University of the Philippines Los Baños

College of Human Ecology

Department of Community and Environmental Resource Planning

A STUDY ON THE AWARENESS AND ACCEPTABILITY OF URBAN

AGRICULTURE OF BARANGAY PANSOL, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA

Kenneth Bernard M. Hizon

HUME 190-Z
May, 14, 2015

1
A research study requirement in HUME 190- Special Problems under the supervision of Dr.
Raden Piadozo, A.Y. 2014-2015, 2nd semester.
Table of Contents

Part I: Introduction 4

Part II: Review of Related Literature 8

Part III: Methodology 18

Part IV: Results and Discussions 20

Part V: Conclusion 39
I. Introduction

Urban Agriculture is one of the contemporary methods of the modern world that
specifically wants to counter the impeding effects of rapid urbanization of cities and megacities
whether from the developed world or on the developing ones. As urbanization rapidly happens
on every city in the world more and more problems such as food security, air pollution, storm
water and rain water management, diet, health problems and even heat island effect.

As population increases, food demands are also exponentially growing; thus making food
expensive than it was before; also as cities become more urbanized, the areas where food are
produced are getting farther away from the market areas which adds up to the problem of
transporting food. Air pollution on the other hand emanates from the transportation vehicles that
are used just to transport food to and fro from the production sites, and also from the different
fertilizers that farmers uses just to make the life of these food products longer than usual. Other
problems also follow a similar trend in relation to urbanization.

Then again, Urban Agriculture is the “growing, processing, and distribution of food and other
products though intensive plant cultivation and animal husbandry in and around cities.” (Brown
and Carter, 2003) , generally the practice transcends the very meaning of the words Urban and
Agriculture, because traditionally agriculture has been practiced thousands of years ago in the
rural areas (Kuhn, 2009) , far from the commercial, residential or even industrial areas to be able
to protect the crops better, and near the forests or river systems to be able to get resources easier.
The practice erases all conventional definitions of agriculture, since in the first place it is done in
urban areas, where it is not practiced years before, and also Urban Agriculture tries to use
different idle lands in the cities to increase aesthetic values and at the same time produce food for
the residents in the area. The practice also is viewed as one of the counter measures to produce
food and make a certain city sustainable and food secured; using idle lands as production sites
for food, making the food paths less distant compared to the conventional agriculture in the rural
areas.
As much as the practice is aimed by the different stakeholders, the practice of Urban Agriculture
must be mandated and or supported by the national government and the local government
because the use of lands or idle lands specifically requires the assistance from any Land Use
Planners in general in addition to the law makers and land analysts to help a certain community
locate lands that they can use. It is very important that an act or law must preserve this practice
and also a national council that will help implement the law.

Urban Agriculture also has different acceptability from different fields such as; social,
environmental and economic, these acceptability fields focuses on how the practice of Urban
Agriculture give benefits to the residents of a certain community, to the producers, to the land
owners, law makers or to the whole community or the general population in general.
As the stakeholders looks upon the acceptability of urban agriculture, most often they look on the
benefits they got; do they consume more healthy food while paying for a less cost? Do they
become relaxed or feel fulfilled after farming? Do they think the water and quality increases as
they practice Urban Agriculture?
In this research, the researchers tried to do a survey through questionnaire on Brgy.
Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna to measure the acceptability and awareness of the selected
samples about the concept of Urban Agriculture, its economic, social and environmental
awareness, their issues and concern about the practice and their insights and recommendations.
Statement of the Problem
Urban Agriculture is a blossoming practice that is not yet common to the Filipinos in
general, most of the urban farmers or urban agriculture practitioners doesn’t know the concept of
Urban Agriculture or if not, they still do not know that what they are doing is considered Urban
Agriculture. Urban Agriculture act of 2011 is a law that allows the agricultural processes such as;
cultivation, processing and distribution of food in and around the city, most of the stakeholders
of this law aren’t on familiar terms with it or must have heard it but don’t have enough resources
to understand how it can help them in their accolades.

Objectives of the Study

 To measure and evaluate the awareness of the residents of Brgy. Pansol about Urban
Agriculture.
 To measure and evaluate the economic, social and environmental acceptability of the
residents of Brgy. Pansol about Urban Agriculture.
 To study about the experiences of the urban farmers in Brgy. Pansol.

Importance of the Study

As a response to the growing community of the practitioners of Urban Agriculture, it is

necessary to be familiar with and validate the experiences of our farmers in the cities that doesn’t
know the concept of UA, and relate to them in comprehensive terms how this concept can help
them economically, socially and environmentally.

Scopes and Limitations

The study focuses on the awareness and the acceptability in terms of social, economic
and environmental fields, of the urban farmers in the locality of Brgy. Pansol. The study also
encompasses how the availability of land and how the intervention of the Local Government
Unit as well as the National Government can help the promulgation of Urban Agriculture.

The limitations of the study is that the research cannot generalize the events on the
barangay since there are only 20 respondents and that some of data regarding the awareness and
acceptability are sometimes biased due to the presence of an authoritative figure during data
gathering and that because almost all of the farmers cannot answer well due to old age or
sometimes do not answer well during the said interview or data gathering.

Operational Definition of Terms

 Urban
 Agriculture
 Urban Agriculture
 Acceptability
 Phyoremediation
II. Review of Related Literature

A. Urban Agriculture

Urban Agriculture is one of the most practiced activities that cities around the world
perform in order to achieve sustainable way of living, these cities are developing different and
new kinds of techniques in order to bring the farm from the rural areas into the urban areas to
sustain its growing population. Urban Agriculture is generally the growing, processing, and
distribution of food and other products through intensive plant cultivation and animal husbandry
in and around the cities (Brown and Carter, 2003). Agriculture is traditionally practiced in rural
areas but since populations started rising in the urban communities due to urbanization, the
demand for food increased, paving the way for the practice of urban agriculture. According to
Smit and Nasr, urban agriculture also includes aquaculture: in tanks, ponds, rivers and coastal
bays; Livestock raised in backyards, along roadsides, within utility rights of way, in poultry
sheds and piggeries; Orchards, including vineyards, street trees, and backyard trees; Vegetables
and other crops grown on roof tops, in backyards, in vacant lots of industrial estates, along
canals, on the grounds of institutions, on roadsides and in many suburban farms. They also stated
that Urban Agriculture is a fast growing industry that uses the urban waste water and urban solid
waste as inputs to its production resulting into positive results such as improved nutrition and
health, improved entertainment for living, increased entrepreneurship, and improved equity.
Urban Agriculture is often times connected to sustainable development, since the practice uses
other by products, wastes and takes up little spaces from the city/towns to produce quality crops,
livestock and fishes without a large transportation cost, urban agriculture seems to one of the
answer to the every economic, social and environmental issue that threatens every city. Urban
Agriculture in many other ways can promote equality and equity since every one can produce
their own food as long as they have the proper space they need, and with the help of the local
government they can do this practice, the practice also creates a greener and healthier
environment for the plants lessens the level of wastes and increases the economic bases of the
cities where in agriculture is at the front leading the development. In relation to the statement
above Smit and Nasr cited Urban Agriculture as a “first line of defense against malnutrition and
hunger often times of particular stress”. The same perspective of Urban Agriculture is stated by
Tim Kuhn in his article Urban Agriculture in Wisconsin: A Survey and Discussion of Land Use
and Planning Practices in High Density Countries, stated that Urban Agriculture in which he
stated that “By bringing agriculture into our cities, we can decrease transportation costs and
energy use, decrease the negative health effects associated with processing and preservation,
decrease the resultant pollution, and increase local access, understanding, education, and
connections with the food supply.” He also stated that in the process of transferring the practice
of farming or agriculture in the cities, it is necessary that there is the presence of the federal and
state planning, policy, regulatory, social and monetary tools. In his research he has found out that
Urban Agriculture is one of the way to efficiently utilize the vacant lots on an urban area, he also
stated in his research some findings that other people found about urban agriculture;(1) that the
issue of vacant lots is not only confined on the large cities where in a city with a population of
less than 100,000 can often see 25% of lots go vacant, (Brachman,2005), he also reiterated the
availability of space of rooftops which is 30% of a city’s total land area. (Garnham, 2002).
Urban Agriculture can also be seen as a strategy to change the aesthetic value of a certain space
on a community as what was stated in the study of Brown and Jamelton in 2000 entitled Public
Health Impacts in Urban Agriculture where they stated that many of the centers for Urban
Agriculture are located on areas or land that are vacant or unused that otherwise unattractive for
urban development. In the offset of Urban Agriculture in Cuba, a research was conducted by
Altieri et al in 1998 wherein they stated that” It (Urban Agriculture) is a popular agriculture,
extremely heterogeneous in size, crop mixes, and management levels.” In the following years,
Urban Agriculture has been more and more gaining popularity as one of the solutions to the
different economic, social and environmental problems that we face today.
B. Social Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

Communities that practice urban agriculture receive benefits regarding nutrition, food
and food security, health and equality and equity. On a study conducted by Bellows et al in
2005, entitled Health Benefits of Agriculture they have presented the practical benefits of Urban
Agriculture such as; (1) “The Experience of growing food is correlated with consumption; the
more experience people have growing in food, the more likely they are to eat.” (2) “Urban
gardening and farming involve city dwellers in healthy, active work and recreation.” (3) “Urban
Agriculture builds safe, healthy, and green environments in neighborhoods, schools and
abandoned areas” In their research they have cited the research of the United Nations World
Health Organization concerning about Urban Agriculture in Istanbul; it is stated that it is in
Istanbul where Urban Agriculture was first recognized for its contribution to the health and
welfare of the populations in the urban community.

In the same study of Bellows et al, stated that “In a 30 day temperate growing season a 10
x 10 meter plot can provide most of a household’s yearly vegetable needs, including much of the
household’s nutritional requirements for vitamins A, C, and B complex and Iron”. Thus also
creating a household that is self sufficient and at the same time reducing the costs that they need
for food. Food security is one of the goals of Urban Agriculture and according to the research of
Power in 1999, entitled: Combining Social Justice and Sustainability for Food Security, in for

Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Power classified Urban Agriculture as a
sustainable activity geared towards food security which is called CFS or Community Food
Security. Power also stated that “By developing skills and self reliance and fostering direct
connections between farmers and urban residents, the sustainable foods
Systems approach provides food for the hungry.” Food security through Urban Agriculture or
Urban Farming is considered as not a contemporary trend or a new policy according to the
studies of Mougeot in 1994, in the said study it is stated that; during the past historical eras many
cities and city states have been doing crop production in the urban landscape, with the presence
of a large number of livestock, he said that the reason for this practice is for the cities/city states
defense and to avoid seasonal food shortages and to cope against civil strife or drought. The
author also noted that during that time, road networks are not good as today, and it would take
many days just to bring a ration of food products from the farm land to the city if it is miles
away, unlike when they do urban Agriculture. In another study, they have focused on what are
the primary benefits of Urban Agriculture stating that; “Urban agriculture…can
provide direct access to a larger number of nutritionally rich foods (vegetables, fruit, meat) and a
more varied diet, can increase the stability of household food consumption against seasonality or
other temporary shortages, and can increase the time mothers spend caring for their children, as
opposed to non-agricultural activities that are more likely to be located further away from home”
(Maxwell, 2003; Maxwell et al., 1998; Armar-Klemesu, 2001; Egal et al., 2001). The statement
above is supplemented by a study conducted by Maxwell et al, 1998, they investigated the link
between “Urban Agriculture and Food security in a multivariate framework” where they used
child nutritional status as the dependent variable. On another research by Zezza and Tasciotti,
2009 in their study entitled Food Policy, where they used kilocalorie consumption (which are the
products of; food access, food availability and stability dimensions of food security), diet
diversity. The results of the research supplements the claim that UA (Urban Agriculture) is
positively associated with greater diet diversity which is seen in 10 out of 15 countries using the
dietary diversity score and 11 out of 15 countries measured with the simple food count. Thus
providing a confirmation that urban farming or urban agriculture can allow better consumption
and more nutritious diets. In another similar research about food security and urban agriculture is
a case study in Nairobi conducted by Foeken and Mwaning in wherein in their research they
have focused on their UA practices corresponding to the poverty alleviation and food security, in
the mid 1970s urban poverty is not much evident since 2.9% only of the households in Nairobi
are below the poverty line/threshold (Collier & Lal 1986), during the 1980s-1990s things
drastically changed as more problems occurred; (1) “rapid population growth as a result of both
high natural increase and accelerated rural-urban migration (Nairobi's population grew at a rate
of 5.1% during the 1980s)” (2) “the on-going economic recession: economic growth declined
steeply since 1980 (dropping from an average of 5% during 1978-81 to only 2.2% in 1990-91)”
(3) “the impact of structural adjustment policies, e.g. a reduction of government spending,
increased taxation, currency devaluation, increasing real producer prices for agriculture.”
(Foekan and Mwangi, ), this problems made life harder for the Kenyans esp. the poor and
marginalized sector , resulting into the marginalization of the groups belonging to the urban
poor. This paved way for urban agriculture in their areas; around 1980s 20% of the households in
Nairobi were growing crops in the city (Lee-Smith et al. 1987), and 7% of livestock in towns. On
a 1994 study, it showed that 30% of the households are urban farmers (Mwangi & Foeken 1996).

C. Economic Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

In the previous paragraphs all related studies about the social acceptability of urban
agriculture have been discussed and have been proven that its social acceptability is outright
good. While in this part of the paper the research will be focusing more on its economic side, to
foresee whether it is good enough or not depending on the former researches that different
scientists and researchers did.

In a study conducted by Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey in 2000 entitled Farming
Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States; it was shown that there are
positive and negative feedbacks on their study site as with concern to the entrepreneurial urban
agriculture. On the positive side, (1) the study found out that there a diverse set of market for city
farming, another positive side is that there are (2) “pockets of support” for market urban
agriculture from the national and local government officials, nonprofit organizations and other
sectors and groups, (3) there are positive general responses from the people of the who live close
by on the food growing parts of the city, (4) markets for urban agriculture can tap the
government for help to provide capital for their businesses, (5) Profits are starting to show from
the different markets and “More of them are providing a variety of other social, aesthetic,
health, and community-building and empowerment benefits.”

On the negative side of their research these are the things that they found out, that (1) the number
of those enthusiasts of urban agriculture and the market are outnumbered by the general public
who are skeptical and or disinterested in it, (2) many of those urban agricultural projects are
underfunded and has management issues, (3) Urban Agriculture is seen as not the best use or the
vacant lands in their cities prior to the beliefs of their local government policy officials “who
would like to attract better taxpaying uses on the land” (4) The idea of producing food into the
cities is still a new idea to the general public, which thinks that farming should be done on the
rural areas.

In another study by Mclintok entitled Why Farm the City? Theorizing Urban Agriculture through
a Lens of Metabolic Rift in 2010, it was avowed that the interests in Urban Agricultured spiked
up during the late 2007 and 2008 when spike in oil and food prices shocked the current economy
of the stated and also because of the economic meltdown that’s why people wanted to do Urban
Agriculture to lessen the food costs. It is also affirmed in the research that Urban Agriculture,
historically flourished at the time where economic crisis set in, and that being followed by a shift
of the practice into one leisure practice into a sustainable and economic one. Another effects of
Urban Agriculture has been affirmed in the research of De Bon et al in Sustainable Urban
Agriculture in Developing Countries: A Review in 2008 wherein where in with the use of
secondary data they have shown how Urban Agriculture will affect the future employment in
Africa; the data and the conclusion are as follows: It was stated that half of the African
population are all living in cities and will also continue to increase (UN, 2006) and that their
major source of income and employment is Agriculture (World Bank, 2007) ). It was also stated
that if the data and the predictions are correct then most of the African population will live in
cities in time and that their major source of income will still be agriculture in which may cause
sanitary problems and environmental challenges for the said agricultural activities (Cohen, 2004;
Ruel and Haddad,1999; Haggblade and Hazell, 1989), because of the absence of the formal
employment opportunities from the different sectors of the economy, industry and services thus
agriculture still remains as the main contributor of employment and in the livelihoods (Ellis and
Sumberg, 1998), but according to MINADER in 2006 urban agriculture does not contribute
significantly to the economy measured in the country level, wherein in “Cameroon, the primary
sector (food crops, livestock and fisheries) accounts for only 20% if the gross domestic product.”
and that even though it only contributes 20% to the GDB of Cameroon, agriculture is still the top
income provider for the 60% of the population.
Not only do the practice of Urban Agriculture give employment and food for the families but
also helps the market supply of goods and helps the relationship of the farmers, retailers and also
the suppliers or the wholesalers. One example is in Phnom Penh where in the marketing chains
for kangkong are short where 57% of the farmers are directly being supplied by the farmers who
receive more than 50% of the final price (Sokhen et al, 2004) , in this type of setting, the
producer usually sells their products to the retailers, for example; in Hanoi more than 40% of the
wholesale market sellers are also the wholesale market sellers. (Moustier et al., 2004).
With these being said, a conclusion can be made that short marketing chains can enable low
price differentials between the farm and final consumption, for example in Hanoi; 35% to 50%
of cabbage, 30% of leafy vegetables, 75%-80% of tomato, 100% for vegetables brought from
Dalta or China, and 200% vegetables from Red River Delta to Ho Chi Minh City. (Moustier et
al, 2004), another case is in Havana, Cuba wherein the prices of tomato, onion, pork and fruits
fell three times between 1994 and 1999, where it is the time that Urban Agriculture started or
launched.
In another economic and public support sense, urban agriculture can be a setting factor to create
landscape, which is a public good, where in users, cannot be excluded and will make the land
management less interesting to the private sectors. (Donadieu and Fleury, 1997). Another
advantage is that Urban Agriculture is supported by different market forces even though these
market forces are imperfect, these practice can also ensure the provisioning of jobs and a sense
of social inclusion. (Bon et al, 2010) . According to the research in France, Russia and Brazil,
that the said practice is a key component of sustainable human development (Boukharaeva et al.,
2005; Boukharaeva and Marloie, 2006). Another problem is that if market forces are present and
given a free hand; distances between urban centers and agriculture is irreversible, it is supported
by the fact that it is economically sound to develop land than to farm it, and this is one of the
major problems of the farmers alongside with (1) excess or deficient water, flooding and
humidity which results to different diseases. (Temple andMoustier, 2004; Midmore and Jansen,
2003; Prain, 2006).
While on a political economic point of view; it is legitimate that the public sector to support the
practice of UA, and that they must share the shame objectives; duties and rights, landscape and
environment from the urban residents’ side and protection from land development from the
farmers’ side, another thing is the farmers should share the land with other users instead of
claiming a specific space. (Mbiba and Veenhuizen, 2001). In Delft, a city in South Holland a
farmer was able to succeed a negotiation of 12 years lease of a 35 hectare land due to his
commitment in producing organic vegetables and milk, the farmer must also preserve 5 hectares
of land for nature preservation purposes. (Deelstra et al., 2001).
D. Environmental Acceptability:
Urban agriculture is also a practice that answers the different problems to the
environment, from the management of air and water quality, management of storm water,
management of urban temperature and other environmental and aesthetic concerns. The main
problem of our world today is that urbanization and population growth is still at large which
exhausts the different resources of our world; that’s why different sustainable practices have
been introduced to the different cities for them to use as a substitute for other non-sustainable
practices.
From the research of Deelstra and Girardet, N.D. they have reiterated on the fact that
Urban Agriculture can help improve the ecological performance of cities but also has constraints,
according to the researchers one of the constraints of the practice is that there is a lack of space
for urban agriculture to take place on different cities, while the potential or benefits of urban
agriculture are as follows; (1) The practice can help improve the microclimate and conserve
soils, (2) minimize waste water and improve nutrient cycling, (3) improve water management,
biodiversity, oxygen and carbon balance and the (4) environmental awareness of the inhabitants
in the city. Another problem presented is that most of the lands in the urban cities are filled with
heavy metal pollutants which can reduce the growth and yield of a cropland; however researches
from the USA and United Kingdom showed several techniques or activities that can reduce or
eliminate the problem of heavy metal pollution in soils, one solution is to, “maintain a high pH
with additions of plenty of lime” and “high organic matter levels through additions of compost or
manure helps to immobilise heavy metals in the soil”
In the same study, they stated that if urban agriculture is appropriately and planned and
integrated into the urban design, then these practice can contribute to the comfort of the citizens
through the improvement of microclimate. These green spaces can help through the of vegetation
which can help in the increase in humidity, can help to lower the temperature, introduce more
pleasant aroma or odor to the city, capture dusts and gases from polluted air, thus making a better
air quality in the city and can help break wind, intercept solar radiation and creating shadows
which can protect places from the direct solar radiations.
Another benefit of Urban Agriculture is that it can help to conserve urban soils, with the use of
organic fertilizers from the different residential areas and different institutions which can also
reduce the solid waste in the city, these materials can be incorporated to the different gardens
soils. “Provided that organic amendments are not contaminated, the use of abundant fertile
materials and the growing of trees, crops and other greenery in cities will help keep urban soils
fertile.” these can also lead to the natural recycling of the nutrients in the soil system.
The third environmental benefit is that Urban agriculture can help in waste and nutrient cycle,
just like the statement above, other solid and waste waters are used after it is treated to be a
primary product or a raw material to be used in different Urban Agriculture productions which
can help lower the cost, save different natural resources and provide raw materials for farming.
Indirectly, agricultural activities can also affect the urban water management, since vegetation
can help the soil be permeable thus allowing rainwater and runoff to drain through the soil, with
this, risks from floods and landslides can be minimized and also the need for expensive storm
water sewers can be minimized through the green spaces available around the city. Another
indirect effect is that the agricultural practices can help increase the biodiversity of an area.
Urban Agriculture can help decrease the level of net discharge of CO2, which is one of the gases
that contribute to the prevalence of global warming, from the different human activities in the
cities, also, farms in the cities, means less transportation costs and less energy usage and less
smoke emissions from different vehicles, thus also reducing problems of air pollution due to
transport vehicles. And the last benefit according to the study is environmental awareness, urban
agriculture can help change the perception of the people regarding their environment and how
they must grow their own food.
Conceptual Framework

Proper
Government Urban Agriculture
Availability of Land
Intervention and Awareness and
and Resources
Policy Acceptability
Implementation

Figure1. Factors which lead to Urban Agriculture and Urban Awareness.

As shown in this conceptual framework, a process that eventually leads to the awareness
and acceptability of Urban Agriculture itself in which the prerequisites are the (1) Proper
Government Intervention and Policy Implementation and (2) Availability of Resources. From the
related literature above it has shown the importance of “Proper Governance” which can impose
laws or policies that can help in the legalization of use of idle lands and the practice of urban
agriculture in the city, with appropriate zoning ordinances and guidelines for the practitioners.
Availability of resources comes next, it is important also that there should be spaces, seeds or
seedlings that the prospective farmers can use and also the proper knowledge that these
stakeholders need.
After the two stages comes the acceptability and awareness of the practice of urban
agriculture and the acceptability, if the two phases before will be exemplary good then the third
phase will be exemplary as well and might be the reason for urban agriculture to be practiced on
a particular site or place.
Chapter III: Methodology

Local and Description of Study Area

The research was done in Barangay Pansol, Calamba City. Barangay Pansol is one of the
most famous barangay in the city, known because of the hot springs located in the area that many
Filipinos and foreigners alike go to.

History

The name Pansol came from the word “Pan y Sol” which was said to be first
uttered by Dr. Jose Rizal. According to folktales, when Rizal was a kid, he always goes to
a hot spring in the area known as Pansol Hot Spring. One day while on the hot spring, he
asked a priest to give him some pandesal (bread) while pointing towards the sun to tell
that it is time for him to eat. Then from then on the place was called Pansol.

Political Information

Pansol has been legally created through the Presidential Decree No. 12, Pansol
also has 7 clustered precints and have 6098 number of registered voters.

Geography

The pobalcion or the town proper is approximately 5,750 km and the pobalicon of
the nearest city/municipality is 5.5 km. The barangays/municipalities that are adjacent to
Pansol are Putting Lupa (south), Sucol, Masili (west), Bucal (east). The barangay’s land
area is 48 hectares.

The Sample

The samples used in the research are 20 farmers in the area that practice urban
farming/urban agriculture and in who ask the Barangay Council for seeds or seedlings for them
to grow. The researchers used a purposive sampling; wherein the first twenty farmers that they
came across was asked; purposive sampling was done because there was no official record of the
names of the farmers in the area. Only 20 samples are interviewed due to lack of time and
resources

The Variables

The variables that was measured in the said study are as follows; (1) Knowledge on
Urban Agriculture, (2) Practice of Urban Agriculture, (3) Crops that are cultivated, (4) Economic
Acceptability such as: Food costs, employment and accessibility of food, (5) Social Acceptability
such as: Sense of fulfillment, use of discarded materials, use of idle lands and health and
nutritional status. (6) Environmental Acceptability such as: Soil quality, water quality and air
quality (7) Problems, Issues and Concerns.

Research Instrument

A mixture of structured and unstructured type survey questionnaire was used in the data
gathering phase of the study, in which they can choose their answer and sometimes can provide
their own. Microsoft excel also was used to analyze the data and to properly order all data in a
spreadsheet.

Research Design

The research design used in the study is a non-experimental research design, where-in all
data gathered are through survey and through KII, and where all data will be analyzed through
descriptive measures then will be interpreted.

Methods of Analysis

Analysis will be done with the data gathered from the 20 respondents, most of the results
will be analyzed through descriptive measures.
IV. Results and Discussions

The results presented here are all from the data that was collected from the 20
respondents of Barangay Pansol and was analyzed to perceive the respondents’ awareness on
Urban Agriculture it’s social, economic and environmental

A. Socio Demographic

Gender Distribution
18

16

14

12

10

0
Male Female

Figure 2. Gender distribution of the 20 respondents in Brgy. Pansol

Out of the 20 respondents who practice urban agriculture, 17 of them are female and 3
are male. Generally there are no biases in the urban agriculture world on which gender is more
suitable do the practice or not, but on the context of the urban farmers in barangay Pansol, these
female urban farmers resort to doing such activities in order to create an ensured environment for
them and their family on their food security. Since most of these female respondents are mother
and grandmothers with no jobs or with a small earning jobs (See Table 1) they try to do urban
agriculture on the side to support the needs of their children.
 Age bracket of respondents
8

0
20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70

Figure 3. Age Bracket of the 20 respondents in Brgy. Pansol

Majority of the respondents are in the age bracket of 41-50 years old followed by the
respondents on the age bracket of 51-60 years old. These age brackets are the ages that most of
the workers stop working or even unemployed to start with.
 Educational attainment of the respondents

11%
17%

College level
6% Elementary Graduate
Elementary Level
High school graduate
11%
High school level

44% No Formal Education

11%

Figure 4. Educational Attainment of the 20 respondents in Brgy. Pansol

The graph above shows that majority of the respondents (44%) only graduated from Primary
Level of Education (Elementary Graduate) followed by the number of respondents without
proper education at all which consists of 17% of the respondents’ total number. Consequently
these educational attainments affect the way of living of the respondents, in which in general the
respondents jobs’ are all on a low income level and even some of the respondents are
unemployed. (See Table 1)
Table 1. Type of Jobs of the respondents in Brgy. Pansol

Type of Job Number Respondents with

the said type of job
Skilled Work 7

Unemployed 6

Barangay Volunteer 7

The results show that most of the respondents in barangay Pansol are female and are in the
age brackets of 41-50 and 51-60 which are pre-senior citizen ages which shows their decreasing
capacity to work, and also that there respondents are majorly have a low income generating job
which is consequently the effect of their educational attainment.

Similar to the study of Mkwambiski et al in 2010 entitled Urban Agriculture and

Poverty Reduction: Evaluating how Food Production in Cities Contributes to Food
Security, Employment and Income in Malawi, their results also show that most of the
practitioners of urban agriculture in Malawi are “low-income, less educated, often female headed
households who use urban agriculture as an insurance against income losses and who can employ
skilled workers to support their livestock activities.” Although the female respondents in
barangay pansol are not the household heads, they still practice urban agriculture also to support
their income losses through the securing of food for their family, which can be done if they till
their lands every day.
 B. Awareness on Urban Agriculture

Awareness on Urban Agriculture

12

10

0
Aware Not Aware No Answer

Figure 5. Awareness of the respondents to the concept of Urban Agriculture

Most of the respondents in barangay Pansol are not aware of the concept of urban
agriculture, during the data gathering these respondents would say that “hindi ko pa naririnig
yan” while others who stated that they are aware of such concepts stated that the practice is also
the same with Urban Farming (which is the more familiar term for urban agriculture for these
respondents).
 Where do respondents hear about UA
12

10

0
Barangay None Seminars

Figure 6. Modes of Information about Urban Agriculture

Majority of the respondents (50%) from barngay Pansol responded that there are no
specific places or modes of information where in they heard the concept of urban agriculture
while the other remaining respondents stated that they have heard the concept before during their
seminars and in the barangay, the respondents that said so are those that are working as barangay
workers and barangay volunteers.
 Introduction of urban agriculture
16

14

12

10

0
yes no No answer

Figure 7. Introduction of Urban Agriculture to the respondents

The respondents in barangay Pansol aren’t aware of what Urban Agriculture is, but most
of the respondents stated that they have this so called “urban farming” that are practiced in their
barangay and for them is the same with urban agriculture, and this concept is introduced to them
by their barangay captain.
 Percentage of respondents who know the
concept UA

10%
15%

Yes
No
No answer

75%

Figure 8. Percentage of respondents who know the concept of Urban Agricultre

75% of the respondents don’t know the concept or Urban Agriculture or any even the
slightest definition of the practice even though they are practicing it firsthand. While there is a
minority of respondents (15%) that knows the concept and stated it as “the practice of land
cultivation for their own use.”
 Percentage of respondents who know Urban
Agriculture Act

10% 10%

Yes
No
No answer

80%

Figure 9. Percentage of Respondents who know about the Urban Agriculture Act

As much as the concept of Urban Agriculture, majority of the respondents also doesn’t
know about the Urban Agriculture act, which gives them the right to do the practice of urban
agriculture legally on their plots. Despite their practice of UA, it is a disadvantageous for them
not to know the act, which is the only legal basis that the can use, in case any legal lawsuits are
filed to them.
 C. Practice of Urban Agriculture

Year that the respondents started UA

14

12

10

0
2008 2013 2014 2015

Figure 9. Year that the respondents started practicing Urban Agriculture

12 out of the 20 respondents started practicing Urban Agriculture in the year 2008 while
others only started on 2013-205. The majority of the respondents started the practice at the same
time their barangay captain started the practice through; dissemination of information, circulation
of seeds to the whole barangay and through conduction of seminars for the community who
wished to partake with them.
 Months of cultivation
7

0
Buwanan December February January March May Rainy Summer No specific
Season date

Figure 10. Months of cultivation of the respondents in barangay Pansol

According to the majority of the respondents (35%) stated that they do not follow any
specific cropping pattern or monthly cultivation patters, they just cultivate their land as long as
they have seeds or seedlings, and they always try to manage their land every day. While there are
others who follow certain patterns of cultivation (every February or January), their cultivation
patterns are still going to be affected upon the availability of seeds and seedlings that are
provisioned by the barangay.
 Use of the harvested crops
14

12

10

0
Own use only Distributed to other consumers

Figure 10. Use of Harvested Crops

The crops harvested by the respondents are either distributed to the other consumers or
used for their own use only. Majority of the respondents use the harvested crops for their own
use only, as they only cultivate their lands for them to be sure that in due time they can have
something to eat, especially in times of financial need. While others distribute these crops in
order to gain money and use it for other needs.
D. Economic Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

Of the 20 respondents that are practicing Urban Agriculture in barangay Pansol,

there are 18 respondents who believe that the said practice lowers their food costs and
also believes that urban agriculture makes food more accessible for them. Although
economically there are no major changes in the input of finances of the respondents in the
area, the practice helps them lower their food cost by 30-50% (see table 2). Another thing
is that these crops can help them pass by a day, even though the family doesn’t have any
money left because they can utilize these crops as food for the day and also they can sell
these crops to generate little income for their family.

Table 2. Food cost change of the respondents in barangay Pansol

Food Cost Change

Before After
1500 1000
2500 1,500
300 150
1000 500
700 300
500 200
In terms of acceptability, the respondents believe that because of the practice of
UA, the food miles drastically shortened and that the fact that there can always be food in
their tables when they need it. The availability of food according to the respondents is
dependent on the time and effort that a farmer will put on his/her plots, they also say that
as long as they can cultivate their plots then they can be sure that there will be food for
them to eat and that vegetables and fruits won’t be harder for them to gather since it is
already at their backyard.
 E. Social Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

Urban Agriculture not only affects a practitioner economically but also socially,
this social acceptability is one of the major or factors that is why many practitioners prefer to
continue doing Urban Agriculture even if there are no major economic setbacks.

Perception on the use of idle lands

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Yes No No answer

Figure 11. Number of respondents who feel fulfilled when they farm.

Almost all of the respondents stated that there feel fulfilled once they do urban
agriculture, especially when the fruit or vegetables starts to sprout and when the plant becomes a
full grown one. This sense of fulfillment allows them to plant more and more not only for them
to have food on their tables but because this activity became a source of enjoyment for them and
also a source of recreation.
 Perception on the use of idle lands
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Yes No No answer

Figure 11. Perception on the use of idle lands.

The same number of respondents stated that it is acceptable to use idle lands for urban
agriculture, for them idle lands are safe to be used for urban agriculture, as long as they will
clean and manage the lands responsibly and as long as the owner of the idle lands give them
permission to till the lands. On the specific case of the respondents, the lands that they cultivate
are private lands in their areas, the land owners give them spaces for them to till as long as they
clean the and manage the lands on the landowners absence.
 Perception on the Use of Discarded Materials
12

10

0
There is a change in perception No Change in perception No answer

Figure 12. Perception of the respondents to the use of discarded materials

Majority of the respondents doesn’t have a change in perception for the use of discarded
materials (cans, plastic bottles, and plastic containers) for urban agriculture, since they do not use
these materials because they have idle lands to till. While others, even though they have lands,
they use these materials for other uses such as (watering cans, seedling holders) for them to
reduce wastes in the area.
 Time devoted for UA(days)
14

12

10

0
3x per week 4x a week Everyday Once a week Twice a week

Figure 13. Days devoted by the respondents to the practice of Urban Agriculture

Most of the respondents, devote their every days for them to till, cultivate and manage
their lands for the practice of Urban Agriculture. Since they feel relieved and fulfilled by the
practice, it becomes less hassle for them to manage these lands, another reason according to them
is that because of these practice, they can exercise everyday without any expenses and they do
not need to far away from their home just to warm up and exercise.
 Nutritional Status
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Increased Decreased No answer

Figure 14. Perception of Respondents on their nutritional status.

Majority of the respondents believe that their nutritional status increased due to the
practice of Urban Agriculture. The reasons why they believe that their nutritional status
increased are as follows: (1) “Sigurado na safe yung kinakain” , (2) “Lalong nahihilig sa gulay”
(3) “Masusutansya ang mga tanim”. They believe that because of the practice, their family have
also been closer to nutritional foods such as fruits and vegetables. And also of the 18 respondents
there are 17 who stated that they can settle and practice UA even more if given the opportunity
and their reasons are as follows. (See Table 3)

Table 3. Reasons to further practice Urban Agriculture

Reasons to further practice Urban Agriculture

1. Personal Interests
2. Accesibiity to more healthy foods
3. Can be a form of exercise
4. "Gusto talaga"
 F. Environmental Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

The last acceptability of Urban Agriculture in this study is the environmental

acceptability in which it talks about the benefits of the practice to the environment and
the community as a whole.

18 out of the 20 respondents stated that the practice of Urban Agriculture can help
improve the (1) Soil Quality through phytoremidiation, (2) Water Quality, (3) Air Quality
and also the overall improvement of the environment. According to them, the soil quality
of the land can be further increased as long as you cultivate the land with different types
of crops and as long as you clean and manage the land daily or casually. Water Quality
on the other hand according to them can be improved because also of the plants which
simultaneously improves the air quality. On the other hand only 17 of the respondents
stated that the practice of UA helps improve the waste management of a community.

Sources of water used for watering the plants

10

0
Bukal Canal Ilog Poso

Figure 15. Sources of water, used for watering the plants.

The river is the most used water source by the respondents, because it is free and also
because the river is more accessible than the other water sources. This is a good thing, because
the river becomes the receiving water system for the waste water of the private and public
swimming pools in the area of Pansol that is why through Urban Agriculture, the waste water
instead of being a waste, becomes a resource for the practitioners in order to water their plants.
G. Problems and Recommendations

The respondents have also had problems in the practice of Urban Agriculture, one
of which is the uncertainty of the farmers on whether they can still continue to farm the
idle lands, because there have been rumors that the owner of the land might get the land
again and use it for other purposes leaving the practitioners landless and the others
homeless, because they are also informal settlers. The second issue is the pest infestation
of the crops, which happens once in a while, since they do not use any pesticides, these
events result to the early harvesting of the crops to avoid the infestation. The third issue is
the lack of seeds or seedlings, the practitioners are sometimes hindered because of this
issue, since not everyone in the barangay can have a supply of the seed or seedlings since
the provision from the city government is limited thus making it hard for the barangay to
distribute the seeds to the farmers. And the fourth issue is the climate change that disrupts
the patterns of cultivation, which makes it hard for the farmers to cultivate and have good
or better harvests.

The practitioners recommend to the government that they still continue to support
the farmers in this practice for them to still continue urban agriculture as a way for them
to support their daily lives. They also request the barangay to still let them to use the idle
lands for them to cultivate, and for the barangay to act as mediator when the time comes
that they need to go.

H. Summary and Conclusion

The majority of urban farmers in the area although they have started practicing
Urban Agriculture in 2008, still don’t have an idea of what the concept of Urban
Agriculture is and is definition, despite the fact that they are practicing it firsthand and
that their barangay is giving interventions to promote the said activity.

The practitioners mostly use their harvested crops to support their needs and only
try to sell them to others if there are more than enough for them.
 As a conclusion, it can be seen than the practice of urban agriculture is not known
to the respondents but they think that the social, economic and environmental
acceptability of urban agriculture are acceptable. (See figures 16, 17, 18)

Economic Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

12

10

0
Strongly Not Not Acceptable Adqueately Acceptable Strongly Acceptably
Acceptable Acceptable

Figure 16. Economic Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

 Social Acceptability
12

10

0
Strongly Not Not Acceptable Adqueately Acceptable Strongly Acceptably
Acceptable Acceptable

Figure 17. Social Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

Environmental Acceptability
12

10

0
Strongly Not Not Acceptable Adqueately Acceptable Strongly Acceptably
Acceptable Acceptable

Figure 18. Environmental Acceptability of Urban Agriculture

Literature Cited:
Altieri et al, 1998, The greening of the “barrios”: Urban agriculture for food security in Cuba,
Agriculture and Human Values 16: 131–140, 1999.
and CIRAD, The Gioi Publishers, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Bellows et al, n.d, Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture, Community Food Security Coalition’s
North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture.
Brown and Jameton, Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture, Journal of Public Health
Policy, Vol. 21, No. 1. (2000), pp. 20-39., http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0197-
5897%282000%2921%3A1%3C20%3APHIOUA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
Cameroun.
chains in Phnom Penh, in: Moustier P. (2007) (Ed.), Final summary
Cities farming for the future: Urban agriculture for green and productive
cities, RUAF Foundation, IIRR, IDRC, Ottawa, Canada,
Cohen B. (2004) Urban Growth in Developing Countries: A Review of
Collier P & Lal D. 1986. Labour and poverty in Kenya, 1900-1980. New York: Oxford
Clarendon Press.
Collier P & Lal D. 1986. Labour and poverty in Kenya, 1900-1980. New York: Oxford
Clarendon Press.
Cotonou, Dakar), Cah. Agric. 13, 15–23.
Current Trends and a Caution Regarding Existing Forecasts, World Dev. 32, 1, 23–51.
De Bon et al, 2008, Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries. A
Deelstra T., Boyd D., van den Biggelaar M. (2001) Multifunctional Land
development of peri-urban agriculture in South-East Asia), AVRDC
Donadieu P., Fleury A. (1997) L’agriculture, une nature pour la ville, Ann.
du volet agriculture et développement rural, Document de travail,
Ellis F., Sumberg J. (1998) Food production, urban areas and policy responses,
et périurbaine dans l’urbanisme, Éditorial,Mag. Agr. Urbaine
Foeken and Mwangi, n.d, INCREASING FOOD SECURITY THROUGH URBAN FARMING
IN NAIROBI
Haggblade S., Hazell P. (1989) Farm-nonfarm linkages in rural sub-
Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems
in South-East Asia), AVRDC and CIRAD, The Gioi Publishers, Hanoi, Vietnam, pp.
110–111.
Is there a case for peri-urban production? Food Policy 28, 13–27.
Katherine H. Brown & Anne Carter, Community Food Security Coalition - North American
Urban Agricultural Committee, Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United
States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe (2003),
http://www.foodsecurity.org/urbanagpaper.pdf.
Kaufman and Bailkey, 2000, Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the
United States, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Kuhn, 2009, URBAN AGRICULTURE IN WISCONSIN: A SURVEY AND DISCUSSION OF
LAND USE AND PLANNING PRACTICES IN HIGH DENSITY COUNTIES, Madison
Winconsin
l’agriculture périurbaine de quelques villes africaines (Yaoundé,
Lavea Brachman, Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Vacant and Abandoned Property: Remedies
forAcquisition and Redevelopment, Land Lines Vol. 17 No. 4 (October 2005).
Luke Garnham, Green Roofs and the Promise of Urban Agriculture, 4 Green Roof Infrastructure
Monitor
Mbiba B., Veenhuizen R. van (2001) L’intégration de l’agriculture urbaine
Mclintok, 2010, Why farm the City, Theorizing urban agriculture through a lens of metabolic
rift, oxford journals
Midmore D.J., Jansen H.G.P. (2003) Supplying vegetables to Asian cities:
Ministère de l’Agriculture et du Développement Rural – MINADER
Ministère de L’Agriculture et du Développement Rural, Yaoundé,
Mougeot, L.J., 2000. The Hidden Significance of Urban Agriculture
Moustier P. (2007) (Ed.) Final summary report of Susper (Sustainable
of urban agriculture, in: René van Veenhuisen (Ed.),
Power, 2009, Combining Social Justice and Sustainability for Food Security, in for
pp. 275–313.
Prain G. (2006) Participatory technology development for sustainable intensification
Recherche Urbaine 74.
report of Susper (Sustainable development of peri-urban agriculture
Research and Policy, World Dev. 27, 1917–1938.
Review, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00886446
Revision, United Nations Population Division, Department ofEconomic and Social Affairs, New
York
Ruel M.T., Haddad L. (1999) Some Urban Facts of Life: Implications for
Saharan Africa, World Dev. 17, 1173–1201.
Sokhen C., Kanika D., Moustier P. (2004) Vegetable market flows and
Sources
Temple L., Moustier P. (2004) Les fonctions et contraintes de
United Nations UN (2006) World Urbanization Prospects – The 2005
United Nations World health organization, Who 2011; baker et al .2000; United nations, FAO
2000; Maxwell et al. 1998; Smit et al. 1996
Urban Agr. Mag. 4, 33–35.
Use: An Opportunity for Promoting Urban Agriculture in Europe,
World Bank (2007) Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of
Globalization, Washington.
World Dev. 26, 213–225.
Zezza, A., Azzarri, C., Davis, B., Covarrubias, K., Tasciotti, L., Anriquez, G., 2008. The Impact
of Rising Food Prices on the Poor. FAO–ESA Working Paper 08-07.