Civic agriculture and community engagement

Öbach, Brian K.; Tobin, Kathleen A.

doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9477-z

Cited by 48 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our case, participating in an SPG involves a set of social actors able to mobilise (or have an effect on) individuals and households in forming new relations with farmers. Of particular interest is the ability of these groups to develop a strong sense of community, through ties of reciprocity, and construct relational structures able to generate confidence among various economic and social actors (Migliore, Schifani, Guccione, & Cembalo, 2013;Obach & Tobin, 2013). Although one cannot talk of a treatment as such, participation in SPGs, for the reasons stated above, has a non-neutral effect on the same participants, as if participation was an actual treatment exercised by the community on individuals forming the SPG.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are “good guys” more likely to participate in local agriculture?

Lombardi

Migliore

Verneau

et al. 2015

Food Quality and Preference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are “good guys” more likely to participate in local agriculture?

Lombardi

Migliore

Verneau

et al. 2015

Food Quality and Preference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The diversity of practices has meant a spread of studies considering the potential of community supported agriculture (Obach and Tobin, 2014), growing spaces on and in buildings (Specht et al, 2014), as well the role of private gardens (Taylor and Lovell, 2014) as formats and opportunities for urban food production. UPA is not without controversy, as it has also associated with a process of gentrification and exclusion (Elliott, 2016, Morgan, 2015, or be seen as a furthering of discourses of enforced self-reliance.…”

Section: Urban Food and Digital Citizenshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ‘Hungry Gap’: Twitter, local press reporting and urban agriculture activism

Reed

Keech

2017

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with how urban food activists related to the media during 2015, when Bristol was the European Green Capital (EGC), how they represented themselves and how others represented their agenda. Our intention is to inform the debates on urban agriculture (UA) and, more specifically, to contribute to discussions about ‘scaling up’ UA. To achieve this, we adopt a form of analysis that rests on Castells’ insights about contemporary protest movements, the media and the role of communication technologies in constituting social power. By using Bristol, a city with a well-developed and studied urban agriculture movement, we suggest new areas for consideration that focus on the importance of communication in the development of the movement. Our study relied only on publicly available data; newspaper reports about the EGC and a sample of the social media used by the urban food networks in the city. We found that the mass media was mainly concerned with reporting topics other than food and that urban food was not a salient issue in their coverage. The Twitter network we analyzed was a loose constellation of different communities, which shared materials that were mostly concerned with creating a shared, normative picture of urban food. By considering the structure of these forms of media, we can observe the assembly of the forms of communication and their content. The paper concludes that the self-representation of urban food networks at that time reveals a narrow focus of interest. This emphasis may have contributed to the lack of connection within the city between potential allies. Our conclusion supports similar research findings in neighboring communities, which have observed the limited connections of urban food networks to the circuits of power and influence.

show abstract

“…It is common for papers on urban and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) to extol the virtues of the community aspects of CSA (see, for example, Wells and Gradwell 2001;Watts et al 2005;Firth et al 2011;Flora and Bregendahl 2012;Obach and Tobin 2014), in many cases arguing that they are as least as important as the food that is produced (Amsden and McEntee 2011;McIver and Hale 2015). For others, including Shi et al (2011) and Wittman (2009), new forms of agrarian or ecological citizenship have the therapeutic potential to address the ills of agribusiness (Schneider 2015), promote care of the self (Jarosz 2011;Ravenscroft et al 2013) and heal what Wittman (2009) characterises as the metabolic rift that has opened between society and nature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The spaces and times of community farming

Liu

Gilchrist

Taylor³

et al. 2016

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses a multiple case study approach to researching people's everyday lives and experiences of six community farms and gardens in diverse settings in China and England. We argue that collective understandings of community are bound up in everyday action in particular spaces and times. Successful community farms and gardens are those that are able to provide suitable spaces and times for these actions so that their members can enjoy multiple benefit streams. These benefits are largely universal: in very different situations in both England and China, CSA members make strong connections with the land, the farmers and other members, even in cases where they rarely visit the farms and gardens. This suggests that community farming and gardening initiatives possess multi-dimensional transformational potential. Not only do they offer a buffer against industrialised and remote food systems, but they also represent therapeutic landscapes valued by those who have experienced time spent at or in connection with them. Our findings indicate that-regardless of location or cultural context-these benefits are durable, so that people who have been engaged in multiple activities at a community farm or garden continue to enjoy these benefits long after most of their engagement has ceased.

show abstract

Civic agriculture and community engagement

Cited by 48 publications

References 30 publications

Are “good guys” more likely to participate in local agriculture?

Are “good guys” more likely to participate in local agriculture?

The ‘Hungry Gap’: Twitter, local press reporting and urban agriculture activism

The spaces and times of community farming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About