A Methodological Review of Research into Urban Agriculture

Arturo Perez Vazquez and Simon Anderson[1]

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 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

/ Reference
To determine urban gardens used at different housing densities in the suburban areas of London / Mackintosh and Wibberley, 1952
To acquire information about two types of urban cultivation (plot gardens and front yard) in Lusaka, Zambia / Sanyal, 1985
To examine the situation of UA in South Africa / May & Rogerson, 1995
To provide donors, researchers and development practitioners with an overview on research and development projects / Gura 1995
To identify the influence of the policies changes on the income and cropping system of peri-UA / Jansen et al., 1996
Evaluating environmental degradation caused by keeping livestock / Molongo, 1997
To evaluate the household food production in Harare, Zimbabwe / Smith & Tevera, 1997
To examine the urban popular gardens in the Havana as food security / Chaplowe, 1998
To test the positive impact of UA on the household food security and nutritional status / Maxwell et al., 1998
Damaging effects of the environment for keeping dairy cattle in the city (Dar es Salaam) was investigated / Mlozi, 1997
Analyse the characteristics of UA in Kenya set within a wider conceptual and socio-economic context / Ali Memon and Lee-Smith, 1993
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 / Siegmund-Schultzea, 1998
To determine the contribution of urban gardens to the nutritional intake and the effect of the gardens on the community / Moskow, 1999
To describe commercial vegetable produced in Lagos & Port Harcourt, Nigeria and to determine profitability of farm resources in UA / Ezedinma & Chukuezi, 1999

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 socio-economic 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.