Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Review

A systematic review of urban agriculture and food security impacts

in low-income countries
Melissa N. Poulsen a,⇑, Philip R. McNab b, Megan L. Clayton b, Roni A. Neff c,d
a
Social and Behavioral Interventions Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
b
Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
c
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
d
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With increasing global urbanization and environmental threats, ensuring food security for poor city
Received 8 January 2015 residents is a critical challenge. An ongoing debate is whether urban agriculture (UA) may serve as a
Received in revised form 17 June 2015 pathway to food security for poor urban households. To assess this potential within low-income coun-
Accepted 6 July 2015
tries, we used standard systematic review procedures to synthesize findings from 35 peer-reviewed jour-
Available online 20 July 2015
nal articles from 1980 to 2013 that presented data on UA and food security indicators. Though data
quality was often lacking, several key findings emerged. Many of the reviewed studies found subsistence
Keywords:
to be the primary motivation for practicing UA, followed by financial benefit, with UA substantially con-
Food security
Urban agriculture
tributing to farming households’ food availability in some settings. Results regarding UA’s impact on diet-
Systematic review ary diversity reveal that in some farming systems UA may provide households with greater access to
Low-income countries specific foods. Evidence also indicates that UA can be a key source of household income, though actual
returns were low. Furthermore, results show that UA can facilitate women’s contribution to household
food availability amid other household responsibilities, and can provide distinct benefits such as
economic and social advancement. Although UA participation does not appear to fully eliminate pressure
urban households face in obtaining food, a lack of supportive policies may constrain its potential.
Municipal planning and agricultural policies that more effectively incorporate UA—and that integrate
gender—may diminish barriers to productive UA practice. More rigorous research on UA’s contribution
to food security in settings where supportive policies have been enacted would more clearly elucidate
these linkages.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
As the world becomes increasingly urbanized, ensuring the food
security of poor city residents is of central importance. Globally,
over half the world’s population lives in cities, and although the
proportion is smaller in low-income countries (28% of total popu-
lation in 2012), these countries are undergoing the fastest rates of
urban population growth, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (The
World Bank, 2014). The urban poor in low-income countries are
especially vulnerable to food insecurity. These populations primar-
ily purchase their food, and while food may be readily available at
local markets, food expenses can account for a large percentage of
their total income, leaving them vulnerable to price fluctuations
(Zezza et al., 2008; Orsini et al., 2013). Unlike the rural poor, most
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mpoulsen@jhu.edu (M.N. Poulsen).
urban dwellers do not have access to food safety nets like agricul-
ture, and the high costs of shelter, transport, and healthcare further
undermine the affordability of sufficient food (Cohen and Garrett,
2010).
Recent estimates of global food and nutrition security show that
even though hunger is declining, about 805 million people world-
wide were chronically undernourished in 2012–2014—791 million
of whom lived in low-income countries—and that food access
remains a major challenge to food security, particularly in the
poorest regions of the world (sub-Saharan Africa and parts of
Southern Asia) (FAO et al., 2014). Despite progress in meeting the
Millennium Development Goal to halve the number of undernour-
ished people by 2015 (FAO et al., 2014), future threats to food secu-
rity such as population growth, global climate change, biodiversity
loss, and resource depletion present significant challenges to
addressing food insecurity, particularly in low-income settings
(Godfray et al., 2010).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.002
0306-9192/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
132 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Urban agriculture
Urban agriculture (UA) may provide a source of food or income
for households and help mitigate the impacts of these growing
threats to food security. UA can be defined as ‘‘small areas within
cities, such as vacant lots, gardens, verges, balconies and contain-
ers, that are used for growing crops and raising small livestock or
milk cows for own-consumption or sale in neighborhood markets’’
(FAO, 1999). Systematic estimates of UA’s prevalence are notably
lacking (Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010; Hamilton et al., 2014), though
a recent analysis of data from 15 developing or transition countries
found country-level participation rates ranged from 11% to 69%
(Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010). Furthermore, commercial urban
farming reportedly contributes a significant amount of the produce
and poultry products consumed in some areas of Asia and Latin
America (Maxwell, 2001).
Urban agriculture and food security
Research on the benefits of UA began to appear in the 1980s.
Structural adjustment programs had left African households strug-
gling with food access and poverty, a legacy linked to increased
participation in UA. The 1975 World Food Conference highlighted
food insecurity as a critical development challenge, further spark-
ing researchers’ desire to study UA (Battersby, 2013). The 1990s
and 2000s saw numerous articles published on the benefits of
UA. Authors have critiqued this work for being advocacy driven
(Ellis and Sumberg, 1998; Webb, 2011; Battersby, 2013) and have
noted a dearth of rigorous research supporting UA’s contribution to
food security (Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010; Crush et al., 2011). Such
critiques point to a need for systematic evaluation of the state of
the UA research base and clearer directions for future research.
UA may contribute to food security in several ways. First, when
households produce their own food, they have easier access to
nutritionally rich foods, which may support a more varied and
higher quality diet. Household food expenditures may also be
reduced, freeing up money for additional food or other household
needs. UA may provide households with a more stable food
source—including through preservation and food storage—and
minimize the negative impacts of variable wages or food prices.
As a livelihood strategy, income from UA may enhance a house-
hold’s ability to purchase food. UA may confer distinct benefits to
women, who often face greater employment constraints than
men in urban areas of low-income countries. Lastly, UA may
enhance community food security by increasing the diversity,
quantity, and quality of many perishable foods in urban areas.
Despite these potential benefits, researchers remain skeptical
regarding the contribution of UA to the food security of the poor,
particularly given the well-documented constraints faced by urban
growers (e.g., insecure land tenure, polluted land and water, lim-
ited access to resources and support services, lack of recognition
by city authorities). Scholars insist that the debate is unsettled
and have called for further clarity on UA’s benefits and significance
(Webb, 2011).
The purpose of this review is to help advance this discussion by
rigorously assessing the scientific evidence for UA’s impact on food
security in low-income countries. To achieve this goal, we con-
ducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles from
1980 to 2013 that presented data on UA and various indicators of
food security, including impacts on household food availability,
dietary diversity, nutritional status, household income, and
community food availability. Recognizing the centrality of gender
dynamics in shaping urban food production, this review also
includes an examination of the relationship among UA, food secu-
rity, and gender. Based on our findings, we consider implications
for policy and directions for future research.
Until recently, a systematic review of the scientific literature
related to UA and food security was nonexistent, which triggered
our efforts to conduct such a review. Attesting to the need for such
a study, Warren et al. (2015) nearly simultaneously conducted a
review on a similar topic to our own study, but with a narrower
focus on three indicators: food security, dietary diversity, and
nutritional status. Our review builds upon their evidence by
assessing a more extensive literature related to household food
and calorie availability, evaluating household income as an out-
come of UA participation, and examining the relationship between
gender, UA, and food security.
Methods
We used standard systematic review guidelines, as outlined in
the PRISMA statement (Liberati et al., 2009), to review scientific lit-
erature on the impact of UA on the food security of urban residents
in low-income countries. After defining characteristics for study
inclusion, we systematically searched the peer-reviewed literature
for studies that met these criteria, extracted data from each eligible
study, and qualitatively synthesized results across studies.
Inclusion criteria
Peer-reviewed journal articles were included in the review
based on four criteria. First, the study must have been conducted
in an urban area (as defined by the article) in a low- or
lower-middle-income country (using World Bank categorizations
(2011)). Second, the focus of the article must have been UA (as
defined by the article), and the study must have examined the rela-
tionship between UA and food security, defined as increased access
to food through production of one’s own food or through the
income earned by selling one’s UA produce. Third, the article must
have reported primary data or results from a novel analysis of
existing data sources. Fourth, the included articles were published
between 1980 and 2013. Articles that were unavailable in English
were excluded.
Search methodology and coding
We identified eligible articles using six bibliographic databases:
AGRICOLA, Anthropology Plus, EconLit, Global Health, Scopus, and
Sociological Abstracts. Each database search used Boolean opera-
tors to pair the primary keyword (‘‘urban agriculture’’) and its syn-
onyms with each of three secondary keywords (‘‘food security,’’
‘‘nutrition,’’ and ‘‘income’’) and their synonyms. We also searched
the journal Agriculture and Food Security for relevant titles and cita-
tions in the included articles in order to identify additional articles
that may have been missed by the initial database search.
One member of the study team screened articles by title and
abstract to eliminate those that clearly did not meet inclusion cri-
teria. Two members of the study team then separately reviewed
the full text of all remaining articles to determine whether they
met inclusion criteria. A third member resolved any disagreements
about whether to include a particular article in the review.
Two members of the study team separately worked to extract
data from each article that met inclusion criteria. A third member
resolved any discrepancies that arose during the data extraction
process. Data were entered into a detailed coding form including:
citation information, study objective, location of study, date of data
collection, type of UA practiced, study methods, food security
impacts assessed by the study, key results, study limitations noted
by author, study limitations noted by reviewer, and key
conclusions. Using a simple coding scheme, the results were then
summarized based on the various components of food security.
 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Results
We identified 1152 titles and abstracts as potentially relevant
for our review (Fig. 1). Following a review of citation titles, we
found 565 articles to be irrelevant. We screened the abstracts of
the remaining 587 articles, excluding an additional 457 as not rel-
evant. These procedures yielded 130 articles for a full-text review.
Of these, 35 met our criteria for inclusion and were kept for data
extraction and qualitative synthesis.
Characteristics of studies
Appendix A provides additional details for each of the included
studies.
Study setting
Out of 35 included studies, 33 reported findings from
sub-Saharan Africa, one from Bangladesh (Hillbruner and Egan,
2008), and one from 15 countries across sub-Saharan Africa, Asia,
Latin America, and Eastern Europe (Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010).
Study settings comprised large cities including Lagos, Nigeria,
and Nairobi, Kenya, and mid-sized cities such as Mwanza,
Tanzania and Buea, Cameroon.
Data collection methods
All but two studies collected data using surveys. The two excep-
tions used solely qualitative methods (Flynn, 2001; Hovorka,
2006). About a third (12 studies) used multiple methods, such as
combining a survey with qualitative interviews, observation, or
focus groups. Most studies were cross-sectional, although one
compared data from two national surveys taken at different time
points (Ersado, 2005) and two studies involved conducting
multi-round household surveys to account for the impact of
seasonality on UA (Hillbruner and Egan, 2008; Okezie et al., 2008).
Participants
Twenty-three studies were conducted exclusively among urban
food producers, hereafter referred to as ‘‘farmers.’’ The remaining
12 studies included both farmers and non-farmers: nine sampled
cases from the general population within specified cities (Sanyal,
1985; Memon and Lee-Smith, 1993; Maxwell, 1995; Gockowski
et al., 2003; Hovorka, 2006; Foeken and Owuor, 2008; Hillbruner
and Egan, 2008; Crush et al., 2011; Gallaher et al., 2013), two used
data from national surveys representing the general population
(Ersado, 2005; Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010), and one study recruited
1,317 records identified 11 additional records
(database search) (hand search)
1,152 total records after removing incomplete
citations, articles from non-peer reviewed sources,
and unavailable articles
1,152 titles screened 565 excluded
587 abstracts screened 457 excluded
95 excluded:
130 full-text assessed
• Did not meet eligibility criteria (89)
• Not in English (6)
35 included in
qualitative synthesis
Fig. 1. Flow chart showing selection of articles for inclusion.
133
a comparison group of non-farmers (Yeudall et al., 2007). Two
studies made multi-country comparisons: Zezza and Tasciotti
(2010) used nationally representative data from 15 countries
across several continents, and Crush et al. (2011) compared data
from poor urban neighborhoods in 11 southern African cities
representing nine countries.
Among the 33 studies that reported survey data, the sample
sizes varied greatly. Five had fewer than 100 participants, and 21
had sample sizes between 100 and 1000. The largest study was
Ersado’s (2005) analysis of national data from Zimbabwe from
two time points with sample sizes of 14,000 and 17,000.
Types of urban agriculture assessed
The studies examined diverse types of UA. Twenty-one included
producers of both crops and livestock, while about a third (13 stud-
ies) included only crops. A few studies analyzed the placement of
cultivated plots (e.g., home gardening vs. vacant lot cultivation)
or distinguished between seasonal and year-round cultivation.
Some studies focused on specific production types, such as sack
gardening of leafy greens (Gallaher et al., 2013), traditional leafy
vegetable production (Gockowski et al., 2003), and dairy farming
(Ayenew et al., 2011).
Study analyses
Over half of the studies included only descriptive data, while
the others used bivariate analyses and/or multiple regression
analyses.
Primary outcome
Ten studies explicitly attempted to measure the relationship
between UA and food security. The outcomes in these studies
included measures of coping strategies, dietary diversity, children’s
nutritional status, and calorie availability and consumption.
The remaining 25 studies were included because they examined
outcomes presumably related to food security. For example, some
assessed the proportion of food consumed from UA and its contri-
bution to household food requirements, while others determined
the contribution of UA to household income. About a third of stud-
ies described what is done with UA produce, providing estimates of
how much is consumed, sold, or given away. Additionally, about a
third reported farmers’ motivations for practicing UA.
Assessment of study limitations
An assessment of study limitations revealed significant variabil-
ity in detail and quality. Given the mix of study methods and
outcomes assessed, it was not possible to uniformly rate study
rigor. Instead, we describe several common limitations.
Of the 33 quantitative studies, 30 were cross-sectional, meaning
that farmers retroactively reported the impacts of UA (exceptions
included Ersado, 2005; Hillbruner and Egan, 2008; Okezie et al.,
2008). This limitation makes it difficult to ascertain the direction-
ality of the reported relationships. About two-thirds of studies
either did not compare farmers with non-farmers, or did not
explicitly address sample representativeness, limiting the extent
to which identified impacts on food security and related measures
may be clearly attributed to UA or to other population groups and
settings. In most instances, however, establishing quantitative
relationships and extrapolating to the general population was not
the study purpose. In five studies, these limitations were partially
offset by comparing findings to outside sources, such as govern-
ment recommendations (e.g., caloric needs) or policies (e.g., mini-
mum wages) (Gockowski et al., 2003; Kutiwa et al., 2010; Tefera,
2010; Mkwambisi et al., 2011; Mireri, 2013). Lastly, important
information about methods was omitted from many articles: sam-
pling was inadequately described; study procedures were unclear;
134 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
and the operationalization of variables was not explained or
justified.
Why individuals engage in UA: motivations
The most commonly cited motivation for engaging in UA was to
produce food for household consumption, a finding reported in
nine of the studies, with financial reasons being the second most
important driver. Only one study reported that income-
generation was the main reason for engaging in UA (Ayenew
et al., 2011). Two studies showed that the majority of participants
practiced UA both to provide food for the household and to gener-
ate income (Asomani-Boateng, 2002; Adeoti and Egwudike, 2003).
In some cases, the lines were blurred between motivations of
subsistence and income-generation, as participants reported the
unaffordable cost of food or the need to minimize food expenses
as motivations (Sanyal, 1985; Gbadegesin, 1991; Flynn, 2001).
Across included studies, only one (Ngome and Foeken, 2012) found
that a small minority of participants reported reasons aside from
subsistence or income-generation for practicing UA (e.g., gardening
as a hobby).
Several studies demonstrated farmers’ perceptions of the
importance of UA to household food security. Most dramatically,
Memon and Lee-Smith (1993) found that 40% of surveyed
Kenyan urban farmers said they would starve if they were stopped
from farming, and Ngome and Foeken (2012) reported that 66% of
the surveyed farmers in Buea, Cameroon considered UA as the
most important source of calories for their households. Through
qualitative interviews, farmers from the Kibera slums of Nairobi,
Kenya stated that a benefit of UA was that they knew there was
always a source of food if they ran out of other foods (Gallaher
et al., 2013). In the same study, UA farmers rated their households
as more food secure compared to non-farmers (p < 0.01), despite a
lack of significant findings in overall dietary diversity or the use of
food security coping strategies between farmers and non-farmers.
Simatele and Binns (2008) reported that half of the surveyed
farming households in Lusaka, Zambia cited UA as a key strategy
for meeting shortfalls in household food requirements.
Supporting the reported importance of UA to household con-
sumption, several studies showed that the majority of food pro-
duced through UA was consumed by farmers rather than sold
(Gbadegesin, 1991; Freeman, 1993; Maxwell and Zziwa, 1993;
Mireri, 2013). While many participants across included studies
sold some portion of their produce, rarely was it reported that par-
ticipants practiced UA solely for sales. Variations between UA con-
sumption and sales appear to depend on the type of farming
system, production method, crops grown, marketing opportunities,
and income-level and gender of farmers (e.g., Foeken and Owuor,
2008; Okezie et al., 2008; Mkwambisi et al., 2011; Tambwe et al.,
2011). (A more in-depth analysis of these differences is beyond
the scope of this study.) The predominant use of UA produce for
household consumption was further supported by Zezza and
Tasciotti’s (2010) multi-country review. Just four of the 15
countries studied had more than a third of produce marketed
(Madagascar, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Nicaragua). As an exception
to this theme, Akegbejo-Samsons (2008) found that urban
vegetable farmers in Nigeria sold about 80% of the food produced.
However, it was unclear how the author determined this percent-
age, as study measures were not sufficiently described.
Consumption-related food security indicators
The reviewed studies included four indicators related to the
amount and quality of food consumed by households participating
in UA: food and calorie availability, dietary diversity, coping
strategies, and nutritional status.
Household food and calorie availability
Of the 35 included studies, two assessed whether households
that practice UA consume greater quantities of food or calories
compared with non-farming households. The multi-country analy-
sis by Zezza and Tasciotti (2010) revealed that among four exam-
ined countries where data on kilocalories per capita consumed
were available, a positive and statistically significant association
between calorie consumption and engagement in UA was found
for two (Bangladesh and Guatemala), even after controlling for
household demographic and socio-economic variables. A similar
positive yet non-significant trend was seen in Malawi. Staple foods
and fruits/vegetables were the two food groups most consistently
found to contribute to the increase in calorie consumption associ-
ated with engagement in UA (as compared to meat, dairy, and
eggs). In Nicaragua, there was a negative association between par-
ticipation in UA and calorie consumption. In another study con-
ducted among low-income households in Bangladesh, Hillbruner
and Egan (2008) used calorie availability as a proxy to assess
UA’s effect on food security. The researchers found that despite
increased UA engagement during the monsoon (i.e., food insecure)
season, neither growing crops nor raising livestock played a
significant role in mitigating decreased caloric availability, even
when controlling for dietary diversity (and other potential
household-level confounders). Given the findings from both of
these studies, the impact of UA on household food and caloric
availability remains uncertain. For example, if only the most vul-
nerable households participate in UA, UA produce may provide
them with an important food source, but one that is insufficient
to equalize their diets with other households.
Other included studies did not compare farming and
non-farming households’ food availability, but they still provide
some evidence that engaging in UA can meaningfully affect house-
hold food availability. One set of studies revealed that UA provided
a large proportion of households’ food (see key results in Appendix
A for Smith and Tevera (1997), Adeoti and Egwudike (2003),
Gockowski et al. (2003), Simatele and Binns (2008), and Aubry
et al. (2012)). In weighing these results, it is important to consider
that in many areas, agricultural productivity fluctuates by season.
For example, a study in Harare, Zimbabwe found that the majority
(63%) of farming study participants depended on harvest crops
from UA farms for a period of just 1–3 months, indicating a rela-
tively short period of time that UA provides sufficient produce
for household consumption (Kutiwa et al., 2010).
In addition, two studies (one from Ethiopia and the second from
Malawi) showed that UA can help households meet or exceed gov-
ernment recommendations for the consumption of staple foods
and thus meet calorie requirements, though the impacts varied
by household (see key results in Appendix A for Tefera (2010)
and Mkwambisi et al. (2011)). In contrast, a third study found that
farming households in Harare, Zimbabwe could not meet the
nationally recommended amount of maize consumption through
UA (Kutiwa et al., 2010).
Dietary diversity
The underlying assumption in using dietary diversity as a mea-
sure of food security is that participation in UA may afford house-
holds the ability to consume a more varied diet. UA may contribute
to dietary diversity directly, through production of a variety of
foods, or indirectly, by freeing up money to purchase additional
foods. Importantly, although dietary diversity can serve as a useful
indicator of household food security (Godfray et al., 2010) and
micronutrient intake (Warren et al., 2015), it is not a measure of
dietary quality. For example, dietary diversity does not capture
adequacy or diversity of fruit and vegetable intake, key factors in
reducing disease risk (Ford and Mokdad, 2001; Dauchet et al.,
2006; He et al., 2006). Of the 35 included studies, four examined
 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
the relationship between UA and dietary diversity using a variety
of methods.
Zezza and Tasciotti’s (2010) multi-country study incorporated
two measures of household dietary diversity—one based on food
groups and another tallying the number of food items—revealing
positive associations with UA across the majority of countries.
Specifically, when using the group-based dietary diversity score,
UA was positively associated with dietary diversity in 10 of the
15 countries. With the simple food count, there was a significant
association for 11 of the 15 countries.
A cross-sectional study in Kenya demonstrated the complexity
in the relationship between UA and dietary diversity. The research-
ers assessed household dietary diversity by comparing the con-
sumption of 15 food groups within a 24-h period and examining
the diversity of vegetables eaten during the previous month
(Gallaher et al., 2013). There were no significant differences in
overall dietary diversity between farming and non-farming house-
holds. Comparing individual food groups, study results showed
that non-farming households ate significantly more seafood than
farming households, while farming households consumed signifi-
cantly more fruits and leafy vegetables, as well as a more diverse
range of vegetables. UA seemed to enable farming households to
buy pricier indigenous vegetables because UA supplied other
needed foods (e.g., kale, Swiss chard). Notably, this study was con-
ducted among sack gardeners1 who grew only green leafy vegeta-
bles, which limits the generalizability of findings.
Two studies suggest that agricultural diversification might yield
benefits for dietary diversity. One compared dietary diversity for
preschool children across non-farming, crop-farming, and
livestock-rearing households. Scores were based on the number
of unique food items children consumed within a 24-h period.
Dietary diversity was significantly higher among
livestock-rearing households, the majority of which (86%) also
grew crops (Yeudall et al., 2007). Second, a study in Harare,
Zimbabwe examined the associations between household dietary
diversity and five different UA systems: backyard gardening,
open-space cultivation, chicken rearing, peri-urban agriculture,
and roadside cultivation (Kutiwa et al., 2010). Households indi-
cated the number of food groups eaten during the prior week.
Using simple linear regression, the researchers found that chicken
rearing was the only system to be significantly associated with
dietary diversity. The authors conjectured that this finding
emerged because chicken rearing was commercially profitable
and because chicken-rearing households were also engaged in
other types of agriculture. These results may also reflect a relation-
ship between household wealth and dietary diversity—though not
examined by the study authors, it is possible that primarily wealth-
ier households can afford to feed chickens and other livestock in
these urban settings.
Food security coping strategies
Food security, or a lack thereof, may be measured through the
coping strategies that households use when they do not have
access to sufficient food. These strategies consist of behavioral
modifications such as eating foods that are less preferred, limiting
portion sizes, and skipping meals (Gallaher et al., 2013). The single2
study that used coping strategies as a measure of food security was
conducted in Nairobi, Kenya and revealed that a majority of
households reported high levels of food insecurity and used a range
of coping strategies (Gallaher et al., 2013). There was no significant
1
Sack gardening is a form of UA in which vegetables are planted in large sacks
filled with topsoil, thus requiring less space than plot cultivation.
2
A study by Adeoti et al. (2012) found that farmers in Accra, Ghana reported a
decline in ‘‘food deficit days’’ since starting to practice UA, but did not specify how
this concept was defined.
135
difference between the number of farming and non-farming house-
holds that reported using each of the coping mechanisms measured,
with the exception of reducing the number of meals, which was
higher among the non-farming group (p = 0.059). Compared to
non-farming households, farming households were found to use
fewer coping strategies overall, but this trend was not statistically
significant (p = 0.070).
Nutritional status
Only one included study—conducted in Kampala, Uganda—ex-
amined the relationship between UA and nutritional status in chil-
dren (Yeudall et al., 2007). The researchers collected
anthropometric data on weight, height, and mid-upper-arm cir-
cumference, as well as biochemical samples for hemoglobin, reti-
nol, and C-reactive protein. For anthropometric measurements of
children, the study authors found no significant differences
between crop-farming and non-farming households. Results were
also non-significant for livestock rearing households, though there
was a non-significant trend toward improved growth and body
composition of children from livestock-rearing households. The
findings of this study are informative, yet they are based on one
age group in a specific setting; therefore broad generalizations
regarding UA’s contribution to nutritional status cannot be drawn.
Moreover, the total sample size of 281 may have been too small to
detect significant differences among groups.
Contribution of UA to household income
In addition to supplying a direct food source, UA may promote
food security through the generation of income. Several included
studies examined income earned through UA, though none
attempted to measure whether the hourly and annual returns on
UA labor are sufficient to meet households’ food purchasing needs.
Results are divided into three categories: wages and income, prof-
itability, and provision of employment.
Wages and income
Two included studies compared the income generated from UA
to the local average minimum wage, though the accuracy of the
estimations were difficult to assess given the lack of methodolog-
ical detail provided. One study in Yaounde, Cameroon focused on
the production of traditional leafy vegetables (Gockowski et al.,
2003). The researchers estimated that the intensive urban produc-
tion of jute mallow on a small plot of land—roughly a tenth of an
acre (392 m2)—resulted, on average, in economic returns greater
than the minimum wage. Semi-intensive peri-urban production
of African nightshade was less profitable, but the returns were
about 81% of the minimum wage when family labor was consid-
ered. A second study, conducted in Kisumu, Kenya, looked at both
mean monthly wages among laborers working in urban agriculture
as well as monthly incomes earned by urban farmers. Mean
monthly wages for hired laborers were US$30 for men and
US$23 for women, well below the municipality’s approved mini-
mum monthly wage of US$74 for farm workers. Among the sur-
veyed farmers who practiced commercial UA, the mean monthly
income was US$66, with incomes varying among horticulture,
poultry farming, fish farming, and dairy farming. In addition to
engaging in UA, some farmers possessed other formal or informal
employment; however, on average, farmers did not earn much
from non-UA employment. Overall, the results from this study
were mixed. The wages and income provided were low, but eco-
nomic alternatives for farmers were limited.
Further, a study of farming households from low-income areas
in Zimbabwe performed a simple linear regression analysis and
found that farm income did not predict total income (Kutiwa
et al., 2010). This result may have arisen for two reasons. First,
136 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
while raising poultry was a major source of income, only 12%
engaged in it, and given the small sample size (n = 59), it could
be difficult to show statistical significance. Second, farmers tended
to eat rather than sell their produce, thus yielding little income.
Several additional studies revealed a wide range in the percent-
age UA contributes to household income, as exemplified by Zezza
and Tasciotti’s (2010) analysis of nationally representative data
from 15 countries in four regions. When including only farming
households, the percentages of household income from UA ranged
from 3% to 71% across countries and the percentage was greater
than 44 in two countries: Madagascar (63%) and Nigeria (71%).
When including both farming and non-farming households, the
percentages of households that derived at least 30% of their income
from UA were high in all four of the African countries, ranging from
18% (Malawi) to 24% (Nigeria). The share of income earned from
UA was highest for the least affluent households in the sample. A
study conducted in Bahir Dar and Gondar, Ethiopia, similarly found
that urban dairy production accounted for a substantial portion of
income (40%) (Ayenew et al., 2011). A few other included studies
found that UA made a minimal contribution to household income
(see key results in Appendix A for Freeman (1993), Ersado (2005),
and Crush et al. (2011)).
Profitability
Few included articles explicitly discussed the balance between
economic inputs and UA returns. As one exception, researchers in
Accra, Ghana found that farms were profitable on both a per farm
and per hectare basis (Adeoti et al., 2012). The revenues greatly
outpaced the costs of inputs. All participants were urban farmers,
and the numbers were not contextualized. Still, the study indicated
that UA typically resulted in net profits.
Employment
Though not confirmation of adequate income or economic
opportunity, some studies have shown that a number of individu-
als derive income exclusively from UA. In Nakuru, Kenya, UA was a
full-time occupation for 26% of poor farming household study par-
ticipants (Foeken and Owuor, 2008). By contrast, only 11% of
non-poor households farmed full-time. Research in Freetown,
Sierra Leone revealed that just 20% of farmer participants reported
that they had another source of employment besides UA (Lynch
et al., 2013).
Women, food security, and UA
An accompanying thread to the literature on UA’s contribution
to food security is the unique benefit it may confer to women, who
often face greater employment constraints than men in urban
areas of low-income countries (Hovorka, 2006). We did not specif-
ically search for studies assessing women’s relationship with UA,
but among the included studies, several included analyses of gen-
der. Studies revealed that in some settings, women are the ones
primarily engaged in UA, including women from female-headed
households and conjugal households (Maxwell and Zziwa, 1993;
Maxwell, 1995; Foeken and Owuor, 2008; Kutiwa et al., 2010). In
a study conducted among farmers in Harare, Zimbabwe, respon-
dents were asked why mostly women were involved in UA. The
primary findings were that UA was perceived as women’s work
while men were employed elsewhere. In fact, just 26% of female
respondents (compared to 90% of males) were employed. UA
served as a means to utilize women’s labor to produce food and
income (Mudimu, 1996). Other studies have distinguished
between urban farming systems, revealing that women tend to
participate in crop and poultry production, whereas men are the
ones primarily responsible for other livestock production
(Akegbejo-Samsons, 2008; Okezie et al., 2008).
A few studies attempted to tease out the different role UA
plays for women and men (Kutiwa et al., 2010; Mkwambisi et al.,
2011; Ngome and Foeken, 2012). These studies show that
household food production and income generation are both impor-
tant goals for women, though women’s orientation toward UA may
differ by household structure (female-headed vs. conjugal
households).
A household survey conducted in Kampala, Uganda highlighted
the unique importance women place on UA in their household food
security (Maxwell, 1995). Women in the survey viewed UA as an
important food source, while men viewed the practice as having
marginal importance. In addition, UA alleviated some of the finan-
cial strain felt by women in meeting their households’ needs. The
researcher found that women in households that did not pool their
income with male partners (85% of study households) used UA as a
strategy to protect or supplement their other income sources and
to assert some control over a source of food for their families, inde-
pendent of the market or husbands’ income. Married women
reported that if their husbands knew the real value of UA’s
economic contributions, the men might contribute fewer resources
to their households, thus reducing options for maintaining food
security.
Beyond UA’s contribution to food and income, included studies
revealed two additional benefits of UA that indirectly tie to food
security for women. The first is the ability for UA to provide a
source of food or income for women through an activity that they
can do while also caring for their children. Maxwell (1995) found
that three factors mediated the relationship between UA and
nutritional status of children: food sufficiency, dietary adequacy,
and the amount of time that mothers care for children. This final
factor suggests that women farmers had more time to devote to
childcare and thus indirectly supported children’s nutritional
outcomes.
The second factor relates to women’s empowerment. Two
included studies explored how women’s participation in UA
evolves over time and suggested that while women initially
become involved in UA as a survival strategy, for some women it
becomes a source of economic and social advancement as they
turn their farms into lucrative businesses (Freeman, 1993;
Hovorka, 2006). As a result, UA can help women to ‘‘gain a control
of measure over their lives,’’ providing a path toward financial
independence (Freeman, 1993).
Discussion
Using standard systematic review procedures to synthesize
findings from 35 studies that met eligibility criteria, this analysis
takes a fresh look at the evidence regarding UA and its contribu-
tions to food security in low-income countries. While we found,
as have others, that data quality were often lacking, several key
findings emerged. Below, we elaborate upon these results and
highlight important research needs as well as valuable directions
for policy. When relevant, we also compare findings with those
of Warren et al. (2015). Likely due to differences in search strate-
gies, Warren and colleagues’ study reviewed just four articles in
common with our own, yet our findings overlap on several points,
providing support for the soundness of the conclusions drawn by
both studies.
Motivations for UA
The evidence from this review indicates that the primary moti-
vation behind UA is to produce food for household consumption,
supported by the finding that in most cases the majority of food
produced is consumed by farming households rather than sold.
 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Financial motivations formed a second important (and nearly
inseparable) driver. Warren et al.’s (2015) review similarly found
that households are motivated to practice UA as a coping mecha-
nism due to insufficient food access. These motivations are note-
worthy because they reveal the high value farmers place on UA
participation as a meaningful contributor to their households’ food
security, even when the contributions are not captured by objec-
tive measures of food security. In other words, the benefits of UA
may be psychological as well as physical.
Food security—consumption
The evidence indicates that UA is associated with greater
household food and calorie availability and consumption in some
settings but not others, with little explanation within the relevant
articles to account for differences. The review by Warren et al.
(2015) similarly found a positive association between engagement
in UA and increased food consumption. Additionally, several stud-
ies showed that UA provides a substantial proportion of the food
consumed by farming households, at least during certain times of
year. This evidence, however, does not signify that UA provides
sufficient food to eliminate the pressure that urban households
face to obtain food. It is also important to consider that increasing
food production does not necessarily improve nutritional health
outcomes (Berti et al., 2004). The importance of UA may not neces-
sarily lie in its contribution to total household food supply, but
rather in providing a food source for households at critical times,
such as when income is insufficient to purchase food (Ruel et al.,
1998). A direction for future research is to examine the way UA
meets food security needs at specific times of the year, rather than
overall.
The evidence appears to be weighted toward a positive relation-
ship between UA and dietary diversity. Warren et al. (2015) also
found a positive association between UA and dietary diversity
(an unsurprising consistency given that two of their three included
studies overlapped with our own). The included studies reveal that
UA may provide farming households with greater access to specific
food items, such as vegetables, an outcome with ramifications not
only for food security, but also for increasing access to adequate
nutritious foods. Findings also suggest that the impacts on dietary
diversity may vary across farming systems. More diversified farm-
ing efforts may lead to more diverse diets. However, given the lim-
ited number of studies and the varied settings and results, the
extent to which UA enhances dietary diversity merits further
examination. Future research should examine a variety of farming
systems to understand the types of UA that best enhance dietary
diversity. In particular, the potential benefits of agricultural diver-
sification warrant further investigation. Future research should
also expand the focus from dietary diversity to dietary quality
more generally, with a particular emphasis on fruit and vegetable
consumption. Finally, studies assessing UA’s impact on the house-
hold distribution of nutritious foods (e.g., to vulnerable household
members like women and children) are warranted.
Findings related to coping strategies and children’s nutritional
status were each limited to single studies, neither of which indi-
cated a statistically significant relationship with UA. Warren
et al. (2015) reviewed three additional studies on nutritional sta-
tus, which revealed a positive association with UA. However, the
authors noted that these studies were of lower quality than the
study by Yeudall et al. (2007), hampering their overall conclusions.
Although nutritional status is valuable for its comparability across
settings (Maxwell et al., 2008), it may not be the best indicator of
the relationship between UA and food security given that it is con-
founded by other influences on health unrelated to food access, as
well as by how food is utilized. In contrast, the measurement of
food security coping strategies has been found to be a useful
137
approach to evaluating localized food insecurity, including the
potential for comparability across contexts (Maxwell et al., 2008).
Household income
Included studies showed that UA may be one source (and occa-
sionally the only source) of household income in low-income coun-
tries, UA can sometimes provide more than the minimum wage,
and UA can be profitable, with returns exceeding the inputs.
However, the included studies do not conclusively demonstrate
that UA promotes food security by providing income to meet
households’ needs, including for purchasing food. Establishing
such a relationship is a complex task that would require under-
standing not only the inputs and outputs of UA, but also its eco-
nomic alternatives. UA requires time, skills, and effort that could,
when opportunities exist, be expended on other activities. So, is
UA most valuable in the absence of other opportunities? Or is it
a worthwhile activity even when other opportunities are avail-
able? Methodologically, these are difficult questions to answer.
Women, food security, and UA
UA may create distinct benefits for women in low-income coun-
tries (e.g., financial cushion, economic and social advancement) as
well as allow them to contribute to household food production,
supply, and income amid childcare responsibilities. These findings
are significant given the large role that women in low-income set-
tings play in UA. More research is needed to clarify these opportu-
nities, however, given that women’s significant participation in UA
may also be explained by marginalization and lack of opportunities
to engage in the formal urban employment sector. Future research
should prioritize women’s perceptions of motivations to partici-
pate in UA and the opportunity costs and benefits of engagement.
Additional research is also needed to understand the diversity and
depth of women’s experiences.
Limitations in the literature
Largely, findings on the relationship between UA and food secu-
rity in low-income countries are constrained by a lack of rigorous
research. Aside from the methodological and reporting weaknesses
in many of the reviewed studies, a lack of non-farming comparison
groups is problematic as it limits the extent to which impacts may
be clearly attributed to UA. Another limitation is a lack of consis-
tency in how UA is defined and outcomes are measured. To help
address these shortcomings, more recent research has sought to
more rigorously quantify the relationship between UA and food
security across settings (e.g., multi-country studies conducted by
Zezza and Tasciotti (2010) and Crush et al. (2011)).
Our systematic search of the literature resulted largely in stud-
ies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. According to Winklerprins
(2002), the emphasis of literature on gardens reflects differences
by geographic regions, with UA most commonly studied in Africa
versus Asia, Latin America and other regions. Yet, commercial
urban farming is highly developed in Asia and Latin America, con-
tributing a significant amount of the produce and poultry products
consumed in some areas (Maxwell, 2001). These findings suggest a
need for research that may investigate the possible linkages
between UA and food security in a wider range of low-income
settings.
Finally, we found no research that rigorously examined the role
of UA in enhancing community food security (e.g., the extent to
which a community, rather than an individual or household, can
be said to have reliable access to sufficient, affordable food) in
low-income settings. Though UA’s contribution to community food
security is ripe for study, measuring the availability and
138 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
accessibility of food in the community is challenging. Studies usu-
ally use individuals or households as their units of analysis, and
extrapolating these units to communities can lead to erroneous
conclusions. Furthermore, as noted by Gerster-Bentaya (2013),
‘‘the high degree of informality in production, transformation and
marketing of urban products, the complex food flows, and the huge
diversity of food. . .make comprehensive studies almost impossible
[to conduct].’’ Nevertheless, shifting the focus of food security from
households to communities adds a valuable dimension to under-
standing UA impacts and conceptualizing interventions (Hamm
and Bellows, 2003).
Study limitations and strengths
This review has several limitations, most notably the method-
ological and reporting weakness of many of its included studies.
We chose to include these studies despite their weaknesses in
order to create a comprehensive review and to assess the current
state of the literature. We also opted to include the range of author
definitions of UA; accordingly, the included studies examined
diverse phenomena. Our ability to compare studies was further
limited by the differing research methods used and constructs
examined.
Our exclusion criteria meant that we omitted some studies with
relevance for our topic, including research published in the gray lit-
erature; research not in English; and research from middle-income
countries with endemic poverty, such as South Africa, or where
unique contextual factors have created a critical role for UA in
addressing food security, such as Cuba.
Despite these limitations, the study has important strengths. It
provides a comprehensive literature review using standard
systematic review guidelines. The search strategy was strong,
retrieving articles based on multiple keywords and their syn-
onyms, and utilizing multiple databases. Inclusion and exclusion
criteria were also rigorously defined and implemented, with two
research team members working separately to review each article
and extract data.
Study implications
This systematic review indicates a need for additional and more
rigorous research on the linkages between UA and food security to
inform context-specific policies. A clear finding from the included
studies is that the prevalence, forms, and effectiveness of UA vary
across settings. With such heterogeneity, broad generalizations
regarding the importance of UA for food security may be unreach-
able, and policies that do not consider the local environmental and
economic landscapes are likely to be ineffective.
UA cannot be accurately evaluated in settings where barriers
limit its potential and supportive policies are absent. A common
theme across many of the included studies was the need to elimi-
nate barriers to practicing UA, particularly for the poor. Many stud-
ies found that inadequate land access is a significant constraint to
UA participation (e.g., Maxwell, 1995; Asomani-Boateng, 2002;
Crush et al., 2011; Mkwambisi et al., 2011). Municipal planning
that incorporates UA can help diminish these barriers by address-
ing zoning, land access, and land tenure. There are also many cited
barriers to efficient production and distribution, including water
scarcity and pollution, the high cost of inputs such as fertilizer
and tools, and the inability to properly dispose of animal waste
(Asomani-Boateng, 2002; Cisse et al., 2005; Akegbejo-Samsons,
2008; Nel et al., 2009; Ayenew et al., 2011; Aubry et al., 2012).
Advancements in agriculture policy can reduce these barriers. Of
particular relevance are extension services that are specific to
urban agriculture and assist urban producers in negotiating the
specific constraints of producing and marketing food in the city.
Many cities and countries around the world have initiated policies
and reforms to support UA (Lee-Smith, 2010; Orsini et al., 2013). A
priority for future research should be examining the outcomes of
these policies.
Women face many disadvantages in accessing resources for UA
(Ngome and Foeken, 2012), highlighting a need to prioritize
women in UA policies. How this is done needs to be carefully con-
sidered. Hovorka (2006) notes that if it is the marginality of UA
that makes it an effective strategy for women, then formal promo-
tion and support of the UA sector could inadvertently exclude
women as UA becomes more intensive and commercial.
Formalization of government policies to regulate and promote
UA may also complicate individuals’ ability to practice UA, poten-
tially excluding marginalized groups who could benefit the most
(Hovorka, 2006). Additionally, if women began practicing UA
because social, economic, and political marginalization left them
few other options, then political support for UA may take focus
away from addressing the root problem of social inequality
(Hovorka, 2006). Policymakers and researchers must grapple with
these questions and more meaningfully integrate gender into
future UA work (Crush et al., 2011).
In the absence of more conclusive findings, some scholars and
policymakers may interpret the lack of a strong and consistent
relationship between UA and food security measures across studies
as reason to promote more established, evidence-based interven-
tions, rather than supporting further development of UA. As
Maxwell (2001) wrote, ‘‘The goal, after all, is not to promote urban
agriculture per se, but rather to promote food and nutrition secu-
rity for the urban poor as well as middle class consumers. . .’’
Rather than dismissing negative findings as proof of ineffective-
ness, we argue that policymakers should first consider how
chances of UA’s success could be amplified. In addition, an increas-
ing trend considers the multi-functionality of UA (Lovell, 2010;
Gerster-Bentaya, 2013). This trend is driving policy support for
UA in the global North and stems from a broad research base high-
lighting a vast array of intangible benefits derived from UA, such as
the preservation of cultural knowledge, increased civic engage-
ment, and enhanced social cohesion (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny,
2004; Wakefield et al., 2007; Teig et al., 2009; Draper and
Freedman, 2010). This development points to an important direc-
tion for future research in low-income countries—the exploration
of the non-food security, non-financial effects of UA. As other
authors have argued, we agree ‘‘that food security is far broader
than urban agriculture and that urban agriculture is far broader
than food security’’ (Battersby, 2013).
The state of the research limits our ability to draw a definitive
conclusion about UA’s role in enhancing food security in
low-income countries. An important finding from this study, how-
ever, is that farmers perceive UA to make a vital contribution to
their livelihoods. Motivated to produce food for their households’
consumption, they choose to practice UA despite numerous barri-
ers. In addition, a substantial proportion of their food appears to
come from practicing UA. Furthermore, we found evidence that
UA can have a positive effect on dietary diversity and quality,
and that it can be a key source of household income. UA also
appears to have potentially significant benefits for women. While
more rigorous research is warranted to better understand the cir-
cumstances under which UA significantly impacts food security,
we believe these findings—along with the multi-functional benefits
associated with UA—provide a sufficient basis to enact policies to
support UA in settings where it is practiced.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Caitlin Kennedy and Dr. Peter Winch
for their valuable input on the design and conduct of this study.
 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Appendix A. Summary of reviewed studies
Reference Setting (study period) Study designa
Adeoti and Oyo State, Nigeria (2002) – Cross-sectional survey
Egwudike (2003) of randomly selected
farmers (n = 60)
– Regression analysis of
factors affecting food
security status
Adeoti et al. (2012) Accra, Ghana (unknown) – Structured interviews
with vegetable gardeners
(n = 100) using random
and convenience
sampling
– Regression analysis of
factors affecting income
earned through UA
Akegbejo-Samsons Ondo State, Nigeria (2003) – Structured interviews
(2008) with fishermen and
farmers (n = 3,000) from
coastal villages
– Descriptive
comparison of farming
systems
Asomani-Boateng Accra, Ghana (1998) – Structured interviews
(2002) with farmers (n = 87),
observation at urban
farms, and focus groups
– Descriptive analysis
Aubry et al. (2012) Antananarivo, Madagascar – Cross-sectional survey
(2003–2007) of farmers (n = 250)
sampled from farms
selected based on location
– Descriptive analysis
Ayenew et al. Bahir Dar & Gondar, Ethiopia – Structured interviews
(2011) (2006–2007) with randomly sampled
dairy farmers (n = 256)
– Regression and
correlation analyses
comparing urban and
peri-urban farming
Chah et al. (2010) Enugu, Nigeria (unknown) – Cross-sectional survey
of randomly selected
farmers (n = 60) from
randomly selected wards
– Descriptive analysis
139
Key results related to food security
 42% of farming households determined to be
food secure based on a measure of calorie
availability
 23% of farming households’ available food
produced via UA
 Food secure status associated with smaller
family size and larger farm size
 Balancing costs and revenues, urban farms
were profitable
 Gardeners reported a decline in food deficit
days since practicing UA
 UA income positively correlated with larger
farm size and access to credit
 UA primarily practiced for household
consumption, followed by income generation
 Majority of UA produce sold, though
participants reported consuming an average of
20% of harvest from urban vegetable farming
 UA activities (urban vegetable farming,
peri-urban food crop farming, livestock farming)
comprised 19% of participants’ total income
 60% of farmers practiced UA for sales and
personal consumption; 28% for personal
consumption only; 10% for sales only
 14% of rice and 90% of watercress consumed
in study area produced via UA
 63% of rice consumed by farming households
produced via UA
 Dairy production accounted for 40% of
farmers’ income; an additional 3% derived from
other agricultural activities
 57% of participants reported increasing
income as motivation for keeping cattle; 34%
cited household use
 22% of participants earned income solely
through UA
 97% of participants consumed UA produce;
92% sold produce; 20% gave part away to others
 Profits from UA were small, but participants
rated their UA practice as successful; 88%
reported that they could easily meet their
children’s needs
(continued on next page)
140 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Appendix A (continued)
Reference Setting (study period)
Crush et al. (2011) Blantyre, Malawi Harare,
Zimbabwe Maseru, Lesotho
Msunduzi, RSA Maputo,
Mozambique Manzini,
Swaziland Johannesburg, RSA
Cape Town, RSA Gaborone,
Botswana Lusaka, Zambia
Windhoek, Namibia (2008–
2009)
Ersado (2005) Bulawayo, Harare, and other
cities in Zimbabwe (1990–1991,
1995–1996)
Flynn (2001) Mwanza, Tanzania (1993–1994)
Foeken and Owuor Nakuru, Kenya (1999–2001,
(2008) 2001–2003)
Freeman (1993) Nairobi, Kenya (1987)
Study designa
– Cross-sectional survey
of randomly selected
households (n = 6453
households; 28,771
individuals) in poor urban
neighborhoods
– Descriptive analysis
– Two national
cross-sectional surveys of
nationally-representative
samples (n = 14,000 and
17,000)
– Data compared via
paired t-tests at two time
periods
– Qualitative interviews
(n = 19) with female
farmers; observation and
informal discussions
– Reported on 2 studies
with separate structured
questionnaires with
randomly selected
households from general
population (n = 600 and
344)
– Descriptive
comparison of poor and
non-poor households
– Second study included
in-depth interviews
(n = 30) with subset of full
sample
– Cross-sectional survey
of farmers (n = 397
females and 221 males)
using spatial sampling
frame
– Descriptive analysis
Key results related to food security
 22% of participants grew some of their own
food, though percentages varied widely by
country
 11% and 10% reported dependency on field
crops or garden plots for food, respectively
 3% of households derived income from UA in
the month prior to the survey, though
percentages varied widely by country
 77% of households practicing UA were food
insecure
 39% of participants practiced UA for home
consumption in 1990, 40% in 1995
 UA contributed little to income (3% in 1990,
4% in 1995)
 Following drought and economic shocks,
proportion of households practicing UA
increased, as did consumption of UA produce as a
proportion of total monthly income
 Reasons for practicing UA included
diminishing food subsidies, high food prices,
declining living standards, meager incomes,
widespread unemployment, and to help
maintain gift-based alliances
 Non-poor households more commonly
involved in UA
 Non-poor households more likely to grow
staple crops and keep large animals; poor
households more likely to grow vegetables
 Poor households more likely to practice UA
as a full-time occupation
 UA considered an income source by 14% of
poor and 5% of non-poor households
 UA a major food source for 35% of poor
households and 23% of non-poor households
 55% of women cultivators used entire crop
for family subsistence; 45% sold/exchanged some
portion; 12% sold more than half the crop yield
 Motivations to practice UA included averting
hunger (50%) and saving money on food
purchasing (14%)
 UA produce estimated to save 7–14 USD per
month for the average poor family; modest
income earned via UA
 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Appendix A (continued)
Reference Setting (study period) Study designa
Gallaher et al. Kibera slum, Nairobi, Kenya – Cross-sectional survey
(2013) (2010–2011) of households (n = 306)
selected from the general
population through
stratified random
sampling
– Comparisons made
using t-tests between
farming and non-farming
households
– Interviews (n = 17)
with randomly selected
individuals
Gbadegesin (1991) Ibadan, Nigeria (1989) – Cross-sectional survey
of farmers (n = 800) in five
settlements selected
through random sampling
– Descriptive analysis
Gockowski et al. Yaounde, Cameroon (1998) – Structured interviews
(2003) with producers of
traditional leafy
vegetables (TLVs) (n = 50)
and randomly selected
households (n = 150)
– Expenditure model
used to estimate demand
for TLVs
Hillbruner and Dinajpur, Bangladesh (2002– – Three-round
Egan (2008) 2003) household survey of
randomly selected
households (n = 482 for
1446 observations) in
low-income communities
– Paired t-tests and
fixed effects models
captured patterns related
to seasonality
Hovorka (2006) Harare, Zimbabwe (1996) – ‘‘Field research’’
among low-income
women in Harare
Gaborone, Botswana (2000– – Interviews with
2001) women of varying income
levels in Gaborone
141
Key results related to food security
 No significant difference in overall diet
diversity between farming and non-farming
households, though farmers reported consuming
more leafy greens and fruit; non-farmers
consumed more seafood
 Farming households reported consuming a
greater diversity of vegetables than non-farming
households
 Farmers reported that consuming food from
sack gardens saved money to purchase other
types of foods (87%) and provided extra food
(88%)
 No significant difference between number of
farming and non-farming households that
reported food insecurity coping mechanisms
over previous 12 months, except fewer farmers
reported reducing number of meals consumed
 Sack gardening provided a perceived sense of
food security in times of need
 70% of participants were low-income earners
and identified financial factors as reasons for
farming (i.e., minimize expenses on food,
supplement family’s income, cannot afford food
from market)
 67% of participants practiced UA for
subsistence, 33% sold part of the produce
 About half of those who did not sell produce
indicated they grew too little to sell (after
meeting family consumption needs)
 Estimated returns from intensive UA
production of TLVs was slightly greater than
formal sector minimum wage
 53% of poor households reported consuming
TLV’s from home gardens (accounting for 27% of
the total TLV consumption) Among all study
households, 10% of total TLVs consumed were
produced at home
 UA (cultivation of fruits/vegetables and
livestock raising) significantly more common
during monsoon season when food security
lower
 UA not associated with food security (did not
mitigate occurrence of food insecurity) after
controlling for other factors
 Author suggests that UA a key survival
strategy for low-income women in Harare
 In Gaborone, some women used UA as a
survival strategy as well as means of income
generation to also change economic and social
circumstances
(continued on next page)
142 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Appendix A (continued)
Reference Setting (study period) Study designa
Kutiwa et al. (2010) Harare, Zimbabwe (2008) – Survey of randomly
selected farming
households (n = 59) from
low-income residential
areas
– T-tests and regression
analysis assessed factors
related to diet diversity
– Case studies, field
observations, and key
informant interviews
Lawal and Aliu Lagos, Nigeria (2010) – Cross sectional survey
(2012) of farmers (n = 202)
selected through quota
sampling
– Comparison of four
‘‘suburb areas’’ using
chi-square tests
Lynch et al. (2013) Freetown, Sierra Leone (2010) – Cross-sectional survey
of farmers (n = 340)
– Interviews and
mapping conducted in
59 UA sites and 17 major
market sites
– Descriptive analysis
Maxwell and Zziwa Kampala, Uganda (1988–1989) – Cross-sectional survey
(1993) (n = 150) of farming
households recruited in
both residential (n = 98)
and non-residential areas
(n = 52) through a
combination of sampling
strategies
– Descriptive analysis
– Semi-structured
interviews with key
stakeholders
Maxwell (1995) Kampala, Uganda (1992–1993) – Two-round survey
(n = 360) of households
recruited through
multi-stage random
sampling
– Regression analysis of
factors affecting
engagement in UA
– Comparative
household case studies;
focus groups
Memon and Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, – Survey of households
Lee-Smith Kakamega, Isiolo, and Kitui, (n = 1,576) selected
(1993) Kenya (1985) through stratified random
sampling
Key results related to food security
 Farming households consumed less maize
(main staple crop) than recommended by
country guidelines
 63% of households produced food sufficient
for household consumption for 1–3 months
 66% of households practiced UA for home
consumption; 34% for both sale and
consumption
 Total farm income had no significant effect
on household income
 UA was considered a full-time job by 77% of
participants
 70% reported that their household consumed
some portion of the food produced via UA
 20% of farmers employed in activities other
than UA; of these, 88% employed in the informal
sector
 Across participants, UA was the main source
of income for 65%, extra income for 25%, and food
supplementation for 9%
 A majority of participants (50–90%) produced
food for home consumption
 Only a small proportion of food produced
was sold; some given away
 The need for food most commonly cited
reason for farming followed by need for cash
income
 Engagement in UA associated with longer
residence (time) in Kampala
 A majority (81%) of households engaged in
UA to supplement other food sources; 3%
produced food primarily for commercial
purposes; UA as the foundation of the diet for 6%
of households; 11% engaged in UA out of
economic and/or nutritional necessity
 Incidence of practicing UA highest among
low-income groups, whose primary motivation
was subsistence
 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Appendix A (continued)
Reference Setting (study period) Study designa
– Descriptive analysis
Mireri (2013) Kisumu, Kenya (2005–2006) – Structured
cross-sectional survey of
farming households
(n = 194) selected through
a combination of
sampling strategies
– Descriptive analysis
– Field observation and
one focus group
Mkwambisi et al. Lilongwe and Blantyre, Malawi – Cross-sectional survey
(2011) (2005) of farming households
(n = 330) representing
different income levels
– Comparisons among
farming systems and
demographic groups
using chi-square and
t-tests
– Interviews, focus
groups, and workshops
Mudimu (1996) Harare, Zimbabwe (1995–1996) – Structured
cross-sectional survey of a
non-representative
sample of cultivators
(n = 480)
– Descriptive analysis
Ngome and Foeken Buea, Cameroon (2006–2007) – Cross-sectional survey
(2012) of gardeners (n = 200)
recruited through
snowball sampling
– Comparisons between
males and females using
descriptive analysis,
chi-square tests, and
Mann–Whitney U tests
Okezie et al. (2008) Uyo, Nigeria (2006) – Two-round structured
survey of households
(n = 85) selected through
stratified and purposive
sampling
– Descriptive analysis
Sanyal (1985) Lusaka, Zambia (1980) – Cross-sectional survey
of randomly selected
low-income households
(n = 250)
143
Key results related to food security
 40% reported they would ‘‘starve’’ if farming
were disallowed
 23% of farmers sold a portion of their produce
 Estimated 25 million kg of crops produced
through UA in one season in Kenya; 1.4 million
head of livestock kept in Kenyan towns
 Mean monthly wages were 30 USD and
23 USD for males and females, respectively;
average monthly wage below the minimum
wage in the municipality (i.e., 74 USD)
 Monthly income from commercial UA was
66 USD
 95% of UA produce consumed by farming
households
 An average of 228 kg/capita of cereal
produced by households, (above the
181 kg/capita recommended by the national
government)
 Male-headed households consumed larger
percentage of food produced than female-headed
households (79% vs. 11%); high-income
households consumed larger proportion than
low-income households (75% vs. 34%)
 Female-headed households derived more
income from UA than male-headed households
 70% of participants indicated that growing
food was chief motivation for UA, followed by
saving money on food (13%) and generating
income (13%)
 Supplementing household food supply
motivation for UA for married (89%) and
unmarried (79%) women; percentages for
married (51%) and unmarried (69%) men lower
but still a majority
 Generating income an important motivation
for married and unmarried men (62% for both),
yet a much more common motivation for
unmarried women than married women (74% vs.
33%)
 Nearly 66% believed their own garden was
the most important source for protein and
calories; though more females considered this to
be true (92% vs. 35%)
 Primary motivations for engaging in UA were
household consumption and generating income;
main goals differed depending on type of farming
system
 On average, UA responsible for about 32% of
annual household income (range: 8–73%)
 Plot gardens and rainy-season gardens
cultivated by 40% and 25% of families,
respectively; 60% cultivated one or both types;
19% cultivated both
(continued on next page)
144 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Appendix A (continued)
Reference Setting (study period) Study designa
– Descriptive analysis
Simatele and Binns Lusaka, Zambia (2004–2006) – Cross-sectional survey
(2008) of farming households
(n = 180) in three areas of
Lusaka selected through a
combination of random
and stratified sampling
– Descriptive analysis
– Interviews, focus
groups, and participant
observation
Smith and Tevera Harare, Zimbabwe (1995) – Cross-sectional survey
(1997) of food producers
(n = 390)
– Nine locations
selected based on
environmental and
socioeconomic
characteristics
– Descriptive analysis
Tambwe et al. Lubumbashi, Democratic – Semi-structured
(2011) Republic of the Congo (2004– cross-sectional survey of
2005) households (n = 100)
selected through
purposive and snowball
sampling
– Descriptive analysis
– Non-participant
observation
Tefera (2010) Adama, Ethiopia (2009) – Semi-structured
cross-sectional survey of
households (n = 60)
recruited through
snowball sampling
– Correlation analyses
and regression analysis of
factors affecting dietary
energy/day/person
Key results related to food security
 Top three reasons for starting plot gardens:
vegetables from elsewhere too costly (38%),
households desired to save money and reduce
food-spending (16%), vegetables from elsewhere
not affordable (13%)
 Top three reasons for starting rainy-season
gardens: market prices too high (26%),
households financially unable to purchase
enough food (23%), and households wished to
decrease spending on vegetables and maize
(20%)
 In Chilenje, 65% of vegetable requirements
met for >30% of participants; 18% reported
selling their vegetables
 In Seven Miles, UA was primary source of
food for vast majority of participants; principal
source of employment for 96% of participants
 In Garden Compound, 75% of vegetable
requirements met for >48% of participants during
rainy season (4–6 months)
 41.1% engaged in UA just for subsistence;
13.8% for income generation
 61% and 75% engaged in on-plot and off-plot
cultivation, respectively
 22% of on-plot cultivators sold some produce
 Almost a third of off-plot cultivators sold at
least 60% of produce
 For five of seven crops, at least 70% of
households consumed at least 80% of the crop
 For nearly 25% of food producers,
self-cultivated food comprised at least 60% of
food consumed by household
 Subsistence typically the purpose of smaller
gardens
 Three case studies illustrated varied purposes
of UA: supplementing income and food supply
(75%), averting hunger and food insecurity (20%),
and selling crops commercially (5%)
 43% of household grain requirements met by
UA
 Enough grains produced to meet the energy
needs of 43% of households
 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146 145

Appendix A (continued)

Reference Setting (study period) Study designa
– Field observations,
key informant interviews,
and focus groups
Key results related to food security
 Average calories produced
(2115 kcal/capita/day) exceeded the
recommended amount (2100 kcal/capita/day)
and Ethiopia’s average daily consumption
(1770 kcal/capita/day)

Yeudall et al. Kampala, Uganda (2003) – Cross-sectional survey  Children from farming households consumed
(2007) (n = 296) of randomly significantly higher proportions of
selected farming (n = 235) home-produced foods than children from
and non-farming (n = 61) non-farming households
households
– Nutritional status  Children from livestock-rearing households
indicators (e.g., had significantly higher average dietary diversity
hemoglobin, height, score than children whose households did not
weight) collected from raise livestock
children
– Correlation,  In path analysis, the only significant
chi-square, and regression differences in measures of household food
analyses of associations security and dietary quality were for area of land
between UA participation and number of tropical livestock units
and food security, diet
diversity and nutritional
status
– Path analysis
assessing relationship
between UA and food and
nutrition security

Zezza and Tasciotti Ghana, Madagascar, Malawi,
(2010) Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia,
Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua,
Panama, Albania, Bulgaria
(1995–2004)
a
Unless otherwise noted, study participants were urban producers; study methods, sample population and size, and analysis type included where listed.
– Comparison of
nationally representative
cross-sectional survey
data from the general
population in 15 countries
– Sample sizes ranged
from 1154 to 5852
– Data from the Rural
Income Generating
Activities (RIGA) database
from the World Bank
– Regression analyses of
factors impacting dietary
diversity and calorie
availability
 Percentage of households that participated in
UA ranged from 11% to 70%, but it was greater
than 30% in 11 of 15 countries
 UA was responsible for only a small share of
income (1–27%)
 Subsistence most common motivation for
UA; in 4 of 11 countries was more than a third of
production marketed
 Engagement in UA positively associated with
greater dietary diversity in 10 of 15 countries
using a dietary diversity score and in 11 of 15
using a simple food count
 In 2 of 4 countries for which data on calorie
consumption were obtained, there was a
positive, statistically significant association
between calorie availability and engagement in
UA

References Aubry, C., Ramamonjisoa, J., et al., 2012. Urban agriculture and land use in cities: an
approach with the multi-functionality and sustainability concepts in the case of
Antananarivo (Madagascar). Land Use Policy 29, 429–439.
Adeoti, A.I., Cofie, O., et al., 2012. Gender analysis of the contribution of urban
Ayenew, Y.A., Wurzinger, M., et al., 2011. Socioeconomic characteristics of urban
agriculture to sustainable livelihoods in Accra, Ghana. J. Sustain. Agric. 36 (236–
and peri-urban dairy production systems in the North western Ethiopian
248).
highlands. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 43, 1145–1152.
Adeoti, A.I., Egwudike, O.I., 2003. Determinants of household food security among
Battersby, J., 2013. Hungry cities: a critical review of urban food security research in
urban farmers. Asset Ser. A: Agric. Environ. 3 (3), 99–105.
sub-Saharan African cities. Geogr. Compass 7 (7), 452–463.
Akegbejo-Samsons, Y., 2008. Impact of urban agriculture on water reuse and related
Berti, P.R., Krasevec, J., et al., 2004. A review of the effectiveness of agriculture
activities on the rural population of the coastal settlements of Ondo State,
interventions in improving nutrition outcomes. Public Health Nutr. 7 (5), 599–609.
Nigeria. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 8 (1), 48–62.
Chah, J.M., Onwubuya, E.A., Asadu, A.N., 2010. An assessment of the contribution of
Asomani-Boateng, R., 2002. Urban cultivation in Accra: an examination of the
urban crop agriculture in Nigerian cities: A case study of Enugu Metropolis,
nature, practices, problems, potentials and urban planning implications. Habitat
Enugu State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Food Inform. 11 (3), 233–247.
Int. 26, 591–607.
146 M.N. Poulsen et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 131–146
Cisse, O., Gueye, N.F.D., et al., 2005. Institutional and legal aspects of urban
agriculture in French-speaking West Africa: from marginalization to
legitimization. Environ. Urban. 17 (1), 143–154.
Cohen, M.J., Garrett, J.L., 2010. The food price crisis and urban food (in)security.
Environ. Urban. 22, 467–482.
Crush, J., Hovorka, A., et al., 2011. Food security in Southern African cities: the place
of urban agriculture. Prog. Dev. Stud. 11 (4), 285–305.
Dauchet, L., Amouyel, P., et al., 2006. Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of
coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. J. Nutr. 136 (10),
2588–2593.
Draper, C., Freedman, D., 2010. Review and analysis of the benefits, purposes, and
motivations associated with community gardening in the United States. J.
Commun. Pract. 18 (4), 458–492.
Ellis, F., Sumberg, J., 1998. Food production, urban areas and policy responses.
World Dev. 26 (2), 213–225.
Ersado, L., 2005. Income diversification before and after economic shocks: evidence
from urban and rural Zimbabwe. Dev. S. Afr. 22 (1), 27–45.
FAO, 1999. Issues in Urban Agriculture. <http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/9901sp2.
htm> (spotlight retrieved 11.01.14).
FAO, IFAD, et al., 2014. The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Strengthening the
Enabling Environment for Food Security and Nutrition. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Flynn, K.C., 2001. Urban agriculture in Mwanza, Tanzania. Africa 71, 666–691.
Foeken, D.W.J., Owuor, S.O., 2008. Farming as a livelihood source for the urban poor
of Nakuru, Kenya. Geoforum 39, 1978–1990.
Ford, E.S., Mokdad, A.H., 2001. Fruit and vegetable consumption and diabetes
mellitus incidence among US adults. Prev. Med. 32 (1), 33–39.
Freeman, D.B., 1993. Survival strategy or business training ground? The significance
of urban agriculture for the advancement of women in African cities. Afr. Stud.
Rev. 36 (3), 1–22.
Gallaher, C.M., Kerr, J.M., et al., 2013. Urban agriculture, social capital, and food
security in the Kibera slums of Nairobi, Kenya. Agric. Hum. Values 30, 389–404.
Gbadegesin, A., 1991. Farming in the urban environment of a developing nation – a
case study from Ibadan metropolis in Nigeria. Environmentalist 11 (2),
105–111.
Gerster-Bentaya, M., 2013. Nutrition-sensitive urban agriculture. Food Secur. 5,
723–737.
Gockowski, J., Mbazo’o, J., et al., 2003. African traditional leafy vegetables and the
urban and peri-urban poor. Food Policy 28, 221–235.
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., et al., 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding
9 billion people. Science 327 (5967), 812–818.
Hamilton, A.J., Burry, K., et al., 2014. Give peas a chance? Urban agriculture in
developing countries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 45–73.
Hamm, M.W., Bellows, A.C., 2003. Community food security and nutrition
educators. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 35 (1), 37–43.
He, F.J., Nowson, C.A., et al., 2006. Fruit and vegetable consumption and stroke:
meta-analysis of cohort studies. Lancet 367 (9507), 320–326.
Hillbruner, C., Egan, R., 2008. Seasonally, household food security, and nutritional
status in Dinajpur, Bangladesh. Food Nutr. Bull. 29 (3), 221–231.
Hovorka, A.J., 2006. Urban agriculture: addressing practical and strategic gender
needs. Dev. Pract. 16 (1), 51–61.
Kutiwa, S., Boon, E., et al., 2010. Urban agriculture in low income households of
Harare: an adaptive response to economic crisis. J. Hum. Ecol. 32 (2),
85–96.
Lawal, M.O., Aliu, I.R., 2012. Operational pattern and contribution of urban farming
in an emerging megacity: Evidence from Lagos, Nigeria. BGSS 17, 87–97.
Lee-Smith, D., 2010. Cities feeding people: an update on urban agriculture in
equatorial Africa. Environ. Urban. 22, 483–499.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., et al., 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care
interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6 (7), e1000100.
Lovell, S.T., 2010. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use
planning in the United States. Sustainability 2, 2499–2522.
Lynch, K., Maconachie, R., et al., 2013. Meeting the urban challenge? Urban
agriculture and food security in post-conflict Freetown, Sierra Leone. Appl.
Geogr. 36, 31–39.
Maxwell, D., 1995. Alternative food security strategy: a household analysis of urban
agriculture in Kampala. World Dev. 23 (10), 1669–1681.
Maxwell, D., 2001. The Importance of Urban Agriculture to Food and Nutrition. ETC-
RUAF, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Maxwell, D., Caldwell, R., et al., 2008. Measuring food insecurity: can an indicator
based on localized coping behaviors be used to compare across contexts? Food
Policy 33, 533–540.
Maxwell, D., Zziwa, S., 1993. Urban agriculture in Kampala: indigenous adaptive
response to the economic crisis. Ecol. Food Nutr. 29 (2), 91–109.
Memon, P.A., Lee-Smith, D., 1993. Urban agriculture in Kenya. Can. J. Afr. Stud. 27
(1), 25–42.
Mireri, P.C., 2013. Assessment of the contribution of urban agriculture to
employment, income and food security in Kenya: a case of Kisumu
municipality. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8 (23), 2884–2896.
Mkwambisi, D.D., Fraser, E.D.G., et al., 2011. Urban agriculture and poverty
reduction: evaluating how food production in cities contributes to food
security, employment and income in Malawi. J. Int. Dev. 23, 181–203.
Mudimu, G.D., 1996. Urban agricultural activities and women’s strategies in
sustaining family livelihoods in Harare, Zimbabwe. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 17
(2), 179–194.
Nel, E., Hampwaye, G., et al., 2009. Institutional Response to Decentralization, Urban
Poverty, Food Shortages and Urban Agriculture. GDN Working Paper Series,
Global Development Network.
Ngome, I., Foeken, D., 2012. ‘‘My garden is a great help’’: gender and urban
gardening in Buea, Cameroon. GeoJournal 77, 103–118.
Okezie, C.A., Inyang, N.U., et al., 2008. Urban agriculture as a strategy for improving
food security in Uyo metropolis of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. J. Food Technol. 6
(3), 110–113.
Orsini, F., Kahane, R., et al., 2013. Urban agriculture in the developing world: a
review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 695–720.
Ruel, M.T., Garrett, J.L., et al., 1998. Urban Challenges to Food and Nutrition Security:
A Review of Food Security, Health, and Caregiving in the Cities. International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Saldivar-Tanaka, L., Krasny, M., 2004. Culturing community development,
neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: the case of Latino
community gardens in New York City. Agric. Hum. Values 21, 399–412.
Sanyal, B., 1985. Urban agriculture: who cultivates and why? Food Nutr. Bull. 1 (3),
15–24.
Simatele, D.M., Binns, T., 2008. Motivation and marginalization in African urban
agriculture: the case of Lusaka, Zambia. Urban Forum 19, 1–21.
Smith, D., Tevera, D., 1997. Socio-economic context for the householder of urban
agriculture in Harare, Zimbabwe. Geogr. J. Zimbabwe 28, 25–38.
Tambwe, N., Rudolph, M., et al., 2011. ‘‘Instead of begging, I farm to feed my
children’’: urban agriculture – an alternative to copper and cobalt in
Lubumbashi. Africa 81 (3), 391–412.
Tefera, M.M., 2010. Food security attainment role of urban agriculture: a case study
from Adama Town, Central Ethiopia. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 12 (3), 223–249.
Teig, E., Amulya, J., et al., 2009. Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado:
strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health
Place 15 (4), 1115–1122.
The World Bank, 2014. 3.12 World Bank Indicators: Urbanization. <http://
wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.12> (retrieved 07.12.14).
Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., et al., 2007. Growing urban health: community gardening
in South-East Toronto. Health Promot. Int. 22 (2), 92–101.
Warren, E., Hawkesworth, S., et al., 2015. Investigating the association between
urban agriculture and food security, dietary diversity, and nutritional status: a
systematic literature review. Food Policy 53, 54–66.
Webb, N.L., 2011. When is enough, enough? Advocacy, evidence and criticism in the
field of urban agriculture in South Africa. Dev. S. Afr. 28 (2), 195–208.
Winklerprins, A.M.G.A., 2002. House-lot gardens in Santarem, Para, Brazil: linking
rural with urban. Urban Ecosyst. 6, 43–65.
World Bank, 2011. Country and Lending Groups. <http://data.worldbank.org/
about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups> (retrieved 20.10.11).
Yeudall, F., Sebastian, R., et al., 2007. Food and nutritional security of children of
urban farmers in Kampala, Uganda. Food Nutr. Bull. 28 (2), S237–S246.
Zezza, A., Davis, B., et al., 2008. The Impact of Rising Food Prices on the Poor. FAO-
ESA. Working Paper 08-07.
Zezza, A., Tasciotti, L., 2010. Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: empirical
evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy 35 (4), 265–273.