Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Many governments in Asia have recently started formulating policies for urban agriculture (UA), despite challenges regarding food safety, land access, and equity. In this paper, we systematically review the literature on the health, economic, social, and political dimensions of UA in South, East, and Southeast Asia. Our review reveals that key motivations and attitudes framing UA initiatives are distinct to this region, with food safety concerns being a stronger motivating force than ecological benefits or social justice. Heightened skepticism of dominant food systems in this region is contributing to new cultural agricultural geographies. An ideological shift is also occurring whereby agriculture is beginning to be perceived of as a more‐than‐rural activity. Nonetheless, we reveal that narrow and often negative perceptions of agriculture in Asia limits the types and extent to which UA occurs. Land access and tenure security are among the greatest barriers to participation in UA. Our review demonstrates that government support for UA has not always been effective, and we outline how capacity building and leveraging local knowledges have been more effective strategies for achieving socio‐ecological benefits through UA than technological innovation. Overall, UA's benefits are context dependent and vary across lines of difference related to ethnicity, gender, class, and age. This review will serve as a guidepost for future research and policies aiming to support sustainable and equitable UA in the region, and possibly beyond.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".