Introduction
Across the country, metropolitan areas and adjoining peri-urban communities are experiencing a growing interest in urban agriculture (UA). For the purposes of this paper, the definition of UA was adapted from the American Planning Association's 2011 Report ‘Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places’Reference Hodgson, Campbell and Bailkey 1 :
Urban and peri-UA refers to the production, distribution and marketing of food and other products within the cores of metropolitan areas (comprising community and school gardens; backyard and rooftop horticulture; and innovative food-production methods that maximize production in a small area) and at their edges (including farms supplying urban farmers markets, community supported agriculture and family farms located in metropolitan green belts).
There are many examples of how these UA practices and policies are coming to fruition. Land inventories, such as the ones conducted in Portland and Detroit, are being employed by municipal governments to support UA projectsReference Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler and Rhoads 2 , Reference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 . Just in the past 2 years, large cities, including Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis and Portland, revised policies and zoning ordinances to accommodate changing land-use patternsReference Goldstein, Bellis, Morse, Myers and Ura 4 , Reference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 . Non-profits and municipal governments in cities across the country have also begun creating food policy councils, which often include elements directed toward strengthening UAReference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 , Reference Dufour 6 , 7 , Reference Cohen, Reynolds and Sanghvi 8 . A report from the American Planning Association indicated that UA continues to grow as a planning priority, with several cities and counties including UA in their comprehensive plansReference Hodgson, Campbell and Bailkey 1 , Reference Hodgson 9 . In addition, a growing number of state land grant universities and their cooperative extension systems are allocating resources toward research in UAReference Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler and Rhoads 2 , Reference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 , Reference Hendrickson and Porth 10 .
California leads the country in agricultural production; meanwhile, it has seven of the ten most densely populated urban centers in the USAReference Goldstein, Bellis, Morse, Myers and Ura 4 , Reference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 , 11 . This juxtaposition creates a unique set of challenges and motivations for UA in California as compared to other parts of the country. Over the past several years, the momentum in California has begun to escalate, with strong interest emerging in San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Los Angeles and other metropolitan communities. Backyard chickensReference Stinson and Mete 12 , community gardensReference MacNair 13 , Reference Twiss, Dickinson, Duman, Kleinman, Paulsen and Rilveria 14 , farmers’ marketsReference Feenstra and Lewis 15 and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs)Reference Galt, O'Sullivan, Beckett and Hiner 16 are gaining popularity, as local food continues to find its place on the tables of urban residents.
One challenge for urban farmers and municipal decision makers engaged with UA in California has been limited access to information and technical assistance. University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE), part of UC's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR), is a logical partner to provide research-based training and information. However, a study conducted at UC Davis found that UA tends to fall between the cracks in the UCCE system. It is beyond the scope of the Master Gardener Program, which focuses on non-commercial gardening such as backyard and demonstration gardens, and is often considered too marginally commercial to be a focus for UCCE personnel who work with farmersReference Reynolds 17 . Given the growing importance of UA among Californian residents and decision makers alike, it is an area that a public institution focused on agriculture might consider prioritizing.
UC ANR and UCCE personnel will need to be creative in developing resources for UA clientele, who may have different needs from their traditional audiences. Since many staff members work in fields such as youth development and nutrition education, which can intersect with urban farming, there are opportunities to cut across traditional program areas in addressing UA.
In the fall of 2012, a new 15-member multi-disciplinary project team at UC ANR began the process of developing a web-based information portal that will make it easier to serve urban farmers and policy advocates. The development of web-based educational resources will be grounded in a needs assessment that is currently underway. The needs assessment includes a literature review, a survey of UC ANR personnel and community clientele interviews. This paper focuses on the preliminary research results from the needs assessment.
Methods
The needs assessment includes three steps. In order to better understand national trends in UA and build a case for its importance, the first step was a literature review that focused on the economic, social and health impacts of UA, primarily in the USAReference Golden 18 . Using more than 78 sources, including 53 peer-reviewed articles, 22 program or agency reports, and three books, it is a snapshot of the state of UA.
The second step of the needs assessment was a survey developed to gather data on current ANR personnel engagement with UA. UC ANR is geographically dispersed, with staff at three campuses, nine research and extension centers and 57 county offices. In addition to being spread out around the state, UC ANR includes varied programs beyond those geared toward production agriculture, but which can be related to UA, such as youth and community development, nutrition and consumer sciences, natural resources and the Master Gardener Program, which trains volunteers to help backyard (non-commercial) gardeners. The project team was aware of various efforts being undertaken related to UA, but it was unclear how widespread these activities were, and what they looked like on the ground.
In addition to investigating the type and scope of current activities, the team wanted to learn more about barriers to working with UA clientele, identify resources that would be helpful in expanding UA work, and assess the willingness of UC ANR personnel to serve as subject matter experts on UA topics. There have been no prior efforts in the organization to define and comprehensively gather data on UA activities throughout the state, although an earlier study which surveyed farmers in one California county and interviewed a subset of extension staff was foundational to this effortReference Reynolds 17 .
The 19-item online questionnaire was geared to both academic and non-academic personnel, who may be involved with UA, including Cooperative Extension advisors/agents/educators, extension specialists, campus faculty working on topics related to UA and others, as appropriate. Because no comprehensive list of such individuals was available, and to avoid excluding any potential respondents, the survey was sent to all UC ANR personnel, via several employee listservs, reaching a total of 1639 employees, with two reminders to each listserv, beginning in February 2013 and closing after 2 months. The survey was also publicized in UC ANR's employee newsletter. As part of the survey, ANR personnel were provided with the team's adapted American Planning Association definition of UA (see the Introduction) to help frame their responses.
The survey garnered 156 responses, which represented a 10% response rate from all personnel contacted. A high response rate was not necessarily expected, since many personnel are in positions that are unrelated to the topic. Fortunately, the response rate was higher (38%) among UCCE advisors in counties, who work closely with local communities and thus may be more likely to have contact with UA clientele. Most respondents indicated that the geographic areas within which they work have significant population centers. Eighty-one percent interact with a geographic area that includes an urban or metropolitan area with a population of 50,000 or more.
The third step was to conduct interviews with urban farmers and local policy makers engaged with UA, to learn more about challenges and barriers they have encountered, as well as their needs for educational materials, support and technical assistance. Recommendations for potential interviewees were gathered from the project team, and evaluated with a matrix to ensure a diverse mix of interviewees geographically, demographically, and from various sizes and types of urban farms. Farms under consideration had to meet ANR's definition of UA, which eliminated sites where production was strictly for individual home consumption or projects that were solely for educational purposes. Community gardens, school gardens and ‘urban homesteads’, for example, did not meet the team's criteria unless they had sales or other community distribution built into their activities. The pool of local policy makers sought for interviews included city and municipal employees working on UA issues, as well as advocates from food policy councils and similar organizations formulating and promoting UA policy changes in their community.
Once a list of appropriate interviewees was gathered, invitations were sent by email, and a $10 gift certificate was offered as a small incentive. A semi-structured interview format, which included both open-ended and closed-ended questions, conducted by phone or in person, was used to gather detailed information. Each interview took approximately 45–60 min to complete. Interviews began in July 2013 and were ongoing at the time this paper was completed in August 2013. Both the online questionnaire and the clientele interview guide were developed by the project team, pilot tested and approved by the UC Davis Institutional Review Board.
Review of the UA Literature: Impacts
The majority of the literature reviewed can be classified into two major typologies that fit within UC ANR's definition of UA. The first group consists of literature related to food cultivation within cities, including community gardens and urban farms. These are often community-driven projects that rely on non-profits or agencies. The other group of literature is devoted to peri-UA with producers that market directly to urban centers. Farmers’ markets and CSAs are the most researched topics within this category. Because UC ANR's UA definition encompassed both production in cities and distribution of farm products from the urban fringe into city centers, the literature review was not disaggregated into urban and peri-urban results. Urban and peri-urban farming were viewed as a continuum, rather than two separate categories.
In assessing the types of impacts identified in the literature, social impacts were the most frequently documented, with health impacts second. Economic impacts were the most difficult to find, and often modeled projections rather than using primary data. The following is a brief summary of the social, health and economic impacts from the literature reviewed.
Social impacts
For the purpose of this review, social impacts incorporated impacts on human interactions with the built environment. There were five major impacts found in this category: (1) creating safe places and reducing blight, (2) enhancing community development and building social capital in communities, (3) creating education and youth development opportunities, (4) fostering cross-generational and cultural integration, and (5) providing access to land. These impacts are summarized below.
The presence of community gardens and urban farms contributes to beautifying neighborhoods, creating safe spaces and employing residents, and that, in turn, creates a sense of pride in placeReference Bradley and Galt 19 – Reference Teig, Amulya, Bardwell, Buchenau, Marshall and Litt 21 . Most recognized, however, is the community development potential of UA. The interactions in urban gardens and farms often involve decision-making and planning processes that require consensus, making community gardens important places for encouraging democratic values and citizen engagementReference Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler and Rhoads 2 , Reference Teig, Amulya, Bardwell, Buchenau, Marshall and Litt 21 – Reference Travaline and Hunold 25 . For urban farms and businesses, the development of self-determination, self-reliance and activism are major impactsReference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 , Reference Bradley and Galt 19 , Reference White 26 – Reference Bonacich and Alimahomed-Wilson 28 . Studies found that participants expressed improved self-esteem and prideReference Bradley and Galt 19 , Reference Feenstra, McGrew and Campbell 29 .
CSAs and farmers’ markets were directly connected to social capital and building communities. Studies with farmers and members of CSAs mentioned that relationships are developed through frequent interactions at farm events and weekly pick-upsReference Bregendahl and Flora 30 , Reference Sumner, Mair and Nelson 31 . Farmers’ markets are also places for gathering and fostering community. However, barriers, such as lack of culturally appropriate food and affordability, may exclude low-income and minority residents in some marketsReference Dufour 6 , Reference Suarez-Balcazar 32 , Reference Fisher 33 .
A related impact of UA is the way it functions as a medium for learning experiences, educational programs and youth development opportunitiesReference Hodgson, Campbell and Bailkey 1 , Reference Bradley and Galt 19 , Reference Ober Allen, Alaimo, Elam and Perry 20 , Reference Travaline and Hunold 25 , Reference Kerton and Sinclair 34 , Reference Krasny and Doyle 35 . Learning outcomes included awareness of environmental issues and ethics, sustainability and food systemsReference Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler and Rhoads 2 , Reference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 , Reference Travaline and Hunold 25 , Reference Bregendahl and Flora 30 , Reference Kerton and Sinclair 34 . Much of this learning and knowledge sharing spurred awareness of environmental and social justice in order to empower residents, and increased activismReference Goldstein, Bellis, Morse, Myers and Ura 4 , Reference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 , Reference Bradley and Galt 19 , Reference White 26 , Reference Levkoe 36 . UA is also a way to promote cultural and cross-generational integration. Several urban farm and community garden projects allow immigrants to cultivate food to sell and consumeReference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 , Reference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 , 7 , Reference Cohen, Reynolds and Sanghvi 8 , Reference Feenstra, McGrew and Campbell 29 , Reference Beckie and Bogdan 37 . In others, cross-generation sharing and integration between youth and seniors occurredReference Hodgson 9 , Reference Teig, Amulya, Bardwell, Buchenau, Marshall and Litt 21 , Reference Patel 23 , Reference Armstrong 38 , Reference Schukoske 39 .
For both gardeners and farmers, UA projects allow them to access land, a scarce resource in many urban and peri-urban landscapes. In some of the literature reviewed, participants felt that one of the most important benefits of community gardening was ‘providing a piece of land for people to call their own for a season’Reference Hendrickson and Porth 10 , Reference Patel 23 , where they could develop a sense of pride and ownership 11 , Reference Armstrong 38 . Peri-urban farms found direct marketing through CSAs and farmers’ markets to be a critical tool for generating public buy-in and political awareness to advocate for farmland preservation, which can in return lead to land accessReference Stinson and Mete 12 , Reference Feenstra and Lewis 15 , Reference Gale 40 , Reference Jarosz 41 .
Health impacts
Improving the health of inner city residents is a primary objective of many UA projects. Major health impacts attributed to UA included: (1) food access and security, (2) increased fruit and vegetable consumption, (3) food and health literacy, and (4) general improvements to health and well-being (mental health and physical activity).
UA has been a successful strategy in improving food access and making communities more food secureReference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 , Reference MacNair 13 , Reference Twiss, Dickinson, Duman, Kleinman, Paulsen and Rilveria 14 , Reference Armstrong 38 , Reference Corrigan 42 , Reference Larsen and Gilliland 43 . UA food projects evaluated by the Community Food Security Coalition, for example, produced 18.7 million pounds of food with over 726,000 lb donated for community food consumptionReference Feenstra and Lewis 15 , Reference Kobayashi, Tyson and Abi-Nader 44 . Three prior literature reviews found an array of sources suggesting that UA can increase fruit and vegetable consumption among participantsReference Brown and Jameton 45 – Reference Bellows, Brown and Smit 47 . People who participate, or have family members who participate, in community gardens ‘were 3.5 times more likely to consume fruits and vegetables at least five times per day than people without a gardening household member’Reference Reynolds 17 , Reference Alaimo, Packnett, Miles and Kruger 48 . Farmers’ markets are also associated with more healthful food consumption. For example, neighborhoods with farmers’ markets had higher fruit and vegetable consumption rates among people of colorReference Park, Quinn, Florez, Jacobson, Neckerman and Rundle 49 .
Some reports suggest that UA is an important strategy to increase food and health literacy 7 , Reference Ober Allen, Alaimo, Elam and Perry 20 , Reference Teig, Amulya, Bardwell, Buchenau, Marshall and Litt 21 . Several community and urban farm programs included nutrition information that discussed healthful food choices at the request of communitiesReference Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler and Rhoads 2 , Reference Teig, Amulya, Bardwell, Buchenau, Marshall and Litt 21 – Reference White 26 . These programs, as well as CSAs and farmers’ markets, raised nutrition awareness and increased healthy cooking and eating practicesReference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 , Reference Bradley and Galt 19 , Reference White 26 – Reference Bonacich and Alimahomed-Wilson 28 , Reference Bregendahl and Flora 30 , Reference Krasny and Doyle 35 , Reference Levkoe 36 , Reference Alaimo, Packnett, Miles and Kruger 48 .
Economic impacts
Five major economic impacts found in the literature included: (1) job creation, training and business incubation, (2) market expansion for farmers, (3) decreased food expenditures, (4) savings for municipal agencies, and (5) increased home values. Economic impact studies were not as prevalent as studies about social and health impacts of urban agriculture. The majority of the studies in this review focused on farmers’ markets and CSAs; much of the rest focused on the economic benefits to consumers and gardeners.
Many UA projects provide skills training and provide jobs. These programs often employ youth to run gardens and farms, or provide paid stipends in addition to skills trainingReference Feenstra, McGrew and Campbell 29 , Reference Metcalf and Widener 50 . Other UA projects, particularly farmers’ markets and CSAs, successfully incubated new businessesReference Feenstra and Lewis 15 , Reference Bregendahl and Flora 30 , Reference Sumner, Mair and Nelson 31 . Additionally, research on famers’ markets and CSAs found that these direct marketing strategies created reliable markets for small famers to expand their operationsReference Feenstra 51 . Economic modeling was used in two studies that showed UA as having a potentially positive impact on job creation and revenue generationReference Moreau and Hodgson 52 , Reference Conner, Knudson, Hamm and Peterson 53 .
There was substantial research indicating that UA can reduce the money spent on food. Some reports quantified the savings, which ranged from $475 a season for individual gardenersReference Patel 23 to $915,000 worth of food a year for an entire community garden programReference Bellows, Brown and Smit 47 . Famers’ markets and CSAs can also provide consumer benefits through cost savingsReference Cooley and Lass 54 . Farmers’ markets in low-income communities in studies reviewed had more affordable and quality produceReference Suarez-Balcazar 32 , Reference Park, Quinn, Florez, Jacobson, Neckerman and Rundle 49 than corner stores, and in some cases, provided enough competition to lower supermarket prices on produceReference Larsen and Gilliland 43 .
The idea that UA can save municipal agencies money by maintaining vacant lots was often listed in agency reports as a positive impactReference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 , 7 – Reference Hodgson 9 . A few studies correlated the presence of UA with increased home values and household incomeReference Voicu and Been 55 , Reference Liu 56 . In one study, the presence of shared gardens raised property values by as much as 9.4% within 5 years of establishmentReference Voicu and Been 55 . Tax revenues from these property increases were estimated at half a million dollars per garden over 20 years, making initial investments from government agencies for community garden and farm projects cost-effectiveReference Voicu and Been 55 . However, rising property values can have negative impacts for the substantial part of the population that does not own real estate, since it can lead to higher rents for low-income residents, which can cause large-scale exclusion of long-time, poorer residents.
Challenges and barriers
Many reports, books and articles discussed the challenges and barriers for UA projects, which include zoning, city ordinances, contaminated soil, access to water, securing capital/funding and distributionReference Goldstein, Bellis, Morse, Myers and Ura 4 , Reference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 – 7 , Reference Hendrickson and Porth 10 , Reference Brown, Carter, Bailkey, Buchanan, Meares-Cohen, Mann, Nasr and Smit 57 – Reference Viljoen, Bohn and Howe 60 . The two most frequently discussed in the literature are maintaining social equity and accessing land.
Most of the UA projects include a social component meant to benefit the public or specific clientele. Many are non-profits and/or are located in low-income areas that have historically been impacted by structural inequalityReference Herrera, Khanna and Davis 61 . Despite their positioning in underserved communities, staff managing these projects may come from a highly educated, affluent backgroundReference Bradley and Galt 19 , Reference McClintock 27 . Coming from outside the community they serve, these staff members may not fully consider limitations such as the cost of farm products relative to what community members can afford, or lack of accessibility of UA sites due to inadequate public transportation options or limited operating hoursReference Metcalf and Widener 50 , Reference Macias 62 .
In terms of land access, many US cities have a substantial amount of acreage in vacant lots according to land inventories and public recordsReference Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler and Rhoads 2 , Reference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 , Reference Broadway and Broadway 63 , Reference Kremer and DeLiberty 64 . There are several efforts, such as in Portland, ORReference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 , Vancouver, BCReference Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler and Rhoads 2 and Detroit, MIReference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 , to identify these spaces and utilize them for agriculture. However, many vacant lots are Superfund sites, or have contaminated soil, requiring costly remediationReference Colasanti, Litjens and Hamm 3 , Reference Hagey, Rice and Flournoy 59 , Reference Kaufman and Bailkey 65 . Overcoming these barriers can require massive amounts of capital, and remediation can often only be achieved with major support.
These impacts and challenges provide a broad and helpful context for understanding the specific experiences, challenges and needs of California's residents who participate in, or benefit from, UA. Cooperative Extension personnel who work directly in UA settings must consider impacts and recognize challenges in order to serve best this community.
Findings of the UCANR Staff Survey
The results of the survey, the second component of the needs assessment, provided an important look at current involvement in UA among UC ANR personnel.
UA involvement and types of projects
UA involvement was common among the survey respondents, with 65% noting that they had provided support, advice, technical assistance or served as a partner for UA activities within the past year. The most common type of involvement cited was training Master Gardener, 4-H or other UCCE volunteers to serve UA clientele (35% of respondents). However, UC ANR policy currently prohibits UCCE volunteers from giving advice on commercial projects, so their involvement is limited to helping with UA projects whose products are made available through donations or other non-commercial distribution. The second most common activity was providing guidance and support for community gardens (30% of respondents). The third was giving production advice to small urban farmers (28%). Less common were providing guidance and support related to raising urban poultry (10%), urban livestock (8%) and bees (7%). Table 1 provides additional examples.
Table 1. Involvement of UC ANR staff in urban agriculture (UA) during the past 12 months by activity.
Perceived relevance to UC ANR's mission and challenges
Most of the respondents considered UA relevant to UC ANR's mission, with 63% identifying UA as ‘highly relevant to ANR's mission’ and another 33% viewing it as ‘somewhat relevant.’ Some respondents commented that UA deserves more attention. For example, one respondent stated that ANR should ‘recognize and value the contributions of small-scale farmers operating on the ag–urban interface and get serious about supporting them. It is time for our organization to move past the big farm bias/approach for everything.’
Only 4% of the respondents considered UA to be ‘not relevant’ to UC ANR's mission. One respondent wrote, ‘In this time of diminishing UCCE staffing, I feel we should put our resources where they will do the most good in safe guarding our food supply and natural resources. UA impacts relatively a few people. I see very few operations that are professional or economically viable; so I am loath to take resources away from the farmers who are feeding LOTS of people and redirect them toward these who are impacting relatively few.’
Respondents also noted various challenges in addressing the needs of clientele related to UA. Almost half stated that because this was not their core clientele group, they had difficulty making time (53%) to provide support. Funding was another common barrier to addressing this audience (37%), as was a lack of current research-based educational materials (23%).
Open-ended responses hinted at special challenges addressing this audience, such as their lack of knowledge and the subsequent need to invest more time with them. Time is limited among UCCE personnel, who often cover large geographic areas and serve many farmers. One commented, ‘Commercial producers need help on a specific item. Urban people do not know where to start so you need to explain the process of raising an animal from start to finish.’
Educational resources needed and likelihood of more involvement
Respondents to the UC ANR survey would like to see educational materials developed on a number of topics, especially pest management (40%) and water management (35%) in UA, design of community UA projects (31%), soil testing and remediation for UA (30%) and tips for UA projects at schools (30%). More examples are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Educational materials helpful to UC ANR staff if developed or adapted for California.
If print and web educational resources were developed on priority UA topics, 36% of respondents indicated that they would be likely or very likely to expand their work in UA. Another 32% said it was a possibility, whereas 32% said it was very unlikely or somewhat unlikely that they would expand their work in this area.
Respondents were asked if they would be willing to serve as subject matter experts to help develop, review or adapt educational materials on specific UA topics, and 30% said that they would be likely or somewhat likely to do so. Another 27% said that they might possibly become involved in such an effort, while 44% said that they would be very or somewhat unlikely to do so.
Clientele Interviews: Needs among Urban Farmers and Policy Makers
Although very preliminary, the results from the interviews of urban farmers and policy makers suggest some potential areas of agreement between the UC ANR survey and the stated needs of clientele. Of the five interviews completed (15–20 additional interviews are scheduled), two interviewees are involved exclusively on the policy side of UA (they are not farmers), and three are urban farmers who have also become involved in policy work. Two are in the San Francisco Bay Area and three are in Southern California.
Urban farmers: Situation, challenges and needs
The three farms represented include a for-profit urban farm, a farm operated by the staff of a public agency and a farm managed by a non-profit organization. In terms of size, two of the farms were 1700 sq. ft. and 4 acres, and the third totals 3 acres, but consists of 50 small sites, located in private backyards, at schools and in public parks. This multi-site project aggregates its harvest to distribute through a CSA. All three operate in the urban core of their respective cities, rather than in peri-urban settings. The two farms that operate in the non-profit/public sphere both have a strong social justice focus. They distribute low-cost produce in their communities, which are underserved and low-income, through CSAs and farmers’ markets that offer fresh produce at an affordable price.
All three farms produce vegetable crops, fruit and herbs. One site includes a small aquaponics component that produces tilapia. Two sites include chickens, and one has additional poultry (turkeys, ducks and quail), as well as rabbits and bees. Two of the farms produce value-added products, including jams, dried fruit and dehydrated herbs. Two sites have paid employees and all three use volunteers.
All three farmers had gardening experience before becoming urban farmers, and it has proved challenging at times to move from backyard gardening into small-scale commercial farming. Challenges included land access, long-term availability of land, business planning, production issues, regulations, marketing and access to information. When asked what help would have been most valuable to them in their start-up phase, they indicated that nuts and bolts information on production would have been most helpful; for example, one farmer noted the importance of ‘a handbook on how to start an urban farm from a trusted source.’ As their farms developed, they needed more information about regulations, marketing, labor and business management, as well as in-depth production advice.
Two of the farmers discussed the challenges of searching online to find reliable information and one commented that ‘trying to do piecemeal research on line is difficult. It's hard to authenticate the information, and we are never sure if it's correct.’ Their most important sources of information while starting their urban farms were non-profit or advocacy organizations focused on UA and related topics.
UA policy makers: Situation, challenges and needs
All five interviewees had some level of involvement with the UA policy, and four had policy work as a focus in their employment. (Three were also farmers, as noted above, involved in both farming and policy activities.)
In terms of the barriers and challenges they faced in developing and implementing UA policy, most often mentioned was the complex process of changing local zoning codes to be more flexible in allowing UA. Three interviewees mentioned difficulties in getting diverse stakeholders to agree and move forward. ‘The challenge has been taking everyone's energy and channeling it into action,’ said one interviewee.
In their efforts to change local policy, interviewees found that not everyone in their communities is pro-UA, and one person mentioned animal rights activists specifically as having organized against zoning code changes that involve animals. Another interviewee noted that animal agriculture sparked some community resistance in regards to smell, noise, the ambiguity of raising animals as pets or for food, and home slaughtering. Other challenges and barriers included competing demands for vacant land, regulatory barriers, local concerns about public health issues and funding to support UA policy work.
Asked what training and technical support would have been most helpful in their work on policy, one person felt that having basic materials on allowable uses of land, and basic definitions of UA with clear examples and models would have been helpful in educating decision makers and stakeholders during the early phases of her work. Two mentioned that some types of certification training on UA would have been helpful.
Regarding their most used sources of information, this group made use of resources from food policy councils, the American Planning Association, city planning departments, local government and regulatory agencies, such as county environmental health departments and non-profit organizations focused on health-related policy change.
Training and educational materials for urban farmers and policy makers
Both groups were asked about topics where training and educational materials would be especially valuable, if developed, via a series of closed-ended questions. Three topics selected by all interviewees as having potential to be ‘very helpful’ were information on: (1) CSAs, farmers’ markets and other marketing opportunities for urban farmers; (2) water management for urban farmers; and (3) pest management for urban farmers. Four of five interviewees thought that resources on best practices for UA policy, as well as strategies for improving healthy food access through UA, would be valuable. All participants said that online, downloadable resources would be very helpful.
Implications and Next Steps
Implications of these preliminary findings may be helpful for those involved with training, technical assistance and education for UA, such as personnel of land-grant universities, local governments and non-profits seeking to address the needs of urban farmers in an environment of constrained resources. The project's goals were to develop UC ANR's capacity to support UA in California by conducting research and providing objective UA information to urban residents and policy makers. Results of the needs assessment will be used over the coming year to guide development of an online portal offering research-based UA educational materials. The data gathered tentatively confirm that this will be a useful strategy, since both UC ANR staff and UA clientele have articulated a need for reliable sources of information on UA topics. A consistent and reliable source of science-based information will likely be useful to both urban farmers and policy makers. It will also help UC ANR/UCCE personnel to serve the needs of beginning urban farmers, who need very basic information as they are getting started.
However, online resources will need to be supplemented with other approaches, such as farm visits and small workshops, since not all UA practitioners have reliable internet access. Training and educational materials in Spanish and other languages will also be important. The Cooperative Extension personnel who work most closely with farmers have historically focused most attention on the economic aspects of farming, such as how to use inputs efficiently, and have been less likely to view farming through a social justice lens. Since many of the documented impacts of UA are social, the future work with UA clientele will require a collaborative approach that takes social inequities and injustices into accountReference Reynolds 17 , Reference Herrera, Khanna and Davis 61 .
Areas of focus for developing or adapting educational materials will be prioritized based on needs assessment results. Pest and water management for UA are two examples of high-priority topics that emerged among both UC ANR staff and clientele. Although the farmers interviewed were not specifically asked if their operations were certified organic, it is likely that they will be most interested in non-chemical strategies for pest management, given their locations in residential and community settings.
Despite challenges with allocating time to become more involved in UA, UC ANR personnel who responded to the survey overwhelmingly considered these activities as relevant to the organization's mission, and almost a third said they were likely to help develop, review or adapt resources. This level of support was welcome, given that ReynoldsReference Reynolds 17 had previously found that UC ANR/UCCE's research and extension support for UA was limited. Two-thirds of the respondents said they had provided support, advice, technical assistance or had served as a partner on a UA project within the past year. Most often, these efforts involved training volunteers who offer assistance for some non-commercial forms of UA, providing guidance for community gardens and offering production advice for urban farmers. Additionally, over 20% of UC ANR respondents were involved in some form of applied research related to UA, and this is another area where UC ANR has the potential to contribute significantly toward the development of successful UA systems. Some of the areas for further inquiry that emerged from the needs assessment are outlined below.
UA as a viable economic development tool should be studied further. More comprehensive and longitudinal studies need to be done within California and in the rest of the USA, that look at how these projects are financed and their economic contributions to the region (beyond how they function as other industrial land uses and/or are financially viable for individual farmers) and their sustainability. Comprehensive monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment are needed to provide objective advice to project designers and policy makers.
The most successful UA projects described in the literature were products of fruitful partnershipsReference Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler and Rhoads 2 , Reference Hendrickson and Porth 10 , Reference MacNair 13 , Reference Teig, Amulya, Bardwell, Buchenau, Marshall and Litt 21 , Reference Krasny and Doyle 35 , Reference Campbell and Salus 66 . There have been attempts to document a few partnerships in case studies, particularly regarding land access, with government agencies or land trustsReference Balmer, Gill, Miller, Peterson, Rhoads and Rosenbloom 5 , Reference Campbell and Salus 66 . A more comprehensive examination of partnerships and best practices that reflect diverse and unique circumstances among programs and cities would be a useful resource for municipalities.
Participatory action research in which researchers and community organizations together develop research protocols, gather data, analyze it and draw out implications is rare; yet sorely needed for strengthening the theory, practices and policies about UA. In particular, comparative case studies that involve both researchers and community practitioners in design, data gathering and analysis, can begin to address some of the social justice challenges faced in UA settingsReference Campbell, Carlisle-Cummins and Feenstra 67 . Beyond providing a source of accessible, science-based information for urban farmers and policy makers, UC ANR and similar institutions can play an important role in contributing to the growing body of knowledge on UA and its impacts on communities.
