Urban Gardening: Is it really about food security?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, a new movement has been sweeping across agricultural research, theory and practice: urban agriculture. The concept of urban agriculture is wrapped up in two notions: food security and the production of food in the interstices of the urban environment. The apparent goals of this movement are difficult to argue with: creating a stable base of local food production that is safe, sustainable and is a part of the daily life and fabric of urban areas. But as we delve into both the dialogue and practice surrounding this movement, it quickly becomes clear that the movement is much more complex in its motivations than may be immediately apparent. The paper focuses on the communal gardening sector of urban agricultural production. Through an analysis of the dialogue surrounding communal gardening in two case study cities, Vancouver, Canada, and Amsterdam, the Netherlands, the study focuses on the perception and reality of the importance of communal gardening actions and products in the urban system. Community gardens and allotments in each city were identified, and comparative metrics developed for each city. In-person interviews were conducted with gardeners in both cities providing information on the motivations for engaging in the activity of gardening, and site visits were made to a random sample of the gardens and their plots. The results of the analysis indicate that there are a variety of motivations on the part of urban communal gardeners, most of which surpass food security in their importance. To ensure the success of the urban agriculture movement, at least in the communal gardening sector, these should be acknowledged and incorporated in the planning for, and land use policy of, communal gardening activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".