URBAN Environment, Ecology and the Urban Poor

NIGEL L. WEBB

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate and account for the discrepancy that exists between the ecological benefits attributed to (UA) and those actually arising from its practice. Five types of ecological benefit that impact on the environment and on human populations are observed in the literature:

i. The first is the improvement of soil quality by adopting particular cultivation techniques (Niland 1994) and by recycling waste material found in garbage dumps (Sachs 1985, May and Rogerson 1994, Smit and Nasr 1992 ii. The promotion of self-reliance in the poor urban dwellers by encouraging them to produce their own food (Wade 1981) iii. An emphasis on the gains associated with , and particularly fuelwood (Yeung 1987) and shelter (May and Rogerson 1994) iv. The general environmental improvement associated with noise, clirrtate and groundwater (May and Rogerson 1995) v. A heightened environmental awareness (Niland 1994)

The evaluation of the ecological benefits will be based both on a close analysis of the texts which extol them, as well as an appeal to empirical findings. Intensive fieldwork was undertaken in three urban centres of the Eastern Cape (Port Alfred, Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage) focusing on the practice, experiences and views of people actually involved in UA (Webb 1996). Explanations for the discrepancies between the claimed and actual benefits will be sought at two levels. The first is the relative ease with which social scientists give precedence to principles, paradigms and theory as opposed to relevant data (Ley 1997). The second, following the arguments of Foucault (1972), Ferguson (1990), Escobar (1988; 1992), and Pigg (1992), is to view UA as a discursive field. As such it is an 'apparatus' which constitutes its own reality. 96 URBAN FORUM 9:1, 1998

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS Soil Quality Niland (1994) maintains that one of the major environmental benefits of UA is an inca'ease in soil quality as a result of implementing the trench-bed method of . This approach is also advocated by Hall (1986), Small, (1994) and various NGOs such as World Vision. As suggested by the description, the first step in the application of the method is the digging of a trench 1 metre deep by I metre wide by 2 metres long. The soil that is initially removed from the trench is then replaced in thin layers, alternating with waste material. The resultant bed is said to have improved water retention qualities and fertility levels because of the introduction of . This paper does not raise doubts as to the efficacy of the trench-bed method in raising soil quality. What it does question is the scale at which the practice has been adopted and therefore, the implication that UA is generally the means by which soil quality is improved. For example, fieldwork in the Eastern Cape revealed that the trench-bed method was not practised by a single informant in Port Alfred or Port Rli 7~beth, despite its promotion in both areas (the large size of the holdings on the Uiterthage urban fringe militated against its use there). In addition, Kelly (1992) arrives at a total of 130 people in the Greater Soweto area (population approximately 3,5 million in 1994) who had adopted the practice. The following findings are also instructive:

Food Gardening appears to have played a vital role during the drought period suggesting that it epitomises a life line survival strategy. However, as conditions normalised interest in Food Gardening began to decline and many people resorted back [sic] to using conventional gardening methods. (Daviclson 1990:6)

The depth of the trenches that have to be dug seems to de-motivate prospective and participants. Continuous follow up is needed to encourage and motivate food gardeners. (Ibid:7)

UA is also said to aid soil quality in that biodegradable waste accumulating in dumps and other open urban spaces, will, as a matter of course, be added to the soil (Sachs 1985; May and Rogerson 1994) irrespective of the cultivation method used. The Eastern Cape study (Webb 1996) shows that only 14 per cent of the informants used organic fer~ili~r of any sort. Of those, only three individuals used compost, and a further two dug in residues. There is also little evidence in the literature or in specific localities to suggest that bio- degradable waste is recycled at any meaningful level. Four were observed on plots bounded by 'M' and 'K' Streets in Zwide (Port ~iTabeth) - the highest number per street recorded in the fieldwork. Despite URBAN A GRIC ULTURE 97 this, repeated visits showed 'K' Street to be lined with organic waste originaiing from a contiguous church plot - some of it in refuse bags, the rest simply dumped in the open. The above argument does not suggest that the recycling of appropriate waste for gardening purposes is not occurring. What it does assert is that recycling cannot be claimed to be occurring on the basis of available data. It also casts doubt on the assumption that where gardening takes place, recycling also occurs.

SELF-RELIANCE FOR THE URBAN POOR Wade's (1981) advocacy of UA is aimed at reducing urban dependence on food imports from surrounding rural areas and from further afield. The benefits of a city's self-reliance is assumed to accrue to the urban poor, although no explanation is given as to how this process operates. Rather, a set of broad strategies that would increase urban seLf-sufficiency per se are outlined. Some of these involve the retention of peri-urban land for cultivation purposes, the development of new spaces within the city for UA, and the reversal of the trend by which agriculturalists tend to relinquish food crops for capital- intensive cash cropping. It is simply assumed that the new 'urban agricultural' sites, and the labour-intensive, resource-saving, food-cropping system that are envisaged, will be exploited by the poor. Perhaps the most basic assumption with regard to the urban seLf-reliance advocated by Wade (1981) is that it is a disadvantage to have to transport food. Not only is transportation considered wasteful, but transported crops are presumed to diminish in quality and be sold at higher prices than those that could be produced within the city precincts (WCED 1987; May and Rogerson 1994). The notion of urban seLf-reliance in food seems to stem from conditions in China. Both Skinner (1978) and Bjorklund (1987) assert that the transportation of food from rural to urban areas in China was problematical because of the poor transport system. However, if it is the price of the that is the decisive factor, then proponents of city seLf-reliance have to face the fact that price benefits are often brought about by economies of scale, and large-scale farms, by definition, would be a distance from the city. Examples of low-priced vegetables flooding the Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage fresh-produce markets are common. A particularly memorable incident occurred during the fieldwork (1990-93) involving tomatoes grown by an agri-business operation in the Western Cape. These particular tomatoes were priced at such a level that commercial farmers in the Port Elizabeth- Uitenhage area did not even bother to deliver their crops to the local markets. Mr He., one of the farmers that was affected, stated that he had no option but to plough under his fully matured tomatoes. A more recent example is that of 98 URBAN FORUM 9:1, 1998 the production, transport and sale of cabbages. During the 1997 season these were transported from the Western Cape across to the former Transkei (the eastern extremity of the Eastern Cape) and sold at such a price that farmers in the Komgha district (adjacent to the former Transkei) could not compete (Sternberg 1997). The use of locally-grown produce could have long-term benefits for cultivators operating within the Port Elizabeth and other metropolitan areas. But to promote local produce on the basis of price is misguided - as we have seen, locally grown produce is often more expensive than that derived from further afield. Furthermore, this does little to meet the daily needs of the urban poor, one of which is to feed the household at the lowest cost. The benefits that Sachs (1985) highlights are also applied to the poor. He views these 'urban have-nots' as vulnerable because of the economic problems faced by Third World cities. High operating costs, the pent-up demand for service provision, and burgeoning debt means that little can be done for the low-income group. Sachs suggests that the answer lies within the city itself:

Urban ecosystems are a potential source of real resources, both physical and human, which are sometimes hidden, sometimes poorly utili~-~l or wasted, and which we must learn to use to make the cities more self-reliant by making the most of what they have. (1985:5)

Kitchen gardens, community gardens, parallel food supply systems and garbage recycling are the examples he cites from Latin American cities that have the potential for ameliorating the conditions faced by the poor. While the projects are in existence, and while the poor could benefit from them, no evidence is presented demonstrating that the lot of the poor is indeed improved. The irony behind this type of reasoning is that while the rest of the city population pursues its livelihood in an ecologically wasteful fashion, it is the poor who are required to search for and to adopt an ecologically sound means of making a living.

THE PROVISION OF FUEL AND SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Yeung's (1987) emphasis on urban forestry is based on the approach adopted by the city of Lae in-Papua New Guinea. He states that the city set up a timber mill with aid fax)m national and international development agencies. Off-cuts from the mill, it is claimed, are provided to city dwellers free of charge. His article, however, does not elaborate on the distribution system of the fuelwood and no evidence is given of the extent to which the poor benefit from the URBAN AGRICULTURE 99 scheme. These simply have to be taken on trust. Issues surrounding real and potential air pollution levels as a result of wood fires are not mentioned either. One further example will be given. UA is also considered capable of providing for the shelter requirements of the poor (May and Rogerson 1994). No details are given as to how UA could help meet shelter needs, but the reference must at least include timber for construction purposes and thatching- grass as a roofing material. Such views show a distinct lack of knowledge of conditions with which residents of specific areas have to deal. While the use of natural materials is ecologically desirable, the disadvantages of the materials to those who use them are seldom thought through. Schlyter and Schlyter (1979), in their eight- year study of a squatter settlement in Lusaka, explain that corrugated iron has replaced thatching as a roofing material because thatch requires constant maintenance, harbours vermin, and limits the size of the dwelling and the capacity to extend it. The use of mud bricks also has its disadvantages:

Every fifth house in our housegroups collapsed during the eight- year period, and about the same number were partially damaged. Some houses collapsed several times during the eight years. (Schlyter and Schlyter 1979:117).

The cheapest alternative to mud bricks, at that time, was concrete blocks. The authors point out that, while the local residents view concrete blocks as the only proper material for w~ll.~, the cost of the blocks places them beyond the reach of most residents. The housing in Nkwenkezi (Port Alfred) shows the same type of problem. Fabricius and Minaar (1990) show that 67,7 per cent of the dwellings are constructed of mud. Mud bricks as such, are not used, but the houses are built using the wattle-and-daub method commonly employed in the rural areas of South Africa. The fact that local, renewable resources are used in the process, and that cash can be generated from cutting and selling the saplings (as in the case of Mr Mav.), does little to dampen the large-scale criticism of the method. The residents feel that the traditional housing is inferior, less permanent (see also Fabricius and Minaar 1990:23) and does not provide adequate shelter. In fact, these dwellings are not thought of as houses at aU by some informants. Mr Matt. states, 'There are no houses; people are staying in leaking places.' Similarly, Mr Jau., on reflecting on the poverty of the residents, simply pointed to the fact that 'there are no houses'. Specific criticism against the wattle-and- daub housing is that the wall.~ leak and that they collapse - a fact that can be attested to by the author. So dissatisfied were the residents with the local housing situation that, on hearing that their service payments were not ploughed back into the local township, they initiated a service payment boycott which was operative for the duration of the fieldwork. 100 URBAN FORUM 9:1, 1998

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT A group of articles that also consider UA to benefit the urban environment is that of Rogerson (1993) and May and Rogerson (1994,1995). Rogerson's (1993) article links UA to Douglass's (1989) concern with the need for planners to foster a resource saving and an ecologically sound, sustainable, urban development. However, no clues are given as to how this might take place. May and Rogerson (1994:96) list the following environmental benefits inherent in UA:

Numerous other benefits are given, including environmental ones such as increasing available green space, clearing garbage dumps and recycling household waste, moderating climate, buffering against noise, reducing groundwater pollution, and greater awareness of environmental concerns.

Similar benefits are mentioned in May and Rogerson (1995), but of greater importance are the strong assertions made on behalf of UA. For example, the statement is made that 'planning for urban agriculture is increasingly interwoven into broader initiatives for sustainable urban development" (1995:166). Perhaps the strongest appeal for UA is their declaration - based on Smit and Nasir (1992) - that ecologicaliy sustainable urbanisation is seen as 'inconceivable without urban and peri-urban agriculture' (May and Rogerson 1995:166). Once again, UA is cast in a role that has yet to be established. The conception of UA as the impetus behind environmental-friendly urban development is surprising for two reasons. Firstly, with a few exceptions such as Jordaan (1993) and those that will be discussed below, no disadvantages of UA are ever mooted. It is simply assumed that the practitioners will act in the best interests of the environment - that gardens will replace rubbish dumps, that noise-buffering hedges will be grown, and that household waste will be used to enrich the soil. Even on the drought-prone continent of Africa where water reticulation is a problem in cities such as Lusaka (Jaeger and Huckabay 1986) and Dar es Salaam (Devas and Rakodi 1993), the effect of UA on the environment is considered positive. The second reason that the alleged pro-environment effects of UA are surprising, is that in the three works that explicitly deal with environmental issues (Mazambani 1982; Mosha 1991; Mlozi 1996), all catalogue a variety of problems. Mazambani considers cultivation to oust 'wild communities', to prevent the reafforestation of wooded areas, and to lead to soil erosion on slopes and on river banks. While Mosha's and Mlozi's criticism is levelled against the detrimental effects of keeping livestock within the city, crop production is also said to be a problem because the irrigation of crops exacerbates the current water shortages in all Tanzania's major towns. URBAN AGRICULTURE 101

HEIGHTENED ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS Although closely linked with the previous section, the heightened environ- mental awareness attributed to urban agriculturalists will be treated in its own right. The basic springboard for discussion at this point is the following paragraph:

Food gardeners become more ecologically aware and begin to dean up and beautify unsightly areas. Accumulated rubbish and junk is cleared away to make room for Food Gardens, and biodegradable rubbish is used to improve soil. A sense of pride and achievement results in further efforts to upgrade and improve surroundings. (Niland 1994:2)

An interesting element of the above quote is its universalistic tone - an element also common in the works referred to in the previous section. There is no doubt that the above benefits could be realised, but no indication is given as to the scale at which these activities supposedly take place. In addition, the assumption is that these ecologically beneficial activities take place in a landscape devoid of social, political and natural forces. That there are specific plots whose utilisation is contested, does not enter the discussion. Droughts, floods and pests are absent: only the advantages of cultivation are mentioned in an environment that is consistently enabling. It is in these terms that UA carries its ecological benefits. The lack of observable, ecologically sound practices of the type promoted by the discourse, is reinforced by the views of cultivators in the Eastern Cape (see Table 1).

Table 1. Manifestations of environmental neglect

PLOT CONDITION PERCENTAGE RESPONSE

Generally unkempt 49 Uncultivated 30 No fence 21

Table 1 outlines particular manifestations of neglect associated with the residential plots of the local areas of 63 per cent of the informants. While the finding does indicate some potential for cultivation and its role in enhancing the local environment, cultivation, as such, is not overemphasised in relation to other activities. The fact that cultivation seems to be embedded within a general view of habitat improvement is further emphasised by Tables 2 and 3. 102 URBAN FORUM 9:1, 1998

Table 2. The perceptions of a well-kept plot

PLOT CHARACTERISTICS PERCENTAGE RESPONSE

Yard cleaned and tz~nmed 23 Cultivation of vegetables 22 Flowers grown 19 Lawn 16 Fences, wails and hedges 10 Trees 6 Other 2

TOTAL 98' "Total does not add up to 100 because of rounding

Table 3. A priority list of plot characteristics associated with habitat improvement

IMPORTANT FEATURES PERCENTAGE RESPONSE OF THE URBAN PLOT

Vegetables 37 Trees 22 Flowers 21 Lawn 18 Other 2

TOTAL 100

The raw responses comprised 27 different combinations of one or more of the following seven facets: a yard that is regularly cleaned and ~trimmed, the cultivation of vegetables, the cultivation of flowers, a lawn, a fertile garden, walls and fences, and trees. The large number of combinations resulted in a low percentage response to each one. Nevertheless, the combinations that were important to the informants centred on the first four facets listed in Table 3. The cultivation of vegetables, as a response on its own, was only recorded in one instance. If the facets are treated discretely instead of in combination, both tables show that a yard that is tended, the presence of a lawn and the cultivation of flowers vie with cultivation in what the cultivators perceive to be a well-kept plot or what they perceive to be the most important elements of an urban plot. A further finding in this connection is that only seven of the informants cultivated the area in front of their dwellings. Of the seven, five had to cultivate URBAN AGRICULTURE 103 that area because space for a garden behind the dwelling was non-existent. For the majority of the cultivators, vegetable cultivation in front of the dwelling was considered infra dig. Even Mr Maka., one of the informants with the lowest incomes (R3 839 per annum), said that it was 'impossible to cultivate in front because it does not look smart'. Thus it is not difficult to find examples which deflate the exaggerated role imputed to UA in the literature - an imputation derived hypothetically with little reference to empirical data.

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL DISCREPANCIES An Explanation Having pointed out the discrepancy that exists between the ecological benefits attributed to UAin the literature and those arising from its practice, an attempt will now be made to account for it on two levels. At one level, Ley (1997) highlights a tendency among social scientists to pursue theory at the expense of empirical data. While affirming the role of theory, his criticism revolves around four points. Firstly, theory is often pursued and admired more for its logic and coherence than its ability to explain reality. Secondly, there is the tendency for theory to 'represent a priori deduction, the imposition of more formal abstractions upon the data' (Ley 1997:102). Thirdly, instrumentalism is common - empirical data is introduced into the theory simply as a illustrative device, and fourthly, verification is problematical especially for those theories that espouse deep levels of reality not amenable to empirical verification. While a debate on the appropriate degree of distancing between theory and empirical data is beyond the scope of this paper, Ley's (1997) argument is relevant. In each of the five ecological benefits attributed to UA above, there is a distinct break between the views expressed in the literature and the empirically derived data. The former might all be tenable in terms of abstract ecological principles and frameworks, but to apply them to issues that households face on a daily basis is open to question. Chambers (1986), for example, indicates the large gulf in the thinking between the 'experts' who promote sustainability and the poor whose concern is with the immediate satisfaction of needs and the avoidance of risk. Also inherent in the concept of sustainability is the notion of a long time-horizon which is at variance with the poor household's concern with the present. Furthermore, the whole concept of sustainability is one that has been severely criticised, see Redclift (1987) and Adams (1990). Their criticism is levelled at (among other things) the lack of a coherent, theoretical core to the concept. The result is that it is used as a convenient slogan rather than a clear path to specific action. Being a slogan, it is also said to be a means of heightening an awareness of development debates without an "understanding of their context and 104 URBAN FORUM 9:1, 1998 complexity' (Adams 1990:3). The discrepancy between the ideas expressed in the literature and the findings that emerge from an analysis of cultivation practice can also be explained at a deeper level - that UA has been constituted along certain lines by the development discourse. In other words, UA by being linked closely with notions such as sustainable development, ecodevelopment and resource conservation, is viewed largely in these terms rather than within a more grounded analysis of the practice itself. This process has the advantage of constituting the phenomenon in such a way as to make it congruent with the type of intervention best suited to the discourse. In the case of UA, environmental and ecological benefits are read into the practice because it is in these terms that it is constituted and acted upon. Foucault (1972, 1976, 1977) provides the theoretical backdrop to the argument. Three examples analysed by him in great detail were madness, illness and punishment. In each case, what was said about the phenomena during different eras only made sense in terms of the prevailing discourse. Thus he developed the view that discourse actually structures knowledge about a phenomenon and dictates what can be meaningfully said about it. These Foucaultian ideas have begun to play an important part in attempting to understand development itself - see Watts (1993). One example that will be outlined briefly is that of Ferguson's (1990) analysis of development in Lesotho. By analysing the World Bank's Country Report on Lesotho as well as the documentation linked to the Thaba-Tseka project, Ferguson was able to show that the discourse used by the development institution differed markedly from the academic discourse found in texts by leading Scholars on the country. For example, descriptions of Lesotho by the development fraternity suggested that it was comprised chiefly of peasant farmers who bear little knowledge of the market. Such a characterisation would require the traditional stock of interventions like credit, infrastructure, and more appropriate farming techniques. The academic discourse on Lesotho, by contrast, shows it to be a country with a long contact with the market, in which cross-border migrant labour is almost universal for all adult males, and where agriculture contributes approximately 6 per cent of the GNP. Part of Ferguson's (1990) explanation as to why the World Bank (in this case) perpetuated its particular discourse, is that such a discourse dovetails neatly with the type of intervention that the World Bank is best suited to make. A similar process can be shown to be operative in relation to the environmental and ecological benefits attributed to UA. The continued advocacy of trench-bed gardens despite the apathy of the gardeners towards them, the cas~g of UA as a major consumer of waste in the face of insufficient evidence, and the promotion of self-reliance on questionable grounds, aU point to an adoption of a particular 'ecodevelopment' discourse for both the constitution of UA and the process of aiding it in its development. If UA can be URBAN AGRICULTURE 105 seen in terms of soil quality, the benefit would be that low-cost, environment-. friendly methods of enhancing it are available for dissemination. The only impediment is to persuade the cultivators to adopt them. The recycling of resources is a fundamental tenet of ecodevelopment (Sachs 1979). Given that cities generate large amounts of waste, a portion of which is able to be recycled by UA, examples of appropriate recycling models need to be adopted. In addition, UA has other uses - it could play a major part in general environmental improvements within cities as well as providing a heightened environmental awareness. In these terms, UA ceases to be a practice whereby people cultivate urban land, but takes on the dimension of a large development programme.

CONCLUSION

This paper has attempted to outline and account for the discrepancy between the literature and empirical findings linked to the environmental and ecological benefits of UA. Having done so, it is not calliug for an empiricist approach, it does not necessarily take an anti-development stance nor is it against UA. It simply makes a plea that UA be understood in terms of those who practise it. Such an understanding would necessarily include theory and a specific view of development. It is hoped that it would also generate a discourse more in line with the practice, views and aspirations of the cultivators themselves.

REFERENCES

Adams, W.M. 1990. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. London and New York: Routledge. Bjorklund E.M. 1987. Olericulture and urban development in China. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geographie 78(1):3-15. Chambers, R. 1986. Sustainable Livelihoods, Institute of Development Studies. In Redclift, M., Sustainable Development:Exploring the Contradictions. London and New York: Methuen. Davidson, J. 1990. Results of Food Gardens Urflirnited Field Assessment. Unpublished Report undertaken for the Development Bank of Southern Africa, Halfway House. Devas, N. and Rakodi, C. 1993 Managing Fast Growing Cities: New Approaches to Urban Planning and Management in the Developing World. Harlow: Longman. Dobson, A. 1990. Green Political Thought. London and New York: Routledge. Douglass, M. 1989. The Future of Cities on the Pacific Rim. In Smith, M.P., 106 URBAN FORUM 9:1, 1998

PaciJic Rim Cities in the World Economy: Comparative Urban and Community Research, Vol. 2. New Brunswick: Transaction. Escobar, A. 1988. Power and visibility: Development and the invention and management of the Third World. Cultural Anthropology 3(4):428-43. ~1992. Imagining a post-development era? Critical thought, development and social movements. Social Text 31:20-56. Fabricius, M.P. and Minaar, C.T. 1990. A Socio-Economic Survey of Port Alfred's Black Township. Research Report No.39, Institute for Planning Research, University of Port F.lizabeth. Ferguson, J. 1990. The Anti-politics Machine:Development, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge University Press. Foucault, M. 1972. Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper Colophon. ~1976. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. London: Tavistock. ~1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hall, D. 1986. A Garden of Plenty. Unpublished Booklet issued by the Masibambane Christian Development Centre, Grahamstown. Jaeger, D. and Huckabay, J.D. 1986. Garden City of Lusaka: Urban Agriculture. In Williams, J. (ed.), Lusaka and its Environs. Lusaka: Zambian Geographical Association Handbook Series No. 9, pp.267-77. Jordaan, E 1993. Kom boer by die stad (Come and farm in the city). Muniviro 10(2):12, 13. Kelly, P. 1992. Burying Poverty, or Just Hunger? Urban Agriculture in Soweto. Unpublished Paper, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Ley, D. 1997. Fragmentation, Coherence and Limits to Theory in Human Geography. In Barnes, T. and Gregory, D. (eds), Reading Human Geography: The Poetics and Politics of Inquiry. London: Arnold, pp.98-111. May,J. and Rogerson, C. 1994. How green is your garden. Indicator SA 11(3):89- 96 ~1995. Poverty and sustainable cities in South Africa: The role of urban cultivation. Habitat International 19(2):165-81. Mazambani D. 1982. Peri-urban cultivation within Greater Harare. Zimbabwe Science News 16(6):134-38. Mlozi, M.tLS. 1996. Urban agriculture in Dares Salaam: Its contribution to solving the economic crisis and the damage it does to the environment. Development Southern Africa 13(1):47-65. Mosha, A.C. 1991. Urban farming practices in Tanzania. Rev/ew of Rural and Urban Planning in Southern and Eastern Africa 1:83-92. Nicholls, G.tL, 1994. Durban MOSS: Potential for Market Gardening. Pretoria: Unpublished Conference Proceedings, Urban Open Spaces: Potential for Productive UtiliTation, Feb. URBAN A GRIC ULTURE 107

Niland, J. 1994. The Food Gardens Foundation Project. Pretoria: Unpublished Conference Proceedings, Urban Open Spaces: Potential for Productive Utilization, Feb. Pigg, S.L 1992. Inventing social categories through place: Social represen- tations and development in Nepal. Comparative Studies in Society and History 34:491-513. Reddift, M. 1987. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London and New York: Methuen. Rogerson, C.M. 1993. Urban agriculture in South Africa: Policy issues from the international experience. Development Southern Africa 10(1):33-44. Sachs, I. 1979. Ecodevelopment: A definition. Ambio 8(2/3):113. ~1985. Cultivating the cities. Development Forum Feb.-Mar.:5. Schlyter A. and Schlyter T. 1979. George: The Development of a Squatter Settlement in Lusaka, Zambia. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research: Vol. 2. Skinner, G.W. 1978. Vegetable supply and marketing in Chinese cities. China Quarterly 76:733-93. Small, R. 1994. Khayelitsha Project. Pretoria: Unpublished Conference Proceedings, Urban Open Spaces: Potential for Productive Utilization, Feb. Smit, J. and Nasr, J. 1992. Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: Using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources. Environment and Urbanization 4(2):141-52. Sternberg, E. 1997. Personal communication. Wade I. 1981. Fertile cities. Development Forum Dec.:4-5. Watts, M.J. 1993. Development I: Power, knowledge and discursive practice. Progress in Human Geography 17(2):257-72. Webb, N.L. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Advocacy and Practice. A Discursive Study with particular reference to Three Eastern Cape Centres. PhD thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press. Yeung, Y-M. 1987. Examples of urban agriculture in Asia. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 9(2):14-22. 1988. Agricultural land use in Asian cities. Land Use Policy 5:79-82.