FORESIGHT PROJECT ON GLOBAL FOOD AND

FARMING FUTURES

The role of urban agriculture in building resilient citiesin developing countries

H. DE ZEEUW, R. VAN VEENHUIZEN* AND M. DUBBELING

ETC-Urban Agriculture, PO Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden, The Netherlands

(Revised MS received 26 November 2010; Accepted 30 November 2010)

SUMMARY

The current paper briefly summarizes the available evidence regarding the potential of urbanagriculture to respond to a number of key urban challenges and reviews the perspectives on urbanagriculture applied by local and national authorities. The last section of the paper briefly presents theauthors’ views on the development of urban agriculture as an integral part of sustainable citydevelopment.

INTRODUCTION

Urban agriculture can be briefly defined as thegrowing of plants and trees and rearing of livestockwithin or on the fringe of cities (intra-urban and peri-urban agriculture, respectively), including relatedinput provision, processing and marketing activitiesand services (Smit et al. 1996). The Food andAgriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) intro-duced the acronym UPA (Urban and Peri-urbanAgriculture; Nugent 2000), with ‘urban agriculture’referring to agriculture that takes place within thebuilt-up city and ‘peri-urban agriculture’ to agricul-ture in the areas surrounding the cities.

UPA is practiced in a variety of places (on fieldplots, on vacant public land, in gardens, on rooftops,in barns and cellars). UPA most often focuses onperishable and high-value products (green vegetables,mushrooms, herbs, fresh milk, eggs, poultry and pigmeat, fish) that can be grown in confined spaces. Theorientation and scale of UPA may vary from purelysubsistence-oriented or recreational types of UPA atthe micro scale, through small-scale semi-commercialgardeners and livestock keepers, to medium- andlarge-scale fully commercial enterprises. In many

cities in developing countries, the most frequent typeof UPA encountered is the family farm, combiningproduction for self-consumption with sales on themarket to raise income (Moustier & Danso 2006).

Although in developing countries most urban andperi-urban farmers are from the poorer strata of thepopulation, one can often also observe participationin UPA from middle class people (e.g. the lower- andmid-level government officials in Dar es Salaam witha stall-fed dairy unit on their house plot; Jacobi et al.2000), as well as entrepreneurs seeking good invest-ment for their capital in more intensive forms of UPA(e.g. a larger poultry farm or intensive irrigatedhorticulture in greenhouses) (Mougeot 2000). Someurban farmers are recent immigrants but, contrary topopular belief, more often than not urban and peri-urban farmers have already lived in the city for longerperiods of time; time that is needed to gain access tourban land, water and other resources (Mougeot2000). Most urban gardeners, especially in Africa,are women (Hovorka et al. 2009).

Many national and local authorities, especially indeveloping countries, previously viewed intra-urbanagriculture mainly as a source of problems (due toperceived health and environmental risks associatedwith UPA as well as being a nuisance to traffic andneighbours), or at best as a survival option for theurban poor in times of crisis. Peri-urban agriculture

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed.Email: r.van.veenhuizen@etcnl.nl

Journal of Agricultural Science, Page 1 of 11. © Cambridge University Press 2011doi:10.1017/S0021859610001279

1

was mainly seen as a temporary use of land until suchtime as this open space would be incorporated into thecity and developed for other uses (Bourque 2000).

After reviewing the research literature on UPA,Mougeot (2000) came to the conclusion that the moststriking feature of urban agriculture is not its location,but the fact that it is an integral part of the urbansocio-economic and ecological system. UPA usesurban resources (land, labour and urban organicwastes), grows produce for urban citizens, is stronglyinfluenced by urban conditions (urban policies andregulations, high competition for land, urban markets,prices, etc.) and impacts the urban system (havingeffects on urban food security and poverty, as well ashaving impacts on ecology and health). UPA is apermanent feature of urban systems (although itslocation within the city’s regions may shift over time)and UPA tends to grow when cities grow (although itsrelative contribution compared to other sectors maydecline).

Moreover, the growing body of research on UPAcontinually reveals that UPA is not just a problemto be prohibited and restricted but has a number ofbenefits and can provide important contributions toanswering a number of key challenges encountered bycities. This has led many national and local govern-ments to the conclusion that the development of UPAneeds to be facilitated and controlled, in order tomaximize its benefits while reducing the associatedrisks, rather than being restricted and stifled. UPA canbe considered as an integrated part of viable strategiesfor sustainable and equitable urban development.

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF UPA TO KEYURBAN CHALLENGES

Cities in developing countries are confronted withenormous challenges and their resources are oftenrather limited (especially so in sub-Saharan Africa).Below, data on the contributions UPA can make tothe solution of some key urban challenges arereviewed briefly.

Urban poverty alleviation and social inclusion

In 2008, the world’s urban population outnumberedits rural population for the first time in history(UNFPA 2007). Urban growth is projected to increasesignificantly in the coming decades. The world’s urbanpopulation is expected to double from 3·3 billion in2007 to 6·4 billion by 2050. It is predicted that 0·60 ofthe world’s population will live in cities by 2030 (UN-Habitat 2007), although in many countries thisproportion is already higher. Accompanying thisurbanization process is a phenomenon referred to asthe urbanization of poverty (Ravallion 2001): thepopulation growth is combined with a gradual shiftin the locus of poverty from rural to urban areas. The

proportion of the poor living in cities is expected toincrease from 0·30 in 2000 to 0·40 by 2020 and 0·50 by2035 (UNFPA 2007). Moreover, in most developingcountries, urbanization has become virtually synony-mous with slum growth: the slum population hasalmost doubled in the past 15 years (UNFPA 2007).Most cities in developing countries encounter greatdifficulty in creating sufficient employment opportu-nities and to provide adequate basic services for therapidly growing population. This leads to high un-employment (especially among the youth and dis-advantaged categories of the population) and verypoor living conditions in the slum areas. Most urbanpoor rely on the informal sector and unstable inter-mittent jobs for their survival.

The presence of UPA varies from city to city but, indeveloping countries, the proportion of the urbanpopulation that is involved in UPA or UPA-relatedactivities is often quite substantial e.g. 0·13 in Accra(Sonou 2001), 0·15–0·20 in Dar es Salaam (Sawio1998), 0·20 in Lima (IPCC 2007), 0·45 in GovernadorValadares (Lovo & Pereira Costa 2006), and in Beijinga large number of migrants (0·5–1 million) areinvolved in peri-urban horticulture (Liu et al. 2003).

The effects of UPA on poverty alleviation vary withthe type of participants involved, the productsproduced and degree of market orientation, amongother things. The more subsistence-oriented and semi-commercial types of urban agriculture may havesmaller economic significance, but the number ofhouseholds involved is often high and UPA oftenplays an important role in the survival strategies of theurban poor, who may benefit from UPA in variousways. Firstly, when a household produces food, itsexpenses are reduced, which can lead to importantsavings since poor urban households spend 0·60–0·80of their household budgets on food (J. Smit, personalcommunication, 2001). Secondly, households thatproduce more than they need for their own consump-tion will sell their surpluses and eventually generate anincome, complementing income from other sources.van Veenhuizen & Danso (2007) summarized dataregarding net income generated in small-scale peri-urban open space vegetable production in a number ofAfrican cities. They concluded that monthly netincome figures for such peri-urban producers usuallyrange between US$30 and US$70 per month, but canincrease to US$200 or more. In the same countries,the minimum monthly wage is in the range of US$20–40, indicating that urban vegetable production is aprofitable business compared to other urban jobs.

Other households will gain an income throughbecoming agricultural labourers or by producingcertain agricultural inputs (e.g. producing compostand worms from organic wastes), processing andmarketing activities (e.g. by food preparation andstreet vending of food) or providing other services(transport and veterinary services). For example,

2 H. DE ZEEUW, R. VAN VEENHUIZEN AND M. DUBBEL ING

26000 people in Havana are involved in jobsindirectly related to UPA, in addition to the 117000people involved in UPA production directly(Gonzalez Novo & Murphy 2000).

In addition, UPA often makes productive use ofland that is not fit for construction (flood or earth-quake-prone areas, land under power lines and inbuffer zones) and adds value to land that might nototherwise have an economic output (Kaufman &Bailkey 2000). It also provides a productive way ofusing urban wastes and wastewater and can play a rolein the management of public parks and the mainten-ance of open green urban spaces (e.g. flood plains/wetlands), thus reducing the related public costs (vanVeenhuizen & Danso 2007).

UPA mainly focuses on perishable products suchas leafy green vegetables, fresh milk and poultryproducts and, as such, generally complements ruralagriculture rather than competing with it, therebystrengthening the national food system (Mougeot2000). UPA can also act as a market stabilizer bycomplementing rural production in the dry seasonand/or when rural areas are poorly accessible duringthe rainy period (Moustier & Danso 2006).

Proximity to the consumers and availability ofcheap resources (e.g. organic wastes and wastewater)creates comparative advantages for urban foodproduction. Specific disadvantages for urban produ-cers are rising land prices, exposure to land, air orwater contamination by urban industry and traffic,and the fact that UPA is often not yet recognized as alegal urban land use. The latter leads to poor land usesecurity (hampering investment) and a low level ofsupport to urban producers by agricultural researchand extension services (Mougeot 2000).

Urban agriculture can also play a role in the socialinclusion of marginalized groups (the aged without apension, unemployed youth, people with disabilities,those afflicted by HIV/AIDS, refugees, female-headedhouseholds, etc.) by providing them an opportunity tofeed their families and raise their income, whileenhancing their self-esteem, self-management andentrepreneurial capacities (Bailkey et al. 2007).

Urban food security and nutrition

Urban poverty goes hand in hand with food insecurityand malnutrition (Mougeot 2005). This is often over-looked because economic and social conditions, over-all, in urban areas are better than those in rural areas(FAO 2004).

The recent financial/economic crisis and the risingfood, fuel and energy prices have affected the poor inboth rural and urban areas, although having a dispro-portionately large effect on the urban poor. The latterare particularly vulnerable to changes in food pricesand variation in income, since food makes up a largepart of their household expenses (often over 0·60) and

urban consumers are almost exclusively dependenton food purchases (Baker 2008; FAO 2008; Maxwellet al. 2008). Variations in income or food prices havea significant and direct impact on their diets. A recentnutrition study in low-income neighbourhoods offive large cities, implemented by the Resource Centreon Urban Agriculture and Food Security (the RUAFFoundation; Prain 2010), showed that the recentfinancial and food crisis resulted in many urban poorhouseholds reducing their number of meals andturning to cheaper and less nutritious food, withnegative effects on the nutritional status of familymembers. In the same low-income neighbourhoods,not only did the level of wasting and stunting amongyoung children increase but so did the number ofoverweight or obese people, due to the changes in thediet (more fat and carbohydrates): a ‘double burden ofmalnutrition’ (Prain 2010).

It is estimated that the rise in food prices in 2007and 2008 increased the number of people living inextreme poverty in urban areas in East Asia, SouthAsia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa by atleast 1–5% (Baker 2008). Since then food prices havefallen, but remain higher than before the food crisis.Further price increases are expected (Maxwell et al.2008; ESCAP 2009).

UPA can contribute to enhancing urban foodsecurity and healthy nutrition of the urban poor.Urban households that are involved in some sort offarming or gardening are more food secure, have abetter and more diverse diet, and eat more vegetablesthan non-farming households (Zezza & Tasciotti2008). Production of food by poor urban householdscan supply 0·20–0·60 of their total food consumption(especially in green vegetables, medicinal and aro-matic herbs, eggs, milk and meat from small animals;Smit et al. 1996). Involvement in UPA may also leadto better mitigation of diseases (better nutrition,home-grown medicinal plants), more physical exer-cise, less dependency on gifts and food aid andenhanced self-esteem (Lock & de Zeeuw 2001).

UPA also increases the availability of fresh, healthyand affordable food for other urban consumers, asmuch of the food produced by urban farmers isbartered or sold locally. It is estimated that 0·15–0·20of the world’s food is produced in urban areas(Armar-Klemesu 2000). In many cities, urban agri-culture provides a substantial part of the urbandemand for vegetables (especially fresh green veg-etables: often 0·90 or more), fresh milk (often 0·60–0·70), poultry and eggs (0·50–0·70), and to a lesserextent, pigs, fruits and freshwater fish (0·15–0·50). VanVeenhuizen (2006) provided an overview of availableresearch data on a large number of cities. Locallyproduced food is fresher, more nutritious and diversethan food products bought in supermarkets or in fastfood chains; it also leads to more regular food intake(Yeudall 2006). This is of crucial importance for

3Role of urban agriculture in developing countries

young children, the elderly or sick household members(e.g. HIV/AIDS and TB patients) and pregnant andlactating women.

UPA also contributes to ensuring food availabilityduring times of natural disasters or armed conflicts.For example, in Sierra Leone the residents ofFreetown are well aware of the importance of urbanfarming, as many of them would have starved duringthe decade-long civil war in the absence of UPA(Larbi & Cofie 2007).

For refugees, displaced people and recent migrantsthat live in camps around cities or with their relativesin slum areas, local food production on vacant landor in containers is an important survival strategy.Their involvement in productive activities may alsohelp them to regain dignity, hope and self-respect andenhance their self-reliance, while reducing operationalcosts for humanitarian agencies (Bradford et al. 2009).

Urban environmental challenges

The urban demand for fresh water is rising rapidlyand availability of fresh water is becoming a seriousproblem (UNESCO 2003). At the same time, rapidurbanization and changing consumption patterns leadto the generation of vast amounts of urban wastes andwastewater, the management of which is a growingconcern and high cost for many cities (Cofie & vanVeenhuizen 2008). In most developing countries, onlya small proportion of urban wastewater is treated andmost of it is discharged untreated into the environ-ment (Obuobie et al. 2006). Most of the solid wastes, ifthey are collected at all, are disposed in dump sites(Drechsel & Kunze 2001).

Climate change adds to the challenges faced bycities and is recognized as one of the most seriousenvironmental, societal and economic challenges(IPCC 2007). The UN Populations Fund (UNFPA)indicates that climate change disproportionately af-fects people ‘who live in slum and squatter settlementson steep hillsides, in poorly drained areas, or in low-lying coastal zones’ (UNFPA 2007). There are 3351cities in such zones worldwide, of which 0·64 arein developing regions, and many of them are rapidlyexpanding (UN-Habitat 2009). Moreover, it is pre-dicted that climate change, especially in certain partsof Africa, will lead to massive displacement of peoplefrom rural areas affected by drought or flooding to theurban centres. Often, a large proportion of them willend up living permanently in and around urban areas,exacerbating the pressure on urban systems to providebasic services and livelihoods (IASC in press).

UPA can play a role in improving the urbanenvironment and adaptation to climate change (andto a lesser extent in mitigation). The World Meteo-rological Organization (WMO) suggested that moreurban farming should take place as a response toclimate change and as a way to build more resilient

cities (WMO, personal communication 2007). Urbanagriculture and urban forestry were also mentionedat the International Conference Urban Challenges andPoverty Reduction in African, Caribbean and PacificCountries, jointly organized by World Bank and theEuropean Union in Nairobi in June 2009, as having ahigh potential for improving the urban environmentand climate change adaptation (UN-Habitat 2009).FAO concluded that it is crucial to build more resilientcities by enhancing local food production anddiminishing the dependency on food imports (FAO2008).

UPA helps cities to improve the urban environmentand become more resilient by:

. Reducing vulnerability of specific urban groups andstrengthening community-based adaptive manage-ment by diversifying urban food sources andincome opportunities of the urban poor and beinga source of innovation and learning about newstrategies/technologies for land and water-efficientfood production (Smit & Bailkey 2006).

. Maintaining green open spaces and enhancingvegetation cover in the city with important adaptive(and some mitigation) benefits. UPA (includingurban forestry) helps to improve the urban micro-climate (Tidball & Krasny 2006). Urban agriculturemay also prevent building on risk-prone land, andby maintaining such areas as, for instance, agro-forestry spaces, not only are the impacts of climatechange due to flooding, landslides and otherdisasters reduced but also urban biodiversity andliving conditions are improved (Dubbeling et al.2009a). Such open green spaces also help to controlstorm water flows by allowing water storage andincreased infiltration of excess storm water(Dubbeling et al. 2009a). In open green spaces inand around the city, food production can becombined with other services to urban citizens,such as agro-tourism (Jiang et al. 2005) or park andlandscape maintenance (e.g. ‘productive parks’,Lattuca et al. 2005).

. Reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissionsby producing fresh food close to the city: The UNComprehensive Framework for Action of the HighLevel Task Force on the global Food Crisis (FAO2008) states: ‘A paradigm shift in design and urbanplanning is needed that aims at: (. . .) Reducing thedistance for transporting food by encouraging localfood production, where feasible, within city bound-aries and especially in immediate surroundings’.The current food system in many industrializedcountries uses over four times more energy in theprocess of getting food from the farm to the platethan is used in the farming practice itself (Heinberg& Bomford 2009) and many cities in developingcountries are moving quickly in that same direction.Encouraging food production close to cities helps in

4 H. DE ZEEUW, R. VAN VEENHUIZEN AND M. DUBBEL ING

reducing the ecological foot- (and food-) print of thecity, which may also enable synergistic and cyclicalprocesses between urban domestic and industrialsectors and agriculture, for example the use ingreenhouses of excess heat, cooling water or CO2from industry (Smeets et al. 2007).

. Decentralized reuse of wastewater and compostedorganic waste in UPA: Productive reuse of waste-water in urban agriculture will help to reduce thedemand for fresh water supplies as well as reducingthe discharge of wastewater into rivers, canals andother surface water sources and thus diminish theirpollution (Buechler et al. 2006). Use of urbanwastewater as a source of irrigation will help toadapt to risks of drought and flooded roads(hampering the transport of food from rural areas)by facilitating year-round production close by.Urban wastewater can be recycled for irrigation/fertilization of horticultural crops, i.e. floricultureand fruit crops, as well as for irrigation of forestplantations that combat desertification and providewood for fuel. In many cities, attempts to decreasepressure on wood energy (fuel wood and charcoal)by subsidizing gas or electric technologies havenot succeeded. The prognosis for many regions,such as in sub-Saharan Africa, is that wood willcontinue to be the main source of energy forcooking and heating of the majority of theirpopulation (Baudoin & Drescher 2008). Forestplantations can turn steep slopes and low-lyinglands into urban ‘green areas’.

Decentralized collection and composting of urbanorganic wastes will reduce the costs of public wastemanagement, while large amounts of nutrients arereclaimed. Domestic wastes in developing countriescontain a great deal (0·60–0·90 of the total freshweight) of organic biodegradable material (Lacoste &Chalmin 2007) and can be used for the production ofcompost and livestock feed (Prain 2010). Every yearin Nairobi, c. 2223 tonnes (t) each of nitrogen (N)and phosphorus (P) and c. 3700 t of potassium(K) – together worth about US$2 million – could begenerated from the city’s estimated 635000 t of waste(Prain 2010). Reuse of wastewater and composting oforganic wastes will help in reducing the mining offinite mineral resources (such as P) and energyexpended to produce artificial fertilizers.

MANAGEMENT OF RISKSASSOCIATED WITH URBAN

AGRICULTURE

UPA does have some disadvantages and is associatedwith a complex mix of potential health risks, both forurban producers themselves and for their neighboursand clients (Birley & Lock 1999; Brown & Jameton2000). Many of these health risks are similar to those

in rural agriculture, and some others are specific forthe urban context.

For an extensive overview and discussion ofmanagement strategies, see Lock & de Zeeuw (2001).However, the main potential health risks of UPA areassociated with:

a. Inappropriate use of contaminated irrigation water(water from rivers and canals contaminated bywastewater from industry and/or households) inUPA. Where no treatment is available, health risksfrom reuse of wastewater and contaminatedstreams can be reduced through complementaryhealth risk reduction measures, as explained in thenew WHO guidelines for safe use of excreta andwastewater (WHO 2006; Drechsel et al. 2010).

b. Inadequate management of livestock. Proper man-agement of animals, manure and urine as well asproper slaughterhouse procedures will reduce animportant part of the associated health risks (seeBoischio et al. 2006; Cole et al. 2008).

c. Intensive and inadequate use of agrochemicals inUPA (fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides) maylead to residues of agrochemicals in crops or inthe groundwater. The risk mainly occurs in areaswith a long history as intensive commercialhorticulture (WHO 1992). In such areas transitionto ecological farming practices may be rec-ommended. In subsistence and semi-commercialurban farming, this risk is limited because theseproducers rarely apply agrochemicals due topoverty, use of composted organic wastes andtheir preference for a clean product for self-consumption (Lourenço-Lindell 1995). In peri-urban market vegetable farming, more organicthan mineral fertilizers are applied (Kouvonouet al. 1998; Tixier & De Bon 2006).

City authorities have often been reluctant to acceptagriculture as a formal urban land use because ofperceived health risks. However, prohibitive laws andregulations have proved to be largely ineffective and,despite such laws, urban agriculture is practiced on asubstantial scale (Lock & de Zeeuw 2001; Mougeot2005). In cities where urban agriculture is neglected orsimply tolerated, this may lead to negative impacts onpublic health. Hence, policies are required that lead toan active management of the potential health risksassociated with urban agriculture. This may be basedon local identification of the main potential healthrisks and multi-stakeholder participation in the designand implementation of strategies to contain such risksor reduce them to acceptable levels. The developmentof evidence-based policies and regulations for theurban livestock and aquaculture sectors in Kampalathrough cooperation between researchers, policy-makers, urban planners, health officials and directstakeholders provides an excellent example (Cole et al.2008).

5Role of urban agriculture in developing countries

POLICY PERSPECTIVES ON THEDEVELOPMENT OF UPA

Since the early 1990s the international interest in UPAhas increased and the body of research has grownsteadily (see the website of the RUAF Foundationhttp://www.ruaf.org for an online bibliographic data-base on research reports and other relevant publi-cations on UPA).

UPA is now recognized by a growing number ofcity and national authorities (Mougeot 2006). Manycities and several countries (Brazil, Sri Lanka, SierraLeone, to mention just a few) have developed policiesregarding UPA and have initiated major programmesto facilitate the development of safe and sustainableUPA (several of these policy documents have beenpublished at http://www.ruaf.org; for a review of anumber of these policies see Wilbers & de Zeeuw2006).

One can distinguish important differences in theapproaches followed by the various policy initiativesregarding UPA, each expecting different contri-butions as summarized in Fig. 1. Clarifying the in-tentions and focus of a policy or programme on UPAoften helps greatly to identify effective measures toimplement such a policy.

Some cities and countries use UPA mainly as astrategy to enhance food security and nutrition, andto promote social inclusion of the urban poor anddisadvantaged. Such policies and programmes oftenprovide access to vacant municipal or semi-publicland, basic training in gardening and/or animalhusbandry techniques, seeds/young stock and toolsto (often groups of) disadvantaged urban households(e.g. HIV/AIDS affected households, refugees andinternally displaced persons, handicapped people,poor female-headed families, etc.) in order to facilitatelocal production of food and medicinal herbs (maybewith sales of surpluses). This enhances their access tonutritious food and provides some additional incomeas well as restoring self-esteem and increasing partici-pation in the urban society. Promotion of home,community and school gardening is often includedin such strategies as well as nutrition, and health/hygiene-related education.

Examples abound, e.g. the government of Brazilincluded urban agriculture in its ‘Zero Hunger’ policyand programme, and many urban districts are devel-oping UPA programmes aiming at enhancing foodsecurity, poverty reduction and social inclusion of theurban poor (C. de Moreira, personal communication,2008). The Sri Lankan government is actively

Subsistence-oriented urban agriculture:

• Production of food and medicinal plants for home consumption • Savings on food and health

expenditures • Some income from sale of

surpluses • Part of livelihood strategies

Multifunctional urban agriculture: • Reduction in energy and

greenhouse gas emissions by local production

• Maintaining green spaces • Combination with other functions

(recreation, education) • Decentralized reuse of urban

waste (water)

Market-oriented urban agriculture: • Income and jobs created by

producing food and non-food products for the market

• Small-scale family-based and larger-scale enterprises • Part of market chain

• Higher input use/more externalities

Social (Food-secure and inclusive city) MDG1-targets 1 and 2 Poverty alleviation Food security: nutrition Social inclusion Community building HIV-AIDS mitigation Social safety net

Economic (Productive city) MDG1-target 1 Income generation Job creation Local economic developmentEnterprise development and marketing

Ecological (Environmentally healthy city) MDG7-target 9·11 Urban greening Improve microclimate Reduced ecological footprint Landscape management Biodiversity Environmental education Recreation

Fig. 1. Main policy perspectives on urban agriculture. (Source: Dubbeling & de Zeeuw 2007.)

6 H. DE ZEEUW, R. VAN VEENHUIZEN AND M. DUBBEL ING

promoting home and community gardening andaquaculture on vacant municipal and private landas part of its ‘National campaign to motivatedomestic food production’ (Ministry of AgriculturalDevelopment and Agrarian Services 2007).

For example, Bulawayo is the second largest cityin Zimbabwe with an estimated population of2 million people, of which c. 0·60 are below thepoverty line. The city council recognized the impor-tance of urban farming to improve access to healthyfood by the urban poor and adopted policy guidelinesand new municipal by-laws on urban and peri-urbanhorticulture, livestock and aquaculture (replacingexisting restrictive rules). Over 450 ha of vacantmunicipal land on the edge of the city were allocatedfor (permanent) use in urban agriculture to disadvan-taged urban households. Treated wastewater is madeavailable to some of these households and others(mainly on intra-urban sites) have been assistedby collaborating non-governmental organizations(NGOs; especially World Vision) and other actors(university, national extension service) to establishcommunity gardens, to resuscitate derelict boreholes,strengthen group management skills and train in basichorticulture practices. Lately, with the support of theRUAF Foundation, some of these groups now alsoengage in market-oriented production and processingactivities (e.g. poultry, mushrooms) (Mubvami &Toriro 2010).

Other cities and countries mainly support UPAin order to stimulate local enterprise development,income and employment creation. Such programmesseek to enhance the capacity of urban producers toproduce food as well as non-food products (e.g.flowers, pot plants, tree seedlings, aromatic herbs,etc.) for the market as well as to stimulate relatedprocessing (packaging, drying and the production of,for example, marmalades or shampoos) and market-ing of primary or processed products. Such pro-grammes focus most of the time (but not exclusively)on small-scale family-based (often peri-urban) produ-cers as well as agricultural production, processingand marketing initiatives by collectives of urbanpoor (e.g. women’s groups and groups of unemployedyouth). The usual ingredients of such programmes are:enhancing security of land use; provision/improve-ment of infrastructure and working capital; improvingaccess to credit; technical and management supportto producer groups and micro/meso enterprisesengaged in processing and marketing (licenses, esta-blishment of farmers’ markets and home deliveryschemes, preferential governmental procurement pro-grammes, support for establishment of trademarksand quality labels, provision of market information).

A good example is the municipal urban agricultureof the City of Rosario (Argentina). Rosario has about1 million inhabitants, of which 0·60 live below thepoverty line. The economic crisis in 2000 led to the

formulation of a municipal policy and programme onUPA in order to support the livelihoods of the urbanpoor. The policy includes several measures to enhanceaccess of the urban poor to vacant land for foodproduction and to secure their user rights. These are:mapping of vacant land and setting up a land bank;tax incentives to private land owners that make vacantland available to urban poor on a temporal basis;provision of user permits and inclusion of permanenturban/peri-urban agriculture zones in the urbandevelopment plan. Secondly, the Rosario UPAprogramme includes a number of measures (imple-mented by the municipality in close cooperation withNGOs and other local stakeholders) to stimulateurban and peri-urban food production and marketing.This includes: setting up a city network of urban pro-ducer groups; providing access of groups of producersand/or unemployed to infrastructure and finance toestablish small-scale processing and packaging units:training in market analysis and business planning,food safety, hygiene and quality control: and theestablishment of ‘farmers’markets’ and home deliveryschemes (Ponce & Terrile 2010).

Countries and cities applying an ecological perspec-tive on UPA mainly focus on its role in urbanenvironmental management (storm water storageand flood management, urban greening and microclimate, reuse of organic wastes and wastewater, re-duction of the urban energy/water foot print, captur-ing CO2 and dust). With this perspective in mind,policies and strategies are developed that seek tointegrate/maintain open spaces in the urban structureand promote ecological and multi-functional types ofUPA that can provide environmental and otherservices (next to food) to the city.

The Asian cities participating in the Asian CitiesClimate Change Resilience Network aim at buildingcapacity to undertake climate change resilience build-ing activities for/with poor and vulnerable people.This includes the use of UPA and urban forestry inmaintaining vulnerable areas (low-lying areas proneto floods; steep slopes prone to landslides) free fromconstruction and developing such areas as opengreen multi-functional spaces and a permanent andnatural part of the urban infrastructure (C. Rumbaitisdel Rio, personal communication, 2009). The Cityof Amman included urban agriculture/forestry asone of the four pillars of its ‘Amman Green GrowthProgramme’ with the World Bank CarbonPartnership Facility (Z. Moussa, personal communi-cation 2010).

The City of Beijing developed a new zoning planreserving substantial peri-urban zones for the devel-opment of ‘recreational agriculture’, combining sus-tainable agricultural production with recreationalservices to urban citizens, nature and landscapeconservation, eco-education and preservation of cul-tural heritage. These areas are protected against

7Role of urban agriculture in developing countries

acquisition for other uses and substantial amounts ofgovernment investment are applied to facilitate thedevelopment of such ‘recreational agriculture’ by theperi-urban village cooperatives and private investors(Jiang et al. 2005; Cai et al. 2006; J. Liu, personalcommunication, 2008).

TOWARDS UPA AS AN INTEGRATEDCOMPONENT OF SUSTAINABLE CITY

DEVELOPMENT

The 2007/2008 food crisis has made national and cityauthorities more aware of the need to enhanceattention to rising urban food insecurity; to strengthenthe resilience of the urban food system; and reducevulnerability of the urban poor to price hikes in theinternational markets. This has enhanced the uptakeof urban and peri-urban food production in city andnational policies and programmes directed towardsstrategies for food security and poverty reduction. Inaddition, the attention being paid to reducing theenvironmental footprint of cities (energy, CO2, waterand nutrients) and the potential impacts of climatechange, as well as enhancing resilience, is growing.

These trends fit with concepts in urban developmentthat stress the ‘regionality of city space’ (Soja 2000)and ‘poly-centric urban development’ (Hall & Pain2009). They indicate a spatial and economic urbandevelopment model that focuses on a regional urbansystem in which various nodes interact with each otherand with the open spaces included in such a‘functional urban region’. The open areas in betweenthe urban nodes are not seen as a reserve for futureurban development and construction but as anintegral part of the city’s regional infrastructure,fulfilling multi-functional roles (FAO and Ministryof Agriculture of the Netherlands 1999). The greeninfrastructure is fully integrated as wedges and cor-ridors (or continuous productive urban landscapes)while the city expands (Viljoen 2005). This in sharpcontrast with city expansion in ever widening con-centric circles, as is still the dominant practice in mostdeveloping countries.

Within such poly-centric city regions, three maintypes of urban agriculture might be facilitated:

a. Micro-scale urban agriculture as an integrated partof social housing and slum development projectsand in vacant intra-urban open spaces (such asneighbourhood greening, home/school/communitygardening and small-scale animal raising alongrailways, under power lines (Dubbeling et al.2009b)). The main focus is on building a safety

net and securing access to nutritious food fordisadvantaged categories of the population whileenhancing liveability and resilience of the slumareas.

b. Small-scale multi-functional agriculture and agro-forestry in urban green corridors and peri-urbanareas, especially in locations where other uses areless desirable (flood and earthquake-prone zones,steep slopes, areas with special ecological or land-scape values) with an emphasis on ecological soil-based types of agriculture that can performmultiple functions (food production as well asreuse of composted urban wastes, storm waterstorage, recreation and biodiversity).

c. Clusters of intensive and (often) high-technologyagriculture (mainly not soil-based) including large-scale intensive pig, poultry and fish farms, intensivehorticulture in high-technology green houses andrelated agro-industry (animal feed and slaughterhouse) making optimal use of the possibilities tocreate synergy between the various components ofthe cluster by reusing by-products. For example,the manure from the pig farms is used inneighbouring mushroom farms; CO2 resultingfrom the mushroom farms is used in greenhousesto stimulate plant growth; excess heat and waste-water from the city power plant is used in the agro-cluster. By clustering the intensive UPA, thenegative trade-offs of intensive agriculture for theenvironment and human health can be bettercontrolled, whereas creation of closed resourcecircuits is enabled. See for example the Agroparkthat is being developed in Dongtan, Shanghai(Smeets et al. 2007).

These three types of production complement eachother within a sustainable city regional development,although the main actors involved in the developmentof each of these types of production, as well as theirrational for involvement, may vary substantially.

A series of ‘best bet’ recommendations havegradually evolved as policy measures at local andnational level of high relevance to the development ofsustainable UPA (Dubbeling & de Zeeuw 2007).These facilitate optimal benefits while preventing orreducing any associated risks. This set of recommen-dations was developed from experiences gained fromthe 17 cities that participated in the RUAF coordi-nated cities farming for the future programme (2000–08) supplemented by a number of international andregional conferences and workshops on UPA invol-ving local authorities, researchers, practitioners andinternational organizations.

REFERENCES

ARMAR-KLEMESU, M. (2000). Urban agriculture andfood security, nutrition and health. In Growing Cities,

Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda(Eds M. Bakker, N. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel

8 H. DE ZEEUW, R. VAN VEENHUIZEN AND M. DUBBEL ING

Koschella & H. de Zeeuw), pp. 99–117. Feldafing,Germany: DSE.

BAILKEY, M., WILBERS, J. & VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2007).Building communities through urban agriculture (edi-torial). Urban Agriculture Magazine 18, 1–6.

BAKER, J. L. (2008). Impacts of Financial, Food and FuelCrisis on the Urban Poor. Directions in UrbanDevelopment: Issues Note Series. Washington, DC:World Bank.

BAUDOIN, W. & DRESCHER, A. (2008). Urban Agriculture forSustainable Poverty Alleviation and Food Security. Rome:FAO.

BIRLEY, M. & LOCK, K. (1999). The Health Impacts of Peri-urban Natural Resources Development. Trowbridge, UK:Cromwell Press.

BOISCHIO, A., CLEGG, A. & MWAGORE, D. (2006). Healthrisks and benefits of urban and peri-urban agriculture andlivestock in sub-Saharan Africa: resource papers andproceedings. In Urban Poverty and Environment SeriesReport 1. Ottawa: International Development ResearchCentre.

BOURQUE, M. (2000). Policy options for urban agriculture. InGrowing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on thePolicy Agenda (Eds M. Bakker, N. Dubbeling, S.Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella & H. de Zeeuw), pp. 119–145. Feldafing, Germany: DSE.

BRADFORD, A., HOEKSTRA, F. & VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2009).Linking relief, rehabilitation and development: a role forurban agriculture: editorial. Urban Agriculture Magazine21, 3–10.

BROWN, K. H. & JAMETON, A. L. (2000). Public healthimplications of urban agriculture. Journal of PublicHealth Policy 21, 20–39.

BUECHLER, S., MEKALA, G. D. & KERAITA, B. (2006).Wastewater use for urban and peri-urban agriculture. InCities Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Greenand Productive Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 243–273. The Philippines: RUAF Foundation/IDRC/IIRR.

CAI, J., LIU, S., YANG, Z., YUAN, H. & JIANG, F. (2006). TheBeijing urban agriculture policy guidelines: a milestone.Urban Agriculture Magazine 16, 32–34.

COFIE, O. & VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2008). Editorial: sustain-able use of water in urban agriculture. Urban AgricultureMagazine 20, 3–6.

COLE, D., LEE-SMITH, D. & NASINYAMA, G.W. (2008).Healthy City Harvests: Generating Evidence to GuidePolicy on Urban Agriculture. Lima, Peru: InternationalPotato Centre & Makerere University Press.

DRECHSEL, P. & KUNZE, D. (2001). Waste Composting forUrban and Peri-urban Agriculture: Closing the Rural–Urban Nutrient Cycle in Sub-Saharan Africa. Wallingford,UK/Colombo, Sri Lanka/Rome, Italy: CABI/IWMI/FAO.

DRECHSEL, P., SCOTT, C. A., RASCHID-SALLY, L.,REDWOOD, M. & BAHRI, A. (2010). Wastewater Irrigationand Health: Assessing and Mitigation Risks in Low-incomeCountries. London: Earthscan/IDRC/IWMI.

DUBBELING, M., BRACALENTI, L. & LAGORIO, L. (2009b).Participatory design of public spaces for urban agricul-ture, Rosario, Argentina. Open House International 34,36–49.

DUBBELING, M., CATON CAMPBELL, M., HOEKSTRA, F. &VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2009a). Editorial: building resilientcities. Urban Agriculture Magazine 22, 3–11.

DUBBELING, M. & DE ZEEUW, H. (2007). Multi-stakeholderpolicy formulation and action planning for sustainableurban agriculture development. RUAF Working PaperNo. 1. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation.Available online at: http://www.ruaf.org/taxonomy/term/45/0?page=1 (verified 6 December 2010).

ESCAP: UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION

FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (2009). Sustainable Agricultureand Food Security in Asia and the Pacific. Geneva: UnitedNations.

FAO (2004). The State of Food Insecurity in the World.Rome: FAO.

FAO (2008). State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008: HighFood Prices and Food Security – Threats andOpportunities. Rome: FAO.

FAO & MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NATURE MANAGEMENT

AND FISHERIES, THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) (1999).Cultivating our Futures: Taking Stock of theMultifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land.Rome/The Hague: FAO.

GONZALEZ NOVO, M. & MURPHY, C. (2000). Urban agricul-ture in the City of Havana: a popular response to a crisis.InGrowing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on thePolicy Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture (Eds N.Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella &H. De Zeeuw), pp. 329–347. Feldafing, Germany:DSE/ETC.

HALL, P. & PAIN, K. (2009). The Polycentric MetropolisLearning from Mega-City Regions in Europe. London:Earthscan.

HEINBERG, R. & BOMFORD, M. (2009). The Food & FarmingTransition. Toward a Post Carbon Food System.Sebastopol, CA: Post Carbon Institute.

HOVORKA, A., DE ZEEUW, H. & NJENGA, M. (2009). WomenFeeding Cities; Mainstreaming Gender in UrbanAgriculture and Food Security. London, UK: PracticalAction.

IASC TASK FORCE ON MEETING HUMANITARIAN CHALLENGES

ON URBAN AREAS (in press). Meeting HumanitarianChallenges in Urban Areas: Assessment and Strategy,Geneva, Switzerland.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)(2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summaryfor Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.

JACOBI, P. AMEND, J. & KIANGO, S. (2000). Urban agriculturein Dar es Salaam: providing for an indispensable part ofthe diet. In Growing Cities, Growing Food: UrbanAgriculture on the Policy Agenda. A Reader on UrbanAgriculture (Eds N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel,U. Sabel-Koschella & H. de Zeeuw), pp. 257–283.Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ETC.

JIANG, F., YUAN, H., LIU, S. & CAI, J. (2005).Multifunctional agrotourism in Beijing. UrbanAgriculture Magazine 15, 14–15.

KAUFMAN, J. & BAILKEY, M. (2000). Farming inside cities:entrepreneurial urban agriculture in the United States.Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute ofLand Policy.

KOUVONOU, F.M., HONFOGA, B. G. & DEBRAH, S. K. (1998).Sécurité alimentaire et gestion integree de la fertilite dessols: contribution du maraichage peri-urbain a Lomé.In Agriculture Urbaine en Afrique de l’Ouest: Une Con-tribution a la Sécurité et a l’Assainissement des Villes(Ed. O. B. Smith), pp. 83–103. Ottawa: Technical Centre

9Role of urban agriculture in developing countries

for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation/InternationalDevelopment Research Centre.

LACOSTE, E. & CHALMIN, P. (2007). From Waste toResource: 2006 World Waste Survey. Paris, France:Economica.

LARBI, T. & COFIE, O. (2007). Exploratory study report onUPA in Freetown, Sierra Leone. RUAF Project Report.Accra, Ghana: IWMI.

LATTUCA, A., TERRILE, R., BRACALENTI, L., LAGORIO, L.,RAMOS, G. & MOREIRA, F. (2005). Building food secureneighbourhoods in Rosario. Urban Agriculture Magazine15, 23–24.

LIU, S., CAI, J. & YANG, Z. (2003). Migrants’ access to landin peri-urban Beijing. Urban Agriculture Magazine 11,6–8.

LOCK, K. & DE ZEEUW, H. (2001). Mitigating the health risksassociated with urban and peri-urban agriculture. UrbanAgriculture Magazine 1, 6–8.

LOURENÇO-LINDELL, I. (1995). The informal food economy ina peripheral urban district: the case of Bandim District,Bissau. Habitat International 19, 195–208.

LOVO, I. C. & PEREIRA COSTA, Z. R. (2006). Making lawsfor urban agriculture: the experience of GovernadorValadares, Brazil. Urban Agriculture Magazine 16, 45–47.

MAXWELL, D., WEBB, P., COATES, J. & WIRTH, J. (2008).Rethinking food security in humanitarian response. Paperpresented to the Rethinking Food Security in HumanitarianResponse International Forum, Rome, April 16–18, 2008.Available online at: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/conflict_disasters/rethinking_food_security.html(verified 2 December 2010).

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN

SERVICES (2007). National Campaign to Motivate DomesticFood Production 2007–2010. Colombo: Ministry ofAgricultural Development and Agrarian Services.Available online at: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/southasia/ruaf/cffgampaha.html (verified 2 December 2010).

MOUGEOT, L. J. A. (2000). Urban agriculture: definition,presence, potentials and risks. In Growing Cities, GrowingFood: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. A Readeron Urban Agriculture (Eds N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S.Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella & H. De Zeeuw), pp. 99–117.Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ETC.

MOUGEOT, L. J. A. (2005). AGROPOLIS: The Social,Political and Environmental Dimensions of UrbanAgriculture. London: Earthscan.

MOUGEOT, L. J. A. (2006). Growing Better Cities: UrbanAgriculture for Sustainable Development. Ottawa, Canada:IDRC.

MOUSTIER, P. & DANSO, G. (2006). Local economic develop-ment and marketing of urban produced food. In CitiesFarming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green andProductive Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 174–195.Manilla, The Philippines: IIRR/RUAF Foundation/IDRC.

MUBVAMI, T. & TORIRO, P. (2010). Joint action planning onurban agriculture in Bulawayo. In Cities, Poverty andFood; Multi-stakeholder Policy and Planning in UrbanAgriculture (Eds M. Dubbeling, H. De Zeeuw & R. vanVeenhuizen), pp. 95–101. London: Practical ActionPublishers.

NUGENT, R. (2000). The impact of urban agriculture onthe household and local economies. In Growing Cities,Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy

Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture (Eds N. Bakker,M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella & H. DeZeeuw), pp. 67–97. Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ETC.

OBUOBIE, E., KERAITA, B., DANSO, G., AMOAH, P.,COFIE, O. O., RASCHID-SALLY, L. & DRECHSE, P. (2006).Irrigated Urban Vegetable Production in Ghana:Characteristics, Benefits and Risks. Accra, Ghana:IWMI/RUAF Foundation/IDRC/CPWF.

PONCE, M. & TERRILE, R. (2010). An analysis of marketsin Rosario, Argentina. Urban Agriculture Magazine 24,55–57.

PRAIN, G. (2010). Effects of the Global Financial Crisis onthe Food Security of Poor Urban Households. Leusden,The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation/UN HABITAT/IDRC.

RAVALLION, M. (2001). On the urbanization of poverty.World Bank Development Research Group, PolicyResearch Working Papers No. 2586. Washington, DC:World Bank.

SAWIO, C. J. (1998). Managing urban agriculture in Dar esSalaam. Cities Feeding People Series Report 20. Ottawa,Canada: IDRC.

SMEETS, P. J. A.M., VAN MANSFELD, M. J.M., ZHANG, C.,LOOHUIS, R. O., BROEZE, J., BUIJS, S., MOENS, E., VAN

LATESTEIJN, H., VAN STEEKELENBURG, M., STUMPEL, L.,BRUINSMA, W., VAN MEGEN, T., MAGER, S.,CHRISTIAENS, P. & HEIJER, H. (2007). Master Plan.Greenport Shanghai Agropark. Wageningen, TheNetherlands: Alterra.

SMIT, J. & BAILKEY, M. (2006). Building community capitaland social inclusion through urban agriculture. In CitiesFarming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green andProductive Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 145–170.Manilla, The Philippines: IIRR/RUAF Foundation/IDRC.

SMIT, J., RATTA, A. & NASR, J. (1996). Urban Agriculture:Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. New York: UNDP.

SOJA, E.W. (2000). Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Citiesand Regions. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

SONOU, M. (2001). Peri-urban irrigated agriculture andhealth risks in Ghana. Urban Agriculture Magazine 3,33–34.

TIDBALL, K. G. & KRASNY, M. (2006). From risk toresilience: what role for community greening and civicecology in cities? In Social Learning Towards a MoreSustainable World (Ed. A. Wals), pp. 149–164. Wagening,The Netherlands: Academic Press.

TIXIER, P. & DE BON, H. (2006). Urban horticulture. In CitiesFarming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green andProductive Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 313–346.Manilla, The Philippines: IIRR/RUAF Foundation/IDRC.

UNESCO (2003). Water for people, water for life.UNWorldWater Development Report. Paris, France: UNESCO.

UN-HABITAT (2007). State of the World’s Cities Report2006/2007. London: Earthscan.

UN-HABITAT (2009). Report of the InternationalTripartite Conference Urban Challenges and PovertyReduction in African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries,8–10 June 2009, Nairobi. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT.

UNFPA: UN POPULATIONS FUND (2007). State of the WorldPopulation; Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth.New York: UNFPA.

10 H. DE ZEEUW, R. VAN VEENHUIZEN AND M. DUBBEL ING

VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2006). Introduction: cities farmingfor the future. Introduction. In Cities Farming for theFuture: Urban Agriculture for Green and ProductiveCities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 1–18. Manilla, ThePhilippines: IIRR/RUAF Foundation/IDRC.

VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. & DANSO, G. (2007). Profitabilityand sustainability of urban and peri-urban agriculture.FAO Agricultural Management, Marketing and FinanceOccasional Paper No 19. Rome: FAO.

VILJOEN, A. (2005). Continuous Productive Urban Land-scapes. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.

WHO (1992). Our planet, our health. Report of the WHOCommission on Health and Environment. Geneva: WorldHealth Organization.

WHO (2006). Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater,Excreta and Grey Water. Geneva: WHO.

WILBERS, J. & DE ZEEUW, H. (2006). A critical review ofrecent policy documents on urban agriculture. UrbanAgriculture Magazine 16, 3–9.

YEUDALL, F. (2006). Nutritional perspectives in urbanand peri urban agriculture. In Health Risks and Benefitsof Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture and Livestock inSub-Saharan Africa (Eds A. Boischio, A. Clegg &D. Mwagore), pp. 25–34. Urban Poverty and EnvironmentSeries Report 1. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC.

ZEZZA, A. & TASCIOTTI, L. (2008). Does urban agricultureenhance dietary diversity? Empirical evidence from asample of developing countries. Paper prepared forpresentation at the 12th EAAE Congress People, Foodand Environments: Global Trends and European Strategies,Ghent, Belgium, 26–29 August 2008. Available online at:http://purl.umn.edu/44390 (verified 2 December 2010).

11Role of urban agriculture in developing countries