See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231787329

The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities in

developing countries

Article  in  The Journal of Agricultural Science · February 2011

DOI: 10.1017/S0021859610001279

CITATIONS READS

151 2,842

3 authors, including:

H. de Zeeuw Marielle Dubbeling

RUAF Foundation RUAF Foundation-International network urban agriculture and f…
25 PUBLICATIONS   520 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   500 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

this is not an article but a book View project

city region food systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marielle Dubbeling on 24 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

FORESIGHT PROJECT ON GLOBAL FOOD AND

FARMING FUTURES

The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities

in developing countries

H. D E Z E E U W, R. VA N V E E N H U I Z E N * A N D M. D U B B E L I N G
ETC-Urban Agriculture, PO Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden, The Netherlands
(Revised MS received 26 November 2010; Accepted 30 November 2010)

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

INTRODUCTION cities in developing countries, the most frequent type

of UPA encountered is the family farm, combining
Urban agriculture can be briefly defined as the
production for self-consumption with sales on the
growing of plants and trees and rearing of livestock
market to raise income (Moustier & Danso 2006).
within or on the fringe of cities (intra-urban and peri-
Although in developing countries most urban and
urban agriculture, respectively), including related
peri-urban farmers are from the poorer strata of the
input provision, processing and marketing activities
population, one can often also observe participation
and services (Smit et al. 1996). The Food and
in UPA from middle class people (e.g. the lower- and
Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) intro-
mid-level government officials in Dar es Salaam with
duced the acronym UPA (Urban and Peri-urban
a stall-fed dairy unit on their house plot; Jacobi et al.
Agriculture; Nugent 2000), with ‘urban agriculture’
2000), as well as entrepreneurs seeking good invest-
referring to agriculture that takes place within the
ment for their capital in more intensive forms of UPA
built-up city and ‘peri-urban agriculture’ to agricul-
(e.g. a larger poultry farm or intensive irrigated
ture in the areas surrounding the cities.
horticulture in greenhouses) (Mougeot 2000). Some
UPA is practiced in a variety of places (on field
urban farmers are recent immigrants but, contrary to
plots, on vacant public land, in gardens, on rooftops,
popular belief, more often than not urban and peri-
in barns and cellars). UPA most often focuses on
urban farmers have already lived in the city for longer
perishable and high-value products (green vegetables,
periods of time; time that is needed to gain access to
mushrooms, herbs, fresh milk, eggs, poultry and pig
urban land, water and other resources (Mougeot
meat, fish) that can be grown in confined spaces. The
2000). Most urban gardeners, especially in Africa,
orientation and scale of UPA may vary from purely
are women (Hovorka et al. 2009).
subsistence-oriented or recreational types of UPA at
Many national and local authorities, especially in
the micro scale, through small-scale semi-commercial
developing countries, previously viewed intra-urban
gardeners and livestock keepers, to medium- and
agriculture mainly as a source of problems (due to
large-scale fully commercial enterprises. In many
perceived health and environmental risks associated
with UPA as well as being a nuisance to traffic and
* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. neighbours), or at best as a survival option for the
Email: r.van.veenhuizen@etcnl.nl urban poor in times of crisis. Peri-urban agriculture
2 H . D E Z E E U W , R. V A N V E E N H U I Z E N A N D M. D U B B E L I N G
was mainly seen as a temporary use of land until such
time as this open space would be incorporated into the
city and developed for other uses (Bourque 2000).
After reviewing the research literature on UPA,
Mougeot (2000) came to the conclusion that the most
striking feature of urban agriculture is not its location,
but the fact that it is an integral part of the urban
socio-economic and ecological system. UPA uses
urban resources (land, labour and urban organic
wastes), grows produce for urban citizens, is strongly
influenced by urban conditions (urban policies and
regulations, high competition for land, urban markets,
prices, etc.) and impacts the urban system (having
effects on urban food security and poverty, as well as
having impacts on ecology and health). UPA is a
permanent feature of urban systems (although its
location within the city’s regions may shift over time)
and UPA tends to grow when cities grow (although its
relative contribution compared to other sectors may
decline).
Moreover, the growing body of research on UPA
continually reveals that UPA is not just a problem
to be prohibited and restricted but has a number of
benefits and can provide important contributions to
answering a number of key challenges encountered by
cities. This has led many national and local govern-
ments to the conclusion that the development of UPA
needs to be facilitated and controlled, in order to
maximize its benefits while reducing the associated
risks, rather than being restricted and stifled. UPA can
be considered as an integrated part of viable strategies
for sustainable and equitable urban development.
T H E C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F UPA TO K E Y
URBAN CHALLENGES
Cities in developing countries are confronted with
enormous challenges and their resources are often
rather limited (especially so in sub-Saharan Africa).
Below, data on the contributions UPA can make to
the solution of some key urban challenges are
reviewed briefly.
Urban poverty alleviation and social inclusion
In 2008, the world’s urban population outnumbered
its rural population for the first time in history
(UNFPA 2007). Urban growth is projected to increase
significantly in the coming decades. The world’s urban
population is expected to double from 3·3 billion in
2007 to 6·4 billion by 2050. It is predicted that 0·60 of
the world’s population will live in cities by 2030 (UN-
Habitat 2007), although in many countries this
proportion is already higher. Accompanying this
urbanization process is a phenomenon referred to as
the urbanization of poverty (Ravallion 2001): the
population growth is combined with a gradual shift
in the locus of poverty from rural to urban areas. The
proportion of the poor living in cities is expected to
increase from 0·30 in 2000 to 0·40 by 2020 and 0·50 by
2035 (UNFPA 2007). Moreover, in most developing
countries, urbanization has become virtually synony-
mous with slum growth: the slum population has
almost doubled in the past 15 years (UNFPA 2007).
Most cities in developing countries encounter great
difficulty in creating sufficient employment opportu-
nities and to provide adequate basic services for the
rapidly growing population. This leads to high un-
employment (especially among the youth and dis-
advantaged categories of the population) and very
poor living conditions in the slum areas. Most urban
poor rely on the informal sector and unstable inter-
mittent jobs for their survival.
The presence of UPA varies from city to city but, in
developing countries, the proportion of the urban
population that is involved in UPA or UPA-related
activities is often quite substantial e.g. 0·13 in Accra
(Sonou 2001), 0·15–0·20 in Dar es Salaam (Sawio
1998), 0·20 in Lima (IPCC 2007), 0·45 in Governador
Valadares (Lovo & Pereira Costa 2006), and in Beijing
a large number of migrants (0·5–1 million) are
involved in peri-urban horticulture (Liu et al. 2003).
The effects of UPA on poverty alleviation vary with
the type of participants involved, the products
produced and degree of market orientation, among
other things. The more subsistence-oriented and semi-
commercial types of urban agriculture may have
smaller economic significance, but the number of
households involved is often high and UPA often
plays an important role in the survival strategies of the
urban poor, who may benefit from UPA in various
ways. Firstly, when a household produces food, its
expenses are reduced, which can lead to important
savings since poor urban households spend 0·60–0·80
of their household budgets on food (J. Smit, personal
communication, 2001). Secondly, households that
produce more than they need for their own consump-
tion will sell their surpluses and eventually generate an
income, complementing income from other sources.
van Veenhuizen & Danso (2007) summarized data
regarding net income generated in small-scale peri-
urban open space vegetable production in a number of
African cities. They concluded that monthly net
income figures for such peri-urban producers usually
range between US$30 and US$70 per month, but can
increase to US$200 or more. In the same countries,
the minimum monthly wage is in the range of US$20–
40, indicating that urban vegetable production is a
profitable business compared to other urban jobs.
Other households will gain an income through
becoming agricultural labourers or by producing
certain agricultural inputs (e.g. producing compost
and worms from organic wastes), processing and
marketing activities (e.g. by food preparation and
street vending of food) or providing other services
(transport and veterinary services). For example,
 Role of urban agriculture in developing countries
26 000 people in Havana are involved in jobs
indirectly related to UPA, in addition to the 117 000
people involved in UPA production directly
(Gonzalez Novo & Murphy 2000).
In addition, UPA often makes productive use of
land that is not fit for construction (flood or earth-
quake-prone areas, land under power lines and in
buffer zones) and adds value to land that might not
otherwise have an economic output (Kaufman &
Bailkey 2000). It also provides a productive way of
using urban wastes and wastewater and can play a role
in the management of public parks and the mainten-
ance of open green urban spaces (e.g. flood plains/
wetlands), thus reducing the related public costs (van
Veenhuizen & Danso 2007).
UPA mainly focuses on perishable products such
as leafy green vegetables, fresh milk and poultry
products and, as such, generally complements rural
agriculture rather than competing with it, thereby
strengthening the national food system (Mougeot
2000). UPA can also act as a market stabilizer by
complementing rural production in the dry season
and/or when rural areas are poorly accessible during
the rainy period (Moustier & Danso 2006).
Proximity to the consumers and availability of
cheap resources (e.g. organic wastes and wastewater)
creates comparative advantages for urban food
production. Specific disadvantages for urban produ-
cers are rising land prices, exposure to land, air or
water contamination by urban industry and traffic,
and the fact that UPA is often not yet recognized as a
legal urban land use. The latter leads to poor land use
security (hampering investment) and a low level of
support to urban producers by agricultural research
and extension services (Mougeot 2000).
Urban agriculture can also play a role in the social
inclusion of marginalized groups (the aged without a
pension, unemployed youth, people with disabilities,
those afflicted by HIV/AIDS, refugees, female-headed
households, etc.) by providing them an opportunity to
feed their families and raise their income, while
enhancing their self-esteem, self-management and
entrepreneurial capacities (Bailkey et al. 2007).
Urban food security and nutrition
Urban poverty goes hand in hand with food insecurity
and malnutrition (Mougeot 2005). This is often over-
looked because economic and social conditions, over-
all, in urban areas are better than those in rural areas
(FAO 2004).
The recent financial/economic crisis and the rising
food, fuel and energy prices have affected the poor in
both rural and urban areas, although having a dispro-
portionately large effect on the urban poor. The latter
are particularly vulnerable to changes in food prices
and variation in income, since food makes up a large
part of their household expenses (often over 0·60) and
3
urban consumers are almost exclusively dependent
on food purchases (Baker 2008; FAO 2008; Maxwell
et al. 2008). Variations in income or food prices have
a significant and direct impact on their diets. A recent
nutrition study in low-income neighbourhoods of
five large cities, implemented by the Resource Centre
on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (the RUAF
Foundation; Prain 2010), showed that the recent
financial and food crisis resulted in many urban poor
households reducing their number of meals and
turning to cheaper and less nutritious food, with
negative effects on the nutritional status of family
members. In the same low-income neighbourhoods,
not only did the level of wasting and stunting among
young children increase but so did the number of
overweight or obese people, due to the changes in the
diet (more fat and carbohydrates): a ‘double burden of
malnutrition’ (Prain 2010).
It is estimated that the rise in food prices in 2007
and 2008 increased the number of people living in
extreme poverty in urban areas in East Asia, South
Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa by at
least 1–5% (Baker 2008). Since then food prices have
fallen, but remain higher than before the food crisis.
Further price increases are expected (Maxwell et al.
2008; ESCAP 2009).
UPA can contribute to enhancing urban food
security and healthy nutrition of the urban poor.
Urban households that are involved in some sort of
farming or gardening are more food secure, have a
better and more diverse diet, and eat more vegetables
than non-farming households (Zezza & Tasciotti
2008). Production of food by poor urban households
can supply 0·20–0·60 of their total food consumption
(especially in green vegetables, medicinal and aro-
matic herbs, eggs, milk and meat from small animals;
Smit et al. 1996). Involvement in UPA may also lead
to better mitigation of diseases (better nutrition,
home-grown medicinal plants), more physical exer-
cise, less dependency on gifts and food aid and
enhanced self-esteem (Lock & de Zeeuw 2001).
UPA also increases the availability of fresh, healthy
and affordable food for other urban consumers, as
much of the food produced by urban farmers is
bartered or sold locally. It is estimated that 0·15–0·20
of the world’s food is produced in urban areas
(Armar-Klemesu 2000). In many cities, urban agri-
culture provides a substantial part of the urban
demand for vegetables (especially fresh green veg-
etables: often 0·90 or more), fresh milk (often 0·60–
0·70), poultry and eggs (0·50–0·70), and to a lesser
extent, pigs, fruits and freshwater fish (0·15–0·50). Van
Veenhuizen (2006) provided an overview of available
research data on a large number of cities. Locally
produced food is fresher, more nutritious and diverse
than food products bought in supermarkets or in fast
food chains; it also leads to more regular food intake
(Yeudall 2006). This is of crucial importance for
4 H . D E Z E E U W , R. V A N V E E N H U I Z E N A N D M. D U B B E L I N G
young children, the elderly or sick household members
(e.g. HIV/AIDS and TB patients) and pregnant and
lactating women.
UPA also contributes to ensuring food availability
during times of natural disasters or armed conflicts.
For example, in Sierra Leone the residents of
Freetown are well aware of the importance of urban
farming, as many of them would have starved during
the decade-long civil war in the absence of UPA
(Larbi & Cofie 2007).
For refugees, displaced people and recent migrants
that live in camps around cities or with their relatives
in slum areas, local food production on vacant land
or in containers is an important survival strategy.
Their involvement in productive activities may also
help them to regain dignity, hope and self-respect and
enhance their self-reliance, while reducing operational
costs for humanitarian agencies (Bradford et al. 2009).
Urban environmental challenges
The urban demand for fresh water is rising rapidly
and availability of fresh water is becoming a serious
problem (UNESCO 2003). At the same time, rapid
urbanization and changing consumption patterns lead
to the generation of vast amounts of urban wastes and
wastewater, the management of which is a growing
concern and high cost for many cities (Cofie & van
Veenhuizen 2008). In most developing countries, only
a small proportion of urban wastewater is treated and
most of it is discharged untreated into the environ-
ment (Obuobie et al. 2006). Most of the solid wastes, if
they are collected at all, are disposed in dump sites
(Drechsel & Kunze 2001).
Climate change adds to the challenges faced by
cities and is recognized as one of the most serious
environmental, societal and economic challenges
(IPCC 2007). The UN Populations Fund (UNFPA)
indicates that climate change disproportionately af-
fects people ‘who live in slum and squatter settlements
on steep hillsides, in poorly drained areas, or in low-
lying coastal zones’ (UNFPA 2007). There are 3351
cities in such zones worldwide, of which 0·64 are
in developing regions, and many of them are rapidly
expanding (UN-Habitat 2009). Moreover, it is pre-
dicted that climate change, especially in certain parts
of Africa, will lead to massive displacement of people
from rural areas affected by drought or flooding to the
urban centres. Often, a large proportion of them will
end up living permanently in and around urban areas,
exacerbating the pressure on urban systems to provide
basic services and livelihoods (IASC in press).
UPA can play a role in improving the urban
environment and adaptation to climate change (and
to a lesser extent in mitigation). The World Meteo-
rological Organization (WMO) suggested that more
urban farming should take place as a response to
climate change and as a way to build more resilient
cities (WMO, personal communication 2007). Urban
agriculture and urban forestry were also mentioned
at the International Conference Urban Challenges and
Poverty Reduction in African, Caribbean and Pacific
Countries, jointly organized by World Bank and the
European Union in Nairobi in June 2009, as having a
high potential for improving the urban environment
and climate change adaptation (UN-Habitat 2009).
FAO concluded that it is crucial to build more resilient
cities by enhancing local food production and
diminishing the dependency on food imports (FAO
2008).
UPA helps cities to improve the urban environment
and become more resilient by:
. Reducing vulnerability of specific urban groups and
strengthening community-based adaptive manage-
ment by diversifying urban food sources and
income opportunities of the urban poor and being
a source of innovation and learning about new
strategies/technologies for land and water-efficient
food production (Smit & Bailkey 2006).
. Maintaining green open spaces and enhancing
vegetation cover in the city with important adaptive
(and some mitigation) benefits. UPA (including
urban forestry) helps to improve the urban micro-
climate (Tidball & Krasny 2006). Urban agriculture
may also prevent building on risk-prone land, and
by maintaining such areas as, for instance, agro-
forestry spaces, not only are the impacts of climate
change due to flooding, landslides and other
disasters reduced but also urban biodiversity and
living conditions are improved (Dubbeling et al.
2009a). Such open green spaces also help to control
storm water flows by allowing water storage and
increased infiltration of excess storm water
(Dubbeling et al. 2009a). In open green spaces in
and around the city, food production can be
combined with other services to urban citizens,
such as agro-tourism (Jiang et al. 2005) or park and
landscape maintenance (e.g. ‘productive parks’,
Lattuca et al. 2005).
. Reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
by producing fresh food close to the city: The UN
Comprehensive Framework for Action of the High
Level Task Force on the global Food Crisis (FAO
2008) states: ‘A paradigm shift in design and urban
planning is needed that aims at: (. . .) Reducing the
distance for transporting food by encouraging local
food production, where feasible, within city bound-
aries and especially in immediate surroundings’.
The current food system in many industrialized
countries uses over four times more energy in the
process of getting food from the farm to the plate
than is used in the farming practice itself (Heinberg
& Bomford 2009) and many cities in developing
countries are moving quickly in that same direction.
Encouraging food production close to cities helps in
 Role of urban agriculture in developing countries 5

reducing the ecological foot- (and food-) print of the in rural agriculture, and some others are specific for
city, which may also enable synergistic and cyclical the urban context.
processes between urban domestic and industrial For an extensive overview and discussion of
sectors and agriculture, for example the use in management strategies, see Lock & de Zeeuw (2001).
greenhouses of excess heat, cooling water or CO2 However, the main potential health risks of UPA are
from industry (Smeets et al. 2007). associated with:
. Decentralized reuse of wastewater and composted
a. Inappropriate use of contaminated irrigation water
organic waste in UPA: Productive reuse of waste-
(water from rivers and canals contaminated by
water in urban agriculture will help to reduce the
wastewater from industry and/or households) in
demand for fresh water supplies as well as reducing
UPA. Where no treatment is available, health risks
the discharge of wastewater into rivers, canals and
from reuse of wastewater and contaminated
other surface water sources and thus diminish their
streams can be reduced through complementary
pollution (Buechler et al. 2006). Use of urban
health risk reduction measures, as explained in the
wastewater as a source of irrigation will help to
new WHO guidelines for safe use of excreta and
adapt to risks of drought and flooded roads
wastewater (WHO 2006; Drechsel et al. 2010).
(hampering the transport of food from rural areas)
b. Inadequate management of livestock. Proper man-
by facilitating year-round production close by.
agement of animals, manure and urine as well as
Urban wastewater can be recycled for irrigation/
proper slaughterhouse procedures will reduce an
fertilization of horticultural crops, i.e. floriculture
important part of the associated health risks (see
and fruit crops, as well as for irrigation of forest
Boischio et al. 2006; Cole et al. 2008).
plantations that combat desertification and provide
c. Intensive and inadequate use of agrochemicals in
wood for fuel. In many cities, attempts to decrease
UPA (fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides) may
pressure on wood energy (fuel wood and charcoal)
lead to residues of agrochemicals in crops or in
by subsidizing gas or electric technologies have
the groundwater. The risk mainly occurs in areas
not succeeded. The prognosis for many regions,
with a long history as intensive commercial
such as in sub-Saharan Africa, is that wood will
horticulture (WHO 1992). In such areas transition
continue to be the main source of energy for
to ecological farming practices may be rec-
cooking and heating of the majority of their
ommended. In subsistence and semi-commercial
population (Baudoin & Drescher 2008). Forest
urban farming, this risk is limited because these
plantations can turn steep slopes and low-lying
producers rarely apply agrochemicals due to
lands into urban ‘green areas’.
poverty, use of composted organic wastes and
Decentralized collection and composting of urban their preference for a clean product for self-
organic wastes will reduce the costs of public waste consumption (Lourenço-Lindell 1995). In peri-
management, while large amounts of nutrients are urban market vegetable farming, more organic
reclaimed. Domestic wastes in developing countries than mineral fertilizers are applied (Kouvonou
contain a great deal (0·60–0·90 of the total fresh et al. 1998; Tixier & De Bon 2006).
weight) of organic biodegradable material (Lacoste &
City authorities have often been reluctant to accept
Chalmin 2007) and can be used for the production of
agriculture as a formal urban land use because of
compost and livestock feed (Prain 2010). Every year
perceived health risks. However, prohibitive laws and
in Nairobi, c. 2223 tonnes (t) each of nitrogen (N)
regulations have proved to be largely ineffective and,
and phosphorus (P) and c. 3700 t of potassium
despite such laws, urban agriculture is practiced on a
(K) – together worth about US$2 million – could be
substantial scale (Lock & de Zeeuw 2001; Mougeot
generated from the city’s estimated 635 000 t of waste
2005). In cities where urban agriculture is neglected or
(Prain 2010). Reuse of wastewater and composting of
simply tolerated, this may lead to negative impacts on
organic wastes will help in reducing the mining of
public health. Hence, policies are required that lead to
finite mineral resources (such as P) and energy
an active management of the potential health risks
expended to produce artificial fertilizers.
associated with urban agriculture. This may be based
on local identification of the main potential health
risks and multi-stakeholder participation in the design
MANAGEMENT OF RISKS
and implementation of strategies to contain such risks
A S S O C I AT E D W I T H U R B A N
or reduce them to acceptable levels. The development
A G R I C U LT U R E
of evidence-based policies and regulations for the
UPA does have some disadvantages and is associated urban livestock and aquaculture sectors in Kampala
with a complex mix of potential health risks, both for through cooperation between researchers, policy-
urban producers themselves and for their neighbours makers, urban planners, health officials and direct
and clients (Birley & Lock 1999; Brown & Jameton stakeholders provides an excellent example (Cole et al.
2000). Many of these health risks are similar to those 2008).
6 H . D E Z E E U W , R. V A N V E E N H U I Z E N A N D M. D U B B E L I N G

Subsistence-oriented urban
agriculture: Social
• Production of food and medicinal (Food-secure and
plants for home consumption inclusive city)
• Savings on food and health MDG1-targets 1 and 2
expenditures Poverty alleviation
Multifunctional urban agriculture: • Some income from sale of
• Reduction in energy and Food security: nutrition
surpluses Social inclusion
greenhouse gas emissions by • Part of livelihood strategies
local production Community building
• Maintaining green spaces HIV-AIDS mitigation
• Combination with other functions Social safety net
Ecological (recreation, education)
(Environmentally
• Decentralized reuse of urban
healthy city)
waste (water)
MDG7-target 9·11
Urban greening
Improve microclimate
Reduced ecological footprint Market-oriented urban agriculture:
Landscape management Economic
• Income and jobs created by
Biodiversity (Productive city)
producing food and non-food
Environmental education MDG1-target 1
products for the market
Recreation Income generation
• Small-scale family-based and
Job creation
larger-scale enterprises
Local economic development
• Part of market chain
Enterprise development and
• Higher input use/more
marketing
externalities

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

PO L I C Y P E R S P E C T I V E S O N T H E Some cities and countries use UPA mainly as a

D E V E LO P M E N T O F UPA
Since the early 1990s the international interest in UPA
has increased and the body of research has grown
steadily (see the website of the RUAF Foundation
http://www.ruaf.org for an online bibliographic data-
base on research reports and other relevant publi-
cations on UPA).
UPA is now recognized by a growing number of
city and national authorities (Mougeot 2006). Many
cities and several countries (Brazil, Sri Lanka, Sierra
Leone, to mention just a few) have developed policies
regarding UPA and have initiated major programmes
to facilitate the development of safe and sustainable
UPA (several of these policy documents have been
published at http://www.ruaf.org; for a review of a
number of these policies see Wilbers & de Zeeuw
2006).
One can distinguish important differences in the
approaches followed by the various policy initiatives
regarding UPA, each expecting different contri-
butions as summarized in Fig. 1. Clarifying the in-
tentions and focus of a policy or programme on UPA
often helps greatly to identify effective measures to
implement such a policy.
strategy to enhance food security and nutrition, and
to promote social inclusion of the urban poor and
disadvantaged. Such policies and programmes often
provide access to vacant municipal or semi-public
land, basic training in gardening and/or animal
husbandry techniques, seeds/young stock and tools
to (often groups of) disadvantaged urban households
(e.g. HIV/AIDS affected households, refugees and
internally displaced persons, handicapped people,
poor female-headed families, etc.) in order to facilitate
local production of food and medicinal herbs (maybe
with sales of surpluses). This enhances their access to
nutritious food and provides some additional income
as well as restoring self-esteem and increasing partici-
pation in the urban society. Promotion of home,
community and school gardening is often included
in such strategies as well as nutrition, and health/
hygiene-related education.
Examples abound, e.g. the government of Brazil
included urban agriculture in its ‘Zero Hunger’ policy
and programme, and many urban districts are devel-
oping UPA programmes aiming at enhancing food
security, poverty reduction and social inclusion of the
urban poor (C. de Moreira, personal communication,
2008). The Sri Lankan government is actively
 Role of urban agriculture in developing countries
promoting home and community gardening and
aquaculture on vacant municipal and private land
as part of its ‘National campaign to motivate
domestic food production’ (Ministry of Agricultural
Development and Agrarian Services 2007).
For example, Bulawayo is the second largest city
in Zimbabwe with an estimated population of
2 million people, of which c. 0·60 are below the
poverty line. The city council recognized the impor-
tance of urban farming to improve access to healthy
food by the urban poor and adopted policy guidelines
and new municipal by-laws on urban and peri-urban
horticulture, livestock and aquaculture (replacing
existing restrictive rules). Over 450 ha of vacant
municipal land on the edge of the city were allocated
for (permanent) use in urban agriculture to disadvan-
taged urban households. Treated wastewater is made
available to some of these households and others
(mainly on intra-urban sites) have been assisted
by collaborating non-governmental organizations
(NGOs; especially World Vision) and other actors
(university, national extension service) to establish
community gardens, to resuscitate derelict boreholes,
strengthen group management skills and train in basic
horticulture practices. Lately, with the support of the
RUAF Foundation, some of these groups now also
engage in market-oriented production and processing
activities (e.g. poultry, mushrooms) (Mubvami &
Toriro 2010).
Other cities and countries mainly support UPA
in order to stimulate local enterprise development,
income and employment creation. Such programmes
seek to enhance the capacity of urban producers to
produce food as well as non-food products (e.g.
flowers, pot plants, tree seedlings, aromatic herbs,
etc.) for the market as well as to stimulate related
processing (packaging, drying and the production of,
for example, marmalades or shampoos) and market-
ing of primary or processed products. Such pro-
grammes focus most of the time (but not exclusively)
on small-scale family-based (often peri-urban) produ-
cers as well as agricultural production, processing
and marketing initiatives by collectives of urban
poor (e.g. women’s groups and groups of unemployed
youth). The usual ingredients of such programmes are:
enhancing security of land use; provision/improve-
ment of infrastructure and working capital; improving
access to credit; technical and management support
to producer groups and micro/meso enterprises
engaged in processing and marketing (licenses, esta-
blishment of farmers’ markets and home delivery
schemes, preferential governmental procurement pro-
grammes, support for establishment of trademarks
and quality labels, provision of market information).
A good example is the municipal urban agriculture
of the City of Rosario (Argentina). Rosario has about
1 million inhabitants, of which 0·60 live below the
poverty line. The economic crisis in 2000 led to the
7
formulation of a municipal policy and programme on
UPA in order to support the livelihoods of the urban
poor. The policy includes several measures to enhance
access of the urban poor to vacant land for food
production and to secure their user rights. These are:
mapping of vacant land and setting up a land bank;
tax incentives to private land owners that make vacant
land available to urban poor on a temporal basis;
provision of user permits and inclusion of permanent
urban/peri-urban agriculture zones in the urban
development plan. Secondly, the Rosario UPA
programme includes a number of measures (imple-
mented by the municipality in close cooperation with
NGOs and other local stakeholders) to stimulate
urban and peri-urban food production and marketing.
This includes: setting up a city network of urban pro-
ducer groups; providing access of groups of producers
and/or unemployed to infrastructure and finance to
establish small-scale processing and packaging units:
training in market analysis and business planning,
food safety, hygiene and quality control: and the
establishment of ‘farmers’ markets’ and home delivery
schemes (Ponce & Terrile 2010).
Countries and cities applying an ecological perspec-
tive on UPA mainly focus on its role in urban
environmental management (storm water storage
and flood management, urban greening and micro
climate, reuse of organic wastes and wastewater, re-
duction of the urban energy/water foot print, captur-
ing CO2 and dust). With this perspective in mind,
policies and strategies are developed that seek to
integrate/maintain open spaces in the urban structure
and promote ecological and multi-functional types of
UPA that can provide environmental and other
services (next to food) to the city.
The Asian cities participating in the Asian Cities
Climate Change Resilience Network aim at building
capacity to undertake climate change resilience build-
ing activities for/with poor and vulnerable people.
This includes the use of UPA and urban forestry in
maintaining vulnerable areas (low-lying areas prone
to floods; steep slopes prone to landslides) free from
construction and developing such areas as open
green multi-functional spaces and a permanent and
natural part of the urban infrastructure (C. Rumbaitis
del Rio, personal communication, 2009). The City
of Amman included urban agriculture/forestry as
one of the four pillars of its ‘Amman Green Growth
Programme’ with the World Bank Carbon
Partnership Facility (Z. Moussa, personal communi-
cation 2010).
The City of Beijing developed a new zoning plan
reserving substantial peri-urban zones for the devel-
opment of ‘recreational agriculture’, combining sus-
tainable agricultural production with recreational
services to urban citizens, nature and landscape
conservation, eco-education and preservation of cul-
tural heritage. These areas are protected against
8 H . D E Z E E U W , R. V A N V E E N H U I Z E N A N D M. D U B B E L I N G
acquisition for other uses and substantial amounts of
government investment are applied to facilitate the
development of such ‘recreational agriculture’ by the
peri-urban village cooperatives and private investors
(Jiang et al. 2005; Cai et al. 2006; J. Liu, personal
communication, 2008).
T OWA R D S UPA A S A N I N T E G R AT E D
C O M P O N E N T O F S U S TA I N A B L E C I T Y
D E V E LO P M E N T
The 2007/2008 food crisis has made national and city
authorities more aware of the need to enhance
attention to rising urban food insecurity; to strengthen
the resilience of the urban food system; and reduce
vulnerability of the urban poor to price hikes in the
international markets. This has enhanced the uptake
of urban and peri-urban food production in city and
national policies and programmes directed towards
strategies for food security and poverty reduction. In
addition, the attention being paid to reducing the
environmental footprint of cities (energy, CO2, water
and nutrients) and the potential impacts of climate
change, as well as enhancing resilience, is growing.
These trends fit with concepts in urban development
that stress the ‘regionality of city space’ (Soja 2000)
and ‘poly-centric urban development’ (Hall & Pain
2009). They indicate a spatial and economic urban
development model that focuses on a regional urban
system in which various nodes interact with each other
and with the open spaces included in such a
‘functional urban region’. The open areas in between
the urban nodes are not seen as a reserve for future
urban development and construction but as an
integral part of the city’s regional infrastructure,
fulfilling multi-functional roles (FAO and Ministry
of Agriculture of the Netherlands 1999). The green
infrastructure is fully integrated as wedges and cor-
ridors (or continuous productive urban landscapes)
while the city expands (Viljoen 2005). This in sharp
contrast with city expansion in ever widening con-
centric circles, as is still the dominant practice in most
developing countries.
Within such poly-centric city regions, three main
types of urban agriculture might be facilitated:
a. Micro-scale urban agriculture as an integrated part
of social housing and slum development projects
and in vacant intra-urban open spaces (such as
neighbourhood greening, home/school/community
gardening and small-scale animal raising along
railways, under power lines (Dubbeling et al.
2009b)). The main focus is on building a safety
REFERENCES
ARMAR-KLEMESU, M. (2000). Urban agriculture and
food security, nutrition and health. In Growing Cities,
net and securing access to nutritious food for
disadvantaged categories of the population while
enhancing liveability and resilience of the slum
areas.
b. Small-scale multi-functional agriculture and agro-
forestry in urban green corridors and peri-urban
areas, especially in locations where other uses are
less desirable (flood and earthquake-prone zones,
steep slopes, areas with special ecological or land-
scape values) with an emphasis on ecological soil-
based types of agriculture that can perform
multiple functions (food production as well as
reuse of composted urban wastes, storm water
storage, recreation and biodiversity).
c. Clusters of intensive and (often) high-technology
agriculture (mainly not soil-based) including large-
scale intensive pig, poultry and fish farms, intensive
horticulture in high-technology green houses and
related agro-industry (animal feed and slaughter
house) making optimal use of the possibilities to
create synergy between the various components of
the cluster by reusing by-products. For example,
the manure from the pig farms is used in
neighbouring mushroom farms; CO2 resulting
from the mushroom farms is used in greenhouses
to stimulate plant growth; excess heat and waste-
water from the city power plant is used in the agro-
cluster. By clustering the intensive UPA, the
negative trade-offs of intensive agriculture for the
environment and human health can be better
controlled, whereas creation of closed resource
circuits is enabled. See for example the Agropark
that is being developed in Dongtan, Shanghai
(Smeets et al. 2007).
These three types of production complement each
other within a sustainable city regional development,
although the main actors involved in the development
of each of these types of production, as well as their
rational for involvement, may vary substantially.
A series of ‘best bet’ recommendations have
gradually evolved as policy measures at local and
national level of high relevance to the development of
sustainable UPA (Dubbeling & de Zeeuw 2007).
These facilitate optimal benefits while preventing or
reducing any associated risks. This set of recommen-
dations was developed from experiences gained from
the 17 cities that participated in the RUAF coordi-
nated cities farming for the future programme (2000–
08) supplemented by a number of international and
regional conferences and workshops on UPA invol-
ving local authorities, researchers, practitioners and
international organizations.
Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda
(Eds M. Bakker, N. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel
 Role of urban agriculture in developing countries
Koschella & H. de Zeeuw), pp. 99–117. Feldafing,
Germany: DSE.
BAILKEY, M., WILBERS, J. & VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2007).
Building communities through urban agriculture (edi-
torial). Urban Agriculture Magazine 18, 1–6.
BAKER, J. L. (2008). Impacts of Financial, Food and Fuel
Crisis on the Urban Poor. Directions in Urban
Development: Issues Note Series. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
BAUDOIN, W. & DRESCHER, A. (2008). Urban Agriculture for
Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and Food Security. Rome:
FAO.
BIRLEY, M. & LOCK, K. (1999). The Health Impacts of Peri-
urban Natural Resources Development. Trowbridge, UK:
Cromwell Press.
BOISCHIO, A., CLEGG, A. & MWAGORE, D. (2006). Health
risks and benefits of urban and peri-urban agriculture and
livestock in sub-Saharan Africa: resource papers and
proceedings. In Urban Poverty and Environment Series
Report 1. Ottawa: International Development Research
Centre.
BOURQUE, M. (2000). Policy options for urban agriculture. In
Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the
Policy Agenda (Eds M. Bakker, N. Dubbeling, S.
Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella & H. de Zeeuw), pp. 119–
145. Feldafing, Germany: DSE.
BRADFORD, A., HOEKSTRA, F. & VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2009).
Linking relief, rehabilitation and development: a role for
urban agriculture: editorial. Urban Agriculture Magazine
21, 3–10.
BROWN, K. H. & JAMETON, A. L. (2000). Public health
implications of urban agriculture. Journal of Public
Health Policy 21, 20–39.
BUECHLER, S., MEKALA, G. D. & KERAITA, B. (2006).
Wastewater use for urban and peri-urban agriculture. In
Cities Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green
and Productive Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 243–
273. The Philippines: RUAF Foundation/IDRC/IIRR.
CAI, J., LIU, S., YANG, Z., YUAN, H. & JIANG, F. (2006). The
Beijing urban agriculture policy guidelines: a milestone.
Urban Agriculture Magazine 16, 32–34.
COFIE, O. & VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2008). Editorial: sustain-
able use of water in urban agriculture. Urban Agriculture
Magazine 20, 3–6.
COLE, D., LEE-SMITH, D. & NASINYAMA, G. W. (2008).
Healthy City Harvests: Generating Evidence to Guide
Policy on Urban Agriculture. Lima, Peru: International
Potato Centre & Makerere University Press.
DRECHSEL, P. & KUNZE, D. (2001). Waste Composting for
Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture: Closing the Rural–
Urban Nutrient Cycle in Sub-Saharan Africa. Wallingford,
UK/Colombo, Sri Lanka/Rome, Italy: CABI/IWMI/
FAO.
DRECHSEL, P., SCOTT, C. A., RASCHID-SALLY, L.,
REDWOOD, M. & BAHRI, A. (2010). Wastewater Irrigation
and Health: Assessing and Mitigation Risks in Low-income
Countries. London: Earthscan/IDRC/IWMI.
DUBBELING, M., BRACALENTI, L. & LAGORIO, L. (2009b).
Participatory design of public spaces for urban agricul-
ture, Rosario, Argentina. Open House International 34,
36–49.
DUBBELING, M., CATON CAMPBELL, M., HOEKSTRA, F. &
VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2009a). Editorial: building resilient
cities. Urban Agriculture Magazine 22, 3–11.
9
DUBBELING, M. & DE ZEEUW, H. (2007). Multi-stakeholder
policy formulation and action planning for sustainable
urban agriculture development. RUAF Working Paper
No. 1. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation.
Available online at: http://www.ruaf.org/taxonomy/term/
45/0?page=1 (verified 6 December 2010).
ESCAP: UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION
FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (2009). Sustainable Agriculture
and Food Security in Asia and the Pacific. Geneva: United
Nations.
FAO (2004). The State of Food Insecurity in the World.
Rome: FAO.
FAO (2008). State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008: High
Food Prices and Food Security – Threats and
Opportunities. Rome: FAO.
FAO & MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NATURE MANAGEMENT
AND FISHERIES, THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) (1999).
Cultivating our Futures: Taking Stock of the
Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land.
Rome/The Hague: FAO.
GONZALEZ NOVO, M. & MURPHY, C. (2000). Urban agricul-
ture in the City of Havana: a popular response to a crisis.
In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the
Policy Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture (Eds N.
Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella &
H. De Zeeuw), pp. 329–347. Feldafing, Germany:
DSE/ETC.
HALL, P. & PAIN, K. (2009). The Polycentric Metropolis
Learning from Mega-City Regions in Europe. London:
Earthscan.
HEINBERG, R. & BOMFORD, M. (2009). The Food & Farming
Transition. Toward a Post Carbon Food System.
Sebastopol, CA: Post Carbon Institute.
HOVORKA, A., DE ZEEUW, H. & NJENGA, M. (2009). Women
Feeding Cities; Mainstreaming Gender in Urban
Agriculture and Food Security. London, UK: Practical
Action.
IASC TASK FORCE ON MEETING HUMANITARIAN CHALLENGES
ON URBAN AREAS (in press). Meeting Humanitarian
Challenges in Urban Areas: Assessment and Strategy,
Geneva, Switzerland.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
(2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary
for Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.
JACOBI, P. AMEND, J. & KIANGO, S. (2000). Urban agriculture
in Dar es Salaam: providing for an indispensable part of
the diet. In Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban
Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. A Reader on Urban
Agriculture (Eds N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel,
U. Sabel-Koschella & H. de Zeeuw), pp. 257–283.
Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ETC.
JIANG, F., YUAN, H., LIU, S. & CAI, J. (2005).
Multifunctional agrotourism in Beijing. Urban
Agriculture Magazine 15, 14–15.
KAUFMAN, J. & BAILKEY, M. (2000). Farming inside cities:
entrepreneurial urban agriculture in the United States.
Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy.
KOUVONOU, F. M., HONFOGA, B. G. & DEBRAH, S. K. (1998).
Sécurité alimentaire et gestion integree de la fertilite des
sols: contribution du maraichage peri-urbain a Lomé.
In Agriculture Urbaine en Afrique de l’Ouest: Une Con-
tribution a la Sécurité et a l’Assainissement des Villes
(Ed. O. B. Smith), pp. 83–103. Ottawa: Technical Centre
10 H . D E Z E E U W , R. V A N V E E N H U I Z E N A N D M. D U B B E L I N G
for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation/International
Development Research Centre.
LACOSTE, E. & CHALMIN, P. (2007). From Waste to
Resource: 2006 World Waste Survey. Paris, France:
Economica.
LARBI, T. & COFIE, O. (2007). Exploratory study report on
UPA in Freetown, Sierra Leone. RUAF Project Report.
Accra, Ghana: IWMI.
LATTUCA, A., TERRILE, R., BRACALENTI, L., LAGORIO, L.,
RAMOS, G. & MOREIRA, F. (2005). Building food secure
neighbourhoods in Rosario. Urban Agriculture Magazine
15, 23–24.
LIU, S., CAI, J. & YANG, Z. (2003). Migrants’ access to land
in peri-urban Beijing. Urban Agriculture Magazine 11,
6–8.
LOCK, K. & DE ZEEUW, H. (2001). Mitigating the health risks
associated with urban and peri-urban agriculture. Urban
Agriculture Magazine 1, 6–8.
LOURENÇO-LINDELL, I. (1995). The informal food economy in
a peripheral urban district: the case of Bandim District,
Bissau. Habitat International 19, 195–208.
LOVO, I. C. & PEREIRA COSTA, Z. R. (2006). Making laws
for urban agriculture: the experience of Governador
Valadares, Brazil. Urban Agriculture Magazine 16, 45–47.
MAXWELL, D., WEBB, P., COATES, J. & WIRTH, J. (2008).
Rethinking food security in humanitarian response. Paper
presented to the Rethinking Food Security in Humanitarian
Response International Forum, Rome, April 16–18, 2008.
Available online at: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/
policy/conflict_disasters/rethinking_food_security.html
(verified 2 December 2010).
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN
SERVICES (2007). National Campaign to Motivate Domestic
Food Production 2007–2010. Colombo: Ministry of
Agricultural Development and Agrarian Services.
Available online at: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/southasia/
ruaf/cffgampaha.html (verified 2 December 2010).
MOUGEOT, L. J. A. (2000). Urban agriculture: definition,
presence, potentials and risks. In Growing Cities, Growing
Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. A Reader
on Urban Agriculture (Eds N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S.
Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella & H. De Zeeuw), pp. 99–117.
Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ETC.
MOUGEOT, L. J. A. (2005). AGROPOLIS: The Social,
Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban
Agriculture. London: Earthscan.
MOUGEOT, L. J. A. (2006). Growing Better Cities: Urban
Agriculture for Sustainable Development. Ottawa, Canada:
IDRC.
MOUSTIER, P. & DANSO, G. (2006). Local economic develop-
ment and marketing of urban produced food. In Cities
Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and
Productive Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 174–195.
Manilla, The Philippines: IIRR/RUAF Foundation/
IDRC.
MUBVAMI, T. & TORIRO, P. (2010). Joint action planning on
urban agriculture in Bulawayo. In Cities, Poverty and
Food; Multi-stakeholder Policy and Planning in Urban
Agriculture (Eds M. Dubbeling, H. De Zeeuw & R. van
Veenhuizen), pp. 95–101. London: Practical Action
Publishers.
NUGENT, R. (2000). The impact of urban agriculture on
the household and local economies. In Growing Cities,
Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy
Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture (Eds N. Bakker,
M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella & H. De
Zeeuw), pp. 67–97. Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ETC.
OBUOBIE, E., KERAITA, B., DANSO, G., AMOAH, P.,
COFIE, O. O., RASCHID-SALLY, L. & DRECHSE, P. (2006).
Irrigated Urban Vegetable Production in Ghana:
Characteristics, Benefits and Risks. Accra, Ghana:
IWMI/RUAF Foundation/IDRC/CPWF.
PONCE, M. & TERRILE, R. (2010). An analysis of markets
in Rosario, Argentina. Urban Agriculture Magazine 24,
55–57.
PRAIN, G. (2010). Effects of the Global Financial Crisis on
the Food Security of Poor Urban Households. Leusden,
The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation/UN HABITAT/
IDRC.
RAVALLION, M. (2001). On the urbanization of poverty.
World Bank Development Research Group, Policy
Research Working Papers No. 2586. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
SAWIO, C. J. (1998). Managing urban agriculture in Dar es
Salaam. Cities Feeding People Series Report 20. Ottawa,
Canada: IDRC.
SMEETS, P. J. A. M., VAN MANSFELD, M. J. M., ZHANG, C.,
LOOHUIS, R. O., BROEZE, J., BUIJS, S., MOENS, E., VAN
LATESTEIJN, H., VAN STEEKELENBURG, M., STUMPEL, L.,
BRUINSMA, W., VAN MEGEN, T., MAGER, S.,
CHRISTIAENS, P. & HEIJER, H. (2007). Master Plan.
Greenport Shanghai Agropark. Wageningen, The
Netherlands: Alterra.
SMIT, J. & BAILKEY, M. (2006). Building community capital
and social inclusion through urban agriculture. In Cities
Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and
Productive Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 145–170.
Manilla, The Philippines: IIRR/RUAF Foundation/
IDRC.
SMIT, J., RATTA, A. & NASR, J. (1996). Urban Agriculture:
Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. New York: UNDP.
SOJA, E. W. (2000). Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities
and Regions. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
SONOU, M. (2001). Peri-urban irrigated agriculture and
health risks in Ghana. Urban Agriculture Magazine 3,
33–34.
TIDBALL, K. G. & KRASNY, M. (2006). From risk to
resilience: what role for community greening and civic
ecology in cities? In Social Learning Towards a More
Sustainable World (Ed. A. Wals), pp. 149–164. Wagening,
The Netherlands: Academic Press.
TIXIER, P. & DE BON, H. (2006). Urban horticulture. In Cities
Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and
Productive Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 313–346.
Manilla, The Philippines: IIRR/RUAF Foundation/
IDRC.
UNESCO (2003). Water for people, water for life. UN World
Water Development Report. Paris, France: UNESCO.
UN-HABITAT (2007). State of the World’s Cities Report
2006/2007. London: Earthscan.
UN-HABITAT (2009). Report of the International
Tripartite Conference Urban Challenges and Poverty
Reduction in African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries,
8–10 June 2009, Nairobi. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-
HABITAT.
UNFPA: UN POPULATIONS FUND (2007). State of the World
Population; Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth.
New York: UNFPA.
 Role of urban agriculture in developing countries
VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. (2006). Introduction: cities farming
for the future. Introduction. In Cities Farming for the
Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive
Cities (Ed. R. van Veenhuizen), pp. 1–18. Manilla, The
Philippines: IIRR/RUAF Foundation/IDRC.
VAN VEENHUIZEN, R. & DANSO, G. (2007). Profitability
and sustainability of urban and peri-urban agriculture.
FAO Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance
Occasional Paper No 19. Rome: FAO.
VILJOEN, A. (2005). Continuous Productive Urban Land-
scapes. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
WHO (1992). Our planet, our health. Report of the WHO
Commission on Health and Environment. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
WHO (2006). Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater,
Excreta and Grey Water. Geneva: WHO.
View publication stats
11
WILBERS, J. & DE ZEEUW, H. (2006). A critical review of
recent policy documents on urban agriculture. Urban
Agriculture Magazine 16, 3–9.
YEUDALL, F. (2006). Nutritional perspectives in urban
and peri urban agriculture. In Health Risks and Benefits
of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture and Livestock in
Sub-Saharan Africa (Eds A. Boischio, A. Clegg &
D. Mwagore), pp. 25–34. Urban Poverty and Environment
Series Report 1. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC.
ZEZZA, A. & TASCIOTTI, L. (2008). Does urban agriculture
enhance dietary diversity? Empirical evidence from a
sample of developing countries. Paper prepared for
presentation at the 12th EAAE Congress People, Food
and Environments: Global Trends and European Strategies,
Ghent, Belgium, 26–29 August 2008. Available online at:
http://purl.umn.edu/44390 (verified 2 December 2010).