The relational character of urban agriculture: competing perspectives on land, food, people, agriculture and the city

Abstract

In recent years the diverse primary food production activities in cities known as ‘urban agriculture’ have proliferated on the ground, in policy and in academic discourse. Most explicit representations of urban agriculture (UA) are positive, advocating its many related benefits and success stories, or critiquing barriers that restrict it. Despite widespread appeal, the way UA is imagined and planned remains highly varied and uncertain. To understand better the splintering and insular discourses and competing arguments about the role of UA in cities (especially in a developed world context), we draw on empirical research in Melbourne, Australia, to unpack what different stakeholders mean by the term. Using critical discourse analysis, we map contrasting perspectives on UA expressed by various groups (government, practitioners, media, academia) including some groups who could engage with UA but do not. We find that while UA is perceived by some as a strongly positive development, it is seen to be of little consequence by many others. General disinterest in UA is evident among traditional agriculture stakeholders and rural‐oriented groups in particular. Discourses about UA reflect differences in (1) whether UA is primarily conceived through the lens of land, food or people; and (2) how UA is imagined to relate to the rest of agriculture and the rest of the city. We conclude that although UA is increasingly ‘inside the urban tent’ as a legitimate land use and activity, it remains marginal. Moreover, it remains ‘outside the agriculture tent’ in that it does not seem to be conceived as a legitimate form of agriculture in comparison to the implicit Other: rural agriculture. We conclude that UA needs to move beyond its city‐centric approach and rural agriculture needs to move beyond its general disinterest in UA so that important and necessary connections can be recognised and forged.

Resilience characteristics of the urban agriculture system in Lansing, Michigan: Importance of support actors in local food systems

“…These two frames of motivations align with the lenses of "food" and "people" as discussed by Neilson and Rickards (2017) with regard to urban agriculture. Sonti and Svendsen (2018) also showed that healthy food has grown as an urban agriculture motivation since the early 2000s, while community improvement motivations have lessened over that time period.…”

Consolidating the current knowledge on urban agriculture in productive urban food systems: Learnings, gaps and outlook

“…Research on UA has generally tended to take an advocacy viewpoint (Neilson and Rickards, 2017), which might have led to overstating its potential in some cases, in turn attracting criticism. Badami & Ramankutty (2015) found that the contribution of UA to the food security of the urban poor is quite low, despite the strongest need.…”

Peri-urban Agriculture as Quiet Sustainability: Challenging the Urban Development Discourse in Sogamoso, Colombia

“…En tercer lugar, con base en los puntos anteriores, este estudio proporciona nuevos argumentos para la protección y promoción de la APU, particularmente en el Sur Global. Aunque la agricultura urbana a menudo es medida en términos de productividad, tanto por quienes se oponen como por los que la defienden (Neilson;Rickards, 2017), este estudio proporciona evidencia en apoyo a los impactos benéficos, no económicos y de difícil cuantificación, de la APU en la construcción del sentido de propósito, tejido social y resiliencia de las comunidades locales. Además -y lo que es más importante-, este estudio hace evidente cómo estos logros no son el resultado del activismo ambiental o agrícola o de intervenciones públicas, sino que surgen de prácticas normales generalizadas en las comunidades locales.…”

“…Tanto los que se oponen como los que defienden la agricultura urbana a menudo miden sus impactos únicamente en términos de productividad material (Neilson;Rickards, 2017); estas evaluaciones limitadas a los valores monetarios han chocado con contribuciones difícilmente cuantificables como el capital simbólico del autoabastecimiento de alimentos, y su apego y reinvención de las herencias e identidades campesinas (Cantor, 2010;Méndez;Ramírez;Alzate, 2005;Sahakian et al, 2016). A su vez, desafíos en la medición de la agricultura urbana han contribuido a su invisibilidad en los documentos de planificación territorial y en el ámbito de la formulación de políticas públicas, en particular desde las perspectivas social y cultural (Feola;Suzunaga;Soler;Goodman, 2019;Ives;Kendal, 2013;Nadal et al, 2018).…”