Food forests: Their services and sustainability

Abstract

Industrialized food systems use unsustainable practices leading to climate change, natural resource depletion, economic disparities across the value chain, and detrimental impacts on public health. In contrast, alternative food solutions such as food forests have the potential to provide healthy food, sufficient livelihoods, environmental services, and spaces for recreation, education, and community building. This study compiles evidence from more than 200 food forests worldwide, with detailed insights on 14 exemplary food forests in Europe, North America, and South America, gained through site visits and interviews. We present and illustrate the main services that food forests provide and assess their sustainability. The findings indicate that the majority of food forests perform well on social-cultural and environmental criteria by building capacity, providing food, enhancing biodiversity, and regenerating soil, among others. However, for broader impact, food forests need to go beyond the provision of social-cultural and environmental services and enhance their economic viability. There is a need for specific trainings and other measures targeting this deficit. This study appraises the current state of food forests and provides an orientation for food entrepreneurs, public officials, and activists to better understand food forests’ potential for advancing sustainable food systems.

Full text

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021 91
Food forests: Their services and sustainability
Stefanie Albrecht a *
Leuphana University Lüneburg
Arnim Wiek b
Arizona State University
Submitted July 29, 2020 / Revised October 22, 2020, and February 8, 2021 /
Accepted Febuary 8, 2021 / Published online July 10, 2021
Citation: Albrecht, S., & Wiek, A (2021). Food forests: Their services and sustainability.
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 10(3), 91–105.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.103.014
Copyright © 2021 by the Authors. Published by the Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems. Open access under CC-BY license.
Abstract
Industrialized food systems use unsustainable
practices leading to climate change, natural
resource depletion, economic disparities across the
value chain, and detrimental impacts on public
health. In contrast, alternative food solutions such
as food forests have the potential to provide
healthy food, sufficient livelihoods, environmental
services, and spaces for recreation, education, and
community building. This study compiles evidence
from more than 200 food forests worldwide, with
detailed insights on 14 exemplary food forests in
Europe, North America, and South America,
gained through site visits and interviews. We
present and illustrate the main services that food
forests provide and assess their sustainability. The
findings indicate that the majority of food forests
perform well on social-cultural and environmental
criteria by building capacity, providing food,
enhancing biodiversity, and regenerating soil,
among others. However, for broader impact, food
forests need to go beyond the provision of social-
cultural and environmental services and enhance
their economic viability. There is a need for
specific trainings and other measures targeting this
deficit. This study appraises the current state of
food forests and provides an orientation for food
entrepreneurs, public officials, and activists to
better understand food forests’ potential for
advancing sustainable food systems.
Keywords
Food Forests, Forest Gardens, Food Economy,
Food Entrepreneurship, Case Studies,
Sustainability Assessment
a * Corresponding author: Stefanie Albrecht, Doctoral student,
Centre for Global Sustainability and Cultural Transformation,
Leuphana University Lüneburg; Universitätsallee 1, 21335;
Lüneburg, Germany; Stefanie.Albrecht@leuphana.de
b Arnim Wiek, Professor, School of Sustainability, Arizona
State University, Tempe, AZ USA; and Guest Professor,
Centre for Global Sustainability and Cultural Transformation,
Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.
Funding Disclosure
This research was made possible through the graduate school
‘Processes of Sustainability Transformation’ at Leuphana
University Lüneburg, funded by the Robert Bosch Stiftung
(12.5.F082.0021.0).

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
92 Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021
Introduction
Large-scale industrial food system are characterized
by unsustainable development, including land
degradation, water contamination, climate change,
negative health impacts, and unfair distribution of
economic benefits (Garnett, 2011; International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science
and Technology for Development [IAASTD],
2009; Swinburn et al., 2011; Tilman & Clark, 2014).
Alternative food solutions such as food forests
address these challenges in various local contexts.
Food forests are multifunctional biodiverse agro-
forestry systems using several (3 to 7) plant layers
of different height (strata), including trees, shrubs,
and groundcover. They have the potential to pro-
vide food, livelihoods, environmental services
(habitat, heat mitigation, carbon storage), and
spaces for recreation, education, and community
building. Many food forests exist for self-suffi-
ciency, with little formal organization and recog-
nition. Yet, in this study, we focus on food forests
with impacts on the wider food economy.
Mimicking nature in food production is still
common in indigenous and traditional agricultural
production systems, especially in the tropics, and
dates back 4,000 years (Belcher et al., 2005; Kumar
& Nair, 2004). In Europe, the concept of ‘forest
gardens’ emerged in the 1980s in Great Britain
(Hart, 1996; Sholto Douglas & Hart, 1984). At
about the same time, the permaculture movement
started in Australia, with ‘food forests’ being a
major outcome (Mollison, 1979; 1981), and profes-
sionalization efforts at larger scale (Shepard, 2013).
There is little distinction in research and practice
between ‘forest gardens’ and ‘food forests.’ Both
are defined as multi-strata ecosystems using mostly
edible, perennial plants. Following definitions of
what a ‘forest’ is (Chazdon et al., 2016; Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
[FAO], 2000), it seems reasonable to define the
minimum size of a food forest as 1 acre (0.5ha) and
at least 10% canopy cover to provide forest-like
ecosystem services. However, in this study we do
not apply this definition strictly and instead use the
term ‘food forest’ as a synonym for both forest
gardens and food forests, so as to not exclude
interesting cases of smaller size. The practice of
forest farming, i.e., growing edible or medicinal
plants in existing forests or forest management for
the purpose of food production, is not included in
this study.
Food forests adopt basic principles of agro-
forestry that improve water cycle and soil formation,
store carbon, regulate the microclimate, increase
biodiversity, and create livelihood opportunities
(Jose, 2009; Toensmeier, 2017). In Brazil, ‘syntro-
pic farming’ or ‘successional agroforestry’ devel-
oped as a biodiverse multistrata design and man-
agement approach (Götsch, 1992) with high yield
and ecological restoration potential (Schulz et al.,
1994; Young, 2017).
Unlike agroforestry at large, specific research
on food forests is still at a nascent stage. Recent re-
search compiled practical knowledge on different
types of food forests (Bukowski & Munsell, 2018;
Remiarz, 2017), their cultural transformation
(Wartman et al., 2018), their nutritional benefits
(Nytofte & Henriksen, 2019), and their ecological
restoration potential (Park & Higgs, 2018). Com-
mon are single case studies and a focus on the
social and ecological impacts of food forests
(Hammarsten et al., 2019; Knuijt, 2020; Riolo,
2019; Schafer et al., 2019). Recent research also
considers urban forestry, an internationally estab-
lished planning and management practice for pub-
lic spaces, as a potential scaling opportunity for
(community) food forests (Konijnendijk & Park;
Vannozzi Brito & Borelli, 2020). Very few of these
studies consider the economic dimension, which is
necessary for a comprehensive sustainability solution
(Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011).
A systematic knowledge base about food
forests that comprehensively maps out the state of
food forests is still missing. The present study
intends to close this gap and open the field more
widely by addressing the following research
questions:
1. What are the general characteristics
(location, size, age since its founding,
services) of food forests?
2. How are food forests organized and
managed?
3. To what extent are food forests sustainable,
as measured against a broad set of criteria?

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021 93
This research aligns with the approach of
solution-oriented sustainability research that aims
at developing evidence-supported solutions to
sustainability problems (Miller et al., 2014; Wiek &
Lang, 2016). We used a mixed-methodology ap-
proach to answer the research questions, combin-
ing literature and document review, interviews, and
site visits (data collected in 2018). We reviewed
more than 200 food forests and conducted in-
depth case studies on a sample (14) of exemplary
food forests in Europe, North America, and South
America. The focus was on food forests that pur-
sue social, environmental, and economic activities,
going beyond self-sufficiency. The study might in-
form the work of food entrepreneurs, public offi-
cials, activists, and researchers interested in build-
ing upon current food forest practices from around
the world. The insights on food forests’ service
diversity and sustainability can help realizing the
full potential of food forests to advance sustainable
food systems.
Research Design
First, we conducted a web-based search in English
(“food forest,” “forest garden”) and German
(“Waldgarten”), and did snowball sampling, and
identified 209 food forests with activities that go
beyond self-sufficiency. Networks and research
initiatives in the U.S. and U.K. like the Agrofor-
estry Research Trust and Bukowski (2015) pro-
vided larger lists of sites and contributed to 45% of
the overall sample. For each food forest, we cre-
ated a standardized profile with up to three main
services and other relevant information, including
location, size, etc. Not all relevant data were avail-
able for all food forests, e.g., size or age. For some
cases with information gaps, we were able to esti-
mate plot size through Google Maps measure-
ments and photos of the site.
Second, we selected 14 exemplary food forests
for in-depth case studies. Selection criteria included
primarily age and main service (see Table 2, below)
and secondarily location and access to primary data
through site visits. We identified the main services
by standardizing the most common activities car-
ried out at each food forest such as generating
1 All data refer to the year 2018, if not indicated differently. Sample sizes vary due to data availability.
regular income through food-forest related work-
shops (main service: education), hosting regular
community events (main service: community build-
ing), or selling food from on-site production (main
service: food production). Environmental services,
especially plant biodiversity, are inherent to food
forests, hence, this was only tracked for explicit
major services (e.g., flood protection). In addition
to a wide spectrum of services, we covered in the
sample of case studies different age groups to pro-
vide insights on the diverse practices of early pio-
neers and later adopters. We conducted semi-
structured interviews and site visits that focused on
the food forest’s organization, management, and
implementation process.
Third, each of the 14 exemplary food forest
was assessed against a set of sustainability criteria
(Table 1) identified from the literature on sustaina-
bility (Gibson, 2006), agroforestry and food forests
(Jose, 2009; Park & Higgs, 2018), as well as expert
interviews. Scorecards (see Table 3, below) indicate
criteria fully (2), somewhat (1), or not (0) met.
Results
1. Food Forest Location, Size, Age, and Services
The food forests in the overall sample (n=209)1 are
located in 19 countries (Figure 1), predominately in
the U.S. (86) and Europe (96). About 50% are in
rural areas, 30% in large cities and metropolitan
areas (>0.5M inhabitants), and 20% in small to
medium-sized cities (50,000-0.5M inhabitants).
According to the available data (n=129), food
forests are managed by nonprofit organizations
(46%), conventional businesses (31%), social
enterprises or cooperatives (7%), foundations or
land trusts (3%), or public institutions like
universities (2%).
According to the available data (n=78), the
average food forest plot size is 4.7 acres (1.9 ha),
with 50% of food forests being less than 1 acre
(Figure 2).
While a few food forests started back in the
1970s (e.g., Langerhorst in Austria), many early
adopters began in the 1990s (Figure 3). Starting in
2004, food forest start-ups steadily increased, with

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
94 Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021
a peak of 19 food forests
started in 2014.
Food forests offer a
variety of services: they
produce food (primary
production, processing,
nurseries), regulate and
support the environment,
and provide social-
cultural services (commu-
nity building, education,
recreation). The majority
of sampled food forests
(n=209) focuses on edu-
cation (40%), community
building (32%), or food
production (11%), often
on larger sites (Figure 4). Few cases (<10%)
prioritize self-sufficiency (while still offering other
services), recreation, food processing, or
environmental services, or serve as nurseries.
In summary, the sampled food forests are pre-
dominantly located in the U.S. and in Europe, with
equal distribution across rural and urban areas.
They are managed mostly by nonprofit organiza-
tions or run as conventional businesses. The num-
ber of annual food forest start-ups has been con-
stant for many decades (<5), but has been increas-
ing since the mid-2000s, with more than 10 start-
ups in most years of the past decade. The majority
of food forests focuses on providing educational or
community-building services, with only about 10%
of food forests prioritizing food production.
Table 1. Sustainability Criteria for Food Forests
Criteria Definition
Social-Cultural
Criteria
Meaningful, safe emplo
y
-
ment and activities with
social purpose
•
Workplace with protective gear, diverse work activities, precautionary measures
•
Activities for community benefit, social justice, environmental regeneration
Contribution to community
wellbeing
•
Affordable and healthy products and services, i.e., regional, seasonal, fresh food,
and/or inclusive activities (e.g., for school kids, seniors, minority groups)
Capacity building
•
Learning activities for cognitive, normative, affective, and motoric development
Environmental
Criteria
Water conservation and soil
formation
•
Measures for water conservation (e.g., drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting) and
soil formation (e.g., chop-and-drop, mulching, Terra Preta)
Cool microclimate
•
Cooling and shading measures, e.g., dense, multi-strata design with high canopy
cover and ground cover, surrounded by green infrastructure
High biodiversit
y
•
High species diversity and cultivation of rare varieties (flora), undisturbed areas
for fauna, connection to green corridors
Economic
Criteria
Economic viability
•
Sustaining livelihoods of staff by providing fair wages (for at least one part-time
position) and covering operating costs
Formalized organization
•
Reliability and foresight, for example, through having a site plan, tracking yields,
bookkeeping, registered organization, related professional background
Shared ownership and
decision-making
•
Institutionalized cooperative principles for shared and long-term ownership and
decision-making, e.g. employee-owned business or foundation-based business
Figure 1. Geographical Distribution of Food Forest
S
ample (n=209)
Map created with Leaflet.

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021 95
2. Exemplary Food Forests for
Each Service
The exemplary food forests
selected for in-depth analysis and
showcasing (n=14; Table 2)
represent all services mentioned
above. Below, we provide
descriptions of exemplary food
forests for each service, detailing
location, size, products and ser-
vices, ownership, staff, and
management.
Food Production Services
Primary Production. Food
forests in this category produce
herbs, vegetables, fruits, and
nuts. They sell their produce
through diverse channels from
community supported agricul-
ture (CSA), food box or u-pick
schemes, and onsite and market
sales (B2C) to cooperation with
local food businesses (B2B).
Foodforest Ketelsbroek op-
erates on 6 acres (2.4 ha) and
markets its produce directly to
three local businesses (gastron-
omy, catering service, and cider
brewery) that participate in
weekly harvestings. Two private
owners have run the food forest
in a nature-regulated approach
since 2009. The design, inspired
by agroforestry and food-forest
pioneer Martin Crawford and
farmers in Kenya, is partly
“rational” in rows, partly
“romantic” with high bio-
diversity (W. van Eck, personal
communication, July 12, 2018).
Input is very low, following the
guideline “we must make our-
selves become useless” (W. van
Eck, personal communication,
July 12, 2018), and consists
mostly of harvesting and
Figure 2. Distribution of Small, Medium, and Large Food Forests (n=78)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
≤0.4 ha (≤1 acre) 0.5–5 ha (2–12 acres) 6–35 ha (13–86 acres)
Number of food forests
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
Figure 3. Number of Food Forest Started by
Y
ear, 1971–2017 (n=155)
Figure 4. Main Services of Food Forests (n=209)
Food
Production, 11%
Food
Processing,
3%
Recreation,
5%
Education,
40%
Community,
32%
Nurseries, 1%
Self-sufficiency, 7%
Environment, 1%

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
96 Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021
minimal agro-ecological interventions. Produce
derives mainly from tree layers (fruits, herbal
plants, edible flowers) and provides for one part-
time position. According to the farmer, yield in-
creases slowly, but the land seems more profitable
than the neighboring conventional farm. Consulta-
tion and workshops are the main income source
(W. van Eck, personal communication, July 12,
2018). In 2017, 1,200 visitors received a guided
tour.
Ökohof Waldgarten (Eco-Farm Food Forest)
operates on 12 acres (5 ha) and was started in 2006
by a private owner planting chestnuts, soon there-
after also producing annual vegetables for market
sales. The farm has run a community supported
agriculture (CSA) operation since 2012 that cur-
rently delivers about 120 food boxes per week
(20% fruits, 80% vegetables) to its 200 members.
The site includes an older 5-acre (2 ha) dome food
forest, and a 7.4-acre (3 ha) vegetable garden
(Demeter-certified), which successively changes into
an agroforestry system. The lead gardener-owner,
three gardeners, two trainees (all full-time), and two
part-time staff manage the farm. In the growing
seasons, the CSA members participate in co-
working days.
Den Food Bosch has operated on 2.5 acres
(1 ha) since 2017, with an intricate food forest
design inspired by permaculture and syntropic
farming to harvest on all layers. Produce is sold
weekly on-site. Additional sales channels and
processing options are currently under develop-
ment. Den Food Bosch resulted from a student
initiative, received public funding, and is steered by
a foundation that contracts two managers who are
responsible for generating their income. The local
water authority owns the land.
Smaller food forests focusing on primary pro-
duction are often part of a larger farm or network
using direct-sales channels to restaurants or local
markets. For example, the Rotterdam Forest Gar-
den Network initiated 10 sites that produce food
for market sales (in 2020, the network reorganized
and sites are now managed by the Cooperative
Ondergrond).
Processing. Food processing is rarely the main
activity of food forests. It is more common as an
educational activity or for catering to workshop
participants. Ownership of the few food forests
prioritizing processing is mostly private, the
workforce is small (four employees, on average),
and common distribution channels are on-site
gastronomy or direct sales.
Fazenda Ouro Fino operates on 62 acres
(25 ha) and processes high-value crops like açaí
Table 2. Overview of 14 Exemplary Food Forests (Two Main Services Indicated per Case)
Young Cases
(<5 years)
Established Cases
(5–10 years)
Mature Cases
(>10 years)
Food
Production
Services
Primary
Production
W. C. L. (USA)
Den Food Bosch (NL)
The Secret Garden (NL)
Foodforest Ketelsbroek (NL)
Voedselbos Kralingen (NL)
Ökohof Waldgarten (GER)
Processing Castle Garden (UK)
Cafe Botanico (DE)
Fazenda Ouro Fino (BRA)
Hotel Haferland (GER)
Nursery Mienbacher Waldgarten (GER)
Social-Cultural
Services
Community
Building
Peace of Land (GER)
The Secret Garden (NL)
Voedselbos Kralingen (NL)
Education Peace of Land (GER)
Keela Yoga Farm (PRT)
Castle Garden (UK)
Cafe Botanico (GER)
Mienbacher Waldgarten (GER)
Fazenda Ouro Fino (BRA)
Essgarten (GER)
Recreation Keela Yoga Farm (PRT) Essgarten (GER)
Hotel Haferland (GER)
Environmental
Services
Supportive Foodforest Ketelsbroek (NL) Ökohof Waldgarten (GER)
Regulative W. C. L. (USA)

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021 97
(puree) and cacao (fermenting) for sale at the local
market and international distribution. The privately
owned site produces a dozen food crops and offers
educational trainings. As a neighbor and partner of
agroforestry pioneer Ernst Götsch, the site con-
tributes to the development of syntropic farming.
Café Botanico (0.5 ac; 0.2 ha) and Castle
Garden (0.12 ac; 0.04 ha) process specialty crops
that are sold at on-site cafés. While Café Botanico
builds its dishes around the on-site food and limits
its sales to yield availability, Castle Garden Café
adds mostly preserves and teas from the site to a
broader menu. Both businesses have high staff
costs and are cross-financed by the owner(s)
through a second job or a second business.
Nursery. Nursery services are informally present
at many sites either for a small income or to
propagate plants for other sites. Some use them
formally to generate an income, although mostly
on a very small scale; for example, Mienbacher
Waldgarten (3.7ac; 1.5ha) sells plants and seeds
online. Several professional nurseries connected to
food forests exist; for example, the Balkan Ecology
Project in Bulgaria offers polyculture plants, exotic
varieties, and multilayer packages (Remiarz, 2017),
and Forest Agriculture Enterprises in the U.S.
offers wholesale.
Social-Cultural Services
Community Building. Community-oriented food
forests are usually located in urban areas, often on
public land, and are managed through a core
(member) group with support from volunteers. A
prominent example is the Beacon Food Forest
(7ac, 2.8ha) in Seattle, Washington, U.S. (Bukowski
& Munsell, 2018). At Peace of Land (0.1ac; 0.04ha),
core members from across the city meet for weekly
gardening activities and offer educational
workshops to educate both their core group as well
as others who are interested. At The Secret Garden
(0.1ac; 0.04ha), one trained volunteer maintains the
site for a retirement home and a school.
Education, Consultation, Research. Educational
food forests are located in urban and rural areas.
They offer tours, workshops, courses, and
programs from day- to year-long, about per-
maculture, food forestry, and related specialty top-
ics (e.g., grafting). Educational offerings often help
with the setup of a food forest through volunteer
labor and provide a source of income. Mienbacher
Waldgarten has specialized in self-sufficiency edu-
cation since 2010. One full-time manager and other
trainers use the food forest and its seminar house.
The site also contributes to the food self-suffi-
ciency of the manager’s family and the property
owners’ families. Some food forests generate reve-
nue by consulting on the design and management
of food forests, including permaculture, regenera-
tive agroforestry, holistic management, and syn-
tropic farming. Only a few food forests engage in
substantial research in collaboration with research
organizations and universities; examples include
Bec Hellouin in France, collaborating with Agro-
ParisTech, the French National Agronomy Re-
search Institute, and the Free University of Brus-
sels (Dendoncker et al., 2017; Morel et al., 2016).
Recreation. Some food forests offer aesthetic and
recreational value through their multilayered
design, cool microclimate, high biodiversity,
medicinal plants, and fresh food, as well as
opportunities for foraging, relaxation, and
discovery. Aesthetics and ecological benefits may
require guidance, e.g., through signage about
wildlife or insect-friendly practices. The food forest
of Hotel Haferland (0.5 ac; 0.2 ha) has a seating
area for relaxation, enjoyment, and contemplation.
A hotel janitor manages the site, and the
restaurant’s chefs harvest from it. The professional
design requires little maintenance. The site is too
small for significant food production but offers
aesthetical value. Another example is Keela Yoga
Farm (2% of 46 ac; 19 ha) that offers yoga retreats
combined with a tour of the food forest.
Environmental Services
Supportive. Many interviewees expressed
concerns about the degraded soil and biodiversity
loss associated with conventional agriculture and
pointed to the regeneration of nature (and human
health) as a major motivation for implementing
their food forest. Foodforest Ketelsbroek limits

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
98 Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021
access for visitors to reduce disturbance. The
manager also regenerates soil in a slow, laissez-faire
approach with a naturally occurring groundcover.
Fazenda Ouro Fino does “chop-and-drop”
management to increase biomass, soil building, and
early yields. While Fazenda Ouro Fino manages
around 20 species/ha, Foodforest Ketelsbroek
manages around 200 species/ha. Plant biodiversity
is often high in social-culturally focused food
forests. Essgarten (6 ac; 2.5 ha) offers habitat to
around 1,200 species.
Regulative. Keela Yoga Farm, for example,
manages its food forest with chicken and sheep for
fire protection. In semi-arid Arizona, U.S., the new
food forest of W. C. L. (2.5 ac; 1 ha) aims at
cooling the microclimate while producing food.
3. Sustainability of Food Forests
Assessing each food forest by social, environmen-
tal, and economic criteria indicates their sustaina-
bility and highlights areas for improvement (Table
3). Scores indicate that criteria are fully (2), some-
what (1), or not (0) met.
Overall, the assessment shows that food for-
ests perform well on social-cultural and environ-
mental criteria by offering benefits such as educa-
tional attainment, community happiness, high bio-
diversity, healthy soil, and resourceful water man-
agement. However, economical practices and struc-
tures tend to be unsustainable. Ownership and
decision-making are often in private hands or
instable due to insecure tenures. Few have business
and financing plans. Young (<5 years old) food
forests tend to receive a lower score due to being
less developed ecologically and economically. Most
food forests perform higher in the areas related to
their main services.
In Table 3, we provide general insights on each
assessment criterion across all 14 cases.
Social-Cultural Criteria A – Meaningful, Safe
Employment and Activities with Social Purpose
All food forests in this study (14 of 14) offer work
activities with meaningful outputs like ecological
regeneration, quality food production, and nature-
based education. Food foresters are motivated by
regenerating the land and people’s health. They
enjoy the diversity of tasks and often develop
strong emotional connections to the food forest.
However, many food foresters experience high
stress levels at times, due to the diverse activities,
lack of qualified staff, or financial insecurity during
initialization.
Social-Cultural Criteria B – Contributing to
Community Wellbeing
Almost all food forests (13 of 14) offer affordable
food products or educational services. For exam-
ple, Mienbacher Waldgarten provides food educa-
tion in a rural neighborhood to adults and children,
donates food surplus, and is engaged in setting up a
community garden in the nearby town. Young
food forests attract specific user communities and
struggle with wider uptake. For example, the Rot-
terdam Forest Garden Network aims at connecting
a school and a retirement home at The Secret Gar-
den. With little activity from the partners, a volun-
teer maintains the site for the retirement home.
The site acts as an investment for plant propaga-
tion, food sales, and display.
Social-Cultural Criteria C – Capacity Building
Almost all food forests (13 of 14) offer various
learning activities on food production and ecology
to guests, students, and co-workers. Offerings
depend on the land management approach (nature-
vs. human-regulated). The depth and quality of the
offerings depend on the length of stay, expertise of
the trainer, and content focus; for example, tours
facilitate basic understanding of food forests, while
workshops facilitate experiential learning and skill
development. Structured educational programs
vary significantly in duration, ranging from the
more common 1 to 2 weeks (e.g., Mienbacher
Waldgarten) or, less often, 1 month (Keela Yoga
Farm) to, exceptionally, 2 years (Fazenda Ouro
Fino).
Environmental D – Water Conservation
and Soil Formation
Mulching is a common management practice at all
food forests to build soil and conserve water. Sev-
eral food forests irrigate lightly, and some integrate
rainwater harvesting. Only one site with major an-
nual vegetable production has high irrigation needs

V
olume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021 99
J
ournal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Table 3. Overview of Sustainability Assessment of 14 Food Forests by Social-Cultural, Environmental, and Economic Criteria
Food forests are listed in alphabetical order, scores indicate that criteria are Fully (2), Somewhat (1), or Not (0) Met
Social
-
Cultural criteria Environmental criteria Economic criteria
Food Forest
Cases
A.
Meaningful, Safe
Employment
B.
Contribution to
Community
Wellbeing
C.
Capacity Building
D.
Water Conservation
and Soil Formation
E.
Cool Micro
-
climate
F.
High Biodiversity
G.
Economic
V
iability
H.
Formalized
Organization
I.
Shared Ownership
and Decision-
Making
Average
Score
Castle
Climbing
2 – Four part-
time staff, shared
responsibility
2 – Educating
especially the
climbing
community
2 – Educational,
experiential
events
2 – Substantial
rainwater har-
vesting and
compostin
g
0 – Micro-site 1 – Micro-site 1 – Subsidized by
climbing center
2 –
Y
ield report,
automated
volunteer system
2 – Employee-
owned company 1.6
Den Food
Bosch
1 – Two man-
agers, high stress
(start-up)
2 – Regional,
affordable food
supply, test site
2 – Research,
volunteering,
tours, consulta-
t
ion
2 – Mulch, chop
and drop, bio-
mass plants
1 –
Y
oung site,
high layer
diversity
2 – High species
diversity, rare
varieties, green
corridors
0 – Micro-income
for two full-time
managers
2 – Foundation,
evidence-based
site plan, yield
record
1 – Foundation
board, land
leased 1.4
Essgarten 2 – Balance to
main job, invest-
ment for pension
2 – Affordable
food and educa-
tion
2 – Short holistic
education, events
1 – On-site well
and lake, no
special soil
management
2 – Mature site 2 – Over 1,200
species
2 – Diversified
income
2 – Registered
gastronomy
business
0 – Private
ownership and
decision-making 1.7
Fazenda
Ouro Fino
2 – Family,
diverse activities
(mature)
2 – Diverse
products and
education
2 – Short and
long-term holistic
education
2 – Low
irrigation, chop
and drop,
biomass plants
2 – Large mature
site
2 – High species
diversity, rare
flora and fauna
2 – Sustained
family livelihood,
diversified
income
1 – Registered
agricultural
business, no
economic
analysis
1 – Family busi-
ness, informal
democratic
principles
1.8
Hotel
Haferland
1 – Partly
seasonal
contracts
0 – Exclusive
experience for
hotel guests
0 – No tours (lack
of staff)
1 – Water
sprinkler
irrigation,
compostin
g
1 – Mature,
small site
2 – High species
diversity, rare
varieties
1 – Contributes
to hotel market-
ing
1 – Hotel busi-
ness, no yield
records
0 – Private
ownership and
decision making 0.8
Keela Yoga
Farm
1 – Two owners,
diverse activities,
high stress (start-
up)
2 – In-depth
affordable
education, local
barterin
g
2 – Lon
g
-
t
erm,
hands-on
education,
volunteerin
g
2 – Sparsely
used pipe and
flood irrigation,
(pond, well)
0 – Small part
developed, very
arid
2 – High species
diversity, rare
varieties
1 –
Y
oga retreat
and work abroad
income
2 – Registered
agricultural
business, docu-
mented site plan
0 – Private
ownership and
decision making 1.3
Foodforest
Ketelsbroek
2 – Two owners,
low stress and
work input, high
local demand
2 – Regional food
supply (B2B),
school garden
2 – Tours,
seminars,
research, co-
harvesting
2 – Connection to
waterways, pond,
slow natural
regeneration
2 – Mature site 2 – High species
diversity, rare
varieties,
undisturbed
areas
2 – One full-
t
ime
position, low
input and cost
1 – Registered
agricultural busi-
ness, rough yield
figures
0 – Private
ownership and
decision making 1.7
Mienbacher
Waldgarten
2 – One
manager, diverse
activities
2 – Gifts surplus
food, community-
engaged
2 – Sel
f
-
sufficiency
education with
external experts
1 – High
irrigation in dry
years (well),
partly low humus
2 – Mature site 2 – High species
diversity, rare
varieties,
undisturbed
areas
2 – Seminars
finance 1
manager and co-
educators
2 – Registered
business, docu-
menting activities
0 – Private
ownership (1 year
lease by
manager)
1.7

100 Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021
J
ournal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Social
-
Cultural criteria Environmental criteria Economic criteria
Food Forest
Cases
A.
Meaningful, Safe
Employment
B.
Contribution to
Community
Wellbeing
C.
Capacity Building
D.
Water Conservation
and Soil Formation
E.
Cool Micro
-
climate
F.
High Biodiversity
G.
Economic
V
iability
H.
Formalized
Organization
I.
Shared Ownership
and Decision-
Making
Average
Score
Ökohof
Waldgarten
2 – CSA for more
than 120
households,
partly stressful
2 – Regional food
at solidarity
pricing
2 – Experiential
co-working, farm
updates and
events, politically
active farmer
0 – High
irrigation and
fertilizer needs
for annuals (80%
of land)
1 – Partly cool in
tree-canopy
dense area
1 – Mostly classic
varieties,
propagates rare
vegetables
varieties
2 – Sustains the
livelihood of at
least 8 people
2 – Registered
agricultural
business,
informal, self-
organized CSA
1 – Private
ownership
(farmer), yearly
plenary meetings
1.4
Peace of
Land
2 – Mostly
volunteers,
community-
oriented, high
self-learning
motivation
2 – Affordable
workshops
2 – Diverse
experiential and
cognitive inputs,
social events,
volunteering
1 – Poor urban
soil, mulch,
regular irrigating
0 –
Y
oung micro-
site
1 – Micro-site 1 – Start-up
funding incl. staff,
insecure long-
term funding
1 – Trusteeship
of permaculture
institute (lease
taker)
1 – High tenure
insecurity (yearly
lease); low-
hierarchy
organization
(sociocracy)
1.2
Permakultur
-
garten
Botanico
1 – Staff partly
aware of or
interested in
sustainability
2 – Local food
(urban core)
2 – Tours, food
experience
2 – Low
irrigation, dense
ground cover,
compost from
busy café
1 – Small site,
green oasis in
urban center
2 – High diversity
in ground cover
0 – Fluctuating
customers, high
staff cost,
subsidized by
owner
2 – Registered
restaurant
business,
comprehensive
calculations
0 – Private
ownership and
decision-making,
tenure insecurity
1.4
Voedselbos
Kralingen
1 – Occasional
volunteers
1 – Display site,
some complaints
about messy look
1 – Volunteering,
occasional tours
or events, few
signs
2 – No watering,
slow natural
regeneration
1 – Small site,
dense canopy
2 – High species
diversity
1 – Low income,
low costs
2 – Network,
formal agreement
with local
government
1 – Informal
decision-making
along pragmatic
principles
1.3
The Secret
Garden
2 – One trained
volunteer,
maintains elderly
home garden
1 – Aesthetic,
failed to connect
school and
elderly home
2 – Trained
volunteer,
education and co-
working offers
2 – No irrigation,
mulching
0 – Micro-site 1 – Micro-site 2 – Low costs,
income
investment
1 – Network,
informal
agreements
0 – No lease,
informal
decision-making 1.2
W. C. L. 1 – One owner
with strong
vision, high stress
(“survivalist”)
1 – Community
vision
1 – Educates
WWOOFers,
silence in nature
to reconnect to
sel
f
2 – Mulching,
earthwork for
passive rainwater
harvesting
0 – Small part
developed, very
arid
1 – Very small
part developed
0 – No income,
very low cost
0 – Informal, no
site or business
plan—trial and
error approach
0 – Private
ownership and
decision-making 0.7
Average 1.5 1.6 21.811.6 1.2 1.5 0.5

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021 101
and observes soil degradation. Syntropic sites like
Den Food Bosch use strata and succession-based
management for efficient water storage and
biomass production.
Environmental E – Cool Micro-Climate
The majority of food forests (10 of 14) are very
small or too young to yield significant cooling
effects. Ten food forests are large, mature sites or
connect to other green infrastructure. Due to dense
canopy covers, they contribute to cooler
microclimates.
Environmental F – High Biodiversity
The majority of food forests (9 of 14) shows a very
high plant species diversity. In addition to tradi-
tional species, most food forests include diverse
rare and specialty crops, often from other regions
with similar climatic conditions. Climate change
resilience and curiosity about specialty foods moti-
vates these plant choices. Some food forests sup-
port high genetic diversity and have areas reserved
for wildlife only.
Economic G – Economic Viability
The weak point of many food forests (8 of 14) is
economic viability. While many food forests devel-
op site plans, very few use financing plans and
business plans due to a lack of experience or inter-
est, or resistance to conventional business prac-
tices. For example, Ökohof Waldgarten, while
envisioned as a food forest business, was imple-
mented without a business plan or training (e.g.,
planted seeds for chestnut trees that do not carry
edible fruits), and now generates most of its
income from annual vegetables.
For many, idealism acts like an alternative cur-
rency: a natural lifestyle and resistance to conven-
tional food production compensate for economic
burdens. Common income sources are fees (tours,
workshops and consultation) and grants, especially
for young sites. Small food forests with on-site
gastronomy primarily provide an aesthetic service,
and their owners subsidize them. Large and mature
food forests are economically viable with diversi-
fied income sources or a few high-selling products
or services (e.g., Essgarten, Foodforest Ketels-
broek, and Fazenda Ouro Fino).
Economic H – Formalized Organization
Almost all food forests (13 of 14) are run through a
registered association or a business. Few practition-
ers, however, track yields and do full bookkeeping.
Younger food forests design a site plan. Design
and management techniques differ, building on
British forest gardening, Australian permaculture,
Swiss-Brazilian syntropic farming, farming prac-
tices from Kenya, and Indigenous food systems in
Brazil. Apart from Permaculture Design Certificate
and Permaculture Teacher Certificate for general
design principles, there is no certified food forest
education. Accordingly, food foresters have diverse
educational backgrounds, often in creative or social
professions. The managers of four food forests—
all focused on food services—have professional
backgrounds in agriculture, forestry, or landscape
architecture.
Economic I – Shared Ownership and
Decision-Making
The majority of food forests (9 of 14) are in private
ownership. Often, one person manages the site and
has exclusive decision-making power. A few food
forests, like Den Food Bosch or Castle Garden,
formed a foundation or employee-owned business
with a board for collective decision-making. About
half of the food forests face lease insecurity, with
short-term leases on private or public land.
Discussion
Services of Food Forests
Food forests are often part of multifunctional
spaces and organizational hybrids with diverse ser-
vices, products, and other income sources. Apart
from producing food, all of them offer social-
cultural and/or environmental services. The large
majority of the food forests in the full sample
(n=209) are small and focus on education and
community building (70%), while only a few pur-
sue food production on a substantive level (11%).
Still fewer cases (<5%) prioritize food processing
or serving as a nursery. The focus on social-cultural
services reflects the community gardening trend
(Bukowski & Munsell, 2018) and the social-cultural
background of many food forest initiators. For
developing food forests as food businesses, practi-

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
102 Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021
tioners often have insufficient farming or market
gardening experience, specialty crop knowledge,
and entrepreneurial training. Guidance on efficient
design and management techniques like syntropic
farming or restoration agriculture was not widely
available (in English) until recently (Giezen, 2018;
Shepard, 2013). To harness the food production
potential of food forests and contribute to wider
food system change, specific training and research
on food forests should to be offered and
conducted more broadly.
Sustainability of Food Forests
Food forests contribute to a diverse food system
with perennial crops and experiential educational
and recreational offerings around food and ecol-
ogy. Many perform well on social-ecological criteria
but display weaknesses on economic criteria. As
30% of the food forests studied in-depth are young
(<5 years), their economic viability may still be
developing. They could learn from mature food
forests that diversified their product range or
focused on a few main products or services. Weak
economic viability—common in many permacul-
ture farms—may also be overcome by monetariz-
ing the value of ecosystem services and receiving
adequate compensation (Fiebrig et al., 2020). How-
ever, such compensation policies to date focus on
agro-industrial sites; this poses a structural barrier to
the economic viability of agro-ecological solutions
such as food forests (Fernandez et al., 2013; Smith
et al., 2012).
Generally, the pursuit of cooperative owner-
ship models may address several sustainability chal-
lenges, such as work overload, high land prices,
limited start-up funds, and late return on invest-
ment. Initiated collectively, a group (and commu-
nity) could invest into setup and management,
share specialty knowledge, value individual net
benefits, and promote self-governing practices
(Bukowski & Munsell, 2018; Poteete et al., 2010).
Collective ownership models such as cooperatives,
land trusts, or foundations may also help accessing
larger land parcels to increase food production
potential. Generally, for wider agroforestry uptake,
a “cognitive unlocking process” might help with
adopting holistic agro-ecological practices rather
than following the dominant reductionist paradigm
towards agriculture (Louah et al., 2017). This calls
again for specific training and research to be of-
fered in vocational schools, colleges, and univer-
sities. Interestingly, for all sustainability gaps
identified at individual food forests, we found
solutions at other sites—which points to an even
larger cooperation potential.
Study Limitations
The presented findings cannot simply be extended
to all food forests worldwide due to a number of
factors. First, while the overall pool of 209 food
forests analyzed is large (the most extensive pool
analyzed to date), it is somewhat biased. First, the
pool (and subsequently the sample of 14 exemplary
food forests) draws mostly on sites in Europe,
North America, and South America. This regional
bias is due to the search language (English), the
general search engines used (DuckDuckGo,
Google), and the researchers consulted (inven-
tories). For example, few Australian and New
Zealand food forests came up in the general online
search, although the permaculture movement that
contributed to food forest designs started there
(Mollison, 1979, 1981) and country-specific online
searches yielded a number of sites. Additionally, a
search in Portuguese and Spanish yielded some
potentially relevant cases. Finally, some renowned
food forests did not respond to our interview
request.
Beyond the sampling, the study displays other
limitations. There were some relevant data gaps for
many food forests due to a lack of data collection
capacity or due to nondisclosure of data. In addi-
tion, the presented assessment offers initial results
for a moderately sized sample (n=14) with a broad
criteria set, which could be further specified for in-
depth research. For a full assessment, longer moni-
toring periods of outputs and outcomes at each site
are necessary (Park & Higgs, 2018). And for higher
validity, more cases would need to be studied in
detail and included in comparative studies.
Conclusions
Food forests differ in what main services they offer
and how sustainable they are. For the main serv-
ices, there is a focus on social-cultural services
(education, community building) and less on food

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021 103
production. Food forests often perform well on
social-cultural and environmental criteria, while
displaying weaknesses in economic ones, especially
regarding economic viability and sustainable busi-
ness model innovation. Yet, best practices can be
found across the cases, e.g., for inclusive owner-
ship through cooperative, land trust, and founda-
tion models. Advances in specific food forest edu-
cation (farming, business practices) and the transfer
of best practices across food forests are necessary
to harness the full potential of this multifunctional
sustainability solution. While this study offers a
broad exploratory overview, there are several limi-
tations calling for additional research to validate
these findings and allow for wider applicability.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all food foresters for
offering their insights in interviews and during site
visits. We also would like to thank two anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments on an
earlier version of this article.
References
Belcher, B., Michon, G., Angelsen, A., Ruiz Pérez, M., & Asbjornsen, H. (2005). The socioeconomic conditions
determining the development, persistence, and decline of forest garden systems. Economic Botany, 59(3), 245–253.
https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2005)059[0245:TSCDTD]2.0.CO;2
Bukowski, C. (2015). Community Food Forests: Map. https://communityfoodforests.com/community-food-forests-map/
Bukowski, C., & Munsell, J. (2018). The community food forest handbook: How to plan, organize, and nurture edible gathering places.
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Chazdon, R. L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Laestadius, L., Bennett-Curry, A., Buckingham, K., Kumar, C., Moll-Rocek, J.,
Célia Guimarães Vieira, I., & Wilson, S. J. (2016). When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the
era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio, 45(5), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y
Dendoncker, N., Reheul, D., Chapelle, G., Hautier, L., Hermesse, J., Hulhoven, X., Louah, L., Stassart, P. M., van
Dam, D., Vanwindekens, F., Vereecken, N., & Visser, M. (2017). The Bec Hellouin Organic Farm: Reflections and
perspective for research from the GIRAF community.
https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/221553/1/GIRAF%20Highlight%20BHOF.pdf
Fernandez, M., Goodall, K., Olson, M., & Méndez, V. E. (2013). Agroecology and alternative agri-food movements in
the United States: Toward a sustainable agri-food system. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 115–126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.735633
Fiebrig, I., Zikeli, S., Bach, S., & Gruber, S. (2020). Perspectives on permaculture for commercial farming: Aspirations
and realities. Organic Agriculture, 10(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00281-8
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2000). Comparison of forest area and forest area change estimates
derived from FRA 1990 and FRA 2000. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad068e/AD068E05.htm
Garnett, T. (2011). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system
(including the food chain)? Food Policy, 36(36), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.010
Gibson, R. B. (2006). Sustainability assessment: Basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 24(3), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154606781765147
Giezen, R. (2018). Abundance agroforestry: A syntropic farming guidebook.
https://de.scribd.com/document/416128370/Abundance-Agroforestry-A-Syntropic-Farming-Guidebook
Götsch, E. (1992). Natural succession of species in agroforestry and in soil recovery. Retrieved from the Climate Protection Forum
WZW website. http://www.climate.wzw.tum.de/fileadmin/user_upload/agroforestry_1992_gotsch.pdf
Hammarsten, M., Askerlund, P., Almers, E., Avery, H., & Samuelsson, T. (2019). Developing ecological literacy in a
forest garden: Children’s perspectives. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 19(3), 227–241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2018.1517371
Hart, R. (1996). Forest gardening: Cultivating an edible landscape (2nd Ed.). Chelsea Green Publishing.
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2009). Agriculture at a
Crossroads—Global Report.
http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8590/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report.pdf

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
104 Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021
Introduction to Permaculture: Pamphlet 1. (1981). Permaculture Design Course Series. Yankee Permaculture.
Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforestry Systems, 76(1),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
Knuijt, M. (2020). Laboratory for New Urban Biotopes. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 14(2).
https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2020.02.004
Konijnendijk, C., & Park, H. Optimising urban forestry: The food connection. In J. S. C. Wiskerke (Ed.), Achieving
sustainable urban agriculture (pp. 353–368). Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2019.0063.19
Kumar, B. M., & Nair, P. R. (2004). The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agroforestry Systems, 61(1–3), 135–152.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000028995.13227.ca
Louah, L., Visser, M., Blaimont, A., & Cannière, C. de (2017). Barriers to the development of temperate agroforestry as
an example of agroecological innovation: Mainly a matter of cognitive lock-in? Land Use Policy, 67, 86–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.001
Miller, T. R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The future of
sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Science, 9(2), 239–246.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6
Mollison, B. (1979). Permaculture two: Practical design for town and country in permanent agriculture. Bertrams.
Morel, K., Guégan, C., & Léger, F. G. (2016). Can an organic market garden based on holistic thinking be viable without
motorization? The case of a permaculture farm. Acta Horticulturae, 1137, 343–346.
https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2016.1137.47
Nytofte, J. L. S., & Henriksen, C. B. (2019). Sustainable food production in a temperate climate – A case study analysis
of the nutritional yield in a peri-urban food forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 45, 126326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.009
Park, H., & Higgs, E. (2018). A criteria and indicators monitoring framework for food forestry embedded in the
principles of ecological restoration. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(3), 113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6494-9
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in
practice. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835157
Remiarz, T. (2017). Forest gardening in practice: An illustrated practical guide for homes, communities & enterprises. Permanent
Publications.
Riolo, F. (2019). The social and environmental value of public urban food forests: The case study of the Picasso Food
Forest in Parma, Italy. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 45, 126225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.002
Schafer, L. J., Lysák, M., & Henriksen, C. B. (2019). Tree layer carbon stock quantification in a temperate food forest: A
peri-urban polyculture case study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 45, 126466.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126466
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and
interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
Schulz, B., Becker, B., & Götsch, E. (1994). Indigenous knowledge in a ‘modern’ sustainable agroforestry system—A
case study from eastern Brazil. Agroforestry Systems, 25(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705706
Shepard, M. (2013). Restoration agriculture. Acres.
Sholto Douglas, J., & Hart, R. A. d. J. (1984). Forest farming: Towards a solution to problems of world hunger and conservation.
Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780442228
Smith, J., Pearce, B. D., & Wolfe, M. S. (2012). A European perspective for developing modern multifunctional
agroforestry systems for sustainable intensification. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 27(4), 323–332.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000597
Swinburn, B. A., Sacks, G., Hall, K. D., McPherson, K., Finegood, D. T., Moodie, M. L., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2011). The
global obesity pandemic: Shaped by global drivers and local environments. The Lancet, 378(9793), 804–814.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60813-1

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
https://foodsystemsjournal.org
Volume 10, Issue 3 / Spring 2021 105
Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518-522.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959
Toensmeier, E. (2017). Perennial staple crops and agroforestry for climate change mitigation. In F. Montagnini (Ed.),
Integrating landscapes: Agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and food sovereignity (pp. 439–451). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69371-2_18
Vannozzi Brito, V., & Borelli, S. (2020). Urban food forestry and its role to increase food security: A Brazilian overview
and its potentialities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 56, 126835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126835
Wartman, P., van Acker, R., & Martin, R. (2018). Temperate agroforestry: How forest garden systems combined with
people-based ethics can transform culture. Sustainability, 10(7), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072246
Wiek, A., & Lang, D. J. (2016). Transformational sustainability research methodology. In H. Heinrichs, P. Martens,
G. Michelsen, & A. Wiek (Eds.), Sustainability science (pp. 31–41). Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_3
Young, K. J. (2017). Mimicking nature: A review of successional agroforestry systems as an analogue to natural
regeneration of secondary forest stands. In F. Montagnini (Ed.), Integrating landscapes: Agroforestry for biodiversity
conservation and food sovereignity (pp. 179–209). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69371-2_8