Chandni Singh
(Indian Institute for Human Settlements)
Sheetal Patil
(Azim Premji University)
Nitya Rao
(University of East Anglia)
Format:
Panel
Streams:
Rural & agrarian spaces
Urbanisation
Sessions:
Friday 8 July, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Just Growing Cities? Examining how sustainability and wellbeing implications of urban agriculture are distributed in the Global South.
Panel P38 at conference DSA2022: Just sustainable futures in an urbanising and mobile world.
This panel invites empirical papers examining differential outcomes of urban agriculture on sustainability and human wellbeing, with a focus on Southern cities. The panel will examine how 'just' urban agriculture is and for whom, linking to debates on the effectiveness of nature-based solutions.
Long Abstract:
We are in the urban age. Currently, 56% of the global population lives in cities (UNDESA 2019) and they are engines of growth and employment, producing more than 80% of the global GDP (McKinsey 2019). Alongside this urbanisation, there has been a “geographical decoupling” (Langemeyer et al. 2021:2) of cities from sources of food supply, with urban and peri-urban land use being reoriented for higher-value uses. This reorientation of land use, growing urban populations, and new risks such as climate change and disease outbreaks, has concentrated risks in cities. However, these risks are not experienced uniformly: as cities expand and sustainability solutions are implemented, low-income settlements or particular genders/ethnicities are marginalised in complex and often unclear ways, leading to certain groups being excluded or certain vulnerabilities being exacerbated.
In this context of exacerbating and differential risk, calls for nature-based solutions, identified as vehicles to achieve the triple goals of sustainable development, human well-being, and climate action, have increased (Langemeyer et al. 2021). This panel focusses on urban agriculture (UA) as a key nature-based solution lauded for its potential benefits such as improved dietary diversity, contribution to ecosystem services, improved quality of life, better social cohesion and community empowerment, enabling bottom-up innovation and local solutions to urban sustainability (Maxwell et al. 1999; Ackerman et al. 2014; Padgham et al. 2015; Mntambo 2017; Soga et al. 2017; Azunre et al. 2019; Mancebo & Certoma, 2019; Wendelboe-Nelson et al. 2019; Chalmin-Pui et al. 2021). However, critics also caution against potential trade-offs such as negative health impacts (Patil et al., 2018), exacerbated inequalities along gender or race (Horst et al. 2017; Mancebo & Certoma, 2019), or increased green gentrification and marginalisation of certain activities or peoples (Caruso et al. 2016).
This panel invites papers that critically examine the differential outcomes of urban agriculture in cities of the Global South, with an eye on how different visions of urban agriculture can privilege certain types of sustainability paradigms, or silence particular livelihoods or ways of human-nature interactions in Southern cities. It urges contributors to consider intersectional experiences/outcomes of UA; subjective and relational wellbeing outcomes of UA, and beyond-urban tradeoffs.
Methodology: Panellists will upload pre-recorded presentations of 10 minutes each. Convenors will ask panellists to watch other people’s presentations in advance of the synchronous discussion session(s). The convenors will also share in advance key questions emerging from the recorded presentations which will be prompts for the synchronous discussion. The convenors will start the synchronous session outlining these questions. Then, each presenter will give a 2-minute pitch summarising their key argument and another 2 minutes in which they address one of the key questions from the convenors. After this, the discussion (20 minutes) will be open to the audience with convenors’ moderation.
Based on 112 in-depth interviews within the middle- and low-income settlements in Bengaluru and Pune, we would like to highlight how they have different visions of urban agriculture, in terms of practice, motivations, barriers and most importantly outcomes.
Paper long abstract:
As Indian cities undergo rapid urbanisation, they are presented with complex challenges of inadequate infrastructure, housing congestion, hunger, malnutrition, pollution, poverty, and growing inequality. Urban agriculture (UA) has been envisioned to address multiple social, economic, and environmental challenges. Urban agriculture has the potential to achieve triple goals of climate action, human wellbeing and sustainable development. However, scant attention is paid to the possibility of differential outcomes of the practice in different sections of the society, particularly middle-income and low-income settlements, that could exacerbate inequality or lead to deleterious and sometimes unintended social effects. To expand this understanding, we conducted 51 and 61 in-depth interviews within the middle- and low-income settlements respectively in the fast-growing Indian cities of Bengaluru and Pune. The results clearly highlight that different income groups hold different visions of urban agriculture, in terms of practice, motivation, barriers and outcomes. Lack of adequate space, time and expertise impede growing activities within middle-income settlements. However, within low-income settlements only lack of 'access' to space emerged as the biggest challenge for growing, highlighting inequalities in terms of land availability and access. Similarly, perceptions around health benefits, cultural significance, resource conservation, and social networks also vary significantly. Overall, we acknowledge that UA holds the potential to achieve the desired triple goals through targeted approaches for different income groups. In addition, we argue that acknowledging these differential outcomes will help UA escape its marginality and contribute to a better reshaping of urban agro-food systems.
Kerala, a South Indian state has taken crucial steps to promote urban agriculture including home gardening as a means of achieving self-sufficient vegetable production. By analysing the policy documents, this study explores the sustainability potential and inclusivity of these interventions.
Paper long abstract:
Urban agriculture is getting traction as Nature-based Solutions to address multitude of socio-environmental and economic challenges related to sustainability. However, the presence of urban agriculture always doesn't guarantee sustainability outcomes (Pascucci 2020). The specific context and the kind of practices determine the sustainability potential of urban agriculture and who gets its benefits. In India, there is a class difference in the involvement of urban agriculture practice. While there are many economically weaker sections of migrant farmers involved in agrochemical-based intensive commercial urban and peri-urban agriculture (Cook et. al. 2014), middle- and upper-class populations are focused on organic and agroecological production on the rooftops (Frazier 2018), backyards, and privately allotted commercial spaces. As urban agriculture is increasingly gaining government attention, it is pertinent to understand which sections of the society are benefited and who is left out in the process. In this context, this study looks into the inclusivity of government interventions in Kerala to promote urban home gardening and its sustainability potential. The study is based on secondary literature including policy documents, other government documents, and newspaper reports. Though enhanced local vegetable production was the driving force behind government promotion of urban home gardens in Kerala, much of these interventions focus on enhancing circularity, resilience, and sustainability. The subsidy support enables people to start urban home gardening with very little investment, as low as USD7. Yet, more attention needs to be given to extending the benefits of technological support to the economically weaker sections of society.
Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality. Log in
Sheetal Patil (Azim Premji University)
Nitya Rao (University of East Anglia)
Short Abstract:
This panel invites empirical papers examining differential outcomes of urban agriculture on sustainability and human wellbeing, with a focus on Southern cities. The panel will examine how 'just' urban agriculture is and for whom, linking to debates on the effectiveness of nature-based solutions.
Long Abstract:
We are in the urban age. Currently, 56% of the global population lives in cities (UNDESA 2019) and they are engines of growth and employment, producing more than 80% of the global GDP (McKinsey 2019). Alongside this urbanisation, there has been a “geographical decoupling” (Langemeyer et al. 2021:2) of cities from sources of food supply, with urban and peri-urban land use being reoriented for higher-value uses. This reorientation of land use, growing urban populations, and new risks such as climate change and disease outbreaks, has concentrated risks in cities. However, these risks are not experienced uniformly: as cities expand and sustainability solutions are implemented, low-income settlements or particular genders/ethnicities are marginalised in complex and often unclear ways, leading to certain groups being excluded or certain vulnerabilities being exacerbated.
In this context of exacerbating and differential risk, calls for nature-based solutions, identified as vehicles to achieve the triple goals of sustainable development, human well-being, and climate action, have increased (Langemeyer et al. 2021). This panel focusses on urban agriculture (UA) as a key nature-based solution lauded for its potential benefits such as improved dietary diversity, contribution to ecosystem services, improved quality of life, better social cohesion and community empowerment, enabling bottom-up innovation and local solutions to urban sustainability (Maxwell et al. 1999; Ackerman et al. 2014; Padgham et al. 2015; Mntambo 2017; Soga et al. 2017; Azunre et al. 2019; Mancebo & Certoma, 2019; Wendelboe-Nelson et al. 2019; Chalmin-Pui et al. 2021). However, critics also caution against potential trade-offs such as negative health impacts (Patil et al., 2018), exacerbated inequalities along gender or race (Horst et al. 2017; Mancebo & Certoma, 2019), or increased green gentrification and marginalisation of certain activities or peoples (Caruso et al. 2016).
This panel invites papers that critically examine the differential outcomes of urban agriculture in cities of the Global South, with an eye on how different visions of urban agriculture can privilege certain types of sustainability paradigms, or silence particular livelihoods or ways of human-nature interactions in Southern cities. It urges contributors to consider intersectional experiences/outcomes of UA; subjective and relational wellbeing outcomes of UA, and beyond-urban tradeoffs.
Methodology: Panellists will upload pre-recorded presentations of 10 minutes each. Convenors will ask panellists to watch other people’s presentations in advance of the synchronous discussion session(s). The convenors will also share in advance key questions emerging from the recorded presentations which will be prompts for the synchronous discussion. The convenors will start the synchronous session outlining these questions. Then, each presenter will give a 2-minute pitch summarising their key argument and another 2 minutes in which they address one of the key questions from the convenors. After this, the discussion (20 minutes) will be open to the audience with convenors’ moderation.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 8 July, 2022, -