beyond food security: women’s experiences of urban ...€¦ · ers women on the cape flats, a...

Vol.:(0123456789)1 3

Agric Hum Values (2017) 34:743–755 DOI 10.1007/s10460-017-9773-0

Beyond food security: women’s experiences of urban agriculture in Cape Town

David W. Olivier1 · Lindy Heinecken2

Accepted: 16 January 2017 / Published online: 14 February 2017 © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Introduction

Women are identified as key players in subsistence culti-vation by some of the earliest studies on urban agriculture (Niñez 1985; Pinton 1985; Sanyal 1985). Such research identifies not only how urban agriculture compliments women’s livelihoods, but also the gender-based threats and challenges such women face. A gender perspective is par-ticularly important in Africa, as most cultivators through-out the region are women (FAO 2012). Hitherto, a key focus of urban agriculture research in Africa has been food access, with women featuring as primarily responsible for household food security (Rakodi 1991). Such cases typi-cally identify urban agriculture as a means to supplement household food security, and therefore advise increased support from local government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to facilitate this (Thornton et al. 2010). Urban agriculture’s contribution to social relations and community networks has remained a gap in this body of literature (McIvor and Hale 2015).

Literature on urban agriculture in Africa tends to focus primarily on urban agriculture’s “quantifiable ben-efits” such as food security and income creation, but neglects “qualitative issues” such as social benefits (Bat-tersby and Marshak 2013). The social benefits of urban agriculture are particularly relevant for female cultiva-tors on the Cape Flats, as friendships and networks that develop improve women’s livelihoods and survival strate-gies. Slater (2001), for example, who adopts a feminist perspective of urban agriculture in Cape Town, found that the friendships urban agriculture engenders among women could provide both the emotional and practical support to counteract some forms of oppression from this patriarchal context. In this regard, both Slater (2001) and Battersby and Marshak (2013) provide useful insights

Abstract Urban agriculture is an important source of food and income throughout Africa. The majority of cul-tivators on the continent are women who use urban agri-culture to provide for their family. Much research on urban agriculture in Africa focuses on the material benefits of urban agriculture for women, but a smaller body of litera-ture considers its social and psychological empowering effects. The present study seeks to contribute to this debate by looking at the ways in which urban agriculture empow-ers women on the Cape Flats, a region of Cape Town where urban agriculture is supported by nongovernmental organi-sations (NGOs). Based on interviews with cultivators, the findings show that NGO-run urban agriculture projects not only aid food security, but also help women to develop sup-portive networks that unlock benefits across the personal, social and economic spectrum.

Keywords Urban agriculture · Gender · Livelihood · Social capital · Cape Town · NGO

AbbreviationsNGO Non-governmental organisation

* David W. Olivier [email protected]

Lindy Heinecken [email protected]

1 Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute (GCSRI), University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Johannesburg Wits 2050, Gauteng Province, South Africa

2 Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag x1, Stellenbosch Matieland 7602, Western Cape Province, South Africa

744 D. W. Olivier, L. Heinecken

1 3

into the social benefits of urban agriculture which to date have been relatively under-researched. As such, the pre-sent study strives to contribute to this body of work by engaging with the NGOs involved in supporting urban agriculture projects, and in particular by studying how these NGOs help to develop social capital, which makes such initiatives more sustainable and empowering.

In essence, social capital refers to the ability “to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks” (Portes 1998) and is an important element of sustainable livelihoods, as it can unlock economic, human and other capitals (Emery and Flora 2006). For example, cultiva-tors develop social capital when they share land, work together and donate portions of their harvest to neigh-bours. This social capital increases their access to food and other resources (Gallaher et al. 2013). At a macro-scale, cultivators who group together are more able to make their needs known to local government (Asomani-Boateng 2002). This suggests that urban agriculture is beneficial to poor women, even if the scale of output is relatively insignificant. This is especially true when such women have access to networks and resources outside of the local context, for example through connections with NGOs (Brown and Korten 1989). Such NGOs create a supportive environment for resource-constrained female cultivators to practice urban agriculture by providing training and inputs (Gallaher et al. 2013), as well as by facilitating access to other resources, such as land access, fencing and infrastructure (City of Cape Town 2007).

Against this brief background, this study seeks to establish how NGO-run urban agriculture projects benefit women on the Cape Flats. To this end, it examines the extent to which these projects benefit women both mate-rially and through creating social networks of support, which in turn unlock additional benefits. To contextual-ise this research, a background is provided relating to the broader debate on women in urban agriculture, the ben-efits and limitations this affords, and the role of NGOs and government in facilitating the growth of urban agri-culture in resource-constrained communities. Thereafter, how social capital develops through the involvement in urban agriculture is unpacked and related to the Cape Town case study. Through this study, we aim to point out that involvement in urban agriculture is empowering at various levels for female cultivators and that urban agri-culture’s benefits should therefore not be measured purely through quantitative measures related to income and pro-duce. What also needs to be considered is how involve-ment in these activities empowers women and strength-ens their social bonds in societies ripped apart through violence and crime where women in particular experi-ence a high level of social isolation.

The value of urban agriculture

Urban agriculture is popular among women in Africa because it is compatible with traditional gender roles (Hov-orka 2006; Tembo and Louw 2013). In addition to food production, these roles include childcare, frail care, clean-ing and cooking (Mougeot 2006). In South Africa, where many urban cultivators have a rural heritage, subsistence agriculture is a traditional way to supplement household food access (van Averbeke 2007). As such, many female cultivators in Cape Town find urban agriculture a use-ful addition to their livelihoods and see it as one of their household roles (Slater 2001). Thus, in the African context, the prevalence of women among urban cultivators is partly explained by urban agriculture’s compatibility with other gender-based activities.

Being able to provide for a family is a mark of suc-cess for women in some cultures. In Nairobi, for example, women believe that urban agriculture positively affects their social image, presenting them as proactive and indus-trious homemakers (Freeman 1993). Being able to fulfil gender roles in this way raises self-esteem, as seen among female cultivators in Kenya (Simiyu and Foeken 2014). In South Africa, economic poverty hamstrings many wom-en’s efforts to provide for their households (van Averbeke 2007). This is evident in Cape Town’s poorest areas, where female-centred households are in the majority. In such areas, 43% of female-centred households fall into the lowest income category, compared to only 19% of nuclear house-holds (Battersby 2011). For female urban cultivators in such areas, urban agriculture helps them to fulfil their “role in society as wives and mothers” by providing a respectable means to access food without purchasing it (Slater 2001). Given this, urban agriculture is viewed as a culturally rel-evant food source for women throughout Africa, and is particularly important for women in Cape Town who have limited income and have migrated to the city.

Persistent livelihood insecurity throughout Africa causes many to migrate from rural areas to cities in search of work (Simiyu and Foeken 2014). For some, urban employment is indicative of success and a progression from rural naivety to modern sophistication. The aspiration of rural–urban migrants is to find employment typical of urbanity, some-thing in-doors, behind a desk, or in a uniform. For such people, farming, particularly as part of a livelihood strat-egy, is part of the past they wish to progress from. Thus, urban agriculture may be perceived as quaint, coarse or old-fashioned (Dunn 2010). While this view may be taken by those in formal employment, it does not appear the pop-ular view among women employed in traditional, domestic gender roles.

For women whose livelihood strategies are embedded in rural pursuits such as water and firewood collecting or

745Beyond food security: women’s experiences of urban agriculture in Cape Town

1 3

subsistence agriculture, urban life is alienating (Slater 2001). In such cases, urban agriculture creates a familiar space symbolic of home (Slater 2001). For example, an urban Batswana woman explains that she practices urban agriculture because, “It is part of our lives” and thus, even though she works full-time, urban agriculture helps her to “de-stress” (Hovorka 2006). The peaceful space created by urban agriculture is not only appreciated by rural migrants. Cape Town women who grew up in poor urban areas also value urban agriculture as a temporary relief from dreary, oppressive or violent living conditions (Slater 2001; Bat-tersby and Marshak 2013). For such women, urban agri-culture’s value is not simply its contribution to basic food security, but also the sense of pride that comes from using one’s land productively (Hovorka 2006). In addition, there are various social benefits associated with being involved in urban agriculture that enhance the livelihood strategies of poor households (Battersby and Marshak 2013).

For low-income households, livelihood resilience relates to the portfolio of capitals to which the household has access (Chambers and Conway 1992). “Capital” in the sustainable livelihoods framework refers not only to the strict economic definition of “the product of investment which yields a flow of benefits over time” (Department for International Development 1999), but indicates livelihood “building blocks” that collectively contribute towards resil-ience (Farrington et al. 1999). Constructing a portfolio of capitals that includes access to natural, physical, human and social capital, in addition to financial capital, is vital for low-income households to build a resilient livelihood (Farrington et al. 1999). Thus, low-income households typically draw on multiple strategies and incomes, such as casual labour, state grants and urban agriculture (Rakodi 2002), as well as neighbours, friends and family, to survive (Getz 2008).

The value of urban agriculture to female cultivators is found in its ability to strengthen social capital, thereby increasing access to a spectrum of other livelihood capi-tals (Gallaher et al. 2013). In essence, social capital refers to networks, “norms and trust that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives”, and which in poor communities becomes essential in build-ing sustainable livelihoods (Putnam 1995). For example, research on rural agricultural households in South Africa found that households with strong social capital have more access to food through their networks than households that are socially isolated (Tibesigwa et al. 2016). The value of social networks is known to cultivators in Cape Town, who place greater emphasis on the social cohesion and networks urban agriculture facilitates than the strict economic ben-efits, when discussing the main reason for them taking up urban agriculture (Battersby and Marshak 2013). Thus, it appears that for resource-constrained urban women, social

capital is often a more fundamental benefit of urban agri-culture than income or food security.

Social capital is theoretically divided into three forms, bonding, bridging and linking, and access to all three forms is vital for sustainable livelihoods (Vervisch et al. 2013). Bonding capital describes the close ties between family and friends providing emotional or material support that indi-viduals may draw on to “get by” (Woolcock and Narayan 2000). Urban agriculture strengthens bonding capital because it facilitates working together, sharing produce and having conversations (Pourias et al. 2015). In Cape Town, cultivators find that practicing urban agriculture together deepens their relationships (Slater 2001). This bonding capital is important for economically marginalised cultiva-tors, as close bonds increase their resilience to livelihood shocks and stresses (Gallaher et al. 2013).

Whereas bonding capital provides an informal safety net, it does not provide opportunities to move into more rewarding livelihoods. This is achieved by bridging capi-tal, which helps people to “get ahead” (Woolcock and Narayan 2000). Getting ahead is possible with inflows of new resources, information or opportunities (Vervisch et al. 2013). For example, when cultivators expand their net-works of acquaintance by attending training courses or by selling or bartering produce with the broader community, they develop bridging capital, which increases opportuni-ties to grow in skills and income (Flynn 2001; Gallaher et al. 2013). This is illustrated by female chicken farmers in Gaborone, Botswana, who have established a network amongst themselves to exchange knowledge and assistance and to sell their produce (Hovorka 2005, 2006). Similarly, female cultivators in South Africa have developed broad community networks using a tradition called go fake, go fega, in which produce is given as a gift with the expec-tation that a favour can be called on at another time (May and Rogerson 1995). Gifting produce is characteristic of female cultivation groups in Cape Town, who give up to 40% of their produce to clinics, early childhood develop-ment centres and school feeding schemes (Jacobs and Xaba 2008). Although the recipients of these gifts may not be expected to reciprocate, this generosity benefits the givers by increasing the esteem of these women in their communi-ties (Jacobs and Xaba 2008).

What this indicates is that the development of bridging capital through the involvement in urban agriculture both empowers and enriches women’s self-esteem. However, in poor communities this is often only possible where there is access to some form of linking capital (Moser 1998). Link-ing capital is defined as the capacity to engage and connect with external agencies that are economically or politically influential (Vervisch et al. 2013). Such external agencies include NGOs or local municipality, who play a vital role in community development as they introduce infrastructure,


1 3

human capital and resources into a community and deter-mine how community actors relate to each other by means of policies and legislation (Morse et al. 2009; Morse and McNamara 2013). In Cape Town, NGOs have been sup-porting urban agriculture on the Cape Flats for decades by training cultivators, providing basic inputs for start-up and following up with years of extension services to mentor cultivators (Eberhard 1989). In more recent years, the City of Cape Town has begun replicating these services as part of their commitment to empowering previously disadvan-taged individuals (City of Cape Town 2007). Linking capi-tal therefore facilitates the inclusion of marginalised people in the development process.

Linking capital is particularly important for women in patriarchal social contexts that curtail their agency and access to resources (Battersby 2011). Patriarchy typically undermines women’s agency at the household, community and political level (Walby 1986). Therefore, it is unrealis-tic to expect “bottom-up” development among economi-cally marginalised female cultivators without the introduc-tion and institutionalization of basic support from NGOs or government at the “top” (Woolcock and Narayan 2000). In Cape Town, NGOs are the key role players in the urban agriculture sector. These NGOs provide the basic support women need to sustain urban agriculture, and with this support, female cultivators go on to create networks that address other needs they identify in their areas, such as food security, safe parks for children and women’s rights (Slater 2001; Ward 2007; Jacobs and Xaba 2008).

The gains in bonding, bridging and linking capital facili-tated by urban agriculture may however be undermined by crime and corruption. Gangs, theft and substance abuse are key challenges in many urban slums, destroying social capital by creating mistrust and fear, as well as reduc-ing the safe spaces women use to socialise (Moser 1998). Many of the social ills described here are common on the Cape Flats, which suggests weakened bonding and bridging capital in these areas (Slater 2001; Battersby and Marshak 2013). Another danger is wealthy elites or corrupt politi-cians exploiting their positions of power, substituting link-ing capital with clientelism and creating dependency (Getz 2008). These challenges can undermine the potential ben-efits of urban agriculture, particularly towards marginalised groups. Thus, it is incorrect to assume that marginalised cultivators will capture the benefits of urban agriculture or operate successfully without the kind of support given by NGOs to buffer these destructive elements.

Notwithstanding the supportive position this paper has taken towards NGO involvement in urban agriculture, NGOs may themselves contribute to poverty rather than alleviate it if the kind of interaction they have with the com-munity creates dependency (Chandler 2001). Battersby and Marshak (2013) highlight this concern regarding NGOs

promoting urban agriculture on the Cape Flats, stating that the provision of resources from outside the community reinforces dependency. External provision of resources may create dependency if the NGO implements programme-driven interventions that are out of touch with local realities (Banks and Hulme 2012). Such does not however appear to be the case in Cape Town, as the NGOs providing training and inputs for cultivators on the Cape Flats foster self-reli-ance by training men and women to compost organic waste, propagate their own seedlings and to create or join local support networks with other cultivators (Slater 2001; Ward 2007; Dyer et al. 2015). Based on the voices of women on the Cape Flats, our research tends to support this, as well as highlighting the other social and psychological benefits associated with involvement in urban agriculture.

A review of the literature reveals that urban agriculture promotes sustainable livelihoods through a range of physi-cal and social benefits, and that this potential is particu-larly important for economically marginalised women. As shown, the generation of social capital though involvement in urban agriculture is foundational to sustainable liveli-hoods, although this is relatively under-researched. Social capital’s contribution to sustainable livelihoods is particu-larly evident in urban agriculture’s potential to develop relationships within families, cultivation groups and the broader community. The argument is made that where NGOs are able to support cultivators and serve as an agent to facilitate the development of social capital, this not only empowers women, but leads to more sustainable urban agricultural practices. To examine this, a diverse range of cultivators supported by four different NGOs are discussed and evaluated.

Research methods

Research was conducted on the Cape Flats, an area of Cape Town comprised primarily of high-density low-cost and informal housing (De Swardt et al. 2005). The Cape Flats is an apartheid legacy inhabited primarily by previously disadvantaged racial groups (City of Cape Town 2011). Work is scarce, with the average unemployment rate on the Cape Flats at 29% (City of Cape Town 2011). Due to low employment, food security is high, with some of the poorer areas, namely Philippi and Khayelitsha, exhibiting extremely high levels of food insecurity, averaging 80% (Battersby 2011).

In 2014, when fieldwork took place, extensive desktop research revealed that while a number of NGOs and institu-tions grew vegetables, only four NGOs actually promoted urban agriculture among Cape Flats households by provid-ing training and extension services. These four were Aba-limi, Soil for Life, Sozo and Inity. The training provided


1 3

by these NGOs has in common that agro-ecological prin-ciples are strictly applied, that is, petro-chemical inputs are banned and natural goods and services are harnessed through encouraging biodiversity, conserving water and building soil structure with organic inputs. Every NGO also provides a structured, practical training course taught in steps over the period of a few days or weeks. Training sessions include, for example, cultivating seedlings, soil preparation, transplanting seedlings, water conservation, composting, pest management, harvesting and seed cap-turing. Training is followed up by regular visits from the NGO’s extension officers to assess whether the key princi-ples are being applied as well as to provide advice on trou-bleshooting common challenges such as soil health, plant maladies and pest control. Through conversation with these four NGOs, it was established that they service 6563 culti-vators in total. This number consists of 6105 home cultiva-tors and 458 group cultivators active in urban agriculture on the Cape Flats. Each of the four NGOs had at least one garden centre (Abalimi had two and Soil for Life, three). The garden centre is a locally based resource hub that sup-ports urban cultivators in the area with free advice and the sale of subsidised agricultural inputs.

Sampling

The majority of cultivators interviewed lived in informal settlements without infrastructure such as formal road networks or signage. Thus, traditional sampling designs would have been impracticable. To initiate fieldwork, a senior staff member was contacted, namely the director or programme manager, from each of the four NGOs to gain assistance in contacting cultivators. Thereafter, fieldwork continued by means of opportunistic sampling, in which the researcher makes “on-the-spot decisions” in the field “to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities [...]. This permits the sample to emerge during fieldwork” (Patton 1990). To initiate fieldwork, cultivators were located using maps drawn by the NGOs that identified established cul-tivators who were easily accessible. Initiating fieldwork in this way familiarised the researcher with the fieldwork con-text. Following this first phase of research, the researcher expanded the sample by interviewing cultivators visit-ing the NGO’s garden centres as well as through referrals from other cultivators and key informants such as exten-sion officers. The advantage of opportunistic sampling was that it allowed flexibility to follow “wherever the data may lead”, which suited informal settlement fieldwork condi-tions (Patton 1990). Research continued until the point of saturation, namely that no new categories of data emerged, nor new data within existing categories (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Data was gathered from home cultivators and cul-tivation groups throughout the Cape Flats, in all major

areas including Vrygrond, Seawinds, Philippi, Khayelitsha, Nyanga and Mfuleni.

Data collection and analysis

In-depth interviews were conducted with 59 cultivators, representing all four NGOs, as well as with one representa-tive from senior leadership in each NGO. Fieldwork began with a pilot study in March 2014, and empirical research commenced directly thereafter, running until August 2014. The selection of cultivators from Abalimi, the largest NGO in terms of members, was 51% of the sample. Soil for Life, Sozo and Inity made up 27, 12 and 10% of the sample, respectively, roughly in accordance with the size of each NGO’s membership (Table 1). The sample consisted of home cultivators (51%) and cultivation groups (38%). One employee from each of the seven garden centres was also included, making up the remaining 12% of the sample. The majority of those selected for this study were female (60%), isiXhosa (85%) and over 40 years old (74%). While there is no exact population profile of cultivators in Cape Town, existing research suggests that the sample profile reflects characteristics of the broader population (Tembo and Louw 2013). In addition to these cultivators, who were the focus of this study, one representative in senior leadership from each NGO was interviewed to provide a counterpoint to cultivator’s perspectives.

While the study looked at both men and women, this article focuses specifically on women because the literature identifies women as primarily responsible for household food security throughout Africa (Rakodi 1991), and Cape Town is no exception (Battersby 2011). For many women, urban agriculture is a means to not only provide some form of food security, which supports their gender role, but pro-vides a means of social interaction, self-fulfilment and escape (Tembo and Louw 2013). In addition, the City of Cape Town has prioritised women as requiring particular support due to the economic marginalisation they experi-ence in society (City of Cape Town 2007).

Interviews and focus groups were semi-structured, meaning that the interview schedule consisted of

Table 1 NGOs supporting urban agriculture on the Cape Flats

NGO Training since Members registered

Members inter-viewed

Abalimi 1982 4,558 30Soil for Life 2003 1,930 16Sozo 2011 60 7Inity 2013 15 6Total 6,563 59


1 3

open-ended questions on the research themes, namely indicators of social capital as well as other physical and economic opportunities urban agriculture facilitated. The semi-structured design of empirical research provided the respondent the freedom to elaborate on discussion topics that were important to them, but by using themed ques-tions, sufficient structure remained to limit discussion to the overarching research question. The value of using a semi-structured approach for exploratory research is that the interview takes on a discussion format, eliciting new and unexpected findings. It also conserves the individuality of each interviewee, which animates the research findings and elicits a depth of qualitative understanding that is valu-able for the unique character of a case study. All interviews were voice recorded and the anonymity and confidentially of participants was ensured.

Data from all interviews were transcribed and coded according to themes that emerged during data processing. In so doing, the findings both confirmed existing research, such as the value cultivators place on the intangible social benefits, as well as elicited new findings, such as the value of the types of social capital to livelihood sustainability and the central role NGOs play in social capital development among cultivators. These findings are discussed in the fol-lowing section. In order to communicate relevant contex-tual factors such as the NGO affiliation as well as the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent, such as age range, location and years of experience, these are commu-nicated when quoting cultivators directly. However, to pro-tect the identity of the four senior NGO leaders who were interviewed, the NGOs they represent cannot be identified when quoting directly.

Discussion of findings

Based on the experiences of women on the Cape Flats, it is clear that for those involved in urban agriculture this has become an important livelihood strategy. In the following sections, the economic, social and psychological empower-ing effects of urban agriculture are discussed through the voices of female cultivators on the Cape Flats.

Economic gains and food security

As is found throughout the region, most women in this study assumed the primary responsibility for household food security (Fermont et al. 1998). Being involved in urban agriculture provided a valuable source of fresh pro-duce, which enabled women to exercise greater control over the quality of food they provided for their family. The men in fact acknowledged this contribution, as stated by young male cultivator with Soil for Life, “It is mothers that

are now seeing the importance of the family being fed, and that ‘I can grow and so feed my family’” (Age 18–39; culti-vating for 5 years).

Women made money by selling surplus to passers-by and by growing crops specifically to sell through NGOs, such as the community supported agriculture scheme Harvest of Hope, run by Abalimi. In addition to vegeta-ble sales, women sold seeds, seedlings and compost in the neighbourhood. The amount of money made varied from case to case. Some women made a full-time living in this way, while others sold off surplus when a little extra cash was needed. It was exactly this versatility that female culti-vators valued, as described by a women in a mixed-gender cultivation group with Abalimi with respect to how she manages the commercial and subsistence aspects of urban agriculture to suit her needs:

...you get money out of it and at the same time [...] you can have food as well. So, something you can-not grow [...] you can buy from the money you get [...] like flour and oil and sugar and coffee. But any-thing veggies, at least you know you’ve got here. So you grow and sell [so that] you have money to buy those things [...] that you can’t grow. Ja [yes], so it balances, you know. You want money to buy bread, you sell; veggies to eat at home, you take home. Eve-rything is fine. (Age 18–39; cultivating for 1 year).

Female-headed households are the poorest of households in South Africa (Battersby 2011). For such women, urban agriculture provides a vital addition to their range of liveli-hood activities. A home cultivator with Sozo explained for example that she experiences “a lot of stress […] [raising] kids on my own. So I will do […] any work with my hands, even if it’s 50 Rand for the day, I don’t mind” (Age 40–64; cultivating for 2 years). For a single mother like her, any money that urban agriculture generates is a valuable contri-bution to the household budget.

Increased belonging and relaxation

Besides the economic benefits, urban agriculture provides women with a sense of accomplishment. The women mak-ing a living off urban agriculture spoke honestly about what hard work it is. A woman from a formal group with Aba-limi related, “It’s hard work, baby. I’m telling you, it’s hard work” (Age 18–39; cultivating for 1 year). Such cultivators typically woke up before dawn and worked long hours on their plots, but they all agreed with the woman just quoted, who continued: “It is worth it, you know. The joy and ful-filment you get from it [when] you know you have done it by yourself, that alone is a good reward”. Thus, although urban agriculture is acknowledged “hard work”, it is con-sidered rewarding to have evidence of your success in the


1 3

form of a bountiful harvest, which generates a sense of pride.

Besides this, there was an emotional element associated with being involved in urban agriculture that reconnected women to their rural roots. A woman from Vrygrond with Sozo recalled growing up on a smallholding on the Cape Flats:

I grew up just outside the Vrygrond area [...]. We had acres of land: horses, sheep, goats, chickens. My mother made a living from her garden [...]. She grew vegetables and flowers. That’s where I picked up my knowledge. That’s where I got my love of gardening (Age 40–64; cultivating for 3 years).

Similarly, a woman with Sozo who was obliged to seek work in Cape Town from the rural Eastern Cape, explained: “I am here in Cape Town, but when I am in the garden I don’t miss the Eastern Cape that much because a part of the Eastern Cape is here with me” (Age 40–64; cultivating for 1 year). For this woman and others sharing her experience, urban agriculture provides a tangible symbol of home in a bleak urban environment.

For others, cultivation provided an escape from mun-dane urban life, creating a space in which they are no longer defined primarily as a mother or wife, but are simply themselves. For women living in informal settlements, rais-ing a family is fraught with many stresses and difficulties (Slater 2001). In their garden, these women find a form of escape from the obligations, mores, relationships and hier-archies of everyday life. One woman with Sozo said, “It’s only you, the children are not there, the husband is at work. It’s a quiet time” (Age 40–64; cultivating for 1 year). Oth-ers simply enjoyed the pleasure of being in the garden. An elderly woman with Sozo said, “I sing in my garden. I put the music up loud and sing loud in my garden” (Age 65+; cultivating for 2 years). In whatever way this space was enjoyed, many experienced urban agriculture as therapeu-tic, providing some relief from constraining circumstances.

Urban agriculture and social capital

Many of the women commented on how they developed close relationships with others through their involvement in urban agriculture. As explained by a Xhosa woman from Mfuleni with Soil for Life in relation to the bonds between members of her cultivation group: “We are the friends who share everything. We know each other. We know where [there is] lack, you see. [...] We are like one family” (Age 40–64; cultivating for 5 years). For younger women, sharing their lives with older women through cul-tivating together provided an opportunity to draw on years of wisdom and experience. Young women with Abalimi in Nyanga who cultivated with an elderly woman called her

“Mama” and told how they draw on her advice and under-standing of life matters (Age 18–39; Cultivating for 1 year).

Many of the women interviewed had poor relationships with their biological family, having grown up in broken and abusive homes. For such women, the “family” they found in their fellow cultivators provided a form of emotional and practical support. A woman with Sozo in Vrygrond explained:

“I was abused by my father, so I didn’t stay at home, I stayed at my grandmother. She was a woman you don’t stand on, she stands on you. [...] I have learned I must forgive. I forgave my parents for whatever they did. My grandmother too, I forgave her a long time before she died. I forgave her the same day that she beat me up (Age 65+; Cultivating for 2 years).

This woman lives completely alone, divorced from an abusive husband and estranged from her children and grandchildren for reasons she found too hard to talk about. Through her involvement in urban agriculture she found a new kind of family and formed a close-knit friendship group with a handful of other women who regularly spend time working together in each other’s gardens. Such sup-port is vital for addressing the isolation and vulnerability that so many women experience on the Cape Flats.

In addition to close friendships, cultivators appeared to use urban agriculture to facilitate broader networks of acquaintance, or bridging capital, by attracting visitors to the plot and by giving produce away. Having access to a broad network of acquaintance facilitates flows of knowl-edge between cultivators that contribute to increased capa-bilities in the form of skills and education. For example, a preschool teacher from Vrygrond “fell in love” with Sozo’s community garden and “popped in” whenever she was passing by. In doing so, she got to know when Sozo was running their next urban agriculture training programme and signed up. Now she incorporates urban agriculture into her school curriculum, and has her yard “green with veggies, flowers and so on” (Age 40–64; cultivating for 1 year). Another Vrygrond woman, living under extremely difficult circumstances found out about urban agriculture through a local woman who came to invite her to a train-ing course. She related how cultivating the small piece of land around her home had increased positive interactions with her neighbourhood: “It made big changes. [...] Peo-ple come here and they want some of the stuff that’s grow-ing out [...]. I don’t want money, I just want to give. Then I take them to Sozo so they can learn as I learned” (Age 65+; cultivating for 2 years). This woman echoed the grati-tude many expressed for the NGOs that trained them and incorporated them into local support networks. Such exam-ples show that urban agriculture provides opportunities to expand bridging capital, thereby advancing cultivators’


1 3

human capital as well as giving women an increased sense of esteem through allowing them opportunities to contrib-ute to their community.

Urban agriculture provides many cultivators with an opportunity to give back to their community, but this capa-bility is greatly enhanced by support from NGOs. Having access to influential institutions such as NGOs and local government is an important form of linking capital that serves to empower women. A project manager from one of the NGOs explained that many women on the Cape Flats grow up without “parents behind them every day saying ‘You are brilliant and amazing and wonderful and you can do it’”. Rather, “It’s really like a lifetime of ‘You are crap, you are shit, you have no education, you are this, you are that’.” The project manager concluded that, “there is a whole lot of shaping, educating and mentoring that has to happen” before many women on the Cape Flats can become established cultivators.

Cultivators confirmed this by relating their own experi-ences. Prior to training, most cultivators in this study had not entertained the notion that they might be able to cul-tivate. Not only was the lack of inputs a major hindrance, but the perception that one could only farm in rural areas and a lack of training in farming on the Cape Flats made people disqualify themselves. Severe poverty also seemed to rob people of motivation and initiative. A cultivator with Sozo explained, “It takes something out of you if you are not working. You don’t feel like getting up in the morning” (Age 40–64; Cultivating for 3 years). Another Sozo culti-vator related how she felt like a recluse in her own com-munity until being invited to an urban agriculture course. Because of the course, “I was waking up early in the morn-ing and watering my garden.” This course changed her life, she believes, and because of this she said, “I thank God for people like Kate”, referring to the project manager who runs Sozo’s urban agriculture programme in Vrygrond (Age 65+; Cultivating for 2 years).

Cultivators who operated at a larger, commercialised level also found NGO assistance vital to increasing the efficiency and economic viability of their operations. The business training and market access NGOs such as Aba-limi provide through their Harvest of Hope community supported agriculture initiative helped many cultivators move into fulltime commercial production. One woman explained, “We went to Abalimi because we had no mar-ket, and they had Harvest of Hope” (Age 40–64; Cultivat-ing for 5 years). These NGOs provide cultivators with basic inputs such as seeds, compost and tools as well as practical training. Formal groups additionally qualify for extensive public support in the form of land access, fencing, borehole pumps and storage containers, for which they apply with assistance from the NGOs. The examples above illustrate the vital role external inputs and training play in helping

women on the Cape Flats to begin cultivating. Without this assistance, a lack of training, motivation and resources hin-der women from engaging in urban agriculture. Further-more, these limitations are exacerbated by the patriarchal culture embedded in these communities.

Patriarchy and its impact on urban agriculture‑based livelihoods

Society on the Cape Flats, although made up of many cul-tures, is largely patriarchal. At the household level, this may translate into economic dependence on male breadwinners (Rogerson 2003) and in the worst cases, domestic violence (Slater 2001). Urban agriculture in Cape Town counter-acts patriarchal structures by drawing women together and enhancing their leadership as well as management skills. For example, it is accepted that the cultivators in Cape Town are primarily women (Tembo and Louw 2013), but fieldwork additionally revealed that women are also in the majority among extension officers, garden centre managers and formal group leaders. This has important implications for women’s empowerment in this sector.

Many of the formal groups operating at a fully com-mercial scale are made up only of women. Where groups are gender mixed, women are usually in leadership posi-tions and make no bones about using their authority to challenge patriarchal mores. For example, groups typically refused to designate gendered labour divisions, emphasis-ing that “there is no work that we are saying, ‘This is for men’ [...] There is no work that we are saying, ‘This is for [women]’”, as said by a female cultivator with Soil for Life (Age 40–64; cultivating for 5 years). Even in a group with mixed gender leadership, the women leaders said, referring to their elderly male colleague, “We tell him that he can be the boss at home, but in the garden there is no man or women” (Abalimi; Age 40–64; Cultivating for 11 years). The men in mixed gender groups appeared to support gen-der equality in leadership, as the elderly male colleague referred to in the previous quote responded, “The previ-ously disadvantaged [...] is mainly women [...]; they were disadvantaged by men. [Now] women must take the lead” (Age 65+; Cultivating for 11 years). Thus, many cultiva-tion groups demonstrate that urban agriculture can encour-age gender equality.

While these examples are laudable, healthy gender rela-tions cannot be generalised to all groups. Some groups experience acute conflict at times. The literature records that male group members may try to bully their female col-leagues into complying with decisions that affect the group (Fermont et al. 1998). The NGOs interviewed confirmed the volatility of groups, with Soil for Life and Sozo prefer-ring to focus only on individual cultivators. Nevertheless, although Abalimi admits that conflicts exist in groups, they


1 3

find that this is often in the early stages, when opportun-ists expect free handouts. Over time, after dissonant mem-bers leave, the group achieves relative stability and learns to resolve conflicts. A young man from one of Abalimi’s established groups confirms, “The men and women work well together. We are working fine. There is nothing that we are quarrelling with” (Age 18–39; Cultivating for 7 years). It appears therefore that new groups may be volatile, but the conflict dissipates over time as a group becomes more established. Thus, older groups exhibit healthy work-ing relationships between men and women.

In addition to gender equality in cultivation groups, the entire system of support NGOs provide promotes the empowerment of women. For example, cultivators receiv-ing NGO training, inputs, extensions services or formal market access are most likely supervised, trained or moni-tored by women. In Cape Town’s urban agriculture sector, women are therefore the gatekeepers of networks, exten-sion services and markets, making urban agriculture a women-dominated sector. In some ways, this alleviates the effects of patriarchal society, for example by giving women power within formal groups, increased employment oppor-tunities and an income independent from a male breadwin-ner. However, much remains to be done in counteracting patriarchy, which still undermines women’s livelihoods on the Cape Flats.

Many women in this study described the effect male family members have on female cultivators’ livelihoods. For example, a mother of seven children whose youngest is an infant, described how her eldest sons who work as labourers do not contribute financially to the household. Rather, they overspend their income, even going into debt, to buy “name brand” shoes, smart phones and lux-uries for their girlfriends, and then ask their mother for additional money when theirs is depleted. Her daughter of 16 dropped out of school to help look after the chil-dren (Sozo; Age 40–64; Cultivating for 2 years). Another Sozo cultivator who attends a “women’s group” at church found such stories so common she simply called them “women’s problems”. She stated, “On Saturdays in the women’s group, most of the women will cry: ‘My hus-band is abusing me, my husband is hitting me, my child has got a boyfriend, my boy is smoking,’ and stuff like that—women’s problems”. This woman actually recom-mended urban agriculture to the women’s group, promot-ing the psychological and therapeutic benefits: “Then I say there is another [way] of finding the peace of the Holy Spirit talking to me, and then I mention the garden”. This woman echoes many other female cultivators in say-ing that feelings of helplessness and fear of the violent surroundings they live in can be allayed by time spent “in the garden” (Age 40–64; Cultivating for 1 year). How-ever, this opportunity would be lost if not for the NGOs

that support these women in a patriarchal context where any financial or physical capital is vulnerable to exploita-tion by the men in their lives.

Crime is another challenge that hinders urban agricul-ture and often undermines its benefits to women on the Cape Flats. Theft, for example, robs women of the vital asset bases that they depend on to sustain their urban agri-culture-based livelihoods. For example, one woman with Sozo relates how she had “all the veggies you could think of” in her garden, “but then I was mugged and got sick and didn’t have my phone [...]. But I thank God I am alive again” (Age 65+; Cultivating for 2 years). Another woman with Sozo who kicked her husband out of the house for doing drugs found that he continued thieving from her. She related, “I did have a wheelbarrow, but my husband came one night and stole the wheelbarrow. I was so angry! [He stole it] to sell it because he is doing drugs” (Age 40–64; Cultivating for 2 years). This woman explained that ram-pant drug addiction in her area fuels theft, and thus any tools left outside will be stolen.

Social factors hindering urban agriculture

Thus far, the findings have related a number of ways in which urban agriculture supports and empowers women through connecting them with community-wide networks, as well as with NGOs and local government. However, some community members look down on the women who engaged in these activities seeing it as improper, eccentric and foolhardy. A women from Seawinds with Soil for Life explains,

In our area, people are very precise, they are very conservative, and here I come with my trolley and all the mess is in the trolley, like compost or whatever. “Look how this women is coming along, look how this woman looks”, [They say]. It’s the neighbours there by my house. I don’t mind. I wear old clothes, I don’t dress up for the garden; the garden makes you dirty. But if I go out, I get dressed up. (translated from Afrikaans) (Age 40–65; Cultivating for 5 years).

Other women from Khayelitsha with Inity described the “gossip” and “backbiting” that they were subject to from neighbours jealous of the basic support such women received from Inity (Age 40–65; Cultivating for 1 year). Where activities were seen to empower women and chal-lenge patriarchal relations, this also evoked resistance. Women from Inity explained how they had their crops urinated on by men, which they believed was an act of jealousy and a means to belittle them. Thus, poor women need external support to overcome the downward-levelling norms in their society.


1 3

Perceptions of public support for urban agriculture

The City of Cape Town municipality acknowledges the systematic disadvantages women face economically and socially, and as such prioritise support for female cultiva-tors (City of Cape Town 2007). However, notwithstand-ing the considerable resources the City pours into start-up costs, material support alone fails to strengthen cultivators’ capacities to sustain cultivation. This approach creates frus-tration among the cultivators and NGOs alike, who believe that the high failure rate among government-lead projects creates a sense of disillusionment towards urban agriculture in Cape Town. For example, an NGO programme manager explained that “it feels like [the City of Cape Town] want to do the right thing, but they are stuck in this game of need-ing to reach goals that are numerical”. She continued, “We can train one thousand people, but what does that matter if none of them [...] feed their family and everything just dies? [...] Where is the positive effect in that?” Women who received start-up support from the City of Cape Town con-firmed this, explaining that they were given assistance for start-up, but had not been taught to become self-sufficient. Thus, the physical capital the City of Cape Town provides is vital to starting urban agriculture-based enterprises, but these are short lived without the training in sustainability NGOs provide.

Conclusions

Much of the literature on urban agriculture in Africa focuses on its physical benefits relating to food security and income creation. While these aspects of urban agricul-ture are important, few studies in this region address urban agriculture’s social and psychological benefits (McIvor and Hale 2015). The present study therefore asks what particular benefits NGO-run urban agriculture projects have for women on the Cape Flats. In addressing this ques-tion, it focuses primarily on the social capital gains avail-able to women who are trained and supported by NGOs on the Cape Flats. The findings indicate that social capital is one of the most important contributions urban agriculture makes towards sustainable livelihoods for women in the area, as psychological wellbeing, food security and income are facilitated by increased social capital (Emery and Flora 2006). The findings also show that these benefits are only possible through the deliberate effort from the NGOs in this study who mentor economically marginalised female cultivators in sustainable agriculture methods, facilitate local networks, forge linkages with power holders and empower women through employment in senior leadership. It is doubtful that urban agriculture would be having the

level of impact it does on women on the Cape Flats were it not for these NGOs.

The literature on urban agriculture in Africa suggests that women are in the majority among urban cultivators because urban agriculture incorporates well with other gender roles characteristic of “wives and mothers”, particu-larly for those with a rural heritage who associate cultiva-tion with the norms they were socialised into as children (Slater 2001). Urban agriculture is a mark of success for such women when they are able to provide for their fam-ily by growing food (Hovorka 2006; Simiyu and Foeken 2014). By contrast, Dunn (2010) suggests that many urban migrants wish to disassociate with rural gender roles and expectations. What is interesting from our findings is that women did not see urban agriculture as a burdensome gen-der role, in fact, the women who worked hardest at urban agriculture appeared to gain the greatest sense of self-worth from it. Furthermore, women experienced their cultivated plot as an escape from a mundane or oppressive living environment. Thus, even women operating at a full-time commercial scale emphasised the satisfaction of growing their own crops over income as the main “reward” of urban agriculture. At the other economic extreme, young women who were gaining negligible economic gains by helping an elderly woman at one of the garden centres defined their greatest benefit as time they got to share with an older, wiser role model. These findings call into question the overemphasis research on urban agriculture in Africa has placed on income as the key determinant of success and suggests that the social capital gains of urban agriculture to women in Africa be dealt with in greater depth. It also chal-lenges the shallow interpretation of urban agriculture as a domestic duty, as women of all ages, some of whom are not contributing to their household at all, practice urban agri-culture because it builds meaningful social connections.

Social capital creates informal support networks as well as channels of access to external resources (Vervisch et al. 2013). Few case studies focus on the social capital gains of urban agriculture in Africa, but those that do find that these networks are in fact more important for increas-ing food security than simply producing one’s own food (Gallaher et al. 2013; Tibesigwa et al. 2016). The reason for this is that social capital creates informal safety nets through which cultivators gain access to a broader range of foodstuffs than they cultivate and maintain access to food through informal networks of reciprocity during seasonal slumps in productivity. Existing research from Cape Town indicates that cultivators realise the precedence of social networks as part of a food strategy and therefore place greater emphasis on relationship building as the key moti-vation for taking up urban agriculture over the economic gains (Slater 2001; Battersby and Marshak 2013). The pre-sent finding confirms this, but specifically identifies social


1 3

capital as the key benefit as it unlocks a range of livelihood capitals that socially and economically empower impover-ished women. This is particularly true when all three forms of social capital, namely bonding, bridging and linking capital are developed and sustained by NGOs.

Bonding capital, represented in close relationships, is promoted through women working together, sharing pro-duce and resources (Hovorka 2006). The new “family” they find in urban agriculture provides emotional and practical support in a way many had not experienced. Through creat-ing these close bonds, urban agriculture directly counter-acts the isolation and vulnerability so many women experi-ence on the Cape Flats. In addition, involvement in urban agriculture facilitates the development of community-wide networks, or bridging capital. This is facilitated by institu-tions that provide training events, the development of infor-mal meetings, sharing and trading of produce and dona-tions to local organisations such as the churches or feeding centres. Through such networks, cultivators not only learn new skills, but increase income opportunities by gaining access to broader marketing networks (Flynn 2001; Galla-her et al. 2013). Bridging capital also provided an opportu-nity to give something back to the community, which was a great source of pride and improved a sense of self-worth among the female cultivators.

Throughout Africa, where female cultivators face far greater economic, social and political challenges to prof-itable urban agriculture than men do, it is not surprising that male cultivators outperform female cultivators, eco-nomically (Flynn 2001). In countries such as Botswana and Kenya, urban agriculture only becomes an economi-cally important livelihood strategy for women when NGOs facilitate networking among local female cultivators (Hov-orka 2005, 2006; Gallaher et al. 2013). On the Cape Flats, where women-centred households are poorest and least food secure (Battersby 2011), it is unrealistic to assume poor women would have equitable access to the resources they need in order to cultivate (Battersby and Marshak 2013). To gain the training, inputs and extension services necessary to practice urban agriculture sustainably, such women require basic support from NGOs or government (Woolcock and Narayan 2000). The NGOs indicated that empowering women required a “lot of shaping, educat-ing and mentoring” to enable them to cultivate their own crops successfully. Thus, it appears as if the kind of sup-port NGOs provide that facilitates networking and provides mentorship is essential to seeing urban agriculture actually empower women. Women may practice subsistence culti-vation to subsidise household food needs, but as is seen in many cases, the benefits of urban agriculture are unlikely to go beyond this without the kind of support provided by NGOs as related in this study. As indicated in the litera-ture, this applies throughout Africa, but as indicated by our

empirical research it is also applicable to Cape Town. Thus, urban agriculture support has to provide long-term mentor-ship and develop local social networks among cultivators if urban agriculture is going to empower economically mar-ginalised women.

When emphasising the importance of NGOs to the sec-tor’s sustainability, the obvious critique is that NGOs cre-ate dependency, particularly because they are providing resources external to the community (Battersby and Mar-shak 2013). Development theory suggests that dependency results not necessarily from providing new resources, but rather from interventions that are out of touch with local realities (Banks and Hulme 2012). The findings suggest that the NGOs in this study are aware of the risk of creat-ing dependency and remain deeply vested in local realities by employing local trainers and extension officers as well as by locating their garden centres within the target areas. Furthermore, these NGOs strive to develop the capacity of cultivators to empower themselves by teaching them to make their own compost, catch and propagate their own seeds, generate their own profits and join local support net-works with other cultivators. If any additional resources are needed after start-up, these are available at a subsidised price, or in exchange for goods or labour at the NGO’s locally situated garden centres. This greatly increases the sustainability of urban agriculture on the Cape Flats as well as its viability as an economically beneficial livelihood activity for women. Most importantly however, this activ-ity counteracts the isolating effect of poverty and patriarchy experienced by women on the Cape Flats as it incorporates them into close friendship groups, community networks and institutional linkages, all of which increase livelihood resilience in a way unparalleled by social protection or feeding schemes.

It is therefore unsurprising that the City of Cape Town is replicating what NGOs are doing, namely by establishing plots and training cultivators. However, the City’s interven-tions appear more akin to social protection than livelihood creation, as more emphasis is placed on quantitative figures relating to the rollout of projects rather than on the sustain-ability of individual’s livelihoods. Even in cases where the City has outsourced urban agriculture training to NGOs, the City pressures the NGO to maximise the number of beneficiaries to the detriment of the quality of support each individual receives. This is a cause for frustration for NGOs who argue that urban agriculture can only be incorporated into sustainable livelihoods through intensive support over the long term. The City’s involvement is commendable, particularly in terms of its material support for the sector. Nevertheless, room exists for the efficiency of its support to be improved, most notably by increasing their outsourcing of training to these NGOs, but in so doing to increase quali-tative aspects of monitoring and evaluation. That being


1 3

said, it appears the City of Cape Town’s interest in urban agriculture and the good practice models exemplified by local NGOs will continue to improve livelihood resilience among poor women on the Cape Flats through expand-ing the urban agriculture sector and the social networking opportunities this provides.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Abalimi, Inity, Soil for Life and the Sozo Foundation, along with the cultivators affiliated with them, for the time and insights they gave to this research. This research was supported by a grant from Stellenbosch University’s Hope Project, through the Food Security Initiative. Dr Olivier would also like to thank the Africa Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (ACCAI) Network and the Open Society Foundation for support-ing his fellowship at the Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals per-formed by any of the authors.

References

Asomani-Boateng, R. 2002. Urban cultivation in Accra: An examina-tion of the nature, practices, problems, potentials and urban plan-ning implications. Habitat International 26(4): 591–607.

Banks, N., and Hulme, D. 2012. The role of NGOs and civil society in development and poverty reduction. Working Paper No. 171. Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute.

Battersby, J. 2011. The state of urban food insecurity in Cape Town. Cape Town: Idasa Publishing.

Battersby, J., and M. Marshak. 2013. Growing communities: Integrat-ing the social and economic benefits of urban agriculture in Cape Town. Urban Forum 24: 447–461.

Brown, D., and Korten, D.C. 1989. Understanding voluntary organi-sations: Guidelines for donors. Working Paper No. 258. Wash-ington DC: World Bank.

City of Cape Town. 2007. Urban agriculture policy for the City of Cape Town. Cape Town: Department of Economic and Human Development.

City of Cape Town. 2011. Census—Cape Flats Planning District. https://www.capetown.gov.za/en/stats/2011%20Census%20%20Planning%20District%20Profiles/Cape%20Flats%20Plan-ning%20District.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2016.

Chambers, R., and Conway, G.R. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. Working Paper No. 296. Institute for Development Studies: Brighton.

Chandler, D.G. 2001. The road to military humanism: How the human rights NGOs shaped a new humanitarian agenda. Human Rights Quarterly 23(3): 678–700.

De Swardt, C., Puoane, T., Chopra, M., and Du Toit, A. 2005. Urban poverty in Cape Town. Environment and Urbanization 17(2): 101–111.

Department for International Development. 1999. Sustainable liveli-hoods guidance sheets. London: DFID.

Dunn, S. 2010. Urban agriculture in Cape Town: An investigation into the history and impact of smallscale urban agriculture in the Cape Flats townships with a special focus on the social benefits of urban farming. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of His-torical Studies, University of Cape Town.

Dyer M., R. Mills, B. Conradie, and J. Piesse. 2015. Harvest of Hope: The contribution of peri-urban agriculture in South African townships. Agrekon 54(4): 73–86.

Eberhard, R. 1989. Urban agriculture: The potential in Cape Town. Working Papers No. E1–E5. City of Cape Town: City Planner’s Department.

Emery, M., and C. Flora. 2006. Spiralling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Community Development, 37(1): 19–35.

FAO. 2012. Growing greener cities in Africa. First status report on urban and peri-urban horticulture in Africa. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C., and Turton, C. 1999. Sustain-able livelihoods in practice: Early applications of concepts in rural areas. Working Paper No. 42. London: Overseas Develop-ment Institute.

Fermont, A., P.J.A. Van Asten, J. Keet, and E. Van Boom. 1998. Urban vegetable production in Khayelitsha. Bellville: University of the Western Cape.

Flynn, K.C. 2001. Urban agriculture in Mwanza, Tanzania. Africa 71(4): 666–691.

Freeman, D.B. 1993. Survival strategy or business training ground? The significance of urban agriculture for the advancement of women in African cities. African Studies Review 36(3): 1–22.

Gallaher, C.M., Kerr, J.M., Njenga, M., Karanja, N.K., and Winkler-Prins, A.M. 2013. Urban agriculture, social capital, and food security in the Kibera slums of Nairobi, Kenya. Agriculture and Human Values 30(3): 389–404.

Getz, C. 2008. Social capital, organic agriculture, and sustainable livelihood security: Rethinking agrarian change in Mexico. Rural Sociology 73(4): 555–579.

Hovorka, A.J. 2005. The (re)production of gendered positionality in Botswana’s commercial urban agriculture sector. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(2): 294–313.

Hovorka A.J. 2006. The no. 1 ladies’ poultry farm: A feminist politi-cal ecology of urban agriculture in Botswana. Gender, Place and Culture 13(3): 207–225.

Jacobs, P., and Xaba, T. 2008. Women in urban and peri-agriculture: Sustaining livelihoods in the Cape Metropolitan area. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity 22(78): 186–197.

Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. California: Sage.

May, J., and C.M. Rogerson. 1995. Poverty and sustainable cities in South Africa: The role of urban cultivation. Habitat Interna-tional 19(2): 165–181.

McIvor, D.W., and Hale, J. 2015. Urban agriculture and the pros-pects for deep democracy. Agriculture and Human Values 32(4): 727–741.

Morse, S., and McNamara, N. 2013. Sustainable livelihood approach. Dordrecht: Springer.

Morse, S., McNamara, N., and Acholo, M. 2009. Sustainable liveli-hood approach: A critical analysis of theory and practice. Work-ing Paper No. 189. Reading: University of Reading.

Moser, C.O. 1998. The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty reduction strategies. World Development 26(1): 1–19.

Mougeot, L.J.A. 2006. Growing better cities: Urban agriculture for sustainable development. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

Niñez, V. 1985. Introduction: Household gardens and small-scale food production. In Household food production: Comparative


1 3

perspectives, ed. Vera Niñez, 1–5. Lima: International Potato Center.

Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pinton, F. 1985. The tropical garden as a sustainable food system: A comparison of Indians and Settlers in Northern Colombia. In Household food production: Comparative perspectives, ed. Vera Niñez, 25–28. Lima: International Potato Center.

Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.

Pourias, J., Aubry, C., and Duchemin, E. 2015. Is food a motivation for urban gardeners? Multifuncionality and the relative impor-tance of the food function in urban collective gardens of Paris and Montreal. Agriculture and Human Values 33 (2): 257–273.

Putnam, R.D. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics 28 (4): 664–683.

Rakodi, C. 1991. Women’s work or household strategies? Environ-ment and Urbanisation 3(2): 39–45.

Rakodi, C. 2002. A livelihoods approach – conceptual issues and definitions. In Urban livelihoods: A people-centred approach to reducing poverty, eds. Caroline Rakodi, and Tony Lloyd-Jones, 3–22. London: Earthscan.

Rogerson, C.M. 2003. Towards ‘pro-poor’ urban development in South Africa: The case for urban agriculture. Acta Academica 35(1): 130–158.

Sanyal, B. 1985. Urban agriculture: Who cultivates and why? A case-study of Lusaka, Zambia. In Household food production: Com-parative perspectives, ed. Vera Niñez, 15–24. Lima: Interna-tional Potato Center.

Simiyu, R.R., and D.W.J. Foeken. 2014. Urban crop production and poverty alleviation in Eldoret, Kenya: Implications for policy and gender planning. Urban Studies 51 (12): 2613–2628.

Slater, R. 2001. Urban agriculture, gender and empowerment: An alternative view. Development Southern Africa 18 (5): 635–650.

Tembo, R., and Louw, J. 2013. Conceptualising and implement-ing two community gardening projects on the Cape Flats, Cape Town. Development Southern Africa 30 (2): 224–237.

Thornton, A.C., Nel, E., and Hampwaye, G. 2010. Cultivating Kaun-da’s plan for self-sufficiency: Is urban agriculture finally begin-ning to receive support in Zambia? Development Southern Africa 27 (4): 613–625.

Tibesigwa, B., Visser, M., Collinson, M., and Twine, W. 2016. Inves-tigating the sensitivity of household food security to agriculture-related shocks and the implication of social and natural capital. Sustainability Science 11: 193–214.

Van Averbeke, W. 2007. Urban farming in the informal settlements of Atteridgeville, Pretoria, South Africa. Water SA 33(3): 337–342.

Vervisch, T.G.A., Vlassenroot, K., and Braekman, J. 2013. Liveli-hoods, power, and food security: Adaptation of social capital portfolios in protracted crises—case study Burundi. Disasters 37 (2): 267–292.

Walby, S. 1986. Patriarchy at work. Minneapolis: University of Min-nesota Press.

Ward, S. 2007. Organic gardeners uplift poor communities. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity 21 (72): 47–49.

Woolcock, M., and Narayan, D. 2000. Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer 15 (2): 225–249.

David W. Olivier PhD, is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute (GCSRI) of the University of the Witwatersrand. He graduated with a PhD in Sociol-ogy from Stellenbosch University in 2015 having researched the phys-ical and social benefits of urban agriculture in Cape Town. Small-holder agriculture for sustainable livelihoods remains his focus at the GCSRI where he is part of a team under the ACCAI network. This paper is based on his PhD research.

Lindy Heinecken PhD, was formerly a researcher and Deputy Director of the Centre for Military Studies (CEMIS) at the South African Military Academy. She now serves as Associate Professor of Sociology in the Sociology and Social Anthropology Department of the University of Stellenbosch where she lectures in political and industrial sociology. The main focus of her research is in the domain of armed forces and society where she has published on a range of issues including gender integration, civil-military relations, military unionism, HIV/AIDS and security and more recently on the impact of private security on the military profession. She holds a MSocSc from the University of Cape Town and a PhD from Kings College, Depart-ment of War Studies, University of London.

beyond food security: women’s experiences of urban ...€¦ · ers women on the cape flats, a...

Documents