Developing a local definition of urban agriculture: context and implications for a rural state

Dobbins, Catherine; Cox, Casandra K.; Edgar, Leslie D.; Graham, Donna L.; Perez, Amanda G. Philyaw

doi:10.1080/1389224x.2020.1726779

Cited by 6 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Respondents indicated the following perceptions of urban agriculture, relating to the first objective of the study. The results supported definitions from the literature about urban agriculture, as well as the definition developed in a previous study focused on urban agriculture in Arkansas-"smallscale, fewer than 10 acres, diversified, and sustainable farming within city limits that engages with the market, the community, or both" (Dobbins et al, 2020). Respondents indicated there were small-scale, diversified farms in their counties; however, when asked to describe the concentration of urban agriculture in their counties, most indicated a low concentration.…”

Section: Conclusion Implications and Recommendationssupporting

confidence: 84%

“…This study implemented a researcher-designed, quantitative, web-based, 21-item instrument containing Likert-type questions related to CEAs' activities, opinions, awareness, and attitudes of urban agriculture. This was part of a larger needs assessment study where data collected from face-to-face interviews with urban farmers in a previous study informed constructs for the instrument (Dobbins et al, 2020). Questions were separated into sections within the instrument based on the research objective addressed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Questions were separated into sections within the instrument based on the research objective addressed. To create the questions within the instrument for each research objective, the authors referenced relevant literature (Clark et al, 2017;Dobbins et al, 2020;Dunning et al, 2012;Philyaw Perez & McCullough, 2017;Reynolds, 2011) as well as expert advice from the Extension local food specialist about the relevant issues facing urban agriculture in Arkansas. Seven questions in the instrument addressed objective 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Response items included 1 -disagree to 5 -agree. Respondents were asked if there were urban farms in their county, defined as small-scale, diversified farms less than 10 acres selling and producing for markets inside the city limits (Dobbins et al, 2020), as well as the level (unsure, low, medium, high) these farmers utilized various sustainable practices (i.e. Certified Naturally Grown, organic, no-till, cover cropping).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 57 responses, 61.4% (n = 35) said yes, 29.8% (n = 17) said no, 7.0% (n = 4) said they were unsure, and 1.8% (n = 1) provided no response. After responding to this question, respondents were informed that urban agriculture, as it was used in the rest of the instrument, pertained to "small-scale, diversified farms less than 10 acres inside the city limits selling and producing for markets" (Dobbins et al, 2020). Respondents were then asked to identify the concentration of urban agriculture in their counties.…”

Section: Objective 1: Participating Agents' Perceptions Of Urban Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Perceptions of Arkansas Agriculture County Extension Agents Toward Urban Agriculture

Dobbins¹,

Edgar²,

Cox³

et al. 2021

JAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As interest in local food development and urban agriculture increases, the Cooperative Extension Service is challenged to serve local and urban food communities in Arkansas. Urban farmers in Arkansas have differing motivations for operation than those in production agriculture, so understanding agricultural county agents' perceptions of urban farmers is critical for program development and implementation in this sector and to bridge any gaps between Extension and urban producers. This study was conducted to determine the perceptions of, awareness of, ability to assist with, and barriers to working with urban farmers in Arkansas. An emailed instrument was sent to Arkansas staff chairs and agricultural county agents and data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A total of 57 agents participated in the survey. Responses from agents in more populous regions of Arkansas were comparatively analyzed to those from less populous regions. Results indicated agents infrequently interacted with urban farmers in their counties, yet believed Extension was a valuable resource for urban farmers and that more resources should be allocated to developing urban farming programming. Respondents also self-identified as having low levels of personal knowledge relating to urban agriculture, with 72% of respondents indicating they were not knowledgeable or slightly knowledgeable about urban agriculture. There was a significant difference between the responses of agents in more populous counties and those in less populous counties. Future research aims to conduct a similar survey relating to local food in Arkansas, not just urban agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion Implications and Recommendationssupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Objective 1: Participating Agents' Perceptions Of Urban Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Perceptions of Arkansas Agriculture County Extension Agents Toward Urban Agriculture

Dobbins¹,

Edgar²,

Cox³

et al. 2021

JAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Modelling the Benefits and Impacts of Urban Agriculture: Employment, Economy of Scale and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the social, economic and environmental potential of Urban Agriculture (UA) based on information from forty distinct locations in each of the two regions: Adelaide, South Australia and Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, representing the diverse developmental background. Modelling is used to estimate equivalent employment, scale appropriateness, and earnings in comparison to labour use from commercial urban farming and gardening style UA, together with carbon dioxide emissions for two vegetable types. The study investigates the influence of distance and production scale under manual to modest mechanisation for urban vegetable production, finding that the interplay between labour use and mechanisation can favour scale-appropriate UA practices with better labour productivity and economic and social advantage. The distribution (assumed to be by car for UA) contributes the largest proportion of emissions, and the production component (even with mechanisation) contributes a relatively small portion per unit of production. We recommend that governments and planners should facilitate scale-appropriate mechanisation through better planning and policy instruments for UA’s sustainability.

show abstract

Potential Economic, Social and Environmental Contribution Study of Urban Agriculture Based on Five Key Features Identified through Past Studies

Kafle,

Hopeward,

Myers

2023

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban agriculture (UA), for recreational (gardening) and or commercial (farming) purposes, is commonly practised around the world, and uptake is increasing globally. There are many claims regarding UA’s social, economic and environmental benefits with scant exploratory research. The overarching objective of this paper is to access the potential economic, social and environmental contribution of UA based on five major features that have previously been shown to be critical to optimising the benefits of UA: area, purpose (gardening or commercial), crop value (mixed, mid to high), mechanisation level (none to partial mechanisation) and market mechanism (retail versus wholesale) based on past studies focusing on Adelaide, Australia and the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Including the reviewed 15 past studies that closely reflect the above five features of UA, most UA research has focused on the social benefits and potential cost savings of growing food in cities, with few studies interrogating its economic viability, employment potential or opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a clear need to study UA using a systems approach to ensure viability, replicability and sustainability. Real-world case studies focusing on diverse settings will help to characterise key features and corrective actions for improving overall sustainability.

show abstract

Developing a local definition of urban agriculture: context and implications for a rural state

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Perceptions of Arkansas Agriculture County Extension Agents Toward Urban Agriculture

Perceptions of Arkansas Agriculture County Extension Agents Toward Urban Agriculture

Modelling the Benefits and Impacts of Urban Agriculture: Employment, Economy of Scale and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Potential Economic, Social and Environmental Contribution Study of Urban Agriculture Based on Five Key Features Identified through Past Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About