Sign up with Google
flowerpower393
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2021
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Urban food gardens are increasingly common around the world in high-income countries but less so in low-income countries. Access to land with secure tenure and access to a water supply pose problems and the financial returns generated by gardening are typically minimal. The high level of pressure on urban space due tourbanization and housing shortages tends to mean that urban agriculture often takes place on marginal land (de Zeeuw et al., 1999; Drescher, 1999; Windberg, 2001). The very same pressures mean that vacant land in low income countries is typically used to build shacks which can be rented out with greater
proft. For some of these reasons, there has been little policy support for it in South Africa. The guidelines for food security for individuals and communities in the South African context focus on food fortifcation, food transfer programmes such as school feeding programmes and rural home-based gardens and the establishment of gardens attached to clinics and chools. The latter are not only to provide food, but also to have a demonstration effect and wherever possible, income-generating potential (Department of Agriculture, 2002). The limited support for food gardens may also be due to the weak evidence of their impact on nutrition (Karann and Mohamed, 1998; Webb, 2000), although Faber et al. (Faber et al., 2002) report increased vitamin A intake in children as
a result of a home-based food production programme in a rural area of KwaZulu-Natal. Preliminary findings of a survey on urban food security in Johannesburg conducted in 2008 (PUFS, 2009) indicate that urban food gardens play a very minor role in addressing food insecurity among the urban poor in this city—less than 3% of people interviewed in the PUFS survey that they consume food that they themselves have grown. Food production and distribution is almost totally controlled by the formal
economy despite a recent Food Summit in Gauteng calling for communities to produce food for themselves (Gauteng Provincial Government, 2008) and recognition of urban assets in municipal land, existing agricultural skills and community networks (Austin and Visser, 2002). In high-income countries where most of the evidence on community gardens has been gathered, a number of broad health and social benefts are attributed to urban gardens include improved nutrition and greater physical activity (Armstrong, 2000; Twiss et al., 2003; Wakefeld et al., 2007) but principally in relation to the mutual aid and collective nature of the activity (Ferris et al., 2001). Self-worth and empowerment arise from participants’ involvement in the shared act of gardening and other
activities related to the establishment and operation of gardening projects (Glover et al., 2005). Holland (Holland, 2004) suggests that community gardens also act as agents of change:
(i) through the promotion of physical and ecological sustainability by food growing;
(ii) through social stability by communal interaction;
iii) through economic sustainability by use of gardens for training, research and skills development.
Community gardens may be more about community than they are about gardening. They offer places where people can gather, network and identify together as residents of a neighbourhood or community. Kingsley and Townsend (Kingsley and Townsend, 2006) explore the concept of social capital within the context of an urban community garden in order to understand the significance of these kinds of connections. In a study of an Australian urban community garden, they concluded that membership was associated with increased levels of social capital, highlighted by members describing social support, connections and networking, as well as responses which highlighted forms of cooperation, bonding and bridging social capital seen as critical in achieving high
levels of social capital. Similarly, in an American study, Glover (Glover, 2004) found that a community garden could be both a consequence and source of social capital. As a consequence, it was the end product of a persistent network of individuals who formed a garden network committed to its development. As a source of social capital, it strengthened social ties and facilitated further social connections among neighbours, which in some cases led to socializing that extended beyond the garden
and encouraged residents to watch out for one. Hancock (Hancock, 2001, p. 279) suggests that community gardens contribute to
four types of capital: human, natural, economic and social, because they are ‘created and by the community itself and depend
upon a cohesive social network to organize and food garden to improving food security in South Africa in ways that are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable based on the local control and broad participation.
to be continued....
proft. For some of these reasons, there has been little policy support for it in South Africa. The guidelines for food security for individuals and communities in the South African context focus on food fortifcation, food transfer programmes such as school feeding programmes and rural home-based gardens and the establishment of gardens attached to clinics and chools. The latter are not only to provide food, but also to have a demonstration effect and wherever possible, income-generating potential (Department of Agriculture, 2002). The limited support for food gardens may also be due to the weak evidence of their impact on nutrition (Karann and Mohamed, 1998; Webb, 2000), although Faber et al. (Faber et al., 2002) report increased vitamin A intake in children as
a result of a home-based food production programme in a rural area of KwaZulu-Natal. Preliminary findings of a survey on urban food security in Johannesburg conducted in 2008 (PUFS, 2009) indicate that urban food gardens play a very minor role in addressing food insecurity among the urban poor in this city—less than 3% of people interviewed in the PUFS survey that they consume food that they themselves have grown. Food production and distribution is almost totally controlled by the formal
economy despite a recent Food Summit in Gauteng calling for communities to produce food for themselves (Gauteng Provincial Government, 2008) and recognition of urban assets in municipal land, existing agricultural skills and community networks (Austin and Visser, 2002). In high-income countries where most of the evidence on community gardens has been gathered, a number of broad health and social benefts are attributed to urban gardens include improved nutrition and greater physical activity (Armstrong, 2000; Twiss et al., 2003; Wakefeld et al., 2007) but principally in relation to the mutual aid and collective nature of the activity (Ferris et al., 2001). Self-worth and empowerment arise from participants’ involvement in the shared act of gardening and other
activities related to the establishment and operation of gardening projects (Glover et al., 2005). Holland (Holland, 2004) suggests that community gardens also act as agents of change:
(i) through the promotion of physical and ecological sustainability by food growing;
(ii) through social stability by communal interaction;
iii) through economic sustainability by use of gardens for training, research and skills development.
Community gardens may be more about community than they are about gardening. They offer places where people can gather, network and identify together as residents of a neighbourhood or community. Kingsley and Townsend (Kingsley and Townsend, 2006) explore the concept of social capital within the context of an urban community garden in order to understand the significance of these kinds of connections. In a study of an Australian urban community garden, they concluded that membership was associated with increased levels of social capital, highlighted by members describing social support, connections and networking, as well as responses which highlighted forms of cooperation, bonding and bridging social capital seen as critical in achieving high
levels of social capital. Similarly, in an American study, Glover (Glover, 2004) found that a community garden could be both a consequence and source of social capital. As a consequence, it was the end product of a persistent network of individuals who formed a garden network committed to its development. As a source of social capital, it strengthened social ties and facilitated further social connections among neighbours, which in some cases led to socializing that extended beyond the garden
and encouraged residents to watch out for one. Hancock (Hancock, 2001, p. 279) suggests that community gardens contribute to
four types of capital: human, natural, economic and social, because they are ‘created and by the community itself and depend
upon a cohesive social network to organize and food garden to improving food security in South Africa in ways that are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable based on the local control and broad participation.
to be continued....
