Benefits of Non-Commercial Urban Agricultural Practices—A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Urban agriculture refers to any type of activity located within or around a city designed to provide ecosystem services. Given the rapid population growth and urbanization, urban agriculture is seen as a potential alternative route to a more sustainable urban food system. This review answers the main question: What are the benefits of non-commercial of Urban Agriculture (NCUA) forms and its contribution towards food production? using a systematic literature review approach. The methodology involved capturing 1355 recent articles from qualified search engines, using key terms according to the defined question, then screened for relevance and the defined scope of this review, resulting in a final selection of 40 articles for analysis. The results show that implementing NCUA practices has multifaced social, economic, and environmental benefits, such as improving people’s health, reducing expenditure on food and creating sustainable cities, highlighting the need to recognize the multifaceted role of NCUA in promoting a more sustainable lifestyle and strengthening local communities and engagement. Moreover, awareness of urban agriculture differs between developed and developing countries, as does the recognition and valorization of its benefits. Further research is needed to examine the enabling factors and barriers to NCUA adoption in different urban context, the resource implications, and the long-term sustainability of these practices.

Full text

Citation: Boukharta, O.F.; Huang, I.Y.;
Vickers, L.; Navas-Gracia, L.M.;
Chico-Santamarta, L. Benefits of
Non-Commercial Urban Agricultural
Practices—A Systematic Literature
Review. Agronomy 2024,14, 234.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy14020234
Academic Editor: Rosa Maria Fanelli
Received: 29 December 2023
Revised: 20 January 2024
Accepted: 21 January 2024
Published: 23 January 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
agronomy
Review
Benefits of Non-Commercial Urban Agricultural Practices—A
Systematic Literature Review
Ouiam Fatiha Boukharta 1, * , Iona Yuelu Huang 2, Laura Vickers 3, Luis Manuel Navas-Gracia 1and
Leticia Chico-Santamarta 1, 4, *
1TADRUS Research Group, Department of Agricultural and Forestry Engineering, University of Valladolid,
47011 Valladolid, Spain; luismanuel.navas@uva.es
2
Food, Land and Agribusiness Management, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK;
ihuang@harper-adams.ac.uk
3
Agriculture and Environment Department, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK;
lvickers@harper-adams.ac.uk
4International Department, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
*Correspondence: ouiamfatiha.boukharta@uva.es (O.F.B.); lchico-santamarta@harper-adams.ac.uk (L.C.-S.)
Abstract: Urban agriculture refers to any type of activity located within or around a city designed to
provide ecosystem services. Given the rapid population growth and urbanization, urban agriculture
is seen as a potential alternative route to a more sustainable urban food system. This review answers
the main question: What are the benefits of non-commercial of Urban Agriculture (NCUA) forms
and its contribution towards food production? using a systematic literature review approach. The
methodology involved capturing 1355 recent articles from qualified search engines, using key terms
according to the defined question, then screened for relevance and the defined scope of this review,
resulting in a final selection of 40 articles for analysis. The results show that implementing NCUA
practices has multifaced social, economic, and environmental benefits, such as improving people’s
health, reducing expenditure on food and creating sustainable cities, highlighting the need to recog-
nize the multifaceted role of NCUA in promoting a more sustainable lifestyle and strengthening local
communities and engagement. Moreover, awareness of urban agriculture differs between developed
and developing countries, as does the recognition and valorization of its benefits. Further research is
needed to examine the enabling factors and barriers to NCUA adoption in different urban context,
the resource implications, and the long-term sustainability of these practices.
Keywords: non-commercial urban agriculture; benefits; community gardens; school gardens;
allotments; urban farms
1. Introduction
Ensuring sustainable urban food systems is of extreme importance, given that urban
areas are currently characterized by rapid population growth, aggressive food marketing,
and unhealthy diets [
1
]. Indeed, these areas and their inhabitants face numerous challenges
linked to the expansion of urbanization, including socio-economic, ecological, and environ-
mental issues, which have a negative impact on the environment and unsustainable urban
development and a huge impact on health [
2
]. According to the World Health Organization
(2020), we are now in an era of concern for mental health and well-being, in which the
presence of green spaces has been shown to reduce the mental health burden associated
with depression [
3
], affecting more than 264 million people. In addition, cities increasingly
need food supplies, but growth of cities is reducing urban and peri-urban green spaces and
removing food production. Sustainable food production should therefore be located close
to the centers of consumption [4].
To address these challenges, urban agriculture (UA) is seen as a potential solution that
can provide green space and bring food production [
5
]. Indeed, UA is defined as any type
Agronomy 2024,14, 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020234 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 2 of 19
of activity located within or at the periphery of a city and aimed at providing products and
ecosystem services to the residents, such as physical and mental health benefits, mitigation
of social and economic problems, and community resilience [6].
Many forms of UA are currently being practiced [
6
]. In this systematic review, the focus
is on NCUA, focusing particularly on urban farms, community gardens, school gardens,
and allotments. Community gardens (CG) have been defined as ‘open spaces which are
managed and operated by members of the local community in which food or flowers are
grown, and whose total area is maintained collectively, ranging from small neighborhood
gardens to larger ones of up to 1000 m2’ [6,7]. This is a popular strategy for strengthening
social cohesion and improving health [
1
]. As far as allotments (A) are concerned, they
have been defined as ‘plots of land designated by local authorities for the purpose of
growing vegetables for home consumption’ [
8
]. A occurs when land is acquired through a
personal-use lease [
8
]. Nevertheless, when A meet the criteria of growing food or flowers
in a communal manner, they can also be considered as CG [
9
]. Another form of NCUA
are school gardens (SG), which feature vacant land on school sites designed for a range of
food education-related agricultural activities involving student participation [
10
], which
are useful for improving children’s nutritional outcomes and knowledge [
11
], making
them more willing to try unfamiliar varieties of fruits and vegetables [
12
]. In addition, SG
provide an opportunity to meet and interact with other students in a natural environment,
developing social skills, communication, and cooperation [
13
]. The final form of UA that
is evaluated in this study is urban farms (UF), which are considered the main source of
income for many urban households [
14
]. According to the FAO, by 2022, urban and peri-
urban farmers will increasingly strive to produce high-demand crops efficiently, making
the best use of available resources and inputs, whether by planting in the ground or in
containers [
4
]. Moreover, they can provide shelter for birds and beneficial insects, helping
to preserve urban biodiversity [15].
The benefits of implementing NCUA practices within the cities have long been demon-
strated in the literature, which can be categorized into economic, environmental, and social
benefits. The literature considers NCUA to have a number of potential social benefits,
including strengthening social capital, increasing social cohesion and community resilience,
and improving public health [
16
]. Moreover, the positive social effects of being in nature
have been shown to increase feelings of generosity, friendship, and empathy [
17
,
18
]. Indeed,
it reduces personal feelings of anxiety and improves mental health and well-being [
19
–
21
].
In terms of economic benefits, a number of studies have shown that the implementation
of urban agricultural practices (UAP) helps to reduce the global food supply and demand
situation, as it can be seen as a source of income while providing direct access to a wider
range of nutritionally rich products [
22
]. In other words, UA can generate an additional
source of income, improving the economic situation of many households [
14
]. The final
aspect is that of the environmental, where the outcomes of UA are generally highly val-
ued and recognized by scientists for their great potential to improve the quality of urban
life and the environment [
23
]. In fact, the creation of UA spaces in cities helps to retain
stormwater, purify the air, and conserve biodiversity [
24
], thus helping to mitigate the
pollutants responsible for global warming [
25
]. Moreover, as food is grown and produced
locally, it reduces transport costs and ensures environmental protection [26].
In view of continuing population growth, shrinking urban spaces, and increasing food
insufficiency, it is worth discussing and examining the NCUA and its current relevance.
Although the categories of benefits of NCUA have been presented in existing literature,
there is a lack of understanding of the variations in the types of benefits derived from
different forms of NCUA and how these benefits may vary in different contexts. To this
end, the following main research question (RQ) was defined:
What are the benefits of non-commercial forms of Urban Agriculture and its contri-
bution towards food production?
To facilitate the understanding and structure of this review, this main question is
complemented by the following sub-research questions:

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 3 of 19
-
RQ1: Which countries have conducted this type of research? And what are the
similarities and differences across countries/continents?
- RQ2: What forms of NCUA food production have been practiced?
-
RQ3: What are the similarities and differences reported across different forms of UA?
-
RQ4: What are the challenges and limitations of implementing UAP faced by the
authors of the selected articles in this review?
The main objective of this systematic review is therefore to synthesize the evidence
on the benefits of NCUA practices, since much of the existing research is case-specific
and lacks a comprehensive systematic analysis of the benefits in different contexts and
at different scales, such as the lack of awareness of these projects, the benefits they bring
to the population and the city, and the feasibility of integrating UAP [
27
,
28
]. To this end,
and through this review, we aim to summarize the findings and relevance of the available
literature, using a systematic mapping, in order to provide an overview of NCUA practices
to ensure a healthy and accessible food supply while improving urban environmental
performance for current and future generations.
Section 2describes the methodology used for this review and presents the main
inclusion and exclusion criteria that enabled the final selection of the articles analyzed
and coded to answer and address our RQs. Section 3presents the results and conclusions
of this analysis, highlighting the different categories of NCUA benefits, the differences
between and across countries, along with the difficulties and limitations reported in the
selected articles with regard to NCUA implementation. Section 4places these results in a
clearer perspective, exploring some of the main implications of the NCUA, taking up the
results at a global level and filling in the gaps found in the literature. The final section is the
conclusion, in which an overview of the current situation is presented, together with some
recommendations that should be followed for better implementation of the future NCUA.
2. Materials and Methods
The methodology used in this review follows the systematic literature review process
recommended by James et al. (2016). This involved searching for and capturing relevant
articles on the topic under review, using key terms derived from the main RQ, and then
screening them according to their relevance to the specific topic of this study, and other
criteria that will be described further in the following sub-sections. The methodology
aimed at ensuring a rigorous, comprehensive, and objective literature collection and filter-
ing processes, in order to reduce reviewer selection and publication bias and guarantee
transparency of evidence inclusion decisions [29].
2.1. Search Strategy
The databases consulted included the Web of Science and Scopus search engines. The
search terms used were developed on the basis of the key elements of a systematic literature
review: population, intervention, and outcomes, where population refers to the object of
our study, in this case urban agriculture, intervention refers to the description of the action
addressed and the studies, namely food production in this review, and outcomes represent
the results we wish to find, which are benefits. In addition, Boolean operators such as
“AND” and “OR” were used for the combinations of our keywords for this search, enabling
the following string to be formed:
((((urban AND (agricul* OR farm*)) OR “community garden*” OR “school garden*”
OR allotment*) AND benef*) AND (food OR fruit* OR veg*)).
Details of the components and relevant key terms are presented in Table 1.
In terms of components, it shows the different ways in which a keyword can be
searched for. For example, in the case of urban agriculture, agriculture can be written in
different ways, such as agriculture, agricultural, etc., which is then searched for under
agricul*; similarly, benefits, which can be written in different ways, such as benefit, benefits,
beneficial, etc., to avoid missing information, is searched for under benef*. This is the best
way to be sure of obtaining all the relevant information needed to address our problem.

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 4 of 19
Table 1. Search terms used in Scopus and Web of Science.
Components Key Terms
Population
urban agricul*—urban farm* urban AND (agricul* OR farm*)
school garden—school gardens “school garden*”
community garden—community
gardens
“community garden*”
allotment*
Intervention food production food OR fruit* OR Veg*
Outcomes benefit—benefits—beneficial—
benefic—etc. benef*
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria for this review were articles and early accepted articles published
in English between 2016 and 17 January 2023 to ensure that the review included the
most recent literature on the subject, given that the growing interest in UAP and their
implementation in cities has improved since 2016, and increased significantly from 2020.
No country limitation was used, as the aim was to carry out a global review. The specific
inclusion and exclusion criteria presented in Table 2were applied manually for screening
at title and abstract and at full text. If the criteria could not be applied at title and abstract
screening due to incomplete information, they were included for full text screening.
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Criterion Eligibility Exclusion
Document type
Articles and early accepted articles
Conference papers, book chapters,
reviews, editorials,
conference reviews,
Open and non-open access full text articles not accessible
Language English Others
Timeline From January 2016 until 17
January 2023 Before 2016
Relevance
Non-commercial urban agriculture
Commercial urban agriculture
Type of articles
Empirical paper with primary
findings about the benefits
of NCUA
Review papers, commentaries, or
primary studies with no
benefits reported
2.3. Data Extraction and Analysis
The search and selection process identified 1754 articles from the Web of Science and
Scopus search engines. After deleting 399 duplicates, the total number of articles selected
was 1355. After applying the inclusion criteria by selecting articles and early accepted
articles in open and non-open access, all in English between 2016 and 17 January 2023, as
well as the exclusion criteria, excluding conference papers, book chapters, etc., directly
from Web of Science and Scopus via the selection filters provided on their web pages, and
then checking the resulting data and eliminating articles that do not meet our selection
criteria, 45 articles were deemed eligible for results mapping. When coding and analyzing
each article, 5 articles were excluded: 2 for including commercial UAP, 2 for not including
any NCUA content, and 1 for not including any NCUA benefits, which resulted in a
final selection of 40 articles for analysis. The diagram illustrated in the PRISMA Figure 1
demonstrates in detail the process and results of screening stage by stage.

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 5 of 19
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20
selection of 40 articles for analysis. The diagram illustrated in the PRISMA Figure 1
demonstrates in detail the process and results of screening stage by stage.
Figure 1. The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the systematic literature review process (adapted from
Page et al., 2020 [30]).
A qualitative synthesis approach was adopted to map the results of the included ar-
ticles. For this purpose, the software used in the present review is NVivo, one of the most
used qualitative data management programs. NVivo has features such as character-based
coding, rich text capabilities, and multimedia functions that are crucial for qualitative data
management [31]. In addition, it enables researchers to process large amounts of data with
greater transparency and provides opportunity for double-checking the reliability of cod-
ing by members of the research team [32].
Figure 1. The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the systematic literature review process (adapted from
Page et al., 2020 [30]).
A qualitative synthesis approach was adopted to map the results of the included
articles. For this purpose, the software used in the present review is NVivo, one of the most
used qualitative data management programs. NVivo has features such as character-based
coding, rich text capabilities, and multimedia functions that are crucial for qualitative data
management [
31
]. In addition, it enables researchers to process large amounts of data with
greater transparency and provides opportunity for double-checking the reliability of coding
by members of the research team [32].
3. Results
The following sections present the results obtained from this review, which clearly
answer our main RQ and the sub-questions. It should be noted that across the articles
obtained, there is a steady increase in the number of articles published per year, with

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 6 of 19
accelerated progression from 2020 to 2023, showing that the concept of UA has become
more popular in recent years, and that interest in its application is growing.
3.1. Study Sites Location
From the included papers, Figure 2shows the number of articles from different
countries using a map to facilitate data analysis and processing the country distribution
of the selected studies using a bar chart indicating the number of articles published by
each country:
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20
3. Results
The following sections present the results obtained from this review, which clearly
answer our main RQ and the sub-questions. It should be noted that across the articles
obtained, there is a steady increase in the number of articles published per year, with ac-
celerated progression from 2020 to 2023, showing that the concept of UA has become more
popular in recent years, and that interest in its application is growing.
3.1. Study Sites Location
From the included papers, Figure 2 shows the number of articles from different coun-
tries using a map to facilitate data analysis and processing the country distribution of the
selected studies using a bar chart indicating the number of articles published by each
country:
Figure 2. Location of the study sites identified from the 40 articles analyzed in this systematic liter-
ature review, represented on a world map featuring a heatmap showing the number of articles pub-
lished per country (where the darker the color, the more articles exist).
Figure 2 shows that there was a very wide distribution of NCUA related studies
throughout this research, in which it can be seen that around 30 countries were analyzed.
Figure 2 also presents a heatmap showing the frequency of articles published by country,
where the darker the color, the more articles were published. It can be seen that USA and
Canada have the highest number of published articles in this overview. Figure 2 is com-
plemented by Figure 3, which illustrates in greater detail the countries where the most
UAP have been analyzed:
Figure 2. Location of the study sites identified from the 40 articles analyzed in this systematic
literature review, represented on a world map featuring a heatmap showing the number of articles
published per country (where the darker the color, the more articles exist).
Figure 2shows that there was a very wide distribution of NCUA related studies
throughout this research, in which it can be seen that around 30 countries were analyzed.
Figure 2also presents a heatmap showing the frequency of articles published by country,
where the darker the color, the more articles were published. It can be seen that USA
and Canada have the highest number of published articles in this overview. Figure 2is
complemented by Figure 3, which illustrates in greater detail the countries where the most
UAP have been analyzed:
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20
3. Results
The following sections present the results obtained from this review, which clearly
answer our main RQ and the sub-questions. It should be noted that across the articles
obtained, there is a steady increase in the number of articles published per year, with ac-
celerated progression from 2020 to 2023, showing that the concept of UA has become more
popular in recent years, and that interest in its application is growing.
3.1. Study Sites Location
From the included papers, Figure 2 shows the number of articles from different coun-
tries using a map to facilitate data analysis and processing the country distribution of the
selected studies using a bar chart indicating the number of articles published by each
country:
Figure 2. Location of the study sites identified from the 40 articles analyzed in this systematic liter-
ature review, represented on a world map featuring a heatmap showing the number of articles pub-
lished per country (where the darker the color, the more articles exist).
Figure 2 shows that there was a very wide distribution of NCUA related studies
throughout this research, in which it can be seen that around 30 countries were analyzed.
Figure 2 also presents a heatmap showing the frequency of articles published by country,
where the darker the color, the more articles were published. It can be seen that USA and
Canada have the highest number of published articles in this overview. Figure 2 is com-
plemented by Figure 3, which illustrates in greater detail the countries where the most
UAP have been analyzed:
Figure 3. Cross-country distribution of articles analyzed in this review.
According to Figure 3, the largest number of articles are found in USA, Australia,
Canada, UK, and EU countries. In addition, other African and Asian countries are also

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 7 of 19
implementing UA, such as Morocco and Malaysia, demonstrating that NCUA is now a
global concept that is increasingly widespread around the world (particularly in more
developed countries), given the benefits it provides.
3.2. NCUA across Continents
In North America, food insecurity affected around 14.3 million people in 2018 [
33
].
Consequently, NCUA has become very popular in New York City, which has at least
500 urban spaces [
34
]. The aim is to improve access to fresh produce for city dwellers,
especially the food-insecure, and has been attributed to tackling poverty and food shortages
in times of war and economic depression [35].
In Australia, rapid population growth and ageing in capital cities are increasing
pressure on social, environmental, and public health systems, where one in four Australians
experience chronic episodes of loneliness [
10
]. Australian local authorities are therefore
coordinating their efforts to improve the urban canopy within the cities, which would offer
significant opportunities to improve well-being [36].
The NCUA situation in Europe differs from country to country: Germany is a typical
European country where NCUA is about much more than just food production, and
where there is an appreciation of the benefits NCUA brings to citizens, through active
participation in European Union projects [
37
]. In the UK, therapeutic and prescriptive
gardening is gaining increasing support to help people overcome or live with mental health
problems [
9
,
38
]. In Spain, CG have only emerged recently and are developing rapidly. In
Croatia, urbanization, environmental issues, the future development of tourism, and social
issues (mental health, unhealthy diet, and poverty) are behind the development of UA [
39
].
In North Africa, Morocco has an agricultural strategy adopted in 2008, known as the
Plan Maroc Vert (Green Morocco Plan, in English), and whose second pillar supports small-
and medium-sized farmers so as to encourage the implementation of NCUA within the
cities [
40
]. Finally, in South Africa, several studies have been conducted to assess the role
of NCUA in contributing towards poverty alleviation and food security [41].
3.3. Forms of NCUA Identified
Many forms of NCUA can be implemented in a city, including community gardens
(CG), allotments (A), school gardens (SG), and urban farms (UF) [
3
]. In this section, the
aim is to map the different forms of NCUA studied in different countries on the basis of
the articles selected, processed and analyzed in this review. To this end, Figure 4presents
the result of the cross-tabulation analysis of the forms of NCUA identified in the studies
carried out in the selected countries.
Figure 4shows that the most widespread form of NCUA found from the selected
articles is CG, with 29 articles out of 40, followed by UF and then A and SG (this analysis
considered that the same study can deal with several forms of NCUA at the same time).
Other forms of NCUA reportedly used are rooftop gardens, backyard gardens, etc., but
these were not part of the selection criteria of this review. These results show that there is
a diversity in the implementation of different forms of NCUA within countries, differing
from a country to another, as explained in Section 3.4.
3.4. Forms of NCUA by Countries
CG is an abundant form of UA. Figure 4shows that of the 11 articles analyzed in
the USA, 10 address CG cases, while in Australia and Spain, CG cases are found in all
the articles analyzed from these two countries. For the other countries, only 3 of the
18 categories selected do not contain that form of NCUA in their analysis.
Regarding UF, it is the second frequently used NCUA form in this review, which
is most widely used in multi-countries (studies that evaluated more than one country),
followed by Italy and USA. Finally, UF, A, and SG forms were the least used in the selected
articles for this review.

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 8 of 19
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
Figure 4. Cross-tabulation of NCUA forms implemented across the countries evaluated in the se-
lected articles of this review. A: allotments; CG: community gardens; SG: school gardens; UF: urban
farms. Colors: red: no articles mentioning the form of NCUA practices; yellow: low; dark yellow:
medium; light green: high; dark green: very high (Source: the authors).
Figure 4 shows that the most widespread form of NCUA found from the selected
articles is CG, with 29 articles out of 40, followed by UF and then A and SG (this analysis
considered that the same study can deal with several forms of NCUA at the same time).
Other forms of NCUA reportedly used are rooftop gardens, backyard gardens, etc., but
these were not part of the selection criteria of this review. These results show that there is
a diversity in the implementation of different forms of NCUA within countries, differing
from a country to another, as explained in Section 3.4.
3.4. Forms of NCUA by Countries
CG is an abundant form of UA. Figure 4 shows that of the 11 articles analyzed in the
USA, 10 address CG cases, while in Australia and Spain, CG cases are found in all the
articles analyzed from these two countries. For the other countries, only 3 of the 18 cate-
gories selected do not contain that form of NCUA in their analysis.
Regarding UF, it is the second frequently used NCUA form in this review, which is
most widely used in multi-countries (studies that evaluated more than one country), fol-
lowed by Italy and USA. Finally, UF, A, and SG forms were the least used in the selected
articles for this review.
3.5. Methodology Employed and Its Link to NCUA Forms
Understanding the methodology employed to analyze the different NCUA forms is
one of the main objectives of this review. The following subsections will present different
results extracted from the analysis carried out via coding in NVivo 14 Software:
Figure 4. Cross-tabulation of NCUA forms implemented across the countries evaluated in the selected
articles of this review. A: allotments; CG: community gardens; SG: school gardens; UF: urban farms.
Colors: red: no articles mentioning the form of NCUA practices; yellow: low; dark yellow: medium;
light green: high; dark green: very high (Source: the authors).
3.5. Methodology Employed and Its Link to NCUA Forms
Understanding the methodology employed to analyze the different NCUA forms is
one of the main objectives of this review. The following subsections will present different
results extracted from the analysis carried out via coding in NVivo 14 Software:
3.5.1. Methodologies Used for the Realization of the Article
Identifying the different research methods used in each of our 40 articles provides a
better understanding of the type of research methods employed to analyze the benefits of
NCUA, as shown in Figure 5:
Figure 5shows that the most commonly used research methods approach adopted
is the survey to collect data for analysis. Surveys were used in 15 articles out of 40 (37%),
followed by interviews and observation with 7.5% each, and finally the experimental
method with 5%.
The use of the mixed method is the most interesting. Indeed, it indicates that the most
frequent approach in the articles was to use a mixture of research methods. The percentage
breakdown of the mixed method is presented in more detail in Figure 6.
In these 17 articles out of 40, surveys have the highest percentage of use, followed by
interviews, and finally observation and experimentation (Figure 6). The results show that
the joint use of surveys and interviews to analyze NCUA forms is favored for analysis, and
can be supplemented by observation and/or experimentation, making understanding and
evaluation more precise.

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 9 of 19
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20
3.5.1. Methodologies Used for the Realization of the Article
Identifying the different research methods used in each of our 40 articles provides a
better understanding of the type of research methods employed to analyze the benefits of
NCUA, as shown in Figure 5:
Figure 5. Number of articles that employed exclusively each research methodology in the selected
articles, except for the mixed category which is where articles employed more than one research
method.
Figure 5 shows that the most commonly used research methods approach adopted is
the survey to collect data for analysis. Surveys were used in 15 articles out of 40 (37%),
followed by interviews and observation with 7.5% each, and finally the experimental
method with 5%.
The use of the mixed method is the most interesting. Indeed, it indicates that the most
frequent approach in the articles was to use a mixture of research methods. The percentage
breakdown of the mixed method is presented in more detail in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Frequency of use of each search method in articles using the mixed search method.
In these 17 articles out of 40, surveys have the highest percentage of use, followed by
interviews, and finally observation and experimentation (Figure 6). The results show that
the joint use of surveys and interviews to analyze NCUA forms is favored for analysis,
and can be supplemented by observation and/or experimentation, making understanding
and evaluation more precise.
Figure 5. Number of articles that employed exclusively each research methodology in the selected arti-
cles, except for the mixed category which is where articles employed more than one
research method
.
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20
3.5.1. Methodologies Used for the Realization of the Article
Identifying the different research methods used in each of our 40 articles provides a
better understanding of the type of research methods employed to analyze the benefits of
NCUA, as shown in Figure 5:
Figure 5. Number of articles that employed exclusively each research methodology in the selected
articles, except for the mixed category which is where articles employed more than one research
method.
Figure 5 shows that the most commonly used research methods approach adopted is
the survey to collect data for analysis. Surveys were used in 15 articles out of 40 (37%),
followed by interviews and observation with 7.5% each, and finally the experimental
method with 5%.
The use of the mixed method is the most interesting. Indeed, it indicates that the most
frequent approach in the articles was to use a mixture of research methods. The percentage
breakdown of the mixed method is presented in more detail in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Frequency of use of each search method in articles using the mixed search method.
In these 17 articles out of 40, surveys have the highest percentage of use, followed by
interviews, and finally observation and experimentation (Figure 6). The results show that
the joint use of surveys and interviews to analyze NCUA forms is favored for analysis,
and can be supplemented by observation and/or experimentation, making understanding
and evaluation more precise.
Figure 6. Frequency of use of each search method in articles using the mixed search method.
3.5.2. The Methodology Used for Each NCUA Form
One of the main purposes of this systematic review is to analyze the relationship
between the different forms of NCUA and the research methodology used. To this end,
Figure 7details the methodology used for each UA form.
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20
3.5.2. The Methodology Used for Each NCUA Form
One of the main purposes of this systematic review is to analyze the relationship be-
tween the different forms of NCUA and the research methodology used. To this end, Fig-
ure 7 details the methodology used for each UA form.
Figure 7. Number of articles that used each research methodology, related to the form of non-com-
mercial Urban Agriculture Practice evaluated.
Figure 7 shows that several research methods are used to analyze the implementation
of NCUA in cities and the resulting benefits, i.e., through interviews, surveys, experi-
ments, observations, or even a mix of these methods employing at least two of them, mak-
ing the analysis more precise and comprehensive. Experimental methodology is the least
used in the articles selected, and was used in only 2 articles out of 40. For interviews and
observation, four and three articles, respectively, used only these methods to obtain re-
sults. Once again, the methodology most used in our 40 articles is the mixed method,
which is employed for the majority of UA forms, where CG is the most analyzed with this
approach, followed by UF, SG, and A.
These results show us the diversity of existing research methodologies employed for
analyzing the use of UA and the benefits they bring, and shows preference for some re-
search strategies over others.
3.6. Benefits of the Implementation of NCUA Practices
Identifying the benefits that NCUA practices bring is the main objective of this review
article. Indeed, in-depth coding of the selected articles has resulted in the cross-tabulated
table shown in Figure 8, which was obtained from NVivo 14 Software, and where the
green color refers to the highest number of studies and the red color to the lowest number.
Figure 7. Number of articles that used each research methodology, related to the form of non-
commercial Urban Agriculture Practice evaluated.
Figure 7shows that several research methods are used to analyze the implementation
of NCUA in cities and the resulting benefits, i.e., through interviews, surveys, experiments,

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 10 of 19
observations, or even a mix of these methods employing at least two of them, making
the analysis more precise and comprehensive. Experimental methodology is the least
used in the articles selected, and was used in only 2 articles out of 40. For interviews and
observation, four and three articles, respectively, used only these methods to obtain results.
Once again, the methodology most used in our 40 articles is the mixed method, which is
employed for the majority of UA forms, where CG is the most analyzed with this approach,
followed by UF, SG, and A.
These results show us the diversity of existing research methodologies employed
for analyzing the use of UA and the benefits they bring, and shows preference for some
research strategies over others.
3.6. Benefits of the Implementation of NCUA Practices
Identifying the benefits that NCUA practices bring is the main objective of this review
article. Indeed, in-depth coding of the selected articles has resulted in the cross-tabulated
table shown in Figure 8, which was obtained from NVivo 14 Software, and where the green
color refers to the highest number of studies and the red color to the lowest number.
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20
3.5.2. The Methodology Used for Each NCUA Form
One of the main purposes of this systematic review is to analyze the relationship be-
tween the different forms of NCUA and the research methodology used. To this end, Fig-
ure 7 details the methodology used for each UA form.
Figure 7. Number of articles that used each research methodology, related to the form of non-com-
mercial Urban Agriculture Practice evaluated.
Figure 7 shows that several research methods are used to analyze the implementation
of NCUA in cities and the resulting benefits, i.e., through interviews, surveys, experi-
ments, observations, or even a mix of these methods employing at least two of them, mak-
ing the analysis more precise and comprehensive. Experimental methodology is the least
used in the articles selected, and was used in only 2 articles out of 40. For interviews and
observation, four and three articles, respectively, used only these methods to obtain re-
sults. Once again, the methodology most used in our 40 articles is the mixed method,
which is employed for the majority of UA forms, where CG is the most analyzed with this
approach, followed by UF, SG, and A.
These results show us the diversity of existing research methodologies employed for
analyzing the use of UA and the benefits they bring, and shows preference for some re-
search strategies over others.
3.6. Benefits of the Implementation of NCUA Practices
Identifying the benefits that NCUA practices bring is the main objective of this review
article. Indeed, in-depth coding of the selected articles has resulted in the cross-tabulated
table shown in Figure 8, which was obtained from NVivo 14 Software, and where the
green color refers to the highest number of studies and the red color to the lowest number.
Figure 8. Cross tabulation showing the frequency of benefit against the types of UA: CG: community
gardens; UF: urban farms; SG: school garden. Colors: red: lowest number of articles that mentioned
the type of NCUA related to the category of benefits; yellow: low; dark yellow: medium; light yellow:
high; green: low; light green: high; dark green: very high (Source: the authors).
Categories of Benefits Identified in This SR
The findings from the analysis of this systematic review shows that the benefits of
NCUA can be divided into three categories: economic, environmental, and social:
•
Economic benefits: the implementation of NCUA practices helps to promote commu-
nity resilience and stimulate economic development [
42
]. The analysis of this aspect
identified two sub-categories, namely cost reduction and income generation: cost
reduction is related to people saving money on their groceries [
43
], by reducing the
prices and making them accessible to low-income households [
44
]; income generation
relates specifically to the fact that these gardens offer the opportunity to develop an
agricultural system that matches their values and is adapted to their needs, and which
can be translated into revenue [45,46].
•
Environmental benefits: implementing NCUA practices has been shown to promote
greening and environmental enhancement [
10
,
47
], support city adaptation to climate
change, and reduce human damage and health problems [
4
]. NCUA helps to improve
carbon sequestration and limit extreme weather events, thereby improving the quality
of urban life and the environment [23].
•
Social benefits: the main benefit of implementing UAP would be to improve well-being
in terms of mental and physical health [
9
,
38
]. The most obvious would be to increase
access to fresh and healthy products. In addition, NCUA can play an important role in

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 11 of 19
the social integration of less privileged people at risk of social exclusion, contributing
to a more sustainable society [13,21].
Figure 8presents a cross-tabulation of the results obtained, demonstrating the out-
comes of implementing these practices linked to its various forms of NCUA:
As shown in Figure 8, there were four sub-categories under social benefits in the
40 articles
selected and analyzed in this systematic review. All the articles that analyzed the
CG form of NCUA reported social benefits of UA, focusing on the human aspects, including
health benefits, nutrition, and trusting relationships with others. Furthermore, all three
studies of allotments (A) reported the social benefits, especially for the socio-economic and
human subcategories. Economic benefits were reported in 20 of the 40 articles, with results
showing that setting up UA areas could save money and generate income for individuals,
and where, once again, the CG form of NCUA had the highest frequency of reported
economic benefits (Figure 8). Finally, environmental benefits were the least reported, found
in 16 articles out of 40, although all 6 studies using a mixed form of NCUA reported
environmental benefits.
3.7. Benefits vs. Countries
The main objective of this literature review is to identify the different benefits of
involving NCUA spaces within cities, which has been reported in the previous section.
In addition, this section shows whether there is any variability in the reported benefits
of NCUA across the countries identified in the selected articles. Figure 9presents a cross
tabulation of the benefits of NCUA in relation to the countries studied, in order to better
identify the potential/targeted benefits of NCUA use in each country:
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
Figure 9. Cross tabulation showing the frequency of evocation of the benefits of involvement and
integration of urban practices across the countries covered through the analysis of the articles se-
lected for this review. Colors: red: no articles mentioning the benefits of NCUA per country; yellow:
low; dark yellow: medium; green: low; light green: high; dark green: very high (Source: the authors).
From Figure 9, the USA is by far the country that cited the most benefits compared
with other countries, especially for health and nutrition. Second place goes to Australia,
which also has the greatest number of reports on the social aspect, followed by community
networking. In third place come Canada, Spain, Italy, and the multi-countries (studies that
evaluated more than a country), all of which mention the benefits of NCUA in their arti-
cles, focusing almost equally on all three aspects.
Figure 9 also shows that the social aspect is most often mentioned in the 40 selected
articles, with health and benefits being the most cited in the 19 countries analyzed (31 out
of 40 articles), followed by community and networking, and mental health. Economic ben-
efits were the second most common focus (20 of the 40 articles), and were most frequently
mentioned in studies carried out in the USA, Canada, and multi-countries. Economic ben-
efits were not the focus of studies in countries such as Australia, Morocco, and Iran. Lastly,
the environmental aspect was the least mentioned, being mentioned in less than half the
articles, particularly in the USA, Australia, Canada, and multi-countries.
The final analysis involved mapping each article according to the benefits reported,
as shown in Figure 10, providing an overview of the results founded by each article with
regard to economic, social, and environment aspects, and which have been explained
above.
Figure 9. Cross tabulation showing the frequency of evocation of the benefits of involvement and
integration of urban practices across the countries covered through the analysis of the articles selected
for this review. Colors: red: no articles mentioning the benefits of NCUA per country; yellow: low;
dark yellow: medium; green: low; light green: high; dark green: very high (Source: the authors).

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 12 of 19
From Figure 9, the USA is by far the country that cited the most benefits compared
with other countries, especially for health and nutrition. Second place goes to Australia,
which also has the greatest number of reports on the social aspect, followed by community
networking. In third place come Canada, Spain, Italy, and the multi-countries (studies that
evaluated more than a country), all of which mention the benefits of NCUA in their articles,
focusing almost equally on all three aspects.
Figure 9also shows that the social aspect is most often mentioned in the 40 selected
articles, with health and benefits being the most cited in the 19 countries analyzed (31 out of
40 articles), followed by community and networking, and mental health. Economic benefits
were the second most common focus (20 of the 40 articles), and were most frequently
mentioned in studies carried out in the USA, Canada, and multi-countries. Economic
benefits were not the focus of studies in countries such as Australia, Morocco, and Iran.
Lastly, the environmental aspect was the least mentioned, being mentioned in less than
half the articles, particularly in the USA, Australia, Canada, and multi-countries.
The final analysis involved mapping each article according to the benefits reported, as
shown in Figure 10, providing an overview of the results founded by each article with re-
gard to economic, social, and environment aspects, and which have been
explained above
.
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20
Figure 10. Matrix coding query that summarizes all information obtained in this systematic review
and which showed individual authors against the different benefits. Binary system where 1 shows
the presence of the benefit and 0 reflects its absence (Source: the authors) [1–4,6,8–
10,13,14,17,23,25,27,28,34–57].
Figures 9 and 10 show that only one article mentions that there are no significant
social benefits. This study was carried out in France, where the authors describe that “that
the practice of gardening for one year in a CG may not be sufficient to change health and
sustainability behaviors”, giving a culturally dependent aspect to consider in the analysis.
3.8. Reported Challenges and Limitations from the Studies against NCUA Implementation
The analysis of the articles selected for this review has enabled the identification of a
number of challenges and limitations in the implementation of UAP, which may differ
from one situation to another, and which have been commented on by the authors:
3.8.1. Challenges
Despite the many positive effects of UA, its implementation faces a number of chal-
lenges. The field is still under-researched and requires collaboration between agricultural
specialists, developers, and local authorities [39]. Pollution could be one of the major prob-
lems for the safe production of urban food systems. For example, urban soils may be con-
taminated or of poor quality, so local production and consumption need to be monitored;
access to water may also reduce their implementation [4,48]. Another challenge is to en-
sure that UAP values are reflected in urban planning and decision-making, including civic
engagement and willingness [49,50]. NCUA is now gaining ground around the world, but
Figure 10. Matrix coding query that summarizes all information obtained in this systematic review
and which showed individual authors against the different benefits. Binary system where 1 shows
the presence of the benefit and 0 reflects its absence (Source: the authors) [
1
–
4
,
6
,
8
–
10
,
13
,
14
,
17
,
23
,
25
,
27,28,34–57].
Figures 9and 10 show that only one article mentions that there are no significant
social benefits. This study was carried out in France, where the authors describe that “that

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 13 of 19
the practice of gardening for one year in a CG may not be sufficient to change health and
sustainability behaviors”, giving a culturally dependent aspect to consider in the analysis.
3.8. Reported Challenges and Limitations from the Studies against NCUA Implementation
The analysis of the articles selected for this review has enabled the identification of
a number of challenges and limitations in the implementation of UAP, which may differ
from one situation to another, and which have been commented on by the authors:
3.8.1. Challenges
Despite the many positive effects of UA, its implementation faces a number of chal-
lenges. The field is still under-researched and requires collaboration between agricultural
specialists, developers, and local authorities [
39
]. Pollution could be one of the major
problems for the safe production of urban food systems. For example, urban soils may be
contaminated or of poor quality, so local production and consumption need to be monitored;
access to water may also reduce their implementation [
4
,
48
]. Another challenge is to ensure
that UAP values are reflected in urban planning and decision-making, including civic
engagement and willingness [
49
,
50
]. NCUA is now gaining ground around the world, but
its true value is not understood beyond its ability to help reduce food insecurity [
45
]. More-
over, NCUA offers an opportunity for creating jobs, which should be of major importance,
reducing poverty and enabling households to have access to food [41].
3.8.2. Limitations
Regarding the limitations identified from the selected articles in this systematic litera-
ture review, most articles reveal that gardens face political obstacles due to zoning laws,
unreliable access to water, and lack of funding and access to land, where discrepancies be-
tween theory and reality of operations are striking with regard to NCUA economics [
43
,
51
].
In addition, many authors have also mentioned a lack of awareness of how to carry out a
project (technical knowledge, engaging the community, etc.), ref. [
4
,
27
], as well as a lack of
empirical evidence to support claims of environmental benefits on how general gardening
and horticultural activities can potentially shape the environment of urban areas [28].
4. Discussion
With more than half of the world’s population currently living in cities and an urban
population estimated to reach 60% by 2030 [
3
], achieving more sustainable, livable, and
resilient cities is one of the greatest challenges for urban policy and planning in the 21st
century [
58
]. This systematic literature review analyzed the benefits that different forms of
NCUA bring to the population, and to the city itself, in different countries. The results show
that NCUAs have multiple functions, which contribute to a variety of outcomes associated
with urban food systems, in the different cases and countries analyzed [
59
], and which can
be categorized into social, environmental, and economic aspects, explained more in depth
in the following sections.
4.1. Social Benefits
The implementation of NCUA yielded in four categories of social benefits from garden-
ing: mental health and wellbeing, society economic growth and employment opportunities,
nutrition, and social cohesion: First, mental health and wellbeing, where it was found
that living in green environments was associated with reduced instances of depression
and helped reduce personal feelings of anxiety [
60
], with an 8–12% reduction in mortal-
ity risk [
9
,
35
,
61
]. Secondly, the society economic growth and employment opportunities,
where a number of professionals, technicians, and farmers are hired to manage the UAP
by offering help and advice to users [
62
], making these NCUA areas a “refuge sector” for
unemployed workers, retired people, or failed entrepreneurs [
46
,
52
]. In the third place
comes the nutrition aspect, where gardens expand access to healthy nutritional fruits and
vegetables in economically significant quantities, and where fruit and vegetable consump-

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 14 of 19
tion has improved [
53
,
63
], increasing food security and providing livelihoods for urban
dwellers [
64
]. Finally, the social inclusion is the aspect most cited by the authors of the
articles selected for this systematic review. Indeed, the implementation of NCUA offers
spaces for socialization and, consequently, multiple opportunities to increased ‘social cohe-
sion and integration’ [
19
], which can be defined as links between individuals that cultivate
norms of reciprocity and civic engagement [
65
], helping people to break out of isolation
and anxiety [54].
4.2. Environmental Benefits
The analysis of the 40 selected articles shows that the implementation of NCUA makes
an essential contribution to the sustainable development goal of creating sustainable cities
and communities [
55
], where environmental sustainability remains a potential priority [
56
].
They could help improve the green infrastructure that contributes to creating and main-
taining habitats for a wide range of plants and animals by providing shelter and nesting
sites, offering water and food resources, and integrating into surrounding ecosystems. [
56
].
A number of potential biodiversity enhancements in CG have been identified, such as
plants that attract and feed pollinators [
15
]. In addition, one of the main environmental
benefits cited for different forms of NCUA in different countries is improved air quality,
increased air humidity, and lower air temperatures during the summer months, which
can significantly mitigate the urban heat [
23
]. Furthermore, the implementation of NCUA
forms enables community development as a means of rebuilding declining cities and
neighborhoods and reducing food miles and the resulting carbon emissions [66].
4.3. Economical Benefits
In terms of economic benefits, this review finds that the implementation of urban areas
has improved the economic situation of many households, as gardens inherently amplify
the aesthetic appeal of neighborhoods, and as a result, are likely to increase property values
in the immediate vicinity, particularly in deprived neighborhoods [
14
]. Indeed, results
suggest that gardeners harvest nutritionally and economically significant quantities of
food [
63
], and also enable the integration of aspects of Circular Economy [
67
]. Moreover, at
an individual level, growing one’s own produce also has a tangible economic benefit, as it
reduces the amount spent on groceries, although the exact savings have not been studied
extensively [68].
From the analysis presented above, it is clear that using this systematic literature
review processing approach has helped to address our main problematic, namely the
identification of the outcomes and benefits that the implementation of NCUA brings to
the city and the population, which may vary from case to case and person to person, but
nevertheless offer many of the services we are looking for today.
The findings of this review are aligned with the results found by Nikoli´c et al. (2022),
who highlight the potential of UA in providing alternative food sources for growing urban
populations, focusing on UA’s multifunctionality and its perceived benefits in improving
cities and combating food insecurity, taking into account the various economic and social
impacts of UA, along with its environmental potential for mitigating the effects of climate
change and creating sustainable cities [
69
]. Furthermore, in 2023, Boukharta et al. also stated
the importance for policy makers and urban planners to consider the potential benefits of
UA and to prioritize stakeholder engagement in the development and implementation of
NCUA [70].
The explanation of the significance of the results and actions taken can be reinforced
by a qualitative assessment with benchmarks focusing on aspects such as resource use,
community involvement, the impact and benefits of NCUA, and their measurement against
established standards to assess the performance and impact of the UA initiative.

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 15 of 19
5. Conclusions
UA has multiple functions, contributing to a variety of outcomes associated with
localized urban food systems, including food access, food and agriculture education,
community building, and civic engagement [
57
,
70
]. The analysis of the articles selected
for this review has enabled us to identify a number of benefits that the NCUA forms
provide, such as improving the health and well-being of the population, increasing the
social inclusion and society economic growth, helping customers to obtain a variety of
fruit and vegetables at lower prices, purifying the air, etc., and which can be categorized
into three aspects, namely social, economic, and environmental. Furthermore, the results
obtained clearly show that there is a difference in the implementation of UAP and the
assessment of its benefits between countries, with UA being more common and encouraged
in developed countries and less known and used in developing countries, suggesting the
need to explain and share the concept further within communities, which has also been
mentioned by Boukharta et al. (2023), by organizing workshops for residents along with
other activities that can help strengthen ties between residents and provide them with the
opportunity to learn more about UA and its services [70].
The authors of the selected articles for this review highlighted numerous challenges
and limitations, such as pollution, water scarcity, and lack of interest on the part of the
authorities. However, it must be emphasized that the fundamental limitation to the real-
ization of such UAP is a poor or incomplete understanding of the concept of UA, as it is
thought to be linked only to food security issues, but its other functions are ignored and
insufficiently known, hence the need to insert a specified and explained outline of the UA
concept. In addition, there is a lack of skills to engage the community in UA initiatives,
which should be mentioned as a limitation, but also as an area where interventions from
public authorities are required. Future research should seek to quantify the extent of the
ecological benefits of UA, and to identify where and how local authorities should provide
reliable and affordable access to land and water, so that all residents can participate and
enjoy the benefits that the NCUA provide. Moreover, they should also highlight strategies
of how best to include NCUA into the municipality’s long-term land-use planning, as
mentioned in 2022 by Nikoli´c et al., emphasizing UA multifunctionality and perceived
benefits for city improvement [69].
The development of NCUA could be supported by local policymakers or land-use
managers, when planning and making decisions about the use of public spaces in cities, by
making municipal land available free of charge, providing water at a lower price, helping
to provide seeds, etc. This is in line with the work carried out by Bednarska-Olejniczak
et al. in 2019, which points to the role that policymakers could perform in adjusting
existing laws, plans, and strategies to integrate the principles of sustainable development
through the revision of regulations on urban development and environmental protection,
in partnership with NGOs and SDGs that can facilitate community engagement in the
development of sustainable smart cities, driving the transition to sustainable and smart
urban and rural landscapes [
71
]. Finally, it is also necessary to consider other aspects and
criteria for NCUA success, such as sustainability strategy and return on investment, as
NCUA can play an important role in promoting a circular economy in contributing to
various aspects of sustainability, minimizing waste, optimizing resource use, promoting
local and sustainable practices, and supporting resilience and community engagement.
This systematic literature review demonstrates the gaps in knowledge about NCUA at
a worldwide level, along with its benefits. The methodology used showed that the main
assumption of the approach employed in this review is that we were able to obtain relevant
studies and that there is a body of literature that enabled us to address our problems.
Furthermore, this approach provided us with studies of sufficient quality, validity, and
representativeness. However, the process of searching for multiple eligibility and exclusion
criteria can present a limitation, due to the time required for the search and the availability
of numerous databases. In addition, this study was confined to studies conducted in
English; future studies could evaluate more published languages to have a wider range of

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 16 of 19
results and openness around the world. The present study is one of the first to illustrate the
perceived benefits of NCUA to both the population and the city itself, improving cities and
making them more sustainable and resilient. However, we suggest that further research
should be carried out in the future to further explore and understand this discipline which
is currently of great importance to current and upcoming generations, using more critical
appraisal of study design and contextual information which may produce more nuances
into the variances of findings.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.F.B., L.M.N.-G. and L.C.-S.; methodology, O.F.B. and
I.Y.H.; software, O.F.B. and I.Y.H.; validation, L.C.-S., L.M.N.-G. and L.V.; formal analysis, O.F.B.,
I.Y.H., L.C.-S., L.V. and L.M.N.-G.; investigation, O.F.B., I.Y.H., L.M.N.-G. and L.C.-S.; resources,
L.M.N.-G. and L.C.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, O.F.B.; writing—review and editing, O.F.B.,
L.C.-S., L.M.N.-G., I.Y.H. and L.V.; visualization, O.F.B., L.C.-S., L.M.N.-G. and L.V.; supervision,
I.Y.H., L.C.-S., L.M.N.-G. and L.V.; project administration, L.M.N.-G.; funding acquisition, L.M.N.-G.
and L.C.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the European Union supporting this work through the
FUSILLI Project (H2020-FNR-2020-1/CE-FNR-07-2020), grant number No. 101000717; website:
https://fusilli-project.eu/ (accessed on 1 January 2024).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Ouiam Fatiha Boukharta has been financed under the call for University of
Valladolid 2021 predoctoral contracts, co-financed by Banco Santander.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
List of Abbreviations
A allotments
CG community gardens
NCUA non-commercial urban agriculture
RQ research question
SG school gardens
UA urban agriculture
UAP urban agricultural practices
UF urban farms
References
1.
Alemu, M.H.; Grebitus, C. Towards sustainable urban food systems: Analyzing contextual and intrapsychic drivers of growing
food in small-scale urban agriculture. PLoS ONE 2020,15, e0243949. [CrossRef]
2.
Santo, R.E.; Lupolt, S.N.; Kim, B.F.; Burrows, R.A.; Evans, E.; Evenson, B.; Synk, C.M.; Viqueira, R.; Cocke, A.; Little, N.G.; et al.
Characteristics and growing practices of Baltimore City farms and gardens. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021,65, 127357. [CrossRef]
3.
Pollard, G.; Roetman, P.; Ward, J.; Chiera, B.; Mantzioris, E. Beyond Productivity: Considering the Health, Social Value and
Happiness of Home and Community Food Gardens. Urban Sci. 2018,2, 97. [CrossRef]
4.
Lucertini, G.; Di Giustino, G. Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture as a Tool for Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation and
Adaptation: The Case of Mestre. Sustainability 2021,13, 5999. [CrossRef]
5.
Dubbeling, M.; van Veenhuizen, R.; Halliday, J. Urban agriculture as a climate change and disaster risk reduction strategy. J. Field
Actions 2019,20, 32–39.
6.
Menconi, M.; Heland, L.; Grohmann, D. Learning from the gardeners of the oldest community garden in Seattle: Resilience
explained through ecosystem services analysis. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020,56, 126878. [CrossRef]
7.
Genter, C.; Roberts, A.; Richardson, J.; Sheaff, M. The contribution of allotment gardening to health and wellbeing: A systematic
review of the literature. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 2015,78, 593–605. [CrossRef]
8.
Tharrey, M.; Sachs, A.; Perignon, M.; Simon, C.; Mejean, C.; Litt, J.; Darmon, N. Improving lifestyles sustainability through
community gardening: Results and lessons learnt from the JArDinS quasi-experimental study. BMC Public Health 2020,20, 1798.
[CrossRef]
9. Bailey, A.; Kingsley, J. Connections in the garden: Opportunities for wellbeing. Local Environ. 2020,25, 907–920. [CrossRef]

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 17 of 19
10.
Hsiao, H. Characteristics of urban gardens and their accessibility to locals and non-locals in Taipei City, Taiwan. Landsc. Ecol. Eng.
2021,17, 41–53. [CrossRef]
11.
Charlton, K.; Comerford, T.; Deavin, N.; Walton, K. Characteristics of successful primary school-based experiential nutrition
programmes: A systematic literature review. Public Health Nutr. 2021,24, 4642–4662. [CrossRef]
12.
Ohly, H.; Gentry, S.; Wigglesworth, R.; Bethel, A.; Lovell, R.; Garside, R. A systematic review of the health and well-being impacts
of school gardening: Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health 2016,16, 286. [CrossRef]
13.
Kell, S.; Rosenfeld, A.; Cunningham, S.; Dobbie, S.; Maxted, N. The benefits of exotic food crops cultivated by small-scale growers
in the UK. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2018,33, 569–584. [CrossRef]
14.
Górna, A. Urban agriculture and shortened supply chain—different approaches to local food production. Pract. Stud. Geogr. 2021,
66, 49–61. [CrossRef]
15.
Ochoa, J.; Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Specht, K.; Fernández, J.A.; Bañón, S.; Orsini, F.; Magrefi, F.; Bazzocchi, G.; Halder, S.; Martens,
D.; et al. Sustainable Community Gardens Require Social Engagement and Training: A Users’ Needs Analysis in Europe.
Sustainability 2019,11, 3978. [CrossRef]
16.
Certomà, C.; Tornaghi, C. Political gardening. Transforming cities and political agency. Local Environ. 2015,20, 1123–1131.
[CrossRef]
17.
Dubová, L.; Macháˇc, J.; Vacková, A. Food Provision, Social Interaction or Relaxation: Which Drivers Are Vital to Being a Member
of Community Gardens in Czech Cities? Sustainability 2020,12, 9588. [CrossRef]
18.
Capaldi, C.A.; Passmore, H.-A.; Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M.; Dopko, R.L. Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of
connecting with nature and its application as a wellbeing intervention. Int. J. Wellbeing 2015,5, 1–16. [CrossRef]
19.
Soga, M.; Cox, D.T.C.; Yamaura, Y.; Gaston, K.J.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Health Benefits of Urban Allotment Gardening: Improved
Physical and Psychological Well-Being and Social Integration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 71. [CrossRef]
20.
Maheshwari, S. Food in the City: Review of Psychological Impact of Growing Food in Urban Spaces. J. Innov. Incl. Dev. 2017,2,
36–43.
21.
Shafieisabet, N.; Mirvahedi, N. Benefits of rural-urban interactions for sustainable food security in Iran. Hum. Geogr.-J. Stud. Res.
Hum. Geogr. 2022,16, 19–31. [CrossRef]
22.
Bonuedi, I.; Kornher, L.; Gerber, N. Agricultural seasonality, market access, and food security in Sierra Leone. Food Secur. 2022,14,
471–494. [CrossRef]
23.
Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Specht, K.; Vávra, J.; Artmann, M.; Orsini, F.; Gianquinto, G. Ecosystem Services of Urban Agriculture:
Perceptions of Project Leaders, Stakeholders and the General Public. Sustainability 2020,12, 10446. [CrossRef]
24.
Czembrowski, P.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Kronenberg, J.; Engström, G.; Andersson, E. Valuing individual characteristics and the
multifunctionality of urban green spaces: The integration of sociotope mapping and hedonic pricing. PLoS ONE 2019,14,
e0212277. [CrossRef]
25.
Camps-Calvet, M.; Langemeyer, J.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in
Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016,62, 14–23. [CrossRef]
26.
Bon, H.; Parrot, L.; Moustier, P. Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010,30,
21–32. [CrossRef]
27.
Furness, W.W.; Gallaher, C.M. Food access, food security and community gardens in Rockford, IL. Local Environ. 2018,23, 414–430.
[CrossRef]
28.
Guitart, D.A.; Byrne, J.A.; Pickering, C.M. Greener growing: Assessing the influence of gardening practices on the ecological
viability of community gardens in South East Queensland, Australia. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015,58, 189–212. [CrossRef]
29.
James, K.L.; Randall, N.P.; Haddaway, N.R. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ. Evid.
2016,5, 7. [CrossRef]
30.
Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan,
S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ
2020,372, n160. [CrossRef]
31.
Zamawe, F.C. The Implication of Using NVivo Software in Qualitative Data Analysis: Evidence-Based Reflections. Malawi Med. J.
2015,27, 13–15. [CrossRef]
32.
Ozkan, B.C. Using NVivo to Analyze Qualitative Classroom Data on Constructivist Learning Environments. 2004. Available
online: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR.QR9-4/ozkan.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2023).
33.
Samuelsson, K.; Barthel, S.; Colding, J.; Macassa, G.; Giusti, M. Urban nature as a source of resilience during social distancing
amidst the coronavirus pandemic. Digit. Vetenskapliga Ark. 2020, 1–9. [CrossRef]
34.
Mejia, A.; Bhattacharya, M.; Miraglia, J.; The Village Community Garden & Learning Center. Community Gardening as a Way to
Build Cross-Cultural Community Resilience in Intersectionally Diverse Gardeners: Community-Based Participatory Research
and Campus-Community-Partnered Proposal. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2020,9, e21218. [CrossRef]
35.
Mansur, A.V.; McDonald, R.I.; Güneralp, B.; Kim, H.; de Oliveira, J.A.P.; Callaghan, C.T.; Hamel, P.; Kuiper, J.J.; Wolff, M.; Liebelt,
V.; et al. Nature futures for the urban century: Integrating multiple values into urban management. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022,131,
46–56. [CrossRef]
36.
Egerer, M.; Ordóñez, C.; Lin, B.B.; Kendal, D. Multicultural gardeners and park users benefit from and attach diverse values to
urban nature spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019,46, 126445. [CrossRef]

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 18 of 19
37.
Krikser, T.; Zasada, I.; Piorr, A. Socio-Economic Viability of Urban Agriculture—A Comparative Analysis of Success Factors in
Germany. Sustainability 2019,11, 1999. [CrossRef]
38.
Dobson, M.C.; Reynolds, C.; Warren, P.H.; Edmondson, J.L. “My little piece of the planet”: The multiplicity of well-being benefits
from allotment gardening. Br. Food J. 2021,123, 1012–1023. [CrossRef]
39.
Poštek, A.; Kisi´c, I.; Cerjak, M.; Brezinšˇcak, L. Social aspect of urban agriculture with examples from Croatia. J. Central Eur. Agric.
2021,22, 881–891. [CrossRef]
40.
Romagny, B.; Aderghal, M.; Auclair, L.; Ilbert, H.; Lemeilleur, S. From rural to urban areas: New trends and challenges for the
commons in Morocco. J. N. Afr. Stud. 2023,28, 57–74. [CrossRef]
41.
Swanepoel, J.W.; Van Niekerk, J.A.; Tirivanhu, P. Analysing the contribution of urban agriculture towards urban household food
security in informal settlement areas. Dev. S. Afr. 2021,38, 785–798. [CrossRef]
42.
Hammelman, C. Challenges to supporting social justice through food system governance: Examples from two urban agriculture
initiatives in Toronto. Environ. Urban. 2019,31, 481–496. [CrossRef]
43.
Delshad, A.B. Community gardens:An investment in social cohesion, public health, economic sustainability, and the urban
environment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022,70, 127549. [CrossRef]
44. Zulfiqar, F.; Shang, J.; Yasmeen, S.; Wattoo, M.U.; Nasrullah, M.; Alam, Q. Urban agriculture can transform the sustainable food
security for urban dwellers in Pakistan. GeoJournal 2021,86, 2419–2433. [CrossRef]
45.
Thiesen, T.; Bhat, M.G.; Liu, H.; Rovira, R. An Ecosystem Service Approach to Assessing Agro-Ecosystems in Urban Landscapes.
Land 2022,11, 469. [CrossRef]
46.
Palau-Salvador, G.; De Luis, A.; Pérez, J.J.; Sanchis-Ibor, C. Greening the post crisis. Collectivity in private and public community
gardens in València (Spain). Cities 2019,92, 292–302. [CrossRef]
47.
Kirby, C.K.; Specht, K.; Fox-Kämper, R.; Hawes, J.K.; Cohen, N.; Caputo, S.; Ilieva, R.T.; Lelièvre, A.; Poni ˙
zy, L.; Schoen, V.; et al.
Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2021,212, 104110. [CrossRef]
48.
Porter, C.M. What gardens grow: Outcomes from home and community gardens supported by community-based food justice
organizations HHS Public Access. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2018,8, 187–205. [CrossRef]
49.
Schoen, V.; Caputo, S.; Blythe, C. Valuing Physical and Social Output: A Rapid Assessment of a London Community Garden.
Sustainability 2020,12, 5452. [CrossRef]
50.
Sonti, N.F.; Svendsen, E.S. Why Garden? Personal and Abiding Motivations for Community Gardening in New York City. Soc.
Nat. Resour. 2018,31, 1189–1205. [CrossRef]
51.
Moffatt, L. Start with a Seedling: Uncovering the Kindergarten Language and Literacy Curriculum One Leaf at a Time. Lang. Lit.
2016,18, 89–105. [CrossRef]
52.
Moghayedi, A.; Richter, I.; Owoade, F.M.; Kapanji-Kakoma, K.K.; Kaliyadasa, E.; Francis, S.; Ekpo, C. Effects of Urban Smart
Farming on Local Economy and Food Production in Urban Areas in African Cities. Sustainability 2022,14, 10836. [CrossRef]
53.
Janus, E.; Szewczyk-Taranek, B.; Smrokowska-Reichmann, A. Perceived functions of allotment gardens and their importance
during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. Folia Hortic. 2022,34, 51–63. [CrossRef]
54.
Ambrose, G.; Das, K.; Fan, Y.; Ramaswami, A. Comparing happiness associated with household and community gardening:
Implications for food action planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023,230, 104593. [CrossRef]
55.
Yusoff, H.B.N.; Ramzi, M.; Hussain, M.; Tukiman, I.; Yusoff, N.H. Roles of Community towards Urban Farming Activities. Plan.
Malays. 2017,15, 1–8. [CrossRef]
56.
Kingsley, J.; Bailey, A.; Torabi, N.; Zardo, P.; Mavoa, S.; Gray, T.; Tracey, D.; Pettitt, P.; Zajac, N.; Foenander, E. A Systematic Review
Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 3430. [CrossRef]
57.
Diekmann, L.O.; Gray, L.C.; Le Thai, C. More Than Food: The Social Benefits of Localized Urban Food Systems. Front. Sustain.
Food Syst. 2020,4, 534219. [CrossRef]
58.
UN-United Nations. Sustainable Cities. Available online: http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/cities.shtml (accessed on 14
December 2013).
59.
Valley, W.; Wittman, H. Beyond feeding the city: The multifunctionality of urban farming in Vancouver, BC. City Cult. Soc. 2019,
16, 36–44. [CrossRef]
60.
Tomita, A.; Vandormael, A.M.; Cuadros, D.; Di Minin, E.; Heikinheimo, V.; Tanser, F.; Slotow, R.; Burns, J.K. Green Environment
and Incident Depression in South Africa: A Geospatial Analysis and Mental Health Implications in a Resource-Limited Setting.
Lancet Planet Health 2017,1, e152–e162. [CrossRef]
61.
Martyn, P.; Brymer, E. The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. J. Health Psychol. 2014,21, 1436–1445. [CrossRef]
62.
Fox-Kämper, R.; Wesener, A.; Münderlein, D.; Sondermann, M.; McWilliam, W.; Kirk, N. Urban community gardens: An
evaluation of governance approaches and related enablers and barriers at different development stages. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018,
170, 59–68. [CrossRef]
63.
Algert, S.; Diekmann, L.; Renvall, M.; Gray, L. Community and home gardens increase vegetable intake and food security of
residents in San Jose, California. Calif. Agric. 2016,70, 77–82. [CrossRef]
64.
Badami, M.G.; Ramankutty, N. Urban agriculture and food security: A critique based on an assessment of urban land constraints.
Glob. Food Secur. 2015,4, 8–15. [CrossRef]

Agronomy 2024,14, 234 19 of 19
65.
Gonzalez, Y.; Potteiger, M.; Bellows, A.; Weissman, E.; Mees, C. A case study: Advancing public health through gardens for
healthy communities (GHC) in New York city: The role of anti-obesity objectives in urban agriculture policy. In Sowing Seeds in
the City: Human Dimensions; Springer: Cham, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 107–118. [CrossRef]
66.
Martellozzo, F.; Landry, J.-S.; Plouffe, D.; Seufert, V.; Rowhani, P.; Ramankutty, N. Urban agriculture: A global analysis of the
space constraint to meet urban vegetable demand. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014,9, 064025. [CrossRef]
67.
Ferreira, A.J.D.; Guilherme, R.I.M.M.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Oliveira, M.d.F.M.L.d. Urban agriculture, a tool towards more resilient
urban communities? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018,5, 93–97. [CrossRef]
68.
Okvat, H.A.; Zautra, A.J. Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual, Community, and Environmental Resilience.
Am. J. Community Psychol. 2011,47, 374–387. [CrossRef]
69.
Nikoli´c, A.; Uzunovi´c, M.; Mujˇcinovi´c, A. Perspectives and Limitations of Urban Agriculture in Transition Economies: A Case
Study in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Handbook of Climate Change Across the Food Supply Chain; Springer International Publishing:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 55–80. [CrossRef]
70.
Boukharta, O.F.; Pena-Fabri, F.; Chico-Santamarta, L.; Navas-Gracia, L.M.; Sauvée, L. Governance structures and stakeholder’s
involvement in Urban Agricultural projects: An analysis of four case studies in France. Open Access Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev.
2024,1, 1–18. [CrossRef]
71.
Bednarska-Olejniczak, D.; Olejniczak, J.; Svobodová, L. Towards a Smart and Sustainable City with the Involvement of Public
Participation—The Case of Wroclaw. Sustainability 2019,11, 332. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.