Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture

Kate H. Brown; Andrew L. Jameton

Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 21, No. 1. (2000), pp. 20-39.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0197-5897%282000%2921%3A1%3C20%3APHIOUA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K

Journal of Public Health Policy is currently published by Palgrave Macmillan Journals.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. 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. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/pal.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org
Mon Nov 5 17:49:41 2007
 Public Health Implications
of Urban Agriculture
KATE H . B R O W N and A N D R E W L. J A M E T O N

H E idea of urban agriculture may seem counter-

7 intuitive to generations who have grown up in the

IT!
s~x4-J
United States thinking of farming as an exclusively
rural endeavor. However, millions of people world-
wide are dependent on crops and animals raised in
cities. Faced with enormous urban population
growth and economic and political changes that increasingly under-
mine local food distribution systems, many cities around the world
have begun to foster a range of experiments in urban agriculture. A
1996 United Nations report estimates that up to 80% of families in
some Asian cities are involved in agriculture. The report notes that
similarly high rates of participation are also found in Moscow, and in
such African cities as Dar es Salaam, Kinshasa, Kampala, and
Maputo ( I ) .Havana, Cuba has also seen a remarkable shift towards
urban agriculture with the collapse of its major food supplier, the
Soviet Union, and the tightening of the United States' embargo (2).
Although not nearly on the scale of these international examples,
there are numerous urban agricultural endeavors in the United States,
and increasingly health professionals, urban planners, environmental
activists, community organizers, and policy makers are recognizing
the value of urban agriculture for economic development, food secu-
rity, and preservation of green space. A 1991 report estimated that
3 3 % (696,000) of the 2 million farms in the United States are located
within metropolitan areas. These farms produce 3 5 % of all crops and
livestock sales (3). The United Nations document on urban agricul-
ture reported that 25% of urban households in the United States are
involved in gardening, including food gardens and landscaping (4).
Although lawn care remains the most prevalent form of gardening
nationwide, in 1995 nearly 50 million gardeners, many of them in
BROWN & JAMETON - URBAN AGRICULTURE 21

urban areas, grew vegetables. This number marks an increase of 10

million from 1992 ( 5 ) . Urban agriculture in the United States pro-
duces an estimated $38 million worth of food annually (6).
In this article we examine trends in urban agriculture in the United
States with a particular focus on the public health potential and pit-
falls of urban agriculture. We explore the role of urban agriculture for
nutritional health and food security, personal wellness and commu-
nity betterment, and environmental health. And we suggest policy
changes that could favorably advance the potential of urban agricul-
ture for public health benefits in these areas.
URBAN AGRICULTURE

"Urban agriculture" refers to a wide range of agricultural ventures

within city limits. Under this rubric in the United States fall such
diverse efforts as community gardens where typically a lot is divided
among households who tend small plots of land for their own use;
school gardens where gardening on a school lot is incorporated into
the curriculum; and intensive entrepreneurial gardens where vegeta-
bles, herbs, flowers, and animals are raised for wholesale and retail
marketing. Because of existing regulations in the United States, urban
agriculture is mostly limited to gardening endeavors and related
industries; rarely does it include raising and processing livestock or
fish as is often the case internationally.
Some urban agriculture takes place in the United States on a large,
even industrial, scale, while other efforts consist of pocket gardens
tucked into overlooked corners of the city. Urban agriculture also
encompasses backyard, windowsill, and rooftop gardens. Many
urban gardens are located on land that has been vacant or unused
because it is otherwise unattractive for urban development. The typ-
ical pattern of urban sprawl has created an abundance of empty
inner-city lots. Ironically, as new suburban housing and business
developments overtake rural farmlands at the city's periphery, land in
the inner-city becomes available when failed inner-city businesses and
decaying homes are bulldozed. This is the case in the authors' home,
Omaha, Nebraska, for example, where an inner-city area of five
square miles contains over 3,000 vacant lots while many acres of out-
lying farmland are lost annually to new housing and business.
Land for urban gardens is often leased or even loaned free of
charge by a city government or an individual property owner. Of the
22 JOURNAL O F PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY . VOL. 21, NO. I

6,020 community gardens reported in a 1998 national survey, for

example, only 5.3% are owned (131) or in a land trust (187). This
tenuous pattern of land tenancy has created problems for gardeners
when their land is sold by its owners for other purposes (7). Despite
an outpouring of popular concern (8), in 1999 over IOO of the 700
community gardens in New York City were placed at risk of being
sold for new housing or commercial development. Some of these gar-
dens have been in operation for 20 years. Only intensive community
resistance and significant investments by land trusts and individuals
have been able to save these gardens (9).
LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT F O R URBAN AGRICULTURE

The current interest in urban gardening in the United States echoes

earlier trends, notably the Victory Garden movement during World
War 11. Victory Gardens were household vegetable gardens encour-
aged by government and citizens' groups as a way for civilians to
support the war effort. Home-grown vegetables from Victory Gar-
dens helped to stretch household budgets and reduce reliance on
resources that could be otherwise used for the military. Some house-
holds sold their produce and donated the proceeds for war relief. Vic-
tory Gardens were more than a symbolic gesture toward domestic
food security. In 1944,zo million gardeners grew 40% of the nation's
fresh vegetables (10).
Urban gardens again drew the attention of policy makers in the
1970s when large numbers of urbanites, pulled by the new ecology
movement and pushed by inflationary food prices, once more turned
to gardening. For some, gardens signaled a rebirth of concern for
safeguarding the natural environment. Like their counterparts who
settled in rural areas to experiment with "living off the land," many
young urban gardeners saw their efforts as a means of raising con-
sciousness about environmental stewardship. Others looked to urban
gardens as a community organizing tool to combat poverty and pro-
vide a collective response to blighted city neighborhoods. Also,
home-grown produce could offset the cost of purchasing food which,
at that time, was highly inflated.
This ground-swell of interest in gardening as a cost-effective strat-
egy to combat inflation was reflected in a 1975 subcommittee hear-
ing of the House of Representatives. The legislation under discussion
would have authorized the distribution of seeds and plants for use in
BROWN & JAMETON . URBAN AGRICULTURE 23
home gardens. Testifying at the hearing, Representative George
Brown from California cited the 45% increase in the price of food
since 1972 as a significant reason for the government to encourage
some degree of self-sufficiency through home gardens (11).Repre-
sentative Charles Carney from Ohio also spoke in support for what
he termed "inflation gardens" (12). Representative James Burke from
Massachusetts stated that,
The average gardener can produce $240 worth of food for no
more than an outlay of $9. In the past year, home gardeners of
the Washington DC metropolitan area produced over $I million
worth of food that would not otherwise have existed. (13)
Despite Congressman Burke's claim that government support in this
form would not hurt agribusiness, the legislation lacked the backing
of the Department of Agriculture and was defeated under the influ-
ence of a coalition of seed companies and others in agribusiness.
In 1977, however, legislative support for gardening was successful.
Congress allocated $1.5 million for the Urban Gardening Program to
promote community gardens in 6 cities across the country by provid-
ing annual grants of $15o,ooo to $250,000 through the Cooperative
Extension Service. The program was expanded to $3.6 million for 23
cities by 1993. Despite the program's popularity and success, direct
funding for the Urban Gardening Program was discontinued eventu-
ally because of the loss of the program's champions in the House and
its lack of support within the USDA and the Cooperative Extension
Service (14).
Current funding for urban agriculture in the United States comes
from a variety of government, business, and philanthropic sources.
Funds still filter from USDA through the Cooperative Extension for
some urban garderl projects. Funding for urban gardening ventures is
also sometimes available in grants and loans through Health and
Human Services Community Development block grants. Other gar-
dens are funded by entrepreneurs with bank loans and capital. Foun-
dation and private donations largely support the nonprofit commu-
nity agencies that are fostering gardening as a community
development tool. In 1997, the federal government funded the Com-
munity Food Security Act through the USDA. This legislation pro-
vides grants to nonprofit agencies for regional models to enhance
food security in poor communities. Some of the groups supported
through this program have promoted urban gardening as one com-
ponent of a community-wide response to hunger ( I 5).
FOOD SECURITY

The problem of matching food supplies to food needs, especially for

urban populations, has long been a source of social, economic, and
political concern. Archeologists attribute the fall of some ancient
urban civilizations to the simple lack of food. Malthus, a Protestant
minister and social theorist writing in the early days of Europe's
industrial revolution, cautioned his contemporaries of such an even-
tuality. Hunger, he predicted, would always be a destabilizing factor
because, by his calculations, populations tend to grow exponentially,
a rate that easily exceeds the usual linear rate of growth in food pro-
duction.
Are we on the verge of a Malthusian disaster today? Observing that
the number of people living in cities is expected to triple by 2025,
attendees of the Second United Nations Conference on Human Set-
tlement (Habitat 11) asked, "Where will the megatonnage of food
come from to feed some five billion urban people?" (16). There are
good reasons to doubt the long-term viability of the technological
adaptations in farming brought by the "Green Revolution." The
Green Revolution has bought agricultural gains by paying high water
and fertilizer costs, which may be unsustainable. Even greater pro-
ductivity is needed to meet the nutritional needs of burgeoning cities,
but the next generation of technological gains in nutritional produc-
tivity will be much harder to devise. In addition, the sustainability of
our safety nets created to ensure food security is in jeopardy. These
protections can be threatened by war, financial collapse, epidemics,
and migration. Moreover, they are also vulnerable to social and eco-
nomic policies reflecting ideologies that mask social Darwinism
behind the language of "self-reliance" and "trickle-down" econom-
ics (17).
In the United States, hunger is well documented as a major public
health problem. Nuanced discussions of the reliability of various
measures of hunger fail to obscure the fact that many people, includ-
ing millions of children, are hungry. Whether the study is measuring
"food insufficiency" ("an inadequate amount of food intake due to
lack of resources") (18))"food insecurity" (the fear of not having
BROWN & JAMETON - URBAN AGRICULTURE 25

enough to eat), or "hunger," even loosely defined, the statistics are

alarming (19). National surveys in the 1990s report a range from 2.4
million to 5.5 million children under 12 years old who are hungry
each year ( 2 0 4 1 ) . Research based in clinical settings confirms the
validity of these findings. Some studies, such as one conducted in a
hospital pediatric clinic in Minnesota, found even higher rates of
hunger among children. More than 6% of their patients were found
to be hungry and 3 2.7% of their patients were at risk of hunger in the
near future (22). In another hospital, 12% of an adult patient sample
reported they lacked adequate food, and 13 % had gone without eat-
ing an entire day because of lack of food (23). The public health con-
sequences of hunger are obvious. Even in the absence of clinical mal-
nutrition, hunger is associated with increased incidence and virulence
of infectious diseases, school and work absences, fatigue, and prob-
lems with concentration (24).
Increasingly, advocates are recognizing the potential of urban gar-
dening as a significant link in urban food security in the United States.
Many low-income and immigrant urban gardeners already rely on
produce from their gardens to put food on their tables (25).It is likely
that many more people would take up gardening for food if they were
supported with knowledge, tools, and space. A recent unpublished
needs assessment at an Omaha Nebraska Cooperative Extension
Nutrition Education Program indicated that two-thirds of the pro-
gram participants said that they ran out of groceries by the end of the
month. Eighty percent of the participants reported that they would
like a garden in their community where they could grow fresh pro-
duce.
The extent to which urban gardens can impact hunger depends
necessarily on the amount of produce grown. Garden yields vary
according to the availability and condition of land for gardening, the
seed species, weather conditions, the reliability of a water source, the
length of the growing season, and the gardener's skill. Even given
these constraints, researchers have observed that urban gardens can
produce significant yields from small plots of land. One researcher
calculated that under average growing conditions in a I 30-day grow-
ing season, a 10 by 10 meter plot can provide a household's yearly
vegetable needs, including much of the household's nutritional
requirements for vitamins A, C, and B complex and iron (26).
Although typically smaller, household gardens in urban settings in the
United States can measurably supplement dietary intake (27) and
reduce overall household expenditures on food (28).
Urban commercial gardens in the United States characteristically
use intensive methods of agriculture, so their yields are generally 13
times more per acre than rural farms (29). Furthermore, the close
proximity of urban farms to markets saves transportation costs.
Interestingly, however, urban commercial gardens do not always
increase food security, at least directly, for impoverished urban neigh-
borhoods. To maximize their financial margins, urban commercial
growers usually raise specialty crops and flowers, and manufacture
value-added products for sale at top prices to up-scale restaurants,
grocery stores, and farmers' markets. With a ready and eager market
for their products, and given a good climate and business savvy, an
urban farmer in the United States can expect an income of $1,000 to
$ ~ o , o o oand more from an acre of land (30).
Since economic factors are undeniably the single most powerful
predictors for food security, successful urban entrepreneur gardens
could be said to benefit indirectly the nutritional health of a commu-
nity by providing income and employment opportunities for low-
income households and thereby contributing to their ability to pur-
chase a healthy diet. This form of urban agriculture has the advantage
of being a relatively accessible industry, especially for low-income
entrepreneurs. Someone can begin a market garden on a small scale
without a lot of capital or technical skill and expect some return on
his or her investment. As the 1996 United Nations report on Urban
Agriculture states,
. . . an enterprisingfarmer can, over time, improve the inputs,
increase skills and knowledge, enhance the efficiency of produc-
tion and widen the scale of the activity-all with incremental
investments. (3I )
Several youth training programs in the United States are designed
to teach the horticultural and marketing skills needed to take advan-
tage of such opportunities. The most financially successful of such
programs to date is the "Food from the Hood" project in Los Ange-
les (32). There, high school students have raised over a hundred thou-
sand dollars for college scholarships through the sale of their salad
dressing.
BROWN & JAMETON - U R B A N AGRICULTURE 27
Policy Recommendations
These entrepreneurial youth gardening programs and the financial
success of many urban growers could have an important influence on
inner-city economic development and thus, public health. However,
in order for such opportunities to ensure long-term economic alter-
natives to inner-city growers, they will need assistance similar to the
financial supports available to rural farmers, such as crop insurance
and loans, so their businesses can survive agriculture's perennial haz-
ards of market slumps and climate disasters. Additional public and
private funds needed to incubate economic opportunities deriving
from urban entrepreneurial gardens, and related businesses such as
farmers' markets, nurseries, and composting facilities, are also pru-
dent public health investments. Health policy-makers can addition-
ally address policy changes that increase access to certified kitchens
for safe food preparation and expedite market vendors' use of WIC
vouchers and food stamps. Furthermore, food pantries, schools, and
surplus commodity programs can be encouraged to serve healthier
food choices that include locally-grown fresh foods. Public and pri-
vate funding for initiatives like the USDA Food Security program can
create the opportunity for even more comprehensive responses that
link low-income consumers and local produce growers. New eco-
nomic policies may be needed as part of such a comprehensive
approach. For instance, the North Omaha Food Security Policy
Council is currently investigating the practice by some national food
distributors that use purchasing incentives and disincentives to dis-
courage local grocery stores from buying regionally-grown produce.
Public health professionals can also foster increased food security
in ways that are more consistent with their traditional roles. For
example, food safety experts can provide education for gardeners and
consumers about proper handling, preparation, and storage of fresh
foods. They can work with entrepreneurial growers to ensure that
existing health regulations are relevant to small scale operations. And
public health educators can assist consumers with culturally-appro-
priate recipes and information about the health benefits of garden
fresh foods for decreasing the risks of specific diseases.
 PERSONAL WELLNESS A N D C O M M U N I T Y BETTERMENT

In addition to its contribution to food security and nutritional health,

urban agriculture in the United States has reportedly had other posi-
tive effects on individual health and overall community improve-
ment. Horticultural therapists have long recognized the benefits from
physical exercise in gardening. Gardening activities range from fine
motor involvement when cutting flower stems, for instance, to aero-
bic gross motor tasks such as turning a compost pile (33). Also, the
psychological and social benefits of gardens have been well docu-
mented. In a 1995 monograph from the American Community Gar-
dening Association (ACGA), David Malakoff notes that many of
these publications are assembled in a bibliography of over I,ZOO arti-
cles available through the Plant-People Council (34). The Plant-Peo-
ple Council is a coalition of horticulturalists and the horticulture
industry working to promote awareness of plant-human interactions.
The articles in the Council's bibliography document multiple ways
that plants and gardening contribute to an improved quality of life
and overall health. For example, recreational gardening has been
observed to be a way to relax and release stress. Malakoff's literature
review covers numerous studies that document how "simply looking
at a plant can reduce stress, fear, and anger, and lower blood pressure
and muscle tension" (35 ) . As such, gardens and gardening have been
incorporated with good effect in patient care (36) and prison envi-
ronments (37). In the urban landscape, gardens can create respite
from the noise and commotion of city life.
The stress-reducing benefits of gardens in cities can even affect
passersby. This relationship was explored in a study in an impover-
ished neighborhood in Atlanta, Georgia. Community psychologists
studied the ecological relationship between several aspects of the
neighborhood's physical environment such as open dumps, parks,
fenced yards, marked cross walks, trees, and gardens with social
problems such as fires, violent deaths, mental illness, and juvenile
delinquency. The mere presence of vegetable gardens featured
significantly in this research as a positive community influence ( 38).
Other studies have documented the potential of inner-city gardens for
reducing crime. Malakoff's ACGA monograph reviews two unpub-
lished reports, one from Philadelphia (39) and another from San
BROWN & JAMETON - URBAN AGRICULTURE 29
Francisco (40),that observed marked reductions in burglaries, thefts,
and illicit drug dealing in neighborhoods with garden projects.
Urban agriculture has also created opportunities for leadership
development and community organizing and thus has contributed to
communities' "social capital." The political effort to develop and sus-
tain urban gardens and other "greening" activities requires compli-
cated knowledge and skills to navigate government offices, access
public resources, persuade funders, and deal with complex social
relationships. When low-income neighborhoods and market garden-
ers become involved in transforming their urban landscapes and
claiming for themselves a sense of place and pride, urban agriculture
has become a forceful empowerment strategy for community partic-
ipation and social change (41). The ACGA monograph refers to a stu-
dent's unpublished thesis in this regard that observed how,
The pathways to power . . . can be relatively modest. Simply
attending a community meeting on a garden project, for exam-
ple, can introduce residents to non-profit and government offi-
cials they might never have known about-and vice versa. (42)
Policy Recommendations
The public health advantages from community enhancement, stress-
reduction, and beneficial physical activity make a good case for com-
munity-based policies that encourage the sustainability of urban gar-
dens through far-sighted urban planning. For instance, secure land
tenure is needed for community and entrepreneur gardeners in the
urban context. Zoning policies and laws regarding land use, tenancy,
and ownership impact the viability of urban gardens and may need
local adjustment to fit hitherto unanticipated requirements for gar-
dens. Similarly, water rights and fees, as well as the regulated use of
non-potable "gray" water may need modification.
Future public health advantages from urban gardens could be fur-
ther enhanced if gardens were incorporated along with parks and
wildlife corridors in a city's overall plan for "green space." Many
cities are embarking on more or less ambitious plans for such varied
uses, and some even include limiting suburban expansion. It is con-
ceivable that urban planners with a concern for food security and
other public health issues will soon include suburban agriculture in
their planning as well. Many people who move to the suburbs do so
in search of green spaces. As development continues, however, these
spaces are almost invariably enclosed by malls, parking spaces, high-
ways, and similar impervious surfaces. The resulting welter of signs,
traffic, and shops has created some of the ugliest architectural areas
imaginable. If green spaces and opportunities for small farming were
required in suburban planning programs, some of these problems
could be avoided and more food security and economic opportunity
could be provided for suburban and urban populations alike.
Another area for public health policy consideration pertains to
security. Urban gardeners may well contribute to public health
through violence prevention in and around their gardens. However,
it would be helpful to have more a systematic understanding of and
support for the social and economic influences that create and sustain
safe gardens. Local police, citizen patrols, and concerned neighbors
all seem helpful in protecting gardeners from harm and gardens from
theft and vandalism. In some cities, fencing is required. The expendi-
ture of public funds to mobilize these strategic safety measures and to
study their effect should be encouraged as a wise investment in over-
all public health through community-building. Especially if food
problems were to become severe in even harder economic times,
greater security measures may need to be observed in urban gardens.
Ample research and commentary document urban agriculture's
overall positive physical and psychological health effects. More
research, however, is needed to understand the prevalence of poten-
tially harmful impacts on health, particularly for those who are
involved in market gardens, where the stress from depending on agri-
culture for a livelihood, the physical strain of hard, repetitive labor,
and the risks of injury from farm machinery and of toxic exposures
to agricultural inputs would likely compare to the experience of their
rural counterparts. Health department professionals and others can
assist with targeted prevention education and campaigns focused on
safe handling of tools, machinery, and agricultural chemicals.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Urban agriculture presents benefits and challenges for environmental

health, impacting gardeners, their neighbors, and, in the case of corn-
mercial growers, their distributors and customers. One area of con-
cern is the danger of toxic contamination from agricultural products
BROWN & JAMETON URBAN AGRICULTURE 3I
such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, including herbicides, insec-
ticides, and fungicides. Not only are the growers themselves at risk of
health problems from exposure to these chemicals, others unrelated
to the agricultural endeavor can be affected, especially in densely
populated areas. Carried by the wind, sprays of these chemicals can
easily overshoot a garden's boundaries and contaminate the sur-
rounding neighborhood. Similarly, run-off from rain and a garden's
irrigation system can carry these chemicals into storm drains to con-
taminate the city's sewage system or pollute rivers and the water table
(43). Interestingly, the premium market for produce raised without
chemicals has created a significant incentive for urban commercial
growers to decrease their use of harmful pesticides and fertilizers.
Many community gardens restrict the use of these chemicals as well.
However, home use remains largely unregulated, and pesticides
applied to lawns may drift to nearby gardens.
Soil and water pollution from nearby industry and highways
can also pose serious health risks for urban agriculture. Airborne
lead, other heavy metals, and toxic organic industrial wastes can set-
tle on garden soil, plant leaves and fruits. When not properly washed
before they are eaten, fresh crops thus expose consumers to these
pollutants. By requiring lead-free automobile gasoline, federal policy
has decreased the rate of new lead contamination of our urban soils
in the United States. However, the soil in gardens located on or
downstream/downwind from former industrial sites and highways
may still harbor a build-up of hazardous manufacturing residues and
automobile exhaust. Plants actually take up these contaminants
into their leaves and fruits where, in quantity, they can become dan-
gerous to consumers. Children, pregnant women, and adults with
compromised metabolic systems may be especially vulnerable in this
regard (44).
This tendency for plants to incorporate heavy metals and other
contaminants can, however, also be a relatively straightforward rem-
edy for cleaning up polluted soils. Called "phytoremediation" (a
plant-specific form of the larger classification, "bio-remediation"),
this process has successfully extracted lead, chromium, and other pol-
lutants from soils and water (45). According to some reports, plants
can even be used economically to mine useful minerals such as gold
(46).Some toxic materials are rendered harmless by plants, but oth-
ers are simply taken up into the plants which themselves then need to
be disposed carefully. An alternative to phytoremediation is to
remove the soil from a contaminated site and replace it with clean fill.
With the help of state and federal funds, one innovative commercial
tomato grower in Buffalo, New York, has taken over an industrial
"brown field," or contaminated industrial site, and simply substi-
tuted a hydroponic growing medium. His tomatoes grow safely in
sealed boxes without ever touching the soil.
Composting organic materials can serve as another form of bio-
remediation for contaminated urban soils. Bacteria and other micro-
organisms involved in the composting process can break down many
chemical contaminants. And, when raised to sufficiently high tem-
peratures, composting can sterilize infectious bacteria as well. Adding
organic material such as compost to soil also diminishes the likeli-
hood that contaminants will be taken up by plants (47). Composting,
when properly done, can further contribute to public health by
enriching garden soils and thereby reducing the need for chemical fer-
tilizers. The biological activity of microscopic creatures in the soil
also reduces the need for pesticides. In addition, urban composting
systems have been demonstrated to be an excellent recycling strategy
for significantly reducing a city's solid waste stream.
Composting, whether a large municipal operation or a backyard
compost pile, requires regular aeration and the right balance of mate-
rials; otherwise, it will stink and attract rodents and flies. Furthermore,
not all urban compost is safe for use in gardens, especially vegetable
gardens. For instance, whether and how composted sludge containing
urban sewage is used in agriculture is the topic of current policy debate
because of the dangers of bacterial and chemical contamination (48).
Even small-scale organic urban gardeners need to be careful of their
sources of biomass for composting, since many urban householders
use chemically active pesticides and fertilizers on their lawns.
On balance, however, even given the environmental concerns asso-
ciated with urban agriculture, there remains much positive to be said
for its benefits to urban environmental health. The transformation of
an unsightly and dangerous lot into an environmentally healthy and
beautiful garden can reap enormous benefits for an inner-city com-
munity. Gardens increase a city's biodiversity with plant variety and
by attracting beneficial soil microorganisms, insects, birds, reptiles,
and animals. Urban green spaces can also play a role in species preser-
vation for birds and butterflies by providing food, resting spaces, and
BROWN & JAMETON URBAN AGRICULTURE 33
protection along migratory flight paths. Furthermore, urban agricul-
ture can reduce soil erosion and ground water contamination when
appropriate safeguards and practices are used. And plants not only
absorb soil contaminants through their root systems, they also can
reduce air pollution by absorbing pollutants through their foliage.
Policy Recommendations
Urban gardening raises our public awareness of the need to safeguard
our environment, and especially our urban soils, from future pollu-
tion, erosion, and neglect. Rarely do urban dwellers think about soil
as a valuable resource; in fact we rarely think about it at all. The
ground underfoot is largely taken for granted, as a surface for trans-
portation, recreation, or when bare, a future building site. And yet,
soil can be the foundation of either a public health hazard or an asset
for urban communities. When it has been allowed to become a dan-
gerous depository of heavy metals and chemical toxins, soil threatens
our health. On the other hand, when soil is nurtured, it can become
a safe harbor for thriving plants that create nourishment, aesthetic
pleasure and healthful environments.
In order to protect the health of urban soils, and thus our own well-
being, we need to strengthen regulatory policies that monitor and
enforce environmental safety laws pertaining to fuel additives and
industrial emission drift and runoff. Furthermore, there must be
scrupulous control of the use of sewage sludge containing industrial
residue and bacteria which cannot be properly degraded to the extent
that they are rendered harmless. Public health professionals need to
be involved in writing and revising regulations pertaining to these
significant environmental protections.
Public health input is also needed to improve regulation of home
use and disposal of the vast array of chemical herbicides, pesticides,
and fertilizers used in urban gardening. In this regard, health depart-
ments can be instrumental in decreasing "downstream" pollution by
contributing to consumer education campaigns and ensuring more
accessible public facilities for residents to dispose of harmful sub-
stances. Public health perspectives can also be persuasive in
"upstream" initiatives involving the limitation and even banning of a
number of chemical compounds that are currently sold over the
counter in hardware and gardening supply stores. Existing federal
and state laws require labeling that is actually quite clear for the con-
34 JOURNAL O F PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY VOL. 21, NO. I

sumer who is apt to read and comply with the stated directives for
use. However, consumers are known to make basic mistakes in appli-
cation, for instance using excessive concentrations or using the prod-
uct inappropriately. It may then spread beyond the targeted area on
a windy day or just before a rainfall. It is not uncommon for con-
sumers to misinterpret a product's intended purpose entirely, for
example using an insecticide as a weedkiller or vice versa, using a her-
bicide to control insects, and thus neither accomplishing the desired
effect nor protecting biodiversity.
Although little may be done at the policy level to regulate mistakes
that occur in the privacy of a home or community garden, much can
be done to limit the potency of the chemicals being used in these con-
texts. For instance, in the area of product packaging, this form of
environmental pollution can be managed more effectively by requir-
ing manufacturers to sell only pre-diluted concentrations. Limiting
the availability of broad-spectrum pesticides and herbicides that kill
beneficial creatures along with the noxious ones would also reduce
unnecessary environmental risk. In addition to rethinking product
packaging, public health professionals can work toward limiting hor-
ticultural uses of chemicals already banned in other household prod-
ucts. A case in point are phosphates which are banned from laundry
detergent but are readily available in many pre-packaged chemical
fertilizers. When used in excess of plants' ability to absorb them,
phosphates can cause havoc if washed into the ground water (49).
It may also be useful to re-investigate the potential in some inner
city contexts for raising small animals, such as rabbits, for food.
Although raising animals poses more health hazards than vegetable
production, and many cities severely restrict animal husbandry, a
careful approach to clean and safe methods of raising animals could
contribute to the variety and protein content of urban diets. Human
vegetarian diets provide nutrition more efficiently in terms of land
area and inputs than meat production generally. But small amounts
of meat can be useful in supplementing and stabilizing diets. Animal
husbandry can be absorbing and educational for youth gardeners.
And animals can convert otherwise inedible grass and kitchen wastes
to usable food and bank protein against hard times. Furthermore,
animal waste, when composted properly, can be recycled to increase
soil fertility.
In order to realize the potential advantages and minimize the
BROWN & JAMETON - URBAN AGRICULTURE 35
health problems associated with raising animals inside city bounds,
public health professionals must be involved in revising and enforc-
ing relevant safeguards. As with our other recommendations for pub-
lic health input on environmentally sustainable urban agriculture,
effective policy impact will require overcoming the traditional statu-
tory and organizational segmentation of the field of environmental
health. Health issues involved with urban gardens cut across the
jurisdictions of many public agencies, including local, state, and fed-
eral offices for environmental quality and protection, agriculture,
parks and recreation, fish and game, city planning and zoning, police,
and public health. For public agencies to agree to collaborate among
themselves and to work with non-profit environment and gardening
advocacy groups and the private sector will be important first steps
towards achieving comprehensive responses that foster the promise
of urban gardens to enhance environmental health.

CONCLUSION

Like many other public health problems, those identified in this paper
can best be remedied through fundamental changes in society, including
the elimination of poverty by income redistribution, quality edu-
cation, and full, meaningful employment;
the control of environmental pollution by stringent regulation of
polluters, massive remediation programs, and viable recycling
and re-use policies;
the alleviation of hunger by ensuring availability of and access to
affordable, sufficient, and healthy foods;
the preservation of "green space" through enforcement of envi-
ronmentally sustainable city planning, economic policies, and
incentives that curtail sprawl and encourage biodiversity.
However, short of these examples of basic restructuring, or on the
way there, we have detailed a number of significant policy changes
that public health professionals, working with governments, busi-
nesses, neighborhoods, and individuals, can use to advance the
significant potential of urban gardening for public health. Developing
and sustaining gardens as part of initiatives for urban food security,
environmental stewardship, employment opportunities, community
organization, and enhanced quality of life will necessarily require
comprehensive and multifaceted support and planning, but the result
of such activity will reap significant rewards.
As we look ahead t o the public health needs of the 21st century, the
foundations of human health will need to come to terms with its
dependency on the limited capacity of the global environment t o sup-
port intensive human activity ( s o ) .This means that healthy cities will
have to minimize their environmental impact and reduce their depen-
dency on energy-intensive transportation of distant sources of food
and other products. In order to live closer to nature without eroding
wild spaces, many millions of urban dwellers will need to integrate
green spaces, and perhaps animal husbandry, into the geography of
cities. Jobs will have to become more green and depend less on
extraction and intensive industrial activity. Urban gardening inte-
grates these three important elements of successful public health in
the 21st century: food security through local sources, urban greening,
and environmentally efficient employment. Although the public
health achievements of 1900 depended on large industrial projects,
such as massive water and sewer systems, the public health achieve-
ments of 2000 will depend on our ability t o coordinate complex,
materially modest networks of human activity in support of simple
and healthy ways of life, a n essential component and key symbol of
which is gardening.

REFERENCES

I. Smit, J., Ratta, A., and Nasr, J. Urban Agriculture. Food, Jobs and Sus-
tainable Cities. New York: United Nations Development Programme
Publication series for Habitat I1 Volume One, 1996.
2 . Murphy, C. Cultivating Havana Urban Agriculture and Food Security in
the Years of Crisis. Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development
Policy. Food First, 1999.
3. Heimlich, R., and Barnard, C. Agricultural Adaptation to Urbanization:
Farm Types in the United States Metropolitan Area. Washington, DC:
USDA, Economic Research Service, 1993.
4. Smit et al., op. cit.
5. Pokorny, K. "Baby Boomers Fertilize a Growing Interest in Gardening,"
The Oregonian (newspaper),July 22, 1995: DI.
6. Sommers, P. and Smit, J. Promoting Urban Agriculture: A Strategy for
Planners in North America, Europe and Asia. Cities Feeding People
BROWN & JAMETON . URBAN AGRICULTURE 37
Report Series #g. Ottawa, Ontario: International Development
Research Centre (IDRC), 1994. (www.idrc.ca/cfp)
7. Monroe-Santos, S. National Community Gardening Survey. Philadel-
phia: The American Community Gardening Association, June 1998.
8. Nemore, C. "Rooted in the Community: Community Gardens in New
York City. A Report to the New York State Senate," City Farmer. Van-
couver, British Columbia: Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture, April
14, 1998. (www.cityfarmer.org/NYComgardens.html)
9. Barry, Dan. "Sudden Deal Saves Gardens Set for Auction." New York
Times, May 13, 1999: BI and B6.
10. Bissett, T. L. "Community Gardening in America," Brooklyn Botanical
Garden Record 3 5 (1976): 4.
11. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Con-
sumer Relations of the Committee on Agriculture. House of Represen-
tatives. 94th Congress on H.R. 280 (December 11, 1975): 8.
12. Ibid.: 10.
13. Ibid.: 3.
14. Malakoff, D. "Final Harvest," Community Greening Review (1994):
4-12.
IS. Cook, C. and Rodgers, J. "Community Food Security: Growing Back to
the Earth," Earth IslandJournal (Fall 1997): 30-3 I.
16. Schurmann, F. "Can Cities Feed Themselves?Worldwide Turn to Urban
Gardening Signals Hope," Jinn Magazine. San Francisco: Pacific News
Service (PNS),June 3, 1996. (www.pacificnews.org/jinn)
17. Hingtgen, S. "The Depoliticizing of Hunger," Journal of Public Health
Policy 15 (1994): 389-92.
18. Alaimo, K. "Food Insufficiency Exists in the US: Results from the Third
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey NHANES 111,"
AJPH 88 (1998): 420.
19. Sidel, V. "Annotation: The Public Health Impact of Hunger," AJPH 87
(1997): 1921-22.
20. Alaimo, op. cit.
21. Rose, D., and Oliveira, V. "Nutrient Intakes of Individuals from Food-
Insufficient Households in the US," AJPH 87 (1997): 19 56-61.
22. Cutts, D., et al. "Hunger in Midwestern Inner-City Young Children,"
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 152 (1998): 1489-93.
23. Nelson, K. "Hunger in an Adult Patient Population," JAMA. 279
(1998): 1211-14.
24. Wehler, C., et al. Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project:
A Survey of Childhood Hunger in the United States. Washington, DC:
Food Research and Action Center, 1995.
25. Lewis, C. "Effects of Plants and Gardening in Creating Interpersonal
 and Community Well-being," in Relf, D., ed. The Role of Horticulture
in Human Well-being and Social Development: A National Symposium.
Portland, OR: Timber Press, 1992: j 5-6 j.
26. Sommers, P., and Smit, J., op. cit.
27. Blair, D., et al., "A Dietary, Social, and Economic Evaluation of the
Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project," The Journal of Nutrition Edu-
cation 23 (1991): 161-67.
28. Patel, I. C. "Socio-Economic Impact of Community Gardening in an
Urban Setting," in Relf, D., ed. The Role of Horticulture in Human
Well-being and Social Development: A National Symposium. Portland,
OR: Timber Press, 1992: 84-87.
29. Heimlich, R., and Barnard, C. Agricultural Adaption to Urbanization:
Farm Types in United States Metropolitan Areas. Washington, DC:
U.S.D.A. Economic Research Service, 1993.
30. Bycznski, L. Successful Systems for Market Gardening. Extension and
Education Materials for Sustainable Agriculture, Volume 10. Lincoln,
NE: Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1999.
31. Smit et al., op. cit., p. 172.
32. O'Neill, M. "Students Turn Greens Into Gold," New York Times, June
I j, 1994: C I & C8.
33. Mattson, R. H. "Prescribing Health Benefits Through Horticultural
Activities," in Relf, op, cit.: 161-68.
34. Malakoff, D. What Good is Community Greening? Philadelph~a:Amer-
ican Community Gardening Association Monograph, June 199 j.
3 j. Relf, D. The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-being and Social
Development. A National Symposium. Portland, OR: Timber Press,
1991.
36. Ibid.
37. Relf, D. "Human Issues in Horticulture," Hort. Technology, 2 (1992):
159-71,
38. Brogan, D., and James, D. "Physical Environment Correlates of Psy-
chosocial Health Among Urban Residents," American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology. 8 (1980): 507-22.
39. Malakoff, op. cit.: 15.
40. Ibid.
41. Lewis, C. A. "Effects of Plants and Gardening in Creating Interpersonal
and Community Well-being," in Relf, op. cit.: j 5-65.
42. Malakoff, op. cit.: 8.
43. Note: Pollution from the pesticides and fertilizers used in urban lawn
care has drawn increasing call for restrictions, bans, and the use of less
harmful alternatives; see for instance: Latimer, J. G., et al. "Reducing the
Pollution Potential of Pesticides and Fertilizers in the Environmental
BROWN & JAMETON URBAN AGRICULTURE 39
Horticulture Industry: Lawn Care and Landscape Management," Hor-
ticulture Technology 6 (1996): 222-32.
44. Smit et al., op. cit., p. zoo.
45. Brooks, R., ed. Plants That Hyperaccumulate Heavy Metals: Their Role
in Phytoremediation, Microbiology, Archeology, Mineral Exploration,
and Phytomining. New York: CAB International, 1998.
46. Antia, M . "Rooting for Gold," AAAS Science News Service, October 8,
1998. (www.academicpress.codinscight/1oo8 1998lgrapha.htm)
47. Lepp, N. W. "Effect of Heavy Metal Pollution on Plants," Effects of
Trace Metals on Plant Function, Volume I . London, England: Applied
Science Publishers, 198 I.
48. Rockefeller, A. "Civilization and Sludge: Notes on the History of the
Management of Human Excreta," Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 9
(1990): 3-18.
49. Makower, J. "The Sod Truth About Lawns," Co-op America Quarterly
48 (summer)(1999):9.
50. Daily, G., ed. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosys-
tems. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997.

ABSTRACT

The article presents the case for stronger public policies in support of urban
gardening as a means to improve public health. It considers several beneficial
aspects of gardening, such as food security, economic development, exercise,
psychological and community well-being, and environmental stewardship.
It also considers some of the public health problems associated with urban
agriculture and suggests policies to ameliorate them. In the balance, urban
gardening has potential as an important element of urban public health.