Urban agriculture has become a common form of urban land use in European cities linked to multiple environmental, social and economic benefits, as well as to diversified forms (from self-production ...allotments to high-tech companies). Social acceptance will determine the development of urban agriculture and specific knowledge on citizens' perception is required in order to set the basis for policy-making and planning. The ecosystem services provided by urban agriculture can be determinant in this process. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the social acceptance and the perceived ecosystem services of urban agriculture in the city of Bologna (Italy), as an example of a Southern European city. In particular, we evaluated the preferences for urban land uses, for different typologies of urban agriculture and for the resulting products, the perceived provision of ecosystem services and the willingness to engage in new initiatives. A survey that investigated these topics (including open questions, closed questions and Likert-scale evaluation) was performed on the citizens of Bologna (n = 380) between October and November 2016. Results showed that urban agriculture is widely accepted by the inhabitants of Bologna, particularly regarding vegetable production. Although intensive farming systems were the least preferred forms to be implemented in Bologna, citizens highly accepted a large variety of urban agriculture goods, with preference for those obtained from plants as compared to animal products. The willingness-to-pay for urban food products was mostly the same as for conventional ones, although the participants recognised the social values, proximity and quality of the former. Socio-cultural ecosystem services were perceived as more valuable than environmental ones. Policy-making recommendations can be extracted from the results to facilitate the development of urban agriculture plans and policies.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Rooftop agriculture (RA) is a building-based form of urban agriculture that includes both protected and nonprotected farming practices, such as rooftop greenhouses as well as open-air rooftop gardens ...and farms. The use of underexploited urban spaces on buildings for farming purposes is considered a useful strategy for targeting global concerns (e.g., the limitations in food security and land access, impacts of climate change or social exclusion). While previous studies have addressed selected RA cases and the general worldwide dissemination of RA, a systematic evaluation integrating the constantly evolving sector and its diversity (both commercial and noncommercial) is currently lacking. Here, we provide an overview of the current status of RA based on a metadata analysis of 185 publicly accessible cases. This paper summarizes the global trends and spatial distribution of RA cases and presents their main features. The results present the global distribution of different RA types over time, their diverging farming purposes and further characteristics (such as farm sizes, building typologies, growing systems, products and reported yields, activities, implementation of resource-efficient practices, or economic and social activities). The results indicate an emphasis on RA cases in North America (44% of the analyzed cases) and show that RA practices are mainly represented by open-air farms and gardens (84%), as the growing sector of rooftop greenhouses is still relatively small. Similarly, commercial cases are scarce, with the majority of RA cases targeting social-educational goals or the improvement of urban living quality. This tendency suggests a range of currently untapped business opportunities that, if developed, may contribute to the evolution of more sustainable and resilient city food systems providing fresh crops from the inner urban fabric. In conclusion, the research showed a rising global interest in RA, although stronger policy intervention is crucial to upscale RA practices to reach decisive environmental, economic and social benefits at the city level.
•Quantitative analysis of the social impacts of urban agriculture.•Well-being benefits are stronger than nutritional impacts.•Motivations and benefits vary across urban agriculture types.•Variations ...in social impacts and participant motivation is a key for planning.
Urban agriculture is an increasingly popular approach to addressing negative social and health effects of cities. Social benefits of urban agriculture include improved health and wellbeing, economic opportunities, social cohesion, and education. However, the extent to which urban agriculture participants are motivated by or experience these impacts has rarely been measured quantitatively, especially across the many different types of urban agriculture. We analyzed survey data from 74 urban agriculture sites in France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States to quantitatively assess the relationships between urban agriculture types, farmers and gardeners’ motivations, and the social impacts of urban agriculture. Through factor analysis, we established valid and reliable measurements of participants’ motivations and impacts. We identified four scales: general wellbeing impacts, nutritional health impacts, economic interests, and socialization motivations. Through multivariate analysis of variance, we document significant differences in motivations and reported impacts across types of urban agriculture. Finally, we conducted a multilevel multivariate analysis to explore the predictors of general wellbeing impacts. Participants with stronger economic interests, stronger socialization motivations, and who are owners or primary operators of their plots would be predicted to report greater general wellbeing impacts of urban agriculture. These results provide data about the impacts of urban agriculture projects that enable urban planners and policymakers to maximize the desired social benefits of urban agriculture.
Innovative forms of green urban architecture aim to combine food, production, and design to produce food on a larger scale in and on buildings in urban areas. It includes rooftop gardens, rooftop ...greenhouses, indoor farms, and other building-related forms (defined as “ZFarming”). This study uses the framework of sustainability to understand the role of ZFarming in future urban food production and to review the major benefits and limitations. The results are based on an analysis of 96 documents published in accessible international resources. The analysis shows that ZFarming has multiple functions and produces a range of non-food and non-market goods that may have positive impacts on the urban setting. It promises environmental benefits resulting from the saving and recycling of resources and reduced food miles. Social advantages include improving community food security, the provision of educational facilities, linking consumers to food production, and serving as a design inspiration. In economic terms it provides potential public benefits and commodity outputs. However, managing ZFarming faces several challenges. For some applications, the required technologies are known but have not been used or combined in that way before; others will need entirely new materials or cultivation techniques. Further critical aspects are the problem of high investment costs, exclusionary effects, and a lack of acceptance. In conclusion, ZFarming is seen as an outside-the-box solution which has some potential in generating win–win scenarios in cities. Nevertheless, ZFarming practices are not in and of themselves sustainable and need to be managed properly.
Considering global trends such as climate change and resource scarcity, a major challenge of future cities will be to reduce urban footprints. Moreover, cities have to become or remain livable for ...their inhabitants and offer social and economic opportunities. Thus, reconnecting food production and cities offers promising potential. The diffusion of urban farming reflects a rising awareness of how food and farming can shape our cities. A growing number of urban farming projects exist in and on urban buildings, including open rooftop farms, rooftop greenhouses and indoor farming. These projects are characterized by the non-use of land or acreage for farming activities. We use the term ‘Zero-Acreage Farming’ (ZFarming) to represent these farms. The objective of this paper is to: (1) illustrate and systemize present practices of ZFarming and (2) discuss specific novelties of ZFarming in the wider context of urban agriculture. We analyzed 73 ZFarms in cities of North America, Asia, Australia and Europe using a set of criteria, and developed a typology of ZFarming, complemented by in-depth interviews with pioneers in rooftop farming in New York. The results illustrate that ZFarming generates innovative practices that may contribute to a sustainable urban agriculture. Besides growing food, it produces a range of non-food and non-market goods. It involves new opportunities for resource efficiency, new farming technologies, specific implementation processes and networks, new patterns of food supply and new urban spaces.
Global challenges such as climate change, increasing urbanization and a lack of transparency of food chains, have led to the development of innovative urban food production approaches, such as ...rooftop greenhouses, vertical farms, indoor farms, aquaponics as well as production sites for edible insects or micro-algae. Those approaches are still at an early stage of development and partly unknown among the public. The aim of our study was to identify the perception of sustainability, social acceptability and ethical aspects of these new approaches and products in urban food production. We conducted 19 qualitative expert interviews and applied qualitative content analysis. Our results revealed that major perceived benefits are educational effects, revaluation of city districts, efficient resource use, exploitation of new protein sources or strengthening of local economies. Major perceived conflicts concern negative side-effects, legal constraints or high investment costs. The extracted acceptance factors deal significantly with the “unknown”. A lack of understanding of the new approaches, uncertainty about their benefits, concerns about health risks, a lack of familiarity with the food products, and ethical doubts about animal welfare represent possible barriers. We conclude that adaptation of the unsuitable regulatory framework, which discourages investors, is an important first step to foster dissemination of the urban food production approaches.
Interest in the adoption of urban agriculture (UA) has grown in recent years. The compatibility of UA with the urban social context, in particular with urban stakeholders' attitudes, is crucial for ...its successful implementation and represents one of the key factors influencing its development. To this end, a literature review on different approaches to analysing stakeholders' and farmers' perceptions of UA is performed. The paper identifies the main approaches to assessing these aspects and designs an integrated framework to support the development of context-tailored analytical approaches for UA drivers' and stakeholder perceptions. The study aims to address and solve potential conflicts between UA practitioners and urban stakeholders and adapt the implementation of UA to contextual factors. This increases the possibility of developing successful UA strategies that meet the challenges currently facing urban food systems.
There is a lack of data on resources used and food produced at urban farms. This hampers attempts to quantify the environmental impacts of urban agriculture or craft policies for sustainable food ...production in cities. To address this gap, we used a citizen science approach to collect data from 72 urban agriculture sites, representing three types of spaces (urban farms, collective gardens, individual gardens), in five countries (France, Germany, Poland, United Kingdom, and United States). We answered three key questions about urban agriculture with this unprecedented dataset: (1) What are its land, water, nutrient, and energy demands? (2) How productive is it relative to conventional agriculture and across types of farms? and (3) What are its contributions to local biodiversity? We found that participant farms used dozens of inputs, most of which were organic (e.g., manure for fertilizers). Farms required on average 71.6 L of irrigation water, 5.5 L of compost, and 0.53 m
2
of land per kilogram of harvested food. Irrigation was lower in individual gardens and higher in sites using drip irrigation. While extremely variable, yields at well-managed urban farms can exceed those of conventional counterparts. Although farm type did not predict yield, our cluster analysis demonstrated that individually managed leisure gardens had lower yields than other farms and gardens. Farms in our sample contributed significantly to local biodiversity, with an average of 20 different crops per farm not including ornamental plants. Aside from clarifying important trends in resource use at urban farms using a robust and open dataset, this study also raises numerous questions about how crop selection and growing practices influence the environmental impacts of growing food in cities. We conclude with a research agenda to tackle these and other pressing questions on resource use at urban farms.
In the recent literature, Alternative Food Networks (AFN) are discussed as a promising approach, at the urban-rural interface, to meeting the challenges of the current agri-food system. ...Consumer-producer collaboration is seen as a characteristic feature in this context. What is lacking, however, are general concepts for describing the topics of consumer-producer interactions (CPI). The present study aims (1) to develop an analytical framework relying on six CPI domains and (2) to apply it to investigate CPI effects on consumers’ learning about and appreciation of agriculture. We conducted 26 guided interviews with consumers and producers of the three most frequent AFN types in Germany: community-supported agriculture (CSA), food coops, and self-harvest gardens. The results show that AFN participation enhances consumers’ learning about food (seasonality, cooking/nutrition, housekeeping aspects) and agricultural production (farmers’ perspectives, cultivation). Our results show that consumer’s learning is influenced by certain CPI domains, and each AFN type can be described by distinctive CPI domains. This led to the conclusion that specific AFN types open up specific learning channels and contents, with consumers learning from producers. AFNs at the urban-rural interface exploit knowledge of rurality.
Aneuploidy is a consequence of chromosomal instability (CIN) that affects prognosis. Gene expression levels associated with aneuploidy provide insight into the molecular mechanisms underlying CIN. ...Based on the gene signature whose expression was consistent with functional aneuploidy, the CIN70 score was established. We observed an association of CIN70 score and survival in 519 HNSCC patients in the TCGA dataset; the 15% patients with the lowest CIN70 score showed better survival (
= 0.11), but association was statistically non-significant. This correlated with the expression of 39 proteins of the major repair complexes. A positive association with survival was observed for MSH2, XRCC1, MRE11A, BRCA1, BRCA2, LIG1, DNA2, POLD1, MCM2, RAD54B, claspin, a negative for ERCC1, all related with replication. We hypothesized that expression of these factors leads to protection of replication through efficient repair and determines survival and resistance to therapy. Protein expression differences in HNSCC cell lines did not correlate with cellular sensitivity after treatment. Rather, it was observed that the stability of the DNA replication fork determined resistance, which was dependent on the ATR/CHK1-mediated S-phase signaling cascade. This suggests that it is not the expression of individual DNA repair proteins that causes therapy resistance, but rather a balanced expression and coordinated activation of corresponding signaling cascades.
PDF
