014 .

Edeoghon CO, Idowu AA. Role of agricultural enterprises in food security status of urban farmers in Ikorodu Metropolis, Lagos State, Nigeria. Ethiopian J Environ Stud Manage. 2017;10(3):404–14. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v10i3.10 .

Frayne B, McCordic C, Shilomboleni H. Growing out of poverty: does urban agriculture contribute to household food security in southern African cities? Urban Forum. 2014;25(2):177–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-014-9219-3 .

Gregory MM, Leslie TW, Drinkwater LE. Agroecological and social characteristics of New York city community gardens: contributions to urban food security, ecosystem services, and environmental education. Urban Ecosystems. 2015;19(2):763–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0505-1 .

Jongwe A. Synergies between urban agriculture and urban household food security in Gweru City, Zimbabwe. J Dev Agric Econ. 2014;6(2):59–66. https://doi.org/10.5897/JDAE2013.0506 .

Ngome I, Foeken D. “My garden is a great help”: gender and urban gardening in Buea, Cameroon. GeoJournal. 2012;77(1):103–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9389-z .

Oladeji JO. Perceived health and environment related factors associated with urban agriculture activities in Ibadan metropolis, Oyo state. J Agric For Soc Sci. 2008;6(2):51–63.

Ratcliffe MM, Merrigan KA, Rogers BL, Goldberg JP. The effects of school garden experiences on middle school-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with vegetable consumption. Health Promot Pract. 2011;12(1):36–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839909349182 .

Ruggeri G, Mazzocchi C, Corsi S. Urban Gardeners’ Motivations in a Metropolitan City: The Case of Milan. Sustainability. 2016;8(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111099 .

Salahu BF, Dauda TO. Assessing food security status among farming households in Ibadan metropolis, Oyo state, Nigeria. Moor J Agric Res. 2005;6(1/2):52–9. https://doi.org/10.4314/mjar.v6i1.31824 .

Smith VM, Harrington JA. Community food production as food security: resource and economic valuation in Madison, Wisconsin (USA). J Agriculture, Food Systems Commun Dev. 2014;4(2):61–80. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2014.042.006 .

Thassananakajit S, Suwanmaneepong S, Mankeb P. Knowledge’s attitudes relating to urban vegetable productions of growers in Bangkok, Thailand. Inter J Agric Technol. 2016;12(7.2):1773–84.

Yeudall F, Sebastian R, Cole DC, Ibrahim S, Lubowa A, Kikafunda J. Food and nutritional security of children of urban farmers in Kampala, Uganda. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 2007;28(2 Supplement):S237–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/15648265070282S203 .

Yusuf SA, Balogun OL, Falegbe OE. Effect Of Urban Household Farming On Food Security Status In Ibadan Metropolis, Oyo State, Nigeria. Uticaj Poljoprivrede Gradskih Domaćinstava Na Status Prehrambene Sigurnosti U Metropoli Ibadan, Država Ojo U Nigeriji. 2015;60(1):61–75. https://doi.org/10.2298/JAS1501061Y .

Beckie M, Bogdan E. Planting roots: urban agriculture for senior immigrants. J Agric Food Systems Commun Dev. 2010;1(2):77–89. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2010.012.004 .

Chan J, Pennisi L, Francis CA. Social-ecological refuges: reconnecting in community gardens in Lincoln, Nebraska. (special issue: urban ethnobiology.). J Ethnobiol. 2016;36(4):842–60. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.842 .

Colasanti KJA, Hamm MW, Litjens CM. The city as an “agricultural powerhouse”? Perspectives on expanding URBAN agriculture from Detroit, Michigan. Urban Geography. 2012;33(3):348–69. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.3.348 .

Corrigan MP. Growing what you eat: developing community gardens in Baltimore, Maryland. (special issue: local food systems and the applied geography of food.). Appl Geogr. 2011;31(4):1232–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.017 .

Kortright R, Wakefield S. Edible backyards: a qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agric Hum Values. 2011;28(1):39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9254-1 .

Meenar MR, Hoover BM. Community food security via urban agriculture: understanding people, place, economy, and accessibility from a food justice perspective. J Agric Food Systems Commun Dev. 2012;3(1):143–60. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.031.013 .

Moyo P. Urban agriculture and poverty mitigation in Zimbabwe: prospects and obstacles in Bulawayo townships. J Hum Ecol. 2013;42(2):125–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2013.11906586 .

Olivier DW, Heinecken L. Beyond food security: women's experiences of urban agriculture in Cape Town. Agric Hum Values. 2017;34(3):743–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9773-0 .

Poulsen MN. Cultivating citizenship, equity, and social inclusion? Putting civic agriculture into practice through urban farming. Agric Hum Values. 2017;34(1):135–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9699-y .

Poulsen MN, Neff RA, Winch PJ. The multifunctionality of urban farming: perceived benefits for neighbourhood improvement. Local Environ. 2017;22(11):1411–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1357686 .

Saldivar-Tanaka L, Krasny ME. Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: the case of Latino community gardens in new York City. Agric Hum Values. 2004;21(4):399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-003-1248-9 .

Tembo R, Louw J. Conceptualising and implementing two community gardening projects on the Cape flats, Cape Town. Dev South Afr. 2013;30(2):224–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2013.797220 .

Harris N, Minniss FR, Somerset S. Refugees connecting with a new country through community food gardening. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(9):9202–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110909202 .

Wv A. Urban farming in the informal settlements of Atteridgeville, Pretoria, South Africa. (Special issue: Indigenous crops, water and human nutrition.). Water SA. 2007;33(3):337–42. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v33i3.49112 .

Bleasdale T, Crouch C, Harlan SL. Community gardening in disadvantaged neighborhoods in Phoenix, Arizona: aligning programs with perceptions. J Agric Food Systems Commun Dev. 2010;1(3). https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.013.007 .

Gray L, Guzman P, Glowa KM, Drevno AG. Can home gardens scale up into movements for social change? The role of home gardens in providing food security and community change in San Jose, California. Local Environ. 2014;19(2):187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792048 .

Hartwig KA, Mason M. Community gardens for refugee and immigrant communities as a means of health promotion. J Community Health. 2016;41(6):1153–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-016-0195-5 .

Martin P, Consales JN, Scheromm P, Marchand P, Ghestem F, Darmon N. Community gardening in poor neighborhoods in France: a way to rethink food practices? Appetite. 2017;116:589–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.023 .

Mireri C. Assessment of the contribution of urban agriculture to employment, income and food security in Kenya: a case of Kisumu municipality. Afr J Agric Res. 2013;8(23):2884–96.

Miura S, Kunii O, Wakai S. Home gardening in urban poor communities of the Philippines. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2003;54(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1080/096374803/000062010 .

Mkwambisi DD, Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ. Urban agriculture and poverty reduction: evaluating how food production in cities contributes to food security, employment and income in Malawi. J Int Dev. 2011;23(2):181–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1657 .

Mlozi MRS. Urban agriculture in Dar Es Salaam: its contribution to solving the economic crisis and the damage it does to the environment. Dev South Afr. 1996;13(1):47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/03768359608439873 .

Panneerselvam P, Kumar SR, Balamurali B, Rakesh SS. Improving socio-economic and environmental benefits of households practicing urban farming in Coimbatore. Int J Trop Agric. 2014;32(3/4):809–14.

Philander FR, Karriem A. Assessment of Urban agriculture as a livelihood strategy for household food security: an appraisal of URBAN gardens in Langa, Cape town. Int J Arts Sci. 2016;9(1):327–38.

Simiyu RR, Foeken DWJ. Urban crop production and poverty alleviation in Eldoret, Kenya: Implications for policy and gender planning. Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd). 2014;51(12):2613–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013506046 .

Smart J, Nel E, Binns T. Economic crisis and food security in Africa: exploring the significance of urban agriculture in Zambia's Copperbelt province. Geoforum. 2015;45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.009 .

Taylor JR, Lovell ST. Urban home gardens in the global north: a mixed methods study of ethnic and migrant home gardens in Chicago, IL. Renewable Agric Food Syst. 2014;30(1):22–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742170514000180 .

Hawkins JL, Thirlaway KJ, Backx K, Clayton DA. Allotment gardening and other leisure activities for stress reduction and healthy aging. HortTechnology. 2011;21(5):577–85.

Kim SS, Park SA, Son KC. Improving peer relations of elementary school students through a school gardening program. Horttechnology. 2014;24(2):181–7.

Litt JS, Schmiege SJ, Hale JW, Buchenau M, Sancar F. Exploring ecological, emotional and social levers of self-rated health for urban gardeners and non-gardeners: A path analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2015;144:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.004 .

Shinew KJ, Glover TD, Parry DC. Leisure spaces as potential sites for interracial interaction: community gardens in urban areas. J Leis Res. 2004;36(3):336–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950027 .

Soga M, Cox DT, Yamaura Y, Gaston KJ, Kurisu K, Hanaki K. Health Benefits of Urban Allotment Gardening: Improved Physical and Psychological Well-Being and Social Integration. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14010071 .

Camps-Calvet M, Langemeyer J, Calvet-Mir L, Gómez-Baggethun E. Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: insights for policy and planning. Environ Sci Policy. 2016;62:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.007 .

Chan J, DuBois B, Tidball KG. Refuges of local resilience: community gardens in post-Sandy new York City. Urban For Urban Green. 2015;14(3):625–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.06.005 .

Dunlap R, Harmon J, Kyle G. Growing in place: the interplay of urban agriculture and place sentiment. (special issue: leisure and food.). Leisure/Loisir. 2013;37(4):397–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2014.906173 .

Gerodetti N, Foster S. "growing foods from home": food production, migrants and the changing cultural landscapes of gardens and allotments. (special issue: food and landscape.). Landsc Res. 2016;41(7):808–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2015.1074169 .

Glover TD, Parry DC, Shinew KJ. Building relationships, accessing resources: mobilizing social capital in community garden contexts. J Leis Res. 2005;37(4):450–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2005.11950062 .

Hondagneu-Sotelo P. At home in inner-city immigrant community gardens. J Housing Built Environ. 2017;32(1):13–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9491-0 .

Milligan C, Gatrell A, Bingley A. "Cultivating health": therapeutic landscapes and older people in northern England. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(9):1781–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00397-6 .

Olivier DW, Heinecken L. The personal and social benefits of urban agriculture experienced by cultivators on the Cape flats. Dev South Afr. 2017;34(2):168–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2016.1259988 .

Sanye-Mengual E, Anguelovski I, Oliver-Sola J, Montero JI, Rieradevall J. Resolving differing stakeholder perceptions of urban rooftop farming in Mediterranean cities: promoting food production as a driver for innovative forms of urban agriculture. Agric Hum Values. 2016;33(1):101–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9594-y .

Spees CK, Joseph A, Darragh A, Lyons F, Wolf KN. Health behaviors and perceptions of Cancer survivors harvesting at an urban garden. Am J Health Behav. 2015;39(2):256–65. https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.39.2.12 .

Teig E, Amulya J, Bardwell L, Buchenau M, Marshall JA, Litt JS. Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health Place. 2009;15(4):1115–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.003 .

Brown-Fraser S, Forrester I, Rowel R, Richardson A, Spence AN. Development of a community organic vegetable garden in Baltimore, Maryland: a student service-learning approach to community engagement. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2015;10(3):409–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2014.962778 .

Gallaher CM, WinklerPrins AMGA, Njenga M, Karanja NK. Creating space: sack gardening as a livelihood strategy in the Kibera slums of Nairobi, Kenya. J Agric Food Syst Commun Dev. 2015;5(2):155–73.

Veen EJ, Bock BB, Van den Berg W, Visser AJ, Wiskerke JSC. Community gardening and social cohesion: different designs, different motivations. Local Environ. 2016;21(10):1271–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1101433 .

Dewi NS, Komatsuzaki M, Yamakawa Y, Takahashi H, Shibanuma S, Yasue T, Okayama T, Toyoda A, Shimonishi H, Sasaki S: Community Gardens as Health Promoters: Effects on Mental and Physical Stress Levels in Adults with and without Mental Disabilities. Sustainability 2017, 9(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010063 .

Park S, Lee A, Son K, Lee W, Kim D. Gardening intervention for physical and psychological health benefits in elderly women at community centers. HortTechnology. 2016;26(4):474–83.

Clavin AA. Realising ecological sustainability in community gardens: a capability approach. Local Environ. 2011;16(10):945–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.627320 .

Hale J, Knapp C, Bardwell L, Buchenau M, Marshall J, Sancar F, Litt JS. Connecting food environments and health through the relational nature of aesthetics: gaining insight through the community gardening experience. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(11):1853–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.044 .

Northrop MD, Wingo BC, Ard JD. The perceptions of community gardeners at Jones Valley urban farm and the implications for dietary interventions. Qual Rep. 2013;18(27):1–11.

Torres AC, Nadot S, Prevot AC. Specificities of French community gardens as environmental stewardships. Ecol Soc. 2017;22(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-09442-220328 .

Milliron B-J, Vitolins M, Gamble E, Jones R, Chenault M, Tooze J. Process evaluation of a community garden at an urban outpatient clinic. J Community Health. 2017;42(4):639–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-016-0299-y .

Abdu N, Agbenin JO, Buerkert A. Phytoavailability, human risk assessment and transfer characteristics of cadmium and zinc contamination from urban gardens in Kano, Nigeria. J Sci Food Agric. 2011;91(15):2722–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4583 .

Antwi-Agyei P, Biran A, Peasey A, Bruce J, Ensink J. A faecal exposure assessment of farm workers in Accra, Ghana: a cross sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3266-8 .

De Miguel E, Izquierdo M, Gómez A, Mingot J, Barrio-Parra F. Risk assessment from exposure to arsenic, antimony, and selenium in urban gardens (Madrid, Spain). Environ Toxicol Chem. 2016;36(2):544–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3569 .

Farsang A, Puskas I, Szolnoki Z. Human health risk assessment: a case study of heavy metal contamination of garden soils in Szeged. Acta Geographica Debrecina Landscape and Environment. 2009;3(1):11–27.

Grace D, Monda J, Karanja N, Randolph TF, Kang'ethe EK. Participatory probabilistic assessment of the risk to human health associated with cryptosporidiosis from urban dairying in Dagoretti, Nairobi, Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2012;44(Suppl 1):S33–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-012-0204-3 .

Izquierdo M, Ed M, Ortega MF, Mingot J. Bioaccessibility of metals and human health risk assessment in community urban gardens. Chemosphere. 2015:135312–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.079 .

Lente I, Keraita B, Drechsel P, Ofosu-Anim J, Brimah AK. Risk assessment of heavy-metal contamination on vegetables grown in long-term wastewater irrigated urban farming sites in Accra, Ghana. Water Qual Expo Health. 2012;4(4):179–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-012-0077-8 .

Matthys B, Vounatsou P, Raso G, Tschannen AB, Becket EGG, Gosoniu L, Cisse G, Tanner M, N'Goran EK, Utzinger J. Urban farming and malaria risk factors in a medium-sized town in cote d'Ivoire. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;75(6):1223–31.

Megson D, Dack S, Moore M. Limitations of the CLEA model when assessing human health risks from dioxins and furans in soil at an allotments site in Rochdale, NW England. J Environ monit. 2011;13(7):1983–90. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1em10096c .

Nabulo G, Young SD, Black CR. Assessing risk to human health from tropical leafy vegetables grown on contaminated urban soils. Sci Total Environ. 2010;408(22):5338–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.06.034 .

Ogunkunle CO, Ite AE, Adeniyi SA, Akintola EO, Okere UV. Urban vegetable farming: anthropic level, bioavailability, and health implication associated with bioaccumulated trace metals in selected vegetables in Ilorin, Nigeria. Pollution. 2016;3(2):285–300. https://doi.org/10.7508/pj.2017.02.010 .

Salah Al-Heety EAM, Yassin KH, Abd-Alsalaam S. Health risk assessment of some heavy metals in urban community garden soils of Baghdad City, Iraq. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2017;23(2):225–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2016.1238301 .

Spliethoff HM, Mitchell RG, Shayler H, Marquez-Bravo LG, Russell-Anelli J, Ferenz G, McBride M. Estimated lead (Pb) exposures for a population of urban community gardeners. Environ Geochem Health. 2016;38(4):955–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-016-9790-8 .

Stoler J, Weeks JR, Getis A, Hill AG. Distance threshold for the effect of urban agriculture on elevated self-reported malaria prevalence in Accra, Ghana. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;80(4):547–54.

Uzu G, Schreck E, Xiong T, Macouin M, Lévêque T, Fayomi B, Dumat C. Urban market gardening in Africa: Foliar uptake of metal(loid)s and their bioaccessibility in vegetables; Implications in terms of health risks. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 2014;225(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2185-5 .

Warming M, Hansen MG, Holm PE, Magid J, Hansen TH, Trapp S. Does intake of trace elements through urban gardening in Copenhagen pose a risk to human health? Environ Pollut. 2015;202:17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.011 .

Gallaher CM, Mwaniki D, Njenga M, Karanja NK, WinklerPrins AMGA. Real or perceived: the environmental health risks of urban sack gardening in Kibera slums of Nairobi. Kenya EcoHealth. 2013;10(1):9–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-013-0827-5 .

Kaiser ML, Williams ML, Basta N, Hand M, Huber S. When vacant lots become urban gardens: characterizing the perceived and actual food safety concerns of urban agriculture in Ohio. J Food Prot. 2015;78(11):2070–80. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-181 .

Aina OS, Oladapo A, Adebosin WG, Ajijola S. Urban livelihood: urban agriculture implication in food security, a case study of Ibadan Metropolis. Journal of Applied Phytotechnology in Environmental Sanitation. 2012;1(4):155–61.

Christian MS, El Evans C, Nykjaer C, Hancock N, Cade JE. Evaluation of the impact of a school gardening intervention on children's fruit and vegetable intake: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-014-0099-7 .

Maxwell D, Levin C, Csete J. Does urban agriculture help prevent malnutrition? Evidence from Kampala. Food Policy. 1998;23(5):411–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(98)00047-5 .

Beery M, Adatia R, Segantin O, Skaer C. School food gardens: fertile ground for education. (special issue: health promoting schools in Africa.). Health Educ. 2014;114(4):281–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-05-2013-0019 .

Darkey SK, Dzoemku BM, Okorley EL, Gyimah NA, Bluwey FA. Contribution of urban vegetable production to farmers’ livelihood: a case of the kumasi metropolis of Ashanti Region of Ghana. Scientific Papers: Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture & Rural Development. 2014;14(1):77–81.

Wallace A, Croucher K, Quilgars D, Baldwin S. Meeting the challenge: developing systematic reviewing in social policy. Policy Polit. 2004;32(4):455–70. https://doi.org/10.1332/0305573042009444 .

Ohly H, Gentry S, Wigglesworth R, Bethel A, Lovell R, Garside R. A systematic review of the health and well-being impacts of school gardening: synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(286). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2941-0 .

National Institutes of Health. Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 2014. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools . Accessed 5 Nov 2018.

Forsell T, Tower J, Polman R. Development of a scale to measure social Capital in Recreation and Sport Clubs. Leis Sci. 2018:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2018.1442268 .

Genter C, Roberts A, Richardson J, Sheaff M. The contribution of allotment gardening to health and wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature. Br J Occup Ther. 2015;78(10):593–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022615599408 .

Pourias J, Aubry C, Duchemin E. Is food a motivation for urban gardeners? Multifunctionality and the relative importance of the food function in urban collective gardens of Paris and Montreal. Agric Hum Values. 2016;33(2):257–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9606-y .

Food and Agriculture Organization. Growing greener cities in Latin America and the Caribbean: a FAO report on urban and peri-urban agriculture in the region. 2014. http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/greenercities/en/GGCLAC/downloads.html . Accessed 5 Nov 2018.

Hamel RE. The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. Aila Review. 2007;20(1):53–71. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.20.06ham .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to University of Groningen, Natural Earth for authorizing the use of “Geo World Countries” layers that allows us to draw the map provided in Fig. 2 . We thank our library specialist Frédéric Bergeron from Laval University, for his great collaboration to retrieve full-text articles. We extend our gratitude to Laurence Letarte from Graduate School of Land Management and Regional Planning of Laval University for helping with the map provided in Fig. 2 . We are also thankful to our two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. PPA is a LASPAU WK Kellogg scholar. MAF is a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellow (Funding Reference Number: MFE-152525).

This study received no specific grant. However, it is partly funded by FRQS (Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé) through AL research grants. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding agency.

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting the findings of this study are included in this published article and its additional files. The full electronic search strategy for one of the databases is presented in additional file 1 . Others are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Land Management and Regional Planning, Faculty of Planning, Architecture, Art and Design, Laval University, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada

Pierre Paul Audate, Geneviève Cloutier & Alexandre Lebel

Centre for Research on Planning and Development (CRAD), Laval University, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada

Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods, Laval University, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada

Melissa A. Fernandez

School of Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Laval University, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada

Evaluation Platform on Obesity Prevention, Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Quebec, G1V 4G5, Canada

Alexandre Lebel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PPA and AL conceptualized the scoping review. PPA and MAF identified, selected, extracted data, and appraised the quality of the included studies. PPA wrote the manuscript of the scoping review with critical inputs and appraisal from MAF, GC, and AL. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Paul Audate .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional files

Additional file 1:.

Full electronic search strategy for PubMed. (PDF 30 kb)

Additional file 2:

Quality Appraisal for Quantitative studies and mixed methods studies. (XLSX 21 kb)

Additional file 3:

Quality appraisal for qualitative and mixed methods studies. (XLSX 19 kb)

Additional file 4:

Description of included studies. (XLSX 53 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Audate, P.P., Fernandez, M.A., Cloutier, G. et al. Scoping review of the impacts of urban agriculture on the determinants of health. BMC Public Health 19 , 672 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6885-z

Download citation

Received : 25 January 2019

Accepted : 23 April 2019

Published : 31 May 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6885-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Urban agriculture (UA)
• Determinants of health
• Scoping review

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Urban Agriculture from a Historical Perspective

• First Online: 10 June 2022

Cite this chapter

• Teresa Marat-Mendes 5 ,
• Sara Silva Lopes 6 ,
• João Cunha Borges 7 &
• Patrícia Bento d’Almeida 8  

331 Accesses

the landscape This chapter presents, through a literature review, an operative definition of urban agriculture, to serve as a basis for a survey, conducted by the authors of this Atlas, on all the municipalities of the Lisbon Region. Moreover, we present a methodology for surveying and classifying examples of this practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

This is Alves Redol’s description of the landscape of the Tagus Wetland, whose southern end is the Great Wetland in Vila Franca de Xira.

Aben R, de Wit (1999) The enclosed garden. History and development of the Hortus Conclusus and its reintroduction into the present-day urban landscape. Nai010 publishers, Amsterdam

Google Scholar  

Abusaada H, Elshater A (2020) COVID-19’s challenges to urbanism: social distancing and the phenomenon of boredom in urban spaces. J Urban. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2020.1842484

Article   Google Scholar  

Ashe LM, Sonnino R (2013) At the crossroads: new paradigms of food security, public health nutrition and school food. Public Health Nutr 16(6):1020–1027

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Barthes R (1971 [2009]) Sade Fourier Loyla. Points, Paris

Cabannes Y, Raposo I (2013) Peri-urban agriculture, social inclusion of migrant population and Right to the City—Practices in Lisbon and London. City 17(29):235–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2013.765652

Costa S, Fox-Kämper R, GoodR, Sentić I, Treija S, Atanasovska JR, Bonnavaud H (2016) The position of urban allotment gardens within the urban fabric. In: Bell S, Fox-Kämper R, Keshavarz N, Benson M, Caputo S, Noori S, Voigt A (eds) Urban allotment gardens in Europe. Routledge, London, pp 201–228

Deakin M, Diamantini D, Borrelli N (eds) (2016) The governance of city food systems: case studies from around the world. Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrine, Milan

Delgado C (2018) Contrasting practices and perceptions of urban agriculture in Portugal. Int J Urban Sustain Develop 10:170–185

Dias AM, Marat-Mendes T (2020) The morphological impact of municipal planning instruments on urban agriculture. Cidades, Comunidades & Territórios 41. http://journals.openedition.org/cidades/2991

Dias AM (2018) The shape of food: an analysis of urban agricultural shapes in Lisbon’s Greater Area. M.Sc. dissertation, Iscte—Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon. https://hdl.handle.net/10071/19300

Drescher A, Holmer R, Iaquinta D (2006) Urban homegardens and allotment gardens for sustainable livelihoods: management strategies and institutional environments. Tropical Homegardens, Springer, The Netherlands, pp 317–338

Edwards F, Mercer D (2010) Meals in Metropolis: mapping the urban foodscape in Melbourne, Australia. Local Environ 15:153–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830903527662

FAO (Food and agriculture organization) (2019) FAO framework for the Urban Food Agenda. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca3151en

Flavell N (2003) Urban allotment gardens in the eighteenth century: the case of sheffield. Agric History Rev 51(1):95–106. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40275844

Hardman M, Larkham PJ (2014) Informal urban agriculture. The secret lives of guerrilla gardeners. Springer, London

Hodgson K, Campbell MC, Bailkey M (2011) Urban Agriculture: growing healthy, sustainable places. Report Number 563. American Planning Association, Chicago

Honey-Rosés J, Anguelovski I, Chireh C, Daher VK, Van den Bosch CK, Litt JS, Mawani V, McCall MK, Orellana A, Oscilowicz E, Sánchezv U, Senbel M, Tan X, Villagomez E, Zapata O, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on public space: an early review of the emerging questions. Cities Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1780074

Howard E (1902) Garden cities of tomorrow. Swan Sonnenschein & Co, London

Iaquinta D, Drescher A (2010) Urban agriculture: a comparative review of allotment and community gardens. In: Aitkenhead-Peterson J, Volder A (eds) Urban ecosystem ecology. American Agronomy Society, USA, pp 199–226

Ibañez D, Katsikis N (eds) (2014) Grounding metabolism. New geographies 6. Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Koc MR, MacRaeR DE, Roberts W (2008) Getting civil about food: the interactions between civil society and the state to advance sustainable food systems in Canada. J Hunger Environ Nutr 3(2–3):122–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240802243175

Komisar J, Nasr J, Gorgolewski M (2009) Designing for food and agriculture: recent explorations at Ryerson University. Open House Int 34(2):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-02-2009-B0007

Kordshakeri P, Fazeli E (2020) How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the lack of accessible public spaces in Tehran. Cities Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1817690

Kullmann K (2017) Concave Worlds, Artificial Horizons: Reframing the urban public garden. Stud History Gardens Designed Landscapes 37(1):15–32

Lôbo MS (1995) Planos de urbanização – a época de Duarte Pacheco. FAUP Edições, Porto

Marat-Mendes T (2002) The sustainable urban form. A comparative study in Lisbon, Edinburgh and Barcelona. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham UK

Marat-Mendes T (2020) Designing for sustainability: retrieving a systemic role for urban form. Urban Morphol 24(2):235–238

Marat-Mendes T, Borges JC, Dias A, Lopes R (2021) Planning for a sustainable food system. The potential role of urban agriculture in Lisbon Metropolitan Area. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 14(3):356–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1880960

Marat-Mendes T, Henriques JM, Perestrelo M, Pinto TC, Costa P, Pereira MM, Borges JC, Lopes SS, Henriques CN (2021e) Sistema Alimentar e Sustentabilidade: aferição de oportunidades e iniciativas à escala local. In: Pinho (ed) Compêndio de Políticas Urbanas. FEUP-ISCTE-UA, Porto

Marot S (2019) Taking the Country’s side: agriculture and architecture. Polígrafa & Trienal de Arquitectura de Lisboa, Lisbon

Mougeot J (2000) Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. (Thematic Paper 1, RUAF), pp 1–42

MUFPP (Milan Urban Food Policy Pact) (2015) Milan urban food policy pact. Accessed November 24. http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Milan-Urban-Food-Policy-Pact-EN.pdf

Napawan NC (2016) Complexity in urban agriculture: the role of landscape typologies in promoting urban agriculture’s growth. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 9(1):19–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.950317

Orsini F, Dubbeling M, de Zeeuw H, Gianquinto G (eds) (2017) Rooftop urban agriculture. Springer, Switzerland

Parham S (2015) Food and urbanism—the convivial city and a sustainable future. Bloomsbury, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Pothukuchi K, Kaufman JL (2000) The food system. J Am Plann Assoc 66(2):113–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976093

Redol A (1971) Gaibéus. Europa-América, Amadora

Rodriguez O (2016) Towards an indigenous, sunlit, rooftop food production. Urban Des (Food City) 140:24–27

Rogers R (1998) Cities for a small planet. Basic Books, London

Salvador MS (2019) Shaping the city through food: the historic foodscape of Lisbon as case study. Urban Des Int 24:80–93

Smit J, Nasr J, Ratta A (2001[1996]) Urban agriculture: food, jobs and sustainable cities. UNDP, New York

Steel C (2008[2013]) Hungry city—how food shapes our lives. Vintage, London

Telles GR (1997) Plano Verde de Lisboa. Colibri, Lisboa

UN (United Nations) (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, New York

UN (United Nations) (2017) New Urban Agenda—Habitat III. United Nations, New York

UN (United Nations) (1987) Our common future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Weaver C (1984) Regional development and the local community. Wiley, New York

Weber M (1966) The city. Free Press, New York

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Teresa Marat-Mendes

Sara Silva Lopes

João Cunha Borges

Patrícia Bento d’Almeida

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa Marat-Mendes .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Marat-Mendes, T., Silva Lopes, S., Cunha Borges, J., d’Almeida, P.B. (2022). Urban Agriculture from a Historical Perspective. In: Atlas of the Food System. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94833-7_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94833-7_7

Published : 10 June 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-94832-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-94833-7

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 17 March 2020

The hidden potential of urban horticulture

• Jill L. Edmondson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3623-4816 1 , 2 ,
• Hamish Cunningham   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5901-5483 2 , 3 ,
• Daniele O. Densley Tingley 4 ,
• Miriam C. Dobson 1 , 2 ,
• Darren R. Grafius   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6833-4993 1 , 2 ,
• Jonathan R. Leake 1 , 2 ,
• Nicola McHugh 1 ,
• Jacob Nickles   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5754-0740 1 , 2 ,
• Gareth K. Phoenix 1 ,
• Anthony J. Ryan 2 , 5 ,
• Virginia Stovin 4 ,
• Nick Taylor Buck 6 ,
• Philip H. Warren 1 &
• Duncan D. Cameron   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5439-6544 1 , 2  

Nature Food volume  1 ,  pages 155–159 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

66 Citations

444 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Engineering
• Environmental sciences
• Science, technology and society

Urban areas offer considerable potential for horticultural food production, but questions remain about the availability of space to expand urban horticulture and how to sustainably integrate it into the existing urban fabric. We explore this through a case study which shows that, for a UK city, the space potentially available equates to more than four times the current per capita footprint of commercial horticulture. Results indicate that there is more than enough urban land available within the city to meet the fruit and vegetable requirements of its population. Building on this case study, we also propose a generic conceptual framework that identifies key scientific, engineering and socio-economic challenges to, and opportunities for, the realization of untapped urban horticultural potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

$119.00 per year

only $9.92 per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Urban conservation gardening in the decade of restoration

Estimating food production in an urban landscape

Scale up urban agriculture to leverage transformative food systems change, advance social–ecological resilience and improve sustainability

Data availability.

The datasets generated from GIS analyses using OS Mastermap for areas of green space and flat roofs potentially suitable for urban horticulture identified in Sheffield are available via Mendeley Data ( https://doi.org/10.17632/2fscg3m53d.1 ).

Loopstra, R., Reeves, A. & Stuckler, D. Rising food insecurity in Europe. Lancet 385 , 2041–2041 (2015).

Article   Google Scholar  

Zepeda, L. Hiding hunger: food insecurity in middle America. Agric. Hum. Values 35 , 243–254 (2018).

68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. UN DESA (16 May 2018); https://go.nature.com/2PBUg00

Mok, H.-F. et al. Strawberry fields forever? Urban agriculture in developed countries: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34 , 21–43 (2014).

Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Womdim, R. & Gianuinto, G. Urban agriculture in the developing world: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33 , 695–720 (2013).

Morgan, K. Nourishing the city: The rise of the urban food question in the Global North. Urban Stud. 52 , 1379–1394 (2015).

UK NEA The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report (UNEP WCMC, 2011).

Dennis, M. et al. Mapping urban green infrastructure: A novel landscape-based approach to incorporating land use and land cover in the mapping of human-dominated systems. Land 7 , 17 (2018).

Casalegno, S., Anderson, K., Hancock, S. & Gaston, K. J. Improving models of urban greenspace: from vegetation surface cover to volumetric survey, using waveform laser scanning. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8 , 1443–1452 (2017).

Edmondson, J. L., Davies, Z. G., McHugh, N., Gaston, K. J. & Leake, J. R. Organic carbon hidden in urban ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 2 , 963 (2012).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Horticultural Statistics—2018 (Defra, 2019).

Labour Market Profile—Sheffield (ONS, accessed 10 July 2018); https://go.nature.com/2HoHw8t

Output Area to Major Towns and Cities (December 2015) Lookup in England and Wales (ONS, accessed 7 October 2019); https://go.nature.com/2uBQaxR

The Area Based Analysis Unit, Office for National Statistics 1. Understanding patterns of deprivation. Reg. Trends 41 , 93–114 (2009).

Smith, D., Thompson, C., Harland, K., Parker, S. & Shelton, N. Identifying populations and areas at greatest risk of household food insecurity in England. Appl. Geogr. 91 , 21–31 (2018).

Crouch, D. & Ward, C. The Allotment: Its Landscape and Culture (Five Leaves Publications, 1997).

McHugh, N., Edmondson, J. L., Gaston, K. J., Leake, J. R. & O’Sullivan, O. S. Modelling short-rotation coppice and tree planting for urban carbon management - a citywide analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 52 , 1237–1245 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Grafius, D. R., Hall, S., McHugh, N. & Edmondson, J. L. How much heat can we grow in our cities? Modelling UK urban biofuel production potential. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 12 , 118–132 (2020).

Al-Kodmany, K. The vertical farm: A review of developments and implications for the vertical city. Buildings 8 , 24 (2018).

Richardson, J. J. & Moskal, L. M. Urban food crop production capacity and competition with the urban forest. Urban For. Urban Green. 15 , 58–64 (2016).

Ackerman, K. et al. Sustainable food systems for future cities: The potential of urban agriculture. Econ. Soc. Rev. 45 , 189–206 (2014).

Google Scholar  

McClintock, N., Cooper, J. & Khandeshi, S. Assessing the potential contribution of vacant land to urban vegetable production and consumption in Oakland, California. Landsc. Urban Plan. 111 , 46–58 (2013).

Taylor, J. R. & Lovell, S. T. Mapping public and private spaces of urban agriculture in Chicago through the analysis of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth. Landsc. Urban Plan. 108 , 57–70 (2012).

Martelozzo, F. et al. Urban agriculture: a global analysis of the space constraint to meet urban vegetable demand. Environ. Res. Lett. 9 , 064025 (2014).

Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation on Diets, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases Technical Report No. 916 (WHO, 2003).

Edmondson, J. L. et al. Feeding a city - Leicester as a case study of the importance of allotments for horticultural production in the UK. Sci. Total Environ. 705 , 135930 (2020).

White, J. T. & Bunn, C. Growing in Glasgow: Innovative practices and emerging policy pathways for urban agriculture. Land Use Policy 68 , 334–344 (2017).

Baldock, K. C. R. et al. A systems approach reveals urban pollinator hotspots and conservation opportunities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 363–373 (2019).

Edmondson, J. L., Davies, Z. G., Gaston, K. J. & Leake, J. R. Urban cultivation in allotments maintains soil qualities adversely affected by conventional agriculture. J. Appl. Ecol. 51 , 880–889 (2014).

Lin, B. B., Philpott, S. M. & Jha, S. The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity-ecosystem services: Challenges and next steps. Basic Appl. Ecol. 16 , 189–201 (2015).

Tablan, V., Roberts, I., Cunningham, H. & Bontcheva, K. GATECloud.net: a platform for large-scale, open-source text processing on the cloud. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 371 , 20120071 (2016).

Howard, T., Kuri, L. & Lee, I. P. Writing the Next Chapter for Anchor-based Redevelopment Initiatives (Evergreen Cooperative Initiative of Cleveland, Ohio, 2010); https://go.nature.com/3crocWn

Wright, H. C., Zhu, J., Cameron, D. D. & Ryan, A. J. Flexible polyurethane foam with sodium bentonite: Improving the properties of foams for use as a synthetic growing media. Acta Horticult . (in the press).

Dunant, C. F., Dreniok, M. P., Elefheriadis, S., Cullen, J. M. & Allwood, J. M. Regularity and optimisation practice in steel structural frames in real design cases. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 134 , 294–302 (2018).

Haberman, D. et al. The potential of urban agriculture in Montreal: A quantitative assessment. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inform. 3 , 1101–1117 (2014).

Sonnino, R. The new geography of food security: exploring the potential of urban food strategies. Geogr. J. 182 , 190–200 (2016).

Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP, 2015); http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/text

Draft Food and Wellbeing Strategy (Sheffield City Council, 2018); https://go.nature.com/2SreRGh

Maye, D. ‘Smart food city’: conceptual relations between smart city planning, urban food systems and innovation theory. City Cult. Soc. 16 , 18–24 (2019).

Bohn, K. & Viljoen, A. The edible city: envisioning the continuous productive urban lanscape. Field 4 , 149–161 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under grant nos EP/N030095/1, EPSRC GCRF IS2016 and EPSRC EP/P016782/1, the ISCF Transforming Food Production Award and a University of Sheffield PhDT studentship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Jill L. Edmondson, Miriam C. Dobson, Darren R. Grafius, Jonathan R. Leake, Nicola McHugh, Jacob Nickles, Gareth K. Phoenix, Philip H. Warren & Duncan D. Cameron

Institute for Sustainable Food, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Jill L. Edmondson, Hamish Cunningham, Miriam C. Dobson, Darren R. Grafius, Jonathan R. Leake, Jacob Nickles, Anthony J. Ryan & Duncan D. Cameron

Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Hamish Cunningham

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Daniele O. Densley Tingley & Virginia Stovin

Department of Chemistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Anthony J. Ryan

Urban Institute, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Nick Taylor Buck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors wrote the manuscript. N.M., D.R.G. and J.L.E. designed the spatial analyses. J.L.E. and J.R.L. designed the SBH research. M.C.D., P.H.W. and J.L.E. investigated the labour involved in allotment-based urban horticulture. D.D.C., G.K.P. and A.J.R. researched CEH foams. V.S. advised on water use. D.O.D.T. provided expertise on building structure. H.C., D.D.C., A.J.R., J.L.E., N.T.B. and J.N. researched CEH.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill L. Edmondson .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Edmondson, J.L., Cunningham, H., Densley Tingley, D.O. et al. The hidden potential of urban horticulture. Nat Food 1 , 155–159 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0045-6

Download citation

Received : 07 October 2019

Accepted : 11 February 2020

Published : 17 March 2020

Issue Date : March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0045-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Mathematical optimization of frost resistant crop production to ensure food supply during a nuclear winter catastrophe.

• Nick Wilson

Scientific Reports (2023)

Urban agriculture in walkable neighborhoods bore fruit for health and food system resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic

• Takahiro Yamazaki
• Makoto Yokohari

npj Urban Sustainability (2023)

The bright and the dark side of commercial urban agriculture labeling

• Marilyne Chicoine
• Francine Rodier
• Fabien Durif

Agriculture and Human Values (2023)

Trait Improvement of Solanaceae Fruit Crops for Vertical Farming by Genome Editing

• Choon-Tak Kwon

Journal of Plant Biology (2023)

Low presence of potentially toxic elements in Singapore urban garden soils

• Tiong Ann Goh
• Sorain J. Ramchunder
• Alan D. Ziegler

CABI Agriculture and Bioscience (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Small-scale urban agriculture: Drivers of growing produce at home and in community gardens in Detroit

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation W. P. Carey School of Business, Morrison School of Agribusiness, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona, United States of America

• Carola Grebitus

• Published: September 7, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913
• Reader Comments

The desire for fresh, local food has increased interest in alternative food production approaches, such as private small-scale agriculture, wherein households grow their own food. Accordingly, it is worth investigating private agricultural production, especially in urban areas, given that an increasing share of the world’s population is living in cities. This study analyzed the growth of produce at people’s homes and in community gardens, focusing on behavioral and socio-demographic factors. Data were collected through an online survey in Detroit, Michigan; 420 citizens were interviewed. The results revealed that trust, attitude, and knowledge affect the growing of produce at home. Involvement and personality are also drivers of community gardening. Regarding socio-demographics, household size affects the growing of produce at home, while gender, age, and income affect community gardening. The findings have valuable implications for stakeholders who wish to foster private small-scale urban agriculture, for example, through city planning and nutrition education.

Citation: Grebitus C (2021) Small-scale urban agriculture: Drivers of growing produce at home and in community gardens in Detroit. PLoS ONE 16(9): e0256913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913

Editor: Zhifeng Gao, University of Florida, UNITED STATES

Received: December 7, 2019; Accepted: August 18, 2021; Published: September 7, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Carola Grebitus. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by EASM-3: Collaborative Research: “Physics-Based Predictive Modeling for Integrated Agricultural and Urban Applications”, USDA-NIFA (Grant Number: 2015-67003-23508) and NSF-MPS-DMS (Award Number: 1419593).] The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

In 2018, approximately 55% of the world population lived in urban areas, a number projected to rise to approximately 60% by 2030 [ 1 ]. This ratio is even higher for the United States, at 82% in 2018 [ 2 ]. This raises the question of how to nourish these residents with fresh and local foods [ 3 ].

Food production can be integrated into urban communities through commercial urban agriculture, private gardening (in yards, on balconies, or indoors), or community gardens [ 4 , 5 ]. Urban agriculture for food production at household level, whether at home or in community gardens, is called “small-scale urban agriculture” [ 6 ]. In 2013, fully 35% of all 42 million US households were food gardening [ 7 ], a number that has likely grown. Hence, this study develops a conceptual framework describing behavioral and socio-demographic drivers of private fruit and vegetable gardening in urban areas in the U.S. focusing on Detroit. As the U.S. is diverse in temperature, precipitation, population, and many other factors, the findings will serve as a case study and are not generalizable nationwide.

Urban agriculture benefits communities and the local ecological system. Hendrickson and Porth [ 8 ] found that urban gardeners benefited from food production by supplementing household foods, bringing in cash, and enhancing the image of their neighborhood. Specht et al. [ 9 ] and Thomaier et al. [ 10 ] pointed out that urban agriculture supports basic food needs, offers social benefits, and provides an opportunity to educate consumers about food production. Reynolds and Cohen [ 11 ] discussed the role that urban agriculture plays in social justice. In addition, community gardening builds social capital and empowers people [ 12 , 13 ], and gardening together fosters community cohesion, increasing social health [ 14 , 15 ]. Stress reduction, positive emotions, social integration, and restored attention are other benefits of community gardens, ameliorating mental, social, and physical health [ 15 ]. Finally, Parece and Campbell [ 16 ] found that urban agriculture can positively impact the physical urban landscape and contribute to ecosystem services. All these benefits often depend on conscious efforts by farmers, and urban farms may include social components such as food security, community building, and education in their mission [ 17 ].

However, urban agriculture also involves challenges or detriments [ 18 ], for instance competition for resources, such as land, soil, and water [ 19 ], high investment costs or lack of acceptance [ 9 ], lack of space for large-scale urban farms [ 20 ], fostering of political and social inequity and displacement of urban neighbors [ 21 ], and soil contaminants that pose potential health risks [ 8 , 22 ].

Given these advantages and disadvantages, identifying behavioral drivers can make gardening efforts more effective, and thus facilitate reaping the benefits while tackling the barriers. Information about key factors also helps stakeholders assist citizens in growing food, for example, providing information on use of fertilizers and pesticides to prevent runoff or ensuring that soils of vacant land are tested before allowing food production. Overall, uptake of food gardening is valuable for individuals and society if challenges are addressed.

This study investigates behavioral and socio-demographic drivers related to two forms of private small-scale urban agriculture: gardening at home and in community gardens. For instance, individuals who hold positive attitudes toward growing food are likely more disposed to participate in small-scale urban agriculture, at home or in a community garden. According to Grebitus et al. [ 3 ] and Alemu and Grebitus [ 23 ], subjective knowledge also affects participation in urban agriculture: To start growing food, participants require gardening knowledge including appropriate use of fertilizers and when to plant crops. Fellow gardeners at a community garden could offer insights, making less knowledgeable gardeners more likely to grow produce in the community garden. Furthermore, involvement affects decision-making [ 24 ], and trust impacts behavior [ 25 ]. Teig et al. [ 26 ] found that mutual trust was regarded as an asset by community gardeners, meaning those who are more trusting might be more likely not only to grow produce but also to do so in community gardens rather than at home. Finally, personality is a major predictor of behavior [ 27 ] and thus may also affect the growth of urban food. For instance, extraverts might be more likely to grow food in community gardens and introverts at home.

This study constructs a model incorporating these behavioral drivers of growing produce at home and in community gardens in urban areas. Complementing White [ 28 ], Colasanti et al. [ 29 ], and Pothukuchi [ 30 ], who qualitatively investigated urban gardening in Detroit, quantitative data in Detroit were collected via online survey. Detroit was chosen as the research site because of its prevalent food deserts and history of food access issues [ 31 , 32 ], which might be alleviated by promoting small-scale urban agriculture. Furthermore, Detroit has exhibited rapid economic development and opportunities for local agriculture recently [ 33 ]. Detroit planners have started to incorporate urban gardens: about 1,400 urban gardens and farms out of approximately 52,000 farms total in Michigan in 2015 [ 34 ], and about 1,600 in 2019, engaging more than 25,000 residents [ 35 ].

Next, the literature on growing food in urban areas of developed countries is discussed before describing conceptual and methodological background, empirical results and deriving conclusions.

2. Literature

2.1 community gardening.

Several studies have examined the benefits of small-scale agriculture for food production, food security, and dietary patterns. Libman [ 36 ] conducted a study at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BBG) Children’s Garden, and found that growing food naturally increases knowledge of how to produce and process food and also increases consumption of produce. Similar results were found by Alaimo et al. [ 37 ], in a quantitative study in Flint, Michigan. Armstrong [ 12 ] found that the main reason for gardens in upstate New York is access to fresh foods, nature, and health benefits. Moreover, community gardens can empower the community and catalyze tackling of neighborhood issues, in turn improving public health. Wakefield et al. [ 14 ] studied community gardens in Toronto and found that gardeners are more physically active, with better mental health, improved food access, and nutrition. Additionally, community gardens enable food gardening by those who could not otherwise access it [ 14 ].

Wakefield et al. [ 14 ] stressed promotion of social health through the improvement of social cohesion. In the UK, Firth and colleagues [ 13 ], in Nottingham, pointed out that community gardens build social capital and empower members by linking them to institutions and authorities; Jackson [ 38 ] also found gardens created social capital in Lincoln. Alaimo et al. [ 39 ], in Flint, suggested that community gardeners’ involvement in activities and meetings is related to perceptions of bonding social capital.

Colasanti et al. [ 29 ], in Detroit, found a broad range of views on urban agriculture among its practitioners, from people envisioning agrarian cities to concern with food security, sustainability, and opportunities for poor economies. White [ 28 ] interviewed black female farmers in Detroit and found that urban gardening makes them a “change agent in their community” while producing healthy food for themselves and their community. Alemu and Grebitus [ 23 ] studied consumers’ preferences on community garden characteristics in Detroit and Phoenix (Arizona) and found that guidance regarding gardening and provision of tools were key considerations for participation.

2.2 Home gardening

Previous literature on the benefits of home gardening has established findings similar to those for community gardens. Taylor and Taylor Lovell [ 40 , 41 ] studied home-gardening households in Chicago and found home gardening was beneficial for household food budgets, community food systems, urban agrobiodiversity, and cultural identity. A study in Toronto found that home gardening provided access to affordable and nutritious produce, aided community food security, improved health and well-being, and contributed to environmental sustainability, self-reliance, and cultural acceptability [ 42 ]. Sanye-Mengual et al. [ 43 ] assessed the eco-efficiency and food security potential of home gardens in Padua (Italy). In New Zealand, Van Lier et al. [ 44 ] analyzed adolescents and found that home gardening was positively related with consumption of produce, positive effects on social health, greater physical activity, and better mental health and well-being. Algert et al. [ 45 ] concluded that both community and home gardens can assist food security, in San Jose, California.

Overall, the studies on home gardening largely show the same benefits as for community gardening. Moreover, Taylor and Taylor Lovell [ 46 ], in Chicago, found that only a small percentage of garden sites were community gardens for producing food; home gardens accounted for most urban food production areas. They stated that home gardening has been understudied even though it “may make a far greater contribution to urban food systems than other forms of urban agriculture such as community gardens and urban farms” [ 41 ] (p. 301).

2.3 Deriving research questions

Although previous studies on small-scale urban agriculture have highlighted many benefits, they have largely focused on extrinsic motivations for participation and on opportunities and challenges for small-scale gardeners. Hence, this study investigates intrinsic and behavioral drivers of participation in small-scale urban agriculture. In response to Taylor and Taylor Lovell’s [ 41 ] claim that home gardens are not receiving enough research attention, both home and community gardening are considered. I investigate the following research questions:

• What are the behavioral (psychological) characteristics of those who grow produce in urban settings, that is, at home or in community gardens?
• What are the socio-demographic characteristics of those who grow produce in urban settings?

3. Conceptual framework

Grebitus et al. [ 3 ] investigated success factors of commercial urban agriculture, testing the influence of consumer perceptions, knowledge, attitude, and socio-demographics on the intention to purchase or grow produce at a commercial urban farm. This study extends their work by investigating the effects of knowledge, attitude, trust, involvement, personality, and socio-demographics on the growing of produce in urban settings.

Trust is based on an individual’s worldviews and moral values [ 47 – 49 ] and plays a role in food-related behavior, such as food safety and purchase of genetically modified food [ 25 , 50 , 51 ]. By interviewing garden leaders and community gardeners in Denver (Colorado), Teig et al. [ 26 ] found mutual trust was important among gardeners. Gardeners felt safe and comfortable inside the garden and mentioned that trust extended by fellow gardeners to themselves increased their own perceived importance. However, they also stated they did not trust people outside this circle and that visitors could trample the garden [ 26 ]. Accordingly, I tested whether growing produce in the community garden requires more trust than gardening at home.

3.2 Knowledge and attitude

Grebitus et al. [ 3 ] found a significant influence of subjective knowledge on behavior related to commercial urban agriculture. Kopiyawattage et al. [ 52 ] concluded that knowledge and skills affected perceived behavioral control, which in turn determined the decision to continue farming in urban areas. Moreover, the importance of personal knowledge of how food is grown was highlighted by Kortright and Wakefield [ 42 ], for home gardeners, and by Landry et al. [ 53 ], who described gardening as an educational tool capable of increasing self-efficacy and responsibility for health. Alemu and Grebitus [ 23 ] showed that proponents of growing food in community gardens are characterized by high subjective knowledge and opponents by low knowledge. Grebitus et al. [ 3 ] found that a positive attitude toward urban agriculture increased likelihood of purchasing or growing produce in a commercial urban agriculture setting. Similarly, Alemu and Grebitus [ 23 ] found that positive attitude shaped preference for community gardening for proponents of growing food and other consumer groups. However, the impact of attitudes differed between Phoenix and Detroit. Kopiyawattage et al. [ 52 ] found that for commercial urban food producers in Columbus (Ohio), positive attitudes significantly affected whether to continue farming. I tested whether the effects of attitude and knowledge differ between growing produce at home or in community gardens.

3.3 Involvement

Involvement is described as perceived personal relevance [ 54 , 55 ]. Degree of involvement affects behavior [ 56 ], such as consumption patterns, food choice, and purchase decision-making [ 57 , 58 ]. More involved consumers display more heterogeneous preferences for organic food [ 59 ] and more environmentally involved consumers use more product characteristics to make a purchase decision for organic milk [ 60 ]. Alaimo et al. [ 39 ] found that household involvement in community gardening was related to perception of links between social capital and a neighborhood’s norms and values. Given the complexity of growing produce, I tested whether individuals who are more involved are more likely to grow produce and whether this differs by setting.

3.4 Personality

Personality can provide information on behavior [ 27 ]. For instance, persons high in the personality trait agency are extremely assertive, self-confident, and outspoken. Agreeableness represents kindness, likeability, trustworthiness, and cooperativeness. Conscientiousness represents reliability, impulse control, responsibility, and willingness to work hard. Extraverts like to interact with others and are lively, active, and outgoing. An open person is creative, prefers novelty, and is flexible. Neuroticism describes anxiety, emotional instability, and sadness [ 61 – 64 ].

Grebitus et al. [ 65 ] found that higher extraversion was related to willingness to pay more for food, and Grebitus and Dumortier [ 66 ] showed that openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness affect demand for tomatoes. Lin et al. [ 67 ] found that openness and conscientiousness explain consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) meat. I investigated personality as a driver of growing produce at home or in community gardens, testing whether more open and conscientious (neurotic) persons are more (less) likely to grow produce, and whether extraverts and agreeable persons are more likely to do so in community gardens.

3.5. Conceptual framework for socio-behavioral drivers of home and community gardening

Based on the theoretical and empirical evidence, Fig 1 displays the conceptual framework, which provides a foundation to test socio-behavioral factors affecting the growing of produce at home and in community gardens. The influence of behavioral (psychological) constructs such as trust, knowledge, attitude, involvement, and personality on participation in small-scale urban agriculture was analyzed. In addition, socio-demographic (personal) factors were assessed, given that previous studies have found them to be drivers of urban gardening [ 37 , 39 , 68 – 70 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.g001

4. Methodological background

4.1 data collection and sample characteristics.

An online survey was used to collect data. The Arizona State University Institutional Review Board approved the survey (IRB ID: STUDY00005935), which was considered exempt research. At the beginning of the survey was stated: “Filling out the questionnaire will be considered your consent to participate”; consent was handled accordingly. Participants were recruited by the Qualtrics company based on residence in urban or suburban Detroit. Qualtrics recruits participants by aggregating online panel resources, where respondents are invited to a dashboard through an app or email notification to take the survey. Participants were reimbursed by Qualtrics either monetarily or in points redeemable for discounts, items, or money.

The survey was coded using the Qualtrics platform. Data were collected in Spring 2017 from 420 Detroiters. The same data were used by Alemu and Grebitus [ 23 ] and Chenarides et al. [ 70 ]. Qualtrics recruited a sample broadly matching Detroit’s socio-demographics in gender and age. The sample consisted of 50% female respondents (where Detroit is 53% female [ 71 ]), median age was 45 years old ( M = 45, SD = 16.4), ranging from 18 to 88 years, which is older than Detroit’s median age of 35 years [ 72 ]. Education ranged from high school diploma (23%) to some college experience (27%), 2-year degree (10%), 4-year degree (26%), professional degree (9%), and doctorate (2%), while 2% had less than a high school degree; in Detroit, 80% are high school graduates and 15% hold a bachelor’s degree (or higher) [ 71 ]. However, the sample is not representative of race; 15% of Detroiters are White, but White participants comprised 74% of the research sample. Approximately 50% of interviewees had income lower than $50,000 annually before taxes, whereas median household income in Detroit is $29,481 (in 2018 dollars, 2014–2018) [ 72 ]. Approximately 25% of respondents had children in the household ( SD = 0.43), while 30% of households in Detroit have children under 18 [ 73 ]. Average household size of the sample is 2.7 ( SD = 1.38) persons, which closely matches Detroit at 2.6 persons (2014–2018). Socio-demographics were included in the analysis as independent variables. The data can be found in the supporting information section.

4.2 Measuring growth of produce in urban settings

Growing fruit and vegetables at home and in urban community gardens served as dependent variables. First, the following information about community gardens was provided:

Community gardens are plots of urban land on which community members can grow flowers or foodstuffs (e.g., fruits and vegetables) for personal or collective benefit. Community gardeners share certain resources, such as space, tools, and water. Though often facilitated by social service agencies, nonprofit organizations, park and recreation departments, housing authorities, apartment complexes, block associations, or grassroots associations, community gardens nevertheless tend to remain under the control of the gardeners themselves .

Respondents were asked the following questions: (1) Are you currently growing fruits in a community garden? (2) Are you currently growing vegetables in a community garden? (3) Are you currently growing fruits at home? (4) Are you currently growing vegetables at home? The answer categories ranged from 0 = never to 4 = always. In the subsequent analysis, answers for fruits and vegetables were combined into “produce” (summed and then divided by two). Since categories one through four had few answers compared to the zero category, values greater than zero were recoded as one. I used two binary dependent variables, one for growing produce in home gardens and one for community gardens: 0 = not growing and 1 = growing.

4.3 Measuring trust

The concept of generalized trust, as used in Grebitus et al. [ 74 ], was applied. It was measured using an instrument from the Generalized Social Survey, as follows: “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you should be very careful in dealing with people?” This is a commonly used question [ 75 ]. Respondents chose between “yes,” “no,” and “I don’t know.”

4.4 Knowledge and attitude scale

Knowledge and attitude regarding the growing of food were measured using a bipolar 7-point scale based on Joiner [ 76 ], with items such as “I am very positive/negative about growing food” (see Table 3 ). Exploratory factor analysis, that is, principal component analysis with varimax rotational strategy, combined highly correlated items into independent factors. Factor reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, which should be greater than 0.5 to retain a factor [ 77 , 78 ].

4.5 Involvement scale

The New Involvement Profile (NIP) [ 79 ] was used to measure involvement in food-related topics [ 59 , 80 ]. It comprises five involvement dimensions: (1) relevance addresses the importance of an activity; (2) pleasure , the amount of joy an activity brings; (3) sign , the prestige of an activity; (4) risk importance , the possible risk of an activity; (5) risk probability , how an activity’s risk (potential negative consequences) is perceived [ 59 ]. Participants evaluated each NIP item on a 7-point bipolar scale [ 79 ], choosing items that best described how they perceived growing food at home or in community gardens. Items included corresponding terms, such as “When growing food, I am certain/uncertain of my actions” (see Table 4 ). NIP data were analyzed using factor analysis, as above.

4.6 Personality scale

Personality was measured using the Midlife Development Inventory (MIDI) [ 63 ], which has been used to investigate the effect of personality on the acceptance of GM pork [ 67 ], demand for organic produce [ 66 ], preference and willingness to pay for organic and local applesauce [ 81 ], and willingness to pay for food miles [ 65 ]. MIDI measures personality traits through adjectives participants evaluate from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot), indicating how well they feel the adjectives describe them. The traits conscientiousness, agency, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, and extraversion were derived by summing up related adjectives and dividing the sum by the number of adjectives.

4.7 Bivariate probit model

Since there were two dependent variables, a bivariate probit model was estimated in STATA 14 to jointly model produce growth. This model estimates the likelihood of growing produce both at home or in a community garden simultaneously, as they might influence each other: Someone growing produce at home might be more or less likely to grow produce in a community garden, and vice versa. A significant positive or negative correlation coefficient would indicate cross-equation gardening effects, so that gardening at each location is not independent. The correlation coefficient rho ( ρ provides a measure of whether two single probit models or one bivariate probit model is sufficient [ 82 ]; If ρ is significant, the bivariate model is preferred. In summary, the bivariate probit model estimates home and community gardening jointly and tests whether the two equations are independent.

5. Empirical results

5.1 growing produce in urban settings.

Table 1 displays the results for growing produce at home and in community gardens. The results show that about 50% of the sample never grow fruit at home and 34% never grow vegetables at home. Approximately 70% and 66% never grow fruits and vegetables, respectively, in community gardens. From 0 = never to 4 = always, growing fruits at home had a mean of M = 1.27 ( SD = 1.51), and growing vegetables at home had a mean of M = 1.81 ( SD = 1.62). Growing fruits in community gardens had a mean of M = 0.82 ( SD = 1.38), and growing vegetables in community gardens had a mean of M = 0.93 ( SD = 1.45).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.t001

For the subsequent analysis, the data for fruits and vegetables were combined into produce , showing that 67% grew produce at home at least sometimes and 35% grew produce in community gardens at least sometimes. These two variables served as dependent variables in the subsequent bivariate probit models. Table 2 provides a cross-tabulation with these variables to show who grows at home, in the community garden, or in both locations. The results showed that 31% did not garden at either location, while 34% grew produce at home, 2% grew produce in the community garden, and 33% grew produce at both. The latter is noteworthy given that it indicates that those who are interested in growing produce are more likely to make use of multiple urban settings than those who are less interested. The results suggest that growing at home and in community gardens are likely to be correlated, making the bivariate probit model appropriate.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.t002

The following descriptive results will be presented for the full sample and separately for gardeners and non-gardeners based on the correlation analysis. Non-gardeners will be specified as those never growing produce (31%), and gardeners will be the remainder. These statistics were not broken down by home vs. community gardening, given that only 2% garden exclusively in community gardens.

5.2 Personal characteristics of gardeners and non-gardeners

Gardeners and non-gardeners differ to some extent in their personal characteristics. Of those who gardened, only 16% live in single households (29% couples), but of those who do not garden, 29% live in single households (37% couples). Of those who garden, 29% have children in the household as compared to those who do not garden (17%). Of those who garden, 75% are White as compared to those who do not garden (72%). Black/African American participants show a reverse picture, accounting for 16% of those who garden and 23% of those who do not. Those who garden have a disproportionately high share of lower education. For details, see S1 Table .

Regarding trust, the majority of participants felt that “you should be very careful in dealing with people” (54%). About 40% said that “most people can be trusted,” and the remaining 5% answered “I don’t know.” Analyzing the differences in trust between gardeners and non-gardeners revealed that 46% of gardeners are trusting, but only 31% of non-gardeners. In the following analysis, “most people can be trusted” was coded equal to one (41%) and the other responses equal to zero (59%).

5.4 Knowledge and attitude

Table 3 shows the mean for subjective knowledge and attitudes toward growing food for the total sample, gardeners, and non-gardeners. Participants agreed most with the statements that growing food was excellent and desirable and that they feel positive about it. However, they indicated that they did not have a great deal of experience growing food and did not consider it a favorite activity. Gardeners scored higher on positive statements than non-gardeners. The midpoint of the scale is four, meaning that scores below four are in agreement with negative statements, for example, “I dislike growing food very much.” Answers below this midpoint were found for five out of the eight statements for non-gardeners. They agreed slightly with statements such as being unfamiliar with growing food, having no experience with it, and that it is their least favorite activity. Between the two groups, agreement with knowledge statements (Factor 1) differed more than agreement with attitude statements (Factor 2).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.t003

The data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. The rotated component matrix is presented in S2 Table . The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) criterion was 0.88 (meritorious).

The following factors were found:

5.4.1 Factor 1: Knowledge and experience regarding growing food.

This factor contained items related to knowledge and experience, indicating that one is familiar with growing food, has a lot of experience and exposure to growing food, and that growing food is a favored activity. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.9188 (excellent).

5.4.2 Factor 2: Attitude regarding growing food.

This factor summed-up statements that express attitudes, such as being positive about growing food, and included opinions that growing food is excellent and desirable. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.8908 (good).

5.5 Involvement

To measure involvement in the growing of food, respondents completed Jain and Srinivasan’s [ 79 ] involvement inventory (see Table 4 ). The results show that respondents thought growing food was beneficial, needed, and fun. Regarding the involvement dimensions, individuals were most involved with the dimensions Relevance and Pleasure and least involved with Risk Probability . Gardeners and non-gardeners differed most on the dimension of Risk Probability , wherein non-gardeners were less certain about how to grow, and the dimension of Pleasure , wherein growers were more excited about gardening. Both groups had the highest mutual agreement with regard to Relevance , and believed that growing food is essential, beneficial, and needed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.t004

Factor analysis was applied following Jain and Srinivasan [ 79 ] to analyze the five dimensions of involvement. Based on the KMO criterion, the validity of the items was meritorious. Cronbach’s alpha varied by factor ( Table 4 ). The dimensions Sign and Risk Importance had unacceptable Cronbach’s alphas and thus were not included as variables in subsequent analysis. The reason for this Cronbach’s alpha result could be due to the fact that about one-third of the sample respondents did not garden; this could especially affect items that might be more relevant for urban agriculture participants. In addition, the factor analysis presented a four-factor solution instead of the five-factor solution in Jain and Srinivasan [ 79 ], and the factors did not resemble the original factors. Therefore, we followed Drescher et al. [ 59 ] and used an index (mean) to transform the values into indexes related to the five original NIP dimensions. This has the advantage that the indexes used in the subsequent analysis can be interpreted as Jain and Srinivasan’s [ 79 ] involvement dimensions. The indexes were normalized before inclusion in the subsequent analysis.

5.6 Personality

The results for personality showed that conscientiousness ( M = 3.3), agreeableness ( M = 3.3), and openness ( M = 3.0) were the strongest traits, followed by extraversion ( M = 2.9), agency ( M = 2.6), and neuroticism ( M = 2.3). Differences between gardeners and non-gardeners were very small, ranging between 0.01 and 0.21 (see S3 Table ). For subsequent analysis, the six personality traits were normalized by subtracting the sample mean before including them in the bivariate probit models.

5.7 Socio-behavioral drivers of home and community gardening

The subsequent empirical analysis investigated the behavioral (psychological) and socio-demographic (personal) drivers of growing produce at home and in community gardens. Table 5 presents the results from the bivariate probit models. To understand the influence of individual factors, single models were tested before the comprehensive full model was tested. Results for trust, knowledge, and attitude were robust, in that the size, signs, and significance of the coefficients did not vary between models. All involvement dimensions were significant when modeled separately, but only Relevance remained significant once other variables entered the model. The same was true for personality, albeit to a lesser extent. Socio-demographic effects were robust, except for education and income.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.t005

On analyzing the value of likelihood, the full model had a better model fit than the individual models. The correlation coefficient rho was 0.710 ( p = 0.066), suggesting that growing produce at home and in community gardens were positively correlated. This confirms the descriptive findings and indicates that those who were likely to grow produce at home were also likely to grow produce in the community garden, and vice versa. This result was supported by the Wald test.

Results from the full model for psychological factors showed that trusting individuals were more likely to grow produce at home. The hypothesis that trust affects community gardening has not yet been confirmed. Being more knowledgeable increases the likelihood of growing produce at home or in community gardens. Having a positive attitude toward growing food only increased the likelihood of growing produce at home. In the full model, only one of the involvement dimensions affected participation in urban agriculture. Relevance had a significant negative effect on the growing of produce in community gardens. Given the measurement scale, this indicates that those who thought growing food was essential, beneficial, and needed were more likely to grow produce in the community garden. In the full model, an individual’s personality had no effect on growing produce at home. However, those who were extraverts were more likely to grow produce in community gardens. The more neurotic the respondents, the less likely they were to grow produce in community gardens.

In addition to the effects of psychological factors, personal factors influenced gardening. Compared to men, women were less likely to grow produce in community gardens, and the same held for older as compared to younger individuals. The bigger the household, the more likely the respondents were to grow produce at home, as suggested by a statistically significant and positive coefficient. A higher income reduced the likelihood of growing produce in community gardens.

6. Discussion

Agriculture in urban spaces has multiple benefits. Small-scale urban agriculture is related to increased overall health and well-being, nourishing individuals by providing healthy food options and building communities. This research developed a conceptual framework to highlight the socio-behavioral factors that drive the growing of produce in urban settings.

6.1 Descriptive findings

The findings of this study showed that at home, more than 15% of the participants always grew produce, but a large share of over 40% never grew produce. These findings complement the literature; for example, Kortright and Wakefield [ 42 ] found that more than 50% of households in Toronto grew food, and two-thirds of New Zealand secondary school students had a home vegetable garden [ 44 ]. Since a larger share of survey respondents did not grow produce in community gardens, this could explain why they felt less knowledgeable about growing food. Given the benefits of food gardening, increasing knowledge might increase participation in urban agriculture [ 42 , 53 ]. Furthermore, participants had a generally positive attitude toward growing produce, and they were most involved with the Relevance and Pleasure provided by urban agriculture. The majority of respondents indicated that they had low levels of trust, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.

6.2 Differences between gardeners and non-gardeners

Some differences with regard to socio-demographics were noted between gardeners and non-gardeners. Gardeners were characterized as living in larger households with children and having lower education level. Furthermore, they seemed to be more trusting (46%, compared to 31% for non-gardeners). This could mean that non-gardeners do not grow produce because they do not trust themselves to know how to grow produce or that they do not want to join a community garden because they do not trust others. Moreover, trust has been found to be high among community gardeners [ 26 ]; hence, increasing trust among non-gardeners could encourage them to start gardening. Looking deeper into the motives for distrust could be an avenue for future research.

Gardeners and non-gardeners differed in their knowledge and attitude toward growing food, and the difference was more pronounced for knowledge, which is likely related to gardeners being more experienced than non-gardeners. With regard to involvement dimensions, differences were found especially for Risk Probability , wherein non-gardeners were more uncertain about how to grow, and Pleasure , wherein gardeners displayed more excitement. Both groups were in agreement with regard to the Relevance of growing food. Differences in personality between gardeners and non-gardeners were small.

6.3 Behavioral factors influencing home and community gardening

Econometric analysis showed that several factors influenced the likelihood of growing produce at home and in community gardens. Those who were more trusting were more likely to grow produce at home, but contrary to the initial hypothesis, trust had no effect on growing produce in community gardens. This could be explained by home gardening, which requires individuals to trust themselves to grow food. According to Kopiyawattage et al. [ 52 ], having trust in one’s own abilities can be related to perceived behavioral control, which in turn influences decisions for urban farming.

It was tested whether subjective knowledge affects participation in urban agriculture. The analysis showed that respondents who felt more knowledgeable about growing food were more likely to garden at home and in community gardens. This is in line with previous research showing that subjective knowledge affects behavior related to ecological footprints [ 84 ], recycling [ 85 ], participation in commercial urban agriculture [ 3 ], and decisions to continue farming in urban areas [ 52 ]. The data also showed that a positive attitude toward urban food growing increased the likelihood of growing food at home. This is in line with Grebitus et al. [ 3 ]. who found that a generally positive attitude toward urban agriculture increased the likelihood of participating in commercial urban agriculture. Kopiyawattage et al. [ 52 ] showed that for commercial urban food producers, positive attitudes affected the decision to continue farming. The lack of effect on community gardening might be explained by community gardens serving several purposes in addition to growing food.

The involvement dimension Relevance was significant for growing food in community gardens, indicating that thinking produce growing is essential, beneficial, and needed increases the likelihood of growing produce. This is in line with past research showing that Relevance was the most important involvement dimension with regard to food product choices [ 59 ]. The findings showed that extraverted personalities were more likely to grow produce in community gardens; this makes sense intuitively, given that community gardens cater to these individuals’ outgoing nature, allowing them to have more social interactions. At the same time, neuroticism was significant and negative for growing produce in community gardens. Winter and Grebitus [ 86 ] found that the same traits had significant effects on private food label choices.

6.4 Socio-demographic factors influencing home and community gardening

With regard to socio-demographics, respondents with higher income were less likely to grow produce in community gardens. These findings contrast with those of Bellemare and Dusoruth [ 69 ], who found that respondents in Montreal with less than C$20,000 income were less likely to practice urban agriculture, although the finding was not differentiated for home and community gardening. Comparing home and community gardeners in San Jose, Algert et al. [ 45 ] found that community gardeners have higher income and higher education. Furthermore, results showed that female participants were less likely to grow produce in community gardens, similar to Van Lier et al. [ 44 ], who found that male adolescents in New Zealand were more likely to participate in home gardening. These findings differ from those of Bellemare and Dusoruth [ 69 ], who found that men were less likely than women to be urban gardeners, and those of Grebitus et al. [ 3 ], who showed that female individuals were more likely to grow food at an urban farm. However, Grebitus et al. [ 3 ] used a hypothetical setting to study urban agriculture participation in Phoenix, where respondents were asked about their likelihood to garden rather than their actual gardening. Moreover, results indicated that older individuals were less likely to grow produce in community gardens, similar to Bellemare and Dusoruth [ 69 ] and Van Lier et al. [ 44 ], who found that younger individuals were more likely to participate in urban agriculture. However, these findings contrast with those of Grebitus et al. [ 3 ], who showed that older individuals were more likely to grow food at an urban farm, albeit in a hypothetical setting. Algert et al. [ 45 ] also found community gardeners to be older than non-gardeners.

The larger the household, the more likely the respondents were to grow produce at home, probably because larger households are more likely to have a house with a yard where growing food is more feasible. These results are in line with Bellemare and Dusoruth [ 69 ] who also found that larger households were more likely to participate in urban agriculture.

Overall, the findings reflect that studies in different regions with different populations have different results for personal factors. Furthermore, whether studies differentiate between growing produce at home and in community gardens affected the findings.

6.5 Research limitations

This study has some limitations. To measure the constructs, a survey with direct, self-reported measures was used, which may have resulted in social desirability bias [ 87 ]. However, online surveys result in lower bias than, for instance, telephone interviews [ 88 ]; hence, the social desirability bias in this case can be considered minimal. Nonetheless, using an online survey can cause other concerns, such as self-selection bias [ 89 ]; this risk was countered by using a relatively large sample from a local area. Moreover, coverage can bias findings; for example, under-coverage is possible, given that specific groups may be under-represented compared to the overall US population. This is the case when specific groups in the population are not as well represented by the sample, for example those who have less access to the Internet [ 89 ]. Such coverage problems might have affected this study, because in Detroit, only 80% of all households have a computer as compared to the U.S. as a whole, wherein 89% of all households have a computer. Further, fewer households in Detroit (59%) have a home Internet connection compared to the U.S. in total (80%) [ 71 ]. This needs to be considered when drawing conclusions and could be addressed by future research collecting data from other regions of the U.S. to test if the results for Detroit are generalizable. In addition, it could be of value to study regions outside the U.S. and compare findings to the present study. More generally, the sample does not represent Detroit in terms of race; hence, the findings are not generalizable across the study region, but need to be interpreted in the context of the socio-demographics of the sample. Finally, many factors affect the growing of food. Resources are another driver that influences the decision to garden. This study is limited in that it focused on socio-behavioral factors, without including resources other than income. Future research could extend the present study’s framework by including variables on resources, such as space and time.

6.6 Suggestions for future research

As mentioned in the limitations, the factors that influence the growing of produce at home or in community gardens are manifold. Future research could include other determinants, such as time constraints, mobility, transportation, financial resources, space availability at home, and access to community gardens to shed more light on barriers to urban farming. Further analysis could also investigate interactions between physical resources (time, money, space) and behavior. For example, in studying urban agriculture in California, Surls et al. [ 90 ] analyzed what commercial urban farmers need when faced with limited resources. They showed that land access, long-term availability, production issues, regulations, and business planning/marketing are some of the challenges. Moreover, land access and long-term availability are roadblocks that community gardens have encountered, and similar barriers were found by Schupp et al. [ 91 ] regarding home gardening in Ohio. They found that income, education, space availability, and housing type determined whether households participated in home gardening. Future research could supplement this analysis.

7. Conclusion

This research aimed to close a gap in the literature: the lack of quantitative research that focuses on the socio-behavioral drivers of home and community gardening. A conceptual framework was tested, and the results indicated that knowledge affects growing produce both at home and in community gardens. Other factors differed for growing produce at home and in community gardens. For example, involvement and personality only affected growing produce in community gardens, while trust only affected home gardening. Socio-demographics also affected the growing of produce.

Given the benefits, urban farming seems promising, and this study has several implications for promoting small-scale urban agriculture. The first, which is relevant to nutrition education and university extension services, is that increased knowledge leads to increased participation in home and community gardens. Hence, we need to educate future gardeners, to increase their knowledge and ability to participate safely in small-scale urban agriculture, as stressed by Kortright and Wakefield [ 42 ], who suggested that home food gardeners could be supported with regard to acquiring ecological gardening skills and to general learning opportunities. Lack of knowledge can increase the risk for those who are unaware of safe gardening practices, for example the risk of soil contaminants. In addition, home gardeners might cause nutrient loading of stormwater runoff in urban areas due to the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides [ 40 ]. Hence, Sanye-Mengual et al. [ 43 ] recommended minimizing the use of chemicals, integrating pest management, making use of renewable resources, and diffusing nursing. Taylor and Taylor Lovell [ 40 ] called for outreach and research to train gardeners in safe and sustainable food growing practices that support ecosystem health. This could include NGOs being more involved in small-scale urban agriculture through education, outreach, and research programs.

Given that growing food at home is affected by trust, peoples’ trust in their gardening abilities needs to be improved, ideally through education and by training them early. This was pointed out by Landry et al. [ 53 ], who recommended including gardening in the school curriculum to build skills and increase the probability of maintaining community gardens. Given that I found that a positive attitude increased the likelihood of participating in home food gardening only, another implication for community gardens is to introduce strategies in their recruitment efforts that improve attitudes toward growing food.

Because involvement ( Relevance ) affects home gardening, conveying to non-participants that growing food is essential and beneficial might increase their participation. Results for personality showed that extraversion and neuroticism, in particular, determined participation in small-scale urban agriculture. This suggests that these two personality traits are important in explaining behavior, and hence should be considered when targeting education activities and designing community gardens. For instance, extraverts are already open to participating in urban agriculture, but neurotic personas may feel uncomfortable. Programs can be designed in a way that alleviates the anxiety of neurotic personas; given that gardening has been shown to help with depression, mental well-being, and health, this could be especially beneficial.

Extension services and NGOs already offer gardening education and outreach, therefore, the main recommendation of this study is to expand and strengthen the programs that are already in place (see Beavers et al. [ 92 ] regarding gardening support programs in Detroit). In conclusion, the conceptual framework developed in this study and the significant effects of the socio-behavioral factors identified can be utilized to derive target-oriented educational strategies to help community gardens, NGOs, university extension, and other stakeholders increase participation in small-scale urban agriculture.

Supporting information

S1 table. socio-demographic characteristics of gardeners and non-gardeners..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.s001

S2 Table. Knowledge and attitude regarding food growing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.s002

S3 Table. Personality traits.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913.s003

• 1. United Nations (2018). The World’s Cities in 2018. Data Booklet. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. https://www.un.org/en/events/citiesday/assets/pdf/the_worlds_cities_in_2018_data_booklet.pdf . Last accessed 3/9/2021.
• 2. World Bank (2018). Urban population (% of total population)–United States. United Nations Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: 2018 Revision. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=US , last accessed 3/9/2021.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 7. National Gardening Association (2014). Garden to Table: A 5 Year Look at Food Gardening in America. National Gardening Association Special Report. Garden.org .
• 8. Hendrickson M. K., & Porth M. (2012). Urban Agriculture—Best Practices and Possibilities. University Of Missouri Division of Applied Social Sciences. Retrieved on 7/1/2020 from http://extension.missouri.edu/foodsystems/urbanagriculture.aspx
• 11. Reynolds K. & Cohen N. (2016). Beyond the Kale : Urban Agriculture and Social Justice Activism in New York City . Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
• 18. Mougeot, L. J. A. (2000). Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potential and Risks . https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/26429/117785.pdf?sequence=12 . Last accessed 7/1/2020.
• 27. Borghans, L., Duckworth, A.L., Heckman, J.J., & ter Weel, B. (2008). The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits. Institute for the Study of Labor, Discussion Paper No. 3333. February 2008.
• 35. Keep Growing Detroit (2019). Sowing the Seeds of Relationships—2019 Annual Report. http://detroitagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2019_KGD_Annual-Report_November.pdf . Last accessed: 12/5/2019.
• 48. Uslaner E.M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust . Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
• 49. Uslaner E.M. (2008). Trust as a moral value. In Castiglione D., van Deth J.W., & Wolleb G.(Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 101–121). New York: Oxford University Press.
• 71. Census (2020). Detroit city, MI (based on QuickFacts, Detroit city, Michigan, U.S., U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/detroitcitymichigan ,US/PST045219. Last accessed: 6/17/2020.
• 72. Census Reporter (2020). https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US2622000-detroit-mi/ . Last accessed: 6/17/2020.
• 73. SDC (2020). State of the Detroit Child. Detroit city, Wayne County, MI. https://sdc.datadrivendetroit.org/profiles/06000US2616322000-detroit-city-wayne-county-mi/ Last accessed: 6/17/2020.
• 77. Hair J.F. Jr., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., & Black W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis . Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 5 th edition.
• 78. Kim J.-O., & Mueller C.W. (1978). Factor Analysis. Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. In: Uslaner E.M. (ed.): Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences . Sage University Paper 07–014. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, UK.
• 80. Grebitus, C. (2008). Food quality from the consumer’s perspective: An empirical analysis of perceived pork quality . Doctoral Thesis. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, Germany.
• 83. Greene W.H., 2003. Econometric Analysis , 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.

• Starting an Urban Farm?
• Business Management
• Food Safety, Handling, and Processing
• Community and School Gardens
• Laws, Zoning and Regulations
• Literature Review
• Annotated Bibliography
• Colleagues and Collaborators
• Resources and Help

• What is Urban Agriculture?
• Yisrael Family Urban Farm
• Wild Willow Farm
• The Michelle Obama Treasure Island Job Corps Green Acre
• Ploughshares Nursery
• The Growing Experience
• Farm Lot 59
• Urban Agriculture Blog
• PAST: 2018 San Diego Area Workshop Series
• PAST: 2018 Sacramento Area Workshop Series
• PAST: 2017 Bay Area Workshop Series
• PAST: 2017 Los Angeles Area Workshop Series

Social, Health, and Economic Impacts of Urban Agriculture

We conducted an extensive literature review on the health, social and economic impacts of urban agriculture. Also available are an annotated bibliography of the articles and reports we reviewed for the literature review, and an At-a-Glance spreadsheet that connects each article with the impact(s) discussed. There are other impacts, such as environmental impacts, which were beyond the scope of our literature review.

Learn More About our Urban Agriculture Needs Assessment

The literature review was part of a larger needs assessment on urban agriculture in California which included a UC ANR organizational survey and interviews with urban agriculture clientele. A full description can be found in this article .

KEY IMPACTS

Social Impacts

Creating Safe Places/Reducing Blight

Access to Land

Community Development/Building Social Capital

Education and Youth Development Opportunities

Cross-Generational and Cultural Integration

Health Impacts

Food Access and Security

Increased Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Food and Health Literacy

General Well-Being (Mental Health and Physical Activity)

Economic Impacts

Job Creation, Training and Business Incubation

Market Expansion for Farmers

Economic Savings on Food

Savings for Municipal Agencies

Increased Home Values

This doesn’t mean that every urban agriculture project or urban farm offers all of these benefits! Every site is unique. Projects must be designed and implemented with their goals in mind.

Research on the impact of climate change on the income gap between urban and rural areas—empirical analysis based on provincial panel data in China

• Bai, Qingyun
• Chen, Haipeng
• Li, Guohong
• Zang, Dungang
• Shen, Qianling

Narrowing the income gap between urban and rural areas is the key to achieving common prosperity in China. On the basis of analyzing the mechanism of climate change's impact on urban-rural income gap, this article empirically analyzes the impact of climate change on urban-rural income gap using provincial-level panel data of 30 provinces in China from 2011 to 2020. Research indicates that climate change significantly impacts the urban-rural income gap at the 1% significance level, implying that climate change exacerbates the urban-rural income gap. This widening effect varies significantly across different regions, particularly in the western regions and areas with lower fiscal support for agriculture. Further analysis reveals that there is a mediating role between the total agricultural output value and resource mismatch in the impact of climate change on urban-rural income inequality; the digital rural construction plays a regulatory role in the impact of climate change on the urban-rural income gap. On this basis, policy recommendations are proposed to promote the development of climate-resilient agriculture, improve the meteorological forecast and early warning system, increase financial support, and optimize the allocation of agricultural resources.

• Climate change;
• Urban-rural income gap;
• Agricultural output value;
• Resource mismatch

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Research on the geographical pattern, evolution model, and driving mechanism of carbon emission density from urban industrial land in the yangtze river economic belt of china.

Share and Cite

Xie, F.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Zhao, S.; Lai, M. Research on the Geographical Pattern, Evolution Model, and Driving Mechanism of Carbon Emission Density from Urban Industrial Land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024 , 13 , 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13060192

Xie F, Zhang S, Zhang Q, Zhao S, Lai M. Research on the Geographical Pattern, Evolution Model, and Driving Mechanism of Carbon Emission Density from Urban Industrial Land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information . 2024; 13(6):192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13060192

Xie, Fei, Shuaibing Zhang, Qipeng Zhang, Sidong Zhao, and Min Lai. 2024. "Research on the Geographical Pattern, Evolution Model, and Driving Mechanism of Carbon Emission Density from Urban Industrial Land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China" ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 13, no. 6: 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13060192

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: rag vs fine-tuning: pipelines, tradeoffs, and a case study on agriculture.

Abstract: There are two common ways in which developers are incorporating proprietary and domain-specific data when building applications of Large Language Models (LLMs): Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Fine-Tuning. RAG augments the prompt with the external data, while fine-Tuning incorporates the additional knowledge into the model itself. However, the pros and cons of both approaches are not well understood. In this paper, we propose a pipeline for fine-tuning and RAG, and present the tradeoffs of both for multiple popular LLMs, including Llama2-13B, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. Our pipeline consists of multiple stages, including extracting information from PDFs, generating questions and answers, using them for fine-tuning, and leveraging GPT-4 for evaluating the results. We propose metrics to assess the performance of different stages of the RAG and fine-Tuning pipeline. We conduct an in-depth study on an agricultural dataset. Agriculture as an industry has not seen much penetration of AI, and we study a potentially disruptive application - what if we could provide location-specific insights to a farmer? Our results show the effectiveness of our dataset generation pipeline in capturing geographic-specific knowledge, and the quantitative and qualitative benefits of RAG and fine-tuning. We see an accuracy increase of over 6 p.p. when fine-tuning the model and this is cumulative with RAG, which increases accuracy by 5 p.p. further. In one particular experiment, we also demonstrate that the fine-tuned model leverages information from across geographies to answer specific questions, increasing answer similarity from 47% to 72%. Overall, the results point to how systems built using LLMs can be adapted to respond and incorporate knowledge across a dimension that is critical for a specific industry, paving the way for further applications of LLMs in other industrial domains.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .