Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US
Quantitative analysis of the social impacts of urban agriculture.
Well-being benefits are stronger than nutritional impacts.
Motivations and benefits vary across urban agriculture types.
Variations in social impacts and participant motivation is a key for planning.
By Caitlin K.Kirby, KathrinSpecht, RunridFox-Kämper, Jason K.Hawes, NevinCohen, SilvioCaputo, Rositsa T.Ilieva AgnèsLelièvre, LidiaPonizy, VictoriaSchoen, ChrisBlythe
Landscape and Urban Planning
Volume 212, August 2021, 104110
A new article quantifies the relationships between wellbeing, nutritional health, socialization and economic benefits of urban agriculture and farm and garden types, based on an analysis of survey data from farmers and gardeners at 74 urban agriculture sites in five countries. Our study identified significant differences in motivations and reported effects across different types of urban agriculture projects, different participant roles, the destination of the food grown, and the organizational structures of the farms and gardens. It illustrates a method of urban agriculture evaluation that planners and policymakers can use to tailor projects to address specific goals as they allocate municipal resources to support or scale up urban agriculture.
Abstract
Urban agriculture is an increasingly popular approach to addressing negative social and health effects of cities. Social benefits of urban agriculture include improved health and wellbeing, economic opportunities, social cohesion, and education. However, the extent to which urban agriculture participants are motivated by or experience these impacts has rarely been measured quantitatively, especially across the many different types of urban agriculture. We analyzed survey data from 74 urban agriculture sites in France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States to quantitatively assess the relationships between urban agriculture types, farmers and gardeners’ motivations, and the social impacts of urban agriculture. Through factor analysis, we established valid and reliable measurements of participants’ motivations and impacts. We identified four scales: general wellbeing impacts, nutritional health impacts, economic interests, and socialization motivations. Through multivariate analysis of variance, we document significant differences in motivations and reported impacts across types of urban agriculture. Finally, we conducted a multilevel multivariate analysis to explore the predictors of general wellbeing impacts. Participants with stronger economic interests, stronger socialization motivations, and who are owners or primary operators of their plots would be predicted to report greater general wellbeing impacts of urban agriculture. These results provide data about the impacts of urban agriculture projects that enable urban planners and policymakers to maximize the desired social benefits of urban agriculture.
