The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities in developing countries

Zeeuw, H. de; Veenhuizen, R. van; Dubbeling, Marielle

doi:10.1017/s0021859610001279

Cited by 213 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In some ways, such ecosystems are an ideal place to test and experiment with much needed adaptive capacity in areas vulnerable to climate change (Heffernan, 2012). The services of UA we estimated simultaneously address needs to mitigate temperature, flood, energy and food security vulnerabilities (de Zeeuw et al, 2011). Although potential agricultural returns from UA are modest, the food and revenues generated from UA could mean the difference between survival and famine (Zezza & Tasciotti, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…UA offers potential to ameliorate a host of urban environmental problems by increasing vegetation cover and therefore contributing to a decrease in the urban heat island (UHI) intensity (Susca et al, 2011), improving the livability of cities (Frumkin, 2003;Turner et al, 2004) and providing enhanced food security to over half of Earth's population (de Bon et al, 2009;Pearson et al, 2010). UA is connected to multiple metabolic pathways in the urban ecosystem including food provisioning (Zezza & Tasciotti, 2010), regulation of local microclimate and hydrology (Oberndorfer et al, 2007), consumption of nutrient rich "waste" water and biosolids/organic matter (Armstrong, 2009;de Zeeuw et al, 2011;Smit & Nasr, 1992), and fixation of atmospheric nitrogen (Herridge et al, 2008) and carbon (Beniston & Lal, 2012). For pollinators and other wildlife, habitat is created in the city (Goddard et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For pollinators and other wildlife, habitat is created in the city (Goddard et al, 2010). It has been suggested that UA can also alleviate poverty (van Veenhuizen & Danso, 2007;Zezza & Tasciotti, 2010), increase resiliency (to market fluctuations and climate change) (de Zeeuw et al, 2011), serve as a repository of agricultural knowledge (Koohafkan & Altieri, 2010) and an incubator of new technologies (Despommier, 2010), provide measurable improvements to human health and wellbeing (Joye, 2007;Ulrich, 2006), and reunite urbanites with natural systems from which they have been separated (McClintock, 2010;Turner, 2011). There is evidence that UA shifts dietary intake toward more fresh fruits and vegetables (McCormack et al, 2010), which may reduce emissions from fossil fuels (Weber & Matthews, 2008) and nitrogenous waste (Sutton et al, 2011), while contributing to human nutrition and reducing the risk of multiple chronic diseases (Boeing et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Global Geospatial Ecosystem Services Estimate of Urban Agriculture

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though urban agriculture (UA), defined here as growing of crops in cities, is increasing in popularity and importance globally, little is known about the aggregate benefits of such natural capital in built‐up areas. Here, we introduce a quantitative framework to assess global aggregate ecosystem services from existing vegetation in cities and an intensive UA adoption scenario based on data‐driven estimates of urban morphology and vacant land. We analyzed global population, urban, meteorological, terrain, and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) datasets in Google Earth Engine to derive global scale estimates, aggregated by country, of services provided by UA. We estimate the value of four ecosystem services provided by existing vegetation in urban areas to be on the order of $33 billion annually. We project potential annual food production of 100–180 million tonnes, energy savings ranging from 14 to 15 billion kilowatt hours, nitrogen sequestration between 100,000 and 170,000 tonnes, and avoided storm water runoff between 45 and 57 billion cubic meters annually. In addition, we estimate that food production, nitrogen fixation, energy savings, pollination, climate regulation, soil formation and biological control of pests could be worth as much as $80–160 billion annually in a scenario of intense UA implementation. Our results demonstrate significant country‐to‐country variability in UA‐derived ecosystem services and reduction of food insecurity. These estimates represent the first effort to consistently quantify these incentives globally, and highlight the relative spatial importance of built environments to act as change agents that alleviate mounting concerns associated with global environmental change and unsustainable development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Global Geospatial Ecosystem Services Estimate of Urban Agriculture

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the lack of technologies such as a distribution cold chain or refrigerators at home reinforces the necessity to produce perishables close to urban centres. UA and PUA are discussed and promoted as strategies for sustainable development (Smit and Nasr 1992;FAO 2007;De Bon et al 2010) and often regarded as one entity, regularly labelled UPA, the abbreviation for 'urban and peri-urban agriculture' (FAO 2007;De Zeeuw et al 2011). Production in UA as well as in PUA in the Global South is characterised by the following features: It is both subsistence and market oriented, farmers and gardeners do not necessarily have a farming background (Dubbeling et al 2010), production often takes place in polluted environments (De Bon et al 2010), health risks prevail due to poor management and environmental pollution (Bryld 2003;Hamilton et al 2014), it often lacks a legal status (Bryld 2003), and leisure or recreational activities are rarely to be found (Cabannes 2006).…”

Section: Focussing On the Global Northmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food security is becoming an increasingly relevant topic in the Global North, especially in urban areas. Because such areas do not always have good access to nutritionally adequate food, the question of how to supply them is an urgent priority in order to maintain a healthy population. Urban and peri-urban agriculture, as sources of local fresh food, could play an important role. Whereas some scholars do not differentiate between peri-urban and urban agriculture, seeing them as a single entity, our hypothesis is that they are distinct, and that this has important consequences for food security and other issues. This has knock-on effects for food system planning and has not yet been appropriately analysed. The objectives of this study are to provide a systematic understanding of urban and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North, showing their similarities and differences, and to analyse their impact on urban food security. To this end, an extensive literature review was conducted, resulting in the identification and comparison of their spatial, ecological and socio-economic characteristics. The findings are discussed in terms of their impact on food security in relation to the four levels of the food system: food production, processing, distribution and consumption. The results show that urban and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North indeed differ in most of their characteristics and consequently also in their ability to meet the food needs of urban inhabitants. While urban agriculture still meets food needs mainly at the household level, peri-urban agriculture can provide larger quantities and has broader distribution pathways, giving it a separate status in terms of food security. Nevertheless, both possess (unused) potential, making them valuable for urban food planning, and both face similar threats regarding urbanisation pressures, necessitating adequate planning measures.

show abstract

“…These studies showed that stakeholders associate potential benefits with urban agriculture but also detect numerous risks and uncertainties. A report by de Wilt and Dobbelaar (2005) clearly illustrates how a planned "Agropark" project in the Netherlands failed due to public averseness and active resistance from residents and the media.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socially acceptable urban agriculture businesses

Specht

Weith

Swoboda

et al. 2016

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of successful entrepreneurs in urban agriculture has attracted global interest. Here, we hypothesized that societal preferences and the acceptability of urban agriculture projects and products are ruling the success or failure of urban agriculture businesses. We surveyed 386 urban participants in Berlin, Germany, to identify general preferences for the productive use of urban space, the acceptance of different urban agriculture forms, and demands and expectations regarding urban agriculture products. The results show first that more than 80 % of the respondents preferred having accessible systems such as public green spaces, intercultural gardens, and rooftop gardens. Indeed, land uses that do not provide accessibility such as meadows, aquaponic farms, or intensive agricultural and horticultural landscapes showed lower acceptance, of less than 40 %. Second, 60 % of participants expressed acceptance of rooftop farming, agriculture in the urban fringe, or in inner-city brownfields, whereas 65 % rejected to have agriculture in multi-story buildings, agroparks, or aquaponic farms. Third, more than 50 % are willing to buy horticultural products, but they reject products from intensive production systems and animal-farming mechanisms, with more than 70 % rejection for animal products. Overall, this is the first study to investigate entrepreneurial urban agriculture possibilities from the perspective of potential consumers. The main insight is that the highest degree of acceptance is reached for multifunctional urban agriculture that combines commercial with ecological and social goals.As a consequence, projects that are purely production-driven or technologically intensive are more likely to be rejected.

show abstract

The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities in developing countries

Cited by 213 publications

References 13 publications

A Global Geospatial Ecosystem Services Estimate of Urban Agriculture

A Global Geospatial Ecosystem Services Estimate of Urban Agriculture

Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North

Socially acceptable urban agriculture businesses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About