Bachelor Thesis
Arij Hoogendam 12398748The Influence of Urban Agriculture on Food Security at a Household Level in Kandy,
Sri Lanka
G. Arij Hoogendam 12398748 FNWI, University of Amsterdam
5133BAPF0Y Bachelor Project Future Planet Studies Word count: 10 149
First reader: Maarten Bavinck Second reader: Jannes Willems
Table of contents Foreword ... 3 Abstract ... 3 1. Introduction ... 4 2. Theoretical framework ... 6 2.1 Urban agriculture ... 6
2.1.1 Advantages and disadvantages of urban agriculture ... 6
2.2 Food security ... 8
2.3 Traditional homegardens and the Family Business Garden model ... 9
2.4 Application of theory ... 11 3. Methods ... 12 3.1 Research strategy ... 12 3.2 Data collection ... 12 3.3 Data analysis... 13 3.4 Research ethics ... 14 4. Results ... 15 4.1 Space groups... 15
4.2 Types of crops in urban agriculture practices ... 17
4.4 Food security ... 23
5. Discussion ... 24
5.1 Gender ... 24
5.2 Space groups... 24
5.3 Types of crops in urban agriculture practices ... 27
5.4 Food security ... 27 6. Methodological reflection ... 28 7. Research recommendations ... 30 8. Conclusion ... 32 References ... 34 Appendix 1 ... 36 Appendix 2 ... 38 Appendix 3 ... 43 Appendix 4 ... 50
Foreword
It is important to note that this research would not have been possible without the help of K. N. Tharaka, a student from Ruhuna university in Sri Lanka. She assisted with the translation of the survey as well as the data collection. She managed to make time to assist with the research even though she was busy with her own responsibilities, for which I am very thankful.
Being Dutch myself, looking at the crops produced by Sri Lankan respondents was extremely interesting, because these crops would not, and often could not, be produced in ‘normal’ gardens in the Netherlands. In Sri Lanka different kinds of crops are cultivated because of the differences in the geographic location which are advantageous to other products. Even though this is logical, it intrigued me. An example of this is that it is possible to cultivate tropical fruits such as banana and papaya on a household scale in Sri Lanka. Aside from that it was interesting to see that many crops are produced on this small scale that are less commonly utilized in the kitchen in the Netherlands, such as winged beans, long beans and gourds. The crop choices are likely also related to the differences in cuisine between the Netherlands and Sri Lanka, but that is what peaked my interest.
Abstract
The recent Covid-19 pandemic has led to pressure on the economy of Sri Lanka. In order to save money, the department of agriculture has issued import restrictions on Turmeric and a multitude of other products. These developments lead to an increased pressure on the food system and potentially to an increased food insecurity. This research will analyze to what degree urban agriculture can contribute to food security and what influences urban agriculture has in general. On a small scale, such as the household level, urban agriculture interventions could assist in attaining food security. The formed research question is:
“What role does urban agriculture play for food security on a household level in Kandy, Sri Lanka?”. While researching this, forming sub-questions, a first point of interest is what kind of crops urban agriculture practices produce in Kandy, a second point of interest is what the influence is of different amounts of access to space for urban agriculture, and finally inspiration will be gathered from both the model of Family Business Gardens and the case study of traditional homegardens in Kandy as a point of education. Shortly answering the research question, urban agriculture does appear to have an influence on food security. In general urban agriculture appears to positively contribute to food security.
1. Introduction
The Sri Lankan economic environment is currently under pressure because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 has severely decreased Sri Lanka’s income from tourism and export, which drastically affects the health of Sri Lanka’s economy (Deyshappriya, 2020). These developments caused inflation of the Sri Lankan rupee, which has led to an increased price of import goods due to higher exchange rates (Deyshappriya, 2020). Because of these reasons, the government has issued import bans and restrictions as a way to save money (Hamza, 2020). By encouraging domestic agricultural production and phasing out import, the government hopes to save 500 million dollars per year. The domestic production is supported with subsidies on seeds and planting materials (Hamza, 2020).
Due to the current impracticalities of importing products, it is necessary for Sri Lanka to become increasingly self-reliant (Fernando, 2020; Hamza, 2020). For example: import bans on turmeric have led to a large increase in the cultivation of homegrown variants (Hamza, 2020; Srinivasan, 2020). This research strives to support domestic self-sufficiency in Sri Lanka by analyzing the possible influence of urban agriculture (UA) on food security at a household level. UA could exist and work complementary to rural agricultural production in order to increase food security on a household level (Mougeot, 2000).
In this research, existing UA models will be compared to each other in order to find out what possibilities they could bring. One of the ideal-type models that will be discussed is “Family Business Gardens” (FBG). A model that describes space and cost effective UA while ideally strengthening household food security and income (Ranasinghe, 2003; 2009). This model will be discussed in more detail in the theoretic framework.
Kandy was chosen as research area because of the reputation of its traditional homegardens which are also discussed in the theoretical framework and its advantageous geographical location for agriculture. Because Kandy is known for its homegardens it was hypothesized that urban agriculture may be well known and popular in that city, which also contributed to the choice. As seen in Figure 1, it has a rainfall of about 1500-2000 mm per year, which is for example, the desired amount of rainfall for turmeric (Burt & Weerasinghe, 2014; IndiaAgroNet, 2021). Additionally it is considered one of Sri Lanka’s major cities, being the eight largest city with almost 112 thousand inhabitants. This means that a large amount of food is required for the city to be self-sufficient in its food production. UA could play a role in complementing the rural agricultural production in order to establish an increased food security on a household level (Mougeot, 2000).
Figure 1
Annual Precipitation patterns in Sri Lanka (Burt & Weerasinghe, 2014).
This research will go into depth about the concept of UA and the opportunities that it could provide to increase food security of households in the urban environment. The chosen research question is: “What role does urban agriculture play for food security on a household level in Kandy, Sri Lanka?”. And sub-questions chosen to support this are:
1. “What are currently the most commonly cultivated crops in urban agriculture practices on a household level in Kandy, Sri Lanka?”
2. “What is the effect of the amount of available space for urban agriculture practices on a household level in Kandy, Sri Lanka?”
3. “What can urban agriculture practices on a household level learn from traditional homegardening practices and the Family Business Garden model in Kandy, Sri Lanka?” To answer these questions, the concepts UA, food security, traditional homegardening and Family Business Garden will be expanded in the theoretical framework.
A hypothesis for the research question is that UA has a positive influence on food security, meaning that food security would increase for households that practice UA.
For the first sub-question it is hypothesized that the crops would be mainly tropical and fitting with the Sri Lankan environment and applicable to a small scale such as turmeric.
For the second sub-question the hypothesis is that the amount of space does have an influence on urban agriculture practices, specifically, that as space increases, more opportunities are present for an increased crop production capacity and variety of crops.
Finally looking at the third sub-question, traditional Kandyan homegardening practices are expected to not be very applicable to a small household scale, but due to the history in the area not negligible and important to learn from. FBG is hypothesized to be very applicable to the household level of the urban environment due to the focus on efficient space usage and production.
2. Theoretical framework
The goal of this theoretical outline is to provide adequate definitions and a clear conceptual overview for UA and food security. Firstly, the focus will be on UA, which will discuss what additional insights about barriers and advantages that UA may bring on a household scale.
Secondly, the focus will be on food security. Here, some definitions will be discussed, an operationalization of the concept is designed and ways to estimate food security will be proposed.
Thirdly, more information will be provided about FBG’s and traditional Kandyan homegardens. This should provide the necessary background knowledge about the concepts.
Finally, application of the theory to the case will also be discussed. A further understanding of these topics can assist in analyzing the role of UA in attaining food security in Sri Lanka and answering the sub-questions.
2.1 Urban agriculture
Households mainly supply themselves in the urban environment, a simplified definition that will be used for UA is the following (Mougeout, 2000, p.10):
“Urban agriculture is an industry located within (intraurban) or on the fringe (periurban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food products.”
In this definition, food products include for example vegetables, fruits, spices and animal products like meat, milk and eggs. An example of non-food products that households could produce is timber. Which can for example be used or sold. Important to note is that this definition also includes the processing and distributing of products, which is in line with the FBG model. However, this research will also focus on personal consumption of raw or processed goods. The goal is to analyze to what degree goods are also processed and distributed, or if in reality, they are mainly being used for personal consumption.
2.1.1 Advantages and disadvantages of urban agriculture
UA can have many advantages, but it also has many barriers that should be considered. An advantage is that UA can lead to increased food security for households, for example by enabling access to nutritious vegetables or animal proteins that may otherwise be unaffordable (Mougeot, 2000).
or a backyard (Ranasinghe, 2009 ; Mougeot, 2000). Thirdly, it can assist in urban waste management, for example with the use of homemade compost that is created with personal organic waste (Mougeot, 2000). Additionally, UA can be used to either save money or generate an income, for example by producing goods that would otherwise be bought, or by generating production of goods that can be sold (ibid.). UA can be complementary to the current system and does not need to have the goal of generating income, part-time agriculture for self-consumption is also very relevant (Mougeot, 2000).
In general, women often have a bigger household management role than men, and they will likely be the group that practice UA most (Mougeout, 2000). An advantage that empowers women is that this could allow them to get greater control in household resources, budget and increased influence on decision making (ibid.). This is an interesting topic that could be explored into more detail when analyzing UA in Sri Lanka.
A barrier is that UA could lead to issues in urban planning. If agriculture is brought from rural areas to the urban environment, it could interfere with other land usages that may be more productive on a larger scale, if the focus is not only on utilizing currently unused spaces (Mougeot, 2000).
A second barrier is that UA could provide a threat to public health. This threat could be caused by practices that are not done in a correct manner, or at the wrong place, leading to contamination risks for people around the production area (Mougeot, 2000). The contamination is mainly caused by a wrong quantity and or usage of inputs. One of the main dangerous health hazards is usage of human excreta as fertilizer or fish food. Another dangerous factor for public health is a disease hazard caused by urban livestock (ibid.).
A third barrier is that, if done incorrectly, UA can have negative environmental effects. Including soil erosion, destruction of vegetation, siltation, depletion of water bodies, pollution of resources and pollution of noise or smells. The main cause for these negative effects is the use of agrochemicals by producers that intensively cultivate their land (Mougeot, 2000).
Another barrier that should be taken into account for UA is the cultural stigma on agriculture. Currently, agriculture as an occupation in Sri Lanka has an image that is directly connected to poverty (Fernando, 2021). However, when considering that UA does not have to be a full-time occupation, this barrier may be less relevant (Mougeot, 2000).
Another constraint is that UA is unlikely to have significant effects on a larger scale. Its positive influence, on for example the economy and food security, is mainly noticeable on small scales like the household level, but the contribution on a city level is low (Mougeot, 2000). UA should thus strive to complement existing agricultural structures by operating on a small scale (Martin-Moreau & Ménascé, 2019; Mougeout, 2000).
Something else that should also be considered is that people with access to more money and land have may an advantage when it comes to practicing urban agriculture because they could have a higher opportunity to invest money and time. However, with methods such as proposed by the FBG, it
is accessible to people with less resources available to them as well. And it could even turn out to be extra profitable to these parties because an increase in food production can lead to higher food security and income. This relation between available space and food security will also be assessed in this research.
In order to combat these barriers, Mougeot (2000) stresses that urban planners need to work together with agricultural experts when analyzing policy in order to lead to proper implementation in the urban economic and ecological system. Smit (1996) stresses that participation is necessary by local actors, including households, for the design and implementation of policy interventions. Policy implementation could be crucial if the goal is to sustain UA, however, focusing on the influence of policy implementation is not within the scope of this research, but it would be an interesting topic to analyze in further research.
2.2 Food security
At the world summit in 1996 an adequate food security definition was formed by the FAO (Brief, 2006 ; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009):
“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy and active life.”
This definition can be further operationalized into 4 dimensions according to the FAO and expanded upon in the food system approach of the HLPE (Brief, 2009; Fanzo et al., 2017). As also depicted in Appendix 1, these dimensions are: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability (ibid.). In this operationalization, households may for example be food insecure even though they may technically possesses the means to acquire enough food. This is because other, non-food goods such as rent, healthcare or school fees, may be prioritized over food acquisition, meaning that they still end up lacking ‘food access’ (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009).
Estimation of food security could be accomplished through surveys. Pinstrup-Andersen (2009) mentions various different types of surveys but also discusses aspects that make them incomplete. The one that he regards as most promising, is something similar to what the US department of agriculture (USDA) has done, which addresses varying needs and behaviors in a set of questions that leads to a food insecurity score (Bickel et al., 2000; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009).
The definition brought forth by the FAO, is a good goal to strive towards (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009). Food security can be used as a variable in order to, for example, measure wellbeing and it can be utilized for the design, implementation and evaluation of policies, programs and projects that strive to improve nutritional intake (ibid.).
2.3 Traditional homegardens and the Family Business Garden model
Traditional Kandyan homegardens can be used as an example of urban agriculture in Kandy, Sri Lanka. Kandyan homegardens make use of agroforestry to create a resilient, robust and diverse growth environment. Year round, these gardens can produce a multitude of products, including: staple foods, various fruits and vegetables, spices, timber, fodder, medicinal plants and livestock products (Pushpakumara et al., 2010). Kandyan homegardens cover about 20% of surface area. In them the most prevalent types of produce are the following: for spices curry leaves, black pepper, white paper, turmeric, cloves, cinnamon, cardamom, nutmeg, vanilla, ginger, coffee and cocoa are common crops. For wood trees tea and mahogany are common choices. Vegetables include a wide variety of types. Fruit trees commonly include jackfruit, durian, rambutan, avocado, bread fruit, pineapple, mango and passionfruit (Ginigaddara, 2017; Pushpakumara et al., 2010). Standard features of a Kandyan
homegarden are that it mimics the structure of a tropical rainforest with trees of about 30 to 35 meters high, a lot of canopy layers, which leads to low light penetration to the ground, low soil erosion due to thick plant litter in combination with low intensity of direct rainfall because of the canopy layers (ibid.). Additionally they provide habitats for wild animals, as well as domesticated cattle and poultry (ibid.). These gardens can firstly provide agricultural diversity, key ecosystem manipulations such as erosion control and soil fertility replenishment, biodiversity conservation and these gardens can also have socio-economic benefits (Pushpakumara et al., 2010).
However, homegardens do also come with constraints. Most importantly for the urban household scale, it would be highly difficult to properly implement it in small spaces. Aside from that traditional homegardening systems can have difficulty with combatting weeds, disease and insects (Ginigaddra, 2017). Furthermore, homegardens are generally highly specialized to fit the environment of a geographical location, so it is highly location dependent what crops it would include. Labor for homegardens also comes with a risk, namely that it is entirely dependent on input from family members (ibid.)
As mentioned in the introduction, one of the ideal-type models that will be discussed is “Family Business Gardens” (FBG). A model with a focus on space and cost effective UA while ideally strengthening household food security and income (Ranasinghe, 2003; 2009). This model consists of 5 main components, as depicted in Figure 2 (Ranasinghe, 2003; 2009). Firstly, it strives to attain family nutrition in the urban environment by advocating for important nutritious crops (Ranasinghe, 2009). Secondly, technology adoption is necessary in order to produce good products. To make this increasingly accessible, cheap construction guides are provided that show how one could utilize efficient cultivation methods. Thirdly, crop management is vital to ensure sustainable soil productivity. This crop management includes techniques such as crop rotation and utilization of homemade compost. Fourth, value addition is important in similar small to medium scale agricultural developments. An example of
this is fruit juice production from homegrown fruits. Fifth, landscaping and housekeeping activities are needed, creating a charming environment sustains the mental and physical health of family members (Ranasinghe, 2009).
Advantages of this model are that it provides a clear method for efficient and sustainable usage of small spaces. Because of this, UA could be practiced in a multitude of ways, while not only being reserved for people with a lot of land available to them (Ranasinghe, 2009). Additionally, the materials necessary to construct them are cheap and accessible, examples of utilized materials are: wires, ropes, plastic bottles, PVC pipes and buckets (Ranasinghe, 2009). If this model is utilized, families could attain an increased food security, and depending on how much time they want to invest in maintaining their FBG, increase their income as well by marketing their products (Ranasinghe, 2009). However, creating a proper FBG that adds value and markets their products could take a large time investment as opposed to regular homegardening (Ranasinghe, 2009). When strictly speaking of a FBG, value addition is highly stressed, so it may not be applicable in all cases in which UA is mainly practiced for self-sufficiency. FBG can be used as a reference point, but some differences may be recognized with reality and the focus may be on the most relevant parts of this model.
Figure 2
2.4 Application of theory
The implementation of UA can lead to self-reliance, which can lead to an improvement in food security on a household scale. For poor urban residents this effect is most noticeable, because they would need less expenses for their nutrition if they have any space available for urban agriculture (Mougeot, 2000). Additionally, due to the present restrictions on import of food products, more domestic agricultural production is necessary. For example, with turmeric, the import restrictions have led to a large demand, that would require an increased self-sufficiency in order to maintain food security (Hamza, 2020). Food security would be maintained because turmeric is an example of a product that is part of cultural preference in the Sri Lankan cuisine, if this product would be less attainable, food security would decrease.
A way to realize self-sufficiency, and thus increase food security, could be introducing increased UA practices, as well as strengthening existing ones. This could especially have large influences on poor households with some access to space for UA, due to the increased access to food. However, it is also profitable for richer households due to the low supply of certain products (Fernando, 2021).
This research strives to learn from the history of these traditional practices and compare it with the FBG to assess opportunities. While traditional homegardening in Kandy may not be applicable everywhere in the urban environment, it can still be used as an example where it is applicable. Drawbacks should be taken into account but advantages should definitely be explored. The same goes for FBG, it can be used as a tool to educate urban residents about the potential for UA.
For UA and food security, space is considered one of the main research topics in this thesis. Space is important for UA because the amount and kind of space available may have large influences on the cultivation possibilities and potential. Availability from food security also relates to this, because the available space is may hinder or improve chances to attain food security.
3. Methods
This section will firstly explain the chosen research strategy, then go into depth about the data collection and analysis methods, and lastly, research ethics will be addressed.
3.1 Research strategy
A literature review was performed in chapter 2, which provided an analysis of the concepts of UA and food security in order to find out what effects UA could have for food security on a household level and to form a foundation of knowledge for the research. This analysis has made it possible to operationalize the concepts UA and food security into more directly measurable variables (Bryman, 2016). As stated in the research question, households are the main unit of analysis in this research (ibid.). The research was mostly qualitative in nature. However, surveys were conducted that collected quantitative, as well as qualitative data, making this a mixed-methods research (Bryman, 2016). The surveys collected quantitative data in the form of close ended questions, but also contain open questions that code based on the theory could be applied to. The open ended questions allowed participants to reply in more depth about their personal situation, which was used to further support the results of quantitative data (Bryman, 2016). In order to arrange on-site investigations, the research cooperated with partners in Sri Lanka.
In this research, the theoretical concepts ‘food security’ and ‘UA’ were used to formulate questions for the survey. In order to analyze these broad, difficult to measure concepts, they are operationalized into indicators that allow for measurement of the concept (Bryman, 2016). This operationalization can be viewed in the operationalization Tables in Appendix 1. These operationalizations were used as the foundation for the survey questions. In Appendix 2, the chosen questions can be viewed. Not the entire food security operationalization is currently used because this would lead to a negatively loaded, less accessible survey due to the nature of the questions. In this exploratory research, it is thus an important goal to gather insights about the current UA practices in Sri Lanka, while also assessing the implications it may have for food security. However, because it is exploratory, it cannot guarantee that the results are entirely true to reality.
3.2 Data collection
The data collected for the literature review in chapter 2 consisted of relevant scientific papers and grey literature. Scientific papers provide an informed framework of the chosen theories. But grey literature is also important because it provides reliable information about recent developments in Sri Lanka, which is necessary to analyze the influence of, for example, Covid-19 and import restrictions.
The surveys were translated to Sinhala, and conducted through a google forms link that was shared to participants. In order to conduct these surveys, it relied on assistance of Sri Lankan partnership.
Kandy and contacted acquaintances, specifically households that she presumed to practice UA. She asked for cooperation of the household member that is most closely related to managing the farming practices. As stated in the theoretic framework, these UA practices can include a multitude of things, examples range from pots on a balcony to backyards and many more. At first the goal was to gather at least a sample of 5 to 10 people that practice UA as participants. Although preferred to gather more participants, this amount was selected to increase feasibility. In total the Sri Lankan partner managed to assist with gathering 19 respondents that filled in the survey.
Ideally, participants would have been selected with probability sampling methods and compared to a control group. Due to the small scale of the research however, the choice was made to only focus on people that practice UA, even though this would lead to an increased sampling bias (Bryman, 2016). This was chosen because in order to get in contact with a sufficient amount participants that are relevant to the research, this option was a lot more feasible. For random sampling, a list of the entire city, or something similar, would be necessary in order to select random participants. Then it is also far from guaranteed that all randomly selected people would be willing to participate if they are not offered something in return, and, because of constraints with the Covid-19 pandemic, contacting or visiting these potential participants also becomes difficult. This was beyond the scope of this research but may be interesting for further research.
3.3 Data analysis
To analyze the gathered data, the research question and sub-questions are used as a point of interest. To analyze the first sub-question about types of cultivated crops, graphs were made from the data. These graphs were plotted as the distribution of variables from the results for different survey questions, which are based on the operationalized theoretical concepts. This gives insight on the percentage of respondents that is related to the relevant variable from the question. From these graphs and with the assistance of relevant articles, observations that were interesting or striking are pointed out and potential reasons are discussed for the cause of these observations.
For the second sub-question about space groups, similar procedures are conducted. Except first the answers from the data about the amount of available square meters are divided into 3 space groups: ‘Small spaces’ with below 15 square meters, ‘Medium spaces’ with 15-49 square meters and ‘Large spaces’ including everything above 50 square meters. Division of these groups are an estimation that is based on expected potential usage of these spaces: Small spaces are expected to be more limited in their possibilities and have little space for UA, examples can include flats or small houses. Medium spaces are expected to be more spacious and have more freedom in their crop choices, examples can include detached houses with sufficient space. Large spaces are expected to be larger than a regular yard, having the most potential for urban agriculture, examples of this can include traditional homegardens, or
(rented) paddy fields. After dividing the results into these space groups the same analysis process is taken as in the first sub-question.
For the third sub-question, FBG and traditional homegardens were analyzed with the potential of these forms of UA practices on a household level in Kandy, Sri Lanka.
For the research question, the influence of practicing urban agriculture on food security, the same process of the first and second sub-question is utilized. The questions about food security are divided in 1 leading, negatively loaded question and 2 positively loaded questions. If respondents answer ‘Often true’ or ‘Sometimes true’, on the first question, they are regarded as potentially food insecure. And if respondents answer ‘Never true’ on the second and third question, they are also regarded as potentially food insecure. This is not as thorough as the food security analysis method of the USDA, but a few questions about the topic are included to allow for exploratory research (Bickel et al., 2000). The main reason that it will be less thorough is firstly the to keep the survey manageable in length, and secondly that the questions are very negatively loaded, and may lead to a negative image behind the research, while the goal is to make the participant enjoy providing information about their garden.
3.4 Research ethics
The goal of this research was to not be harmful to the participants, their data should be handled with respect and care, and they should for example not be ridiculed for the answers they provide. Questions should not be too intrusive and participants should feel safe when answering (Bryman, 2016). The participants should be informed about the goal of the research in advance, which allows them to make an informed decision about their consent to participation (ibid.). The data gathered from the surveys and interviews will be only be accessible to the people relevant to the research and participants are allowed to stay anonymous if they desire in order to maintain privacy (Bryman, 2016). Participants do not have to state their name if they do not want to and personal information, such as contact data, will be stored in a password protected folder on the computer of the author, and will only be shared with research partners and teachers. Furthermore, the research should not be deceptive in nature, but be open about what questions are asked and why (ibid.).
4. Results
As mentioned in the introduction, many people in Sri Lanka have turned to home gardening due to recent events in Sri Lanka. Similarly to the past, the government supports home gardening by providing free seed packets and technical advice (Rodrigo, 2020). These developments mainly stive to combat food scarcity that is caused by the Covid-19 crisis and the import restrictions (Rodrigo, 2020). This is visible in the surveys, as people appear to cultivate a lot of their own products.
Out of all results, 2 results are considered entirely unusable: the first because it belongs to a woman that does not practice any form of UA, and thus conclusions cannot be drawn about other answers this respondents has provided because it is not within the interest group. The second because, even though they state that they produce vegetables, fruits and spices, they do not state which and other questions are also left unanswered. In appendix 3, additional results from the survey are portrayed that are not all used in the thesis.
In Figure 3 the gender distribution is portrayed, 84% of all respondents is female, further hypotheses and implications about possible reasons for this will be mentioned in the discussion.
Figure 3
(Sex) Gender distribution from urban agriculture practitioners of 19 (N=19)respondents in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 1.
4.1 Space groups
For the sub-question that focusses on the amount of space available to participants, the results in which participants provided the amount of square meters to them will be used. As stated in the data analysis, these amounts of space have been divided into 3 groups: ‘Small spaces’ below 15 square meters, ‘Medium spaces’ of up to 50 square meters and ‘Large spaces’ that go up to 2000 square meters. The results are portrayed in Figure 4, however, these groups include only 14 out of 19 respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Female Male
Number of people
Gender Distribution from Urban Agriculture Practitioners in
Kandy, Sri Lanka
because 5 people did not provide the exact amount of space available to them. From these 14, 4 people had access to a small space, 5 people had access to a medium space and 5 people had access to a large space. This distribution shows a solid variety in respondents.
Figure 4
Exact amount of space for urban agriculture practices of 14 out of 19 respondents (N=14) in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 6.
In Figure 5 below, the different kinds of spaces that respondents produce their crops on are shown. The results go above 100% because participants cultivate in multiple spaces, such as in the midula as well as the yard. A midula can be explained as a garden inside the house, which is a concept that appears to be quite common in Sri Lanka. Sadly from knowing what kind of space respondents cultivate in, not much can be said about how they cultivate in there, which would require further research. With home garden it is possible that a regular yard is meant, or a traditional homegarden, this is uncertain as well sadly.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% <15 15-50 >51 Percentage of respondents A m o u n t o f sp ac e in s q u ar e m eter s
Amount of space for urban agriculture practices in Kandy,
Sri Lanka.
Figure 5
(Space/Access/Availability) Specific types of cultivated land from urban agriculture practitioners of 19 (N=19) respondents in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 4.
4.2 Types of crops in urban agriculture practices
The most common types of crops cultivated in UA practices will be discussed below, as seen in Figure 6, it is divided in 4 main types: vegetables, fruits, spices and non-food products. A little more about the data collected for these types will still be discussed. Noteworthy crops that are cultivated most often among respondents are: for vegetables chilis and eggplant, for fruits banana and papaya, and for spices turmeric, pepper and ginger. These crops are likely produced because of compatibility with the geographic location, the (cultural) preferences of the research area, and may vary when researching at a different time of the year. However, as shown in figure 4 in appendix 3, 76% of respondents cultivate year round, so in their answers they likely included all products they cultivate through the seasons.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Midula The yard Paddy field Home garden Number of people T y p e o f cu ltiv ated lan d
Specific types of Cultivated land from Urban Agriculture
Practitioners in Kandy, Sri Lanka
Figure 6
Types of products cultivated through urban agriculture by 19 respondents (N=19) in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 9, 11, 13 and 18.
The distribution of the cultivated vegetables are portrayed below in Figure 7. In these results, 16 people cultivate vegetables out of 19 responses. Two answers are not included in this and unusable because they are too vague, namely ‘Short term’ and ‘Vegetables for daily consumption’. Aside from those, the one remaining respondent does produce vegetables, but did not answer what vegetables they produce and are therefore also not included and unusable. N is therefore 16 because 3 answers are unusable. Results do not add up to 100% because one respondent can cultivate multiple vegetables, these results show per vegetable what percentage of respondents cultivate them.
Upcountry vegetables are a group of vegetables, it was not specified which this includes, but according to the Sri Lankan partner it includes vegetables such as leeks and carrots.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Vegetables Spices Fruits Non-food
Number of people cultivating the product
Types of Products Cultivated through Urban Agriculture in
Kandy, Sri Lanka
Figure 7
Types of vegetables cultivated through urban agriculture, by 19 respondents (N=16), in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 9.
Below in figure 8, the amount of people is portrayed that cultivate fruits in their own garden. In these results 11 respondents were included that cultivate fruits. From the leftover respondents, 8 do not produce fruits, N is therefore 19. Results do not add up to 100% because one respondent can cultivate multiple fruits, these results show per fruit what percentage of respondents cultivate them.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Chili Eggplant Beans Tomato Winged bean (dambala) Leafy vegetables Long beans Cabbage Cassava Cooking melon Gotukola (herb) Gourd (ridge and bitter) Kohlrabi Potato Pumpkin Upcountry vegetables Percentage of respondents Veg etab les
Distribution of Vegetables Cultivated Through Urban
Agriculture in Kandy, Sri Lanka
Figure 8
Types of fruits cultivated through urban agriculture, out of 19 respondents (N=19), in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 11.
In figure 9, the results of 13 people that produce spices and 6 respondents that do not produce spices are included, together this means that N = 19. Noteworthy is that 53% (10) of all respondents cultivate turmeric, and 47% (9) cultivate pepper. These are followed by 32% (6) from 19 respondents that do not cultivate any spices.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% No fruits Banana Papaya Mango Avocado Rambutan Guava Cocoa June plum Lemon Coconut Annona Passionfruit Orange
Percentage of respondents cultivating
Fru
its
Distribution of Fruits Cultivated Through Urban Agriculture in
Kandy, Sri Lanka
Figure 9
Types of spices cultivated through urban agriculture, by 19 respondents(N =19), in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 13.
In figure 10 below, the 3 people that cultivate non-food products are portrayed. All other respondents answered that they do not cultivate non-food products.
Figure 10
Types of non-food products cultivated through urban agriculture, by 3 non-food producers out of 19 respondents (N=19), in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 18.
In Figure 11, a few uncommon crops are portrayed that are mentioned in the results above.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Turmeric Pepper No spices Ginger Cloves Nutmeg Cinnamon Garcinia Rampe Cardamom Percentage of respondents Sp ices
Distribution of Spices Culitvated Through Urban
Agriculture in Kandy, Sri Lanka
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% No non-food Wood Cotton Flowers Rubber Percentage of respondents No n -f o o d p ro d u cts
Distribution of Non-Food Products Culitvated Through
Urban Agriculture in Kandy, Sri Lanka
Figure 11
A depiction of uncommon crops from the results: the fruit annona (top left), the herb gotukola (top right), the spice rampe (middle left), the spice garcinia (middle right), the vegetable winged bean (bottom left) and the vegetable long bean (bottom right) (Wikipedia, 2020; t’ Ol Daip, 2020; Spice n’ Things, 2021; Matcha Factory, 2021; Pinterest, 2021; Dormires, 2021 )
4.4 Food security
Results about food security from all respondents, so not when divided among space groups, is the following. As shown in Table 1, 37% (7) of people stated that it is ‘Sometimes true’ that they were afraid to run out of food in the past year, 5% (1) of people stated that this is ‘Often true’ and the remaining 58% (11) answered ‘Never true’. Visualized graphs of this table can be seen in figure 12, 13 and 14 of appendix 3. The implications this may have will be mentioned in the discussion.
Table 1
Food security questions answered by all 19 participants (N=19).
Never true Sometimes true Often true Afraid to run out of
food
58% (11) 37% (7) 5% (1)
Less need to buy food 21% (4) 63% (12) 16% (3)
Helps to bring food to the table
5. Discussion
Here different interesting results and their possible implications will be discussed for gender, space groups, types of crops in UA practices and food security.
5.1 Gender
As also discussed in the results, when looking at the gender distribution, about 85% is female, as is portrayed in Figure 3 in the results. This could for example be because in general, women often have a bigger household management role than men, in which the managing the garden is included, and were thus also expected to be the most likely to practice UA (Mougeout, 2000). However, it could also be related to the fact that the survey was distributed by a female student, to people that she knew. Because of this drawing conclusions about this may not be possible, due to the biased nature of the research. However, it is still the case that these respondents seem knowledgeable about the topic and genuine UA practitioners, so they do belong to the target group. Also interesting is that out of 3 male respondents, 2 state to possess 2000 square meters of land, and thus belonging to the group with access to a large space. This may hint to the fact that instead of practicing small scale UA, in for example their yard, they operate on a larger scale. Because of this they may be more dependent on the income gathered from their garden, and their production could be a larger part of their occupation.
5.2 Space groups
When comparing the answers from people with different amounts of space available to them, certain noteworthy differences can be seen. However, even though interesting conclusions can be drawn from these results, the sample size is small and the responses of only 12 people are analyzed, and the results may thus not entirely represent reality. So as mentioned, this research is exploratory and is meant to generate theory for further research (Bryman, 2016). The full table of the results discussed below is also portrayed in Figure 15 of appendix 3, the important smaller parts shown here per relevant point.
Firstly, as also shown in Table 2, people with small spaces do not cultivate any non-food products, nor do they sell what they produce. This is likely because their available space limits them in the goods that they can produce and due to the lack of space to produce sufficient amounts. However, all 3 with a small space do share their products with their neighbors. This could for example be because of a high feeling of community, or because sharing some of your produce with neighbors is more accessible than selling it. From the people that have access to a medium space, 3 out of 4 people sell their cultivated products, similarly 4 out of 5 people with a large space sell their products. Both of these groups are more likely to be able to generate sufficient produce and make money by selling the goods because they have access to more space. Medium and large space respondents share their products with more different groups than small spaces, expanding from only sharing with neighbors to also include friends and relatives. Once again this could be related to their higher production capacity when compared to smaller spaces. However, in this sample, only 2 out of 4 people of the medium spaces share their
the sample size, if the sample would have been bigger, then maybe the results would have been different. Only the group that has access to a large space produces non-food products. This could for example be because only they have access to enough space to expand upon only food. Another reason that this group produces non-food products is that for example wood may take less effort to maintain than a garden on a large plot of land. It is also a possibility that the owner with access to a large space is a full time farmer, the non-food products could take up a large portion of their income because of their value, as could be the case for cotton and rubber that one person produces.
Table 2
Survey answers for Non-food products, Sale of products, Sharing of products from groups with different available space.
Small space (3 people) Medium space (4 people) Large space (5 people)
Non-Food 0/3 None 0/4 None 3/5
Cotton, Flowers, Rubber, Wood (3x)
Sale of products 0/3 None 3/4
Sell cultivated products 4/5 Sell cultivated products Sharing 3/3 Neighbors (3x) 2/4 shares products Friends Neighbors Relatives (2x) 4/5 Friends (2x) Neighbors (3x) Relatives (3x)
As seen in Table 3, interesting is that people with small spaces produce all produce fruits, while of those with a medium space, only one person produces fruits. This is the other way around when looking at spices, 1 out of 3 with a small space produces spices, while it is cultivated by 3 out of 4 people with a medium space. The strange thing here is that more people with small spaces produce fruits than in medium spaces, this could be due to the low sample size. This is strange because with more access to space, more opportunities could exist for cultivating a larger variety of crops. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that generally, a larger variety of crops is produced with a larger space in this sample, as shown in Table 4. However, highly important to note is that similarly: small, medium and large spaces include the results of 3, 4 and 5 respondents respectively. The increase in variety in crops could thus instead be related to the extra analyzed respondent, in which case the hypothesis is less valid and would require additional research. For this reason it is better to look at the averages per person as is also done in Table 4. When looking at these averages the hypothesis is contradicted twice: firstly large spaces produce less vegetable varieties per person than medium spaces, and small spaces produce more varieties of spices on average than medium spaces. In all other instances however, the results support the hypothesis.
Table 3
Survey answers for Fruits and Spices from groups with different available space.
Small space (3 people) Medium space (4 people) Large space (5 people) Fruits 3/3 Bananas, Mango, Papaya (2x) 1/4 Anona, Banana, Mango, Orange, Rambutan 4/5 Avocado, Banana, Cocoa, June plum, Lemon Passionfruit, Rambutan Spices 1/3 Cinnamon, Cloves, Pepper, Turmeric 3/4 Cardamom, Cinnamon, Ginger (2x), Pepper (3x), Turmeric (2x) 4/5 Cloves (2x), Garcenia, Ginger, Pepper (2x), Nutmeg, Rampe, Turmeric (2x) Table 4
Average of varieties of crops, divided between different space groups
Average varieties for small spaces
(3 people)
Average varieties for medium spaces
(4 people)
Average varieties for large spaces
(5 people)
Vegetables 2 pp 2.5 pp 2.2 pp
Fruits 1 pp 1.25 pp 1.4 pp
Spices 1.33 pp 1.25 pp 1.4 pp
When looking at the 3 food security questions that were asked in combination with the space groups, the results are also interesting. When the focus is on food security of all respondents,
As shown in Table 5, in the small group 1 out of 3 appears to be food insecure, stating that they were afraid to run out of food, as well as the garden not leading to a lower need to buy food. Another from the group with access to a small space is a bit more positive, while saying that they were afraid to run out of food in the last year, they do also say that their own production was of assistance to buy less food.
the group with access to a medium space appears most positive when it comes to food security, none of them were afraid to run out of food in the last year, and they also state that their own production helps to get food on the table and leads to less need to buy products. This could for example be because they mainly practice urban agriculture next to their job as an extra measure or hobby while they do not
The group with access to a large space was less positive in the food security questions, 3 out of 5, so 60% of people stated that they were afraid to run out of food in the last year. A possible reason for this could be that people with access to large spaces rely more heavily on the income and personal consumption of the goods that they produce.
Table 5
Survey answers for Food security from groups with different available space.
Small space (3 people) Medium space (4 people) Large space (5 people)
Food security Afraid to run out of food 2/3
Less need to buy food 2/3
Helps to bring food to the table 3/3
Afraid to run out of food 0/4
Less need to buy food 4/4
Helps to bring food to the table 4/4
Afraid to run out of food 3/5
Less need to buy food 4/5
Helps to bring food to the table 5/5
5.3 Types of crops in urban agriculture practices
As seen in Figure 9, turmeric is cultivated by about 50% of the total respondents. This is impressive because out of 13 respondents that do cultivate spices, only 3 do not cultivate turmeric. This could be related to the import bans which result in an increased need for self-sufficiency (Hamza, 2020). The same goes for ginger and pepper which is also cultivated by a considerable amount of people. It is also interesting to see that chilis were cultivated to such a degree, as seen in Figure 7, 9 out of 16 vegetable producers cultivate chilis, this can likely be related to the cuisine in Sri Lanka which is generally more spicy than the Dutch cuisine, which is why many people could enjoy their own chilis. Interesting is that this can directly be related to food security as well, because a scarce product that is preferred in the cuisine becomes available through UA, that leads to a direct increase in food security (Brief, 2009).
5.4 Food security
According to the coding system of ‘Sometimes true’ and ‘Often true’ being coded as food insecure for the first, negatively loaded question about being afraid to run out of food, 42% of respondents would be food insecure. Which is a substantial amount. When looking at the two supporting, positively loaded food security questions that ask about their farm allowing them to go to the supermarket less and assisting in bringing food to the table, the answers are highly positive and almost no one answers ‘Never true’. This means that UA could be of assistance to generating food security, but not able to entirely provide for households. Thus, it could be advantageous to bring more attention to the potential of UA and to educate he household scale should about its benefits.
6. Methodological reflection
Gathering the results was only possible because of cooperation of a Sri Lankan student, and while I am very grateful for this, it sometimes made data collection difficult. Due to difficulty in data collection, it was not easy to acquire a sufficient sample size to generate reliable, trustworthy results. This research is therefore mainly exploratory with a main goal of generating or theory for further research, and it thus cannot guarantee that it directly describes reality but may be able to provide insights for further generation of further theory (Bryman, 2016). To support the results of the surveys, a theoretical foundation was created with scientific literature. In order to make it feasible for my partner and to gather sufficient results, the survey was mainly sent out to people she knew in Kandy. Likely because of this, as also shown in Figure 12, about 70 percent of respondents is between 20 and 30 years old, which is close to her age. This may also explain why about 85% of respondents is female, considering she may have sent it to female friends. However, even though these results are biased, it is not necessarily an issue for the results because the respondents show that they practice urban food cultivation and that they are knowledgeable on the subject, and are thus part of the interest group.
Figure 12
(Age) Age distribution from urban agriculture practitioners of 21 respondents in Kandy, Sri Lanka. From question 2.
After gathering the results it became apparent that methodological errors were present in this research. In the survey a few questions should have been worded differently in order to gather more desirable results. From the survey questions in Appendix 2, this was applicable in the following cases: firstly question 9 about the types of cultivated vegetables, in which certain people provided vague overarching answers such as ‘vegetables for daily consumption’. This could be for example resolved by adding example answers in the form of different types of vegetables behind the question. Secondly, with question 24 about the type of irrigation for the crops, a lot of respondents answered ‘other’, but the
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 51-60 41-50 31-40 20-30 Percentage of respondents (0.1 = 10%) A g e g ro u p s
Age Distribution from Urban Agriculture Practitioners in
Kandy, Sri Lanka
respondents are asked ‘how they can be contacted’, the wording in the question is very flawed because many people provided answers such as ‘by phone’. Another methodological error is that to maintain privacy, respondents were not asked for their name, because of this it became very difficult to gather follow-up information based on the surveys.
The survey currently consisted of 40 questions, however, as seen in the unused graphs in Appendix 3, many of the answers were not used because they were not directly relevant to the research, or because the question was asked and answered in a way that is difficult to use for analysis. An example is that respondents were asked in question 4 what kind of space they cultivate their products in, to which many answered that they use their yard or midula. However, this does not directly explain how they practice UA: do they use pots, do they have a small kitchen garden, or something else. In general it was difficult to choose what questions to include in the survey in order to keep it short enough, and looking back at them it is noticeable that some could have either been omitted or worded differently. It is easy to say in hindsight that certain changes should have been made, but that mainly becomes apparent after tying to analyze the data. For example the ‘perceived amount of space’ was asked from a lot to very little, this is a very vague concept that is based on personal opinions of participants. While it could have been interesting to analyze to what degree their perceived space was corresponding with the square meters available, it does not really add anything to the analysis.
Out of interest, many different variables related to urban agriculture were asked about in the survey, however, it is difficult to structure an analysis around them. I was very interested to find out about the different practices that take place in Sri Lanka, but it was difficult to discern what could be leading variables and what should be left out. This problem could be related to choice of questions or to the way questions are asked, it would have been nice to have questions that are directly designed to answer the research questions. This was not entirely the case because in the research process the questions changed.
Another limitation is related to cultural differences. Firstly because the author of this research is Dutch, it was more difficult to design questions fitting for the Sri Lankan environment. Luckily however, exchanges with partners with Sri Lanka did assist in combatting this problem. Aside from that, cultural differences in Sri Lanka itself should also be considered. The culture in Sri Lanka is very diverse, to the degree that culture is likely to be different when looking at different parts of the country (Fernando, 2021). This means that the results of research in Kandy may be less applicable to other parts of the country. Specifically, UA could be less popular in other areas or they could cultivate different products for a certain cultural or geographical reasons.
A third limitation was a language barrier, the author of this paper is not proficient in Sri Lanka’s native languages, Sinhala and Tamil. However, in cooperation with partners in Sri Lanka the survey was translated to Sinhala in order to make it usable in the Kandy.
The Covid-19 pandemic was also a large barrier. It made it impossible to personally travel to Sri Lanka for research. Because of this, the research relied heavily on participation of Sri Lankan partners for data collection. This is partially advantageous because of their knowledge of the environment and people, but it was also highly inconvenient to be unable to assist in the data collection. Other effects of the Covid-19 pandemic were that traveling restrictions hindered data collection, the partner in Sri Lanka had an internship in Colombo and the research area is in Kandy. Luckily this was circumvented by distributing the surveys online with google forms, but it did make thinking about additional data collection methods more troublesome.
7. Research recommendations
There are certain aspects that this research was not able to collect a lot of data about, mainly concerning what exact farming practices are prevalent. From studying the literature it became apparent that in Sri Lanka homegardening practices are diverse and make use of very creative farming methods in which for example buckets and plastic bottles are used, this is also shown in the Family Business Garden model (Ranasinghe, 2009). However, in the way that questions were asked and the data that this survey provided, it did not become apparent exactly what kind of garden a respondent practices urban agriculture on.
In order to get a view on food security that is closer to reality, it could be a good idea for further research to follow food security questions more closely in similarity to the USDA that would together form a food security score, potentially in combination with a different list of questions about UA. This could lead to a better total view of the situation, but participants would have to be willing to fill in both surveys.
A question in the survey showed that most participants were interested in participating in semi-structured interviews. Semi-semi-structured interviews consist of an item list with subjects that should be discussed during the interview, this leads to a solid structure for the interview while still allowing for a flexible conversation (Bryman, 2016). A list of proposed interview questions for a potential interview and their translation to Sinhala are shown in Appendix 4. This could have been a useful data collection method for a more in-depth view from inhabitants that practice UA and to get more information about what exactly it is they do in their garden, and what it looks like. It would thus be able to assist in forming a full picture of the situation and their UA practices. This is necessary because in the current research, it is for example almost impossible to know if the respondents cultivate their products according to the ways of traditional homegardening, or if they only use a few pots in their yard. For further research conducting interviews is highly recommended.
Another aspect that the research was not able to draw conclusions about, was time invested from respondents to their garden. This would have been a good measure to assess of what importance their garden is to their food needs, and to estimate its importance for their income. Similarly it would be good
A different way to possibly accomplish these missing aspects, is by polishing the list of survey questions and conducting the research again. As stated certain questions did not provide results that were interesting to use in an analysis, I think that this is mainly because of the closed nature of the questions and the lack of follow-up questions. A way to solve this issue could be to ask more open questions in which the respondent can give a more personalized answer. For the research it would have been good if it was more specialized, if the goal was from the start to take a look at 3 different groups with other amounts of access to space, then the questions should have more designed around that.
To gather data it could still be interesting and valuable to collect data on a larger scale with random sampling. This can firstly be advantageous for analyzing if food security does significantly appear to differ between the control group and the group that practices UA. Secondly it can provide results which are more likely to be representative of reality.
For data analysis the plan was at first to use the statistical analysis program SPSS for the quantitative data. This could have been useful to discern if results between different groups of space were significantly different, this could still be useful for further research. However, in this research the main focus was on the qualitative data gathered in the survey. For further research it could be interesting to discover the potential of using Atlas.ti for the qualitative data, mainly if further research would be in the form of interviews or an increased amount of open questions. Atlas.ti is a qualitative analysis program that can be used in order to code text by assigning certain labels to a part of text that belongs to a relevant theoretical concept, which will likely be based on the operationalized concepts in Appendix 1 (Bryman, 2016). In the case of this survey most of the coding was done in advance by assigning the coded concepts to the questions, so using Atlas.ti was less necessary, but if respondents get more freedom in their answers, and if more answers would be analyzed, Atlas.ti may be increasingly useful. Another plan for data analysis was to gather pictures of the respondents their gardens which could have been used to form a ‘database’ of the different participants. This would firstly have been interesting to see more directly what the garden of respondents looks like, and secondly it could be used to make a hypothesis about certain aspects. Including what kind of garden they have, and they can be used to estimate if a household may belong to a high or low income group, which has implications about food security. However, this would be a rough estimate and not necessarily representative of reality. In this research this was not possible because of two reasons: partially due to the methodological mistake that was made which was in place to maintain privacy, made it difficult contact respondents and assign them to possible pictures. Aside from that, the Sri Lankan partner was very busy which made gathering additional data difficult.
Aside from these, as discussed in chapter 2, another mentioned interesting topic for further research could be related to gender in urban agriculture. For example by analyzing what the roles are in urban agriculture between men and women, and what the effect of this is.
As also discussed in Chapter 2, another interesting topic to explore beyond this research could be the influence of policy on UA. Policy can play a large role for maintaining UA practices, which means that researching policy and designing policy recommendations could be very interesting.
8. Conclusion
Sri Lanka is currently trying to adapt to influences from the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused hardship and economic pressure. Due to this pressure, the government decided that there was a need to save money by applying import restrictions and bans on products which were previously almost entirely imported. But this also provided opportunities for positive influences to arise, one of them could be that urban agriculture has risen in popularity. This research hypothesized based on literature that urban agriculture could assist in attaining food security on a household level, which is the reason that the following research question was formed: “What role does urban agriculture play for food security on a household level in Kandy, Sri Lanka?”. Shortly, from the gathered data it appears to contribute to food security. Answers were mainly very optimistic when looking at the positively worded questions about their own garden assisting in bringing food to the table, and it allowing them to buy less at the supermarket. However, something that concerns me is that 42% of respondents was sometimes or often afraid to run out of food without having the resources to buy or produce more. This likely means that even though their own garden has positive effects, and it contributes to food security, it is unable to be considered a solution by itself. Thus, possibilities in urban agriculture can be expanded due to the positive effects that it is presumed to have for food security. Progress could be made by educating more about its strengths and weaknesses, including feasible farming methods that are proven to be effective on a household scale as is done in FBG.
To get to the answer of the research question the first thing that came to mind what the most prevalent urban agriculture practices are on a household level in Kandy this led to the following sub-question: “What are currently the most commonly cultivated crops in urban agriculture practices on a household level in Kandy, Sri Lanka?”. With this question the main intention is to determine what kind of crops are produced and how. Sadly the results about how the crops are produced are lacking, but good data was gathered about the main prevalent crops. All 19 respondents cultivated vegetables, followed by 68% that produce spices, 58% that produce fruits and 16% that produce non-food products. More about the specific crops in these categories can be seen in the results.
The second sub-question is “What is the effect of the amount of available space for urban agriculture practices on a household level in Kandy, Sri Lanka?” It was hypothesized that a larger space could lead to the production of more crops and a higher variety between produced goods. Aside from that this also relates to food security, because space and access are part of the operationalization of the concept, here similarly, small spaces would be expected to have a lower amount of available space and less means to acquire access. Due to analyzing the results, more can be said about these hypotheses.
most cases. However, a statistical test would have to be applied to analyze if this difference is significant. Secondly, as the amount of space increases, differences in food security can also be seen. In this sample respondents with access to a little amount of space and respondents with access to a lot of space are not entirely food secure because they state that they were afraid to run out of food in the last 12 months. Respondents with access to a medium amount of space do appear entirely food secure however. This difference could be explained by the fact that people with small spaces are able to produce less on their space and likely to have less money than the groups with higher amounts of space. People with medium spaces are hypothesized to mainly practice urban agriculture as a hobby and would thus be less reliant on the produce. In this sample people with access to a large space are presumed to use their garden as a larger part of their occupation, as can for example also be seen in the fact that they also produce goods like rubber. Due to the fact that it is a larger part of their occupation, it does not necessarily entirely cover their food needs.
The last sub-question is “What can urban agriculture practices on a household level learn from traditional homegardening practices and the Family Business Garden model in Kandy, Sri Lanka?”. Traditional homegardening and the Family Business Garden model have been mentioned throughout the research and are mainly to be used as a point of education, these can be used as examples of different types of UA practices. From the results that are currently gathered it is not possible to fully analyze to what degree the respondents their garden follows principles from either concept. As an example for FBG, from knowing due to the survey results that people produce in their yard and sell their products, it is not immediately known to what degree they are in line with the principles in the Family Business Garden model. Something similar is applicable to traditional homegardens, 1 person answered that the kind of space they produce on is a homegarden, but the concept of a homegarden is broad and they could technically still mean their personal yard with this. Additionally, from knowing that a person produces certain fruits that fit in the atmosphere of a traditional homegarden, you cannot immediately draw conclusions about it being one.
The two concepts can, however, be used as a learning tool: FBG has a lot of potential for small spaces, to use creativity in order to efficiently use space and use it to cultivate crops which allow you to make a profit and increase your food security. Traditional homegardens offer a diverse climate that is robust and environmentally friendly, while also having the potential to yield social and economic benefits to the farmer. It does come with constraints, however, most importantly likely the fact that it is more difficult to apply to small spaces, which is a highly relevant constraint for the household scale. Additional research about the full potential of these two concepts on the household scale would be welcomed.
