Rooftop gardening complexities in the Global South: Motivations, practices, and politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An increasing number of urban residents in the Global South are turning to rooftop gardening, whether through soil or hydroponics, to cultivate their own vegetables, fruit, and herbs. In Hanoi, Vietnam’s capital, rooftop gardening serves as an important alternative to traditional wet markets and more recently established supermarkets. In this paper, we examine the motivations, practices, and constraints of Hanoi’s rooftop gardeners, along with the level of government support or disapproval for rooftop gardening. Our study is grounded in critical urban geography and urban political ecology and specific debates regarding informal life politics. Our findings reveal that Hanoi’s rooftop gardeners feel confronted by a critical food safety crisis, emphasising their need to access safe, fresh, and affordable produce through rooftop gardening. Simultaneously, they express scepticism about the capacity and willingness of formal political institutions at both the municipal and national levels to address and resolve these concerns. We explore whether Hanoi’s urban rooftop gardeners can be considered to be engaging in a form of everyday life politics and examine the dynamics emerging in this regard. We conclude by offering potential policy recommendations for Global South cities to support urban gardening communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".