Agriculture and Human Values 20: 7986, 2003.

2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

IN THE FIELD

Potentials, problems, and policy implications for urban agriculture in

developing countries

Erik Bryld
United Nations Development Programme. Kathmandu, Nepal

Accepted in revised form April 15, 2002

Abstract. Urban agriculture has, for centuries, served as a vital input in the livelihood strategies of urban house-
holds in the developing countries. As a response to the economic crises exacerbated by the structural adjustment
programs and increasing migration, urban agriculture has expanded rapidly within the last 20 years. An examina-
tion of the general trends in urban agriculture reveals a number of issues policy-makers in developing countries
should address to provide services to ensure a sustainable behavior towards urban cultivation. Most important is
the legalization of urban agriculture as a step towards securing lands for the urban poor. The illegal status has left a
governance vacuum, which should be filled through policy formulation and regular institutionalized management
in a participatory manner including all relevant stakeholders if food security has to be increased and environment
improved in an urban development context.

Key words: Environment, Food security, Gender, Governance, Livelihood strategies, Policy, Structural
adjustment, Urban agriculture, Urban planning

Erik Bryld is a Human Geographer by training from the Institute of Geography, University of Copenhagen. He
currently works as Urban Development Officer for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Nepal
and has previously worked as Project Coordinator for the Danish University Consortium for Sustainable Land
Use and Natural Resource Management (SLUSE). Prior to this, he was associated with the Danish Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the United Nations Secretariat Department for Economic and Social Affairs. This article was
written partly during his time with SLUSE and partly with UNDP.

Introduction agricultural production. In Dar es Salaam, the number

Agricultural production in urban areas is not a new
phenomenon in developing countries. The United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimates
that approximately 800 million urban residents were
engaged in agricultural production in the mid-1990s,
commercial or subsistence (UNDP, 1996; Borgue,
2000). Urban agriculture has undergone a radical
transformation since the late 1970s and early 1980s.
In Africa, urban cultivation has become a permanent
part of the landscape. In the beginning of the 1980s,
a mere 1025% of the urban population in Africa was
engaged in urban agriculture while up to 70% of the
urban population in Africa, and up to 60% in Asia,
have become urban cultivators in the 1990s (Rogerson,
1997). Today, 70% of the poultry food consumed in
Kampala is produced within the city boundaries. In
Kathmandu and Zambia, more than a third of the
subsistence food production is produced within the
city. All three cities have witnessed a massive shift
in use of the urban landscape from open spaces to
of families engaged in agricultural production has
increased from 18 to 67% from 1967 to 1991, making
urban agriculture the second largest employer after
petty trade (UNDP, 1996; Ratta and Nasr, 1996).
The primary driving force behind this continuous
increase in urban agriculture is an increase in migra-
tion from rural to urban areas as well as the worsening
economic situation of the urban population as a
consequence of the Bretton Woods Institutions Struc-
tural Adjustment Programs. The Structural Adjust-
ment Programs focus on growth aiming at increasing
the income level through management of resources
more properly through market liberalization (Scott,
1993). The Structural Adjustment Programs have,
however, often resulted in a noteworthy economic
setback of the poorest part of the population who
cannot afford the free market prices of basic food.
These programs resulted in a removal of subsidies to
food production in the developing countries seeking
loans from the World Bank and International Monetary
Fund, which consequently led to a liberalization of the
80 E RIK B RYLD
food trade, which again resulted in significant price
rise (fivefold) (Ratta and Nasr, 1996). Parallel with
the rise in prices, salaries and real wages were devalu-
ated up to 10 times, leaving the citizens with limited
resources for food provision. This double burden has
increased the intra-urban poverty and pushed urban
citizens to become engaged in urban agriculture in
order to feed the household (Potts, 1997; Scott, 1993;
Mbiba, 1995a; Ratta and Nasr, 1996; Maxwell, 1999).
Terminology
Mwalukasa (2000: 150) defines urban agriculture as:
. . . carrying out farming activities in built-up areas
where open space is available, as well as keeping
livestock (dairy, cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and fowl)
in built-up and in peri-urban areas. This definition
captures the essence of urban agriculture, while at the
same time it illustrates one of the main problems with
its conceptualization, that of defining the key area:
urban, in a development context.
UNDP (1996: 9) defines urban: . . . in a broad
sense, to encompass the entire area in which a citys
sphere of influence (social, ecological, or economic)
comes to bear daily or directly on its population. But
where does the citys social, ecological, or economic
sphere end? Cities are not isolated areas and their
sphere is, therefore, not a pre-set boundary. As Tacoli
(1998: 3) puts it,
[there] . . . is a lack of recognition of the complexity
of ruralurban interactions which involve spatial
as well as sectoral dimensions. . . . The growing
evidence of the scale and nature of urban agricul-
ture and of rural non-agricultural enterprises and
employment suggests that these distinctions are
over-simplified descriptions of both rural and urban
livelihoods.
Activities related to urban agriculture are rarely isol-
ated from rural areas. Activities in rural and urban
areas are often inter-linked across space and sectors.
The problem with the definition very clearly reveals
that city borders are fluent, which is further empha-
sized by the active rural-urban interactions taking
place in the peri-urban areas.1 It is, therefore,
important that urban agriculture is seen as a dynamic
concept.
There is thus a need for recognition of the diversity
of urban agriculture. When dealing with issues of
urban agriculture and making policies within this field,
it is vital that the particularities of the settings are
taken into consideration while at the same time it is
important to understand that urban agriculture is not an
isolated phenomenon, but an activity inter-linked with
activities in both peri-urban and rural areas.
Where is urban agriculture practiced and by
whom
The increase in urban agriculture has brought with
it new spaces where cultivation is exercised. Most
common is cultivation in the backyard and around
buildings. However, community, and public lands, and
parks, have also been invaded by urban agricultur-
ists within the last decades. Among these are areas
allocated to other uses, such as roadsides and airport
buffers as well as areas not suitable for building
such as streamsides, floodplains, drainage way-leaves,
wetlands, and steep slopes (Freeman, 1993; UNDP,
1996).
Even though the majority of the produce grown
in urban areas in the developing countries goes
to subsistence, there are also other incentives for
going into urban agriculture. Some urban high-
income inhabitants use agriculture as a strategy of
further accumulation through the production of high
yield crops close to the market, while some middle-
income households use urban cultivation as means of
consolidation, securing the family well-being. The
majority of urban agriculturists are, however, engaged
in cultivation as a means of survival (Freeman, 1993;
Atukunda and Maxwell, 1996; Rigg, 1998).
Urban agriculture has become a survival strategy
for urban households. As Maxwell (1999: 1950) puts
it:
Under circumstances where low-income urban
populations are spending up to three-quarters of
their total income on food, the issues of income and
livelihood are directly linked to food security. . . .
People are not passive victims within the
constraints they face, people do their best to cope,
to make ends meet, to protect their livelihoods, and
meet their basic requirements.
Having the opportunity of growing food or keeping
poultry, therefore, becomes a critical component in
the ability of staying alive in the urban environment,
despite the fact that it is illegal in most developing
countries (Maxwell, 1999; Nugent, 2000).
The urban poor2 rarely have access to farming
plots of such a magnitude that they can support the
whole family with food. Consequently, urban agricul-
ture generally serves as a vital side earning for most
households. The poorest families often have to sell
some of their produce to survive in order to pay rent,
school, or medical expenses, even if this means that the
family will not receive sufficient food. In a study by
 P OLICY AND URBAN AGRICULTURE
Freeman (1993: 12) in Nairobi, the most commonly
expressed prime motivation for urban cultivation is
the need to avert hunger for the cultivators and their
families by producing staple crops. Urban agriculture
then becomes a form of semi-proletarism where the
producers rely on both subsistence and cash income
(Freeman, 1993; Maxwell, 1995; Rigg, 1998).
In the developing countries, especially in Sub-
Saharan Africa and South Asia, this production pattern
generally means that it is the women who are in charge
of cultivation (Mbiba, 1995b; Maxwell, 1995). There
seems to be two main reasons for this. First, urban
cultivation is relatively easily fitted into womens daily
work pattern. With the plots situated relatively close
to the residence, the female household members are
easily attending to the produce if and when they have
a break from other duties.3 Second, different research
from developing countries show that men generally do
not regard urban agriculture as a business, but only as
a marginal activity (Maxwell, 1995; Dennery, 1996).
This relatively strong divide in gender roles has
revealed two significant consequences. First, the
increase in developing households engagement in
urban agriculture has burdened women even more.
If not engaged in other income generating activ-
ities, women usually work full time on domestic
duties, as they are generally responsible for the house-
hold reproduction, which usually includes obtaining
food and water, cooking, cleaning, washing clothes,
and looking after children, elders, and the sick,
besides being engaged in petty trade. Furthermore, it
is usually women rather than men who forgo food
in order to feed their children. Besides adding to
the daily burden of work, these cuts in spare time
keep women from acquiring higher-paying informal
or formal sector occupation. In this sense, urban agri-
culture can become a low-income trap that imprisons
unskilled women (Potts, 1997; Freeman, 1993; UNDP,
1996). On the other hand, different research shows that
women are generally very pleased with being engaged
in urban agriculture (Freeman, 1993; Dennery, 1996;
Maxwell, 1999). Urban agriculture is, thus, an
important livelihood strategy for the household and
especially the female members.
The above illustrates the problem of working with
the household as an entity when researching livelihood
strategies. Often it becomes very unclear where the
household begins and ends. Households may be multi-
spatial. The different members of the household may
work in both rural and urban areas. Some household
members may even reside in urban areas for periods of
time for generating cash while the rest live and work
in rural areas. And even so, they will often all be part
of the household livelihood strategy. However, this
distinction is not made easier by the fact that household
81
members do not always pool their incomes, resulting
in different and often individual livelihood strategies.
Even so, urban agriculture is a vital element in the
survival strategy of the household members who can
generate extra income through the utilization of the
potentials of urban cultivation (Smith, 1996; Tacoli,
1998; Rigg, 1998; Zeeuw et al., 2000).
Potentials
Urban agriculture brings with it great potentials
for enhancing the situation of the urban citizens,
especially those with the lowest incomes who are
dependent on the access to locally grown food.
Food security
As urbanization increases, so does the need for suffi-
cient food. The opportunity to grow and/or acquire
food produced locally, therefore, becomes a crit-
ical component in surviving in the city. Thus, urban
agriculture plays a significant role in contributing
to the welfare of especially poor urban residents
(Maxwell, 1995; Lourenco-Lindell, 1996; Mwalukasa,
2000; Nugent, 2000; Zeeuw et al., 2000). Research
conducted by the World Bank (UNDP, 1996: 160) has
shown that a majority of adults and children living
in low-income urban areas have diseases that limit
their capacity to learn and work. This situation can be
improved if the citizens are engaged in urban farming,
which will decrease malnutrition and increase the
quantity of food intake. Resources freed by the produc-
tion of urban cultivation can, for instance, be used to
balance the family diet by purchasing other kinds of
food, e.g., fish, fruit, and vegetables. Urban poor are
generally more dependent on cash income to purchase
food. Daily dietary intakes, therefore, vary according
to the days income and market price. Consequently,
a stable intake of self-grown produce will reduce
the citizens dependence on their fluctuating salaries
and improve their nutrition (Smith, 1996; UNDP,
1996).
Economic advantages
Since most of the produce of urban agriculture is
used for subsistence consumption, it can be diffi-
cult to assess the impact of urban agriculture on the
economy. There is little doubt, though, that urban
agriculture creates considerable economic activity in
the cities. This is, among other factors, caused by
the increasing economic use of land, since income is
generated from temporarily available land and lands
not suitable for building (Mbiba, 1995a; Ratta and
Nasr, 1996; Smith, 1996; UNDP, 1996). It is difficult
82 E RIK B RYLD
to assess whether urban agriculture in the developing
countries has a significant impact on the macro-
economics. However, as have been described before,
being relieved from utilizing a vast amount of the
household earnings on food due to self-production
means that resources formerly bound to purchasing
food can now be used on other pressing needs, such as
school fees, medical treatment, or rent. This inevitably
increases the room for maneuver for the household,
especially for the women who are the most frequent
urban cultivators. In this way, urban agriculture can
serve as an empowerment of women and at the same
time promote increased welfare for other household
members.
Environmental advantages
Besides the direct nutritional benefits of urban agricul-
ture for the cultivators, there are several other environ-
mental advantages worth noticing. Most developing
country cities do not have environmentally sustain-
able policies when it comes to nutrient recycling. In
most cities, there is a general throughput of resources,
increasing the amount of garbage wasted. There are
different ways of improving the cities environments,
among these planting of trees, reducing consump-
tion, and improving the efficiency of the infrastructure.
The cultivation of plants and trees helps reduce dust
and absorbs pollutants through its foliage. Trees and
plants can also increase the humidity in arid climates
and reduce radiational heating through conversion of
groundwater into atmospheric humidity. Cultivation
can also turn unsightly lots into green areas, preserving
the much needed green belts in the cities. Furthermore,
there is a constant demand for fuel wood in the devel-
oping cities, a demand, that can be supplied partly by
forestry in urban and peri-urban areas (UNDP, 1996).
Urban agriculture also contributes to an improved
urban environment in other ways. One of the most effi-
cient ways of improving the environment is through
recycling of organic waste. Compost from urban
organics can easily be applied in urban and peri-
urban plots and serve as fertilizer. Furthermore, human
excreta can be used in fish farming (Smith, 1996;
UNDP, 1996; Furedy et al., 1999). Also, research in
Bangkok by Frge et al. (2001) documents how huge
quantities of plant nutrients that could be recovered
and reused are discharged into the river and wasted.
A nutrient recycling program that transferred these
wastes to the urban cultivated plots could improve
the environment and increase the output of urban
agriculture.
Problems
As have been shown, there are several advantages of
promoting urban agriculture, but as this section will
reveal, living with and managing urban agriculture is
not unproblematic.
In almost all developing countries, urban agricul-
ture is de jure and/or de facto illegal. It is generally
viewed as an artifact of rural life and therefore not
belonging in the city. Furthermore, it is perceived
as having only marginal importance to the urban
economy and the people engaged in this sector are
seldom people with influence on the city manage-
ment level. Last, urban agriculture is perceived as a
public health nuisance (Scott, 1993; Maxwell, 1995;
Atukunda and Maxwell, 1996).
Potential health hazard
Urban agriculture can be a health hazard. Multiple
problems can occur when solid waste is processed
or wastewater is used for irrigation and fish farming.
Poor management of compost piles increases diseases,
among these bronchitis, tuberculosis, dysentery, and
cancer caused by waste gases. Furthermore, lead in
soil and air is a major contaminant that green leafy
vegetables can concentrate in their leaves. There have
also been cases of untreated wastewater being used
for farming resulting in cases with cholera (UNDP,
1996; Furedy et al., 1999; Borque, 2000). In some
regions, chemical fertilizer is used to enhance the
output, a practice that can pose potential environ-
mental problems. This practice is catalyzed by the fact
that urban cultivation is still illegal in many developing
countries, forcing the farmers to get as much out of
the production in the shortest period of time (Smith,
1996).
Taking up space for houses
Besides feeding the poor in the cities, there is an urgent
need for providing shelter for the homeless. The vast
amount of land used on urban agriculture is an obstacle
to urban housing provision. In the city of Harare, more
than 400,000 people lack housing, forcing people to
live in shanties with increased health hazards due to
overcrowding and a potential fire hazard, since they are
built so closely together (Mbiba, 1995a). This problem
illustrates the hazards that urban poor face daily and
the problems urban planners face in solving these vital
issues.
 P OLICY AND URBAN AGRICULTURE
Difficulties faced by urban agriculturists
The fact that urban agriculture is illegal in most devel-
oping countries results in several related problems.
The most obvious are the increasing food shortages
in the major cities, which becomes more difficult to
accommodate when the open spaces of the city cannot
be used for cultivation. This brings with it several
disadvantages for the cultivators.
Insecure yields due to slashing and theft
As a way of enforcing the prohibition against urban
farming, guards from city council occasionally
destroy/slash crops on public or municipal land even
in times of food shortages. On top of this, many
urban agriculturist have to face theft as a daily problem
(Drakakis-Smith, 1993; Scott, 1993; Mbiba, 1995a).
Freeman (1993: 10) has documented that almost half
of urban cultivators in Kenya have been exposed to
theft of which the majority of victims are women.
Findings are confirmed by Smith (1996: 29), who
found that 60% of the cultivators in Harare had exper-
ienced theft. As a result of the legislative constraint
and theft, urban agriculture has developed so that risks
have been minimized. Some cultivators have chosen to
produce vegetables that have a lower yield but look like
non-consumable weeds in order to hide the produc-
tion from both authorities as well as thieves. Others
have chosen to produce a narrow band of crops that
ripens faster in order to reduce the time of stature
and, thus, the period where there is risk of slashing
and theft (Scott, 1993; Freeman, 1993; Mbiba, 1995a;
Smith, 1996). This strategy, however, also reduces
the yield. Consequently, these risk-adverse production
forms provides the cultivators and in the end the city
with less produce than could potentially have been
produced, adding to the food scarcity in the city (Scott,
1993; Mbiba, 1995a; Smith, 1996).
Gate keeping and lack of secure tenure
Only 20% of the urban agriculture cultivated in the city
in developing countries is cultivated on land owned by
the cultivator. The majority is taking place on public
land or on land leased from a local landlord. The
ongoing migration to the city puts an intense pressure
on the few available plots of land. Many who would
like to cultivate are therefore not able to find sufficient
land. Those residents who have resided in the city
for several decades have been the first to seize land.
Consequently, urban cultivators are not necessarily
the poorest residents. Newcomers are excluded from
access to plots due to the older residents gate keeping.
Getting access to land requires social and political
information about where land is available, what the
83
ownership is, and what risks there are from culti-
vating. The most vulnerable groups, such as women
headed households and young unemployed migrants,
are, therefore, often excluded from cultivation (Scott,
1993; Borque, 2000; Mbiba, 1995a).
The gate keeping that is taking place in the city
also results in potential landlordism, overpricing urban
cultivators for access to land. Having succeeded in
acquiring access to land does not mean secure tenure,
however, because of the absence of legitimacy. First,
the cultivator is not exempted from slashing of crops,
since the landlord has usually taken the land from
the municipalities illegally. Second, since the rent is
illegal the lessee has no recourse to any kind of action
if the landlord breaks the contract (Scott, 1993; Mbiba,
1995a).
Unsustainable land use/exploitation
As has been highlighted in the section above, urban
cultivation is not very sustainable if steps are not taken
to introduce recycling systems and create environ-
mental awareness among agriculturist. One of the main
problems is also that fear of eviction leads people to, as
mentioned above, plant short-duration seasonal crops,
which could reduce the ecological diversity. Further-
more, the cultivators can find little incentive in making
investments to improve soil fertility when they risk
slashing and eviction. This neglect of the soil results
in increased soil impoverishment and erosion, which
causes silting and endangers ground water supply
(Scott, 1993; Bowyer-Bower and Smith, 2000; Zeeuw
et al., 2000).
Reasons for lack of legalization
A common denominator among the majority of articles
within the field of urban agriculture is the underlining
of urban policy makers reluctance to engage in pro-
urban agriculture policies (see among others Maxwell,
1995; Smith, 1996; Atukunda and Maxwell, 1996;
Mwalukasa, 2000; Borgue, 2000). There is a general
lack of flexibility among urban planners towards urban
cultivation. The practice is seen as reminiscence from
the past, which does not compile with the general
modern view of the city (Drakakis-Smith, 1993;
Mbiba, 1995a). This becomes particularly apparent in
the city of Harare, where there is no direct law against
urban agriculture, but where the authorities use other
laws, such as environmental and habitation laws, to act
against the cultivators, actions that Mbiba (1995a: 96)
has found to be both sporadic, ad hoc, and unplanned.
If urban agriculture is to be legalized, steps also have
to be taken to create an overall understanding of the
84 E RIK B RYLD
benefits of urban cultivation in the urban planning
departments.
Policy implications
Urban agriculture is vital for the survival of the
urban poor in most developing countries. It is a
response to the still increasing urbanization and
economic worsening of the situation of the poor as
a consequence of structural adjustment programs and
increasing migration (Ratta and Nasr, 1996). For many
citizens, it is a paramount addition in the quest for
improving urban food security. It has, thus, become
a vital element in the household survival strategies in
the urban areas in the developing countries, through
the improvement of nutrition and economic base of
the household. Furthermore, urban agriculture has
the potential of improving the environment through
greening and nutrient recycling.
As has been illustrated, urban agriculture is,
however, not unproblematic and, if conducted without
city planning and facilitation, can result in health
hazards and overcrowding. Most of these problems can
be dealt with, however, in a manner that drastically
limits the nuisance and promotes sustainable land use.
Programs and legislation can be introduced that can
reduce the contamination of waste, modify the agri-
cultural practices, monitor compost, recycle nutrients,
and educate the cultivators in sustainable land-use. The
problem is that solid waste management in urban areas
in the South is often inadequate and under-resourced.
This is furthermore complicated by the illegality of
urban agriculture, which still prevails in many devel-
oping countries (Smith, 1996; Nunan and Shindhe,
2000; Frge et al., 2001; Deelstra and Girardet,
2000). Steps, therefore, need to be taken to provide
services to ensure a sustainable behavior towards urban
cultivation.
Even though countries like Zambia and Uganda
have taken positive steps towards legalizing urban
agriculture, in many developing country cities, urban
agriculture is, however, still illegal, leaving urban
cultivators with an array of problems from slashing
and theft to gate keeping and exploitation of land. If
the practice was legalized, this would reduce the fear
of slashing and theft and motivate high yield cultiva-
tion, reducing food shortages in the city. Furthermore,
policies should be implemented that would take into
consideration the securing of lands for the urban poor
and thus deal with the insecure tenure. As long as there
are not sufficient resources available to provide secure
livelihoods for the urban poor there is no other viable
solution than to legitimize urban agriculture. In order
to secure the benefits of urban agriculture and forego
some of the hazards of unplanned cultivation, legaliza-
tion of the practice and recognition of the potential is
thus necessary.
If legalized, most of the problems described above
could be handled through action plans at municipality,
city or state level. Steps could be taken to improve
the cultivation techniques and assist in creating the
right environment for environmental improvement and
food generation, which is so essential to cities in the
developing countries. There is, however, no service
provision provided for urban agriculturists as long as
it remains illegal. Consequently, urban agriculture is
not incorporated in the city plans. As Rogerson (1997:
360) states, Despite its widespread occurrence for
subsistence consumption, urban food and livestock
production is usually not appreciated by urban author-
ities and certainly not planned for and supported.
The government, be it local or national, should, as a
policy-setting authority, regulate and facilitate urban
agriculture, but instead banning has left urban cultiva-
tion in a policy vacuum where there exists a lack
of governance (Drakakis-Smith, 1993; UNDP, 1996).
This lack of governance leaves the cultivators disem-
powered and the city with less resources and a more
fragile environment.
There is, thus, a general need for filling the
governance vacuum through legalizing urban agri-
culture, formulating policies, and institutionalizing
regular management of urban agriculture. These
processes inevitably mean the involvement of all
stakeholders in policy formulation in order to secure
sustainability. A solution could be to introduce
decentralized boards with representatives from both
municipality and agriculturists with an insurance of
the presence of all levels of cultivators, among these
the most vulnerable groups. A contextual focus is
needed, since it is important to recognize the specific
context within which urban agriculture is taking place
in the developing countries. There is no single or
uniform solution to urban agricultural planning. Each
city has its own context within which the diversity
related to both socio-economics and environment will
need to be addressed. Planning will have to evolve
through dialogue between different stakeholders from
the city officials to women cultivators. Mutual under-
standing will have to be created if the potentials of
urban agriculture are to be realized. Creating this good
governance policy framework, however, can not be
initiated unless urban agriculture is legalized.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful for the valuable comments of
Dr. Jakob Magid, The Royal Veterinary and Agri-
 P OLICY AND URBAN AGRICULTURE
cultural University, Copenhagen, and Dr. Katherine
Gough, Institute of Geography, University of Copen-
hagen. The content of the article is, however, the sole
responsibility of the author.
Notes
1. The peri-urban refers to a series of interactions between
rural and urban areas, characterized by flows of produce,
finance, labor, and services; and by the economic, socio-
logical, institutional, and environmental change taking
place in the fringes between the urban and rural areas.
2. Poverty is difficult to define, since it is not possible to set
up an objective poverty indicator since poverty is always
relative. It is about living and well-being and not neces-
sarily possessing (see also Sen, 1987; Rahnema, 1992). It is
difficult to assess well-being but often necessary to be able
to distinguish between different social and economic stand-
ards and standards of nutrient intake. In this paper, poor
refers to households and individuals with low incomes who
are often confronted with food scarcity, due to the nature
of the subject discussed. Other aspects of social poverty are
not included in the concept.
3. In a survey conducted by Mbiba (1999b) in Harare it was
found that the average distance between the residence and
the plot of the respondents was 1.76 km.
References
Atukunda, G. and D. Maxwell (1996). Farming in the city
of Kampala: Issues for urban management. African Urban
Quarterly 11(23): 264275.
Borgue, M. (2000). Policy options for urban agriculture. In N.
Bakker, M. Dubelling, S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A.
Zeeuw (eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agri-
culture on the Policy Agenda. Feldafing, Germany: Food and
Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL).
Bowyer-Bower, T. A. S. and D. Smith (2000). Africas back-
yard farms boost food security. But are they harming urban
life? DFID: homepage, ID21.
Deelstra, T. and H. Girardet (2000). Urban agriculture and
sustainable cities. In N. Bakker, M. Dubelling, S. Gundel,
V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw (eds.), Growing Cities,
Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda.
Feldafing, Germany: Food and Agriculture Development
Centre (ZEL).
Dennery, P. R. (1996). Urban food producers decision
making: A case study of Kibera, city of Nairobi, Kenya.
African Urban Quarterly 11(2/3): 189200.
Drakakis-Smith, D. (1993). Food security and food policy
for the urban poor. In J. Dahl, D. Drakakis-Smith, and A.
Narman (eds.), Land, Food and Basic Needs in Developing
Countries. Gteborg, Sweden: Department of Human and
Economic Geography, University of Gteborg.
85
Freeman, D. B. (1993). Survival strategy or business training
ground? The significance of urban agriculture for the
advancement of women in African cities. African Studies
Review 36(3): 122.
Furedy, C., V. Maclaren, and J. Whitney (1999). Reuse of
waste for food production in Asian cities: Health and eco-
nomic perspectives. In M. Koc, R. MacRae, J. L. Mougeot,
and J. Welsh (eds.), For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable
Urban Food Systems. Ottowa, Canada: International Devel-
opment Research Centre.
Frge, J., J. Magid, and F. W. T. P. de Vries (2001). Urban
nutrient balance for Bangkok. Ecological Modelling 139:
6374.
Lourenco-Lindell, I. (1996). How do the urban poor stay alive?
Food provision in a squatter settlement of Bissau, Guinea-
Bissau. African Urban Quarterly 11(2/3): 163168.
Maxwell, D. (1995). Alternative food security strategy: A
household analysis of urban agriculture in Kampala. World
Development 23(10): 16691681.
Maxwell, D. (1999). The political economy of urban food
security in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 27(11):
19391953.
Mbiba, B. (1995a). Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe, Implica-
tions for Urban Management and Poverty. England: Avebury.
Mbiba, B. (1995b). Classification and description of urban
agriculture in Harare. Development Southern Africa 12(1):
7586.
Mwalukasa, M. (2000). Institutional aspects of urban agri-
culture in the city of Dar Es Salaam. In N. Bakker, M.
Dubelling, S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw
(eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on
the Policy Agenda. Feldafing, Germany: Food and Agricul-
ture Development Centre (ZEL).
Nugent, R. (2000). The impact of urban agriculture on the
household and local economies. In N. Bakker, M. Dubelling,
S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw (eds.), Growing
Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy
Agenda. Feldafing, Germany: Food and Agriculture Devel-
opment Centre (ZEL).
Nunan, F. and D. K. Shindhe (2000). Waste not want not:
Making the most of urban organic waste. Retrieved from
http://www.id2l.org/zinter/id2lzinter.exe?a=l&i=2cfn3&
u=3e24f95f.
Potts, D. (1997). Urban lives: Adopting new strategies and
adapting rural links. In C. Rakodi (ed.), The Urban Chal-
lenge in Africa. Geneva: United Nations University Press.
Rahnema (1992). Poverty. In W. Sachs (ed.), The Develop-
ment Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London:
Zed Books.
Ratta, A. and J. Nasr (1996). Urban agriculture and the African
urban food supply system. African Urban Quarterly 11(2/3):
154161.
Rigg, J. (1998). Rural-urban interactions, agriculture and
wealth: A southeast Asian perspective. Progress in Human
Geography 22(4): 497522.
Rogerson, C.M. (1997). Globalization of informalization?
African Urban economies in the 1990s. In C. Rakodi (ed.),
The Urban Challenge in Africa. Geneva: United Nations
University Press.
86 E RIK B RYLD
Scott, J. (1993). Urban agriculture: A response to the impact
of structural adjustment measures. In A. Goodland (ed.),
Feeding Urban Africa. Wye, UK: Wye College Press.
Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living: Lecture I, concepts
and critiques. In G. Hawtorne (ed.), The Standard of Living.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, D. (1996). Urban agriculture in Harare: socio-economic
dimensions of a survival strategy. In D. Grossman, L. M. van
den Berg, and H. I. Ajaegbu (eds.), Urban and Peri-Urban
Agriculture in Africa: Proceedings of a Workshop: Netanya,
Israel, 2327 June. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Tacoli, C. (1998). Beyond the rural-urban divide. Environ-
ment and Urbanization 10(1): 35.
UNDP (1996). Urban Agriculture Food, Jobs and Sustainable
Cities. New York: United Nations Development Programme
Publication Series for Habitat II, Volume One.
Zeeuw, H., S. Guendel, and H. Waibel (2000). The integration
of agriculture in urban policies. In N. Bakker, M. Dubelling,
S. Gundel, V. Sabel-Koschella, and A. Zeeuw (eds.), Grow-
ing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy
Agenda. Feldafing, Germany: Food and Agriculture Develop-
ment Centre (ZEL).
Address for correspondence: Erik Bryld, UNDP, UN House,
P.O. Box 107, Kathmandu, Nepal
Phone: +977-1-523200, Ext. 1031; Fax. +977-1-523991;
E-mail: erik.bryld@undp.org