University of Hertfordshire

By the same authors

Standard

Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US. / Kirby, Caitlin; Specht, Kathrin ; Fox-Kämper, Runrid; Hawes, Jason; Cohen, Nevin ; Caputo, Silvio; Ilieva, Rositsa; Lelièvre, Agnès ; Poniży, Lidia; Schoen, Victoria; Blythe, Chris.

In: Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 212, 104110, 08.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Kirby, C, Specht, K, Fox-Kämper, R, Hawes, J, Cohen, N, Caputo, S, Ilieva, R, Lelièvre, A, Poniży, L, Schoen, V & Blythe, C 2021, 'Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 212, 104110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104110

APA

Kirby, C., Specht, K., Fox-Kämper, R., Hawes, J., Cohen, N., Caputo, S., Ilieva, R., Lelièvre, A., Poniży, L., Schoen, V., & Blythe, C. (2021). Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US. Landscape and Urban Planning, 212, [104110]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104110

Vancouver

Author

Kirby, Caitlin ; Specht, Kathrin ; Fox-Kämper, Runrid ; Hawes, Jason ; Cohen, Nevin ; Caputo, Silvio ; Ilieva, Rositsa ; Lelièvre, Agnès ; Poniży, Lidia ; Schoen, Victoria ; Blythe, Chris. / Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US. In: Landscape and Urban Planning. 2021 ; Vol. 212.

Bibtex

@article{95e5104f98104f249ad29f2b398733e3,
title = "Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US",
abstract = "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{\textquoteright} motivations, and the social impacts of urban agriculture. Through factor analysis, we established valid and reliable measurements of participants{\textquoteright} 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.",
keywords = "Allotment gardens, Community gardens, Health and wellbeing, Motivations, Urban agriculture, Urban farms",
author = "Caitlin Kirby and Kathrin Specht and Runrid Fox-K{\"a}mper and Jason Hawes and Nevin Cohen and Silvio Caputo and Rositsa Ilieva and Agn{\`e}s Leli{\`e}vre and Lidia Poni{\.z}y and Victoria Schoen and Chris Blythe",
note = "Funding Information: This paper is based on FEW-meter project, funded by ESRC, UK , grant number ES/S002170/2 ; by BMBF: Germany , grant number 01LF1801A ; by ANR: France , grant number ANR-17-SUGI-0001-01 ; by NSF: USA, Belmont Forum 18929627; by NCN: Poland, grant no 2017/25/Z/HS4/03048; and by European Union{\textquoteright}s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (GA No 730254) under the JPI Urban Europe{\textquoteright}s call “SUGI - FWE Nexus”. The German-American Fulbright Commission also provided support for this project. Funding Information: This paper is based on FEW-meter project, funded by ESRC, UK, grant number ES/S002170/2; by BMBF: Germany, grant number 01LF1801A; by ANR: France, grant number ANR-17-SUGI-0001-01; by NSF: USA, Belmont Forum 18929627; by NCN: Poland, grant no 2017/25/Z/HS4/03048; and by European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (GA No 730254) under the JPI Urban Europe's call ?SUGI - FWE Nexus?. The German-American Fulbright Commission also provided support for this project. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104110",
language = "English",
volume = "212",
journal = "Landscape and Urban Planning",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US

AU - Kirby, Caitlin

AU - Specht, Kathrin

AU - Fox-Kämper, Runrid

AU - Hawes, Jason

AU - Cohen, Nevin

AU - Caputo, Silvio

AU - Ilieva, Rositsa

AU - Lelièvre, Agnès

AU - Poniży, Lidia

AU - Schoen, Victoria

AU - Blythe, Chris

N1 - Funding Information: This paper is based on FEW-meter project, funded by ESRC, UK , grant number ES/S002170/2 ; by BMBF: Germany , grant number 01LF1801A ; by ANR: France , grant number ANR-17-SUGI-0001-01 ; by NSF: USA, Belmont Forum 18929627; by NCN: Poland, grant no 2017/25/Z/HS4/03048; and by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (GA No 730254) under the JPI Urban Europe’s call “SUGI - FWE Nexus”. The German-American Fulbright Commission also provided support for this project. Funding Information: This paper is based on FEW-meter project, funded by ESRC, UK, grant number ES/S002170/2; by BMBF: Germany, grant number 01LF1801A; by ANR: France, grant number ANR-17-SUGI-0001-01; by NSF: USA, Belmont Forum 18929627; by NCN: Poland, grant no 2017/25/Z/HS4/03048; and by European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (GA No 730254) under the JPI Urban Europe's call ?SUGI - FWE Nexus?. The German-American Fulbright Commission also provided support for this project. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/8

Y1 - 2021/8

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Allotment gardens

KW - Community gardens

KW - Health and wellbeing

KW - Motivations

KW - Urban agriculture

KW - Urban farms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104657318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104110

DO - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104110

M3 - Article

VL - 212

JO - Landscape and Urban Planning

JF - Landscape and Urban Planning

M1 - 104110

ER -