Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey © 2000 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper The findings and conclusions of this paper are not subject to detailed review and do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. After printing your initial complimentary copy, please do not reproduce this paper in any form without the permission of the authors. Contact the authors directly with all questions or requests for permission. Lincoln Institute Product Code: WP00JK1 Abstract Most people think of farming as an activity occurring almost exclusively on rural land. This report, however, takes a look at cities in the United States—especially those affected more substantially by economic changes and population losses over the past several decades—as a new and unconventional locus for for-market farming ventures. The setting for food growing in these cities is the abundant vacant land left in the wake of people and economic activities moving from central cities to the suburbs. The report investigates the nature and characteristics of for-market city farming, obstacles to such activities, and ways of overcoming these obstacles. It also offers proponents of urban agriculture suggestions to advance the cause of city farming in environments where many are either uninformed of the multiple benefits of entrepreneurial urban agriculture, disinterested, or skeptical about its durability and longer lasting significance. Certain important groups— local, state and federal governments, local foundations, and community development corporations—who could lessen obstacles to entrepreneurial urban agriculture, if they so choose, are also targets for suggestions on ways they could be more proactive in support of city farming. More than 120 people served as informants for this study. Some 70 entrepreneurial urban agriculture projects in United States cities were found. The initiators of these projects are a very diverse group—community garden organizations, community development corporations, neighborhood organizations, inner-city high schools, social service organizations, church-affiliated groups, youth service agencies, farmers with a special interest in in-city food production, university extension services, animal husbandry organizations, homeless agencies, public housing tenants, and private sector businesses. Just as the sponsors of for-market urban agriculture ventures varied, there were differences among the projects across several important dimensions, such as the form of urban agriculture practiced, sources of funding, resource capacities of the responsible organizations, staffing arrangements, scale of operations, types of production techniques used, market outlets, and locations. Detailed case studies of Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia probed the institutional climate for urban agriculture and investigated fifteen for-market urban agriculture projects in these cities. The study found both supporters and skeptics of entrepreneurial urban agriculture. Obstacles to such activities were generated from the interviews conducted. These are discussed under four broad categories—site-related, government-related, procedure- related and perception-related. Among the more prominent obstacles mentioned were site contamination, site vandalism, government and non-profit community development group skepticism, inadequate financing, and staffing problems. Ways of overcoming these obstacles are discussed, premised on the possibility that governments at all levels, local and national philanthropic foundations, and community development corporations can offer stronger support for entrepreneurial urban agriculture. Actions that specific groups could initiate to be more proactive towards the nascent movement of for-market urban agriculture are presented. About the Authors Jerry Kaufman is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania planning program, he has been an active planner for nearly five decades—as a planning practitioner until the early seventies, and since then as a planning educator and researcher. He has taught courses and published articles on topics including the ethics of planning, strategic planning, alternative dispute resolution applications to planning, central city planning issues, and community food system planning. Since 1996, he has been director of the Madison Food System Project at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. He recently co-authored two journal articles with Kami Pothukuchi, Wayne State University, on food system planning issues. This study on for-market city farming bridges his interest in community food systems and older American cities. Contact Information: Professor Department of Urban and Regional Planning University of Wisconsin-Madison 925 Bascom Mall Madison, WI 53706 Phone: 608 262-3769 Fax: 608 262-9307 Email: [email protected] Martin Bailkey is a senior lecturer in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is also a dissertator in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, conducting research on how community organizations gain access to vacant land in United States cities. He is presently serving as co-chair of the Community Food Security Coalition on urban agriculture, and has spoken on urban agriculture at several national conferences. Contact Information: Senior Lecturer Department of Landscape Architecture University of Wisconsin-Madison 1450 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Phone: 608 263-7699/263-7940 Email: [email protected] Contents Section 1: Introduction 1 Section 2: The Study Framework 3 Section 3: The Research Approach 9 Section 4: An Overview of Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture Projects 10 Section 5: The Case Studies 23 Section 6: Obstacles to Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture 54 Section 7: Overcoming Obstacles to Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture 66 Section 8: Conclusions 83 Endnotes 86 Bibliography 91 Appendix A: Current or Planned Inner-city Entrepreneurial Urban 96 Agriculture Projects in the United States and Canada Appendix B: Photographs of Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture 106 Appendix C: Project Informants 116 Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States Section 1: Introduction This study is informed by both vision and reality. Beginning with the perplexing dilemma of what to do about the increasing amount of abandoned land in lower-income sections of many cities in the United States, the vision projects a scene where many of these vacant lots are transformed into working farms—where inner-city residents grow food in the soil, in raised planting beds or in greenhouses, then market their produce at farmer’s markets, to local restaurants, or to city and suburban residents eager for fresh, locally-grown food. Two proponents of city farming sketch a parallel vision with more distinct and vivid images: Shade trees will be partially replaced by an urban orchardry of fruits and nuts. Sunlit walls will become architectural backdrops for espaliered fruits and vine crops. Shrubs, which purify air by removing auto exhaust, lead and zinc will be planted in raised beds between the streets and sidewalks. Community gardens and gardening will increase as participation grows. Agricultural bioshelters will fill vacant lots and ring parks. Floating bioshelters will line harbors and produce their fish, vegetables, flowers and herbs for sale. Old warehouses and unused factories will be converted into ecologically inspired agricultural enterprises. Fish, poultry, mushrooms, greens, vegetables, and flowers will be grown in linked and integrated cycles. Rooftops will utilize bioshelter concepts for market gardens all year. (Todd and Tukel 1999) Do such visions convey a plausible future, or are they merely fanciful dreams? Will some American cities add significant levels of food production to their repertoire of functions? Will city farming be recognized as a legitimate enterprise as the early years of the 21st century unfold? Advocates of urban agriculture envision multiple benefits to cities, including: ! reducing the abundant supply of vacant, unproductive urban land under management by local governments; ! improving the public image of troubled neighborhoods; ! increasing the amount of neighborhood green space; ! supplying low-income residents with healthier and more nutritious food; ! developing more pride and self-sufficiency among inner-city residents who grow food for themselves and others; 1 ! revitalizing the poorest neighborhoods by creating food-based employment (particularly for young people), thus bringing more income to residents; ! providing new, non-traditional program activities for community-based non- profit organizations; ! converting the food waste of supermarkets into compost and fertilizer used in food production; ! reducing food transportation through the greater availability of local produce; and ! supporting local and regional food systems in general. Skeptics contend that such scenarios are highly unlikely. They identify the following as impediments to turning such visions into reality: ! inner-city vacant land is too contaminated by past uses to grow food safely, with the cost of cleaning up the land often being prohibitive; ! few funding sources exist for urban agriculture projects initiated by resource- strapped non-profit
Recommended publications
  • Urban Agriculture
    GSDR 2015 Brief Urban Agriculture By Ibrahim Game and Richaela Primus, State University of New York College of Forestry and Environmental Science Related Sustainable Development Goals Goal 01 End poverty in all its forms everywhere (1.1, 1.4, 1.5 ) Goal 02 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture (2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.c) Goal 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns (12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4,12.5, 12.7, 12.8) Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss (15.9 ) *The views and opinions expressed are the authors’ and do not represent those of the Secretariat of the United Nations. Online publication or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations. Authors can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected]. Introduction Examples of UEA include community gardens, vegetable gardens and rooftop farms, which exist Urban Agriculture (UA) and peri-urban agriculture can worldwide and are playing important roles in the urban be defined as the growing, processing, and distribution food systems. 17 CEA includes any form of agriculture of food and other products through plant cultivation where environmental conditions (such as, light, and seldom raising livestock in and around cities for temperature, humidity, radiation and nutrient cycling) 1 2 feeding local populations. Over the last few years, are controlled in conjunction with urban architecture UA has increased in popularity due to concerns about or green infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture and the Future of Food: the Role of Botanic Gardens Introduction by Ari Novy, Executive Director, U.S
    Agriculture and the Future of Food: The Role of Botanic Gardens Introduction by Ari Novy, Executive Director, U.S. Botanic Garden Ellen Bergfeld, CEO, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America The more than 320 million Americans alive today depend on plants for our food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and other critical resources. Plants are vital in today’s world just as they were in the lives of the founders of this great nation. Modern agriculture is the cornerstone of human survival and has played extremely important roles in economics, power dynamics, land use, and cultures worldwide. Interpreting the story of agriculture and showcasing its techniques and the crops upon which human life is sustained are critical aspects of teaching people about the usefulness of plants to the wellbeing of humankind. Botanical gardens are ideally situated to bring the fascinating story of American agriculture to the public — a critical need given the lack of exposure to agricultural environments for most Americans today and the great challenges that lie ahead in successfully feeding our growing populations. Based on a meeting of the nation’s leading agricultural and botanical educators organized by the U.S. Botanic Garden, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, this document lays out a series of educational narratives that could be utilized by the U.S. Botanic Garden, and other institutions, to connect plants and people through presentation
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Agriculture: Long-Term Strategy Or Impossible Dream? Lessons from Prospect Farm in Brooklyn, New York
    public health 129 (2015) 336e341 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Public Health journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/puhe Original Research Urban agriculture: long-term strategy or impossible dream? Lessons from Prospect Farm in Brooklyn, New York * T. Angotti a,b, a Urban Affairs & Planning at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA b Prospect Farm in Brooklyn, New York, USA article info abstract Article history: Proponents of urban agriculture have identified its potential to improve health and the Available online 25 February 2015 environment but in New York City and other densely developed and populated urban areas, it faces huge challenges because of the shortage of space, cost of land, and the lack Keywords: of contemporary local food production. However, large portions of the city and metro- Urban agriculture politan region do have open land and a history of agricultural production in the not-too- Land use policy distant past. Local food movements and concerns about food security have sparked a Community development growing interest in urban farming. Policies in other sectors to address diet-related ill- Food safety nesses, environmental quality and climate change may also provide opportunities to Climate change expand urban farming. Nevertheless, for any major advances in urban agriculture, sig- nificant changes in local and regional land use policies are needed. These do not appear to be forthcoming any time soon unless food movements amplify their voices in local and national food policy. Based on his experiences as founder of a small farm in Brooklyn, New York and his engagement with local food movements, the author analyzes obstacles and opportunities for expanding urban agriculture in New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharecropping in the US South.∗
    Turnover or Cash? Sharecropping in the US South.∗ Guilherme de Oliveira University of Amsterdam February 4, 2017 Abstract Between 1880 and 1940, US post offices alleviated the isolation of the Southern countryside by posting information about jobs in the growing industrial sector. Hence, post offices enhanced the outside options of employees in a time employers in the farm- ing sector used sharecropping - a contract where employers paid employees with a share of the harvested crop - to avoid labor turnover costs. This paper finds that a new post office in a county decreased sharecropping, which is evidence that sharecropping mostly resulted from the lack of outside options for employees. This is an innovative result in the share contract literature, usually more concerned about sector-level reasons such as labor turnover than about outside options. Furthermore, new light is shed on the current use of sharecropping and other share contracts such as franchising. Since share- cropping and franchising are a form of entrepreneurship, this paper suggests a reason for the negative relation between GDP per capita and entrepreneurship. Keywords: Share Contracts; Turnover; Outside Option. JEL classification: J41; J43; N30; N50. ∗I would like to thank Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci and Carmine Guerriero for their invaluable contribution as my supervisors. I am especially grateful for the thorough comments by Torsten Jochem and Mehmet Kutluay, and to the input given by the participants at 2016 Conference of the European Law & Economics Association, 2016 Congress of the European Economic Association, 2016 Conference of the Spanish Law & Economics Association, 2016 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies in Europe, the 2015 Ronald Coase Institute Workshop - Tel Aviv, the brownbag seminar of the Finance Group at the University of Amsterdam, and at the Tinbergen Institute PhD seminar.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Tenure Insecurity Constrains Cropping System Investment in the Jordan Valley of the West Bank
    sustainability Article Land Tenure Insecurity Constrains Cropping System Investment in the Jordan Valley of the West Bank Mark E. Caulfield 1,2,* , James Hammond 2 , Steven J. Fonte 1 and Mark van Wijk 2 1 Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, USA; [email protected] 2 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Livestock Systems and the Environment, Nairobi 00100, Kenya; [email protected] (J.H.); [email protected] (M.v.W.) * Correspondence: markcaulfi[email protected]; Tel.: +212-(0)-6-39-59-89-18 Received: 17 July 2020; Accepted: 8 August 2020; Published: 13 August 2020 Abstract: The annual income of small-scale farmers in the Jordan Valley, West Bank, Palestine remains persistently low compared to other sectors. The objective of this study was therefore to explore some of the main barriers to reducing poverty and increasing farm income in the region. A “Rural Household Multi-Indicator Survey” (RHoMIS) was conducted with 248 farmers in the three governorates of the Jordan Valley. The results of the survey were verified in a series of stakeholder interviews and participatory workshops where farmers and stakeholders provided detailed insight with regard to the relationships between land tenure status, farm management, and poverty. The analyses of the data revealed that differences in cropping system were significantly associated with land tenure status, such that rented land displayed a greater proportion of open field cropping, while owned land and sharecropping tenure status displayed greater proportions of production systems that require greater initial investment (i.e., perennial and greenhouse).
    [Show full text]
  • Slavery, Sharecropping, and Sexual Inequality
    University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO Sociology Faculty Publications Department of Anthropology and Sociology Summer 1989 Slavery, Sharecropping, and Sexual Inequality Susan A. Mann University of New Orleans, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/soc_facpubs Part of the Gender and Sexuality Commons, Inequality and Stratification Commons, and the Race and Ethnicity Commons Recommended Citation Mann, Susan A. 1989. "Slavery, Sharecropping, and Sexual Inequality." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 14, no. 4: 774-798. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at ScholarWorks@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Slavery, Sharecropping, and Sexual Inequality Author(s): Susan A. Mann Source: Signs, Vol. 14, No. 4, Common Grounds and Crossroads: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Women's Lives (Summer, 1989), pp. 774-798 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174684 . Accessed: 12/04/2011 15:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices of Circular Food Production and Consumption in Japan and Korea
    Best Practices of Circular Food Production and Consumption in Japan and Korea A Handbook for Local Governments ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ICLEI East Asia would like to acknowledge the support of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Hiroshima City Government, the Sapporo City Government, Professor Ryo Kohsaka, Korea Urban Farming Institute (Dr. Lee Chang Woo), Urban Farmers’ Association (Mr. Kim Jin Deok), Farm 8 (Mr. Kim Sung-Un), Ms. Burcu Tuncer, and Mr. Shu Zhu. ICLEI East Asia special thanks to the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Foundation for the grants support. CREDITS Authors: Yun (Yvonne) Yang, Hee Song Lee, Hyung Lim Suh, Togo Uchida, Yuko Hori Design and layout: Yun (Yvonne) Yang Contributor: Isabelle Ward, Yeajee Kim, Merlin Lao ABOUT ICLEI ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is a global network of more than 2,500 local and regional governments committed to sustainable urban development. Active in 125 countries, we influence sustainability policy and drive local action for low emission, nature-based, equitable, resilient and circular development. Our Members and team of experts work together through peer exchange, partnerships and capacity building to create systemic change for urban sustainability. This publication should be cited as “ICLEI (2021) Best Practices of Circular Food Production and Consumption in Japan and Korea: A Handbook for Local Governments.” Publisher ICLEI East Asia Secretariat 14F, Seoul Global Center Building 38 Jongno, Jongno-gu Seoul 03188 South Korea eastasia.iclei.org tel.: +82-2-3789-0496 e-mail: [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Sharecropping in Alabama During Reconstruction: an Answer to a Problem and a Problem in the Making? (Suggested Grade Level: 10Th Grade Advanced U.S
    Title of Lesson: Sharecropping in Alabama during Reconstruction: An Answer to a Problem and a Problem in the Making? (Suggested grade level: 10th Grade Advanced U.S. History to 1877) This lesson was created as a part of the Alabama History Education Initiative, funded by a generous grant from the Malone Family Foundation in 2009. Author Information: Mary Hubbard, Advanced Placement History Teacher, Retired Alabama History Education Initiative Consultant Background Information: The following links offer background information on Alabama sharecroppers during Reconstruction: • Encyclopedia of Alabama offers an extensive selection of articles and multimedia resources dealing with almost all aspects of Alabama history, geography, culture, and natural environment. Typing the word “sharecropping” into the search window yields 18 results, a mix of articles and some very powerful photographs of Alabama sharecroppers that were taken in the 1930s. The first article gives a solid overview of the history of sharecropping/tenant farming and contains links to the other resources. It includes this relevant statement: “It has been estimated that as late as early 1940s, the average sharecropper family’s income was less than 65 cents a day.” • PBS: The American Experience offers a wealth of resources for teachers. The material related to sharecropping was developed in conjunction with the American Experience series entitled “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War.” Overview of lesson: This lesson is designed to introduce the Reconstruction Period and generate greater student interest in learning about how it both succeeded and failed as a response to conditions in the South at the end of the Civil War. It focuses on the sharecropping/tenant system which developed right after the war ended, and persisted in Alabama well into the 1940s.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivating Farmworker Injustice: the Resurgence of Sharecropping
    Cultivating Farmworker Injustice: The Resurgence of Sharecropping JENNIFER T. MANION* Certain industries in the United States have always relied upon inexpensive, undemanding, and plentiful immigrant workforces. This reliance on outside labor is most notable in the agricultural industry. Indeed, from the southern plantationsfueled by slave labor to the strawberry fields on the West Coast tended by Japanesefarmers, much of the agriculturalwork in this country has been performed by newly--and involuntarily-arrivedpopulations who lack the freedom or ability to seek other means ofsupport. With immigrationfrom other countries, Mexico in particular,on the rise, it is no surprise that many Hispanic immigrants arefinding work in the agriculturalindustry. What is surprisingis that despite the enactment of laws gearedtoward protectingthese workers, they arefinding themselves little better off than their predecessors. The dijffculties that immigrant farmworkers continue to face are due in part to employers' efforts to evade the requirements of protective legislation by labeling their farmworkers as independentcontractors in sharecroppingcontracts. I. INTRODUCTION Lured by the possibility of achieving the independence that they had sought, the Ramirez family of Salinas, California, entered a contract with a local vegetable broker, Veg-a-Mix, that seemed to offer the family a chance to finally "own[ ] [their] own farm and earn[ ] a living from it."' Under the contract, the Ramirez family received a loan from Veg-a-Mix to grow zucchini and in return promised to sell their crops exclusively through the broker.2 After working under these contracts for several years, however, the Ramirez family has nothing to3 show for their hard work except a debt to Veg-a-Mix for approximately $65,000.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Urban Agriculture
    A STUDY ON URBAN AGRICULTURE: RECOMMENDED POLICIES FOR CALIFORNIA by Clarissa Marie Caruso Senior Project City and Regional Planning Department California State University San Luis Obispo 2015 APPROVAL PAGE TITLE: "A Study on Urban Agriculture: Recommended Policies for California" AUTHOR: Clarissa Marie Caruso DATE SUBMITTED: March 18, 2015 Vicente del Rio _________________________ _____________ Senior Project Advisor Hemalata C. Dandekar _________________________ _____________ Department Head Table of Contents Table of Contents Dedication 3 Chapter 1 Introduction 5 Chapter 2 Food Systems and Planning 8 2.1 Definition of Food Systems 8 2.2 History of Food Systems 9 2.3 Food Systems and Planning 12 Chapter 3 Problems with the United States’ Food System 15 3.1 Food Access and Nutrition 15 3.2 Sustainability 17 3.3 Globalization and Specialization 20 Chapter 4 Localized Food Systems and Urban Agriculture 22 4.1 Localized Food Systems in the United States 22 4.2 Definition of Urban Agriculture 25 Chapter 5 The Practice of Urban Agriculture 27 5.1 International Case Study: Havana, Cuba 29 5.2 United States Historical Case Study: Victory Gardens 40 5.3 United States Modern Case Studies 48 Chapter 6 State Actions to Increase Urban Agriculture, California 60 6.1 Current Policy AB 551 Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act 60 6.2 Recommended State Actions to Increase Urban Agriculture 61 Chapter 7 Local Actions to Increase Urban Agriculture, California 66 7.1 Current Urban Agriculture Policies in California Cities / Counties 66 7.2 Recommended City / County Actions to Increase Urban Agriculture 66 Chapter 8 Sample Urban Agriculture Ordinance 72 8.1 Definitions 72 8.2 Use Table 74 8.3 Review and Approval Procedures 74 8.4 Specific Use Standards for Urban Agriculture 78 8.5 Accessory Uses and Structures 81 8.6 Nonconformities 82 Chapter 9 Conclusion 83 References 87 2 Dedicated To Casey Burke for his love and support in writing this Senior Project and To my parents and family for making college possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Land Tenure Systems Affect Sustainable Agricultural
    sustainability Article Does Land Tenure Systems Affect Sustainable Agricultural Development? Nida Akram 1 , Muhammad Waqar Akram 1, Hongshu Wang 1,* and Ayesha Mehmood 2 1 College of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China 2 Institute of knowledge and leadership, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Punjab 54000, Pakistan * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-159-4600-2021 Received: 5 July 2019; Accepted: 17 July 2019; Published: 18 July 2019 Abstract: The current study aims to investigate the agricultural investment differences among three kinds of land lease agreements and their effect on farmers’ decisions regarding sustainable growth in terms of soil conservation and wheat productivity, using cross-sectional data from rural households in Punjab, Pakistan. The “multivariate Tobit model” was used for the empirical analysis because it considers the possible substitution of investment choices and the tenancy status’ endogeneity. Compared to agricultural lands on lease contracts, landowners involved in agribusiness are more likely to invest in measures to improve soil and increase productivity. Moreover, the present study has also identified that the yield per hectare is much higher for landowners than sharecroppers, and thus, the Marshall’s assumption of low efficiency of tenants under sharecroppers is supported. Keywords: land tenure; soil conservation; Investment decision; farm productivity; land use sustainability; agricultural development 1. Introduction The reformation of agricultural land has garnered broad support in many countries. Such reformation depends to a certain extent on the assumption that agrarian land under secured land tenancy status is preferable to other types of land right arrangements [1,2]. Secured land rights ensure permanent retention of farmland, which incentivizes and encourages farmers to invest in sustainable development for long-term benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Agriculture and Access to Food at a Local Level
    >CI:GC6I>DC6A8DC;:G:C8:DC EH=7D?9 7=H?9KBJKH; 6C9<EE: I;9KH?JO )#+C7O(&&- ;6D!>I6AN EH=7D?97=H?9KBJKH;6C9 <EE:7L7?B78?B?JO OFS/2007/1 i ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND FOOD AVAILABILITY TABLE OF CONTENTS ISSUES PAPER: ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND FOOD AVAILABILITY.......................... II I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................3 II. CONTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE TO FOOD AVAILABILITY........................................3 A. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................3 Temperate and irrigated areas...............................................................................................................................4 Arid and semi-arid areas.......................................................................................................................................4 Humid and per-humid areas .................................................................................................................................5 Hills and mountains..............................................................................................................................................6 B. DOES ORGANIC AGRICULTURE USE RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY? .......................................................7 Energy efficiency..................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]