There is a lack of data on resources used and food produced at urban farms. This hampers attempts to quantify the environmental impacts of urban agriculture or craft policies for sustainable food production in cities. To address this gap, we used a citizen science approach to collect data from 72 urban agriculture sites, representing three types of spaces (urban farms, collective gardens, individual gardens), in five countries (France, Germany, Poland, United Kingdom, and United States). We answered three key questions about urban agriculture with this unprecedented dataset: (1) What are its land, water, nutrient, and energy demands? (2) How productive is it relative to conventional agriculture and across types of farms? and (3) What are its contributions to local biodiversity? We found that participant farms used dozens of inputs, most of which were organic (e.g., manure for fertilizers). Farms required on average 71.6 L of irrigation water, 5.5 L of compost, and 0.53 m2 of land per kilogram of harvested food. Irrigation was lower in individual gardens and higher in sites using drip irrigation. While extremely variable, yields at well-managed urban farms can exceed those of conventional counterparts. Although farm type did not predict yield, our cluster analysis demonstrated that individually managed leisure gardens had lower yields than other farms and gardens. Farms in our sample contributed significantly to local biodiversity, with an average of 20 different crops per farm not including ornamental plants. Aside from clarifying important trends in resource use at urban farms using a robust and open dataset, this study also raises numerous questions about how crop selection and growing practices influence the environmental impacts of growing food in cities. We conclude with a research agenda to tackle these and other pressing questions on resource use at urban farms.
- Award ID(s):
- 1739676
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10333141
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Environmental Research Letters
- Volume:
- 16
- Issue:
- 9
- ISSN:
- 1748-9326
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 093002
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
As blue water resources become increasingly scarce with more frequent droughts and overuse, irrigated agriculture faces significant challenges to reduce its water footprint while maintaining high levels of crop production. Building soil health has been touted as an important means of enhancing the resilience of agroecosystems to drought, mainly with a focus in rainfed systems reliant on green water through increases in infiltration and soil water storage. Yet, green water often contributes only a small fraction of the total crop water budget in irrigated agricultural regions. To scope the potential for how soil health management could impact water resources in irrigated systems, we review how soil health affects soil water flows, plant–soil–microbe interactions, and plant water capture and productive use. We assess how these effects could interact with irrigation management to help make green and blue water use more sustainable. We show how soil health management could (1) optimize green water availability (e.g., by increasing infiltration and soil water storage), (2) maximize productive water flows (e.g., by reducing evaporation and supporting crop growth), and (3) reduce blue water withdrawals (e.g., by minimizing the impacts of water stress on crop productivity). Quantifying the potential of soil health to improve water resource management will require research that focuses on outcomes for green and blue water provisioning and crop production under different irrigation and crop management strategies. Such information could be used to improve and parameterize finer scale crop, soil, and hydraulic models, which in turn must be linked with larger scale hydrologic models to address critical water-resources management questions at watershed or regional scales. While integrated soil health-water management strategies have considerable potential to conserve water—especially compared to irrigation technologies that enhance field-level water use efficiency but often increase regional water use—transitions to these strategies will depend on more than technical understanding and must include addressing interrelated structural and institutional barriers. By scoping a range of ways enhancing soil health could improve resilience to water limitations and identifying key research directions, we inform research and policy priorities aimed at adapting irrigated agriculture to an increasingly challenging future.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Most current research on land‐use intensification addresses its potential to either threaten biodiversity or to boost agricultural production. However, little is known about the
simultaneous effects of intensification on biodiversity and yield. To determine the responses of species richness and yield to conventional intensification, we conducted a global meta‐analysis synthesizing 115 studies which collected data for both variables at the same locations. We extracted 449 cases that cover a variety of areas used for agricultural (crops, fodder) and silvicultural (wood) production. We found that, across all production systems and species groups, conventional intensification is successful in increasing yield (grand mean + 20.3%), but it also results in a loss of species richness (−8.9%). However, analysis of sub‐groups revealed inconsistent results. For example, small intensification steps within low intensity systems did not affect yield or species richness. Within high‐intensity systems species losses were non‐significant but yield gains were substantial (+15.2%). Conventional intensification within medium intensity systems revealed the highest yield increase (+84.9%) and showed the largest loss in species richness (−22.9%). Production systems differed in their magnitude of richness response, with insignificant changes in silvicultural systems and substantial losses in crop systems (−21.2%). In addition, this meta‐analysis identifies a lack of studies that collect robust biodiversity (i.e. beyond species richness) and yield data at the same sites and that provide quantitative information on land‐use intensity. Our findings suggest that, in many cases, conventional land‐use intensification drives a trade‐off between species richness and production. However, species richness losses were often not significantly different from zero, suggesting even conventional intensification can result in yield increases without coming at the expense of biodiversity loss. These results should guide future research to close existing research gaps and to understand the circumstances required to achieve such win‐win or win‐no‐harm situations in conventional agriculture. -
Greenhouses conserve land and water while increasing crop production, making them an attractive system for low environmental impact agriculture. Yet, to achieve this goal, there is a need to reduce their large energy demand. Employing semitransparent organic solar cells (OSCs) on greenhouse structures provide an opportunity to offset the greenhouse energy needs while maintaining the lighting needs of the plants. However, the design trade-off involved in optimizing solar power generation and crop productivity to maximize greenhouse economic value is yet to be studied in detail. Here, a functional plant growth model is integrated with a dynamic energy model that includes supplemental lighting to optimize the economics of growing lettuce and tomato. The greenhouse optimization considers 64 different OSC active layers with varying roof coverage for 25 distinct climates providing a global perspective. We find that crop yield is the primary economic driver, and that crop yield can be maintained in OSC-greenhouses across diverse climates. The crop productivity along with the energy produced by the OSCs results in improved net present value of the OSC-greenhouses relative to conventional systems in most climates for both lettuce and tomato. In addition, we find common solar cell active layers that maximize greenhouse economic value resulting in guidelines for scaling up OSC-greenhouse design. Through this model framework, we highlight the opportunity for OSCs in greenhouses, uncover designs and locations that provide the most value, and provide a basis for further development of OSC-greenhouses to achieve a sustainable means of food production.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Notwithstanding popular perception, the environmental impacts of organic agriculture, particularly with respect to pesticide use, are not well established. Fueling the impasse is the general lack of data on comparable organic and conventional agricultural fields. We identify the location of ~9,000 organic fields from 2013 to 2019 using field-level crop and pesticide use data, along with state certification data, for Kern County, CA, one of the US’ most valuable crop producing counties. We parse apart how being organic relative to conventional affects decisions to spray pesticides and, if spraying, how much to spray using both raw and yield gap-adjusted pesticide application rates, based on a global meta-analysis. We show the expected probability of spraying any pesticides is reduced by about 30 percentage points for organic relative to conventional fields, across different metrics of pesticide use including overall weight applied and coarse ecotoxicity metrics. We report little difference, on average, in pesticide use for organic and conventional fields that do spray, though observe substantial crop-specific heterogeneity.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1a39
