Content uploaded by Raychel E. Santo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raychel E. Santo on Aug 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
RAYCHEL SANTO
ANNE PALMER
BRENT KIM
May 2016
A REVIEW OF THE
BENEFITS AND
LIMITATIONS
OF URBAN
AGRICULTURE
TO
VIBRANT
PLOTS
VACANT
LOTS
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Karen Banks, Carrie Burns, Kate Clancy, Rosie Havers, Paul Milbourne,
Keeve Nachman, and Mark Winne for their reviews and feedback. We also want to thank
Melissa Poulsen and Marie Spiker for permission to include, update, and adapt their chart
from their 2014 white paper (pp. 4-5), Integrating urban farms into the social landscape of
cities: Recommendations for strengthening the relationship between urban farms and local
communities.
Cover design, layout, and illustration (p. 2): Michael Milli
Photo credits: Mark Dennis (p.6) Ann Beckemeyer (p. 7), Florence Ma (p. 8, 12, 14, 19),
DeVon Nolen (p. 4), Jared Margulies (cover)
Contents
◼Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
◼Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 1
◻◻Figure◻1:◻Scope◻of◻urban◻agriculture◻...........................................................................2
◼Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
◼Sociocultural considerations ............................................................................................. 4
◻◻Social◻benefits◻ ..................................................................................................................... 4
◻◻Educational◻and◻skill◻development◻opportunities ............................................................. 6
◻◻Potential◻exclusion◻and◻marginalization ........................................................................... 7
◼Environmental sustainability ............................................................................................. 8
◻◻Ecosystem◻services ............................................................................................................... 8
◻◻Environmental◻limitations .................................................................................................. 10
◼Public health and food security ........................................................................................ 11
◻◻Individual◻health◻impacts ................................................................................................... 11
◻◻Community◻and◻municipal◻food◻security ........................................................................... 14
◼Economic development ...................................................................................................... 16
◻◻Potential◻economic◻development◻opportunities ................................................................. 16
◻◻Limitations◻of◻economic◻development◻framework ............................................................. 16
◼Research gaps ....................................................................................................................... 20
◼Recommendations for framing the merits of urban agriculture .............................. 22
◼References ............................................................................................................................. 23
II
Summary
Urban agriculture has become a popular topic for
metropolitan areas to engage in on a program and
policy level. It is touted as a means of promoting
public health and economic development, build-
ing social capital, and repurposing unused land.
Food policy councils and other groups that seek
to position urban agriculture to policy makers
often struggle with how to frame the benefits of
and potential problems with urban agriculture.
In some cases, the enthusiasm is ahead of the
evidence. This review provides an overview of the
documented sociocultural, health, environmental,
and economic development outcomes of urban
agriculture. Demonstrated and potential benefits,
as well as risks and limitations, of this growing field
will be discussed. We also oer recommendations
for further research to strengthen the scholarship
on urban agriculture.
Scope
As urban agriculture is a trans-disciplinary
topic, this report includes information from both
published and grey literature from a variety of
academic disciplines, including public health,
geography, sociology, urban planning, psychology,
sustainability studies, and economics. It focus-
es on research predominantly from the Global
North, as urban agriculture in the Global South has
developed under dierent historical conditions, in
dierent demographic and spatial contexts, and
for dierent reasons.1,2
For the purposes of this report, urban agriculture
encompasses the production of food and non-food
plants, as well as animal husbandry, in urban and
peri-urbani spaces. Urban agriculture operations
may be privately, publically, or commercially
owned, and manifest in a number of forms, includ-
ing household, school, and community gardens;
urban farmsii; backyard chicken coops and
beehives; aquaculture, hydroponics, and aquapon-
ics facilities; and rooftop, vertical, and indoor farms
(see Figure 1).
The majority of published literature on urban
agriculture comes from research on community
gardens.3 This reflects the fact that gardens remain
the dominant form of urban agriculture – involv-
ing far more people and growing far more food
in volume and value than urban farms.4,5 More
technologically innovative forms of urban agricul-
ture, including rooftop gardens and greenhouses,
indoor and vertical farms, edible green walls, and
aquaponics facilities, are still in the early stages of
research and practice.6,7 Urban home food gardens
have also been under-represented in the literature,
though their potential social, ecological, health, and
economic contributions can also be significant.8
i Definitions of peri-urban agriculture abound; this paper considers
it to be agriculture at the boundaries of cities, in the transition or
“buer” zones between rural and urban areas. Opitz et al. provide a
comprehensive review on peri-urban agriculture, and its dierenc-
es with traditional urban agriculture.10 2 It is increasingly dicult to
categorize urban agriculture projects by geographical locations, as
many have acquired additional land outside the cities in which they
are located in order to accommodate their expanded operations.121
ii Farms are generally distinguished from gardens by the intent to
produce goods for sale, though classifying remains an ambiguous
task, as some entities such as the USDA’s Agricultural Census only
consider operations that reach certain sales and size thresholds to
be farms.142
1
U
r
b
a
n
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
School garden
Edible landscape
Backyard garden
Urban farm
Community garden
Building integrated
agriculture (Zfarming)
Peri-urban agriculture
Rooftop
farming
Rooftop
greenhouses
Edible
walls
Vertical farming
(sky farming)
Open-air
rooftop
Aquaculture
Aquaponics
Hydroponics
Indoor
farming
Figure 1: Scope of urban agriculture
2
Introduction
People engage in urban agriculture for a wide vari-
ety of reasons, such as accessing fresh produce;
improving personal health and mental well-being;
enhancing socio-ecological relationships; sustain-
ing cultural traditions; and among more radical
participants, challenging norms around land use,
urban/rural dichotomies, and the global agri-food
system.9-11 Likewise, city agencies, community
groups, and other advocates of urban agriculture
cite a number of potential benefits, from foster-
ing social interaction, educational opportunities,
and community and economic development,
to providing important health-promoting and
ecosystem services.12
These reasons have been used to help acquire and
sustain government support for urban agricul-
ture projects. Many municipalities already assist
third-party and city-run community gardens
through providing land, funding, in-kind supplies,
technical assistance, and educational work-
shops.13,14 They have also begun supporting urban
farms, both for-profit and non-profit, by pass-
ing new zoning ordinances and building codes to
support urban agriculture eorts.12 Some have
incorporated urban agriculture into municipal food
strategies and comprehensive plans.15,16
Accurately interpreting and communicating the
potential merits of urban agriculture, however, is
essential. If its benefits are overstated, or limita-
tions overlooked, this could propel advocates to
disproportionally allocate resources to urban agri-
culture at the expense of other, potentially more
eective interventions. And if urban agriculture
does not live up to its promises, it may lose the
cultural and political support necessary to sustain
the benefits it can oer.
This review provides an overview of the docu-
mented sociocultural, health, environmental, and
economic development outcomes of urban agricul-
ture. Demonstrated and potential benefits, as well
as risks and limitations, of this growing field will be
discussed. Gaps in current literature on these bene-
fits and limitations, and a summary of recommen-
dations for framing the merits of urban agriculture,
are reviewed at the end of this report. While urban
agriculture alone will not solve the many dilemmas
of our food system, from ecological collapse to
inequitable access to healthy food, it can be part of
a constellation of interventions needed to reform
the food system into one that is more socially just,
ecologically sound, and economically viable.
3
Sociocultural considerations
While dicult to tangibly measure, the preponder-
ance of evidence suggests that urban agriculture’s
most significant benefits center around its ability
to increase social capital, community well-be-
ing, and civic engagement with the food system.
The majority of literature in this area comes from
studies of community gardens, but many urban
farms have also established themselves as social
enterprises dedicated more to social missions than
to profits.5,17 Some critiques have also been raised
about the fact that these social benefits may not
extend to all because of complex structural and
historical barriers.
Social benefits
Numerous studies have documented how commu-
nity gardens enhance the social capital of commu-
nities through increasing the social bonds and
networks among neighbors, among people from
more diverse backgrounds, and among those in
dierent positions of power.18-22 Such connec-
tions based on mutual trust and reciprocity oer
support during times of crisis, and help commu-
nities leverage greater resources, funding, and
supportive policies from outside organizations
and government. They also bridge gaps, reduce
existing tensions, and foster social integration
between otherwise segregated groups by bringing
people of diverse races/ethnicities, cultures, reli-
gions, socioeconomic classes, genders, ages, and
educational backgrounds together to participate
in shared activities with a common purpose.19,20,23-27
The strong sociocultural values surrounding food
growing, cooking, and sharing help facilitate the
role of gardens as a social bridge, and support
communities in maintaining and appreciating
cultural traditions associated with food.28
The physical spaces where urban agriculture proj-
ects exist also enrich community well-being. As
“third spaces” beyond the home or work, gardens
function as gathering places for
community members to interact, espe-
cially important in areas where open
green spaces are rare.20 As document-
ed in a case study of Latino communi-
ty gardens in New York City, gardens
may serve more as cultural and social
neighborhood centers than as agricul-
tural production sites.25 Another case
study of community gardens in Detroit
noted their importance as alterna-
tive communal, social, learning, and
healing safe spaces responding to the
needs left by the closing of communi-
ty centers.29 Some neighbors of urban
farms discuss the community improve-
ment benefits – such as the cleaning
up of vacant lots – more frequently and with more
enthusiasm than the production of fresh local
food.167 Some argue that through such roles, urban
agriculture is challenging traditional boundaries
4
Reported Benefits Reported Limitations
Community cohesion and development
◼Provision of opportunities for social interaction,
strengthening social ties and facilitating new
social connections18-22
◼Catalyst for community organizing and broader
community improvement8,22,25,27,29,45,46
◼Gathering places for community members to
interact, especially important in areas where
open green spaces are rare20,25,29
◼Perceived sense of safety/reduction in crime,
and consequent strengthening of residents’
pride of place23,32-34
◼UA initiatives are instigated from dierent
organizational structures, e.g., community-led
eorts vs. persons or institutions outside the
community, which may restrict community
development benefits in some instances1 9,16 7
Cultural integration and preservation
All of the points in this box come from 19,20,23-27:
◼Provision of opportunities for neighborhood
residents of diverse backgrounds to interact
who otherwise would not have such an impetus
◼Provision of opportunities for immigrants
to develop ties with host and other ethnic
communities, expand cultural competencies,
and gain a sense of belonging
◼Provision of opportunities for expression and
maintenance of cultural heritage28
◼Provision of opportunities to strengthen inter-
generational relationships
◼UA initiatives have been led by mostly
young, white non-residents in predomi-
nantly black and/or Latino neighborhoods,
unintentionally excluding people of color
from participating in or reaping the benefits
of such eorts20,22,30,52-54,167
◼Initiatives led by lower-income communities
and/or people of color have experienced
disparities in access to land, government fund-
ing, and political support compared to urban
agriculture eorts led by white and middle-
class groups15,55,167
Education and youth development
◼Provision of opportunities to learn about the
provenance of food, agricultural processes,
nutrition, and sustainability, and to develop
new skills25,35-40,46,145,164,165
◼Provision of constructive activity for youth that
promotes youth development and as an alter-
native for youth exposed to drug and crime
economies, including wage-earning opportuni-
ties35,39,164,167
◼Projects providing comprehensive/intensive
education beyond technical farming skills
require additional expertise (e.g. in social/moral
support and remedial education), which may
require more sta time and higher labor costs42
Table 1: Summary of sociocultural considerations*
*Many of the studies cited in this chart and those following (on pages 9, 13, and 17) are exploratory studies that use qualitative
methods, and the quantitative studies rarely measure change before and after implementation of an urban agriculture project,
use a control group, or include a large sample. Therefore, these benefits are not “proven” benefits in terms of having been
rigorously measured.
5
between public and private land use.31 Moreover,
urban green spaces, which include but are not
limited to vegetable gardens, have been associated
with reduced crime rates in socially disadvantaged
neighborhoods and the consequent strengthening
of residents’ pride of place.23,32-34
Educational and skill
development opportunities
Building on their role as community hubs, gardens
and other sites of urban agriculture also serve
as sites for education, youth development, and
skills/workforce training opportunities. Whether
through formal programs or informal exchang-
es, these places help teach youth about science,
environmental stewardship, cultural heritage,
and healthy eating, while also oering valuable
lessons in interpersonal skills, responsibility, and
delayed gratification.25,35-40 Leadership, project
management, marketing, customer service, and
other transferable skills gained through working
on urban agriculture initiatives can support the job
readiness and workforce integration of neighbor-
hood youth, immigrants, dierently abled people,
and those who were formerly incarcerated,5,15,40,41
although the spectrum beyond agriculture-specif-
ic skills must be emphasized to encourage gener-
al job readiness. As Daftary-Steel et al. discuss,
providing these opportunities to the “least employ-
able” requires additional expertise (e.g., in social/
moral support and remedial education) beyond
the teaching of technical farming skills, which may
require more sta time and higher labor costs.42
Urban agriculture projects aiming to provide such
intensive services, in addition to keeping produce
at aordable prices, require greater external finan-
cial and political support.42
By reconnecting urban consumers to food produc-
tion and introducing them to new fruits
and vegetables, urban agriculture can
also help foster agricultural literacy and
a “dierent connection to food.”9 As
they shift from being passive consum-
ers of food to becoming co-producers
and gain increased control over how
their food is produced and distributed,
participants become what some schol-
ars refer to as “food citizens.”43,44 This
may also catalyze civic engagement
in both the broader food and political
systems. For instance, the social and
political skills gained through garden-
ing, such as community organizing,
fundraising, and consensus decision
making, can empower residents to
begin tackling other issues in their communities
and beyond.8,22,25,27,29,45,46 For instance, as White
(p.19) describes, the empowerment and food
sovereignty gained by women gardeners in Detroit
instigated conversations over how they “might gain
control over other aspects of their lives, including
access to aordable housing, clean water, commu-
nity policing, and decent public education.”29 Some
scholars40,47 argue that such eorts in community
self-reliance and self-determination ultimately
6
serve to fill in the gaps (in food security, commu-
nity centers, etc.) left by government cutbacks –
and thereby uphold rather than resist the political
and economic system that created the structural
inequities, racism, and other issues they seek to
address. Others acknowledge this critique, but
argue that urban agriculture initiatives can simul-
taneously fill in the gaps and provide spaces for
transformative political resistance.11,29
Potential exclusion and
marginalization
Urban agriculture projects are not panaceas of
social inclusion or equity, however, and critical
questions have been raised about who
benefits from such eorts. Urban agri-
culture initiatives are established with
dierent, though often overlapping,
aims – whether they seek to supply
fresh foods in low-income communi-
ties with limited access to full-service
grocery retail, achieve more entrepre-
neurial aims, or provide more educa-
tional or community development
benefits. They are also instigated from
dierent organizational structures,
e.g., community-led eorts vs. persons
or institutions outside the communi-
ty.19, 16 7 Dierent meanings around the
ideas of community, inclusiveness, and
diversity further contribute to the vari-
ety of forms that arise among urban agriculture
projects.48
It is important to understand these various contexts
in which urban farms and gardens are situated in
order to challenge and prevent exclusionary and
discriminatory policies and practices that often
manifest in their operations.49 This is particularly
relevant for farms, gardens, and other forms of
urban agriculture that are initiated by people or
institutions from outside of the neighborhoods
in which they are located.30 It is even more so for
commercial ventures where the food produced is
not economically or physically accessible to resi-
dents.30 As Draus et al. and Hu et al. discuss, the
systemic racial, socioeconomic, and geographical
marginalization of many inner-city populations,
especially in relation to urban redevelopment, has
left a legacy of distrust among residents of exter-
nal public or private eorts to “improve” their
neighborhoods through urban agriculture.50,51
A number of case studies have found that urban
farms and gardens – both for-profit and non-profit
– have been led by mostly young, white non-resi-
dents in predominantly black and/or Latino neigh-
borhoods, unintentionally excluding people of
color from participating in or reaping the benefits
of such eorts.20,22,30,52-54,167 Other initiatives that
have been led by lower-income communities and/
or people of color have experienced disparities in
access to land, government funding, and political
support compared to urban agriculture eorts led
by white and middle-class groups.15,55
7
It is essential that the residents of the communities
being aected by urban agriculture projects are not
just consulted but fully empowered in leadership
and decision-making to the greatest extent possi-
ble.15,56 Leaders should understand the historical
and social context of the space where their eorts
take place (e.g., an urban farm might be located in a
community that has experienced a history of racial
tensions), and be keenly aware of the participation
and power dynamics among people (gardeners/
farmers, customers/supporters, and neighboring
residents) of dierent races, socioeconomic class-
es, genders, ages and educational backgrounds.52
Successful grassroots eorts that have been led by
community members through a culturally direct-
ed approach may serve as models for other urban
agriculture projects.28,57
Environmental sustainability
The vast majority of food consumed in the U.S.
today is produced by an industrialized agricultural
system that harms the physical environment and
lacks the resilience necessary to address rising
global challenges of achieving food security in the
face of climate change, population pressures, and
resource depletion.58 Given these facts, urban agri-
culture has been promoted as part of the transition
to a more environmentally sustainable and resilient
food system. Advocates cite its ecosystem services
to urban areas; shorter distance from farm to plate;
presumably reduced reliance on petroleum-based
energy and embedded greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions needed for farm machinery, pesticide
manufacturing, and transportation; and, if widely
adopted, reduced pressure on farmland.6 While
some of these proclaimed benefits have been
documented in the scientific literature, many have
not been critically assessed.
Ecosystem services
Urban green spaces and green roofs oer a
number of ecosystem services.59-66 Vegetation
filters certain airborne pollutants such as partic-
ulate matter,67,6 8 which one study suggests may
mitigate morbidity and mortality associated with
respiratory illnesses.69 Plants and trees facili-
tate temperature moderation, and thus help
reduce the urban heat island eect by cooling
nearby air through the process of evapotrans-
piration, oering shade from solar radiation,
and diusing incoming solar radiation.66 These
services are of particular importance in light
of the anticipated eects of climate change
on heat-related mortality.70,7 1 Vegetation also
collects and retains precipitation, reducing
storm-water runo into urban waterways.iii
Gardens, in particular, support local biodi-
versity by providing habitats and forage for
pollinators such as bees and other beneficial
organisms.72 Urban food gardens and farms
have been found to help conserve agro-biodi-
versity, for example, as gardeners and farmers
iii Although vegetation captures and infiltrates storm-water, plants
may be exposed to contaminated run-o. Buer strips between
urban agriculture operations and parking lots, roads, and industrial
sites can help filter out contaminants before reaching edible crop
production areas.99
8
save seeds and grow more traditional crop variet-
ies and wild relatives.8,73 They also provide sites for
composting organic matter for subsequent use as
fertilizer, thereby reducing reliance on chemical or
mined inputs and keeping waste from landfills.74
Some novel forms of building-integrated urban
agriculture, including rooftop gardens and green-
houses, indoor and vertical farms, and edible
green walls, are also merited for their ability to
re-use waste water, waste heat, and organic waste
from homes and businesses in limited-input food
production systems.6,59,65 One review on these
forms of urban agriculture includes the findings of
a few case studies of hydroponic operations that
have demonstrated significant reductions in the
amount of water needed to produce vegetables
compared to conventional farming, as well as stud-
ies of building energy savings from the presence
of rooftop operations.6 A multi-country study of
Reported Benefits Reported Limitations
Local ecosystem services
◼Increased biodiversity, including provision of
habitat for pollinators8,73
◼Reduced air pollution through filtration of
particulates by vegetation6 7,68
◼Micro-climate regulation (e.g., reduction in the
“urban heat island eect”) through transpira-
tion processes66
◼Increased rainwater drainage, reducing the risk
of flooding, ground water contamination, and
depleted groundwater levels99
◼Recycling of organic waste (e.g., through
composting)74
◼Soil management and amendment, irrigation,
and fertilizer use practices by UA growers may
not be ecologically sound3,8
Climate change mitigation
◼Potential reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with food transporta-
tion, particularly when replacing typically
air-freighted produce (e.g., greens, berries)78
◼Carbon sequestration by vegetation and
crops77,7 8
◼Some technological UA operations may
reduce the energy and resource inputs
– and waste outputs – associated with
food production6,65,75,118
◼Urban growing maintains collective memory
of food production and protects urban green
spaces, upholding cities’ capacity to produce
food in times of crisis76
◼May increase GHG emissions and water use if
plants are grown in energy- or resource-inten-
sive locations13,75,85-88
◼Small-scale, fragmented UA may be less e-
cient in resource use and transport emissions
than conventional agriculture79
◼If UA becomes ubiquitous in cities, it may
reduce population density, requiring more
driving and GHG emissions than the current
system63,82
Table 2: Summary of environmental sustainability factors
9
environmental impact factors for integratediv roof-
top farming operations in retail parks (e.g., super-
markets) in Europe and South America found that
such operations could reduce the carbon dioxide
emissions and energy inputs needed to produce
tomatoes (compared to non-local conventional-
ly produced ones) and with appropriate rainwa-
ter harvesting, could almost universally acquire
enough water to avoid additional inputs.75(Chapter 5)
These potential emissions reductions and energy
savings of integrated rooftop operations would be
higher in colder climates, as waste energy from
the building contributes to reduce energy inputs
needed to heat rooftop greenhouses.75(Chapter 5) Much
of this research is in a nascent stage, and a number
of theoretical and practical issues remain before
environmental benefits from implementation can
be realized in most cases.
Some also argue for the potential of urban agricul-
ture to help cities become resilient in the face of
climate change and other environmental challeng-
es, and facilitate the transition to lower-carbon
cities. Through an analysis of the role urban gardens
have played in history when urban food supply
lines were threatened, Barthel et al. describe how
urban growing maintains the collective memory of
food production and protects urban green spaces,
thereby enhancing the resilience of cities against
food shortages in face of future economic, polit-
ical, or ecological crises.76 They argue, however,
that external support for intergenerational and
multicultural mentorship; experience- and knowl-
edge-exchange; seed sharing and banking; and
long-term land tenure for urban green spaces are
necessary to uphold cities’ capacity to produce
food in times of crisis. Others have proposed using
urban agriculture for climate change mitigation
and adaptation, given the carbon sequestering
iv Note that there is a dierence between integrated rooftop green-
houses (which exchange energy flows with the buildings they are
on) and isolated ones, which require energy inputs and are thus not
environmentally beneficial in colder climates.75(Chapter 5)
capacity of vegetation, although this has not
been quantified on a large scale.77 One study that
has attempted to quantify an urban agriculture
project in the UK found that, while the peri-urban
farm under study reduced the community’s total
diet-related emissions by only 0.4%, it had a great-
er annual carbon sequestration rate per hectare
compared to urban parks and forests.78
Environmental limitations
Urban agriculture may not always provide envi-
ronmental benefits, and could in some cases lead
to net negative ecological impacts. For example,
indiscriminate fertilizer or compost application
may pollute surface water or storm-water runo
with excessive nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or potas-
sium.8 A number of gaps remain in research relat-
ed to the practices undertaken at urban gardens
and farms, such as the sustainability of their pest
management, irrigation, and soil amendment
practices, and how and to what extent they foster
biodiversity compared to other land use options.3,8
One of the main narratives surrounding the envi-
ronmental benefits of urban agriculture centers on
its purported ability to reduce inputs, greenhouse
gas emissions, and costs associated with food’s
production and transportation. Such statements
may not consider the loss of economies of scale
that come with larger production, processing, stor-
age, and distribution systems, nor regional vari-
ances that may actually have net negative environ-
mental outcomes. For instance, the smaller-scale
and fragmented nature of urban agriculture tends
to be less ecient than larger operations in the use
of water, fertilizer, and other resources.79
Advocates tout that producing food closer to
consumers can reduce “food miles” traveled – that
is, the distance the food traveled from where it was
produced to where it is consumed – and thus trans-
10
portation-related emissions. Yet the vast majority
of GHG emissions attributed to foods are from the
production phase.80 In most cases, changing the
types of foods people eat (e.g., eating less beef
and fewer dairy products) and how those foods
are produced (e.g., input-intensive operations)
are more important in reducing foods’ associated
emissions than reducing how far they travel.80,8 1
That said, environmental benefits may arise if
produce grown in urban areas replaced produce
that was typically air-freighted (e.g., greens,
berries).78 Some experts have further argued that
if urban agriculture becomes ubiquitous in cities,
it may reduce population density and thus require
more driving and greenhouse gas emissions than
the current system.63,82
Some proponents purport that urban agriculture
could reduce the soil degradation associated with
industrial agriculture by allowing some rural land
to be taken out of production.83,v But the studies
modeling the potential of urban and peri-urban
agriculture (see community and municipal food
security section on page 14) demonstrate that a
significant need will remain for rural food produc-
tion, where foods that comprise the majority of
kilocalories in diets – especially grains – can be
produced.84
Moreover, producing food in urban settings may
increase GHG emissions and water use if plants are
grown in energy- and resource-intensive opera-
tions, such as indoor/vertical farming, greenhous-
es, hydroponics (soilless crop production), or aqua-
culture (the cultivation of aquatic animals or plants
for food) facilities in cold or water-scarce regions.75
A hydroponic farm in Bualo, New York, for exam-
ple, shut its doors in 2002 and moved its operations
(and over 150 jobs) to southwest Texas due to high
v As Cox argues, such lines of thought also ignore the well-being of
rural communities, which disproportionately suer from the worst
food insecurity and would likely benefit from increased support
from urban consumers.143
energy costs.13 An aquaponics farm (integrates
hydroponics with aquaculture to produce edible
plants and fish) in Baltimore, Maryland, found that
while the system produced food without antibiot-
ics, synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizers, the
winter energy use was extremely high – so much
so that the tilapia produced a net economic loss if
one compared the input costs to market prices.85
In this case, the aquaponics facility was located in a
region with adequate rainwater to supply its opera-
tions, but as 90% of global aquaponics operations
use drinking water as an input, similar operations
could put a further strain on resources in water-
scarce regions. Others have critiqued the envi-
ronmental sustainability of artificially-lit vertical
farms in particular, which are notably energy-in-
tensive compared to solar-powered greenhouse
and hoophouse systems.86-88 If appropriate crops
and growing methods are chosen, however, there
is still the potential for urban agriculture projects
to reduce diet-related GHG emissions compared to
conventional food production.75,78
Public health and food security
Urban agriculture has been promoted for a number
of potential health benefits: to those who partic-
ipate in the actual gardening/farming activities,
to community members who may benefit from
improved access to the food produced, as well
as to city residents on the whole for its potential
contribution to food security and resilience, if
scaled up strategically and adequately. The stron-
gest evidence of health benefits comes from the
first of these categories.
Individual health impacts
Gardening/farming supports public health eorts
by providing physical activity to its participants,
especially helpful for older people.22,27,45,89-91
Gardening can support mental health and well-be-
11
ing through reducing stress, providing purpose-
ful activity, improving self esteem and a sense of
accomplishment, aiding physical and emotional
healing, and strengthening people’s relationships
with nature.27,45,66,74,91-96 Some of the ecosystem
services previously mentioned (on page 8), such
as air filtration and temperature moderation, have
downstream benefits to the health of urban resi-
dents. The increased social support and sense
of belonging oered by community gardening
(described on page 4) may also empower commu-
nities to overcome structural disadvantages they
face and improve their access to health-promoting
resources such as education, transportation, and
medical services.97
Urban agriculture may, however, present health
risks to food growers, consumers, and the
surrounding community if preventive measures
are not taken or implemented properly. Local
residents could be at risk if garden inputs such as
fertilizers and pesticides are used or disposed of
improperly.74 Sources of pollution, such as indus-
trial activity, heavily tracked areas, and waste
dumps, tend to be located in or near urban areas;
consequently, urban soils may be contaminat-
ed with heavy metals (including lead, cadmium,
and arsenic), petroleum products, asbestos, and
other hazards.98 Some urban agriculture projects
use treated wastewater for irrigation and biologi-
cal wastes as fertilizer, which may may introduce
bacterial, viral, or parasitic pathogens if not prop-
erly treated.6,99
Urban food growers may be exposed to soil
contaminants (e.g., via accidental ingestion
during gardening activities), while persons
who consume food grown in contaminated
soil may ingest pollutants on the surface of
produce and, in some cases, in the tissues
of the plant (particularly root vegetables).99
Exposure to these contaminants can lead to a
number of negative health impacts including
nervous system damage and certain cancers,
which are of special concern for children,
pregnant women, and those with compro-
mised immune systems.98 These sources of
pollution and environmental hazards are more
likely to be located in lower-income, predomi-
nantly black and/or Latino neighborhoods,166 thus
these communities have a higher risk of exposure
to contaminants when undertaking urban agricul-
ture projects.100
The Center for a Livable Future’s Soil safety
resource guide for urban food growers oers
a number of recommendations to educate and
support urban growers in taking appropriate
measures to avoid contamination.101 These include
conducting site histories, testing soil for contam-
inants, and following best practices to minimize
exposure to any contaminants that may be present
(e.g., maintaining a minimum distance between
growing sites and roads; appropriately washing
and peeling produce before consumption; and
using raised beds). The use of buer strips may
reduce the exposure of edible crops to airborne
pollutants, contaminated storm-water, and drying
winds.99 Certain cultivation methods, such as
indoor or soil-free hydroponics operations, may
12
Reported Benefits Reported Limitations
Food access and security
◼Greater access to fresh, organic, and/or
culturally appropriate produce by garden-
ers27,37,41,45,106,144,145
◼Greater access to fresh food within the larger
community (e.g., via donations by garden-
ers)37,39,105,110,144,146
◼Cost savings on groceries and access to
foods otherwise unaordable in supermar-
kets25,27,89,107,147,148
◼In some cases, a significant proportion of
community/municipal fresh produce needs
could be met through urban and (especially)
peri-urban agriculture, particularly through the
use of intensive forms of production such as
hoophouse and rooftop farming63,102,116-119,124
◼UA projects may not be supplying food to
communities in which they are located52,167
◼Food may not be economically or physically
accessible to local residents52,167
◼Potential to supply produce demand depends
on interest/support among urban dwellers
to participate in food growing and, in some
cases, to adopt more restricted seasonal eating
patterns84
◼Modeled municipal food production scenarios
rarely account for practical constraints (e.g.,
current land uses and suitability for food
production, property values, infrastructure
limitations, zoning regulations, or public acces-
sibility)121
Fruit and vegetable consumption
◼Greater fruit and vegetable consumption by
gardening households108-112,148-150*
◼Increased preference for, consumption of,
or willingness to try fruits and vegetables by
youth participating in gardening programs151-162
◼Increased produce consumption by gardeners
does not represent a significant eect overall
on community food security or dietary quali-
ty113,114
◼Food may not be culturally appropriate or
desired by local residents52,167
General health and wellbeing
◼Source of physical activity22,27,45,89-91,150
◼Mental health/therapeutic benefits, including:
stress reduction, providing purposeful activ-
ity, cognitive stimulation, creating a sense
of pride and accomplishment, and provision
of a connection to nature, a retreat from the
urban environment and a way to spend time
outdoors27,45,66,74,91-96,146
◼Some ecosystem services provided by UA (e.g.,
air filtration and temperature moderation) have
downstream benefits to the health of urban
residents66,69
◼Health risks to growers, consumers, and
community from soil contaminants and
airborne pollutants if adequate preventative
measures to reduce exposures not taken6,74,98,99
Table 3: Summary of public health and food security implications
*Without longitudinal studies, it cannot be determined whether participation in urban agriculture increases fruit and vegeta-
ble intake or whether individuals who prefer these foods seek out gardening opportunities.
13
also be used to avoid contaminant exposure.4,102
Government support for conducting, interpreting,
and funding such eorts could help ensure that
the most vulnerable are not exposed to these risks
and associated poor health outcomes, which could
undermine other benefits achieved through urban
agriculture projects.
Community and municipal
food security
Urban agriculture has been promoted as a means
for fostering community and municipal food
security. Few, if any, urban agriculture projects,
however, are intended to replace traditional food
retail or would claim to lead to food self-sucien-
cy for individuals or for cities. The criticism that
cities cannot meet year-round food needs through
urban agriculture underappreciates the benefits of
this approach as one part of the mix of solutions to
reform the food system.103,104
Urban agriculture, most notably household and
community gardening, adds to the tapestry of
food sources available in communities across the
country that can improve household food securi-
ty.105 Gardening enables participants, their house-
holds, and occasionally neighbors and friends to
access to a diverse array of culturally appropriate
foods to supplement their diet, and save money for
other essential purchases.2 7,3 7,106 In one study of a
home-gardening support program for low-income,
working poor and long-term unemployed resi-
dents in San Jose, California, 88% of participants
reported saving over $240/year/household (with
25% reporting over $720 in savings).89 A study of
community gardens in San Jose, CA found garden-
ers saved $435 per plot over the season.107 An
Extension specialist from New York City quoted in
Saldivar-Tanaka & Kransy (p. 410) oered similar
figures: an average 10x20 foot garden plot could
produce $500-700 per season.25 Gardeners are
also more likely than non-gardeners to consume
the recommended servings of fruits and vege-
tables a day.108-112 However, experts contend that
this increased produce consumption does
not represent a significant eect overall on
community food security or dietary quali-
ty.113,114
Municipal governments may promote urban
agriculture as a solution to improving food
access in food deserts. While a macro-level
quantitative study of the potential in terms of
land availability shows that it would be feasi-
ble to grow the basic daily vegetable needs for
the urban poor in the United States,115 current
evidence from urban farms located within
lower-income communities shows that such
farms are not necessarily feeding the commu-
nities in which they are located.52,167 A number of
factors may account for such discrepancies, but
they center around some key critiques that have
been raised about urban agriculture (see sociocul-
tural section, p. 4). For farms and gardens aimed
at addressing food equity issues, eorts must
be made to make the food aordable, physically
accessible (location, transportation, hours), cultur-
14
ally appropriate, and desired by the community
members.
The ability of urban agriculture to improve food
security on the municipal level is even less demon-
strated than on the individual or household scale.
A few studies have modeled the potential for
food self-reliance in specific cities and found that,
in some cases, a significant proportion of fresh
produce needs could theoretically be met through
widespread implementation of urban agriculture,
particularly through the use of intensive forms of
production such as rooftop operations. One study
found if 80% of every vacant lot, 62% of industrial
and commercial rooftops, and 9% of every occu-
pied residential lot in Cleveland, Ohio – a city which
has a large amount of vacant land – is used for food
production, between 46-100% of Cleveland’s fresh
produce needs, 94% of poultry and shell eggs, and
100% of honey could be met (between 4.2-17.7%
of total food and beverage consumption by weight
and 1.8%-7.3% by expenditure).116 In Detroit,
another city with low population density, assuming
appropriate postharvest management and storage
methods are used, less than half of non-recre-
ational, publicly owned vacant land (~1,800 acres)
could provide 65% of fresh vegetables and 39%
of fresh non-tropical fruit currently consumed by
Detroit residents at low productivity levels, or the
same percentages of recommended consumption
levels at high productivity levels.117 Even greater
proportions of food could be produced with signif-
icant investments in season-extension techniques
(e.g. hoophouses).117 Another analysis found that
if all suitable vacant land in New York City were
dedicated entirely to food production, the produce
needs of between 103,000 and 160,000 people
(out of the city’s 8.4 million residents) could be
met, although this potential could be significantly
increased by including rooftop and greenhouse
farming.118 Cities may be more likely to meet the
needs for certain food items, as demonstrated by
one study which found that Burlington, Vermont,
could meet 108% of its daily recommended fruit
intake (albeit in limited varieties compared to the
diversity oered by the global market) through an
ambitious urban food forestry planting scheme.119
One multi-country comparative analysis found
that less than 10% of urban land in the U.S.
would be required to produce the recommended
consumption of vegetables by urban dwellers,120
though its macro-level scale required a number of
simplifications that could not account for practical
constraints such as current land uses and suitabil-
ity for food production (e.g., sunlight exposure,
water access), property values and competing land
uses, infrastructure limitations, zoning regulations,
public accessibility, etc.121 Nevertheless, these are
all modeled scenarios with significant barriers for
implementation, and would depend on significant
interest/support among urban dwellers to partici-
pate in food growing and, in some cases, to adopt
more restricted seasonal eating patterns.84
Some eorts have proposed increasing the produc-
tion capacity of urban agriculture through creative
means such as vertical farming.83,122,123 There is little
evidence, however, indicating that these eorts
would substantially increase its contribution to
food security, especially for lower-income resi-
dents constrained by the higher prices typically
associated with such operations.4 More promising
evidence comes from studies of peri-urban agri-
culture, which produces substantial amounts of
food on a relatively small amount of land.102,124 In
Australia, peri-urban agriculture produces 25%
of the country’s total gross value of agricultural
production on less than 3% of agricultural land,
and some metropolitan regions meet over 90%
of certain fruit and vegetable needs.63 The afore-
mentioned report on New York found that if all the
peri-urban agricultural land in the metropolitan
region surrounding the city were dedicated to food
production, it could support between 58-89% of
15
the region’s fruit and vegetable needs (excluding
warm-weather fruits).59
Ultimately, food security is not a primary goal for
most participants and supporters of communi-
ty gardens and urban farms125,167 and should not
be promoted as such. While it can supplement
household, community and municipal food secu-
rity, urban agriculture has more to oer, and be
judged on, than its potential outputs in terms
of food production.
Economic development
Urban agriculture has been embraced by many
cities as a means through which to repurpose
vacant lots; increase property values and, conse-
quently, capital investment and redevelopment in
distressed areas; and add jobs to the local econo-
my. This framing permeates the literature of munic-
ipal planning documents and policies in support of
such eorts, however economic outcomes are the
“least documented aspect of urban agriculture.”12
Potential economic
development opportunities
As described in the sociocultural section, commu-
nity gardens are associated with improved
neighborhood aesthetics, reduced crime, and
community cohesion. Such factors contribute to
the finding that community gardens, particularly
in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods,
are linked to higher home property values and tax
revenues in their 1,000-foot radius.126 In a review of
published research on community gardens, Guitart
et al. found that all 13 of the studies which exam-
ined property values (15% of the total studies in
the literature review) reported increased property
values associated with the presence of the commu-
nity garden.3 A report (not peer-reviewed) of 54
community gardens in St. Louis, Missouri, found
that their presence was associated with increased
home values, rents, owner occupancy (a proxy
for homeownership), and socioeconomic diversity
amongst renters in the areas within a radius of 0.3
miles surrounding community gardens.127 These
improved indicators were relative to the larger
Census Tracts in which they were located and to
the city as a whole during a ten-year period.127
Commercial urban agriculture projects have been
particularly encouraged in economic development
goals, especially given their potential to attract
capital to and provide jobs in economically disad-
vantaged neighborhoods. A 15-year-old report by
Kaufman & Bailey assessed the feasibility, potential
benefits of, and barriers related to for-profit urban
agriculture in the United States.128 They found (at
the time of publication) 71 entrepreneurial urban
agriculture sites in U.S. cities, mostly located in
lower-income, inner-city neighborhoods. While
they found a small number of projects had begun
making profits, most were still in their infancy
and not yet demonstrating significant economic
returns. More recent market research focusing
specifically on the vertical farming sector of urban
agriculture models that the global vertical farm-
ing market will be worth 3.88 billion by 2020 (up
from 1.01 billion in 2015), with the fastest grow-
ing segment of this sector from hydroponics.129
It should be noted that the methods behind this
research are behind a paywall so they cannot be
verified independently.129
Limitations of economic
development framework
Some important questions have been raised about
the economic development narrative surrounding
urban agriculture. For one, concerns abound over
the potential for gentrification and displacement of
residents (usually lower-income, people of color)
as property values in neighborhoods rise following
16
the improvement of vacant lots. As Hoover (p.112)
asks, “Is urban agriculture just another form of
urban renewal, displacing underprivileged commu-
nities in the process, or is it an inclusive practice that
works with marginalized people in the remediation
of ‘their’ land?”49 In practice, this question is not
necessarily a binary one, as outcomes from dier-
ent urban agriculture initiatives fall along a contin-
uum. In order for the revitalization associated with
urban agriculture eorts to support the wellbeing
of its immediate neighbors – and to avoid repro-
ducing injustices they already experience – urban
agriculture and related economic redevelopment
projects must be designed with the priorities of the
most vulnerable residents in mind, and, if possible,
their presence at the decision-making table.13 0 See
page 7-8 for a discussion of inclusive community
engagement strategies.
The community garden literature in particular has
noted the vulnerability of gardens to redevelop-
ment. As cities provide temporary leases of vacant
lots to community groups, or incentivize private
landowners with lower tax rates if they allow
their land to be used for urban agriculture, issues
surrounding long-term land tenure arise.25,27,130,131
Some operations on city-owned land have been
granted land under the agreement that no perma-
nent changes to the site may be made, thereby
restricting the long-term scalability, eciency, and
sustainability of urban agriculture.121 Lawson131
and Schmelzkopf54,132 document specific cases –
reflective of a broader trend experienced by many
Reported Benefits Reported Limitations
Employment opportunities
◼Employment and workforce training opportu-
nities, particularly for low-income and socially
excluded populations5,15,40,41,167
◼UA not likely to provide significant number of
livable wage jobs5,7, 17
◼UA projects oering opportunities to the
“least employable” require additional expertise
beyond technical farming skills, which may
require more sta time and higher labor costs42
Increased property values
◼Increased property values surrounding
community gardens, particularly in economi-
cally disadvantaged neighborhoods3,126,127
◼Possibility of displacing/marginalizing low-in-
come residents49,130
Redevelopment
◼Entrepreneurial UA may attract capital and
create profitable business opportunities,
particularly in distressed areas128,129
◼Lack of long-term land tenure makes UA
projects vulnerable to redevelopment or
competition with other uses of the land/build-
ing3,4,25,27,54,121,130-132
◼For commercial operations, long-term econom-
ic viability or profitability unproven, especially
for technological UA concepts6,17,63,65,134
◼UA requires financial and political support;
most projects cannot survive on profits from
produce, especially when incorporating other
social missions17,42,167
Table 4: Summary of economic development outcomes
17
gardens across the country3 – in which gardens
have been cleared once the property of the land
they occupy assumes economic value attractive
to real estate developers. These actions literally
uprooted years of invested labor, material, and
social networks embedded in urban green spaces.
Such studies underscore the necessity for cities to
recognize the public goods that urban agriculture
projects provide, and encourage them by granting
long-term leases, incorporating them into public
park infrastructure, or supporting the use of land
trusts to secure garden locations.
Land-use competition aects more than just
community gardens. Rooftop, vertical, and other
forms of indoor farming do not compete with land
constraints associated with land-based urban agri-
culture projects, but they may face competition
from other forms of building use, such as rooftop
solar energy systems.4 While peri-urban agricul-
ture is generally operated by professionals and is
more economically-motivated than urban agricul-
ture, development pressures from urban sprawl
increase land prices in surrounding areas and thus
significantly threaten the long-term economic
viability of such operations, too.102,133
Urban agriculture projects themselves face a
number of barriers that challenge their economic
viability, especially for commercial eorts aiming
to make a profit.65 In their literature review on
“Zero-acreage farming,” Specht et al. note that
the high capital costs required to retrofit existing
buildings or build new facilities for high-yielding,
space-ecient forms of urban agriculture such
as large-scale rooftop greenhouses prevent many
such operations from moving past design or pilot
stages.6 The challenge of quantifying social and
environmental benefits such as resource recycling
further complicates their economic case. In a case
study of a rooftop greenhouse system in Barcelo-
na, Spain, the structure itself was 2.8 times more
expensive than conventional multi-tunnel green-
houses, and the operation faced uncertain crop
yields, threatening its economic competitiveness
and environmental benefits.134 Similarly, Mok et al.
discuss the large gap of research on the long-term
economic feasibility of more technological urban
agriculture concepts, such as vertical farming.63
Farm labor is one of the most exploitative, lowest
paying industries in the U.S. today.135-137 As urban
agriculture commentator Angotti points out (p.
339), “Who is to say that urban farms, whether
public or private, won’t follow the same pattern?...
Who will do the work, how much will they be paid,
and will they be paid at all?”138 In an evaluation of
urban farms and gardens in six U.S. cities, Vitiello &
Wolf-Powers point out the reality that urban agri-
culture will not likely provide a significant amount
of livable wage jobs.5 They argue that to expect
anything otherwise would ignore the nature of the
food system and its reliance on low-wage labor,
government subsidies, and economies of scale.
Most urban agriculture projects are sustained
through public funds, grants, donations, and volun-
teer labor, not food sales (which account for 2-30%
of the operational costs for three urban agriculture
operations – including the U.S.’s most prominent
urban farm, Growing Power in Milwaukee42). While
many for-profit farms include social goals such
as improving food security in their missions,17 the
few profitable operations tend to be those selling
to high-end restaurants and consumers, not to
lower-income residents.5
Corroborating these findings, a 2012 survey of 370
urban farmers in the U.S. found average sales from
urban farms were about $54,000 a year (though
this average was skewed by a small percentage of
high-earning hydroponic operations; the median
level of sales were $5,000).17 Respondents iden-
tified profitability and financing as the top chal-
lenges they face.139 One-third of urban farmers
18
reported earning a living from the farm, though the
survey did not delve further into what kind of life-
style these jobs were able to support.17 Non-profit
farms were more likely to provide a salary for the
primary farmer than for-profit ones, likely because
of additional revenues from donations, grants, and
educational fees, as well as the support of volun-
teer labor.17
A survey of aquaponics facilities across the world
(81 percent were based in the U.S.) found similar
prospects: on average, these operations
supported only two full-time jobs and
one part-time job, while depending on
another six unpaid workers.7 In addition,
fewer than one-third of the 257 respon-
dents had profited in the previous year.
While many of them were new business-
es who anticipated becoming profit-
able in the near future, those outcomes
must be measured before any economic
successes can be stated.
Daftary-Steel et al. argue that urban
agriculture operations aiming to provide
produce at aordable prices, and oer
livable wage jobs and workforce training
opportunities for marginalized people, will never be
profitable from produce sales alone, and advocates,
funders, and policymakers should not promote
such expectations.42 Many urban agriculture proj-
ects select crops and make other organizational
decisions based on their social goals, rather than
factors such as production eciency or profitabil-
ity.121 Urban agriculture projects providing these
valuable and multidimensional social services will
need substantial long-term external financial and
political support to survive.42 Dimitri et al. concur,
and suggest that the grant-supported non-profit
model may be the most viable option for ensuring
the longevity of socially-driven urban farms.17 In
addition, many urban growers would benefit from
more accessible and relevant technical assistance
and research to support their operations.121
This discussion does not aim to discredit the role
that urban agriculture projects play in provid-
ing workforce training and supplemental income
generation, as well as the host of other benefits
described in the previous sections. However, it indi-
cates that the rhetoric and expectations of urban
agriculture eorts should revolve more around the
social, health and environmental values they hold,
with supplementary incomes and food provisions
as additional benefits, rather than the other way
around.
19
Research gaps
This literature review has revealed a number of research gaps that could be further explored.
These include:
Social
◼A review of the various models of urban
agriculture projects and their eective-
ness in meeting the needs of the commu-
nity, working with the community, and
fostering leadership within the community
◼More research on the development and
use of indicators to evaluate community
impacts (see Beilin & Hunter140 and Cohen
et al.141 as examples)
◼Research on how urban and peri-urban
agriculture influence seasonal eating
practices, food waste rates, support for
rural farmers (through increased appre-
ciation of full value of food), and other
consumption patterns and how these
patterns dier across populations (e.g.,
participants, community members)
◼Further research into how participants
in urban agriculture projects apply newly
gained social and political skills to other
issues that aect their communities
Environmental
◼Case studies of environmental practices
(e.g., soil management and amendment,
irrigation, and fertilizer use practices
by food growers), crop yields, supply
chain losses, lifecycle impacts of foods
produced, and other outcomes associat-
ed with urban agriculture projects
◼Comparisons of the above outcomes
across types of operations (e.g., rooftop,
vertical farming, community gardens),
levels of urbanization (e.g., urban, peri-ur-
ban), regions, and climates
◼Comparisons of the above outcomes to
conventional rural agriculture
◼City-level quantitative analyses of the
potential carbon sequestration, air quali-
ty improvement, and stormwater run-o
mitigation benefits specific to the land
use and plant species associated with
urban agriculture projects (most research
to date concentrates on urban forests66)
◼More research on the long-term environ-
mental sustainability and economic feasi-
bility of technology-based urban agri-
culture concepts, such as artificially-lit
vertical farming
◼Research on how agricultural easements
and preservation programs can be tailored
for peri-urban and urban settings
20
Public health and food security
◼More research on potential exposures to
soil contaminants (e.g., in garden soils,
in crop tissues, and on the surfaces of
produce), and the eectiveness and feasi-
bility of various soil remediation tech-
niques
◼A multi-site study comparing potential
exposures to airborne pollutants (e.g.,
via inhalation and deposition of contam-
inants on soil and produce surfaces)
across ground-based, rooftop, and indoor
operations
◼Additional research on the potential health
hazards associated with urban livestock
production on participants, consumers,
and neighboring residents (e.g., odors
and air-borne pollutants, concentration
of toxicants in eggs and meat)
◼Research on if/how the availability of
vacant land influences urban agriculture’s
food output and contributions to food
security
◼More research on if/how climate and the
length of growing seasons influence urban
agriculture’s food output and contribu-
tions to food security
◼Further studies assessing the feasibility of
urban and peri-urban agriculture to meet
the produce demands of dierent metro-
politan regions, with special emphasis
on modeling realistic estimates based on
costs of implementation, available infra-
structure, market demand, etc.
Economic
◼Research to identify more holistic
measures of economic outputs and
outcomes of urban agriculture projects,
dierentiating between profit-driven
initiatives and those with other social and
environmental aims
◼A long-term study assessing the employ-
ment status and job readiness of people
who received workforce training in urban
agriculture projects, examining the market
for newly acquired skills and whether such
experiences lead to other opportunities in
communities where underemployment
and unemployment may be the norm
◼Further longitudinal studies on the eect
of urban agriculture initiatives on neigh-
borhood indicators (e.g., rents, property
values, owner occupancy rates), and the
downstream eects on residents (e.g.,
displacement as a result of higher rent)
◼A review of how loans, grants, and other
forms of financial and administrative
support from government, foundations,
investors, and other external entities
impact the economic feasibility of urban
agriculture initiatives across the U.S.
◼Research on the profitability of commer-
cial urban agriculture projects across the
U.S.
More research into the topics discussed above could enhance the collective understand-
ing of the potential benefits and limitations from encouraging urban agriculture initiatives.
Case studies of how food policy councils, public institutions, and local governments use
such information to support urban agriculture eorts (e.g., through preferential procure-
ment programs, changing zoning ordinances) as well as evaluations of their impacts (e.g., in
increasing/sustaining projects long-term) could further complement this analysis.
21
Recommendations for framing the
merits of urban agriculture
Urban agriculture should be evaluated for the multifaceted nature of its outcomes – social,
health, environmental, and economic – and not merely for its potential outputs in terms
of food production or economic development measures. The list below oers a number of
evidence-based talking points for advocates seeking to advance urban agriculture policy
and programs:
1) Urban agriculture’s most significant benefits center around its ability to increase social
capital, community well-being, and civic engagement with the food system.
2) The most successful urban agriculture eorts require sensitivity to the historical and
current racial, socioeconomic, geographical, and cultural dynamics in highly diverse
urban areas.
3) Urban agriculture oers a number of ecosystem services to urban areas, some of which
also oer downstream benefits to the health of urban residents.
4) Urban food growing can support participants’ physical and psychosocial health, though
special precautions should be taken to minimize health risks associated with contami-
nated soils.
5) Urban agriculture supplements household, community and municipal food security with
seasonal and culturally-appropriate foods, and if knowledge sharing and long-term land
tenure are adequately supported, may oer resilience in the face of temporary future
food shortages.
6) The presence of community gardens has been associated with increased property
values, though special attention should be paid to ensure that community residents are
given a voice in decision-making around urban agriculture and economic development
issues pertaining to their neighborhoods.
7) While large-scale job creation potential has not been demonstrated, urban agriculture
projects oer valuable opportunities for skills development, workforce training, and
supplemental income generation. These may be particularly helpful for neighborhood
youth, immigrants, the dierently abled, and the formerly-incarcerated, though exter-
nal financial support will likely be necessary to support the extra time and expertise
needed to operate such initiatives.
8) Many of the demonstrated benefits of urban agriculture eorts will only be achieved
with adequate local, state, and federal governments’ long-term commitment of support.
22
References
1. Pearson, L.J., Pearson, L., & Pearson, C.J. (2010). Sustainable urban agriculture:
Stocktake and opportunities. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,
8(1-2), 7-19.
2. Tornaghi, C. (2014). Critical geography of urban agriculture. Progress in Human
Geography, 38(4), 551-567.
3. Guitart, D., Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2012). Past results and future directions in
urban community gardens research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(4),
364-373.
4. Thomaier, S., Specht, K., Henckel, D., Dierich, A., Siebert, R., Freisinger, U. B., &
Sawicka, M. (2015). Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific
novelties of Zero-Acreage Farming (ZFarming). Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 30(01), 43-54.
5. 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(4), 508-523.
6. Specht, K., Siebert, R., Hartmann, I., Freisinger, U. B., Sawicka, M., Werner, A., ...
& Dierich, A. (2014). Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability
aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(1),
33-51.
7. Love, D.C., Fry, J.P., Li, X., Hill, E.S., Genello, L., Semmens, K., & Thompson, R.E.
(2015). Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an inter-
national survey. Aquaculture, 435, 67-74.
8. Taylor, J.R., & Lovell, S.T. (2014). Urban home food gardens in the Global North:
Research traditions and future directions. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(2),
285-305.
9. Colasanti, K.J.A., Hamm, M.W., & Litjens, C.M. (2012). The city as an “agricultural
powerhouse”? Perspectives on expanding urban agriculture from Detroit, Michigan.
Urban Geography, 33(3), 348-369.
10. Draper, C., & Freedman, D. (2010). Review and analysis of the benefits, purposes, and
motivations associated with community gardening in the United States. Journal of
Community Practice, 18(4), 458-492.
11. McClintock, N. (2013). Radical, reformist, and garden- variety neoliberal: Coming to
terms with urban agriculture’s contradictions. Local Environment: The International
Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 19(2), 147-171.
12. Hodgson, K., Caton Campbell, M., & Bailkey, M. (2011). Urban agriculture: Growing
healthy, sustainable places. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association Planning
Advisory Service.
13. Broadway, M. (2009). Growing urban agriculture in North American cities: The exam-
ple of Milwaukee. Focus on Geography, 52(3-4), 23–30.
14. Henderson, B.R., & Hartsfield, K. (2009). Is getting into the community garden busi-
ness a good way to engage citizens in local government? National Civic Review, 98,
12–17.
23
15. Cohen, N., & Reynolds, K. (2014). Urban agriculture policy making in New York’s “new
political spaces”: Strategizing for a participatory and representative system. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 34(2), 221-234.
16. Mansfield, B., & Mendes, W. (2013). Municipal food strategies and integrated
approaches to urban agriculture: Exploring three cases from the global north. Inter-
national Planning Studies, 18(1), 37-60.
17. Dimitri, C., Oberholtzer, L., & Pressman, A. (2016). Urban agriculture: Connecting
producers with consumers. British Food Journal, 118(3), 603 – 617.
18. Alaimo, K., Reischl, T.M., & Allen, J.O. (2010). Community gardening, neighborhood
meetings, and social capital. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(4), 497–514.
19. Firth, C., Maye, D., & Pearson, D. (2011). Developing “community” in community
gardens. Local Environment, 16(6), 555-568.
20. Glover, T.D. (2004). Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardeners.
Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 143-162.
21. Kingsley, J., & Townsend, M. (2006). ‘Dig in’ to social capital: Community gardens as
mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban Policy and Research,
24(4), 525-537.
22. Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J.A., & Litt, J.S. (2009).
Collective ecacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health
through community gardens. Health & Place, 15(4), 1115-1122.
23. Milbourne, P. (2012). Everyday (in)justices and ordinary environmentalisms: commu-
nity gardening in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods. Local Environment: The
International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 17(9), 943-957.
24. Poulsen, M.N., Hulland, K.R., Gulas, C.A., Pham, H., Dalglish, S.L., Wilkinson, R.K.,
& Winch, P.J. (2014). Growing an urban oasis: A qualitative study of the perceived
benefits of community gardening in Baltimore, Maryland. Culture, Agriculture, Food
and Environment, 36(2), 69-82.
25. Saldivar-Tanaka, L., & Krasny, M.E. (2004). Culturing community development,
neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community
gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 399-412.
26. Shinew, K.J., Glover, T.D., & Parry, D.C. (2004). Leisure spaces as potential sites
for interracial interaction: Community gardens in urban areas. Journal of Leisure
Research, 36(3), 336–355.
27. Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A.l. (2007). Growing urban
health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International,
22(2), 92–100.
28. Hammelman, C., & Hayes-Conroy, A. (2014). Understanding cultural acceptability for
urban food policy. Journal of Planning Literature, 1-12.
29. White, M.M. (2011). Sisters of the soil: Urban gardening as resistance in Detroit. Race/
ethnicity: Multidisciplinary global contexts, 5(1), 13-28.
30. Poulsen, M. N., Spker, M. L., & Winch, P. J. (2014). Conceptualizing community buy-in
and its application to urban farming. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and
Community Development, 5(1), 161–178.
31. Wekerle, G. R., & Classens, M. (2015). Food production in the city:(re) negotiating
land, food and property. Local Environment, 20(10), 1175-1193.
24
32. Garvin, E., Cannuscio, C., & Branas, C. (2013). Greening vacant lots to reduce violent
crime: a randomised controlled trial. Injury Prevention: Journal of the International
Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 19(3), 198-203.
33. Kondo, M., Hohl, B., Han, S., & Branas, C. (2015). Eects of greening and commu-
nity reuse of vacant lots on crime. Urban Studies [online before print]. doi:
10.1177/0042098015608058
34. Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: does
vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343–367.
35. Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 860-877.
36. Holland, L. (2004). Diversity and connections in community gardens: A contribution
to local sustainability. Local Environment, 9(3), 285-305.
37. Kortright, R., & Wakefield, S. (2011). Edible backyards: A qualitative study of house-
hold food growing and its contributions to food security. Agriculture and Human
Values, 28(1), 39-53.
38. Lautenschlager, L., & Smith, C. (2007). Beliefs, knowledge, and values held by inner-
city youth about gardening, nutrition, and cooking. Agriculture and Human Values,
24(2), 245-258.
39. 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 & Environmental Nutrition, 3(4), 418–439.
40. Pudup, M.B. (2008). It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized
garden projects. Geoforum, 39, 1228–1240.
41. Beckie, M., Fletcher, F., Whitfield, K., & Bogdan, E. (2010). Planting roots: Urban agri-
culture for senior immigrants. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community
Development, 1(2): 77–89.
42. Daftary-Steel, S., Herrera, H., & Porter, C. M. (2015). The unattainable trifecta of
urban agriculture. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Develop-
ment, 6(1), 19–32.
43. Baker, L.E. (2004). Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto’s
community gardens. Geographical Review, 94(3), 305-325.
44. Renting, H., Schermer, M., & Rossi, A. (2012). Building food democracy: Exploring
civic food networks and newly emerging forms of food citizenship. International
Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19(3), 289-307.
45. Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implica-
tions for health promotion and community development. Health and Place, 6, 319–
327.
46. Travaline, K., & Hunold, C. (2010). Urban agriculture and ecological citizenship in
Philadelphia. Local Environment, 15(6), 581–590.
47. Guthman, J. (2008). Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California.
Geoforum, 39(3), 1171–1183.
48. Kurtz, H. (2001). Dierentiating multiple meanings of garden and community. Urban
Geography, 22(7), 656-670.
25
49. Hoover, B.M. (2013). White spaces in black and Latino places: Urban agriculture and
food sovereignty. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Develop-
ment, 3(4), 109-115.
50. Draus, P.J., Roddy, J., & McDue, A. (2014). ‘We don’t have no neighbourhood’:
Advanced marginality and urban agriculture in Detroit. Urban Studies, 51(12), 2523-
2538.
51. Hu, A., Acosta, A., McDaniel, A., & Gittelsohn, J. (2011). Community perspectives on
barriers and strategies for promoting locally grown produce from an urban agricul-
ture farm. Health Promotion Practice, 14(1), 69-74.
52. Kato, Y. (2013). Not just the price of food: Challenges of an urban agriculture organi-
zation in engaging local residents. Sociological Inquiry, 83(3), 369-391.
53. Meenar, M., & Hoover, B. (2012). Community food security via urban agriculture:
Understanding people, place, economy, and accessibility from a food justice perspec-
tive. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(1),
143-160.
54. Schmelzkopf, K. (1995). Urban community gardens as contested space. Geographical
Review, 85(3), 364-381.
55. Barraclough, L.R. (2009). South Central Farmers and Shadow Hills Homeowners:
Land use policy and relational racialization in Los Angeles. The Professional Geogra-
pher, 61(2), 164-186.
56. Poulsen, M.N, & Spiker, M.L. (2014). Integrating urban farms into the social landscape
of cities: Recommendations for strengthening the relationship between urban farms
and local communities (White paper). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for a
Livable Future. Accessed November 29, 2015 from http://www.jhsph.edu/research/
centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/projects/
urban-soil-safety/Community%20buy-in%20for%20urban%20farms_July2014_
Full%20report.pdf
57. White, M.M. (2010). Shouldering responsibility for the delivery of human rights: A
case study of the D-Town farmers of Detroit. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global
Contexts, 3(2), 189-211.
58. Shannon, K.L., Kim, B.F., McKenzie, S.E., & Lawrence, R.S. (2015). Food system policy,
public health, and human rights in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health,
36, 151-173.
59. Ackerman, K., Conard, M., Culligan, P., Plunz, R., Sutto, M. P., & Whittinghill, L. (2014).
Sustainable food systems for future cities: The potential of urban agriculture. The
Economic and Social Review, 45(2, Summer), 189-206.
60. Andersson, E., Barthel, S., & Ahrné, K. (2007). Measuring social-ecological dynamics
behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications, 17(5), 1267-
1278.
61. Arabi, R., Shahidan, M.F., Kamal, M.M., Jaafar, M.F.Z.B., & Rakhshandehroo, M.
(2015). Mitigating Urban Heat Island Through Green Roofs. Current World Environ-
ment, 10 (Special Issue 1), 918-927.
62. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
Economics, 29(2), 293-301.
26
63. Mok, H.F., Williamson, V.G., Grove, J.R., Burry, K., Barker, S.F., & Hamilton, A.J.
(2014). Strawberry fields forever? Urban agriculture in developed countries: a review.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(1), 21-43.
64. Oberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., Coman, R. R., Doshi, H., Dunnett, N., ... &
Rowe, B. (2007). Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological structures, functions,
and services. BioScience, 57(10), 823-833.
65. Whittinghill, L.J., & Rowe, D.B. (2012). The role of green roof technology in urban
agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 27(04), 314-322.
66. Wolf, K. L., & Robbins, A. S. (2015). Metro nature, environmental health, and econom-
ic value. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(5), 390-398.
67. Janhäll, S. (2015). Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution–Deposition
and dispersion. Atmospheric Environment, 105, 130-137.
68. Speak, A. F., Rothwell, J. J., Lindley, S. J., & Smith, C. L. (2012). Urban particulate
pollution reduction by four species of green roof vegetation in a UK city. Atmospher-
ic Environment, 61, 283-293.
69. Nowak, D. J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., & Hoehn, R. (2013). Modeled PM 2.5 removal
by trees in ten US cities and associated health eects. Environmental Pollution, 178,
395-402.
70. McGeehin, M. A., & Mirabelli, M. (2001). The potential impacts of climate variability
and change on temperature-related morbidity and mortality in the United States.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(Suppl 2), 185.
71. Wu, J., Zhou, Y., Gao, Y., Fu, J. S., Johnson, B. A., Huang, C., ... & Liu, Y. (2014). Esti-
mation and uncertainty analysis of impacts of future heat waves on mortality in the
eastern United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122.
72. Matteson, K. C., Ascher, J. S., & Langellotto, G. A. (2008). Bee richness and abun-
dance in New York city urban gardens. Annals of the Entomological Society of Amer-
ica, 101(1), 140-150.
73. Galluzzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P., & Negri, V. (2010). Home gardens: Neglected hotspots of
agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(13), 3635-
3654.
74. Brown, K.H., & Jameton, A.L. (2000). Public health implications of urban agriculture.
Journal of Public Health Policy, 20-39.
75. Sanyé-Mengual, E. (2015). Sustainability assessment of urban rooftop farming using
an interdisciplinary approach [PhD Thesis]. Accessed February 3, 2016 from https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/282001838_Sustainability_assessment_of_
urban_rooftop_farming_using_an_interdisciplinary_approach
76. Barthel, S., Parker, J., & Ernstson, H. (2013). Food and green space in cities: A resil-
ience lens on gardens and urban environmental movements. Urban Studies, 1-18.
77. Thornbush, M. (2015). Urban agriculture in the transition to low carbon cities through
urban greening. AIMS Environmental Science, 2(3), 852-867.
78. Kulak, M., Graves, A., Chatterton, J. (2013). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions with
urban agriculture: A Life Cycle Assessment perspective. Landscape Urban Plan, 111,
68-78.
79. McWilliams, J.E. (2009). Just food: Where locavores get it wrong and how we can
truly eat responsibly. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.
27
80. Weber, C.L., & Matthews, H.S. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts
of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(10),
3508-3513.
81. Avetisyan, M., Hertel, T., & Sampson, G. (2014). Is local food more environmentally
friendly? The GHG emissions impacts of consuming imported versus domestically
produced food. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(3), 415-462.
82. Glaeser, E.L. (2011, June 16). The locavore’s dilemma: Urban farms do more harm
than good to the environment. Boston Globe.
83. Despommier, D. (2010). The vertical farm: Feeding the world in the 21st century. New
York: Thomas Dunne Books
84. Clancy, K. (2012). Issues of scale. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Commu-
nity Development, 3(1), 21–23.
85. Love, D.C., Uhl, M.S., & Genello, L. (2015). Energy and water use of a small-scale raft
aquaponics system in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. Aquacultural Engineering,
68, 19-27.
86. The Economist (2010, December 11). Vertical farming: Does it really stack up? The
Economist Technology Quarterly, 9–10.
87. Hamm, M. (2015). Feeding cities - with indoor vertical farms? [blog post]. Accessed
February 2, 2016, from http://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-blogs/michaelwhamm/feed-
ing-cities-indoor-vertical-farms
88. Kozai, T. (2013). Resource use eciency of closed plant production system with
artificial light: Concept, estimation and application to plant factory. Proceedings of
the Japan Academy. Series B, Physical and biological sciences, 89(10), 447.
89. Gray, L., Guzman, P., Glowa, K. M., & Drevno, A. G. (2014). 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 Environment, 19(2),
187-203.
90. Park, S.A., Shoemaker, C., & Haub, M. (2008). Can older gardeners meet the physical
activity recommendation through gardening? HortTechnology, 18(4), 639-643.
91. Sommerfeld, A. J., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2010). Growing minds: Evaluating
the eect of gardening on quality of life and physical activity level of older adults.
HortTechnology, 20(4), 705-710.
92. Hawkins, J. L., Thirlaway, K. J., Backx, K., & Clayton, D. A. (2011). Allotment gardening
and other leisure activities for stress reduction and healthy aging. HortTechnology,
21(5), 577-585.
93. Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment and
Behavior, 5(2), 145-162.
94. Okvat, H.A., & Zautra, A.J. (2011). Community gardening: A parsimonious path to
individual, community, and environmental resilience. American Journal of Communi-
ty Psychology, 47(3-4), 374-387.
95. Van Den Berg, A. E., & Custers, M. H. G. (2011). Gardening promotes neuroendocrine
and aective restoration from stress. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(1), 3–11.
96. Webber, J., Hinds, J., & Camic, P.M. (2015). The well-being of allotment gardeners: A
mixed methodological study. Ecopsychology, 7(1), 20-28.
28
97. Wen, M., Browning, C.R., Cagney, K.A. (2003). Poverty, auence, and income
inequality: Neighborhood economic structure and its implications for health. Social
Science and Medicine, 57, 843–860.
98. Kim, B.F., Poulsen, M.N., Margulies, J.D., Dix, K.L., Palmer, A.M., & Nachman, K.E.
(2014). Urban community gardeners’ knowledge and perceptions of soil contaminant
risks. PloS One, 9(2), e87913.
99. Wortman, S.E. & Lovell, S.T. (2013). Environmental challenges threatening the growth
of urban agriculture in the United States. Journal of Environmental Quality, 42(5),
1283-1294.
100. Lee, S., & Mohai, P. (2011). Racial and socioeconomic assessments of neighborhoods
adjacent to small-scale brownfield sites in the Detroit region. Environmental Prac-
tice, 13(04), 340-353.
101. Center for a Livable Future (2014). Soil safety resource guide for urban food grow-
ers. Baltimore, MD: CLF. Accessed December 3, 2015 from http://www.jhsph.edu/
research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/
projects/urban-soil-safety/CLF%20Soil%20Safety%20Guide.pdf
102. Opitz, I., Berges, R., Piorr, A., & Krikser, T. (2015). Contributing to food security in
urban areas: dierences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the
Global North. Agriculture and Human Values, 1-18.
103. Weissman, E. (2013). No buts about it…The value of urban food production. Journal
of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(2), 23–24.
104. Evans, T.L., & Miewald C. (2013). Cultivating more than food: Where community
gardens fit with what cities do. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Communi-
ty Development, 3(2), 19–21.
105. Smith, V.M., & Harrington, J.A. (2014). Community food production as food security:
Resource and market valuation in Madison, Wisconsin (USA). Journal of Agriculture,
Food Systems, and Community Development, 4(2), 61–80.
106. Corlett, J.L., Dean, E.A., & Grivetti, L.E. (2003). Hmong gardens: Botanical diversity in
an urban setting. Economic Botany, 57(3), 365-379.
107. Algert, S. J., Baameur, A., & Renvall, M. J. (2014). Vegetable output and cost savings
of community gardens in San Jose, California. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition
and Dietetics, 114(7), 1072-1076.
108. Alaimo K., Packnett, E., Miles, R.A., & Kruger, D.J. (2008). Fruit and vegetable intake
among urban community gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,
40(2), 94–101.
109. Blaine, T.W., Grewal, P.S., Dawes, A., & Snider, D. (2010). Profiling community garden-
ers. Journal of Extension, 48(6), 1-12.
110. Blair, D., Giesecke, C.C., & Sherman, S. (1991). A dietary, social and economic eval-
uation of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project. Journal of Nutrition Education,
23(4), 161-167.
111. Litt, J.S., Soobader, M.-J., Turbin, M.S., Hale, J.W., Buchenau, M., & Marshall J.A.
(2011). The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and commu-
nity garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. American Journal of
Public Health, 101(8), 1466–73.
29
112. Morton, L.W., Bitto, E.A., Oakland, M.J., & Sand, M. (2008). Accessing food resources:
Rural and urban patterns of giving and getting food. Agriculture and Human Values,
25(1), 107-119.
113. Hallsworth, A., & Wong, A. (2013). Urban gardening: A valuable activity, but… Journal
of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(2), 11–14.
114. McCormack, L.A., Laska, M.N., Larson, N.I., & Story, M. (2010). Review of the nutri-
tional implications of farmers’ markets and community gardens: A call for evaluation
and research eorts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110, 399–408.
115. Badami, M. G., & Ramankutty, N. (2015). Urban agriculture and food security: A
critique based on an assessment of urban land constraints. Global Food Security, 4,
8-15.
116. Grewal, S.S., & Grewal, P.S. (2012). Can cities become self-reliant in food? Cities,
29(1), 1-11.
117. Colasanti, K. A., & Hamm, M. W. (2010, November). Assessing the local food supply
capacity of Detroit, Michigan. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community
Development, 1(2):41–58.
118. Ackerman, K., Dahlgren, E., & Xu, X. (2013). Sustainable urban agriculture: Confirm-
ing viable scenarios for production. New York State Energy Research and Devel-
opment Authority, Report 13-07. Retrieved December 3, 2015 from: http://www.
nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research-and-Development-Technical-Reports/Envi-
ronmental-Reports.aspx
119. Clark, K.H., & Nicholas, K.A. (2013). Introducing urban food forestry: A multifunction-
al approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services. Landscape
Ecology, 28(9), 1649-1669.
120. Martellozzo, F., Landry, J. S., Ploue, D., Seufert, V., Rowhani, P., & Ramankutty, N.
(2014). Urban agriculture: A global analysis of the space constraint to meet urban
vegetable demand. Environmental Research Letters, 9(6), 064025.
121. Pfeier, A., Silva, S., & Colquhoun, J. (2014). Innovation in urban agricultural prac-
tices: Responding to diverse production environments. Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems, 30, 79-91.
122. Ehrenberg, R. (2008). Let’s get vertical: City buildings oer opportunities for farms to
grow up instead of out. Science News, 174(8), 16–20.
123. Vogel, G. (2008). Upending the traditional farm. Science (New York, NY), 319(5864),
752-753.
124. Brinkley, C. (2012). Evaluating the benefits of peri-urban agriculture. Journal of
Planning Literature, 27(3), 259–69.
125. Birky, J., & Strom, E. (2013). Urban perennials: How diversification has created a
sustainable community garden movement in the United States. Urban Geography,
34(8), 1193-1216.
126. Voicu, I., & Been, V. (2008). The eect of community gardens on neighboring proper-
ty values. Real Estate Economics, 36(2), 241-283.
127. Gateway Greening (2009). Whitmire study: Gateway Greening community garden
areas, reversing urban decline. Accessed December 1, 2015 from: http://actrees.org/
files/Research/gateway_greening_whitmire.pdf
30
128. Kaufman, J., & Bailkey, M. (2000). Farming inside cities: Entrepreneurial urban
agriculture in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Accessed November 27, 2015, from http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/95_Farm-
ing-Inside-Cities
129. MarketsandMarkets (2016). Vertical Farming Market by Functional Device (Light-
ing, Hydroponic Component, Climate Control, and Sensors), Growth Mechanism
(Aeroponics, Hydroponics, and Others) and by Geography - Global Forecast to 2020.
Report SE 3992. Retrieved February 1, 2016 from http://www.marketsandmarkets.
com/Market-Reports/vertical-farming-market-221795343.html
130. Walker, S. (2015). Urban agriculture and the sustainability fix in Vancouver and
Detroit. Urban Geography, 1-20.
131. Lawson, L. (2007). The South Central Farm: Dilemmas in practicing the public. Cultur-
al Geographies in Practice, 14, 611–616.
132. Schmelzkopf, K. (2002). Incommensurability, land use, and the right to space:
Community gardens in New York City. Urban Geography, 23(4), 323-343.
133. Oberholtzer, L., Clancy, K., & Esseks, J.D. (2010). The future of farming on the urban
edge: Insights from fifteen US counties about farmland protection and farm viability.
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 1(2), 59-75.
134. Sanyé-Mengual, E., Oliver-Solà, J., Montero, J.I., & Rieradevall, J. (2015). An envi-
ronmental and economic life cycle assessment of Rooftop Greenhouse (RTG) imple-
mentation in Barcelona, Spain. Assessing new forms of urban agriculture from the
greenhouse structure to the final product level. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 20(3), 350-366.
135. Holmes, S. (2013). Fresh fruit, broken bodies: Migrant farmworkers in the United
States (Vol. 27). University of California Press.
136. Gray, M. (2013). Labor and the locavore: The making of a comprehensive food ethic.
University of California Press.
13 7. Brown, S., & Getz, C. (2008). Towards domestic fair trade? Farm labor, food localism,
and the ‘family scale’ farm. GeoJournal, 73(1), 11-22.
138. Angotti, T. (2015). Urban agriculture: Long-term strategy or impossible dream?
Lessons from prospect farm in Brooklyn, New York. Public Health, 129(4), 336-341.
139. Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C., & Pressman, A. (2014). Urban agriculture in the United
States: Characteristics, challenges and technical assistance needs. Journal of Exten-
sion, 52(6), 6FEA1.
140. Beilin, R., & Hunter, A. (2011). Co-constructing the sustainable city: how indicators
help us “grow” more than just food in community gardens. Local Environment, 16(6),
523-538.
141. Cohen, N., Reynolds, K., & Sanghvi, R. (2012). Five Borough Farm: Seeding the future
of urban agriculture in New York City. New York: Design Trust for Public Space in
partnership with Added Value. Accessed February 2, 2016 from http://www.fivebor-
oughfarm.org/pdf/5BF_publication_low.pdf
142. Rogus, S., & Dimitri, C. (2014). Agriculture in urban and peri-urban areas in the
United States: Highlights from the census of agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems, 30(1), 64-78.
31
143. Cox, S. (2016, February 17). Enough with the vertical farming fantasies: There are still
too many unanswered questions about the trendy practice. Alternet.
144. Corrigan, M. P. (2011). Growing what you eat: Developing community gardens in
Baltimore, Maryland. Applied Geography, 31(4), 1232-1241.
145. D’Abundo, M. L., & Carden, A. M. (2008). “Growing wellness”: The possibility of
promoting collective wellness through community garden education programs.
Community Development, 39(4), 83-94.
146. Hale, J., Knapp, C., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J., Sancar, F., & Litt, J. S.
(2011). Connecting food environments and health through the relational nature of
aesthetics: Gaining insight through the community gardening experience. Social
Science & Medicine, 72(11), 1853-1863.
147. Patel, I. C. (1991). Gardening’s socioeconomic impacts. Journal of Extension, 29(4),
7-8.
148. Lake, H. C. M. (2006). Testing the recommendations of the Washington State nutri-
tion and physical activity plan: The Moses Lake case study. Preventing Chronic
Disease, 3(2).
149. Flanigan, S., & Varma, R. (2006). Promoting community gardening to low-income
urban participants in the Women, Infants and Children Programme (WIC) in New
Mexico. Community, Work and Family, 9(1), 69-74.
150. Twiss, J., Dickinson, J., Duma, S., Kleinman, T., Paulsen, H., & Rilveria, L. (2011).
Community gardens: Lessons learned from California Healthy Cities and Communi-
ties. American Journal of Public Health,93(9),1435-1438.
151. Robinson-O’Brien, R., Story, M., & Heim, S. (2009). Impact of garden-based youth
nutrition intervention programs: a review. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
tion, 109(2), 273-280.
152. Evans, A., Ranjit, N., Rutledge, R., Medina, J., Jennings, R., Smiley, A., ... & Hoelscher,
D. (2012). Exposure to multiple components of a garden-based intervention for
middle school students increases fruit and vegetable consumption. Health Promo-
tion Practice, 13(5), 608-616.
153. Heim, S., Stang, J., & Ireland, M. (2009). A garden pilot project enhances fruit and
vegetable consumption among children. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
tion, 109, 1220-1226.
154. Hermann, J. R., Parker, S. P., Brown, B. J., Siewe, Y. J., Denney, B. A., & Walker, S. J.
(2006). After-school gardening improves children’s reported vegetable intake and
physical activity. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38(3), 201-202.
155. Lautenschlager, L., & Smith, C. (2007). Understanding gardening and dietary habits
among youth garden program participants using the Theory of Planned Behav-
ior. Appetite, 49(1), 122-130.
156. Libman, K. (2007). Growing youth growing food: How vegetable gardening influences
young people’s food consciousness and eating habits. Applied Environmental Educa-
tion and Communication, 6(1), 87-95.
157. Lineberger, S. E., & Zajicek, J. M. (2000). School gardens: Can a hands-on teaching
tool aect students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding fruit and vegetables?. Hort-
Technology, 10(3), 593-597.
32
158. McAleese, J. D., & Rankin, L. L. (2007). Garden-based nutrition education aects fruit
and vegetable consumption in sixth-grade adolescents. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 107(4), 662-665.
159. Morgan, P. J., Warren, J. M., Lubans, D. R., Saunders, K. L., Quick, G. I., & Collins, C.
E. (2010). The impact of nutrition education with and without a school garden on
knowledge, vegetable intake and preferences and quality of school life among prima-
ry-school students. Public Health Nutrition, 13(11), 1931-1940.
160. Morris, J., Neustadter, A., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2001). First-grade gardeners more
likely to taste vegetables. California Agriculture, 55(1), 43-46.
161. Morris, J. L., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2002). Garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum
improves fourth-grade school children’s knowledge of nutrition and preferences for
some vegetables. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 102(1), 91.
162. Parmer, S. M., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Shannon, D., & Struempler, B. (2009). School
gardens: an experiential learning approach for a nutrition education program to
increase fruit and vegetable knowledge, preference, and consumption among
second-grade students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(3), 212-217.
163. Ratclie, M. M., Merrigan, K. A., Rogers, B. L., & Goldberg, J. P. (2011). The eects of
school garden experiences on middle school-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes,
and behaviors associated with vegetable consumption. Health Promotion Practice,
12(1), 36-43.
164. Krasny, M., & Doyle, R. (2002). Participatory approaches to program development
and engaging youth in research: The case of an inter-generational urban community
gardening program. Journal of Extension, 40(5).
165. Krasny, M.E., & Tidball, K.G. (2009). Community gardens as contexts for science,
stewardship, and civic action learning. Cities and the Environment, 2(1).
166. Lee, S., & Mohai, P. (2012). Environmental Justice implications of Brownfield redevel-
opment in the United States. Society & Natural Resources, 25(6), 602-609.
167. Poulsen, M. (in press). Cultivating citizenship, equity, and social inclusion? Putting
civic agriculture into practice through urban farming. Agriculture and Human Values.
33
