World Devehpmenr, Vol. 23, No. 10, pp.

1669-1681, 1995
Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0305-750x/95 $9.50 + 0.00
0305-750x(95)ooo73-9

Alternative Food Security Strategy: A Household

Analysis of Urban Agriculture in Kampala

DANIEL G. MAXWELL*
University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.A.

Summary. - Farming within African cities has become an increasingly important source of food for
urban populations. Yet little is understood about the forces behind urban farming or its impact at the
household level. lntrahousehold dynamics and gender relations, as well as declining wages and economic
informalization are all important to an understanding of urban farming. Access to land is a major con-
straint, and only a small fraction of urban farmers own their land. For those with access to land, urban
farming is associated with higher levels of household food security and child nutrition. This paper outlines
the linkages between economic strategies. access to land, and food security, and discusses the policy
implications of urban farming.

I. INTRODUCTION urban poor.“’ Review articles in the late 1980s made

Farming within African cities has become an
important activity over the past two decades, yet it
remains largely misunderstood. This paper attempts
to address the multiple questions that arise about
semisubsistence farming in the city of Kampala,
Uganda. What are the forces driving the increase in
urban farming? How is the incorporation of farming
into urban economic strategies to be understood? In
the heavily built-up areas of the city, how do urban
residents acquire land for cultivation, particularly
low-income residents who do not own land? What is
the impact of urban agriculture at the household level
in terms of food security, nutritional status, and
income? What are the implications of urban farming
for policy makers?
During the late 198Os, a number of research studies
in different disciplines and different countries noted
the increasing importance of farming within African
cities. While the first research was concerned primar-
ily with urban planning (Sanyal, 1985), other studies
focused on the alleviation of poverty and the impact
of urban farming on food supply (Lee-Smith et al.,
1987; Freeman, 199 1; Drakakis-Smith, 1992;
Maxwell and Zziwa, 1992), the gender aspects of
urban farming (Rakodi, 1988,199l; Memon and Lee-
Smith, 1993), or land use and environmental consid-
erations (Sawio, 1993; Smit and Nasr, 1992). These
studies raised the issue of urban farming for policy
makers at both local and international levels. The
Brundtland Commission noted that “urban agriculture
could become an important component of urban
development and make more food available to the
similar observations about the potential of urban agri-
culture (Hussain and Lundven, 1988; Sachs and Silk,
1987). Yet recent policy studies have taken a some-
what more equivocal view, noting equity and envi-
ronmental concerns (Atkinson, 1992) and the lack of
conclusive evidence about the impact of urban farm-
ing. A 1993 study of urban food security by the
International Food Policy Research Institute noted
that the information base about urban agriculture is
“so limited that policy and program designs are often
based on speculation.“2
In many cities in Eastern and Southern Africa
farming is technically illegal, yet it is pervasive.
Urban authorities are often opposed to the practice for
several reasons. First, it is perceived as an artifact
of rural life that simply does not belong in cities.
Second, it is perceived as a public health nuisance.
Third, it is perceived as being of marginal importance
* I am extremely grateful for the excellent research assis-
tance of Gertrude Atukunda of Makerere Institute of Social
Research; and for comments on earlier drafts of this paper
from Aili Tripp, John Bruce, Christopher Barren and
Laurence Becker of the University of Wisconsin, Joanne
Csete of UNICEF, the late Emmanuel Nabuguzi of
Makerere Institute of Social Research, and two anonymous
reviewers. I am also grateful for the institutional support of
Makerere Institute of Social Research during fieldwork.
Funding for this research came from a Fulbright-Hays
Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship, and
from the National Science Foundation, USA. All views
expressed, and all errors and omissions are mine alone. Final
revision accepted: April 26, 1995.

1669
1670 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

to the urban economy (Sanyal, 1985; Freeman, 1991;
Maxwell and Zziwa, 1992). Previous studies have
attempted to dispel some of these perceptions. They
have noted that the crisis of the formal urban econ-
omy and the impacts of structural adjustment are
forces driving the trend of increased food production
within urban areas, and most of them suggest that
urban agriculture has become one of the critical
means of “feeding the urban masses” in Africa
(Sawio, 1993).3Urban agriculture is usually portrayed
as a household survival strategy, one of the means
urban households have devised to adapt to an increas-
ingly hostile economic environment (Sanyal, 1985;
Freeman, 1991; Mvena, Lupanga and Mlozi, 1991).
Most studies note that the primary motive for urban
farming is food for household consumption and that
urban farmers are mostly women. Yet of studies
carried out to date, only Rakodi (1988, 1991)
and Memon and Lee-Smith (1992) examine gender
dynamics in detail, and only Lee-Smith er al. (1987)
estimate the household impact of urban farming. Most
studies presume a positive impact on household food
security but provide no conclusive evidence, hence
the skepticism of some local authorities and policy
makers toward this potentially important strategy for
urban food security.
This paper is based on field research carried out
in Kampala, Uganda, between November 1992 and
October 1993. The research included a series of 40
comparative household case studies, a two-round sur-
vey of 360 households selected into a multistage ran-
dom sample, and focus groups as follow-up to both
the case studies and the survey. The case study com-
parison spanned the entire year; the two rounds of the
survey were carried out during the rainy and dry sea-
sons.4 The next section of this paper briefly sketches
changes in the urban economy of Kampala during the
1970s and 1980s and describes the increased inci-
dence of urban farming during that period. The third
section presents an overview of the household analy-
sis of urban farming in Kampala, including a discus-
sion of intrahousehold dynamics, access to land, and a
comparison of food security and nutritional status in
farming and non-farming urban households in Kampala.
The final section discusses the implications of urban
farming, and suggests possible policy alternatives.
2. THE URBAN ECONOMY OF KAMPALA
(a) The decline ofthe formal economy
The formal economy G. Kampala, the capital and
largest city of Uganda, was severely damaged by the
“war of economic independence” of the Amin regime
(1971-79) that was initiated with the expulsion of the
Indian minority in Uganda and rapidly gave rise to a
highly informal magendoS economy dominated by
smuggling, illegal currency transactions and state
appropriation of private property (Banugire, 1985). In
the early to mid-1980s, a guerilla war was centered on
the outskirts of the city. These combined factors had a
devastating impact on the urban economy (Bigsten
and Kayizzi-Mugerwa, 1992; Jamal, 1985; Jamal and
Weeks, 1988, 1993), and contributed to a substan-
tially lower rate of urban population growth (Table 1).
Jamal and Weeks (1993) note that wages in Kampala
had been among the highest in East Africa in the
196Os, but fell dramatically in the 1970s. By the
198Os, the urban wage-earning class had shrunk
markedly as city residents were forced to diversify
their sources of income to compensate for the drastic
drop in wage earnings (Bigsten and Kayizzi-
Mugerwa, 1992). This resulted in the massive infor-
malization of the city’s economy, and an increase in
urban agriculture.

Table 1. Descriptive information. Kampala

Census years 1969 1980 1991

Population 330,700 458,500 774,250

Growth rate 9.3% 3.8% 4.9%
Mean household size - - 4.0
Employment*
Manufacturing 6.6%
Formal services 21.4%
Informal services 46.3%
Government 17.1%
Agriculture 4.5%
Domestic labor 4.1%

*Expressed as percentage of employed labor force. Complete unemployment is not counted. In the
absence of social safety nets, it is very difficult to measure, and most of the “unemployed” engage in
some kind of self-employment in informal services. These figures enumerate only one form of occupation
per household - an obvious underenumeration of total employment. Data not available for earlier
periods.
Sources: van Nostrand (1993). Ministry of Planning and Economic Development (1992).
 FOOD SECURITY IN KAMPALA 1671

Table 2. Cost offood as a percentage of minimum wage, Kampala

Year Minimum wage Consumer Real Wage Percentage of

(Shs./Month) price index Index minimum wage to
(1972 = 100) (1972 = 100) purchase food*

1967 150 75 108 49

I972 185 100 100 60
1984 6,000 35,000 9 450
1988 55,OOW 496,000+ 6 600

*Based on 9,ooO calories per day for a household of four using the price of matooke ZISthe staple, prices
from Kampala’s central Owino market.
tThe Uganda Shilling was demonetized in 1987; one new Shilling was worth 100 old ones. Figures
shown here are 1972 Shillings.
Source: Jamal and Weeks (1993)

Jamal and Weeks depict in graphic terms the
decline in the value of urban wages between the
1960s and the 1980s. Whereas in 1972, 60% of the
minimum wage was sufficient to provide food for a
household of four, by 1988 the entire monthly mini-
mum wage purchased enough food to last the same
household only about four or five days, as depicted by
Table 2.
(b) The rise of urban farming
Urban agriculture is not a new phenomenon in
Kampala. Southall and Gutkind (1957) made various
references to its occurrence. But the common percep-
tion among current residents is that farming within the
built-up areas of the city really began in the mid-
1970s. Both studies mentioned above (Jamal and
Weeks, 1993; Bigsten and Kayizzi-Mugerwa, 1992)
note the increase in urban farming, but interpret it dif-
ferently. Jamal (1985) suggested that urban farming
had been a critical factor stabilizing household food
security and preventing the massive malnutrition that
such a devasting economic decline might have
caused. Bigsten and Kayizzi-Mugerwa (1992) inter-
pret urban farming almost entirely as a market-
oriented activity but note that income from urban
farming is low. While attempts at farming are indica-
tive of people’s “survival instincts,” they suggest that
farming is marginal to the urban household economy.
Two different major trends can be noted regarding
urban agriculture in Kampala, resulting from different
historical origins. The municipal boundaries were
expanded in 1968, incorporating into the city peri-
urban areas where farming had always been the
prevalent economic activity. Farming is still the dom-
inant land use and economic practice in some of these
areas today, even though the areas described fall
under municipal administration and bylaws. In the
inner city and the older suburbs, farming is a rela-
tively new phenomenon that, by most respondents’
accounts, arose in the mid-1970s as the impact of
Amin’s “economic war” began to be felt by the urban
middle and lower classes. In either case, urban farm-
ing is a form of semiproletarianism, or reliance on
both cash and subsistence income. In the older parts
of the city it represents a movement away from sole
reliance on cash income earned from wage labor and
informal trade; in the peri-urban areas, it represents a
reluctance to become totally reliant on cash income.
About 35% of the households in the city engage in
some form of agricultural production (Table 3). Given
that farming households are considerably larger than
the overall mean for the city, this means that the diet

Table 3. Frequency qf urban agricuirure in Kampala

Proportion Enumeration area*

1 2 3 Total
n= I17 fl= 115 n= 116 n = 348

Keeping livestock 20.5% 5.2% 2.6% 9.5%

Cultivating 53.0% 27.0% 21.6% 33.9%
Farming (total) 54.7% 28.7% 21.6% 34.8%

*Enumeration areas:
I Luwafu, a rapidly growing low to middle-income peri-urban area; population density less than 30
people/ha in the enumeration area.
2. Kiswa, a low-income, densely populated inner city slum; population density around 190 people/ha in
the enumeration area.
3. Najjanankumbi, an older, mixed-income residential suburb; population density around 70 people/ha in
the enumeration area.
Source: Author’s household survey, 1993.
1612 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
and/or livelihood of about half the city’s population is
directly affected by urban farming. Staple foods,
notably cassava, sweet potatoes, cocoyams, and plan-
tains are the most prevalent crops, but seasonal crops
such as maize and beans, as well as vegetables and
fruit tree production are all common. Poultry is the
most frequently kept livestock; pigs, small ruminants
and cattle are somewhat less frequent, though not
uncommon. Table 3 presents data about the frequency
of farming in Kampala.
Land-use mapping shows that in 1992, 56.1% of
the land in the city is used for agriculture (Department
of Physical Planning, 1992). But less than 20% of
urban farmers own the land they farm. Well over half
rely on informal means of access that afford them
little security of tenure.
With the exception of a small group of commercial
farmers, the primary motive of urban farmers is to
secure a nonmarket source of food for the household
or family of the farmer. Urban farmers in Kampala are
overwhelmingly women; men who farm are mostly
single and either live alone or live with other men. In
other words, in conjugal households in the city where
someone is farming, that person is almost without
exception a woman.
3. A HOUSEHOLD ANALYSIS OF URBAN
FARMING IN KAMPALA
(a) A household strategy or a woman’s strategy?
Urban farming has most often been described as a
household survival strategy and the drastic decline in
the value of wage labor depicted in Table 2 is evi-
dence that Kampala households had to alter their eco-
nomic strategies to survive. Table 4 estimates the
probability of urban farming based on a variety of
household factors. Income level, as well as the age,
sex, and education level of household head all show
Table 4. Logistic regression, household correlates of urban agriculture
Variable
Household size
Number of children
Sex of head of household
Age of head of household
Education of head of household
Time in Kampala
Very low income*
Low income*
Lower middle income*
Income pooling
*Income groups in the regression analysis were dummy variables, with the highest income group the
reference. The proportion of households engaging in urban farming was virtually identical across all
income groups.
Source: Author’s household survey, 1993.
no statistically significant association with farming.
Only the size of household and the length of time the
head of household has been resident in Kampala sig-
nificantly affect the probability of farming. Length of
residence is positively associated, meaning that the
longer someone has been in the city, the more likely
he or she is to be engaged in farming. This point con-
tradicts one of the common beliefs about urban agri-
culture - that those farming in the city are the most
recent in-migrants who have yet to integrate them-
selves into the urban economy - and suggests
instead that it takes an extended period of time in the
city to gain access to land for farming, a point born
out by interview data.
Studies on the nature of the household (Guyer,
1986; Guyer and Peters, 1987; Dwyer and Bruce,
1988; Folbre, 1986) suggest that intrahousehold
processes should also be examined to understand the
forces driving urban farming. Recent research sug-
gests that what have been labeled household survival
strategies may in fact be “an uneasy aggregate of indi-
vidual strategies.“6 Two major issues are suggested
for analysis: the allocation of labor and the control of
resources, particularly cash income. In over 80% of
the farming households surveyed, labor invested in
urban agriculture in Kampala is exclusively that of
women; in another lo%, labor was shared between
men and women. In only about 15% of the households
do adults pool their income and spend jointly. In
the vast majority, therefore, incomes and financial
responsibilities are to some extent kept separate.
Analysis of case studies yielded four main cate-
gories of urban farmers, as depicted by Table 5. The
relative frequency of each category in the survey is
shown in the second column of Table 5. One group
produces almost entirely for the urban market, and so
are categorized as commercial farmers. Numerically
small, this group is nevertheless economically impor-
tant: poultry production is the most common form of
commercial urban agriculture, and an estimated 70%
Estimate SE. p-value
0.155 0.057 0.007
0.173 0.158 0.274
0.166 0.319 0.602
0.024 0.014 0.082
0.010 0.034 0.769
0.031 0.011 0.006
0.900 0.642 0.161
0.713 0.559 0.202
0.65 1 0.595 0.273
0.234 0.357 0.512
 FOOD SECURITY IN KAMPALA 1673

Table 5. Descriptive categories of urban farming*

Category % of Primary Primary use of Land tenure+ Household Model case

total reason produce income

Commercial 2.5% Income Sales Own or Middle, Poultry, run as a

lease high commercial business by
men or women

Self-sufficiency 5.8% Food Basis of diet Customary Low Long-term customary

tenancy tenants, men or women;
city grew up around
their holdings

Measure of 81.0% Food a) Supplementary All categories$ AI1 levels$ Low or lower-middle
food security b) Reserve income conjugal
household, woman
farms

No other means 10.7% Food a) Basis of diet “Squatting” Low or Very low-income female
b) Often forced to or very low household head, often
sell some food to borrowing recently widowed or
meet other expenses abandoned by husband

*Farming households only, proportions in column 2 are based on the number of farming households in the survey (N = 121).
*See following section for discussion of land tenure.
$Strong statistical association noted between income group and tenure security of within the “means of food security”
category.
Source: Author’s case studies and household survey, 1993.

of all poultry products consumed in Kampala are pro-
duced in the city. A second group is comprised mostly
of households in the peri-urban areas who retain
enough of their customary land holdings to be charac-
terized in terms of self-sufficiency, though in practice,
this refers to self-sufficiency in staple foods. Though
cash-poor, these households tend to be somewhat
insulated from the high cost of living in Kampala. The
largest group farming in the city does so for some
measure of food security. Farming for this group is
likely to be both a secondary form of employment and
a secondary source of food. The last group consists
largely of the households of very low-income women,
often recently widowed or abandoned by their hus-
bands, who face very limited economic options.
Members of this group farm because they often have
no other means by which to acquire food. Whereas the
“measure of food security” group can usually con-
sume all the food they produce, this last group is often
forced to sell food, even if food for the household is
insufficient.
Within the third and largest category, the use of
food from farming varies. In some cases it is simply a
supplement to other sources of food to be used when
it is available. In other cases it is a strategic reserve
for times when there is no money for buying food,
either because of erratic household income or
because, in conjugal households, the wife who is
responsible for food is not allocated a sufficient
amount of money by her husband. In such house-
holds, women view farming very differently from
men: women view urban farming in very pragmatic
terms as a source of food; men describeit in terms of
women’s cultural expectations of themselves, but
view the practice as being of only marginal
importance. Married women who farm noted several
reasons for doing so, beyond the provision of supple-
mental food. First, farming meshes well with other
expected household duties, particularly cooking and
child care. Second, some women have businesses that
rely on the produce of farming, selling prepared foods
is the most common. Third, not only does farming
provide a source of food for their families, it can also
be a means of protecting other sources of women’s
income in the event that the money allocated to
household needs from their husband’s income is
insufficient. Women rarely challenged their hus-
bands’ perceptions of urban farming as a marginal
activity. In fact, under circumstances characterized by
intrahousehold conflict over control of resources, par-
ticularly cash, women have good reason for keeping
their economic activities marginal in appearance.
Should urban farming be understood as a “house-
hold strategy?’ In terms of the imperative to provide a
secure source of food, the household is the social unit
from which the imperative springs. Nevertheless, the
analysis here has suggested that in conjugal house-
holds where incomes are not pooled, farming is
specifically a strategy of women to protect or supple-
ment their other sources of cash income and to assert
1674 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

some control over a source of food for their families
that is not dependent on either the urban food market
or their husband’s income.’
(b) Access to urban land for farming
The land tenure system prevailing in Kampala is
highly complex. Kampala was two separate cities
until 1968 - Mengo was the capital of the Kingdom
of Buganda, Kampala was the European and Indian
settlement that grew up alongside Mengo. In Mengo,
land was held under the mailo tenure system - a
form of freehold ownership under which tenants
could acquire long-term occupancy rights from a
landlord. In Kampala itself, land was held by the state
and administered as public land which could be
acquired on the basis of leasehold. Freehold land
grants were made to religious institutions in both
cities in the early colonial era. Customary tenancies
were granted under all three tenure systems. As rents
on mailo land were limited by law, various other
forms of occupancy also arose in mailo areas, but the
Amin government abolished this whole category of
land in 1975, and vested all land in the state. In prac-
tice, however, private ownership continued in pre-
viously mailo areas. During the Amin era, the
administrative machinery of local government began
to break down and municipal authorities were no
longer able to adequately manage public land.
Legal status notwithstanding, the major constraint
to farming in the city is access to land. Of nonfarming
households, inability to access land in the city was the
major reason given for not farming; 10% of this group
had previously farmed within Kampala but lost access
to land and stopped. The value of land in Kampala has
increased rapidly over the past decade,* but privately
held land in the city is not taxed and public land has
been ineffectively managed for much of the past two
decades. Under these circumstances, urban and peri-
urban land parcels that are privately held or occupied
by customary tenants have been indiscriminantly sub-
divided and sold, leading to the crowded, sprawling
appearance of low-income neighborhoods. Both pub-
lic and private land has been occupied by “squat-
ters.“9 All of these factors help to explain how people
have obtained access to land for farming. Table 6 pre-
sents data on the manner in which farming households
in the survey had obtained their land. While over 20
different categories of land access were noted in the
case studies, Table 6 is simplified to show only aggre-
gate groupings.
Formal ownership of land is strongly associated
with higher income. The lower income groups had
mostly gained access to land through one of the latter
four categories, and all of these are subject to change
as both national and municipal land laws are revised.
Customary tenancy has effectively split ownership
and occupancy rights between the title holder and the
tenant: the owner cannot take occupancy without
buying out the tenant, and the tenant cannot legally
engage in any transaction on the land without the
consent of the title holder. This set of institutional
arrangements effectively prevents the development of
a market for tenanted land, and land is therefore used
for farming by the tenant when an economic analysis
might suggest that its value would compel more inten-
sive uses. Such land is often subdivided and sold
without permission of the title holder, and hence is a
major source of land in the third category on Table 6.

Table 6. Frequency of land access/tenure category*

Access/tenurecategory Number of parcels

Enumeration area
1 2 3 Total % Median size (M’)t

1. Formal ownership+ 12 2 12 26 19.1% 300

2. Customary tenancy$ 16 3 19 13.1% 1300
3. Unauthorized subdivision’j 21 I 22 16.2% 635
4. Borrowing 23 8 3 34 25.0% 180
5. Informal access” 7 23 5 35 25.8% 125
6. Total 79 33 24 136 100.0% 380

Median size of farmed plot (M2)t 820 125 260 380

*Units of measure are land parcels, not households, Some households reported farming more than one
parcel.
tOn1y land used for farming; other land uses occur on the same parcel. All figures are medians; means are
considerably larger in all cases.
*Titled or leased land, or contractual rental agreement.
$Long-term occupancy and use rights granted by private or institutional landlord, or by the King prior to
1966.
ISubdivided and sold without the authority of the owner or administrator of the land.
Ykluatting,” purchase of use-rights (“squatters’ rights”).
Source: Author’s household survey, 1993.
 FOOD SECURITY IN KAMPALA
Unauthorized subdivision is the most common on
land that is not effectively managed by either a private
owner or a public authority and is a common practice
throughout the city, though is most commonly a
source of land for housing rather than agriculture.
Over half the land parcels measured in the survey
fall into the categories of borrowing, “squatting,” or
the purchase of use-rights from a previous user.
Cultivation of unused land that municipal authorities
were no longer adequately managing was a common
means of access in the mid-1970s when farming
became more common in the inner city. In the para-
phrased words of numerous respondents who began
farming during that era, “I just saw a bushy place and
started cultivating it.” While some of this land is still
being farmed today, finding unused land in the city
today is virtually impossible, but in areas where
people have been cultivating for years without being
harassed by either municipal authorities or private
land owners, a secondary land market has emerged
for the buying and selling use-rights in informally
occupied land.
Borrowing land from a private landowner is the
single most prevalent means of access to land for
people currently farming in the city. Large areas of
urban land are unbuilt and are held by private land-
lords essentially for speculative purposes or as a
hedge against the high inflation that characterized
the Ugandan economy until very recently. Land is
not taxed but structures are, so for purely speculative
purposes, land is often kept undeveloped. Vacant
land that is not effectively managed, however, often
attracts squatters who erect semipermanent housing
and who often must be compensated when the land is
sold. Owners therefore often have a caretaker who
lends land on a verbal contract basis to women wish-
ing to cultivate, a system that serves the interests of all
parties: the land-owner reaps speculative profits while
keeping the land free of uninvited squatters, and can
terminate the cultivators’ verbal agreements when
needed; the caretaker earns his or her living through
token rents paid by the cultivators; and urban farmers
get access to land for cultivation at submarket rents
and with the assurance that even if told to quit the
land, they will at least be able to harvest their crops
Iirst. “Rents” usually amount to a token payment of
cash at the beginning of the year and offerings of
some of the produce throughout the year at the discre-
tion of the cultivator.
Some 65% of the land parcels farmed by house-
holds surveyed are close by the house of the cultiva-
tor, the remaining 35% vary from 100 meters to
several kilometers away. Much of the land acquired
by the latter two means in Table 6 is not close by the
household. Because of both the distance from the
household of the cultivator and the risk of losing
access to such land, mostly lower value, annual crops
(cassava, sweet potatoes, cocoyams and to some
1675
extent, maize) are grown on such land. Largely for
this reason, theft of food from distant land parcels is
no more prevalent a problem than theft of higher
value crops closer to the household.
This discussion highlights the fact that urban farm-
ers have taken advantage of interstitial institutional
space in urban land created partly by the complexities
of land tenure in the city, and partly by the adminis-
trative turmoil wrought by the Amin period. While
both the tenure system and the impact of the Amin
regime are unique to Uganda, similar processes to
those described here are occurring in urban land
across the continent (Aronson, 1978; Mabogunje,
1992; Lado, 1991; Sawio, 1993). Major institutional
reforms, often donor initiatives linked to structural
adjustment lending, are now under consideration that
would introduce major changes in urban land owner-
ship and administration. While helping to sustain
growth in the commercial sector, these initiatives
could have a major impact on the urban poor - a
point discussed further in the conclusion of this
paper.lO
(c) The impact offarming: income, food
and nutrition
The impact of urban farming at the household level
is a combination of three factors: income, food secu-
rity and nutritional status. Income, in this case, refers
less to cash income than to income in-kind or fungible
income through savings in food expenditure. The
major measurable outcome here is nutritional status,
particularly in young children. Table 7 presents a
bivariate comparison of the nutritional status of
children in farming and nonfarming households
in Kampala while controlling for the influence of
income. In the lowest two income groups, which
make up nearly 80% of the total sample, there is
a strong and statistically significant association
between farming in the city and improved child nutri-
tional status. The same relationship is noted for the
lower-middle income group, although the low num-
ber of children weakens the result’s statistical signifi-
cance. The relationship appears reversed in the upper
income groups, but the number of children is very
small and the difference is not significant. While there
appears to be a general relationship between income
and nutritional status, among children in farming
households there is no statistically significant differ-
ence in nutritional status between the lowest and high-
est income groups. In nonfarming households, the
difference is two and a half times as large and statisti-
cally significant.
The comparison in Table 7 is height for age (HAZ)
or stunting, a long-term process that has occurred
sometime in the past. A similar comparison of weight
for height or wasting, a measure of current or acute
1676 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Table 7. Nutritional status, heightfor age by income group andfarming*

Income groupt RDS Farming Nonfarming Diff t-test p-value Group means
n HAZ$ n HAZ$ N
VL 1 29 -0.710 26 -2.054 55 1.344 0.001 -1.345
2 26 -0.738 24-1.471 50 0.732 0.061 -1.090

L 1 71 -0.610 100-1.026 171 0.416 0.013 -0.853

2 71 -0.514 97-1.002 168 0.488 0.007 -0.796

LM 1 21 -0.310 23-0.861 44 0.551 0.080 -0.598

2 22 -0.527 244.888 46 0.366 0.227 -0.715

UM/H 1 7 0.400 16 0.863 23 a.463 0.503 0.722

2 8 0.525 12 0.967 20 -0.442 0.517 0.790

Group means 1 128 -0.528 165 -0.982 293 0.454 0.003 -0.780
2 127 -0.497 157 -0.906 284 0.409 0.007 -0.720

ANOVA’J[ F = 1.490 F=21.50 F = 16.28

p = 0.208 p < 0.001 p < 0.001
*Confirmed birth dates only.
tVL = Very Low
L=Low
LM = Lower Middle
UMH = Upper Middle and High
*Survey Round. Round 1 during rainy season (April, 1993); Round 2 after harvest of seasonal crops
(July-August, 1993).
$HAZ refers to Height for Age z-scores (standard deviations above or below World Health Organization
reference median), a measure of stunting. All scores age-adjusted for recumbent measurement.
IAnalysis of variance shown for Round 1 only. Similar results were found for Round 2.
sour&: Author’s household survey, 1993.

malnutrition, showed virtually no differences
between the groups depicted in Table 7. Little sea-
sonal variation in nutritional status is evident in Table
7, and a similar lack of seasonal variation was noted
for wasting. Both these points imply that the associa-
tion of urban agriculture and nutritional status is a
long-term rather than short-term phenomenon.
While Table 7 is a simple bivariate comparison
controlling only for income, the same relationship is
found in multivariate analysis when other factors
associated with nutritional status are included: health
and maternal care factors, food and dietary factors,
and a variety of household factors in addition to
income. Three main factors mediate the relationship
between urban farming and nutritional status of chil-
dren: food sufficiency, dietary adequacy, and the
amount of time mothers can directly care for their
children.”
In the very low-income group, persons responsible
for the provision and preparation of food in both
farming and nonfarming households reported spend-
ing roughly the same amount of money on food per
person per day. I* In farming households, however,
unpurchased food was available from farming, result-
ing in significantly higher levels of short-term food
sufficiency in these households during both rounds of
the survey. For the low-income group, often referred
to as the “working poor” that make up the majority of
the city’s residents, indicators of short-term food suf-
ficiency at the household level did not differ signifi-
cantly between farming and nonfarming groups, but
the amount of money spent on food per person per
day is significantly less in farming households. This
indicates that for this group, farming is a major
source of fungible income in terms of saving on
food expenditure. In higher income groups, these
trends were less uniform and the differences were
not significant.13
A comparison of the mean amount of money spent
on food per adult equivalent by farming and nonfarm-
ing households in the low-income group during both
rounds of the survey provides a rough estimate of the
value of the urban subsistence production. On aver-
age, nonfarming households report spending one-and-
a-half to two times as much on food as farming
households, or $35-45 more per month. While farm-
ing may involve some small cash payments for land
access or inputs, and while there is an implicit oppor-
tunity cost in the labor time in farming, this is a siz-
able proportion of total household income in an
economy where $125-130 per month is considered by
economic planners to be the cut-off between low and
lower-middle incomes.14 This also underlines why
many married women have reason to keep their farm-
 FOOD SECURITY IN KAMPALA
ing activities marginal in appearance: married women
respondents in focus groups repeatedly insisted that if
their husbands knew the real value of their economic
activities, the result would be a lower fmancial contri-
bution on the part of the husband to the costs of main-
taining the household, which would increase the
financial strain on women and reduce their options for
maintaining food security.
The amount of time that mothers are able to care
directly for their children is also positively associated
with child nutritional status. A comparison of farming
women with women engaging in wage labor or infor-
mal trade indicates that farming women have signifi-
cantly more time to devote to childcare, bearing out
almost precisely the logic expressed by many women
farmers.
4. DISCUSSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
(a) Urban farming as a food securie strategy
To summarize, urban farming in Kampala is
largely a long-term adaptive strategy of women to
protect the food security of the persons for whom they
are responsible, either through the direct provision of
supplemental source of food, a food reserve, or as a
means of stretching other sources of income. Urban
farming has been demonstrated to be significantly
associated with improved food security and child
nutritional status, particularly among lower-income
groups. In the majority of cases, urban farming is only
one of several strategies employed in the provision of
food, but it is a special case for several reasons. First,
farming is almost completely under the control of
women, who bear primary responsibility for provi-
sion of food. Second, farming provides a source of
food that is dependent on access to land rather than
access to cash income.
A recent review defined food security as “secure
access at all times to sufficient food.“i5 Four basic
concepts are stressed in this definition: sufficiency,
temporal considerations, access, and security
(Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992). Sufficiency of
food is often a subjective measure; in this study it was
a measure of the frequency and severity of means for
coping with food insufficiency. Temporal considera-
tions can either be cyclical or secular; in Kampala
measures of food sufficiency did improve in the dry
season compared to the rainy season, but there were
few differences between farming and nonfarming
households in the level of improvement. Long-term
trends in Kampala indicate secular changes in diet and
in food access strategies. Access to food is deter-
mined by food entitlements (Sen, 1981), the sum of
assets - human, physical or financial - which an
individual or household can use to acquire food, and
the rate at which those assets can be converted into
1677
food, either through exchange or production. Security
of access is the converse of the risk of entitlement fail-
ure; the higher the share of a household’s resources
devoted to the acquisition of food, the greater the risk
of failure (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992).
Such a definition highlights the nature of urban
farming: it is the deliberate usage of labor and land for
subsistence production (direct entitlements according
to Sen’s definition) to reduce dependence on financial
or exchange entitlements in the provision of food.16
To the extent that urban farmers are successful in
making maximum use of land and labor while main-
taining access to cash from other sources of income
within their households, they do achieve higher levels
of both food security and nutritional status. By engag-
ing in direct production, urban farmers accept the
inherent risk that drought or pests may reduce yields,
which in turn would reduce food availability from
farming, but interview data suggest that this occurs
infrequently in Kampala.
The much larger risk to food security is the risk of
losing access to land. The actual amount of land does
not appear to be of major importance: the size of land
parcels for farming in Kampala ranged from as little
as nine square meters to as much as several hectares,
yet the size of the parcel being farmed correlated only
very weakly and insignificantly with nutritional sta-
tus, and not at all with food sufficiency measuresI
This is not to imply that giving every household in
the city nine square meters would result in major
improvements in the level of urban malnutrition, but
it does imply that physical limitations in urban
space are only a partial constraint to making use of
urban agriculture as a policy tool or programmatic
intervention.
The crucial factor is the way in which land is man-
aged, even though to the casual observer, farmed land
appears to be managed in a haphazard way. The key
to relying on urban farming for food security is two-
fold. First, the period of time during which food can
be harvested must be maximized, meaning that plant-
ing must be staggered throughout the year, and root
crops that can be harvested piecemeal are favored
over seasonal crops that must be harvested immedi-
ately when they mature. Second and more impor-
tantly, extreme care must be taken not to lose access
to land. Both of these imperatives contribute to the
haphazard appearance of agricultural practices: plant-
ing root crops at suboptimal times in order to ensure
year-round occupancy of land, which is the only way
to maintain a claim to land accessed through borrow-
ing or squatting; intercropping mixes that do not
include legumes; or planting seasonal crops in the
shade of root crops or perennials. These apparently
haphazard farming practices inadvertently help to
maintain the marginal appearance of urban farming,
but also earn the scorn of some agricultural profes-
sionals who view yield per unit of cultivated area as
1678 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
the variable to maximize. Clearly, technical improve-
ments could boost productivity, but the key con-
straints to urban farming are first and foremost
institutional, not technical. These constraints go back
to the maintenance of control over human and physi-
cal resources. Framing this discussion in terms of the
definition of food security noted earlier highlights
these constraints.
To evaluate food security implications fully, two
further points must be made. The first concerns the
physical and financial aspects of food entitlements.
The comparison between farming and nonfarming
households should be broadened to include three
groups: those without land or sufficient exchange
entitlements (low-income groups that do not farm);
those with secure rights in their land resource or with
secure exchange entitlements (low-income landown-
ing farmers, or middle- and upper-income groups irre-
spective of whether they farm); and those who farm
but who lack secure rights in the land they use (low-
income farmers who accessed land informally).
Survey data indicate that about 52% of the population
of Kampala would fall into the first category, 21%
would fall into the second, and 27% into the third.
Protecting the access of the third group while enhanc-
ing the access of the first group would be one objec-
tive of any programmatic intervention in urban
farming.
The second point about food security regards con-
trol over human resources - in other words, control
over labor. At the household level, the retention of
control over food by those who produce it is impera-
tive not only from an equity perspective, but also from
a food security perspective. Both these points have
important implications for policy toward urban
agriculture.
(b) Policy implications for urban farming
in Kampala
Given increased interest in urban agriculture as a
tool to alleviate urban poverty and some of the
adverse impacts of structural adjustment programs on
urban populations in Africa, several categories of pol-
icy recommendations follow. The first concerns the
legal status of urban farming. The second concerns
the land issue. The third concerns the issue of labor.
(i) Legal status
Clearly, if urban farming remains technically ille-
gal, little can be done in the way of programmatic
intervention even if farming in the city is a pervasive
practice. Not only does the legal issue prevent small-
scale projects from being undertaken, it also prevents
the rational implementation of programs to control
some of the environmentally damaging aspects of
urban agriculture, such as the unplanned draining of
wetlands or the unprotected cultivation of steep hill-
sides. Unfortunately, changing the legal status is not a
matter of simply deleting a single urban bylaw.
Rather than a single bylaw, in Kampala there is a
three-decade long series of verbal decrees, unwritten
rules and administrative practices. These can be
changed, and indeed there is evidence that official
attitudes are changing, but the changes cannot be
implemented by administrative fiat or a political vote.
(ii) Access to land
The land issue highlights both a physical resource
and an institutional constraint. The use of land for
farming in Kampala has to some extent relied on
niches created by the complexity of tenure rules in the
city and by administrative turmoil. Urban planners
question whether the use of land for farming, particu-
larly the kind of farming practiced in Kampala,
reflects the value of the land, and suggest that tax
rules and confusion over property rights act as a fetter
on other forms of investment in the land which would
preclude its use for farming. Institutional reforms in
urban land are being implemented as part of structural
adjustment lending programs, not only in Kampala
but elsewhere on the continent (Nsamba-Gayiiya,
1993; Mabogunje, 1992). These reforms are aimed
at increasing the tax base, streamlining urban land
administration, or introducing major changes in the
system of land ownership. All of these changes would
represent a substantial threat to continued informal
access to urban land for farming. But part of the con-
cern in these reforms is maintaining the access of the
urban poor to land, and even if the proposed reforms
were adopted immediately, they would take some
time to implement. Medium-term planning in
Kampala is presently based on the presumption that
major changes in land tenure rules will not take effect
in the coming decade (van Nostrand, 1993).
Given that a large proportion of the city’s popula-
tion directly obtains some part of its food needs from
urban farming, and given the relationship between
farming and food security at the household level as
outlined above, there will naturally arise some con-
flict of interest between land-use planning aimed at
economic growth at the level of the city as a whole
versus economic survival at the level of the household.
In the abstract sense, planning for overall economic
growth would call for a land policy that promotes
“best and highest use” - a free and open market in
urban land, secure and recognized ownership rights,
and value-based taxation. On the other hand, a more
politically pragmatic approach to planning would rec-
ognize that one of the reasons Kampala residents have
been able to withstand both the economic crisis of the
1970s and 1980s and the impact of structural adjust-
ment policies in the 1980s and 1990s is that a sizable
proportion of them had informal access to urban land
for both housing and subsistence production.
 FOOD SECURITY
Beyond a general commitment to maintain the
access of the urban poor to land, several specific sug-
gestions follow the above discussion. The first would
be the alteration of zoning ordinances to permit mixed
land use in general, and possible specific designation
of certain areas for farming. The second point is the
promotion of very localized control over land use, a
phenomenon that is already occurring to some extent
in Kampala. This permits conflicts arising over squat-
ting and other forms of informal land access to be
resolved by local leaders who have greater knowledge
about the circumstances and greater sympathy with
local residents who may be dependent on the land.
The third recommendation about land regards the
compelling case to be made for compensation for the
loss of access to farm land. Cities inevitably grow and
displace farmers from agricultural land, a trend ulti-
mately unchanged by the fact that it was temporarily
reversed for a decade and half in Kampala. Current
practice is variable, but evictees are often compen-
sated only for improvements on the land, not to rights
in the land itself. The value of one season’s crops is
tiny compared to the value of continued access. The
extent of compensation often depends more on the
good graces of the owner or on power relations
between owner and occupant than on accepted rules,
written or unwritten.
(iii) Conrrol over labor
Labor in urban farming is largely that of women,
and it is reasonable to suggest that technical services
could be offered to support women’s efforts in farm-
ing. The above analysis suggests, however, that farm-
ing is a successful food security strategy of urban
women at least in part because the real value of food
produced is known only to the women who produce it.
Research from elsewhere in Africa suggests that high-
visibility interventions can be coopted by men to
capture women’s labor or rights in land and natural
resources in circumstances where women had
previously asserted some autonomy over their eco-
nomic activities (Schroeder, 1993).
Such an observation would imply several caveats:
Programs promoting urban farming for equity reasons
should give priority to low-income, female-headed
households. These are likely to be the most vulnerable
NOTES
I. World Commission on Environment and Development
(1987) p. 254.
2 Von Braun et crl. (1993). p. 38.
3. “Feedmg the Urban Masses” is the title of Sawio’s
study.
4. The full study is the author’s Ph.D. dissertation, “Labor,
IN KAMPALA 1679
in terms of food security, and intrahousehold conflict
over benefits is somewhat less likely. Programs could
be established through women’s organizations such
as informal savings and credit groups. Such groups
are often numerous in urban and peri-urban areas, and
their informality is one of their strengths. Lastly, the
impact of any intervention should be. closely moni-
tored, both in terms of the direct effect on women’s
income, and in terms of food security and child nutri-
tional status.
Farming in the city is a strategy of urban women
to protect the food security of their families and
households. Programmatic intervention into urban
agriculture should, as a first priority, protect and
enhance the food security strategies of vulnerable
urban groups.
(c) Broader implications
This analysis suggests that semisubsistence pro-
duction in the city is not marginal, but in fact critical
to urban household food security, and is an important
aspect of women’s economic strategies. While spe-
cific statistical findings here cannot be generalized
beyond Kampala, several general points should be
considered, both in other African cities and in densely
populated periurban areas. The first is the growing
importance of semiproletarian economic strategies,
or reliance on both subsistence production and
cash income from wage labor or informal trade.
Apparently marginal economic activities may, in fact,
be critical to economic survival. The second is the
importance of understanding of intrahousehold
conflict in the production and/or purchase of food.
Traditional patterns in food procurement are rapidly
changing in both rural and urban areas, paralleled by
changes in gender relations and responsibilities. The
third is the retreat of the state in the face of fiscal
constraints and structural adjustment, the resulting
changes in both markets and safety nets, and the
increased importance of self-reliant strategies at the
household level. Nevertheless, state action can either
enhance or hinder equity and effectiveness of such
strategies - through legal statutes, policy, and direct
program or project interventions.
Land, Food and Farming: a Household Analysis of Urban
Agriculture in Kampala, Uganda.” University of Wisconsin
(1995).
5. Magendois usually translated as “black market.”
6. Dwyer and Bruce (1988). p. 8.
7. For a more complete discussion of gender relations and
1680 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
intrahousehold dynamics in urban farming, see Maxwell
(1994).
8. The limited information available suggests a rate of
increase of 50-759’0 per year above the general rate of infla-
tion. See Nordberg and Nsamba-Gayiiya (1991).
9. The term is used in various ways in Kampala, but is used
here to mean only a land user who does not have the permis-
sion of the owner or administrator.
10. For a more complete discussion of the land issue in
urban fanning, see Maxwell (1993) and (1995).
I 1. Food sufficiency here is measured by the frequency and
severity of measures for coping with insufficient food, such
as eating foods that are less preferred, borrowing food or
money, limiting portion size, skipping meals, and maternal
buffering. Dietary adequacy is a composite measure of
major food groups following the methodology of Guthrie
and Sheer (1981).
12. Again, with the exception of single men, these persons
were almost always women.
13. This section summarizes a complex analysis. For a more
complete analysis, see Maxwell (1995).
14. Putting these figures in dollars at the 1993 exchange rate
is somewhat misleading, since the shilling has strengthened
significantly against the dollar in the meantime, but the price
REFERENCES
Aronson, Dan, “Capitalism and culture in Ibadan urban
development,” Urban Anthropology, Vol. 7 (1978), pp.
253-267.
Atkinson, Sarah, “Food for the cities: Urban nutrition policy
in developing countries,” Urban Health Program, Health
Policy Unit. Department of Public Health and Policy
(London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, 1992).
Banugire, Firimoni, “Class struggle, clan politics and the
‘Magendo’ economy,” Mawazo, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1985). pp.
52-66.
Bigsten, Ame and Steve Kayizzi-Mugerwa, “Adaption and
distress in the urban economy: A study of Kampala
households,” World Developmeni, Vol. 20, No. 10
(1992). pp. 1423-1441.
Department of Physical Planning, Cir)’ of Kampala: Revision
of Structure Plan (Kampala: Ministry of Land, Housing
and Urban Development, 1992).
Drakakis-Smith, David, “Strategies for meeting basic food
needs in Harare,” J. Baker and P. Pedersen @is.), The
Rural-Urban Interface in Africa. (Uppsala: The
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1992).
Dwyer, Daisy and Judith Bruce, Home Divided (Boulder,
CO: Westview, 1988).
Folbre, Nancy, “Cleaning house: New perspectives on
households and economic development,” Journal of
Development Economics, Vol. 22 (1986). pp. 5-40.
of domestic foodstuffs has not dropped. The shilling traded
at 1,200 to the dollar at the time of the survey. In early 1995,
the rate was closer to 950 to the dollar. In other words, mea-
sured in dollars, the value of subsistence production has
probably risen dramatically since these data were collected.
15. Maxwell and Frankenberger (1992) p. 8.
16. Sen’s famous analysis, of course, did not apply to urban
farmers or consumers, but his example - a comparison of
the entitlement risks of sharecroppers and fixed-wage rural
agricultural laborers under conditions of sharp changes in
food prices and/or food availability (i.e. famines) - is
analogous to urban residents who get some of their food
from their own farming in the city and those who are com-
pletely dependent on market sources under circumstances
depicted in Table 1.
17. The main reason for this seemingly counter intuitive
finding is that for most urban farmers, subsistence produc-
tion is a secondary or fall-back source of food, as was noted
in Table 5. Clearly, having this fall-back makes a difference
in food security, but beyond some threshold level, having
access to more land probably means that labor is devoted to
farming rather than to other sources of income, and losses in
exchange entitlements roughly cancel out gains in direct
entitlements. The reason farming makes an overall differ-
ence is that cash income (exchange entitlements) may be
irregular, or, as noted above, may be the object of intra-
household conflict, and farming protects food security in
interim periods when exchange entitlements fail.
Freeman, Donald, A City of Farmers: Informal Urban
Agriculture in the Open Spaces of Nairobi, Kenya”
(Toronto: McGill University Press, 1991).
Guthrie, Helen and James Sheer, “Validity of dietary score
for assessing nutrient adequacy,” Journal of the American
Diereric Association, Vol. 78 (March, 1981). pp.
24&244.
Guyer, Jane, “Intra-household processes and farming sys-
terns research: Perspectives from anthropology,” in Joyce
Moock (Ed.), Understanding Africa’s Rural Households
and Farming Systems (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
1986).
Guyer, Jane and Pauline Peters, “Introduction:
Conceptualizing the household,” Development and
Change, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1987), pp. 197-214.
Hussain. A. M. and Paul Lundven. “Urbanization and
hunger in the cities,” Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 9,
No. 4 (l988), pp. 5@6l.
Jamal, Vali, “Structural adjustment and food security in
Uganda,” World Employment Research Paper (Geneva:
International Labour Organization, 1985).
Jamal, Vali and John Weeks, Africa Misunderstood
(London: Macmillan, 1993).
Jamal, Vali and John Weeks, “The vanishing rural-urban gap
in sub-Saharan Africa,” International Labour Review,
Vol. 127, No. 3 (1988). pp. 271-291.
Lado, Cleophas, “Informal urban agriculture in Nairobi,
 FOOD SECURITY 1N KAMPALA 1681

Kenya,” Land Use Policy, Vol. 7 (1990), pp. 257-266. on Urban Land Policy and Management” (Kampala:
Lee-Smith, Diana, Mutsembi Manundu, Davinder Lamba Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development,
and Kuria Gathuru, Urban Food Production and the 1993).
Cooking Fuel Situation in Urban Kenya (Nairobi: Rakodi, Carole, “Women’s work or household strategies?,”
Mazingira Institute, 1987). Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1991). pp.
Mabogunje, Akin, “Perspectives on urban land and urban 39-45.
management policies in sub-Saharan Africa,” World Rakodi, &role, “Urban agriculture: Research questions and
Bank Technical Paper Number 196 (Washington, DC: the Zambian evidence,” Journal of Modern African
World Bank 1992). Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3 (1988), pp. 495-515.
Maxwell, Daniel, “Labor, land, food and farming: A house- Sachs, lgnacy and Dana Silk, “Introduction: Urban agricul-
hold analysis of urban agriculture in Kampala, Uganda,” ture and self-reliance,” Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol.
Ph.D. Dissertation, (Madison, WI: University of 9, No. 2 (1987). pp. 2-4.
Wisconsin, 1995). Sanyal, Bishwapriya, “Urban agriculture: Who cultivates
Maxwell, Daniel, “Unplanned responses to the economic and why?,” Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 3
crisis? Urban agriculture in Kampala,” Paper presented to (1985). pp. 15-24.
the Workshop on “Developing Uganda,” Centre of Sawio, Camillus, Feeding the Urban Masses.? Towards an
African Studies, Univrrsity of Copenhagen, held at Understunding of the Dynamics of Urban Agriculture in
Lyngby Landbrusskole (Roskilde, Denmark: June 2-5, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Ph.D. Dissertation, Worcester,
1994). MA: Clark University, 1993).
Maxwell, Daniel, “Land access and household logic: Urban Schroeder, Richard, “Shady practice: Gender and the
farming in Kampala,” MISR Research Paper (Kampala: political ecology of resource stabilization in Gambian
Makerere Institute of Social Research, 1993). garden/orchards,” Economic Geography, Vol. 69,
Maxwell, Daniel and Samuel Zziwa, Urban Farming in No. 4 (1993), pp. 349-365.
Africa: The Case of Kampala, Uganda (Nairobi: ACTS Sen, A. K.. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlements
Press, 1992). and Deprivation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).
Maxwell, Simon and Timothy Frankenberger, Household Smit, JX and Joe Nasr, “Urban agriculture for sustainable
Food Security: Concepts, indicators, Measurements. A cities: Using waste and idle land and water bodies as
Technical Review (New York and Rome: UNICEF and resources,” Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 4, No. 2
IFAD, 1992). (1992). pp. 141-151.
Memon, Pyar Ali and Dianna Lee-Smith, “Urban agriculture Southall, Aidan and Peter Gutkind. Townsmen in the
in Kenya,” Canadian Journal of African Studies, Vol. 27, Making: Kampala and its Suburbs (Kampala: East
No. 1 (1993), pp. 25-42. African Institute of Social Research, 1957).
Ministry of Planning and Economic Planning, “The 1991 van Nostrand, John, Kampala Urban Study Phase I Report
population and housing census, Kampala District” (Toronto: John van Nostrand Associates, 1993).
(Entebbe: Department of Statistics, 1992). von Braun, Joachim, John McComb, Ben Fred-Mensah
Mvena, Z. S. K., I. J. Lupanga and M. R. Mlozi. Urban and Rajul Pandya-Larch, “Urban food insecurity and
Agriculture in Tanzania: A Study of Six Towns malnutrition in developing countries: Trends,
(Morogoro, Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture, policies, and research implications” (Washington,
1991). DC: International Food Policy Research Institute,
Nordberg, Lauri and Eddie Nsamba-Gayiya, “Report on 1993).
land delivery” (Kampala: Ministry of Lands, Housing and World Commission on Environment and Development, Our
Urban Development, 1991). Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Nsamba-Gayiiya, Eddie, “Report of the National Workshop 1987).