Photo: Kevin Dous/unsplash.com

We are living in an uncertain world. Over the past decades, we have been witnessing the effects of rapid environmental degradation due to unsustainable usage of natural resources and a fuel-based economy that hurts the environment even further. As a consequence of this, the climate crisis has accentuated the vulnerability of cities and rural areas with extreme weather such as droughts, heavy rains, cyclones, and hurricanes affecting fertile regions that, in the past, were able to supply our needs. 

In this volatile and ambiguous future, the main certainty is a need for change. Our current situation is not sustainable and requires rethinking our economic model, reshaping our lifestyles, reorganising our institutions, challenging our cemented “ways of working” to restructure our relationship with nature. This calls for common visioning, creativity, societal awareness and commitment, and political will that challenges the antagonistic relationship between people and nature. 

Producing food in cities may be one viable pathway towards resilience. In fact, extensive research shows that urban agriculture can positively contribute to urban sustainability in multiple ways (Menconi et al., 2020; Russo & Cirella, 2019). Besides providing ecosystem services, urban agriculture contributes to increasing biodiversity in cities as the occupation of vacant or idle land provides habitats for wildlife (Clucas et al., 2018) and the variation in vegetation cover and crop diversity delivers higher levels of biodiversity than other types of green areas (Lin et al., 2015). Furthermore, urban agriculture facilitates water infiltration (Hallett et al., 2016), contributes to regulating noise and temperatures ameliorating heat island effects (Nicholls et al., 2020a), and supports healthy soils (Beniston & Lal, 2012), waste recycling (Dalla Marta et al., 2019; Pollard et al., 2018), and air and water purification (Cortinovis & Geneletti, 2019) 

Examples of the potential of urban agriculture to increase food security worldwide, particularly in the global south, are also found in the literature (Edmondson et al., 2020; Nicholls et al., 2020b; Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2018). Despite limited research on the financial dimension, some studies emphasise urban agriculture’s ability to generate income, particularly for low-income households ( Clucas et al., 2018; CoDyre et al., 2015; Victor et al., 2018). Regardless of profitability, community gardening may contribute to satisfying dietary requirements and may also induce economic activity in sectors that supply urban farmers with the necessary production means. Diversification beyond food production, such as floriculture (Manikas et al., 2020), and the exploitation of amenities and provision of training and other services (Gregory et al., 2016; Holland, 2004) are examples of complementary UA activities that can generate direct and indirect jobs in community gardens, generating positive externalities for other sectors. 

Urban agriculture is often considered an enabler of new forms of social engagement, providing an arena for challenging stereotypes, exchanging knowledge, and dismantling social barriers (Corcoran & Kettle, 2015). Previous research provides evidence for the development of both bonding and bridging social capital through urban agriculture activities (Audate et al., 2019; Christensen et al., 2019; Shostak & Guscott, 2017). Beginning with a shared enjoyment of gardening, some social bonds have also been found to deepen over time, with fellow gardeners becoming a source of social support (Teig et al., 2009; Veen et al., 2016). Svendsen (2009) found that, while gardening often started out as a common activity among a small group of friends or neighbours, it often expanded to include rich social networks both within neighbourhoods and beyond.   

The well-being benefits associated with urban agriculture include improved physical and mental health through decreased risk factors (e.g., obesity), increased life satisfaction, reduced loneliness, increased happiness, decreased stress, connection to culture, and healthy ageing (Audate et al., 2019; Genter et al., 2015; Mourão et al., 2019; Van Den Berg et al., 2010). Hawkins et al. (2011) and Vanden Berg et al. (2010) found participation in allotment gardening to be more effective for well-being than other forms of exercise in reducing stress, even when the exercise was conducted outdoors. The connection to culture is largely concerned with the degree to which urban agriculture supports people to maintain their cultural identity and share aspects of their culture with others. For some immigrant populations, the cultivation of particular herbs or vegetables enables communities to sustain cultural values and knowledge from their countries of origin (Shostak & Guscott, 2017; Taylor & Lovell, 2015). Urban agriculture activities may also provide well-being benefits by enabling individuals or communities to engage with and feel ownership over urban space in what may be called environmental stewardship (Romolini et al., 2012).  

Another co-benefit of urban agriculture is related to its contribution for urban regeneration by increasing the vitality and liveability of public spaces (Panerai et al., 2004). Urban agriculture can positively influence the social performance of public spaces (Marcus, 2007) as it invites interpersonal interactions, creating safer cities. In addition, urban agriculture may deliver mixed uses to the neighbourhood (Poulsen et al., 2017) and provide opportunities for recreation for those who do not readily access green areas (Eggermont et al., 2015).  

Alongside these benefits, however, some undesirable effects of urban agriculture have also been documented. These primarily relate to potential environmental impacts and risks, for example, excessive water consumption (Dalla Marta et al., 2019), potential contamination of aquatic ecosystems and water quality (Harada et al., 2018), and maintenance concerns for irrigation practices, fertilising, weeding, pest control, pruning, and harvesting (Lee et al., 2019). The literature has seldom addressed social externalities, albeit some studies have pointed out problems such as vandalism (Lee et al., 2019) and green gentrification (Sbicca, 2019). Horst et al., (2017) also pinpoint that the associated benefits for health, skill-building and jobs, community development, and food security should be considered with caution. In fact, urban agriculture may reinforce and deepen societal inequities by benefitting more privileged communities and resourced organisations, as well as contributing to marginalisation and even displacement of socioeconomically disadvantaged households. If not consciously planned, urban agriculture can further exacerbate the processes of gentrification, as urban agriculture projects can make affordable neighbourhoods more attractive to economically advantaged groups (Horst et al., 2017; Safransky, 2014). 

In light of these benefits, and despite of drawbacks reported in some studies, urban agriculture is acquiring growing recognition as a pathway for fostering sustainability in cities. In policy, the 2001 FAO initiative Food for the Cities (FAO, 2023c) was the first tangible step in recognising cities as drivers of change in food policies. A stepping stone for the activation of municipal authorities and city councils in this debate was the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact in 2015 (Milan Municipality, 2015). This programme has brought together several mayors to develop holistic strategies integrating food, social economy, environment, and health, and it currently includes the participation of more than 200 cities and towns worldwide. More recently, other European documents such as the Farm to Fork Strategy (European Commission, 2020b), the Biodiversity strategy(European Commission, 2020a), and the Food2030 policy framework (European Commission, 2016) also emphasise the importance of city governments in developing short food supply chains that deliver co-benefits for all. In addition, urban agriculture is mentioned in roadmaps to strive for climate neutrality in cities, as a mitigation strategy that can deliver several co-benefits to urban populations (Lwasa et al., 2022).