New Stories From 'Urban Agriculture Notes'
Random header image... Refresh for more!

The motivations of urban agriculture practitioners in deprived neighborhoods: A comparative study of Montreal and Quito

We identified four types of urban agriculture (UA) practitioners.

By Pierre Paul Audate, Geneviève Cloutier, Alexandre Lebel
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
May 2021

Abstract:

Urban agriculture (UA) is increasingly used as a strategy to improve food environments and the aesthetic of urban areas in different socioeconomic contexts. However, little is known about the characteristics and motivations of UA practitioners and how socioeconomic contexts may shape their motivations. This study provides an empirically-grounded understanding of the characteristics and motivations of UA practitioners, as well as the challenges they face, in deprived neighborhoods of two cities with different socioeconomic contexts: Montreal, Canada and Quito, Ecuador. A total of n=36 UA practitioners and n=8 UA promotors were purposively interviewed.

The interview guides included open-ended questions in order to capture relevant information and nuances of the participants regarding the origin of their interest, their perceptions, and motivations related to UA. Individuals’ discourses were analyzed to identify similarities and differences between the two cities, through which we developed a typology based on the motivations of UA practitioners. We found that practitioners categorized as the Eco-engaged and Socio-engaged types are more predominant in Montreal, whereas the Econo-expert and Versatile-caretaker types characterized the practitioners in Quito. The findings also indicate that the motivations for participating in UA in both cities are related to the self-provision of healthy food, health and wellbeing, empowerment, social capital, and economic rewards. We argue that these motivations represent health-related outcomes that should influence urban planning policies, so as to encourage UA in deprived neighborhoods.

  1. Conclusions
    Our study provides an empirically-grounded understanding of the characteristics and motivations of UA practitioners, as well as the challenges they faced, in deprived neighborhoods of the cities of Montreal and Quito. In Montreal, UA is appreciated for its wide range of benefits for mental health and social capital, while in Quito, it is viewed as an economic-empowerment tool. One of the more salient implications of our findings highlights arguments in favor of a more holistic food governance strategy in both cities. These are pertinent for policymakers and researchers interested in understanding the types of interactions that characterize different types of UA, such as community and collective gardening. Our findings are also relevant for planners considering healthier place-making approaches in the urban planning agenda. Future research can explore the ways in which different types of interactions occur and are maintained in UA gardens over time. Our analysis also serves to inspire critical reflections on the recognition of UA as a vital tool in the urban food system. As such, we advocate for city authorities to work on legislation that facilitates access to land and that provides support for UA. By using the SDT to create a typology and contrast the characteristics and motivations of individuals practicing UA we also provide insights for city planners, and health professionals to better orientate city authorities on public health interventions that integrate intersectoral perspectives.

The four types of UA practitioners we identified as a result of this study can help city authorities particularly in Montreal to better support people interested in UA activities. For example, they can direct people interested in the social aspects of UA to collective gardening and keep the ones with more individual interests on community gardening. By doing so, they would reduce long waitlists in community gardening. In Quito for instance based on the interests of the UA practitioners, the city should continue to focus more on UA as an economic empowerment tool for the entire household instead of individual approach. In addition, the typology can be a powerful tool for people who promote UA as a food security intervention in deprived neighborhoods.

The UA movement that we observed in the neighborhoods of Quito seemed to be part of a wider urban food policy initiative. CONQUITO, as an agency under the city authority, manages neighborhood UA initiatives. This agency was able to convince a broad and diverse group of actors in the city to create an agri-food platform and lay the foundation for a city-region food system. In the case of Montreal, although different stakeholders have coordinated actions toward developing an integrated, urban food policy approach (Filippini et al., 2019), the UA initiatives observed in Parc-Extension and Villeray seemed disconnected from these efforts. This study is an appeal for future research on inclusive forms of urban food policies and how they address the needs of urban dwellers in less privileged neighborhoods.

Link.