1. INTRODUCTION1.1 IntroductionThis research proposal is about the implication of urban

agriculture to environment substantiated by a case study of

Injibara town in the Amhara regional state. Urban

Agriculture (UA) is the growing of plants and the raring of

animals for food and other uses with in cities and peri-

urban area. Urban farmers usually specialized in the

production of perishable and high commercial value

agricultural products, such as vegetables, milk and milk

products, egg, and meat (Mugeot, 2000). There are mainly

known benefits of urban agriculture (UA),such as providing

increased access to nutrition's food ,strengthening of

communities through educational opportunities for residents

and children ,and increased property values (been and

voicu,2006 cited in Heather ,2012).Through these

benefits ,UA clearly contributes towards sustainably goal of

cities.

Sustainability also requires that an activity has a

positive, or at least a neutral effect on the environment.

Globally, it looks like that there is general sense that

urban agriculture can benefit the environment ,in terms of

waste collection, bio diversity, reduce urban heat, reduce

soil degradation, however ,there has been limited research

to directly substantiate this claim. Besides the study

available on the subject have each mainly focused on one

particular relationship between urban agriculture and

environment and non provides a comprehensive frame of

analysis (Heather, 2012)

This study will thus, focus on the implication of urban and

peri-urban agriculture on environment; in the town of

Injibara in Amhara Region. The research proposal contains;

introductory, literature review, research methodology, time

schedule and budget. The introductory part consists of

background of the study, statement of the problems, general

and specific objectives of the study, research questions,

and conceptual definitions, significance of the study, scope

of the study, limitation of the study, description of the

study area and organization of the thesis.

1.2 Background of the StudyIn 2008, the world’s urban population outnumbered its rural

population for the 1st time in history (UNFPA, 2007). Urban

growth is projected to increase significantly in the coming

decades. The world urban population is expected to double

from 3.3bilion in 2007 to 6.4bilion by 2050.It is predicted

that 60% of the world's population will live in cities by

2030(UN-Habitat, 2007), although in many countries this

proportion is already higher. However, the rapid increase in

urban population comes with a number of challenges growing

unemployment, poverty as well environmental and health

problems. Currently 77% of Latin Americans lives in cities ,

while in Asia and Africa the proportion is currently 53% and

39%, growing at rate of 3&4% per year respectively( UN-

Habitat,2003,has cited in UN-Habitat,2007), and city

dwellers bellow poverty line is increasing.

Most African cities face significant urbanization -related

challenges such as waste management and drinking water

supply; however, it is not surprising that urban agriculture

in general does not get much political attention usually

ignored or tolerated. In municipal planning, it is missing

from the agenda (Drechsel et al. 2008). The situation is not

different in Ethiopia. Lee (1997) and G/Egziabher (1994),

stated that the livelihood of many urban citizens is heavily

dependent on urban farming but urban policy maker fail to

give due attention to urban agriculture.

There is now growing consensus that urban agriculture is not

a problem as previously thought, but an important

contributor to sustainable urban growth and development, as

well as people’s lively hoods. The sector contributes

significantly to food supply, employment creation, income

generation and environmental management. It is estimated

that about 800milion people worldwide engage in UPA (UN-

Habitat, 2001). It is thought that globally, urban

agriculture produces 15% of all food consumed in urban

areas, and that this figure is likely to double within the

next 20 year.

In Russia, 72 % of households are urban farmers, 80 thousand

in Berlin, 68% in Tanzania, while in China the 14 largest

Cities produce 85% or more vegetables (UN-Habitat, 2001).

Increases in urban agriculture have also been recorded in

Africa Cities such as Bissau(Guinea Bissau),

Dakar(Senegal) ,Kumasi(Ghana), Lome (Togo), Nairobi

(Kenya),and Dar- es-salamm ( Tanzania)(FAO,2004). In

developed countries urban agricultural production systems

are well adapted to the urban environment. They make best

use of local inputs, use local wastes as a source of

nutrients and are inter linked. Like any production system,

these systems need proper management (specially in dairy

systems the odder produced and the presence of flies need to

be controlled), but they pose little to danger to

environment (Losada et al, 2010).

Urban Agriculture from a 'sustainable development' situation

considered four major aspects: food security, the

contribution of urban agriculture to the cultivating

household, the environmental benefits of the practice, and

the associated social and psychological benefits (Kasumba,

2007). Urban Agriculture has potential for improving the

urban environment by using organic wastes and solid wastes

as input, by improving the micro climate and by preventing

erosion and flooding through re planting bare lands.

Generally urban agriculture has both positive and negative

effect on environment, so with appropriate management and

monitoring, reducing the negative impact and enhancing

positive aspect of the urban agriculture is the way to make

the urban agriculture sustainable and there by insuring

sustainable city. In addition excessive use of chemical

fertilizer to bring more production can cause environmental

pollution and health problem in urban resident.

1.3 Problem StatementThe importance of urban agriculture is increasing all over

the world including Ethiopia. The development of urban

agriculture is strongly influenced by the dynamics of the

urban social, economic, political, ecological and spatial

systems with which it is connected. Urban agriculture adapts

to new economic and spatial conditions. Consequently, there

is a great variety in urban farming systems, people involved

and their relations. These systems adapted to the continuous

changing local conditions of the city where urban

agriculture takes on new functions. A major functions of

urban agriculture is and will always be food supply and

income generation in the cities, but increasingly, urban

agriculture plays a role in environmental, landscape and

biodiversity management and in providing recreational

services, reducing urban heat, increasing water

availability, in reducing soil loss and soil degradation,

solid waste use, storm water run-off, etc among others.

Peoples tend to think that urban agriculture is messy

business and have little understanding of environmental

benefits of the urban agriculture and people need food

production. Urban agriculture in Injibara town is practiced

by few individuals before few years at home garden. But when

the urban dwellers and unemployment is coming to increase

from time to time urban agriculture has become job

opportunity for unemployed, investor and enterprises.

According to Injibara town administrative mid-term annual

report (2014/15), the participants of urban agriculture are

individual farmers which are estimated to be 172, micro

enterprises and investors with corresponding figures of 96

and 8 respectively. Thus, there have been a total of 276

urban agriculture practitioners with cultivated land area of

3678899.5m2/367.89 hectare. But their engagement is only to

have economic benefits leaving aside environmental

implications. This has lead to environmental degradation and

pollution which is caused from urban agriculture indicated

by dumping of animal and municipal waste, using of chemical

fertilizer and in some little amount pesticides for crop and

vegetable production, charcoal production from plantation,

soil and biodiversity loss, odor pollution and, health and

environmental problems.

Regarding the title under consideration, researches have

been done by scholars. For instance Cofie (2009), Edward

(2010), Mougeot (2000), FAO (2008), Veenhuizen and Danso

(2007), Angela A. (2014), Matt Palmer 2012, Dubbling et al.

2009, UNFPA (2007), Cohen et al. 2012, Tidball & Krasny

(2006), etc. This research however, is made to consider both

economic and environmental implications of urban agriculture

in the study area which is indicated by dumping of animal

and municipal waste, charcoal production from plantation,

soil and biodiversity loss, odor pollution and, health and

environmental problems, using of chemical fertilizer and in

some little amount pesticides for crop and vegetable

production. This situation call for research work to look at

this issues in the area closely and genuinely in order to

give clear descriptions of the problems and workable

solutions and recommendations for environmental friendly and

sustainable urban agriculture in the town from various urban

dwellers and administrative views.

Therefore, it is the concern of the study to assess major

types of urban agriculture practiced, benefits of UA,

impacts of UA and factors hindering the development of

environmental friendly urban agriculture; and generally

environmental implication of urban agriculture at the legal

boundary of Injibara town in Amhara Region.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

This study will be guided by both general and specific

objectives.

1.4.1 General Objectives of the Study

The overall objective will be to assess the environmental

implications of urban agriculture; substantiated by the case

study of Injibara town in the Amhara regional state.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives of the Study

Under the umbrella of the aforementioned general

objective, the specific objectives of the study shall

include:

To identify the major types of urban agricultural

practices in the study area;

To examine environmental and socio-economic benefits

of urban agriculture in the town;

To assess the impacts of urban agriculture to the

urban environment in Injibara town;

To explore those factors hindering the development of

environmental friendly sustainable urban agriculture;

and

To forward workable solutions and recommendations for

environmental friendly and sustainable urban

agriculture in the town.

1.5 Research Questions

The research questions which are originated from the

objectives of the study are identified as follows:

What are the major types of urban agriculture practiced

in the town?

What are benefits of urban agriculture to the urban

environment in Injibara Town?

What are the major negative impacts of urban

agriculture to the environment in the study area?

What are the constraints for the development of

environmental friendly urban agriculture in the study

area? and

What possible solutions and recommendations will be

forwarded for environmental sustainable urban

agriculture in the town?

1.6 Conceptual Definition

To navigate your way through this paper, you will need to

understand definition of conceptual words clearly. Some of

the basic terms and concepts in this paper are:

Urban agriculture (UA): is defined as the practice of

agricultural production within a city boundary

or on the immediate periphery of a city. It includes the

cultivation of crops, vegetables, herbs, fruit, orchards,

parks, forestry, fuel wood, livestock (cattle rearing for

dairy products, sheep, goats, poultry, swine, and so forth),

aquaculture, and bee-keeping (G/ Egziabher, 1994).

Peri-urban Agriculture: the practice of agricultural

production in the cities periphery.

Urban environment: Encompasses the interaction of

population, growth, urban management and the built

environment with the natural environment or ecological

system in which urban is located.

Environmental degradation: environmental effects resulting

from the study area. Such effects may be anticipated or

unanticipated, and positive or negative, at the level of

individual or the organization. Such effects generally

involve changes in both cognition and behavior (Robeta,

2011).

Solid waste: Non-liquid waste collected in the town, which

is both biodegradable and non-biodegradable, which can be

called municipal waste that can be used for composting.

Sustainable agriculture: is the management system for

renewable natural resources that provided food, income and

livelihood for present and future generation while

maintaining or improving the economic production and

economic services of these resources. Sustainability

requires both continued yield and the avoidance of

environmental degradation. Sustainable agriculture

integrates environmental health, economic profitability, and

socio-economic equity.

Impact: refers to the broad, long-term economic, social and

environmental effects. Such effects may be negative or

positive, at the level of individual or the organization.

Such effects generally involve changes in both condition and

behavior.

1.7 Significance of the Study

UA in the city in general and in the study area in

particular create benefits as well as problems, accordingly,

different scholars studied the issue. Their research works

have been helpful for the producers, consumers as well as

the government for the smooth functioning of the study. The

study will be conducted for the purpose of academic reason

in partial fulfillment of masters` degree program at

Ethiopian Civil Service University with urban environment

and climate change management department. Moreover, the

conclusions and recommendations are also helpful to give

insight knowledge on urban agriculture and the environmental

implications of urban agriculture to the urban community and

local authorities. The output of this study may be used as

an input for government organizations and nongovernmental

organizations involving in the implementation of urban

agriculture and for those who are interested to undertaking

similar studies and researches.

1.8 Scope or Delimitation of the Study

The functional limit of the study will be the environmental

implications of urban agriculture, and the thematic scope of

the study will focus on the practices of urban agriculture

in the town and the environmental impacts and benefits, and

concerning solid waste, green biodiversity and on farm area

will be studied within the jurisdiction (legal boundary) of

Injibara town of Amhara National Regional State.

As stated above the study will confined to assess the type

of urban agriculture practiced in the town, benefits of

urban agriculture to the environment, negative impacts of

urban agriculture on environment, factors hindering the

development of environmental friendly UA and possible

strategies will also be forwarded. Specifically the study

will consider the urban farmers and micro and small

enterprises of urban agriculture on the contribution of

urban agriculture to the environment and urban farming

constraints of the town; so that restricting the conclusion

of the study to be generalized for all the towns of the

country at similar level as Injibara town. Finally, the

study only considers types of urban agriculture practices,

their benefits and negative impacts of urban agriculture to

environment in the study area.

1.9 Description of the Study Area

In this section, there is need to indicate where the study

will be done and to describe its key characteristics like;

climate, geology, soil, land use, vegetation, socioeconomic

activities, population, etc. It will also indicate the

geographical locality as well as geographical coordinates.

Also a locality map for the study area will be described.

1.9.1 Location and Topographical Features of the Town

Injibara town the administrative center of Awi -zone, in

Amhara Regional State located in the western part of the

region 445 km far from Addis Ababa and 118 km far from

Bahirdar, the capital of the region. The town is bounded by

Banja shikudad woreda in all directions. Administrative

status of the town is, town council and encompasses three

kebeles currently, the town covers 3619 hectare of land

(Injibara town Finance and Economic office 2014).

The relief feature of the Injibara town is characterized by

plain area60%, mountainous 25%, rugged land 9%, and valley

lands 6%. The town forest species that give its geographical

setting a Scenic beauty. The town has nearly Dega Climate

with very cold and moist air condition, and high rainfall

amount between 2200- 2400mm. the temperature ranges from

260c to 160c.

Location map of Injibara Town administration

Source: CSA Kebele Map (2011)

1.9.2 Socio Economic Profile of Town

Based on Amhara National Regional State Finance and economic

development Bureau report (2013/2014), the population of the

town was 35,846; of which 18,540 males and 17,306 are

females. The population structure of Injibara town was

characterized by high adult age group which accounts for

52.57% the total population followed by young and old age

group that accounts for 44.52% and 2.60% respectively. The

dominant language spoken in the town is both agew and

Amharic, and others are almost none. The religion followed

by the people is dominantly Christian which accounts 99% of

total population.

1.9.3 Administrative Structure and Status

The town was established in 1892 by local lord called Ras

Hailu (Awi-millinium Bulletin 2008). Currently the town is

the administrative center of the zone and there are zonal

sect oral offices, different financial and business sectors,

and also different sectors of the town Administrative and

has different investment activities which create job

opportunity for many people.

In the administrative town different activities are

undertaking, when we take related to this study- urban

agriculture; vegetable and fruit production, fattening and

animal raring, bee keeping, forest plantation, solid waste

management practice in some cases started by cooperating 12

male and 7 female totally 19 jobless, to collect and dispose

solid waste, even through, if not effectively collect and

dispose due to some problems (Injbara Administrative town

annual Report, 2013 /2014).

1.10 Organization of the Thesis

The research will be organized in five sections. The first

section is the introductory part of the study that contains

background of the study, statement of the problem,

objectives of the study, significance of the study, scope of

the study, description of the study area and organization of

the thesis. The second section is devoted to the

presentation of literature reviews of related theoretical.

The third chapter deals with research methodology of the

study which presents the research design, data sources,

instruments of data collection, sampling design, and data

analysis, and finally time schedule, budget and references

are attached as annexes which are necessary to the study.

The rest two sections; discussion and analysis, and

conclusion and recommendation will be included after

practical study.

2.0 Literature Review

Urban agriculture practices are activities that are taking

place in intra-urban and peri-urban areas and it has its own

benefits and impact to urban environment depending on its

management practice. Therefore, in this study the researcher

reviewed different literatures that are of paramount

importance for a broader understanding and an in-depth

insight of the issue at hand about environmental

implications of urban agriculture. Accordingly, this section

begins with definitional frameworks, and based on available

literatures, issues like types of urban agricultural

practices, different impacts and benefits of urban

agriculture to environment and factors hindering the

development of environmental friendly sustainable urban

agriculture will be reviewed.

2.1 Definitional Framework

For the research, to understand variables clearly through

this paper, you will need to define a few of basic terms and

concepts. Some of the basic terms and concepts in this paper

are:

Urban agriculture: is a dynamic concept that comprises

systems ranging from subsistence farming at household level

to a fully commercialized system. It is defined in different

ways by different scholars (Lee-smith, 1998; Sawio, 1998).

However, the definition by tinker (1994) defines urban

agriculture as practice of producing agricultural items

within the city boundary or on the immediate periphery which

includes the growing of food crops, fruits, trees, herbs,

fire wood as well as the raising of animals including

cattle, poultry, fish, bees and pigs. It is a labor

intensive farming requiring only small area around small

residential areas such as vacant plots, outdoor gardens,

parks, Balconies, containers, road strips and even on the

roofs or upper covering of buildings.

Urban agriculture which distinguishes it from rural

agriculture is its integration in to the urban economy and

ecological system (here on referred to as “ecosystem”

according to (Richter et al. 1995). It is not its urban

location which distinguishes urban agriculture from rural

agriculture, but the fact that it is embedded in and

interacting with the urban ecosystem.

Urban and Peri-urban agriculture (UPA): can be defined as

the growing of plants and raising of animals within and

around towns/cities. UPA provides food products from

different types of crops, animals as well as non-food

products. UPA also includes trees managed for producing

fruit and fuel wood. (FAO, 2015)

Pollution: is any condition which is hazardous or

potentially hazardous to human; health , safety, or welfare

or to living things create by altering any physical,

radioactive, thermal, chemical, biological or other property

of any part of the environment in contravention of any

condition.

Urban Environment: encompasses the interaction of

population, growth, city management and the built

environment with the natural environment or ecological

system in which city/town is located. Urban environment also

links other parameters of the urban puzzle like health,

energy, infrastructure and land use.

Environmental degradation: environmental effects resulting

from the study area. Such effects may be anticipated or

unanticipated, and positive or negative, at the level of

individual or the organization. Such effects generally

involve changes in both cognition and behavior (Robeta,

2011).

Urban Forest is a forest or a collection of trees that grow

within a city, town, or sub urban. In a wider sense it may

include any kind of woody plant vegetation growing in and

around cities.

Eco friendly urban agriculture: is maximizing environmental

benefits of urban agriculture and minimizing pollution and

risks of urban agriculture.

Sustainable urban is an urban with preserved biodiversity,

improved micro climate, green city, reduced ecological foot

print, and environmental health city.

Solid waste: Non-liquid waste collected in the town, which

is both biodegradable and non-biodegradable, which can be

called municipal waste that can be used for composting

Impact: refers to the broad, long-term economic, social and

environmental effects. Such effects may be negative or

positive, at the level of individual or the organization.

Such effects generally involve changes in both condition and

behavior.

2.2 Theoretical Literature Review

Urban agriculture is not a recent phenomenon. Archeological

findings are unraveling agricultural practices of urban

settlements achieved by ancient civilizations for the

production of food, feed and fodder, fire wood, building

materials, wind break, medical plants and transportation

(Sawio, 1994; Lee-Smit, 1998; Tinker, 1994).

Agriculture has always been part of the urban environment.

Logically the first births of a city rely on good land and

water where agriculture can strive. It is only recently in

the urban history of humanity that agriculture become

divorced from cities, and the reasons are numerous and

sometimes unclear (Mougeot, 1994). According to (Nugent,

1999), some of the motive behind to condemned urban

agriculture is its presumed negative health impact. And also

Livestock’s left to wander may ended add to urban squalor.

Nevertheless, agriculture never disappeared completely from

cities. Tradition and culture have kept the house hold

garden alive in the back yard, and ever-existing poverty in

cities have pushed some families to grow food in order to

cope with food insecurity. Urban agriculture emerges from a

structural urban problem linked the increase in urban

population.

Urban agriculture is traditional practice in Ethiopia, and

the urban-based population is used to keeping cattle, sheep,

and chickens, or growing rain-fed crops such as maize and

vegetables, on plots adjacent to their houses (Gittleman,

2009). In Addis Ababa, about 1.25% of urban land in the city

is devoted to urban agriculture and about 0.18% of Addis

Ababa population depends solely on vegetable produced in

this farms. Urban agriculture as a consequence of survival

need in Ethiopia.(G-Egziabhaire et al.,1994).

According to Tewodros (2007), cultivating a variety of

vegetables in Addis Ababa is found to be the most common

practice in all of the sub cities, as compared to other

kinds of crops; carrot, different kinds of cabbage, lettuce

and potato are the most commonly cultivated vegetable crops,

where over 75% of urban producers cultivate vegetables in a

year.

2.3 Types of Urban Agriculture

UA is a recent phenomenon as compared to rural farming.

Different scholars described urban agriculture in various

ways based on location or time of agricultural activities.

In short, any agricultural activity that is practiced in

cities is considered as urban agriculture. Yet, Bryld (2003)

stated that Activities related to urban agriculture are

rarely isolated from rural agriculture. Practices in rural

and urban areas are often inter-linked with space and

sectors. … City border are fluent, which is further

accentuated by the active rural-urban interactions taking

place in the peri-urban areas.

It is, therefore, important that urban agriculture is seen

as dynamic concept. Thus, examining urban agricultural

activities is essential to understand urban agriculture and

identify its unique features.

Urban agriculture (UA) is also defined by different scholars

differently because the varying contexts in which it takes

place, the resources involved, and the people undertaking

it. There is no universal agreed definition of urban

agriculture definition till today. The definition for my

study and that seems more inclusive is the explanation given

by (Mougeot, 2000) as an industry located within or on the

fringe of a town, a city or metropolis, which grows or

raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and

non-food products, (re-) using largely human and material

resources, products and services found in and around that

urban area, and intern supplying human and material

resources, products and services largely to that urban area.

Product and technical diversity enables UA to occupy an

enormous range of niches in urban ecosystem.

Deelstra and Girardet (2004), put urban agriculture broadly

as any agricultural production such as floriculture,

horticulture, forestry, poultry, fishery and livestock

mainly in public open spaces within or fringe of cities.

Mireri et al. (2006), further defined features of urban

agriculture as follows: Any kind of crop or livestock

production and agro-forestry or fuel wood production that is

practiced within and outskirt of cities is urban

agriculture.

Urban agriculture generally categorized in to aquaculture,

(aquatic plants), horticulture (house hold, kitchen,

community, and market gardening ; road side, rights of way,

and stream side horticulture; soilless and vertical

horticulture; and special crops, live stock(poultry, cattle,

and micro live stock), agro forestry (multi- purpose wood

production), and others(snail-razing, ornamental fish, silk

worms, worm larvae, horses, pets, and medicinal and culinary

herbs)(Smit, 1994). Various types of urban agriculture can

be observed; community gardens (formal and informal), home

gardens, institutional gardens (managed by schools,

hospitals, prisons, factories, nurseries, roof gardening

cultivation in cellars and barns (e g. Mush rooms, earth

worms).

Urban agriculture also divided in to intra-urban agriculture

and peri- urban agriculture according to cofie, (2009).

Intra-urban agriculture takes place within the inner city

like areas not suited for building (along streams, close to

airports, etc), public or private lands not being used,

house hold areas and community lands. But peri-urban

agriculture takes place in the urban periphery. As is the

case in Ethiopia, urban agriculture can be characterized in

to 3 farming systems on the basis of location. These are

vacant space cultivation, house hold or home stead gardening

and peri-urban agriculture. According Edward (2010), the

vacant space cultivation is done in open spaces usually in

residential areas, beside water ways and road sides. The

peri-urban cultivation takes place on lands just outside the

built up areas of the city. Throughout Europe there is new

interest in community gardens on municipal land in Berlin,

with a waiting list of 16,000. During the two world wars, as

much as one-half of the nutrition (other than grains) of

cities on both sides of the conflict was produced within and

at the edge of the city. World 1 gave a boost to urban

agriculture in North America just as it did in Europe.

Municipality supported the home grower and commercial grower

alike to raise perishable foods (smit, et al. 2001).

2.4 Benefits of Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture plays a role in food supply and income

generation, environmental, landscape and biodiversity

management and in providing recreational services, reducing

urban heat, increasing water availability, in reducing soil

loss and soil degradation, solid waste use, storm water run-

off, etc among others.

2.4.1 Socio-Economic Benefits of Urban Agriculture

Actors in urban agriculture came from various groups of

urban society. They can be the poor or the rich, women or

men, natives or migrants, and so on. The participation of

mostly women and other vulnerable households in the sector

draws attention, and implies the role of the sector in

poverty alleviation and integrating urban societies (RUAF

2007, UNDP 1996). UNDP put in its 1996:165 reports “urban

farming improves social equity by improving the health and

productivity of poorer populations and by providing them an

opportunity to earn additional income.”

Roughly about 800 million people currently involved in urban

agriculture worldwide, 200 million produce for the market

and 150 millions produce for the market and 150 million are

full time employees. The share of urban farmer’s family to

their respective city is 15-70 %, the share of

production(vegetable, egg, meat, and fish) for consumption

is 10-90 % in cities and the share of land devoted to urban

agriculture is 20-60 % of total urban area according

to( Smit et al. 2001).

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United

Nations also argues with the idea by saying estimates that

800 million urban residents are involved in commercial or

subsistence agriculture in or around cities (FAO, 1999).

Between 1993 and 2005, urban agriculture could increase its

share of world food production from 15% to 33%, its share of

vegetables, meat, fish, and dairy products consumed in

cities from 33% to 50%, and the number of urban farmers

producing for the market from 200 to 400 million.

Urban agriculture is the source of food for 40 percent of

African and 50 percent of Latin American urban dwellers

(UNDP, 1996). The product of urban agriculture ranges from

market garden vegetables to livestock and poultry. In

Russia, 72% of city resident households are urban farmers,

80,000 in Berlin, 68% in Tanzania, while in china the 14

largest cities produce 85% or more of vegetables (UN-

Habitat, 2001). Increases in urban agriculture have also

been recorded in Africa cities such as Bissau (Guinea

Bissau), Dakar (Senegal), Kumasi (Ghana), Loma (Togo),

Nairobi (Kenya) and Dar-es-salaam (Tanzania). Thus urban

agriculture is, in most cases, a response by the urban poor

to inadequate, unreliable and irregular access to food and

to lack of purchasing power.

Most cities, particularly developing countries, are unable

to generate sufficient income and employment for their

rapidly growing populations. This translates directly in to

lack food. Urban agriculture usually specializes in the

production of perishable and high commercial value

agricultural products such as vegetables, milk and milk

products, eggs and meat. For example, in Shanghai, china

about 100 percent of milk, 90 percent of eggs, and 60% of

vegetables are produced in the urban and peri-urban areas of

the city. Dar-es-Salaam, in Tanzania, produces 60% of milk

and 90% of vegetable demand of the city (Nugent, 2001). In

terms of the Gross domestic product (GDP), urban agriculture

contributes 2% in Shanghai (China), 4% Lima (Peru)(Van

Veenhuizen, 2006). Therefore, it is easy to conclude from

the above findings urban agriculture is not a problem but an

important contributor to people’s livelihoods and

sustainable urban development.

Benefits for food security: Acceleration of urbanization in

developing countries has been accompanied with increased

demand for food consumption. Yet, the number of poor urban

households has also significantly being rising along with

urbanization, so do many households who cannot afford to buy

enough food for their own consumption (Bryceson and Potts

2005).

Urban agriculture has significance for food security. 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 an

active and healthy life (World Food Summit, 1996). For food

security objectives to be realized, the availability,

access, utilization and stability over time all four

dimensions of food security must be fulfilled simultaneously

(FAO, 2007). Urban food supplies in developing countries can

no longer be taken for granted: by 1980, nearly 50% of all

food consumed by people in the cities of developing world

was imported from other countries. According to Vennetier

1988, in Africa cities, many imported food products now cost

relatively less than local food, at least during part of the

year.

Singapore is relatively self-sufficient in pork, poultry,

and eggs, and grows 25% of the vegetables it consumes. On

10% of its area, Hong Kong in the early 1980’s was producing

15% of pork, 45% of fresh vegetable, and 68% of live

chickens it consumed. Shanghai’s neichiao provides 76% the

vegetable consumed in the city, with only 16% of the

cultivated land devoted to this crop, with relatively small

waste and waste water problems and budgets (Smit and Nasr,

1992).

Urban agriculture increases the availability of fresh,

health and affordable food for other urban consumers, as

much of the food produced by urban farmers is bartered or

sold locally. It is estimated that 0.15-0.20 of the world’s

food is produced in urban areas (Armar klemesu, 2000). In

many cities, UA provides a substantial part of the urban

demand for vegetables (especially fresh green vegetables:

often 0.90 or more), fresh milk (often 0.60-0.70), poultry

and eggs (0.50-0.70), and to a lesser extent pigs, fruits

and fresh water fish (0.15-0.50). Van Vennhuizen (2006)

provided an over view of available research data on a large

number of cities.

The more subsistence-oriented and semi commercial types of

urban agriculture may have smaller economic significance,

but the number of households involved is often high and UPA

often plays an important role in the survival strategies of

the urban poor, who may benefit from UPA in various ways.

Firstly, when a household produces food, its expenses are

reduced, which can lead to important savings since poor

urban households spend 0.60-0.80 of their household budgets

on food. Secondly, households that produce more than they

need for their own consumption will sell their surplus and

eventually generate an income, complementing income from

other sources (Smit, 1996).

Benefits for Income Generating: Urban farming can also be a

good source of income for the urban poor, if it is

especially practiced as a formal sector. However, (Bryld

2003) doubted if it has a significant contribution to macro

economies of cities although he stated that urban farming

has an economic relevance because it is helping urban

farmers, especially the poor, to use their non-farm income

for other purposes instead of purchasing food, i.e. it

improves the welfare of urban farmer households. RUAF (2007)

reported that the poor households in developing countries

spend 50-70 % of their income to purchase foods; hence, it

appreciated the benefits of self-growing crops and/or

participating in other forms of urban agriculture by the

urban poor. The report also confirmed “in Addis Ababa,

above-normal profits are earned by even the smallest-scale

backyard producers with very low capital” (Staal 1997: in

RUAF 2007:5)

Urban agriculture has also benefits for income generating.

In Bolivia, urban food projects supply women producers with

25% of their total income. In Dar Es Salaam, urban

agriculture generated incomes were larger than regular

salaries for 67% of respondents (Sawio, 1993). In Addis

Ababa, all urban cooperative farmers showed incomes well

above those of half the city’s population: 50% earned more

than 70% of the city’s employed population (Smit, 1994). In

Nairobi, 47% of the urban farmers had no visible means of

support other than their urban samba plots.

Available data on UA in Kenya (IDRC, 1994) indicates that

urban agriculture makes an invaluable contribution to

national development. It is estimated that 25.2 million kg

of crops worth about 60.9 million KES (about 4 million USD

in1995), were produced in urban areas in one season. There

were an estimated 1.4 million head of livestock, worth about

259 million KES (about 17 million USD), kept in all towns in

Kenya at the time of the survey. Case study in Nairobi

investigated that a pig farmer with five breading mothers

can earn a net profit of US $ 2667 per year (Mireri, 2002).

In 2003 dairy milk produced in Dar es Salaam was estimated

at 2.2 million USD and generated a net over all annual

income equivalents to 8.1 million USD. Urban agriculture in

Dar Es Salaam occupied 11 percent of the population aged 10

or more, but 20 % of those employed, turning out about

100,000 of food crops annually. This shows a considerable

contribution to national economic growth.

The study conducted in the city of Addis Ababa by

G/Egziabhar (1994) found the estimated average income of the

selected representative sample of urban farmer households

was above about 50% of that of the population of Addis

Ababa. None of the urban farmers had an average monthly

income bellow 125 ETB/month.

Benefit for Poverty Alleviation: Urban agriculture has also

benefit for poverty alleviation. Urbanization process

accompanied by a phenomenon referred to as the urbanization

of poverty, the population growth is combined with a gradual

shift in the locus of poverty from rural to urban area. The

proportion of the poor living in cities is expected to

increase from 0.30 in 2000 to 0.40 by 2020 and 0.50 by 2035

(UNFPA, 2007). Moreover, in most developing countries,

urbanization has become virtually synonymous with slum

growth: the slum population has almost doubled in the past

15 years (UNFPA, 2007). Most cities in developing countries,

encounter great difficulty in creating sufficient employment

opportunities and to provide adequate basic services for the

rapidly growing population. This leads to high unemployment

(especially among the youth and disadvantaged categories of

population) and very poor living conditions in the slum

areas.

Millennium development Goal one calls for a reduction of 50%

by 2015 in the number of people who are living on less than

US$1 per day and/or who are undernourished. Veenhuizen and

Danso (2007) summarized data regarding net income generated

in small scale peri-urban open space vegetable production in

a number of African cities. They concluded that monthly net

income figure for such peri urban producers usually range

between US$30 and US$70 per month, but can increase to

US$200 or more. In the same countries, the minimum monthly

wage is in the range of US$20-40, indicating that urban

vegetable production is a profitable business compared to

other urban jobs. The effects of urban agriculture on

poverty alleviation vary with the type of participants

involved, the product produced and the degree of market

orientation, among other things.

Benefits for Nutritional Security and Health: Most of urban

farming is practiced by the urban poor who consume most of

the production and supply the surplus to market (Bryld 2003,

Mireri et al. 2006). The major expense for most of the urban

poor is purchasing of food; thus, they will be left with

nothing for health, education and other necessities. They

also hardly consume varieties of food. Thus, it is not

surprising that urban farming contributes to improving

livelihoods for the urban poor. It improves not only

quantity of food intake but also the nutritional value if

the poor self-grow vegetables, fruits, chickens and so on

(Smith 1996: in Bryld 2003: 81, UNDP 1996). RUAF (2007:2)

report emphasized the role of urban agriculture as follows:

The contribution of urban agriculture to food security and

healthy nutrition is probably its most important asset. Food

production in the city is in many cases a response of the

urban poor to inadequate, unreliable and irregular access to

food, and the lack of purchasing power.

Urban Agriculture has benefit for nutritional security and

health to urban farmers. Self production provides nutritious

food otherwise unaffordable, replaces purchased food staples

or supplements these with more nutritious foodstuffs afford

savings which can be spent on non-produced foodstuffs or

other needs.

Self-production represents anywhere; from 18% (East Jakarta)

to 60% (Kampala) of total food consumption in low-income

households, with sample percentages depending solely on self

production reaching 50% (Nairobi) Mougeot (2000). In La

Habana, urban gardens have significantly increased the

quality and quantity of food available to the producers’

households and enhanced the environmental quality of quality

of the community Mougeot (2000). In Harare and Gweru, the

farming sub samples had more nutritious breakfast; more of

the farming households consumed protein-rich food over

longer periods of the year than non-farming households.

Children aged 0-5 years in sampled farming households had

higher growth rates in terms of height and weight than did

children in sampled non-farming households (ENDA_ZW, 1997).

In Kampala, children aged five years or less in low income

farming households were found to be significantly better-off

(less stunted) than counter parts in non-farming households.

Study in Nairobi, found that average energy and protein

intake was higher in the farming groups and percentages of

households bellow recommended safe levels higher in non-

farming group. These differences between farming and non-

farming groups were more pronounced when comparing these two

groups in terms of percentages of malnourished, wasted and

stunted children or children’s average scores on the

indicators.

Generally urban gardens also provide public space, where

people have the opportunity to meet each other. They also

provide recreation opportunities and aesthetic appeal to the

neighborhoods. Some host public events such as music

festivals, movie screenings or barbecues (Cohen et al., 2012).

The contribution of urban agriculture to environmental

education is also important. Many workshops are organized in

urban gardens for school students and young people. Urban

agriculture enhances gender equality, because many women

participate in it (Cohen et al., 2012).

2.4.2 Environmental Benefits of Urban Agriculture

Growing body of research on urban agriculture continually

reveals that urban and peri-urban agriculture is not just a

problem to prohibited and restricted but has a number of

benefits and can provide important contribution to answering

a number of key challenges encountered by cities. This has

led many national and local governments to the conclusion

that the development of urban agriculture needs to be

facilitated and controlled, in order to maximize its

benefits while reducing the associated risks, rather than

being restricted and stifled. Urban and peri-urban

agriculture can considered as an integrated part of viable

strategies for sustainable and equitable urban development.

Urban agriculture is part of the urban green that improves

the urban micro climate, increases biodiversity, as well as

the aesthetic and recreational functions of urban area.

Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) can play a role in

improving the urban environment and adaptation to climate

change (CC) (and to a lesser extent in emission). The world

metrological organization (WMO) suggested that more urban

farming should take place as a response to climate change

and as away to build more resilient cities (WMO, 2007) as

cited in Zeeuw et al.,(2010). Maintaining green open spaces

and enhancing vegetation cover in the city/town with

important adaptive and some mitigation benefits. UPA

including urban forestry may also help to improve the urban

microclimate (Tidball & Krasny, 2006).

Urban agriculture may also prevent building on risk-prone

land, and by maintaining such areas as, for instance, agro

forestry spaces, not only are the impact of climate change

due to flooding, landslides and other disasters reduced but

also urban biodiversity and living conditions are improved

(Dubbling et al.2009). In open green spaces in and around

the city, food production can be combined with other

services to urban citizens, such as agro-tourism (Jiang et

al.2005) or park and land escape maintenance.

Benefits of urban agriculture to green biodiversity

conservation: The world is losing its biological diversity-

or biodiversity- at an alarming rate. The primary force

driving this is habitat degradation. When the places where

animals, plants, fungi, and the myriad change and the prior

residents often move on or die. The two major causes of this

habitat degradation, or the extremes of whole sale habitat

loss, are agriculture and urbanization. And it is certainly

true that converting forests or wetlands to crop fields or

apartment buildings changes the land cover, vegetation,

soils, hydrology, and other environmental factors in drastic

ways and generally biodiversity loss. While this narrative

is true in the broader sense, there is abundant evidence of

biodiversity loss resulting from human modification of the

environment- it is too simple. It is not just a case of

cities or farms, but this a blog about cities replacing

other kinds of ecosystems-there are some important nuances

to this process. Many elements of nature –the rock, soils,

sunlight and water, but also many organisms- persist even as

a city/town grows up around them. (Matt Palmer, 2012).

Therefore biodiversity is crucial for the enduring survival

of all living species worldwide, with diversity in food

sources and prey being necessary for ensured nutrient

consumption as well as population control. Ecologists are

trained to look for specific species, communities, and

patterns in pristine ecosystems, and have historically used

that to denounce cities with all that has been lost. An

important argument for green roofs, growing body of research

on urban agriculture is not continuously reveals that urban

and peri-urban agriculture is not just a problem to be

prohibited and restricted but has a number of benefits and

can provide important contribution to answering a number of

key challenges encountered by cities. This has led many

national and local governments to the conclusion that the

development of urban agriculture needs to be facilitated and

controlled, in order to maximize its benefit while reducing

the associated risks, rather than being restricted and

stifled.

Urban and peri-urban agriculture can be considered as an

integrated part of viable strategies for sustainable and

equitable urban development. Urban agriculture and forestry

can also have a positive impact up on the greening of the

city, the improvement of the urban micro climate (wind

breaks, dust reduction, shade) and the maintenance of

biodiversity as well as the reduction of the ecological foot

print of the city by producing fresh foods close to the

consumers and thereby reducing energy use for transport,

packaging, cooling.(Veenhuizen, 2010).

Benefits of urban agriculture in solid waste management:

There are various types of solid waste including municipal

(residential, institutional, agricultural, and special

health care, house hold hazardous wastes) (Laura Del, 2009).

Urban wastes reduction and reuse involves, among other

things, composting of urban organic wastes (especially in

cities of developing countries where organic fraction of

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is high) and the feeding of the

kitchen and food wastes to domestic animals and livestock.

Urban agriculture frequently point out that city farming

often absorbs urban solid waste, thus reducing the

environmental pollution and volume of waste and the need to

collect and transport wastes to distant dumps. In practice,

urban farmers in many towns acquire municipal wastes as

resources (Angela A.2014).

Local food production turns wastes in to resources.

Compostable organic wastes, which can be used as a soil

amendment, account for 25 to 40 percent of municipal waste

streams and often end up emitting methane from landfills.

Decentralized collection and composting of urban organic

wastes will reduce the costs of public waste management,

while large amount of nutrients are reclaimed. Domestic

wastes in developing countries contain a great deal 0.60-

0.90 of the total fresh weight of organic biodegradable

materials and can be used for the production of compost.

(Lacoste & Chalmin, 2007, Prain, 2010).

As Losada et al. 2010, new urban production systems in

Mexico City, such as chinampa system (which is considered

more diverse) and the terraced (napalm vegetable) and tuna

(Teotihuacan) production system are well adapted to the

urban environment. They make best use of local inputs, use

local wastes as a source of nutrients and are inter linked

(Losada, 2009). Like any production system, these systems

need proper management especially in the dairy systems the

order produced and the presence of flies needs to be

controlled, but they pose relatively little danger to the

urban environment.

In local production system, urban and peri-urban

agricultural production systems, the input used for these

purpose are either house hold wastes or by products of the

municipality. In contrast to conventional production system

that are highly dependent on non-renewable sources and

fossil fuels are not used for urban agricultural production

system.

2.5 Environmental Impact of Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture has both positive and negative impact onurban environment. The Impact of urban agriculture includes;

pollution, degradation and health risks from inappropriate

agricultural practices. In urban areas the control needs to

be more stringent because farming is in close proximity to

dense human activities. In many cities, it is being

practiced as an informal sector and has little support from

local councils (Bryceson 2005, Bryld 2003). According to

(Edward, 2010) report that , despite the positive attitude

of the Addis Ababa City Administration, groups and

individuals wishing to take up urban agriculture as an

income generating activity face many of problems like: Lack

of technical assistance such as improved and appropriate

technologies for intensification of production; lack of

research support on urban agriculture in order to generate

new technologies and methods of work; the high level of

water pollution due to poor coverage by adequate sanitation

in many areas, the uncontrolled discharge into the water

ways from public toilets, broken sewerage and storm drains,

factories and offices, health centers, garages, institutions

such as schools and colleges; all of which increase the

contamination of vegetable products by pathogenic organisms

and increase the concentration of heavy metals in the soil

that can also be taken up by the crops grown on the

contaminated soil; and lack of skilled man power for

promoting and training urban agriculture skills; challenges

to established producers, such as urban dairy farmers, due

to resettlement and relocation into unsuitable areas to

continue.

Health risks associated with UA cited as the critical

problem in most literatures that deals with UA. As indicated

by Boischio et al (2006) examples of risks include hazardous

biological and chemical exposures among farmers and

consumers as a result of wastewater use on vegetable crops;

transmission of zoon tic diseases in the context of (usually

confined) livestock activities; and malaria transmission

possibly increased due to irrigation and drainage schedules.

According to Veenhuizen and Danso (2007), the main health

risks associated with urban agriculture can be grouped into

the following categories:

Contamination of crops with pathogenic organisms as a

result of irrigation with water from polluted streams

and insufficiently treated wastewater or the unhygienic

handling of the products during transport, processing

and marketing of fresh products

Contamination of crops due to prolonged intensive use

of agrochemicals; certain diseases transmitted to

humans by keeping livestock in close proximity without

proper precautions being taken.

Contamination of crops by uptake of heavy metals from

contaminated soils, air and water.

Crop, soil, and water contamination can pose serious health

risks within the urban food system. These risks to men,

women, and especially children, range from occupational

hazards from exposure to toxic elements while farming,

handling and distributing food (and non-food) crops, to the

short and long-term effects of consuming foods contaminated

by heavy metals. The sources of heavy metal pollution in

soils are plentiful and include: irrigation especially with

sewage; solid waste disposal (sludge and compost refuse);

fertilizer and fungicides application; and atmospheric

deposition. Chemical pollution is one of the four most

pressing urban environmental concerns as chemical pollutants

are often disposed in local bodies of water or vacant land

without adequate measures to protect human health (Kathleen,

1999).

Health risks from chemicals are caused by heavy metals (for

example, cadmium, lead, and mercury) and many organic

compounds (for example, fungicides). These mostly derive

from wastewaters and, if these are discharged to public

sewers, they are present in municipal wastewaters. The

health effects of prolonged exposure to many of these

chemicals are well known for example, cancers (Scheierling

et al, 2010).

Plants are using natural or artificial nutrients from the

soil. Nitrogen is one of the major essential plant nutrients

that are relatively required in large quantity. The

application of more nitrogen to soil that can be assimilated

by the soil or taken up by a crop creates surplus nitrogen.

The transfer and fate of this surplus has created many

environmental concerns. Even under well managed arable land

the nitrogen surplus still be in the order to 20kg/ha due to

mineralization of organic nitrogen. Over 80% of total

nitrogen in river water is found in the form of NO3 and in

the last 30-40 years levels in many European countries

ground, surface and coastal water have been gradually rising

(Vall and Vidal 1999). The unutilized nitrogen left in the

soil can be leached in to ground water. Some of the nitrogen

washed off the field in the form of runoff and it flows in

to the surface water such as streams and rivers.

Urea breakdown begins as soon as it is applied to the soil.

If the soil is totally dry, no reaction happens. But with

the enzyme ureas, plus any small amount of soil moisture,

urea normally hydrolyzes and converts to ammonium and carbon

dioxide. This can occur in 2 to 4 days and happens quicker

on high PH soils. Unless it rains, urea must be incorporated

during this time to avoid ammonia loss. Losses might be

quite low in the spring if the soil temperature is cold

(Crutis, n.d). The chemical reaction is as follows:

CO (NH2)2 + H2O + urea’s 2NH3 + CO2

(Urea)

The problem is the NH3, because it’s a gas, if incorporated

the NH3, acts the same as incorporated anhydrous ammonia.

Also half of 28% liquid nitrogen in urea and the same thing

happen with this half as with regular urea. Agriculture

emits 13% of the total green house gas to the atmosphere

(Earth Trends, 2008).

Urban agriculture can be a health hazard because it uses

resources of cities such as water and urban wastes for

production. Use of wastewater or polluted rivers and

untreated compost may contaminate crops/livestock and become

health hazards to human beings. There are a number of cases

when urban farming brought health problems (UNDP 1996 cited

in Tewodros, 2007). Urban agriculture has both health

benefit and risks. Risks can arise from over-sue of

pesticides by illiterate and inexperienced workers. Children

and women working the farm plots are often are at great risk

of pesticide poisoning. Keeping livestock in the city raises

the possibility of zoon tic disease; disease that can be

transmitted from animals and birds to human (such as avian

flu).In densely populated urban environment such disease

could spread rapidly and be extremely difficult to control

(Mougeot, 2005).

The environmental consequence of pesticide was first coined

by the famous book called silent spring published by Rachel

Carson in 1962 (cited in Graham et al 2002). Most farmers

use pesticides to increase farm production and productivity

through control of pests. Despite its advantages there are

some potential hazard, reduction of beneficial species,

residues in food and soil and ground water contamination.

(Melaku, n.d).

Miller (1991) has identified that environmental effect of

pesticides are linked to the method, form and time of their

application. He also concluded that less than 0.1%0f the

pesticides applied, reach their target population. The

effect of pesticides on human health includes cancer, birth

defects and immunological problems. The world health

organization (WHO) estimated that some one million people

suffer acute pesticide poisoning and at least 20,000 die

each year-At least 2/3 of this illness and death results

from occupational exposure in developing countries; where

people use without proper warning or protective cloth.

Generally the use of pesticides in Ethiopia is low. Some

farmers use fungicide to control fungal diseases and;

herbicide 2.4-D and U-46 to control weeds. The great problem

associated with pesticide is its disposal. About 1500 tones

of pesticides are banned, decomposed or dumped across the

country. FAO reported in 1995 there are about 426 tones of

obsolete pesticide in Ethiopia. (ibid).

Abate (1995) reported that, there are regulations concerning

registration and use of pesticides in Ethiopia. However,

guidelines have not yet enforced effectively. He also

reported that about 88.1% of Ethiopia agriculture workers do

not know its danger.

The use of raised-bed gardens is typically used to avoid too

much exposure or as a means of remediation for soil

pollution, as is the use of replacement of soil and the use

of chemicals or bioremediation. Clark, Hausladen, and

Brabander (2008) found that the recontamination of soil in

raised-bed gardens and in sites that had been excavated and

replaced with compost is continually occurring due to toxins

mobilized by the wind in Roxbury, a chilling find. They

suggest that gardens need to be continually maintained and

monitored, that simply replacing contaminated soil once will

not fix the problem indefinitely.

In the world the production of charcoal from plantation for

energy sources like for cooking is high especially in the

developing countries. Roughly half of the world’s population

is cooking daily with the traditional biomass including wood

and charcoal. Over the year the demand for charcoal has been

increasing and will remain so in for seeable future.

According to UBET (Unified Energy Terminology) wood fuels

include all types of bio fuels derived directly and

indirectly from trees and shrubs grown in forests and non

forest land. Wood fuels can be divided in to four main types

of products: charcoal, fuel wood, black liquor and others

(FAO, 2004). The question of improving the efficiency of

charcoal conversion process needs to be high on the agenda.

In Philippines, one of the developing country, the study

shows the charcoal production system practiced the ham-ak

(above the ground) method and tinabonan (underground)

method; Barangy sinsin, cebu city (Bensel Terrence, 2003)

are highly inefficient method of producing charcoal compare

to the adobe and brick kilns systems which reduces health

impacts and air pollution associated with charcoal

production. In charcoal production, improved kilns could

contribute significantly to efficient production of charcoal

and decreasing air pollution. (Bilis, 2003)

Agriculture requires land but there is lack of space for

crop growing in cities. As Bryld (2003:82) said it, “besides

feeding the poor in the cities, there is an urgent need for

providing shelter for the homeless”. Knowing that growing

food in cities necessitates land, it may not be prioritized

in urban land uses since the demand for urban spaces to

build houses is by far higher than using spaces for

agricultural activities. Argentina (2000:1) further

emphasized that “…agricultural productive lands are likely

to be lost in this competition.” Various institutional and

organizational factors get involved in urban farmers

livelihoods, and limit their accesses to resource uses for

farming activities.

Mkwambisi (2005) tried to show potentials and constraints of

Ellis-livelihood framework for analyzing urban farmers`

livelihoods. According to Mkwambisi, the framework is rural

centered which focuses on migration, rural based economies,

rural environmental issues (e.g. soil erosion,

deforestation), rural poverty and agricultural based policy.

And again Tewodros, (2007) employed a modified framework

which was adopted from Parkes-prism framework (Parkes et al.

2003), for analyses of urban farmers’ livelihoods. Parkes

used the prism framework for three main reasons: one was to

study ecological and health systems in an area, the second

was to study different institutional and social factors that

determine the systems, and the third was to investigate the

relations between those factors in the area.

According to (Mkwambisi, 2005 cited in Tewodros, 2007)

argued that, the modified prism framework is suitable

because it integrates the three methods for policy

consideration and sustainable development to be familiar

with the role of urban agriculture in alleviating poverty as

well as mitigating environmental problems. He further

characterized the prism framework as urban centered, and

focused on urbanization instead of migration. The frame work

is market oriented instead of rural based economy, and

addresses urban environmental issues (e.g. pollution, waste

management, sewage) instead of that of rural.

2.6 Factors Hindering the Development of

Environmental Friendly Urban Agriculture

Urbanization may displace farming activity by replacing

farming with more economically lucrative land uses, or

prevent new farming from starting by erecting building and

structures that effectively preclude farming. Agriculture

usually can not usually provide the economic returns of

industry or housing, and urban development pressures may

compel or even force land holders to sell their urban plots

(Aziz 1997).Despite the fact that the development of urban

agriculture is an economically viable enterprise, it is

often constrained by a number of factors. Such as:

Institutional or organizational constraints, lack of access

to resources, inputs and services and lack of pre-and post

production capacity (Smit et al, 1996).

The planning institution, policy framework and cultural

norms and attitudes of planners, politicians and the public

each can impose or perpetuate these constraints. The

presence or absence of these factors can collectively be

described as the “degree of support” a city offers urban

agriculture. A number of urban farmer’s constraints are

linked directly or indirectly to planning and management

interventions in urban and peri-urban areas, and

consequently fall within the jurisdiction of urban planners

and managers.

In 1990’s gardens covers 8% of the land, 16% in 1994 and 25%

in 2001 in Harare city. 80% 0f urban agriculture in Harare

occurs on public land with no official recognition.

Zimbabwe’s government has turned a blind eye to the

uncontrolled growth of urban agriculture. However, later the

government continues to modify their approach and adopt

policies that legitimate urban agriculture ENDA-Zimbabwe,

(1998). The policy framework encompasses planning policies,

legislation and regulations that guide or direct land-use

planning and management. Maxwell and Armar-Klemesu (1998)

asserted that the legal and regulatory framework of the

city, along with access to land, poses the most significant

constraint to urban agriculture. Without recognition, urban

agriculture remains a marginalized and disorderly activity.

Urban farming activities may suffer from a presence of

prohibitive, or a lack of or inconsistent enforcement of

supportive, land use or UA policies. Farmers may be unaware

of what by-laws are, or of those specially pertaining to UA,

especially if by-laws are relatively new or poorly

advertized (Sawio, 1998). Farmers may be confused by policy

and legislation that is not enforced consistently; when

perceived as unfair and uncertain, it may be disregarded.

According to Helmore and Ratta 1995 accesses to land must be

distinguished from availability of land; land may be

available or present in a city but not accessible to farmers

because of political or social constraints to its use or

redistribution.

The provision of information services, agricultural inputs,

and programs that lead to agricultural demonstration

projects, or in other capacities, to providing credit and

loans to urban farmers are all further demonstrations of

institutional capacity to encourage and promote UA. Urban

farmers are suffering due to the absence of support,

programs, services and financing and credit being offered to

farmers as key prevalent to urban agriculture vigorous

development. Certainly, although planners may not be in a

position to offer or fund or administer these services, they

are in a position to identify the need for such services,

and to rally support.

There is little or no support to urban farmers by the

existing institution such as extension services, technical

assistance, and training, including the sorting, packaging,

storing, and marketing of agricultural products. Research

work on UA is not sufficiently done, and the possibilities

for improvements in tackling diseases, identifying disease

resistant Varity, developing new species, increasing yields,

improving soil conservation methods, and developing other

environmental methods need to be investigated.

2.7 Policy Issues and Options towards Environmentally Sustainable Urban Agriculture

Environmental sustainable and safe urban agriculture depends

on clear policy frame work, clear understanding of benefits

and risk of urban agriculture, institutional set up,

involvement of different actors and intensive land use.

In 1990 and 1991, the city council of Harare mounted a

campaign against urban agriculture, slashing maturing crops

in an attempt to stop agricultural activities. The response

of women cultivators was to fight what they considered to be

a colonial and male attitude to city planning with regard to

alternative urban land uses (ENDA-Zimbabwe).

Agenda 21 that is initiated in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro

(Brazil) states that cities are required to list activities

to reduce the ecological footprint, while at the same time

increasing the quality of life for the inhabitants. Agenda

21 calls for actions, not only by national governments, but

also by local authorities, firms, voluntary organizations,

communities and individuals.

Urban agriculture can reduce the “ecological footprint” of

cities when environmental goals are combined in to an

overall urban policy (Delft & McDonald 1998). In the early

1990s, Norway and Austria drafted national food policies

that include a commitment to greater self- reliance, with a

focus on the small sustainable producer, policies that are

encouraging urban and peri-urban agriculture. In the UK,

farmers’ markets are following the American model, organic

produce sales in 2000 were up 40% over 1999. France adopted

a national community gardening program in the 1990s, and in

the 1990s adopted legislation that hinders construction or

operation of additional supermarkets nationwide in favor of

small locally-based food retailers (Smit, et al. 2001).

Harare, Zimbabwe (2003) declaration Ministers responsible

for Local Governments Eastern and Southern Africa organized

different organization affirmed by saying “we call for the

promotion of a shared vision of UA that takes in to account

the specific needs and conditions in the region, and

accordingly commit ourselves to developing policies and

appropriate instruments that will create an enabling

environment for integrating urban agriculture in to our

urban economies”. The Quito’s Ecuador (2000) mayor’s

regional meeting gave great emphasis to urban agriculture by

ratifying the declaration of “We affirm our promise to

promote UA in our cities…to strengthen food security,

eradicate poverty and improve environmental and human

health” (veenhuizen, 2006).

Addis Ababa’s, Ethiopia (2002) Horn of Africa mayors meeting

also expressed their concern by saying “We the ministers,

mayors, city managers, representatives of governments,

provide an enabling environment for sustainable livelihoods

in our cities; review and revise laws, by-laws and

regulations to promote effective food supply and

distribution activities; monitor environmental and health

risks related to food production, marketing and processing

and take appropriate action to reduce them”.

In Ethiopia there is a proclamation of pollution act

300/2002 which guidelines the use, control mechanism and

standardization of chemical use. Proclamation of this act,

part two, article 3, sub-article 1 states about control of

pollution that “no person shall pollute or cause any other

person to pollute the environment by violating the relevant

environmental standard”.

According to FDRE environmental impact assessment act

No.299/2002, Pollutant is defined as:

Alters the quality of any part of the receiving environment

so as to affect its beneficial use adversely, or Produces

toxic substances, diseases, objectionable odor,

radioactivity, noise, vibration, heat, or any other

phenomenon that is hazardous or potentially hazardous to

human health or to other living things. So, wastes of urbanagriculture may pollute environment that may be dumped in unsafe

way.

2.8 Research Gap

An unsustainable urban growth rate of most Ethiopian cities

and towns including Injibara town has placed urban

environment under extreme pressure; consumed natural

resource which leads to Biodiversity and soil degradation,

pollution, health problem, etc which alters the healthy and

attractiveness of the city and town, there by threatening

the ability of urban agriculture to perform basic social,

ecological and economic functions. While practicing urban

agriculture there is a balance gap between economic growth

and environmental sustainability that need to respect the

carrying capacity of urban ecosystems and healthy

environment for the urban community should clearly

understand with special reference to urban farmers. Urban

farmers are mostly poor urban dwellers who have access to

productive resources for farming, and mostly are not recent

migrants since accessing the resources requires time and

other contextual factors. It also reported that rich

households are also found to involve in urban farming, and

that is mainly either for investment, earning additional

incomes and/or home consumption. Urban agriculture

contributes to nutrition and environmental benefits besides

to economic and social benefits. This shows that, even

though there are theories which thought UA to benefit

environment, still there is a gap between economic growth

and environmental sustainability. Even though, city or town

administrations has made some efforts towards coping the

environmental pressure, the town still faces a number of

urban environmental challenges due to UA that require a

close study to understand their consequences. Against this

background, it is argued that this study aims to fill the

knowledge gap by exploring what Injibara town administration

and stakeholders are doing to promote environmental friendly

urban agriculture in the town.

2.9 Summary of the Reviewed Literature

In this study the researcher reviewed different literatures

that are of paramount importance for a broader understanding

and an in-depth insight of the issue at hand about

environmental implications of urban agriculture.

Accordingly, this section begins with definitional

frameworks, and based on available literatures, issues like

types of urban agricultural practices, different impacts and

benefits of urban agriculture to environment and factors

hindering the development of environmental friendly

sustainable urban agriculture will be reviewed.

Review of literature will be tried to show concepts and

their backgrounds, views, ideas and theoretical explanations

with regard to the environmental implications of urban

agriculture. When we see definitional framework, basic terms

and concepts like urban agriculture, urban environment,

environmental degradation, urban forest, Eco-friendly UA,

solid waste, impact, etc are clearly discussed. In the

theoretical literature review, preceding from definition of

UA, urban agriculture has categorized in different ways by

different writers. For instance, according to Cofie (2009),

UA was divided in to intra urban agriculture and peri-urban

agriculture, and according to Smit (1994), UA was

categorized in to aquaculture, horticulture, agro forestry,

community gardens, home gardens, institutional gardens, roof

gardening cultivation cellars and burns.

Different benefits of UA has also discussed by different

collars. These are socio economic benefits like for food

security, income generation, poverty alleviation,

nutritional security and health, and environmental benefits

like green biodiversity conservation, solid waste

management, providing recreational services, reducing urban

heat, increasing water availability, reducing water loss and

degradation, and storm water run-off, etc.

Environmental impact of UA and factors hindering the

development of environmental friendly UA has also reviewed

from different literatures UA has both positive and negative

impact on urban environment. The impact of UA includes;

environmental pollution, degradation and health risks from

inappropriate agricultural practices. According to Edward

(2010), report that, despite the positive attitude of the

Addis Ababa city administration, groups and individuals

wishing to take up UA as an income generating activity face

many of problems like lack of technical assistance, improved

input supply, research support and method of work.

Generally different scholars argued that urban agriculture

can result in environmental, social and economical benefits,

and urban agriculture has both positive and negative impact

on urban environment. Urbanization in most countries has

historically pushed all forms of agriculture out of the city

and into rural areas, taking in to account it too dirty for

the wealth and glory of the city. Governments of major

developed countries cities gave environmental attention when

urban agriculture is practiced but agriculture in most

developing cities is practicing urban agriculture in

traditional way and for the sake of food searching and

economic value leaving environment concern aside.

Comparing urban farming in different cities might be

misleading, because cities structures and their linkage with

surrounding villages are different. Defining cities, by

itself, has an implication that which farming categories

would be taken as urban agriculture and which are not. Urban

agriculture has both benefits and challenges based on the

involvement of stakeholders and practices and use of

agricultural inputs. Urban agriculture practices can benefit

greening, soil conservation, enrichment of biodiversity that

can contribute for pristine environment. Conversely, urban

agriculture contributes to waste dumping, health problems,

environmental degradation that could result in non-pristine

environment.

3.0 Research Design/Methodology

The study will devote to assess environmental implications

of urban agriculture the case of Injibara town. “The

research design /methodology are the conceptual

structure/plan within which the research will conduct; it

constitutes the blue print for the collection, measurement

and analysis of data” Kothari (2004). It is the overall

operational pattern or framework of the project that orders

what information will be collected from which source and

with what procedures. The design which minimizes bias and

maximizes the reliability the data to be collected and

analyzed will consider a good design. The design which gives

the smallest error is supposed to be the best design.

A research design is a decision regarding what, where, how

much, and by what means concerning enquires or research

study constitutes. The research design facilitates the

smooth sailing of the various research operations. In this

manner making research as efficient as possible yielding

maximal information with minimal expenditure of effort,

time, and money (Kothari, 1990). Descriptive research type

will be employed during the study. It will be utilized

because it describes characteristics of certain groups,

sample/populations, estimated proportion in specified

populations and makes specific predictions. This descriptive

research method helps to identify type of urban agriculture,

environmental benefits and impacts of UA and generally

environmental implications of urban agriculture.

3.1 Research Approach

For the study, qualitative and quantitative way of research

will be applied. This is because; research to be conducted

using one of the strategies can be cross checked by other.

Example: results of questionnaire survey (quantitative) can

be verified using interview or focus group discussion

(qualitative). Some kinds of data in quantitative research

may not satisfactorily gather using quantitative research.

This gap may be filled by qualitative data collection

method. Static features like ethnic composition and

occupational structure can be identified using quantitative

research; but the relationships between them can be revealed

using qualitative research.

Survey research strategy will be employed that canvases

social phenomenon and reality of urban agriculture by

collecting information from UFs sample using questionnaires;

hence, it produced information which was less detailed but

extensive and fairly concluded. It was efficient to collect

information from large population in the town of the study.

It also helped the researcher to collect both factual and

behavioral data of UA in relation to environmental

perspectives. The survey research helped the researcher to

focus on samples of UFs, conceptualization and

operationalization, questionnaire and data processing,

analysis and interpretation.

3.2 Research Method

Descriptive research method will be employed during the

study. Descriptive method is utilized because it describes

characteristics of certain groups, samples/populations, and

estimate proportions in specified populations and makes

specific predictions. Descriptive method helps to influence

both qualitative and quantitative for data analysis, because

descriptive method was the most appropriate for the study

whose objective was achieved and reviewing of current

document and record analysis. Thus, it helps to identify

types of urban agriculture and to assess environmental

benefits and problems, and positive and negative effects of

urban agriculture to the environment in Injibara town.

3.2.1 Research Techniques

The study will employ survey method, because it was

impossible to conduct census due to time and financial

limitations. The research techniques that will be used

during the study were interview with concerned urban

officials, surveying urban farmers engaged in urban

agriculture, key informant discussions, focus group

discussion, documents analysis and researcher`s observation

during the study.

3.3 Sample Design

The sample design must be a truly representative sample,

which results in a small sampling error, viable in the

context of funds available for the research study;

systematic biases can be controlled in a better way. The

study will use both random/probability and none random/non-

probability sampling design. Non-probability/purposive/

sampling technique will be applied to select specific town

from all existing cities/towns /from region, zone, town/ and

to collect data from the concerned officials of government

institutions such as Injibara town urban agricultural and

environmental protection and land management and use office,

Injibara town technique vocation and enterprise development

office (ITTVEDO), Injibara town municipality office, health

office and social affair. Systematic sampling technique will

be employed to collect data from urban farmers who are

engaged in urban agriculture. The technique to be used to

identify sample respondents from population will be

systematic random sampling. This will be done using sample

size interval that helps to take the nth of urban farmers

from the urban farmers list of each category proportionally.

3.3.1 Population or Universe

The total population of urban farmers in the town or

population refers to the total of item about which

information is desired. It is important to identify the

target population for the study. The universe is all

population in the Injibara town that who will engage in

urban agriculture and institution in the study.

3.3.2 Sampling Frame

Sampling frame is a list or set of directions for

identifying all elements in a study population. Therefore,

the sampling frame for this study will be all population

those who were engaged in urban agriculture in Injibara town

of kebele 01, 02 and 03, those are; individual urban

farmers, micro and small enterprises and agricultural

investments, office of urban agriculture and environmental

protection and management and use, office of technique

vocation and enterprise development, health office, social

affair office and town municipality.

3.3.3 Sampling Unit

The unit of analysis of this research study, that will be

sampled, includes individual urban farmers, micro and small

enterprises, agricultural investors in the town,

institutions/office of town municipality, urban agriculture

and environmental protection and land management and use

office, office of technique vocation and enterprise

development (TVED), Health and Social affair office.

3.3.4 Sampling Techniques

This research will be used both Probability and non-

probability sampling techniques for the research activity.

The study area is selected by non-probability/purposive

sampling to communicate effectively the researcher with

local community, it holds urban farmers, and knowing that

only few research are done so far in this issue and

researcher`s interest. The town has three kebeles and all

the three kebeles 01, 02 and 03 will be purposively

selected. Key informants will be also purposively selected

from urban agriculture and environmental protection and

land management and use office, Technique vocation and

enterprise development office, town municipality, health

and social afair office because of their close relation and

activities with urban agriculture which will help the

researcher to find relevant information.

Systematic random sampling technique will be employed to

collect data from urban farmers who are engaged in urban

agriculture from categories of farming group in the town.

The categories were individual farmers, micro and small

enterprise and farming investors. The technique will be used

to identify sample respondents from the population is

systematic random sampling. This will be done using sample

size interval that helps to take the nth of urban farmer from

the urban farmers list of each category proportionally. This

was possible by dividing the total number of urban farmers

of each category for its sample size. However, due to large

sample size, it will be a difficult task to collect data by

only researcher so, with the help of the 5 enumerators; all

sample urban farmers will be reached and filled the

questionnaire.

In Injibara town there are 276 urban farmers; out of which

172, 96 and 8 are individual farmers, micro and small

enterprises and farming investors of urban agriculture

respectively. To pick representative urban farmers from the

3 categories random systematic sampling will be used based

on the prepared urban farmer document list by the urban

agriculture and environmental protection and land management

and use office and technique vocation and enterprise

development office will be employed. The list of urban

farmers of each category will be marked in order of their

serial number like 01, 02, and 03 and so on. Hence, the said

document list will be used for picking the representative

farmers. The total number of sample urban farmers in each

category will be 65, 36 and 3 respectively. A total of 104

sample urban farmers will be systematically selected for the

distribution of the questionnaire. Systematic sampling will

be utilized for the study due to; it can be taken as an

improvement over a simple random sample in as much as the

systematic sample will be spread more evenly over entire

population. It is an easier and less costly method of

sampling and can be conveniently used even in case of large

populations.

For urban farmer focus group and non urban farmer focus

group for discussion selection, stratified sampling

procedure will be employed to allow participation of

different categories of community. Urban dwellers in the

town will have also the chance to involve in the urban

agriculture and environmental services since they live long

in the town under study and they share agricultural products

as well. It allows participation of different categories of

the community. The criteria for selection of focus group

members will be based on age, long year stay in the town,

familiarity with urban agriculture and their interest to

participate on discussion. Urban farmer focus group members

were selected from long experience on urban farming and

representative of different types of agriculture in the

town. Focus group discussion will be conducted with peoples

selected from different strata’s.

Table 3.1: To be sampled urban farmers of the population

Sample frame Population No. of samples

Samples 276 104Individual urban farmer

(UF)

172 65

Technical vocation and

enterprise (TVE)

96 36

Investment UF 8 3

Key

informants/interviewees

14

Environmental officials 2TVE officials 2Municipality officials 2Health officials 2Social Affairs officials 2

UA officials 2Elderly 2

Total

276 104 + 14 =118

Source: Researcher`s sample size, 2015

Two focus group discussions will be conducted, in addition

to individual urban farmers’ survey and key informants, each

group having 12 participants. Thus, totally 142 participants

will be communicated during the study.

3.3.5 Sample Size

To obtain reliable and manageable data, the researcher will

undertake the sample size from target populations of urban

farmers in the city. The size of sample should neither be

excessively large, nor too small, it should be optimum.

Optimum sample size is one which fulfills the requirements

of efficiency, representativeness, reliability and

flexibility. While deciding the sample size, the researcher

should consider the desired precision and also an acceptable

confidence level for the estimate. Three kebeles of the

town will be taken for study. All urban farmers will be

categorized in to three groups according to their means of

farming as individual urban farmers, urban agricultural

investors and micro and small enterprises organized under

UA.

Then for the population that is less than 10,000 (Kothari,

1990; Revised Kothari, 2004), developed an equation to yield

a representative sample for proportions. This standard

statistical approach equation is applied to determine the

sample size that will be used for the study.

n=Z2*p*q

d2

Where

n= desired sample size when target population is greater

than 10,000

Z= standard normal deviation that is z=1.81 at (93%)

p= the proportion the target population estimated to have

characteristics being measure (50% is taken or 0.5)

q= 1-p

d= the level of statically significance/Margin of error/

0.07

Then

p=0.5, q=0.5 considering 93% level of confidence, the

related standard normal deviation is Z=1.81 and the desired

accuracy is at 93% level.

Then the sample size determine as follow:

n=Z2p*q* = (1.81)2*0.5*0.5) = 0.819025 = 167 d2 ( 0.07)2 0.0049

So that, according to Kothari if population is less than

10,000 the formula is

fn= n 1+nWhere;

fn = the desired sample size when the population is less

than10,000

n= the sample size when the population is greater than

10,000

N= the new populations, here target population (276 urban

farmers)

Then fn = 167 = 167 = 167 = 104 1+0.61231884 1.61231884 1+167 276Thus, the total sample size will be 104 urban farmers.

Further, the sample size should be fractionally allocated

among the three clusters of category 1, category 2 and

category 3 urban farmers by the following method of

proportional allocation which the size of the sample from

the variety of the cluster is reserved proportional to the

sizes of the cluster.

Table 3.2 Proportion of sample size

Category Urban farmers Population/

universe

Sample

proportion

1 Individual

farmers

172

172/276 X104

= 65

2 Micro

enterprises

96

96/276 X 104

= 36

3 Investors

8

8/276 X 104 =

3

Total

276

104

Therefore, the sample size of the study will be 104 urban

farmers out of which 65 will be category I individual urban

farmers, 36 category II MSE urban farmers and 3 category III

investor urban farmers. In addition to the above urban

farmers, 14 key informants from 6 government organizations

and one elderly which will be selected purposively.

Therefore the total sample size of this study will be 118.

In addition to this, two focus group discussions each having

12 participants will also conducted.

3.3.6 Sample

The samples of the study will be 104 urban farmers, six

governmental offices and one elderly having 14 key

informants, and two focus group discussions (each group

having 12 members).

3.4 Sources of Data Collection

The researcher will utilize both primary and secondary data

from different sources. The researcher also will conduct

interview with urban concerned officials, focus group

discussion, and key informants, case study of urban farmers,

personal observation and documents.

3.4.1 Primary Sources of Data

Primary data will be collected through various techniques of

data collection methods such as field observations, urban

farmer survey (individuals and enterprises), focus group

discussion and key informants for doing descriptive

research.

Questionnaire: Questionnaire will help to collect primary

data from urban farmers who participate in urban agriculture

activity. Questionnaires will have the benefit to quote a

large area simply and fast way, and helps most respondents

to respond their opinion freely. In the course of this

study, both close-ended and open-ended questionnaires will

distributed to all selected samples. The structured

questionnaire will prepared in English and translated in to

local language (Amharic). Responses of questionnaires will

collected from the individual farmers, micro and small

enterprises and investors engaged in farming.

Focused group discussion: focus group discussion will be

conducted in stratified forms to ensure the chance of to be

selected from all stratums of the people in the study area.

Two focus group discussions will be held by comprising 12

participants each. Focus group discussion check list will be

prepared for the participants. Non-urban farmers and urban

farmers’ group discussions will conducted separately, each

group comprising different socio-economic group,

age(elderly), long year stay in the town, neighborhood of

urban farmer and willing to participate in discussion. The

discussion will be about the urban farming, environmental

implication and government support to urban farmers.

Table 3.3: The number of participants of FGD

Sample frame Population No. of

sample

FGD participants - 24

Non- farmer focus group

participants

- 12

Urban farmer focus group

participants

- 12

Interview: To have deep understanding of the environmental

implication of urban agriculture in the study area, in-

depth interview will be held with key informants. Key

informants will be selected on the basis of their social

position and roles they do have in the community.

Environmental, agricultural and administrative, social and

health officials will be interviewed concerning to urban

agriculture, environmental activities and organizational and

governmental support to the urban farmers.

Table 3.4: The number of participants of interviewees

Sample frame Population No. of sample

Key informants/interviewees 14

UA officials 2

TVE officials 2

Municipality officials 2

Social Affairs officials 2

Environmental officials 2

Health officials 2

Elderly 2

Site observation: This method is important to obtain

information about what is happening in reality concerning

the issue under study and will be used to get data that may

not addressed by the interview, questionnaire, FGD and

secondary data. It is also suitable in dealing with subjects

where respondents are not capable of giving verbal report of

their feelings for one reason or the other (Kothari, 2004).

Observation of the study town will be carried out before and

during the study period. That will provide a chance to

observe bio-physical characteristics of the area, topography

of the area, demographic characteristics of the area,

location of farming, place of waste disposal and composting,

also information regarding people’s attitude, belief, and

environmental implication, urban agriculture condition of

the community. Urban farmer engaged in urban farming

practices, solid waste open dump site, green coverage of the

town and expert support to urban farmers and urban farmers

environmental management activities will observed.

3.4.2 Secondary Data Sources

Secondary source of information will be reviewed to

supplement the primary sources of information. Such

information will be obtained from the documentations of

urban agriculture office, small and micro enterprise office,

environmental protection and land use office and

municipality office annual plan and reports, abstracts and

previous research results and internet will be used.

3.5 Data Analysis and Interpretation

For the purpose of accomplishing the objectives of the study

and to answer the research questions, data should be analyzed

and interpreted. First, the interviews and focus group

discussion will be recorded with approval of the

respondents. The data generated through in-depth interview and

focus group discussion will be translated and transcribed from

Amharic into English. The technique of data analysis will be

used by condensation, paraphrasing long interviews into

concise statements or shorter formulations. Qualitative and

quantitative data analyses will be composed of arranging a

variety of statistical procedure and compiling of data.

Quantitative data analysis will be under taken based on;

coding, editing, tabulation, and then generating

frequencies, percentages on back ground information of

respondents, type of urban agriculture, impact of UA to the

environment and environmental benefits. Descriptive method

of data analysis such as: Percentages, frequency, will be

employed to analyze data which will be collected

quantitatively. The data will be managed through the use of

computer Microsoft ware, statistical product and service

solutions (SPSS), Microsoft EXCLE. In addition to this, data

will be tabulated in to percentage and frequencies.

Qualitative data such as information related with overview

of urban agricultural activities in the town, environmental

implications analysis of urban agriculture in Injibara town

will be analyzed by interpreting of organized data,

discussing of the findings in the form of narrative

description. And it draws meanings using summary of words

based on themes. The analyzed data will be followed by

detail interpretation.

3.6 Operationalization Framework

Research is all about measurements of research objectives,it is important to identify certain concepts that are

included in each research objectives, defining their meaning

in the study and operationalization of them in to measurable

indicators/variables is very important in order to address

the research objectives.

Table 3.5 Operationalization frame work of Variables of the

Study

Researchobjective

Concepts Variables Method of datacollection

Method ofdataanalysis

To identify the major typeof urbanagriculture

Type Urban or peri- urban,large or small,

Primary and secondarydata,and Observation

DescriptiveAnalysis

To examine the benefits of urban agriculture in Injibara town

Environmental BenefitsBiodiversity conservation

Solid waste to be recycled/reused

Primary and secondary data Focus group discussionObservation, Interview

DescriptiveAnalysis

Green infrastructureBiodiversityGreen area

Primary and secondary dataFocus group discussionObservation, Interview

DescriptiveAnalysis

Socio-economic benefits

Income generation

Primary and secondary dataInterview

DescriptiveAnalysis

Food Primary and Descriptive

security /poverty alleviation

secondary dataInterview

Analysis

Nutritional security and Health

Primary and secondary dataInterview

DescriptiveAnalysis

To explore those factors hinderingthe development of environmental friendly urban agriculture

Factors hindering

Technical/research /Training support

Primary and secondary data, Focus group discussionInterview

DescriptiveAnalysis

Input/Technology supply

Questionnaire, secondary data, FGD,Interview

DescriptiveAnalysis

Space for UACredit/Loan

Primary and secondary data, FGD,Interview

DescriptiveAnalysis

To assessthe impact ofurban agriculture to environment in injibara town

Impact Pollution(solidwaste dumping, air, water pollution),Health Risk

Primary and secondary data, FGD,Observation, Interview

DescriptiveAnalysis

Degradation(Biodiversity and soil degradation)

Primary and secondary data, focus group discussion, observation

DescriptiveAnalysis

Health(odor, human health, animal health)

Primary and secondary data, FGD,Observation

DescriptiveAnalysis

Source: Own survey, 2015

3.7 Data PresentationThe findings of analyzed data will be described and use the

following presentation tools, such as tables/frequencies,

percentages/, charts, graphs, photos and diagrams. Data

which will be collected by qualitative will contains

unstructured which may not be easily amenable is presented

by triangulation of different data from various sources to

get reality and is explained in words.

3.8 Limitations

Usually a research does not yield exactly what has been

intended at its original design. This, more often, comes to

light only after one is removed far away from the resources

of data or when the process of data organization and

analysis is half a way towards its completion. Infancy

stages of urban agriculture, as compared to rural

agriculture in our country, especially in the study area the

data problem may face during collecting information from

various departments in the town was a challenging task.

First of all, information was not organized as needed and

access to them is time consuming and needs repeatedly to

visit different data sources to collect which is time and

money consuming. In addition to this, in line with the

stated problem the researcher may face to gain enough books

for review of the literature.

Even though the above listed problems will be available,

different mechanisms will be applied to minimize the

constraints which might affect the quality of the study

result like using different references at different sources

of literature review including internet services, collecting

data from original documents, using efficient enumerators

for data collection and needs regular visiting of officials

and respondents.

Data Collection

Primary Data

Secondary Data

Literatures Various Publications

Reading

Data Type

Data Source

Data Collection Methods

Urban Farmers, FGD Site Visit, Key informants

Interview, FGD, Survey

Site Observation

Questionnaire

Photos, checklist

Interview

Tables, photos

Graphs, Reports

Data Analysis Tools

Results

NarativeFig.3.1. Data Collection and Analysis Method

Data Type

Data Source

Data Collection Methods

Maps, Reports, Soft Copy, Internet Documents, Previous Researches

Coding, Editing

Tabulation

81

3.9 Conclusions

Research proposal will be used as a plan to undertake

research analysis and to reach its findings. Urban

agriculture provides fresh products for urbanites which are

the basic needs of human beings, but the provision food in

developing countries including Ethiopia has been inefficient

and poor in quality and unsafe urban agriculture activities

destroy environment in many ways. Over all, the research

process starts by formulating the research problem that can

be investigated through research procedures, and by setting

general and specific objectives of the study. Relevant

literatures tried to show concepts and their backgrounds,

views, ideas and theoretical explanations with regard to the

environmental implications of urban agriculture.

Methodological steps; in research design; that will be taken

to answer the research questions that were stated in

introductory part and how the research will be carried out.

Descriptive research design, qualitative and quantitative

data, primary and secondary data, resources and systematic

random sampling and purposive sampling technique will be

utilized. Checklist, questionnaire, and interview will be

used to collect both primary and secondary data.

In depth house hold survey, interviews, focus group

discussion, key informants interview and document evidences

will utilized for data collection as methods. The survey was

with to be selected urban farmers; focus group discussion

82

with selected non-urban and urban farmers. And interview

with officials who are actively involving in their work.

Documentary evidences will also utilize from municipality,

urban agricultural and land use and environmental protection

office, micro and small enterprise office and other sources.

Then, the collected data will be analyzed using computer

Microsoft ware, statistical product and service solutions

(SPSS), Microsoft EXCLE. In addition to this, data will be

tabulated in to percentage and frequencies.

ReferencesAbrham Kassa (2012), Challenges and Opportunities of

River bank urban agriculture: the case of

Mekanisa, Gofa and Saries vegetable producers

cooperative. http://etd.aau. ET /space/ bit

stream/123456789/4363/1/Abrham%2520k.

Amhara National Regional State Finance and Economic

Development Bureau Report, (2013).Annual Report.

83

Ana, B. Alison, C. and Dali, M., (2006). Health risks and

benefits of urban and periurban agriculture and livestock in

sub-Saharan Africa. IDRC and CRDI.

Andrew,A. et al.,(1989). Handbook for family Planning

operation Research Desine,2th ed.USA Oxford

University press.

Angela A. (2014): The Role of Urban Agriculture in Urban

Organic waste management in The Hague, The

Nederland’s.

Armar-Klemesu, M.(2000). Urban agriculture and food

security, nutrition and health. In Growing cities.

Growing Food, urban agriculture on the Policy

Agenda.

Aziz, Sartaj and Pervaiz Amir (1997) “How Is Rapid

Urbanization Affecting Food Production and

Agricultural Research?” Delivered at Symposium on

Selected Regional Issues for Agriculture and

Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague

Bailis, R. (2003). Environmental and Socio-economic

Impact of charcoal production in Kenya. Paper

presented in the international Seminar on

Biodiversity and Sustainable Development Morella

Mexico.

Bensel, T.G & Elizabeth M.Remedio (2013) Wood fuel

consumption and charcoal production in the

84

Philippines: a desk study. FAO Bangkok,

unpublished report.

Bryceson D.F. and D. Potts (eds).(2005). African Urban

Economies: Viability, Vitality or Vitiation.P.

Macmillan. London

Bryld, E. (2003). Potentials, problems, and policy

implications for urban agriculture in developing

countries. Agriculture and Human Values 20: pp.79-86. Kluwer

Academic Publishers. TheNetherlands.

Carson, R. (2008). Silent Spring (1962).

Clark, Heather F., Debra M. Hausladen, and Daniel J.

Brabander. (2008). Urban gardens: Lead exposure,

recontamination mechanisms, and implications for remediation

design. Environmental Research. 107: 3, pp. 312-319.

Camilla Loise Bjeerki, ( 2013): A study of Solid Waste

Management.

Cofie, O., (2009). Emerging Issues in Urban Agricultural

Development in West Africa. International Water

Management Institute, Accra, Ghana.

CSA, (2011): Central Statistics Authority Kebele Map

Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata, (March 2012):

Global review of solid waste management.

David D. Mkwambisi (2005). Urban agriculture and poverty

reduction: Evaluating how food production in

cities contributes to livelihood entitlements in

Malawi

85

David,T. (2013). Biodiversity and Ecosystem productivity

contributed by David Tilman. University of

California-Santa Barbara

Date Flores (2000) and Edited by Marille Dubbeling

(2003). Recycling organic wastes in urban

agriculture: www-ruaf.org

/sites/default/files/Guide line, Recycling organic

wastes: Urban Agriculture.pdf

Deelstra, T. and H.,Girardet (2004). Urban Agriculture and

Sustainable Cities. News from the Field. The 26th Bienale De

São Paulo 2004. Hong Kong Press No. 15.

Drechsel, P., et. al., 2010. Wastewater irrigation and

health: Assessing and mitigating risk in low-income

countries. earthscan. MPG Books. United Kingdom

Dubbling, M., Caton Camp ell, M., Hoekstra, F. and

Veenhuizen, R.(2009). Editorial: building

resilient cities. Urban agriculture Magazine

Economics. 29: pp.293-301.

Edwards, Sue (Ed.). (2010). Ethiopian Environments Review

NO.1. Forum for Environment, Addis Ababa.

Examination of Urban Agriculture in East Africa.

Elizabeth M. Remedio (2003), University of Sancarlos,

Philippines: An analysis of sustainable fuel wood

and charcoal production systems in The

Philippines; The case study.

86

ENDA-Zimbabwe.(1998). Environmental and socio-economic

impacts of urban agriculture work shop. Harare.

Zimbabwe.

FAO.(2001). Urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture: a

briefing guide for successful implementation of urban

agriculture and per-urban agriculture in developing

countries and countries of transition. FAO. Rome. 2001.

FAO.(2002). Food security and trade: an overview. In Trade

and Food security: Conceptualizing the Linkages Expert

Consultation. Rome 11–12 July 2002.

FAO(2004).UBET-Unified Bio energy Technology. FAO

CORPORATE DOCUMENT RESPOSETORY (available at http:

//www.fao.org/DOCREP/007/j4504E00.HTM).

FAO(2005). The state of food insecurity in the world. Food

and agriculture organization of the united nations, Viale

delle terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy

FAO.(2007). Urban food marketing, Food for the Cities; FAO.

Rome. Italy.

FAO(1999). The state of food insecurity in the world 1999-

Food and agricultural organization of the united nations.

FAO (2015) .Role of FAO in urban agriculture: http:

//www.fao.org/urban- agriculture/en/

FDRE (Federal Democratic Constitution of Ethiopian

Proclamations)

___Constitution proclamation No. 1/1995

87

___Environmental Impact Assessment proclamation No.

299/2002

___Pollution Control Proclamation No. 300/2002

___Solid waste management proclamation No. 513/2007

Ferede, T. (2011). Green frame work in Gondar town. Masc.

thesis, Addis Ababa University. Unpublished.

G-Egziabher,Diana Lee Smith and Daniel Maxwell. (1994).

urban farming and urban poor in A.A. Cities

feeding people: an examination of Urban

Agriculture in East Africa. International

development center: Ottawa. Canada.

Gittleman. J. (2009).The role of urban agriculture in

environmental and social sustainability: a case study on

Boston.

Heather, K. L. (2012). The Environmental Benefits of

Urban Agriculture on Unused, Impermeable and Semi-

Permeable Spaces in Major Cities with a Focus on

Philadelphia, PA scholar commons, University of

Pennsylvania.

IDRC(1994). Cities feeding people- International

development research center, Ottawa.

InjibaraTown (2014/15). Urban agriculture and Micro and

small enterprise development office mid-term

report. Injibara. Unpublished.

Kasumba, H, (2007). Urban agriculture in Ezibeleni

(Queenstown), Eastern Cape: An assessment of the

88

practice and its contribution to the cultivator.

MA thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University,

Port Elizabeth.

Kathleen, F., (1999). An overview of public health and

urban agriculture: Water, soil and crop

contamination and emerging urban zoo noses.

Ottawa, Canada.

Kothari, C. (1990). Research Methodology, methods of

Techniques, 2nd edition, New Age International

Publishers, London.

Kothari, C. (2004). Research Methodology, methods of

Techniques, Published by New Age International (P)

Ltd. Publisher. India.

Lacoste, E. & Chalmin, P.(2007). From Waste to Resource:

2006 World Waste Survey. Paris, France:

Economical.

Laura D. (2009). History of solid waste management

Washington.

Lee, M. (1997). Recognizing Ethiopia’s urban farmers. IDRC

report. Vol. 21. No. 3.International Development Research

Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Lee-Smith D., (1998) Africa urban policy; issues and

priority. Paper presented at international.

Losada, H., Rivera, J., Vieyra, J., Cortés,J. (2010).

Role of Urban Agriculture in Waste Management in

Mexico City: Urban agriculture magazine number

89

23.Availableat;http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/f

iles/UAM23%20mexico%20cit y%20pag40 s41.pdf

[accessed] on may, 2013-05-19 at 2:00 A.M.

conference on Urban Agriculture policy in South

Africa, Technikon, and Pretoria.

Malimbwi: R.E and Zahabu E.,(2008). Faculty of forest and

nature Conservation, Sokoine: University of

Agriculture: The analysis of sustainable charcoal

production systems in Tanzania.

Matt Palmer (2012).Discovering Urban Biodiversity: www.

The nature of cities.com/2012/08/04/discovering

urban biodiversity.

Melaku(n.d). The Environmental consequence of

pesticides:http//www.iwn.cgiar/assessment/files/wo

rds/workshop/ILRI/March/presentation/Melaku.pdf.

Mireri et al. (2006). Urban Agriculture in East Africa:

Practice, challenges and Opportunities. City

Farmer. Canada’s office of Urban Agriculture

Mougeot LJA. (1994). Urban food production, evolution,

official support and significance. Cities Feeding

People Report 8. Ottawa: IDRC.

Mougeot, L. J. (2000). Urban agriculture: definition,

presence, potentials and risks. Growing cities,

growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy

agenda, pp.1-42.

90

Mougeot, L. J. (Ed.). (2005). Agro polis: the social,

political and environmental dimensions of urban

agriculture. IDRC.

Nigatu Reggasa, Rajan D. Sundaraa and Bizunesh Seboka:

Challenges and Opportunities in Municipal solid

waste. The case of Addis Ababa city, Central

Ethiopia.

Nugent (1999). Measuring the sustainability of urban

agriculture. For Hunger-proof cities: Sustainable

Urban Food Systems. M.Koc, Rod M., L.J.A.Mougeot

and J.Welsh (Eds). IDRC. Ottawa, Canada.

Nugent, R.(2001). “The Impact of Urban Agriculture on

Household and Local Economies”.

Parkes M., Panelli R. and Weinstein P. (2003). Converging

paradigm for environmental health theory and practice.

Environmental Health Prespectives, Vol. 111. Pp. 669-675.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

NC, USA.

Prain, G. (2010). Effects of the Global Financial Crisis

on the Food Security of Poor Urban Households.

Leusden. The Nezerlands: RUAF Foundation/UN

HABITAT/IDRC.

Richter J, Schnitzler WH & Gura S (ends). (1995).

Vegetable production in peri-urban areas in the

tropics and subtropics: food, income and quality

of life-proceedings of an international workshop,

91

Germany: food and agricultural development (DSE) /

council for tropical and sub tropical Agricultural

Research (ATSAF).

Robeta, A.A., (2011).The impact of urban agriculture on

urban environment: M .A Thesis. Ethiopian civil service

university, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.

Sawio, C. J. (1998). Managing UA in Dar es Salaam. Cities

Feeding People Series Report 20. Ottawa, Canada:

IDRC.

Smit, Jac and Joe Nasr (1992) “Urban Agriculture for

sustainable cities: Using wastes and ideal land

and water bodies, as resources”. Environmental and

Urbanization.

Smit, J., Nasr J. and Rotta A. (2001). Urban Agriculture:

Food, Jobs & Sustainable cities.

Smit, J., Rotta, A and Nasr, J. (1996). Urban

Agriculture: Food, Jobs & Sustainable cities. New

York: UNDP.

Tewodros F. (2007). Livelihood Dependence on Urban

Agriculture in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Thinker, I. (1994). Urban Agriculture is Already Feeding

cities: in cities feeding people. IDRC: Ottawa.

Tidball, K. G. & Krasny, M. (2006). From risk to

resilience: What role for community greening and

civic ecology in cities? In social learning a more

92

Sustainable World (Ed. A. Walls), Wagening, The

Netherlands: Academic press.

UNDP (United Nations Development Program me), (1996).

Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable

Cities. UNDP, New York.

UN-Habitat (2007). State of the World’s Cities Report

2006/2007. London: Earth scan.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection).(2014).

Urban Environment Program in New England.

Veenhuizen, R.V. (Ed.). (2006). Cities farming for the

future: urban agriculture for green and productive

cities. IDRC.

Veenhuizen, R.V. and George, D., (2007). Profitability

and sustainability of urban and peri-urban

agriculture. Leusden, the Netherlands.

Veenhuizen, R.V, (2010). City farming for the future: urban

agriculture for green and productive cities. Leusden, the

Netherlands.

Wageningen University Academic Consultancy Training

(2014). The role of Urban Organic Waste Management

in The Hague, The Netherland as cited in cohen

(2012).

93

Annex 1: Research time schedules

No Activities Time of accomplishment

March-June

September October November December January

1 Developing researchproposal

X

2 Research proposalimprovement

X

3 Proposal submission X

4 Designing data collectionplan

X

5 Pre-testing questionnaires X

6 Modifications ofquestionnaires

X

7 Field work for datacollection

X X

8 Data assembling X X

9 Data analysis andinterpretations

X

10 First draft research paperpreparations

X

11 Final research submission X

12 Thesis presentation X

94

Annex 2: Budget

No

Item

Unit

measure

Qua

nti

ty

Unit price in

Birr

Total

price in

Birr

1 Line paper Ream 3 70 210

2 Square paper Ream 2 55 110

3 A-4 Paper Ream 5 90 450

4 Stapler Pieces 2 70 140

5 Writing pad Pieces 5 45 225

6 Correction Fluid Pieces 5 18 90

7 Flesh Disk(4GB) Pieces 1 450 450

8 CD-RW Pieces 18 20 360

9 Pen and pencil Dozen 1 70 70

10 Staples Packet 5 7 35

95

11 Typing Page 600 3 1800

12 Photocopy Page 180

0

0.5 900

13 Print Page 100

0

1 1000

14 Internet service Hr 60 10 600

15 Camera Number 1 2200 2200

16 Mobile card Number 20 50 1000

17 Bag Number 2 800 1600

18 Scientific

calculator

Number 1 170 170

19 Data collectors

payment

Number 5 100Birr/day for

5 days

2500.00

Tota

l

13,910.0

0

Contingency cost 10%+ = 1391.00

Total = 15301.00

Annex 3. Questionnaire to be answered by Urban Farmers in

the study area

Dear respondents,

This questionnaire is designed to make a study on

environmental implications of urban agriculture in Injibara

town. Therefore, your genuine cooperation in answering the

96

questions listed below will be of a great importance to the

study. Thank You!

Answer the following questions in the box provided on each

option by putting “X” sign in your choice or fill in the box

or space highlighted.

Section A. Urban farmers’ profile

1. Sex male….. Female..……….. ………

2. Age……………….A. 14-18 B. 19-25 C.26-30 D. 31-40 E. 41-50 F.

51-60

G. above 60 year

3. Marital status A. Single B. Married C. Divorced D.

Widowed E. Separated

F. Polygamy

4. Educational status A. Illiterate B. Read and write C.

Primary school 1-4 D. Secondary School 5_8 E. High school

9_10 F. Preparatory 11_12 G. Other, (Please specify)

5. Number of family members at the time of survey.

Male……female……total……….

6. Your primary works (civil servant, trader, casual

laborer, job seeking, etc) and average monthly income Birr.

Job…………income in Birr………………

7. Continuous duration of stay at current place of residence

(year)……………………

97

8. Place of birth (specify regions, zone and woreda)

…………………………………

9. If your place of birth is different from the present,

reason for coming here. A. Marriage B. Joint relative C.

to live in the town D. To get access to infrastructure

E. Divorce

10. Is the household capable to work/economically active?

1. Yes 2. No

11. If inactive why? 1. Sick 2.aged 3. Disable

4.aged and sick 5. Other (specify)

12. How much is your monthly income from urban agriculture?

From animal husbandry…………..ETB, crop production…………ETB, from

forest………..ETB, from all (mixed)…………..ETB

Section B. The type of urban agricultural activities you

and your family engaged in

it? ........................................................

............................................................

...............

1. Did you grow the crop, and vegetable and fruit? If yes

specify the type of vegetable, crop & fruit.

2. Where do you grow? In open space/In back yard/In urban

fringe areas/Roadsides/Others………………………………………………………………………

3. Before you start farming the place was occupied by what?

(Forest, wetland, rural farmer, unused, river bank, waste

dumping area, road side, other)…………………………………

98

4. Did you get inputs of the crop, and vegetable and fruit?

If yes where did you get? Extension

agents/relatives/cooperatives/NGOs/others………………………………………….

5. Do you apply chemical fertilizer in your garden? Yes/no.

If yes where do you get and how much kg of Dap/Urea you have

used? ......................................................

................

6. How do you water your farm? Using irrigation water/rain/

pipe/other………………..

7. Do you apply manure or compost in your plot? Yes/no. If

yes where and how do you

get? .......................................................

............................................................

................

8. What are you means of controlling disease and pests?

Cultural/chemical, If you use chemical specify type and

amount in kg……………………………………………………

9. Do you have animal farm? Yes/no, if yes specify the type

of farm; where do you keep them? In back yard/in

periphery/open space/other ……………………………………………

10. How do you feed your animals? Grazing open area/stall

feed/buying processed feed/cut and carry from your own

farm/others…………………………………………………..

11. How do you dispose of animal wastes?

99

12. Do you have seedling production and forest plantation

farm? Yes/no. If yes, specify the type of species?

…………………………………………………………….

13. For what purpose you plant, and also produce seedlings?

Selling/planting for construction, charcoal production, for

fire wood and if other specify ……………………..

14. If you plant for charcoal production in what system you

produce charcoal? ………

15. Did you get training on urban agricultural activity?

Yes/no, if yes training was on the issues of

……………………………………………………………………………

16. What type of agriculture do you want? Crop

production/animal farm/plantation …………..

17. If yes, what is the reason for your selection?

………………………………………….

18. Are you familiar with environmental problems caused by

urban agriculture? Yes no

19. If yes, which type of urban agriculture do you think

cause environmental problem and how?

…………………………………………………………………………

20. Which type of urban agriculture contributes

environmental benefit or advantages?

Specify ……………………………………………………………………………….

21. Which of the following environmental shocks have been

experienced in the past?

Drought/flood/pest/others…………………………………………………………….

100

Did the shock destroy the environment? Yes/no, if yes what

type of destruction was happened?

Section C. Questions related to the benefit of urban

agriculture

A. For Environmental Benefit

1. Are you familiar with environmental benefits? Yes no

2. Do you use compost for your farm? Yes no

3. If yes from where do you access the raw materials for

composing?

…………………….. ………………..……………………………………………….

4. Do you use municipal organic solid waste for composting?

Yes no

5. Is your farm boundary fenced by plant? Yes no

6. Do you grow plant every year? Yes no

7. If no why? …………………………………………………………………...............

8. For what purpose do you produce?

A. To keep the aesthetic value B. To protect our area from

dumping of waste C. Recreation and hobby D. To create

social cohesion E. to create employment opportunity for

other person

F. For charcoal/construction G. Other please specify

9. What do you think about the environmental benefits of

urban agriculture in Injibara town?

A. Reduce urban heat B. waste recycling or reuse C. Reduce

soil loss/degradation D. Plant biodiversity enrichment E.

101

increased water availability F. storm water runoff G.

others

10. Do you think that urban agriculture in the town has

health benefit? .......................

11. If so, specify how it could be based on your suggestion?

.......................................

12. Indicate if you agree or not with the following

statements by circling the letters

Disagrees (a), partially agree (b), Agree(c), highly agree

(d)

1/ UA is good for the urban environment (a) (b) (c) (d)

2/ UA creates solidarity links in the community (a) (b) (c)

(d)

3/ UA helps Injibara town in its search for food security

(a) (b) (c) (d)

4/ I practiced UA only because I do not have other

possibilities to feed my family (a) (b) (c)(d)

5/ UA pollutes the urban environment (a) (b) (c) (d)

6/ UA occupies space that would be used to build houses,

factories or create parks (a) (b) (c) (d)

7/ Agricultural production sites should remain in Injibara

town (a) (b) (c) (d)

12. What type of benefits (both tangible and intangible) you

get from UA

A. Generate income B. contributing to environmental

improvement of the town

102

C. Contribute to my family and to the neighborhood`s food

security D. Fill useful E. interact with others in

community F. preserves UA land for future generations G.

Independence, because I have my own productions H. save

money

B. For socio economic benefit

1. Farm size in hectares: a) small (0-1/4 hectare) b) medium

(1-1/2) c) large (1/2-1)

2. in one year, for example this last year, how much you

gain in Birr? ............................

3. Is your UA activity your only activity, a second job or a

hobby …………………….

4. Did you have experience in agriculture before starting

UA? Yes/no

5. How many hours weekly do you dedicate to your farm?

…………………………….

6. Who works with you (friend, family, workers, age and

gender) and how many hours weekly do they

work? ......................................................

............................................................

.

7. Regardless of access constraints, how many more years

would you like to continue UA?

a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) as long as I can e) until I find another

job f) other ………………

103

8. For what purpose do you produce? a) Family supply b)

community supply c) sales

9. What is the proportion of your production that goes to

each of the mentioned purposes?

10. How many families benefit from your garden (from direct

consumption and sales)?

11. Could you calculate the total value of your production

(per month or per year)? ....................

12. If you would need to buy the same products at the

market, how much would it cost you? Birr…………………………………………

13. What you produce in your farm covers how much of the

food needs of your family?

a) 0-1/4 b) ¼-1/2 c) ½-3/4 d) ¾-all

14. How much money do you have saved in food costs with your

farm (yearly)?

15. For what purpose do you use urban greenery and open

spaces?

a) Recreation b) Social meeting c) Shade d) If

other specify

Section D. Questions related to Factors Hindering the

Development of Environmental Friendly UA

1. What does governmental body supports your activities?

Please specify

2. What does non-governmental body supports your activities?

3. Is there any input supplier nearby to your farm? What

agricultural input would they supply?

104

4. Do you think these inputs are environmentally friend?

5. Are there environmental stakeholders who advise or

support you how to practice eco-friendly? List them

………………………………………………………………

7. What kind of agencies do you have access to get credit

and saving services?

8. Do you face problems with any kind of credit services? If

yes, what? ......................................

9. Do you practice saving? If yes, in what form do you keep

it? Money in bank/money in ‘Equb’/seed in

store/livestock/other animals/ other ………………………………………

10. Do you borrow or lend money to your family (included

extended family) and friends ……..

11. What problems are you facing in practices urban

agriculture?

............................................................

............................................................

..................

…………………………………………………………………………………………

12. Do you think there is environmental problem for your

practice? Specify

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

13. If there is environmental problem how did it happen?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

14. How can you solve this/these environmental problem?

105

............................................................

............................................................

............

15. Is there shortage of space for agricultural practice?

Yes □ no □

16. If there is a shortage, what environmental problem would

it pose?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

17. Is there any waste which cause urban agriculture

difficult? ………………………..

18. Is there climate challenge for your practice? A. rain

fall B. temperature C. wind

D. Water

19. Is the environment conducive for agriculture in Injibara

town? Yes/ no

20. Is there health caused by urban agriculture? ………………………..

Specify……………………………………………………………………………….

Annex 4: Interview Guide for Injibara town municipality

1. Is there a land use division of urban agriculture or

agriculture?

2. If there is no, why?

3. If there is, how much land is planned for agriculture?

4. What do you support for urban agriculture?

106

5. Is UA practiced according to the structure plan or not?

if not why?

6. Do you think urban farmers give attention to the

environment?

7. Does solid waste used by urban farmers? If available

please give data

8. What about the soil conservation in the town?

9. Is urban greening increasing or decreasing? And what is

the contribution of UA to urban greening in the town?

10. How much municipal waste is generated? And how much is

recycled and reused by urban agriculture and what is your

support?

Annex 5: Interview Guide for Injibara Town urban agriculture

key informants

1. How is the extent of urban farming in this city?

2. Which type of crops, livestock’s and forestry are

commonly practiced in this city? Start with the most

common.

3. What are the main uses of the livestock, crops and

forestry? Start with the most important.

4. What problems do the urban farmers face in urban

farming?

5. How do you rank the living conditions of the urban

farmers in the city? What things they don’t have?

6. How do urban farmers maintain their level of income

throughout a year? If they have other income means?

107

7. How do you evaluate the significance of urban farming

as compared to alternative income generating

opportunities?

8. Did your organization give support to urban agriculture

in terms of extension and input service?

9. Did your organization offered training to UA? If no

why?

10. What institutional, technical, legal and financial

support is given to urban farmers?

11. How much produce do urban farmers produce per year in

the town?

12. What type of agricultural inputs do farmers use? A.

Commercial fertilizer b.

Natural fertilizer c. both Why do they

select? ...........................................

13. How much chemicals do they use?

How much natural fertilizer including compost do they use?

For which agricultural type do they use?

14. Is there environmental expert in your office? if no,

why?

15. How do you monitor the environment?

16. Have you planned green growth plan?

17. How do urban farmers conserve soil?

18. How do UF conserve and plant seedling?

19. Did urban farmers stay long last with urban farming?

108

How long (nearest estimation)

20. Who involved in UA? A. poor B. reach C. unemployed D.

emigrant E. indigenous F. enterprise G. investors and others

(specify), and rank/first, second, etc/

21. What environmental benefits are there due to urban

agriculture?

22. What are the environmental problems in the town

according to their severity?

23. What are the causes of these environmental problems?

24. Are there any measures taken to curb environmental

effects? Yes no, if no why? If yes the type of measures take

till now ………………………………………………………..

25. Future plan to prevent environmental problems

…………………………………….

26. Land recourse change: Vegetation, soils, water use and

distribution ………………

27. Environmental policies implementation and legal

enforcement experience …………

28. Is there demand to participate in urban agriculture?

How much………..

Annex 6: Interview Guide for Awi Zone EPLAU department keyinformants1. What is the organization mission concerning environment?2. How do you support urban agriculture in Injibara Town?Institutional, technical, legal and financial support3. Do they conserve urban environment?4. What is their major contribution to the urbanenvironment?

109

5. What environmental problems do you observe with urbanagriculture practice in the Injibara Town?6. What are the causes of these environmental problems?7. What environmental benefits are there due to urbanagriculture?8. Are there any measures taken to curb environmentaleffects? Yes no, if no why? If yes the type of measures taketill now ………………………………………………………..9. Future plan to prevent environmental problems…………………………………….10. If you have data would you tell me the waste they used,soil they conserve, green biodiversity they contribute?11. In your department there might be green growth plan sohow the urban agriculture is performing?12. Environmental policies implementation and legalenforcement experience …………Annex 7: Interview question to Injibara town Micro and smallenterprise development office Key informants1. How many enterprises are organized on urban agriculture?2. What do they produce?3. Do they participate in urban greening or parking?4. Do they involve in composting as an income generatingactivity?5. Who support them in farming?6. Do they get information about environment/ who gaveorientation?7. What is the enterprises main objective while organizedunder urban agriculture?A. Social benefits B. economic benefit C. hobby D.recreation E. For time taking(Vacation) F. environmental benefit8. How long do they stay with urban farming? If short time,do they give attention to environment?9. Is there additional demand to participate in urbanagriculture? Mention number, how much they

110

are? ........................................................................................................

Annex 8: Interview guide for elderly

1. How do you understand urban agriculture in your life?

2. When does urban agriculture start in the town?

3. Is urban agriculture improving or decreasing the

activity?

4. Was there compost usage at the start of urban

agriculture?

5. How do you compare the compost usage with the recent

application?

6. How was the environmental conservation of urban farm area

in the previous time that you remind?

7. How do you compare the environmental conservation from

the previous and the current application?

8. What environmental conservation of farm area is added

from the previous period?

9. What environmental conservation is removed or reduced

from the previous period of farming?

10. What do you advice for urban farmers to conserve urban

farm land at the present?

Annex 9: Interview question to Injibara town Health office

1. Have you noticed urban agriculture activities in this

town?

2. Please tell me some of the activities you know?

111

3. What are the benefits of urban farming?

4. What the risks associated with urban agriculture?

5. Please tell me the major health problem of the

residents?

6. What are the causes of health problem?

7. The prevention measures to be taken to curb the

problem?

8. Is there any type of human health problem that is

caused with UA?

9. What types of health problems that are caused by UA are

common in this town?

10. Which of these problems are very serious?

11. What does the health policy states regarding such

type of activities?

12. What is your suggestion to have environmental

friendly UA in your town?

sAnnex 10: Interview question to Injibara town Social

Affairs office key informants

1. What is your perception towards urban agriculture?

2. Please tell me the economic activities in the town?

3. Please tell me the status of the residents?

4. Did your organization give support to urban farmers? If

yes what type of support? If no why?

5. Which economic activities are the most labor absorbing

activities in the town?

112

6. According to income generation which sectors are

preferable?

7. What is the role of UA in employment creation in the

town?

8. Which segments of the residents are involved in UA?

9. Did you know the number of residents engaged in UA with

sex?

10. What are the constraints associated with urban

agriculture?

11. What are the solutions to have sustainable UA that

creates employment opportunity, income generation and

environmental friendly agriculture?

Annex 11: Focus group discussion checklists for non-

agriculture urban dwellers

1. Why don`t you involve in urban agriculture?

2. Who are the participants of urban agriculture?

3. for how long urban agriculture is practiced in Injibara

Town?

4. What do you benefit from urban agriculture? What

constraints?

5. What are some of the risks associated with urban

agriculture?

6. Measures taken to alleviate problems caused by urban

agriculture?

113

7. What recommendations can you make regarding improving

environmental friendly urban agricultural activities in

terms of policies, systems and structures?

8. What is affected by adverse effect of urban agriculture?

How?

9. Who are the most victims of adverse effect of the urban

agriculture? Why?

10. Does urban agriculture give environmental benefit to

the town?

11. Where do you dispose the solid waste produced in you

village? Did you pay for solid Waste collector?

12. Does solid waste is used for UA in Injibara Town?

13. What do you say about UA and soil conservation in the

town?

14. What do you say about plantation cover and UA? Is it

increasing or decreasing due to UA in the town?

15. What type of environmental problems exists around your

area?

16. Are there any measures taken to curb environmental

effects? Yes no

11.1 If yes the type of measures take till now and future

plan to prevent environmental problem

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

17.2 If no why? …………………………………………………………………………...

18. Land recourse change: vegetation, soils water use and

distribution …………………………

114

19. What is your recommendation to harmonize environmental

friendly urban agriculture in the urban environment?

Annex 12: Focus group Discussion with urban farmers

1. What problems do you face while farming?

2. What environmental benefit do your farming contributes to

environment?

3. Have you ever got health problem in case of your farm?

4. How do you solve such disease?

5. What seems government/non government supports for your

farming?

Annex 13: Observation checklist

1. Each category of urban farming practice will be observed

(individual farmers, agricultural investors, and micro and

small enterprises).

2. Practices of UA and their environmental importance

3. Types of UA (large scale, small scale or medium scale)

and (urban or peri-urban and community, institutional, home

garden, enterprise, others)

4. Some of the stakeholders will be observed

5. Visible environmental impacts and problems of UA will be

observed (waste disposal, land degradation, loss of

biodiversity and others)

6. Environmental benefits of UA in the town will be observed

7. Solid waste (municipal waste) will be observed

8. The biodiversity avail in the town will be observed

9. Soil degradation will be observed

115

10. The perspective of the urban community in regard to

urban farming

Annex 14: Declaration of Quito

116

117