Abstract
Localized urban food systems are gaining attention from policy makers, planners, and advocates for benefits that go well beyond food production and consumption. Recognizing that agriculture, and food systems more broadly, provide multiple, integrated services, this study measures the social, educational, civic, and nutritional impacts of four common types of local food system activity in an urban setting. Specifically, we examine the outcomes of two common types of urban agricultural production (home gardens and community gardens) and two common types of direct markets (farmers’ markets and Community Supported Agriculture programs or CSAs) through a survey of 424 gardeners and 450 direct market shoppers in California’s San Francisco Bay Area. Our comparative analysis focuses on four commonly discussed functions of agricultural production and direct marketing in urban areas: access to high-quality, fresh produce; food and agriculture education; social connections; and civic engagement. While impacts on nutrition were consistently high, some of the largest differences between types of local food system activities were in social interaction and civic engagement. For example, gardeners had a mean score of 3.77 on the social interaction scale compared to direct market participants, who had a mean score of 3.03. These findings confirm that different types of local production and direct marketing have distinct impacts on participants. Generally, gardens, which involve more sustained engagement with other people and the natural world, were sites of greater learning, connection, and civic participation than either type of direct marketing.
Highlights
Localized urban food systems are gaining attention from policy makers, planners, and advocates for benefits that go beyond food production and consumption to include community building, diversified economies, civic engagement, and climate resilience (Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999; Horst et al, 2017; Ballamingie et al, 2020)
Home gardeners and farmers’ market shoppers were roughly evenly distributed between the four income brackets, with just over 25% having annual household incomes of $150,000
Results from this study confirm that urban agriculture and direct markets have multiple functions, which contribute to a variety of outcomes associated with localized urban food systems, including food access, food and agriculture education, community building, and civic engagement
Summary
Localized urban food systems are gaining attention from policy makers, planners, and advocates for benefits that go beyond food production and consumption to include community building, diversified economies, civic engagement, and climate resilience (Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999; Horst et al, 2017; Ballamingie et al, 2020). Referred to as alternative agrifood initiatives and civic agriculture, local food systems aim to create an alternative to the existing food system by rooting food production and marketing in a particular place in a way that is economically viable, ecologically sound, and socially just (Allen et al, 2003). To account for the social, cultural, educational, and environmental impacts of localized urban food systems, a framework is needed that incorporates the multiple, integrated services that agriculture can provide. When a multifunctional lens is extended to urban food systems, this framing allows us to incorporate the social, educational, and environmental functions of local food production and marketing. A comprehensive examination of urban agriculture’s many functions helps to move beyond the debate over whether urban agriculture should be celebrated for its many benefits or critiqued for reinforcing neoliberalism by examining how it functions in different contexts (McClintock and Simpson, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
