A Methodological Review of Research into Urban Agriculture
Arturo Perez Vazquez and Simon Anderson1
Wye College, University of London
1. INTRODUCTION
If Urban Agriculture (UA) can be considered one of the most important elements in
cities for achieving sustainability (Smit et al., 1996), does research have a contribution
to make? This document discusses this question and reviews some methods that
have been used to study UA. The methodological aspects of UA research are
considered from actor-oriented and action-research perspectives.
Recent studies on UA have measured many different variables in diverse contexts
most commonly to understand the impact of the UA activities and its potential for
improving life in cities.
This paper seeks to:
 discuss the implications for research of the main characteristics of UA,
 describe the disciplines, research approaches and methods used for
understanding UA,
 explain the contribution of the different methodologies to UA research,
 and, to discuss the contributions new methodologies could make.
2. DEFINITIONS
To be clear (and not pedantic) in our discussions we offer the following definitions
that provide a certain structure to the analytical framework;
 We will use the phrase a methodology to mean a system of methods and principles
used in a particular discipline or set of disciplines. Methodology itself is the
philosophical study of method.
 Methods can be defined as the techniques of a particular field or subject.
 A tool is any object, skill etc. used for a particular task.
2.1 Integrationist methods and systems approaches
Multi- or interdisciplinary research provides a range of perspectives and perceptions
through which data & information can be analysed and interpreted. Those involved
should keep an open mind about researchable questions and where the solutions
may lie.
Systems methodologies can meet the need for exploring between different perspectives
- farmer and researcher, biologist and social scientist- to achieve collaboration rather
than conflict. A range of techniques can be used to facilitate this based on the
1
Contact address: Agroecology, Wye College, Wye Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH, UK.
Tel: + 44 (0)20 759 42710 (voicemail)
Email: SiAnderson@compuserve.com
principle that communities or organisations facing problematic situations only
cohere if they are competent at dealing with differences that emerge within the
group.
2.2 Qualitative and quantitative analysis
Qualitative information refers to the descriptive type of data collected and is
concerned with the quality of an observation or idea. Such data may involve an
assembly of insights rather than numbers. This is a challenge to the conventional
scientific view that everything can be measured and is therefore quantitative.
Different methods have been used to collect qualitative and quantitative information
on UA. In addition, different disciplinary foci have been used to study urban
agricultural dynamics such as urban development and land use; strategies of urban
farmers involved in production; natural resource management; production systems;
commodity and food systems. Many of the approaches aim to involve different
actors by consultation through questionnaires, survey, interviews or participatory
methods.
3. THE METODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF UA CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 Change and turnover
UA can be characterised as being prone to change. Indeed, due to the often
transitory nature of UA it is often considered to be a new phenomenon. The space
and resources available to UA practitioners vary both quantitatively and
qualitatively over short periods of time. Land-use options in the urban context are
various and subject to a plethora of driving forces. This dynamic causes heightened
degrees of complexity in the relationship of UA and its environment.
In addition, the people involved in UA often have competing demands on their time.
The urban setting can present people with different opportunities of employment
and income generation (formal and informal) and this results in UA being one of a
repertoire of livelihood activities. This is brought into sharp focus when UA
practitioners are from the more marginalised sectors of the urban population, which
is often the case in developing countries.
Before research can make a contribution to UA it is faced then with the requirement
of understanding a system that is prone to change (pressure exerted by exogenous
forces), and where a complex set of relations exist with other land-use and activities
in the same context. Research then needs to take a dialectical approach to any
situation analysis and impact assessment whereby the current mode of UA is
understood as a response to exogenous and endogenous factors.
3.2 Knowledge and innovation
The development of UA has been largely practitioner-led. Research is trying to catch
up with this process and identify what contributions can be made. Research has the
chance to learn from the successes and failures in addressing other forms of
agriculture, and to identify and address the researchable questions of UA in a
proactive way.
The contribution of indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) and traditional
knowledge on agriculture from rural settings has yet to be evaluated. However,
given the different context (urban rather than rural), the different resource base and
the different functions UA fulfils, it is safe to say that the process of adaptation and
development of knowledge and technology for UA will generate the need for
innovation. Researchers who wish to engage with the development of UA will need
to take a constructivist approach to innovation facilitation whereby researchers
recognise that they are just one of a set of actors involved in the process.
4. CLASSIFICATION OF METHODS
4.1 Social research methods
Social research methods such as survey, questionnaire, case study and interviews
have been widely used to assess the impact and contribution of UA on food security
and nutrition, and in terms of management decision-making. Methods adapted or
appropriated from Farming Research Systems (FSR) in order to make typologies of
production systems, target group identification, system characterisation and
problem diagnosis as elements towards the implementation of effective solutions to
the problems identified. Information collection and data gathering is by
questionnaires, sondeo and participatory methods.
4.2 Ecological research methods
Ecological methods have been used in UA to evaluate and determine the significance
of biodiversity, particularly agrodiversity and its contribution to food production. In
addition ecological methods have been used to study positive and negative impacts
of the urban agricultural activities on the environment and to determine undesirable
side-effect such as urban sanitation (Siegmund-Schultzea, 1998), contamination and
various types of damage, and to quantify the effects. A few studies have attempted
to identify the beneficial aspects of growing food in urban areas, providing habitats
for wildlife and many other environmental benefits. However, studies to determine
the significance of encouraging biodiversity in these open spaces as a way to
preserve natural or native resources have not been carried out.
Environmental methods used in UA have focused on ways of dealing with
wastewater and organic wastes (Margiotta and Baudoin, 1998). In addition, they
have been used to assess UA sustainability, including a diverse set of indicators
(Jansen et al., 1996; Barret and Browne, 1991; Lynch, 1995; Rees and Wackernagel,
1996).
4.3 Economic research methods
For some urban farmers, particularly where the food produced is commercialised,
financial costs and profit maximisation are very relevant. For others that use UA as a
form of subsistence other economic issues are important. For this reason selecting
the appropriate techniques according to the socio-economic context is a priority.
Other less tangible economic benefits that should be valued include the reduction of
risk, less dependence on external inputs and demand for credit. A quantitative
technique often used is cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Private or financial CBA uses
market prices to value inputs and outputs. However, CBA only offers partial results
from a comparison of a limited number of UA practitioners. In addition, the
production function approach measures different input quantities, and the amount
of physical or monetary output (Ruben and Heerink, 1998). The production function
approach is data intensive.
Economic methods have been used to determine the economic importance of urban
food production. For example, Jansen et al., using also this methodology estimated
the profitability and sustainability of peri-urban vegetable production in Vietnam.
They found that vegetables provide about $1000 total revenues or $650 added
value/year/farm. Little attention has so far been given to livestock rearing in this
context and its role in providing income for urban families and in their social
integration.
Only recently have the non-material benefits and externalities derived from UA such
as leisure, relaxation, exercise and others been evaluated using ecological economic
methods.
4.4 Biophysical research methods
Different biophysical methods have been used to study issues related to urban
agriculture. Entomological methods have been used in order to identify the main
crops pests that are present in allotments in Leeds, UK (Atkinson et al., 1979), and
soil analyses have been used to determine soil nutrients and physical characteristics.
In order to determine soil quality, the edafofauna has been used as a reliable
bioindicator of soil quality in addition with other chemical and physical analysis
(Lavelle et al., 1992; Linden et al., 1994). The use of animals, plants and
microorganisms as bioindicators of environmental impact is well established concept
(Paoletti et al., 1991). However, this method has not been used in UA to determine
the importance of soil organisms related to management practices.
5. SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS
The introduction of social methods to study and analyse UA has made a great
contribution. Perhaps social methods are the most used. Using social research
methods models have been developed to explain how social groups are related to
UA activities. The basic topics studied have been gender, poverty, household
welfare and social class.
5.1 Participatory methods (practitioners, gender, evaluation, diagnosis)
Participatory research methods emerged in the late 1970s, partly from the Farming
Systems Research movement in developing countries, as a response to the
disillusionment with conventional agricultural development efforts and in order to
find to interact more effectively with local rural people (Chambers, 1992).
Participatory methods have the rigour derived from the social sciences, especially
those based on qualitative and inductive techniques. It is constantly evolving, being
fine-tuned and adapted to new situations.
Participatory methodologies for
appraising local living conditions and natural resources are increasingly widespread,
but approaches that involve local people in evaluating UA projects or monitoring
UA local conditions are less well developed and documented.
Participatory approaches are used in UA studies that recognise the central role of
people in urban localities in the development of agricultural pursuits. In order to
analyse allotment management and use in terms of gender and ethnical identity
methods of Rapid Rural Appraisal have been used such as semi-structured
interviews, seasonal calenders, mapping, time lines, SWOT and force field analysis
(Perez-Vazquez and Anderson, 2000).
5.2 Survey and interview methods
Through surveys data is gathered from people in the field and filtered through the
perceptions of the research team. Sampling of a range of experiences and people
takes place, but not necessarily in a statistical or representative sense. The term
'purposeful' is often used to show that data is sought in a deliberate way to provide
rich detail and insight.
In order to assess diverse positive and negative effects of UA survey studies have
been carried out in different cities associated with food production. Table 1 shows
different studies where survey methods have been used to address different issues
related to the importance and significance of UA.
Table 1. Examples of studies carried out in urban agriculture using interviews and
questionnaire survey
Study purpose
To determine urban gardens used at different housing densities
in the suburban areas of London
To acquire information about two types of urban cultivation
(plot gardens and front yard) in Lusaka, Zambia
To examine the situation of UA in South Africa
To provide donors, researchers and development practitioners
with an overview on research and development projects
To identify the influence of the policies changes on the income
and cropping system of peri-UA
Evaluating environmental degradation caused by keeping
livestock
To evaluate the household food production in Harare,
Zimbabwe
To examine the urban popular gardens in the Havana as food
security
To test the positive impact of UA on the household food security
and nutritional status
Damaging effects of the environment for keeping dairy cattle in
the city (Dar es Salaam) was investigated
Analyse the characteristics of UA in Kenya set within a wider
conceptual and socio-economic context
Reference
Mackintosh
Wibberley, 1952
Sanyal, 1985
and
May & Rogerson, 1995
Gura 1995
Jansen et al., 1996
Molongo, 1997
Smith & Tevera, 1997
Chaplowe, 1998
Maxwell et al., 1998
Mlozi, 1997
Ali Memon
Smith, 1993
and
Lee-
To collect data on the socio-economic situation, goals and
problems of sheep keepers (72) and non-keepers of small
ruminants (64) in two locations, a central and a peripheral
quarter of Bobo Dioulasso
To determine the contribution of urban gardens to the
nutritional intake and the effect of the gardens on the
community
To describe commercial vegetable produced in Lagos & Port
Harcourt, Nigeria and to determine profitability of farm
resources in UA
Siegmund-Schultzea,
1998
Moskow, 1999
Ezedinma
1999
&
Chukuezi,
Survey questionnaires were used by Lado (1990) to determine UA spatial
distribution and general characteristics in terms of agricultural practices, crops
cultivated, consumption patterns and crop produce disposal. Memon and Lee-Smith
(1993) found using surveys in six towns in Kenya that UA productivity was higher
in the capital city (9 tons/ha) compared to the norm for all towns (3.2 tons/ha),
which was higher than the rural agriculture productivity. Interviews were carried
out by Prudencio (1994) to determine the general characteristics of UA in different
Latin America countries. Muller studied the importance of UA in assessing food
security through using interviews in Burkina Faso. She found that high socioeconomic status of the gardeners is associated with producing a wider range of
vegetables and fruits, most of which are not indigenous but European. Gockowski
(1998) carried out a random survey of 208 households in 16 villages lying between 12
and 90 kilometres from Yaounde to investigate the UA processes and derive
implications for research and development. Interviews have been also used to
determine the impact of UA on household income and local economy (Nugent,
2000). It was found that the decision to farm and the level of effort spent on UA do
not have a clear-cut relationship to income, wages, prices or employment
opportunities. Questionnaire surveys, combined with multivariate analysis, were
carried out by Bellows (2000) to establish the complexities inherent in why urban
farmers cultivate land in environmentally challenged regions.
Table 2 shows the different social methods that have been used to address different
situations related to UA. It can be seen that questionnaire surveys and interviews are
the most used methods and that participatory techniques have been used less.
Table 2. Methods used to gather information from urban agriculture.
Reference
Chaplowe, 1998
Molongo, 1997
May & Rogerson, 1995
Floquet, 1999
Maxwell et al., 1998
Maxwell 1995
Jansen et al., 1996
Smit & Tevera, 1997
Lourence-Lindell,
Obosu-Mensah, 1999
Ezedina & Chukuezi,
1999
Questionnaire
survey
Interview
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Case
study
Semistructured
interviews
X
X
X
X
X
X
Participatory
techniques
X
Moskow, 1999
Mlozi (1997)
Lynch (1994)
Lado, 1990
Ali Memon and LeeSmith (1993)
Prudencio, 1994
Muller, 1998
Gockowski, 1998
Siegmund-Schultzea et
al., 1998
Gertel and Samir, 2000
Nugent, 2000
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5.3 Case studies
The aim of the case study is in-depth descriptive analysis and /or investigation of a
situation (Yin, 1994). The focus of a case study is on the detailed structures, patterns or
interrelationships observed within each individual case included in the study, though
the cases themselves may be selected to cover a range of different types of study unit.
Nugent (2000) analysed different UA case studies carried out in different countries and found
that they are extremely variable in their sampling methods, scope and presentation of data.
Case studies in UA have revealed trends in the relationship between UA and nutrition
(Maxwell et al., 1998) and its impacts in terms of policy implications and urban
planning. A case study was also conducted in Gambia (Schoroeder, 1993) to identify
questions on the growing practice of planning voluntary environmental programmes
using unpaid female labour in gardens and orchards. Maxwell (1995) carried out a
series of case studies and surveys to understand the forces behind urban farming and
its impact at the household level, intra-household dynamics and gender relations in
Kampala. A case study to determine how aware are local authorities in England and
Wales of the value of urban food production was a part of the broader Local Agenda
21 project carried out using questionnaire surveys (Martin and Marsden, 1999).
5.4 Gender analysis
Gender analysis is another methodology that has been adapted recently to study UA.
The purpose of this methodology is to provide a qualitative and quantitative tool that
allows an overview of gender issues related to UA (Hovorka, 1998). Gender analysis
attempts to understand and document gender dynamics within UA systems and is
designed to raise issues and promote active learning and thinking on the relevance
and importance of gender analysis in UA research.
5.5 Historical analysis
Historical analysis and documentary investigation are other methods that have been
also used to evaluate the evolution of UA. These methods are useful to put
synthesise different information sources so as to understand the historical
development of UA and to explain the present forms of UA. A historical study was
carried out by Bell (2000) in order to analyse the Velledupar land use, landscape
change and management and as a tool for planning and understanding land use
changes.
6.
ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH METHODS
6.1 Biodiversity, richness, and complexity
Industrial or conventional agriculture is based mainly on the intensive use of inputs
and has reduced crop diversity (Altieri, 1995). Biodiversity in terms of
agroecosystems includes not only a wide variety of domesticated species, but also
wild plants and the many ways in which farmers can exploit biological diversity to
produce and manage crops, land, water, insects, and biota (Giampietro et al., 1997).
The concept also includes habitats and species within farming systems that benefit
agriculture and enhance ecosystem functions.
There are two major types of biodiversity of interest to ecologists, ecology diversity
and species diversity. Species diversity consists of the two related components:
species richness and relative abundance/ dominance/ equitability. Ecological
methods (descriptive and analytical) to define some environmental impacts can be
used. The agrodiversitiy (crops and weeds) can be estimated using the Simpson
Index and Shannon-Wiener Index. Simpson Index gives more weight to common
species than the Shannon-Wiener Index (Moore and Chapman, 1976). However in
practice- for example considering the effect of agriculture practices such as grazing,
fertiliser, etc, species richness is an useful a measure as any of the two other indices
(Moore and Chapman, 1976).
The ecological footprint methodology has also been used to understand how
surrounding rural and natural areas are being affected by cities (Rees and
Wackernagel, 1996)
6.2 Energy analysis
Energy -as a vital resource in every human transformation activity- is used in
agricultural production for machinery, transport, irrigation, harvesting, weeding,
fertilisers, pesticides and other activities and management tools. Fossil fuel input is
indispensable to most forms of urban and rural agriculture. The energy crisis,
referring to fossil fuel, will have a significant impact upon food production in all
parts of the world (Pimentel et al., 1973).
In order to produce food natural ecosystems have been transformed in
agroecosystems. Crops convert solar energy into particular forms of biomass such as
food, fibre, fuel or other human commodities. At present, conventional agriculture is
more dependent upon external inputs than it was in the past (Pimentel, 1993).
However, urban agriculture is an enterprise that uses varying quantities and quality
of inputs. Energy is considered as an indicator of the intensification of production
process and also as a sustainability indicator. Various methods (input-output
analysis, process analysis and statistical analysis) have been developed to measure
energy efficiency in agriculture (Fluck, 1979). Historically, energy utilisation
efficiency has been estimated using Energy Ratio (ER) and Energy Productivity (EP).
The label “Energy Analysis” was recommended by the first workshop on energy
analysis sponsored by the International Federation of Institute for Advanced Study
(Smil, Nachman et al., 1983). In fact energy analysis gives important information in
relation to the possibilities for saving energy and this technical determination can be
overlaid with economic analysis to establish what choices should be made in the
future.
Since the late 1960s there have been a large number of studies in order to analyse
and compare the use and efficiency of energy in agriculture, particularly after the oil
crisis (Rappaport 1971; Pimentel et al., 1973). Both energy and economic analysis give
useful information to explore the flows of energy and materials inside of the UA and
also between UA and the region interactions.
An energy and mass flow analysis has been carried out to analyse the urban agroecosystem - the “marais” of Paris, France. The marais system appears to be one of the
most productive ever documented urban agricultural production and based on the
use of vast quantities of stable manure into a highly fertile soil and in inter- and
successional cropping (Stanhill, 1977). The method used to evaluate this system was
input-output, through accounting for all inputs used for producing output and the
energy contained in both (inputs and outputs).
7. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH METHODS
7.1 Pollution and soil contamination
Local food production in big cities is always exposed to high level of contaminant,
particular leafy vegetables. The sustainability of urban agriculture will depend on
social acceptance in terms of food safety, which is of major concern to many
metropolis populations. However, food safety depends on a healthy environment in
terms of soil, air and water, which means freedom of poisons such as chemicals or
contamination by heavy metals. It is widely acknowledged that heavy metals such as
lead, zinc, mercury and others can cause direct health impacts. In UK many
allotment gardens in the metropolis are constantly exposed to car emissions and/or
industrial contamination. Added to which many allotment gardeners still practise
the use of some agrochemicals. Heavy metal chemical analysis is being used to
determine level of food and soil contamination. Chemical analysis methods to detect
heavy metals have been used to determine soil and vegetable contamination. e.g.
Perez-Vazquez (2000) measured and compared concentration levels of heavy metal
contents in soil and vegetables, at urban and rural sites. Methods using different
chemical extractors (Aqua regia and EDTA) produced different results, in terms of
concentrations of particular metals. It was found on average, that urban sites had
higher concentrations of lead, zinc and copper. An investigation conducted by Van
Lune (1987) in 57 allotments in the Netherlands used chemical analysis to determine
some heavy metals (cadnium and lead) concentrations in the soil and crops (lettuce,
carrots, kale). It was found that the median concentrations in the soil were higher
than those in normal Dutch soil used for arable farming.
7.3 Urban planning
In relation to urban planning participatory methods including different activities
(consultation, formulation of integrated strategy, follow-up and consolidation) have
being used (Mwalukasa, 2000). Through this bottom-up and stakeholder driven
process critical issues are identified and prioritised to prepare strategies and action
plans working together stakeholders and local authorities. Compatibility matrices
have been used to assess various degrees of compatibility between different
categories through and actor-oriented approach for urban planning (Bucio, 2000).
8. ECONOMIC RESEARCH METHODS
8.1 Conventional methods of economic valuation
Cleveland et al., (1985) studied two gardens in Tucson, USA to determine the
economic performance (net returns) that could be expected from gardening. Data
(inputs and outputs) collected for a period of 2.5 years and monitoring and analysing
prices in urban markets and supermarkets economic performance was made by
using cost benefit analysis(CBA). Nugent (2000) estimated the money saved by
growing own food through using market surveys and CBA. This framework has
been also used to determine both positive and negative effects of the UA activities
and quantify those impacts.
Technical criticism of CBA may be summarised under five major aspects:
quantification, discount rates, risk and uncertainty, intangibles and externalities and
equity. Some have criticised CBA by those who dispute the assumptions of welfare
techniques. In spite of these criticisms, CBA remains a viable method although it
does not resolve trade-offs between equity and efficiency and between quantifiable
and intangible outcomes.
Some others methods such output values and surveys have been used to determine
the household income and the local economy related to UA by calculating the value
of the output produced by this sub-sector (Nugent, 2000). It has been found that because
much of the output from UA is not sold in markets then prices cannot be easily determined.
In relation to this, the author stresses the need for developing a standard research
methodology for assessing the economic impact of UA globally. Nuggent mentioned that
accounting matrixes could be also used to examine the input-output relationship to UA. This
analysis should include informal sector and non-market activities, along with gender
disaggregation.
In addition, non-parametric software programmes are starting being used such as
Nudist, Nvivo and others in UA studies that allow and provide confidence intervals
for several analysis and discriminant analysis to determine indicators that are most
and least important in UA.
8.2 Methods of economic valuation (valuing goods and externalities)
In the economic literature there are several techniques that have been used to value
nonmarket benefits. However, a choice among valuation methods should be based
on the aims and object of the valuation study. Usually three sets of techniques are
used for valuing or estimating the values of services not explicitly priced by markets.
Those are: a) the hedonic technique, which measures the value of resource services
that are obtained through the purchase some market good (Freeman, 1979);b) the
travel cost technique estimates values using the travel costs that individuals incur to
access a resource service; and c) contingent valuation method (CVM) that elicits
values directly from the individuals who are potentially affected by a change in
management policy (Randall et al., 1974; Brookshire and Crocker, 1981).
As has been stressed before, methods that rely heavily on the valuation or
quantification of all the externalities have not been used in UA. The use of these
techniques implies first the identification of the potential and latent sources of
externalities and then to estimate their “value”.
Contingency valuation method was used to estimate the “whole” value of benefits
and services derived from allotments, through assessing individual’s willingness to
pay (WTP) or intention to accept (WTA) to keep allotments (plot or site), comparing
plot holders with non-plot holders (Perez-Vazquez et al., 2000). It was found that the
estimated value (WTP and WTA) for allotments were different between plot holders
and non-holders, higher values being obtained from plot holders.
However, the use of conventional economic methods and those developed to assess
the economic value of externalities have not been adequately adapted as yet for
analysing UA.
9. BIOPHYSICAL RESEARCH METHODS
9.1 Modelling methods and mathematical models
Some simulation models have been developed to aid the analyses of UA. Perhaps the
weakness of the approach is that modelling always involves a considerable
abstraction from and simplification of reality and is very dependent on the
underlying assumptions. In sustainability studies of agroecosystems there is a need
for better techniques to integrate socio-economic and biophysical aspects and at the
same time to integrate qualitative and quantitative approaches. System dynamic
models are suitable for such interdisciplinary qualitative/quantitative approach and
analysis.
Cluster analysis has been used to reveal socio-economic differences in terms of UA
(Siegmund-Schultzea, 1998) and also principal component analysis has been used for
diagnosing of periurban vegetable producers as tool for research and technology
development Kieft, 1994).
9.2 Geographic Information systems (GIS)
GIS is seen as an essential instrument in the effective use of geographic information,
whether for planning, decision making or forecasting. GIS is a potent method that
has been used to perform studies on land use and it has been also widely used in the
management of information for planning and decision making purposes. However,
the possible application of GIS in UA has been very little explored.
This method permits the stratification of very large regions into target areas
prioritised for future research. It gives some insight into the nature of problems
expected in these areas, predictions largely corroborated by limited ground truthing,
interviews and existing literature. It is still not possible, nor logical, to rely solely on
secondary agricultural or agroecological data for this type of analysis. The
organisation of data and interpretation of results from GIS analyses are much
strengthened by fieldwork.
10. THE NEED FOR NEW METHODS FOR ASSESSING UA
A closer examination of the literature on UA research reveals that the most studies
have used methods such as interviews and questionnaire surveys to describe and
analyse UA as it presents itself today. These studies are associated with ideas of
home-consumption in cities and the household economy. Studies are essentially
related to empirical investigations of the incidence and importance of UA for urban
food production with emphasis on the descriptive verification of their significance.
The methodologies used in UA may be grouped in three broad categories:
 those where the research is based on questionnaires;
 those using participatory methods and case studies;
 a third category has used some combination of economic and ecological
methods.
Methods are required for a better diagnosis and design of urban agricultural
activities in order to identify their importance and contribution and the roles of the
different stakeholders. These methods should enable the use different approaches
(qualitative and quantitative) to asses biological, social and economic aspects to
provide better knowledge of the urban environment and the available resources and
constraints.
If research is to make a valid contribution to the development of UA and to the
sustaining of urban centres effort is required for the establishment of effective
knowledge networks whereby researchers can engage with UA and answer the
researchable questions identified.
Tacoli (1998) has pointed out the need to investigate rural-urban linkages through
flow analysis and impact of flow analysis to: identify actors involved, evaluate
income derived, evaluate income distribution, access benefits in terms of resource
access and control.
New paradigms for pro-poor research & action have been developed over the last
few years based on the need to understand livelihoods as a result of the access to
and use of assets by households within the context of formal and informal
institutions. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (http://www.livelihoods.org)
developed by DFID UK presents a checklist for research and action on poverty and
frameworks such as this need to be incorporated into UA research protocols.
11. REFERENCES
Altieri, A M, Companioni N, Canizares K, Murphy C, Rosset P, Bourque M and
Nicholls C I (1999) The greening of the “barrios”: Urban agriculture for food security
in Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 131-140
Altieri, A M, Companioni N, Canizares K, Murphy C, Rosset P, Bourque M and
Atkinson S J (1995) Approaches and actors in urban food security in developing
countries. Habitat Intl. 19 (2): 151-163
Atkinson H J., Gibson N H E and Evans H. (1979) A study of common crop pests in
allotment gardens around Leeds. Plant Pathology 28: 169-177
Barret H and Browne A (1991) Environmental and economic sustainability: Women’s
horticultural production in the Gambia. Geography 76 (332): 241-248
Bell L C (2000). The crossbreeding of the tropical landscape with modernity. CD
Proceedings of the International Symposium: Urban Agriculture and Horticulture;
the linkage with urban planning (Hoffmann, H. and Mathey, K. eds.). Humboldt
University of Berlin and TRIALOG. Berlin, Germany.
Bellows A C ( 2000) Balancing diverse needs, risk and pleasures of urban agriculture
in Silesia, Poland. CD Proceedings of the International Symposium: Urban
Agriculture and Horticulture; the linkage with urban planning (Hoffmann, H. and
Mathey, K. eds.). Humboldt University of Berlin and TRIALOG. Berlin, Germany.
Bucio G A (2000). The polictica ecology of of urban agriculture in Mexico city: An
actor-oriented approach to explore the links with urban planning. CD Proceedings of
the International Symposium: Urban Agriculture and Horticulture; the linkage with
urban planning (Hoffmann, H. and Mathey, K. eds.). Humboldt University of Berlin
and TRIALOG. Berlin, Germany.
Chambers, R (1992) Rural: Rapid, relaxed and participatory Discussion paper 331.
Brighton: University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies
Chaplowe S G (1998) Havana’s popular gardens: Sustainable prospects for urban
agriculture. The Environmentalist 18: 47-57
Cleveland, D A, Orum T V and Ferguson N (1985) Economic value of home
vegetable gardens in an urban desert environment. HortScience 20 (4): 694-696
Ezedinma C and Chukuezi C (1999). A comparative analysis of urban agricultural
enterprises in Lagos and Port Harcourt, Nigeria.” Environment & Urbanization 11(2):
135-144
Floquet A (1999) Potentials and perils on periurban agriculture in a West African
coastal region. In: Rural and Farming Systems analyses: Environmental perspectives
(Doppler W and Koutsouris A Eds.). Margraf Verlag pp 357-367
Giampietro M; Paoletti, M G, Bukkens, S G F, Han, C (eds.). 1997. Biodiversity in
Agriculture: For a sustainable future. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 62 (2,3)
Gockowski J. (1998) Intensification of horticultural production in the urban
periphery of Yaounde. Workshop organized by Cirad and Coraf. 20th to 24th April
1998. Montpellier, France. Abstracts.
http://www.cirad.fr/publications/documents/agricult-peri/agri-peri.shtml
Gura S. (1995). Tropical and subtropical vegetable research and development- A
documentation on activities of institutions in Europe. In: Vegetable production in
periurban areas in the tropics and subtropics –food, income and quality of life(Richter J, Schnitzler W.H. and Gura S. eds.). German Foundation for International
Development and Council for Tropical and subtropical Agricultural Research.
Pp 20-28
Hovorka A (1998) Gender resources for urban agriculture research: Methodology,
Directory and annotated bibliography. Cities Feeding People report 26.
http://www.idrc.ca/cfp/genmethod.html
Jansen H G P, Midmore D J Binh P T, Valasayya S and Tru L C (1996) Profitability
and sustainability of peri-urban vegetable production systems in Vietnam.
Netherlands Journal of agricultural Sciences 44: 125-143
Kieft
J. (1994). Between plants and business –farming styles in the Bangkok
vegetable industry. MSc. Thesis. Dept. Agron. , Dept. Farm. Management,
Wageningen.
Lado C (1990) Informal urban agriculture in Nairobi, Kenya. Land Use Policy (July):
257- 266
Lourence-Lindell, 199
Lynch K (1994) Urban fruit and vegetable supply in Dar es Salaam. The Geographical
Journal 160 (3): 307-318
Lynch K (1995) Sustainability and urban food supply in Africa. Sustainable
Development 3 (2): 79-88
Mackintosh P. and Wibberley G P (1952). The use of gardens for food production.
Journal of the Town Planning Institute: 54- 58
Molongo R.S. Mlozi (1997) Impacts of urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
The Environmentalist 17(2): 115-124
Martin R and Marsden T (1999) Food for urban spaces: The development of urban
food production in England and Wales. International Planning Studies 4 (3): 389-412
Maxwell, D, Levin C and Csete J (1998). Does urban agriculture help prevent
malnutrition? Evidence from Kampala. Food Policy 23 (5): 411-424
Maxwell D G (1995) Alternative food security strategy: A household analysis of urban
agriculture in Kampala. World Development 23 (10): 1669-1681
Memon A P and Lee-Smith D (1993) Urban agriculture in Kenya. Canadian Journal
African Studies 27 (1): 25-42
Moskow A (1999) Havana's self-provision gardens. Environment and Urbanization 11
(2): 127-132
Muller F (1998). Food production in homegardens in urban Burkina Faso. Swiss
Tropical Institute Basle, Switzerland. http://www.sfiar.infoagrar.ch/documents/
posters/muller.htm
Mwalukasa, M (2000) Institutional aspects of urban agriculture in the city of Dar es
Salaam. In: Growing cities, Growing food urban agriculture on the policy agenda
(Bakker N, Dubbeling M, Gundel S, Sabel-Koschella U. and de Zeeuw H eds.). Food
and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL). Pp 147-159
Nugent R (2000). The impact of urban agriculture on the household and local
economies. In: Growing cities, Growing food urban agriculture on the policy agenda
(Bakker N, Dubbeling M, Gundel S, Sabel-Koschella U. and de Zeeuw H eds.). Food
and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL). Pp 67-97
Obosu-Mensah, K (1999). Food production in urban areas, a study of urban agriculture in
Accra, Ghana. Ashgate, USA 231 p
Perez-Vazquez, A. and Anderson S. (2000) Urban agriculture in England,
Perspectives and Potential. In: CD Proceedings of the International Symposium:
Urban Agriculture and Horticulture; the linkage with urban planning (Hoffmann, H.
and Mathey, K. eds.). Humboldt University of Berlin and TRIALOG. Berlin,
Germany.
Pimentel D, Hurd L E, Belloti A C, Forster M J, Oka I N, Sholes O D and Whitman R J
(1973) Food production and the energy crisis. Science 182 (4111): 443-449
Prudencio B J (1994) Agricultura urbana en America Latina; Evaluacion in situ para
iniciativa regional. Cities Feeding People (Report Series No. 13). International
Development Research Centre. World Wide Web: www.idrc.ca/cfp
Rees W E and Wackernagel M (1996) Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot
be sustainable- and why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assess
Review 16: 223-248
Ruben R and Heerink N (1998) Economic evaluation of LEISA farming. ILEIA
Newsletter Vol. 11 No. 2 p. 18
Sanyal B (1986) Urban agriculture: Who cultivates and why? A case study of Lusaka,
Zambia. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7(3): 15-24
Schroeder R A (1993). Shady practice: Gender and the political ecology of resource
stabilization in Gambian garden/orchards. Economic Geography 69(4): 349-365
Siegmund-Schultzea, M. Rischkowskya, B.A. Kocty-Thiombianob D.B. (1998). To
rear or not to rear sheep in Bobo-Dioulasso?. Workshop organized by Cirad and
Coraf. 20th to 24th April 1998. Montpellier, France. Abstracts.
http://www.cirad.fr/publications/documents/agricult-peri/agri-peri.shtml
Smit J, Ratta A and Nasr J (1996) Urban agriculture: food, jobs and sustainable cities.
United Nations.
Stanhill G (1977) An urban agro-ecosystem: The example of Nineteenth-century
Paris. Agro-Ecosystems 3: 269-284
Tacoli, C. (1998) Rural-urban linakges and sustainable rural livelihoods. In Diana Carney
(ed) “Sustainable rural livelihoods: what difference can we make?” DFID , UK, 1998.
Yin, R K (1994). Case study research, Design and methods. USA, Sage Publications.