14 pages, In recent years, “urban greening” has become a new keyword in urban policy and practice, used to describe a proliferation of urban quality of life and environmental sustainability initiatives including street trees, public parks, greenways, farmers' markets, green roofs, and LEED certification in design. The emerging critical literature on urban greening has highlighted important ways green's social and economic added value affects the political economy of contemporary greening and produces inequalities in access to real or perceived environmental goods. However, such research has only infrequently asked why and under what conditions naturalized understandings of green as “good” make it possible for such initiatives to add value in the first place. As a result, it offers only partial explanations of why green has the effects it has—for instance, increasing property values—and only very rarely questions the fundamental “good” of nature itself. I argue that integrating insights on green's naturalized social and economic value from a growing body of social-theoretical work across geography and the social sciences can complement political economic explanations for greening and provide new vantage points for critique.
17pgs, There is a lack of data on resources used and food produced at urban farms. This hampers attempts to quantify the environmental impacts of urban agriculture or craft policies for sustainable food production in cities. To address this gap, we used a citizen science approach to collect data from 72 urban agriculture sites, representing three types of spaces (urban farms, collective gardens, individual gardens), in five countries (France, Germany, Poland, United Kingdom, and United States). We answered three key questions about urban agriculture with this unprecedented dataset: (1) What are its land, water, nutrient, and energy demands? (2) How productive is it relative to conventional agriculture and across types of farms? and (3) What are its contributions to local biodiversity? We found that participant farms used dozens of inputs, most of which were organic (e.g., manure for fertilizers). Farms required on average 71.6 L of irrigation water, 5.5 L of compost, and 0.53 m2 of land per kilogram of harvested food. Irrigation was lower in individual gardens and higher in sites using drip irrigation. While extremely variable, yields at well-managed urban farms can exceed those of conventional counterparts. Although farm type did not predict yield, our cluster analysis demonstrated that individually managed leisure gardens had lower yields than other farms and gardens. Farms in our sample contributed significantly to local biodiversity, with an average of 20 different crops per farm not including ornamental plants. Aside from clarifying important trends in resource use at urban farms using a robust and open dataset, this study also raises numerous questions about how crop selection and growing practices influence the environmental impacts of growing food in cities. We conclude with a research agenda to tackle these and other pressing questions on resource use at urban farms.
Specht, Kathrin (author), Zoll, Felix (author), Schumann, Henrike (author), Bela, Julia (author), Kachel, Julia (author), and Robischon, Marcel (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2019
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 99 Document Number: D10870
Via online. 27 pages., Global challenges such as climate change, increasing urbanization and a lack of transparency of food chains, have led to the development of innovative urban food production approaches, such as rooftop greenhouses, vertical farms, indoor farms, aquaponics as well as production sites for edible insects or micro-algae. Those approaches are still at an early stage of development and partly unknown among the public. The aim of our study was to identify the perception of sustainability, social acceptability and ethical aspects of these new approaches and products in urban food production. We conducted 19 qualitative expert interviews and applied qualitative content analysis. Our results revealed that major perceived benefits are educational effects, revaluation of city districts, efficient resource use, exploitation of new protein sources or strengthening of local economies. Major perceived conflicts concern negative side-effects, legal constraints or high investment costs. The extracted acceptance factors deal significantly with the “unknown”. A lack of understanding of the new approaches, uncertainty about their benefits, concerns about health risks, a lack of familiarity with the food products, and ethical doubts about animal welfare represent possible barriers. We conclude that adaptation of the unsuitable regulatory framework, which discourages investors, is an important first step to foster dissemination of the urban food production approaches.
5 pages., via online journal, The growth of community gardens has created new opportunities for urban Extension personnel at a time when staffing resources continue to decline. To serve the integrated pest management (IPM) needs of community gardening populations, Extension educators in two urban counties developed an on-site program involving a demonstration kit and planning protocol that Extension educators, program staff, and master gardener volunteers can use to teach IPM. The program provides practical, research-based information to community gardeners, allows Extension to maintain a presence in urban centers, and provides outreach to audiences who may not have used Extension resources historically.
Via UIUC online collection., "Existing empirical studies mostly focus on the construction technology or the agricultural technique of Vertical Farming. So far, no research addressed the factors contributing to the acceptance or rejection of Vertical Farming. ... A comprehensive literature reviewed on public acceptance of Vertical Farming in relation to the food security." ... "Public perception will be a key factor predicting the success of a project."
16 pages, Climate change is impacting the ecological, social and technological aspects of urban gardens. Gardens experience threats (e.g., water scarcity) but are also responding through adaptation strategies (e.g., selecting drought-resilient plants). A synthetic overview of how urban gardens are affected by climate change and responding to climate change is unclear. Here, we systematically reviewed articles and book chapters published in the last two decades (2000–2022) to illustrate the relationship between climate change and urban gardening. From 72 documents analyzed with Nvivo Software, we found that there has been an increase in academic publications. Universities from the US (14) and Germany (9) universities are the dominant producers. Evidence shows that climate change can have negative impacts on cities, people and urban food. Suggestions on how to build the adaptation capacity of urban gardens include collecting rainwater, changing plant selection, changing planting times, applying vegetative cover on the soil and other practices. For cities, community and allotment gardens are helpful for adaptation, mitigation and resilience. This includes the capacity to regulate the microclimate, to reduce urban heat island effects and to buffer urban floods, the power to capture carbon, the ability to create social networks and other socio-environmental benefits for urban climate planning.
