Beyond the Metropolis: Small Town Case Studiesof Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in South Africa

Alexander Thornton

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract It is widely accepted that urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is animportant livelihood or coping strategy amongst the poorest urban households forfood security and income generation in developing countries. In South Africa, UPAhas been promoted in the post-apartheid era as a strategy for poverty alleviation inseveral key policy documents. However, despite high unemployment, someacademics have raised the issue that UPA might be less robust amongst SouthAfrica’s urban poor households, when compared to other developing countries. Thispaper presents results from case studies exploring the nature and geographical extentof UPA in one of South Africa’s poorest provinces, the Eastern Cape. Key resultsinclude that the social welfare scheme has, effectively, emerged as the primarycontributor to household income and food security. Consequently, UPA does notplay a major role in food security for most UPA households. This paper will discussthese results and reflect on the bearing of UPA as a tool for poverty alleviation inSouth Africa.

Keywords Geographical information systems . Informal sector . Livelihood . Urbanagriculture . Small town . South Africa . Squatters

Introduction

There are several useful definitions of urban agriculture (UA) or urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA; Freeman 1991; Lee-Smith and Ali Memon 1994; Mbiba1995, 2000; Binns and Lynch 1998; Mougeot 2000; Hovorka 2005). In the broadestof terms, UPA can be understood as any agricultural activity occurring in built-up‘intra-urban’ areas and the ‘peri-urban’ fringes (often ‘green-belts’) of cities andtowns. The concept of ‘peri-urban’ is generally understood as the physical interface

Urban ForumDOI 10.1007/s12132-008-9036-7

A. Thornton (*)Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealande-mail: alec.thornton@otago.ac.nz

where complex rural–urban interactions take place (Lynch 2005; McGregor et al.2006). A peri-urban area is typically not spatially zoned, can be near a city centreand occupied by poor households and the socially excluded (Mbiba andHuchzermeyer 2002). Peri-urban agriculture is also described as the location ofurban farming activities on the periphery of populated urban zones (Obosu-Mensah1999: 11). Adding another dimension, Foeken and Owuor (2000) claimed thatfarming by urban dwellers is not synonymous with UA, stressing also the difficultiesin making a spatial distinction between ‘urban’ and ‘peri-urban’ areas. Foeken andMwangi (2000) found that urban dwellers may also practice farming in the ruralareas in the region where they grew up.

Regardless of UPA’s ‘ancient’ origins, its role in modern cities and urbanisedareas as a livelihood and food security strategy remains unclear (Armar-Klemesu andMaxwell 2000; Frayne 2005: 34–35). Tinker (1994) and Nugent (2000) argue that acommon working definition of UPA does not exist nor do similar methods formeasuring productivity. As a result, comparisons of different UPA studies aredifficult, and the standardisation of definitions and design is the next logical stagefor urban studies of food production (Tinker 1994).

Despite the relatively recent interest in UPA as a potential development tool,much of the data in the UPA literature since the early 1990s have been morequalitative than quantitative, which tend to focus on crop production systems andless on livestock systems.

Additionally, the potential of a global positioning system (GPS) and ageographical information system (GIS) for identifying and monitoring the extentof UPA activity, growth patterns, natural resource use and environmental impacts israrely discussed in the literature. The use of this technology has been the subject ofemerging interest for use in participatory research (Rambaldi 2005). This paper willdiscuss the use of a GPS and GIS and its value to policy makers and town planners,who seek UPA as a strategy for sustainable urban development and povertyalleviation. Crucial for this article is that the existing case study literature has a largecity focus, with limited attention given, thus far, to UPA in the small town context,where, due to more limited employment opportunities than large cities, poverty ratesare often highest (Mlozi et al. 1992; Nel 1997; Smit 1998; Foeken et al. 2002).

Aims and Objectives

In focusing on small towns and combining quantitative and qualitative methods, thekey aims and objectives of this paper include: to collect baseline socio-economic datausing household questionnaire surveys and to identify formal and informal sources ofincome and expenditure of households engaged in UPA activity. The data generatedfrom the household surveys will contribute in-depth empirical data to the emergingbody of UPA case study literature, in the context of small towns. Specifically, thenature and geographical extent of UPA in the small yet regionally significant SouthAfrican towns of Grahamstown and Peddie, in the Eastern Cape (EC) Province, arediscussed, thus making a useful contribution to UPA in the South African context.

The key research questions include: “Who are the UPA practitioners and howimportant is UPA as a livelihood or survival strategy in households that practice it?”

A. Thornton

The paper also examines the role of public and private partnerships and attitudes andperceptions of UPA amongst governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.

The Significance of UPA

UPA is commonly described as an activity practised by all income groups worldwideand is an essential household survival strategy for the urban poor in developingcountries (Drakakis-Smith 1992; Rogerson 1992, 1996, 2003; Maxwell 1994;Mougeot 1994, 1999; Smit et al. 1996; Deelstra and Girardet 2000; De Zeeuw et al.2000; Jacobi et al. 2000; Hovorka 2005). Some academics refer to many UPA claimsfound in the literature as deterministic ‘universalisms,’ meaning that general sweepingstatements of UPA’s importance and potential to benefit the environment andhousehold food security have been based on ‘fragmentary research,’ as opposed toits actual impact ‘on the ground’ (Webb 1998a,b, 2000; Hovorka 2005; Lynch 2005).Rather than engaging in a debate on the merits of ‘universalisms’ in the literature, thisarticle will focus on the central issue of an acknowledged lack of localised, in-depthempirical UPA research ‘on the ground,’ which may refute or substantiate claimsregarding the potential of UPA as a survival or livelihood strategy and its impact inurban poor households who practice it (Rosset and Benjamin 1994; Sawio 1994;Lynch 1995; Mtani 1997; Smith and Tevera 1997; Ellis and Sumberg 1998; Webb1998a,b; Mbaye and Moustier 2000, Lynch et al. 2001; Companioni et al. 2002).

Many argue that the growing literature on UPA suffers from a lack of scientificinquiry, which does not sustain the claims made of how UPA benefits urban poorhouseholds and the urban eco-system (Iaquinta and Drescher 2000; Lynch et al.2001; Rogerson 2003; Thornton and Nel 2007). Much of the UPA literature reflectsa ‘metro-bias,’ meaning that previous research, economic development strategies andpolicy focus have typically centred on metropolitan urban areas and much less onsmall towns (Nel 1997; Smit 1998; Webb 1998b, 2000; Rogerson 2003).

The South African Context

Although UPA literature covers a wide range of issues, such as producing andmanaging resources for household fuel (Mazambani 1982; Mazingira Institute 1987)and social empowerment for women (Slater 2001; Hovorka 2005), this article isconcerned with the practice of UPA by low-income households in black townshipsand squatter settlements in South Africa. Although the principal practitioners andbeneficiaries of UPA are widely claimed to be the poorest urban households, theincidence and impact of UPA in poor urban households in South Africa appear to belimited, especially in the light of prevailing levels of poverty (Webb 1998b, 2000;May 2000; Lynch et al. 2001; Rogerson 2003).

Thus, given the South African Communications Service’s claim that non-metropolitan urban areas have the highest poverty burden in the country, this studyfocussed on the nature and extent of current UPA activity in small, non-metropolitanareas of the EC province, which consistently ranks high in poverty rates and childrisk poverty (Nel 1997: 11). An estimated 72% of the population in the EC lives

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

below the poverty line (South African Regional Poverty Network 2004), which ismore than the national average of 60%. Moreover, the EC provincial administrationinherited the largely impoverished (former) Ciskei and Transkei homelands, anenduring legacy of the apartheid era, which poses difficult challenges for the post-apartheid African National Congress (ANC)-led government. These homelands havebeen described as ‘functionally urbanised,’ meaning that although consisting ofprimarily rural areas, black South Africans living in the homelands depend on urban-based livelihoods and live in densely populated settlements (Nel 1997).

Given the challenges of poverty and inequality that face EC officials, one wouldexpect to find a diverse array of survival strategies in low-income settlements.Moreover, the ANC-led government has promoted UPA for poverty alleviation in anumber of key policy documents (Rogerson 2003), such as:

– White Paper on Agriculture (Republic of South Africa 1995)– White Paper on a National Water Policy for South Africa (Republic of South

Africa 1998)– White Paper on Spatial Policy and Land Use Management (Republic of South

Africa 2001)

Location and Relevance of the Study Area

A detailed accounting of every occurrence of UPA at the household level for foodsecurity and income generation was carried out in the small EC towns of Grahamstown,a former racially zoned ‘white town,’ and in Peddie, a ‘black town’ in the former‘Ciskei’ homeland. Grahamstown and Peddie are similar, in that they serve as theadministrative seats for their respective municipalities of Makana and Ngqushwa,providing services to their respective rural ‘hinterlands’ and facing similar challengesregarding their agricultural potential, in terms of evidence of soil erosion, largely fromovergrazing of livestock in a region characterised as having fragile soils and a semi-aridclimate. Furthermore, these urban centres are also historically linked, meaning thatduring the colonial era, they were both military outposts in what was once the easternfrontier of the British Cape Colony in the early nineteenth century.

Apartheid-era policies, such as the Group Areas Act, created black group areas whereblack Africans were subjected to enforced migration from ‘white’ urban areas to eitherblack townships or rural ‘homeland’ areas. This process freed white municipalities fromthe responsibility of dealing with the economic, environmental and social challengesexperienced by black communities (Lester et al. 2000). As is the case throughout SouthAfrica’s small towns and large cities, the large black townships and fluctuatingsquatter settlements render population estimates difficult to quantify.

Regarding the population of Grahamstown, Möller (2001: 13) provided a ‘popularguesstimate’ of Grahamstown’s total population at around 100,000, which includes atotal black population of 85,000, which is located in the low-income black townshipof Rhini and is the focus of the Grahamstown study. In the latest census report(Statistics South Africa 2001), Grahamstown’s total population was an estimated76,540. In the town of Peddie, the Ngqushwa Municipality IDP (2001) reported apopulation of 5,086 in 2001, divided among 1,347 households, indicating less thanfour people per household (Thornton 2006).

A. Thornton

Small Town Focus

Rogerson (2003: 131) argued, “Urban poverty is greatest in South Africa’s smalltowns, followed by the secondary centres,” thus indicating a need for more UPAresearch in small urban centres. Moreover, academics within South Africa havecriticised South African policy makers for favouring large urban centres, “leavingthe smaller ones in a somewhat precarious position” (Nel and Rogerson 2007: 2).Typical of South African urbanising small towns and cities, Grahamstown andPeddie are experiencing escalating unemployment in the face of limited opportuni-ties, housing shortages, service provision and poverty. In facing these challenges,determining the role and importance of UPA for urban poor households is a keytheme in this article. In reviewing the broader literature, several conditions exist thatcan lead to UPA, such as economic crises, associated with structural adjustmentpolicies, food crises in periods of war, political and social upheaval and violentconflict.

Largely, as a result of its smooth transition from apartheid to independence in1994, these crises never materialised in South Africa. However, in addition to naturalpopulation growth, South Africa’s urban areas are absorbing migrants from the ruralhomelands. These migrants seek employment and a better quality of life in the city(Lynch 1995; Rogerson 2003). Faced with limited opportunities for employment,particularly in small towns, migrants often live in informal dwellings in squattersettlements. Despite increasing squatter settlements and high unemployment in theEC, Webb (1998b) concluded, in a seemingly contradictory manner to his stanceagainst ‘deterministic universalisms’ in the literature, that UPA is an insignificantactivity amongst South Africa’s ‘poorest of the poor.’ Webb did not provide anyinsight into the possible reasons behind UPA’s ‘insignificance’ or limitations in hiswork.

Findings from the case studies will demonstrate that UPA’s limitations are linkedto identifying what sustains poor households, the role of UPA in low-incomehouseholds and behavioural, social and institutional attitudes towards UPA. In theprocess of conducting this investigation, the relevance of ecological issues and landdeficiencies, as explanations for UPA limitations, will be addressed.

Methodology

A holistic and combined methodological approach was applied to this case study ofUPA. With roots in the science of ecology, holism insists on the priority of the‘whole’ without deterministic or vitalistic overtones (Sachs 2001: 30–32). It seeks tointerpret the meaning of the ‘wholeness’ and the relationship between the parts andthe whole. A holistic or ‘unified’ approach to social policy involves carefulconsideration of the interrelationship of various elements (cross-sectoral investiga-tion), which may contribute to a phenomenon within which sectoral concerns arerooted (Moser 1997; Nell et al. 2000; Van Veenhuizen et al. 2001; Martin et al.2001). Holistic approaches, such as eco-systems and the sustainable livelihoodsapproach (SLA), although not all-encompassing, directed this research in apurposeful and cross-sectoral (economic, social and ecological) empirical investiga-

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

tion into the nature and extent of UPA, identify causes for its limitations and bringclarity to UPA theoretically.

Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

At the grassroots or community level, the SLA guided this research in exploring thetypes of ‘capital’ (natural, social, human, financial and physical) that exist for theurban poor to earn a livelihood. Notably, UPA-practicing households participated inthe creation of GIS maps of their environment. Critically, these respondents hadcontrol over the amount of household information that the GIS maps wouldultimately contain. As an ethical concern, this was important as many respondentswanted to maintain a degree of anonymity from the municipality. An opportunity forcommunity-based intervention evolved from the ground truthing and informalinterview process. The community-based intervention (discussed in a later section),carried out in both research areas, included analyses of soil and water samples in theblack township, Rhini, and the creation of formal market links with an informalcommunity garden in Peddie.

Eco-systems Approach

From an urban planning perspective, the eco-systems approach (Kline 1997;Newman 1997; Hopkins 2000; Thorns 2002) assisted this research in assessing thedegree to which cross-sectoral concerns and UPA are linked. This approachinformed stakeholders on UPA’s range and impact in the urban environment. Theintegration of a GIS to the eco-systems approach revealed the location and spatialpattern of UPA in the research areas. The use of a GIS for UPA research can be anefficient method for monitoring increases and decreases of UPA activity, particularlywhereas changes in UPA activity can be the result of improvements or degradation inthe urban environment, as well as a reflection of changes in the needs and thelifecycle of households.

Research Design

The research design was divided into three phases. The first phase involvedanalyses of aerial photography, ground truthing, informal interviews and transectwalks and community-based intervention. The aerial images and ground truthingled to the identification of UPA activities in the built-up and residential areas.Once identified, the location of UPA activities was recorded on town-planningmaps (if available) and a GPS. Informal interviews and transect walks were un-dertaken at this time, which were instrumental to identify UPA production systemsand understanding attitudes and perceptions of UPA at the grassroots level. Thisinformation was used to develop categories and questions for householdquestionnaires.

The second phase involved the creation and implementation of a semi-structuredhousehold questionnaire survey, as well as organising the data collected for analysis.The third phase of the research involved the transfer of the ground truthing and GPS

A. Thornton

data, regarding the location and spatial patterns of UPA occurrences, onto satelliteand cadastral imagery using a GIS. The use of a GIS was instrumental to:

1. Create a sample frame of UPA practitioners where none existed2. Compare UPA patterns and occurrences with the impact of local non-

government organizations (NGOs) concerned with food gardens and have adirect presence in the research zones

3. Provide a form of reference to future researchers, planners and policy makers inthe region concerned with UPA, land use and livelihood activities

Sample Methods

The geographical extent and location of current UPA activity was identified andrecorded through ground-truthing exercises that involved physical observation ofactivities ‘on the ground’ or ‘fact finding’ at each research site. Initially, UPAhouseholds were plotted on cadastral or town plans. The municipality’s town plansconveniently divide the township areas into distinct blocks of housing orneighbourhoods, locally referred to as ‘locations,’ where each UPA household wasaccounted for, and identified numerically and would have an equal chance of beingselected in the sample using a random number table. This information was thentransferred to a digitised version of the town plan for use on a GIS, which effectivelyserved as the sample frame for the study.

Overall, the ground-truthing process resulted in 1,080 occurrences of UPA beingidentified in all of Grahamstown (population 76,000–100,000) and 283 occurrences inPeddie (population 5,086). A 20% sample of UPA households, identified from each‘location’ at the research sites, was randomly selected for the questionnaire survey.The study’s research design, with some modification, could be replicated in otherurban centres where governmental, non-governmental and other local stakeholdershave determined a need to investigate the extent and nature of existing UPA activity, aswell as the practicality of implementing UPA systems in their particular region.

Results: UPA in Grahamstown and Peddie

The impacts of apartheid are still presently visible in Grahamstown, as it remainsdivided socially and economically. As such, a first- and third-world dichotomy iseasily observed, in that Grahamstown west, historically, is the ‘white’ part of townand Grahamstown east (to be referred to as Rhini for the remainder of this article),the ‘black’ or racially mixed part of town. Results from the ground-truthing processrevealed 1,080 occurrences of UPA-related activities in all of Grahamstown. Of thisnumber, Rhini alone accounted for 947 occurrences, including 42 cases identified inan area referred to by the municipality as a ‘Transit Camp’ (at the time of the study[2005], this was an area inhabited by squatters and not yet surveyed by the town).The remaining 33 UPA households in Grahamstown west (or 15% of the totalsample) did not factor directly or indirectly as a survival or livelihood activity.Accordingly, as this study is concerned with the practice of UPA by the ‘poorest of

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

the poor,’ the focus of the Grahamstown research was fixed on Rhini, and resultsfrom Grahamstown west did not merit further attention.

Rhini is where the majority of the poorest and unemployed households arelocated and where, theoretically, one would expect to find households benefitingeconomically (directly or indirectly) from UPA. Unlike Grahamstown west, Rhinirespondents tend to practice UPA to ensure a measure of household food security. Ofthe 224 households that participated in the survey, 191 households (approximately88%) were located in Rhini, thus representing the bulk of data collected. With anestimated 7,564.25 households and an average household size of five people perhousehold, less than 12% of Rhini households engage in some form of UPA.

Being a smaller and less socio-economically and racially stratified town,conducting a questionnaire survey in Peddie was, more or less, straight forward.The Ngqushwa Municipality IDP (2001) reports that Peddie has an estimatedpopulation of 5,086 divided amongst 1,347 households, indicating less than fourpeople per household. Separate population data or household data are not availablefor Peddie’s residential areas of: German Village (a collection of former colonialfarm houses on Peddie’s peri-urban fringe), Peddie Extension (township), Peddie‘town’ (near the downtown area), Durban Village (township) and Feni (township).Consequently, no analysis of data by residential area was possible. There are 283occurrences of UPA in Peddie; given an estimated total of 1,347 households inPeddie, 21% of households in Peddie would appear to practice UPA.

Providing Food Security: Income Sources or UPA?

The overwhelming majority of households (71% in Rhini and 68% in Peddie) werefound to subsist on social welfare grants. These households cultivate small (1–10m), on-plot (home) intra-urban gardens for home consumption. To this extent, case studyrespondents cultivating gardens and rearing livestock practice intra-urban agriculture(IUA), as opposed to UPA. Although some livestock graze in peri-urban commonageareas outside of the built-up or residential areas, they are mostly kept at the householdfor security purposes and as a source of milk and eggs. The case study revealed no peri-urban cultivation in the research sites and limited household knowledge of agriculturalsystems, such as permaculture, intercropping, rain harvesting and the use of compost.

Home Gardens

The small size of the garden plots does not yield enough food to provide subsistencebenefits for a family of four (the average household size in the research sites wasfive). In this regard, the social security grants are providing a more vital service thanUPA, to ensure the food security for the majority of urban poor households.However, the IUA, identified in the case study, is providing some subsistence-levelrelief for the ‘poorest of the poor,’ who are not receiving social welfare grants. Inthis study, the ‘poorest of the poor’ were categorised as subsisting on less than R500per month (as of March 2005, 1 USD=6.5 SAR). Hence, people have shown thatthey are capable of producing food at a subsistence level. Moreover, the community-based intervention process in Peddie revealed the potential of UA to develop as acommercial or income-generating activity, creating a formal and informal sector link.

A. Thornton

Households could expand into peri-urban commonage areas. Such expansion mayattract non-UPA ‘would-be gardeners,’ identified during the questionnaire survey,who would want to cultivate for either subsistence or commercial reasons. Althoughthe intervention process facilitated market access in the Peddie case, the study hasshown that local people, including the ‘poorest of the poor,’ are attempting tocultivate food and rear livestock on their own initiative, with some success.

Livestock in Peddie

Concerning other urban agricultural-related activities, most livestock (chickens, cattle,goats and sheep) are reared at home and are released for uncontrolled grazing withinthe urban (intra-urban, residential) and peri-urban (largely commonage) areas. Of the1,080 heads of various livestock identified, the most common include: chickens (578),cattle (208), goats (137), sheep (72) and pigs (71). Some variation exists in the purposefor keeping livestock between the two research zones. In Peddie, a smaller and morerural town in terms of its population, infrastructure, economy and the more agrarian-based lifestyle of its residents, 37% of stockowners tended to rear livestock forcommercial purposes, 49% consumption and 14% for traditional or cultural reasons.When asked if the municipality approves of livestock in residential areas, 94% ofrespondents ‘do not know.’ As with Rhini, there is little interaction between themunicipality and Peddie UPA practitioners. Similar to Rhini, of those who combineUPA activities, most respondents (77%) claimed that both gardening and livestockhave equal value of importance for the household. This indicates the small-scale natureof household agricultural activities. However, results from the intervention process inPeddie will reveal the potential for commercial UPA (or UA) to develop.

Role of the Department of Agriculture

Ground truthing and informal interviews revealed that the Department of Agriculture(DOA) in Peddie appears to be more involved with urban agriculturalists incomparison to the DOA in Grahamstown. The questionnaire survey results show that21% of respondents had approached the DOA for assistance in the past. However,92% do not know what an extension officer (EO) is, despite evidence of attempts(such as informational circulars) by the EO to organise community UPA meetings.

Livestock in Rhini

In Rhini, the larger, denser and more characteristically urban area, 44% stockownersrear livestock for non-economic reasons, such as tradition and culture, 32% forconsumption, 16% sell their animals, 3% keep animals for status in the communityand 5% keep animals for ‘other’ reasons, such as a hobby. The question survey datarevealed a total of 488 heads of various livestock in Rhini. The most commoninclude: chickens (250), goats (98), cattle (78), ducks (18) and pigs (14). Theconsumption of livestock did not always translate into the slaughter of the animal, asin many cases household milk is provided by cows. Additionally, an animal might bekilled and consumed for special occasions, such as a wedding, funeral or a malecircumcision ceremony (a transition from boyhood to manhood). The majority of

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

respondents (97%) keep their livestock at home, and 84% are not aware of thedisapproving position of the municipality towards the keeping of livestock in residentialareas. This finding indicates a general lack of dialogue between the municipality andtownship residents, regarding the attitudes held by town planners of livestock rearing inresidential areas. Further, this finding also indicates that livestock rearing is principallyan intra-urban activity. For respondents who practice gardening and own livestock, mostfind that both activities are of equal importance (83%). This can be attributed to the non-commercial purpose of both practices and its extremely small-scale nature. Table 2reveals the types of livestock owned by responding households in Rhini.

Role of the Department of Agriculture

The municipality has purchased local farms for the purposes of relocating urbanlivestock from residential areas and as potential land for the government’s ‘EmergingFarmer’ programme, overseen by the DOA and Department of Land Affairs.Overall, gardeners and livestock owners (86%) are not fully aware of government-provided opportunities available to resource poor South African citizens who areinterested in farming. Further, most respondents have never asked the DOA forassistance (98%) and do not know what an EO does (96%).

Synthesis of Characteristics of Eastern Cape Urban Agriculturalists

Respondent Variables: Household Income and Social Grants

In reflecting on the socio-economic data from the two case study sites, Rhinihouseholds spend an estimated average of R201–300 per month on food, and Peddiehouseholds average R301–400 per month. A combination of reasons for thisdifference in the amounts spent on food relates to sources of income and householdsize. The most active income group practicing UPA in both study areas arehouseholds earning R740 per month in social grants (at the time of this research, thevalue of an old-age pension and a disability grant [DG] was R740 p/m). The secondlargest income group practicing UPA are households earning R1,401–2,000 p/m.Households in this income category generally receive dual social grants, with acombined value of at least R1,480 per month. The types of social welfare grantsinclude: a state old-age pension (SOAP, R740p/m), DG (R740 p/m) or a childsupport grant (R170 per child p/m).

In Rhini, households in the R740 category are spending approximately 40% oftheir income on food (with five members). Households (of a similar size) receivingR1,480 per month are spending nearly one quarter (24%) of their income on food.The smallest income group practicing UPA is comprised of households earning lessthan R500 per month. Rhini households in this category (14% in total) are spending50% of their total income on food.

Peddie households, in the R740-per-month category, are spending nearly 68% oftheir total income on food. Households receiving R1,480 in social grant income arespending 34% per month on food. Two extreme cases emerged in the study, wherePeddie households of five members each and receiving no grants are earning less

A. Thornton

than R500 per month. These households are spending the equivalent of their entireincome on food each month after other expenses, such as paraffin (the mostcommonly used fuel for cooking and heating). This claim was cross-checked bycalculating the typical monthly food cost per person (R60, based on R2 per day forone meal during a 30-day period), after subtracting the monthly cost of paraffin(R50). These households are spending up to R350 per month for one meal per dayand to heat their homes. Of note, where it was difficult for these households to recalltheir monthly income, they were asked how much they had to spend the previousmonth, to which they replied R300.

Value of Home Gardening

On average, Rhini households claimed that their gardening activities save them lessthan R100 p/m in food costs. Further analysis (by income categories) of claims inUPA savings revealed that Rhini households earning between R740 and 1,480 p/mwould experience a monthly increase of less than R100 to 150 in food expenditureswithout their garden. Rhini households, from every income group, often repeatedthis claim (80%). This included the poorest households, where 30% of householdsearning less than R500 p/m made estimated savings up to R150 per month. Theapparent limited savings attributed to UPA activities indicates both a lack of UPAproduction and a clear dependence on social grants to secure a livelihood. Further,the income earned from social grants appears adequate enough to ensure householdsurvival and subsequently hinders UPA from reaching its potential.

Peddie households practicing UPA, on average, saved an estimated R151–200 permonth. However, in three of the most common modal income categories, themajority of households (42%) had savings of less than R101–150 p/m, followed byhouseholds that claimed savings of over an estimated R300 (30%). An averagesavings of R101–150 p/m was estimated by nearly 50% of Peddie householdsearning less than R500 per month (16% in total) from gardening activities. A few ofthe households earning less than R500 p/m claimed that their garden was savingthem more than R300 per month in food costs.

These findings indicate that, in some extreme examples, households are receivinga measure of subsistence from their UPA activities. The general findings indicate thatsocial grants are providing the majority of poor households with the means topurchase food, while some destitute households depend on their UPA activities toprovide food. However, it was very difficult for respondents to estimate their foodexpenditure and how much savings from produce their garden can generate. This ispartly due to households not being in the habit of monitoring expenditures. As statedearlier, most garden plots are small (from 1 to 2 m2) and do not use all of the spaceavailable to a household for growing food, and intercropping techniques (combiningcrops) are not widely practised. Hence, it is very unlikely that such small gardenplots can generate enough produce for a household to save R300 or even R150 p/m.This implies that despite unemployment and poverty, urban poor households arereluctant to use the resources available to them, in terms of land, household labourand social grant income, to generate more food from their gardening activities.

Overall, households receiving social grants still remain well below the povertyincome line, maintaining high monthly food expenditures. Furthermore, despite

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

practicing UPA, the majority of households realise only limited savings from UPAactivities, the implication being that should the national social welfare grant schemeterminate, households would be left without the means to generate enough food.Thus, an important question would be “In the event that the social welfare grantsystem is terminated or scaled down, how would this impact on householdsaccustomed to receiving social benefits?” Before speculating on this (albeit, unlikelybut plausible) scenario, it is useful to determine the impact of social welfare grantson poverty income levels in the research zones.

Poverty Income and Household Size: Comparing Nationwide Estimatesto the EC Case Studies

According to the HSRC’s national figures on poverty income, a household of fivemembers will have an estimated poverty income of R1,541 (GBP 123; US $237)per month (Table 1). The majority of large households in the study areas had anincome of R740 per month (GBP 59; US $114), which statistically places thesehouseholds far below the poverty line.

The majority of respondent households reported incomes equivalent to theamount of social grants received. This finding made it possible to place householdsinto predictable modal income brackets, as defined by the value of a particular socialgrant. There was some variation in the study areas between wealth and householdsize. Results from Rhini indicated that the ‘wealthier’ households in the survey (46%or 88 households) are often receiving multiple social grants, valued from R910 tomore than 2,000 per month. However, the largest of these households consisted of6–16 members (47%), thus still placing them below the poverty line.

Comparable to Rhini, an estimated 50% of Peddie households in the survey (31out of 62) receive an income from multiple social grants (46% in Rhini). However,in contrast to Rhini, the majority of these are small households (62%, or 19households), which consist mostly of three to five members.

Implications of Social Grants

The Republic of South Africa’s social welfare grants scheme appears to provide themeans for poor households to participate as consumers in the formal and informaleconomy. In addition, old age pensioners are found to carry the burden of providingfor the needs of human immunodeficiency virus infection/acquired immune

Household size 2001

1 5872 7733 1,0284 1,2905 1,5416 1,8067 2,0548+ 2,503

Table 1 Poverty income byhousehold size (in South AfricanRands per month)

Source: South African RegionalPoverty Network (2004)

A. Thornton

deficiency syndrome-affected family members (Legido-Quigley 2003). Concernsover the social grant policy creating a ‘culture of dependence’ are reflected in theGrowth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy, which states: “People must learnto work, instead of living on public assistance.” In the final analysis of householdincome from UPA activities, the impact of social grants on the significance of UPAin practising households is, nonetheless, quite substantial. Despite the assistance ofsocial grants, the majority of incomes of households in the study areas are eitherstatistically below or only slightly above the national poverty line. This indicates thathousehold poverty rates would further decline without social welfare grantintervention, particularly where employment opportunities are scarce.

An overwhelming number of respondents strongly indicated that they cannotsurvive without the social grants and do not feel that they could survive on UPA alone.Furthermore, the questionnaire data revealed that contemplating a life without a socialwelfare grant caused much distress amongst the respondents. Follow-up interviews tothe questionnaire responses added to this bleak picture. Although slightly morepromising in Peddie, it appears the youth have clearly rejected the idea of UPA as ameans to earn a livelihood or as an alternative to unemployment. The youth argue thatagricultural activities do not belong in the urban areas. When probed further on thisissue, they stated that agriculture is something that their grandparents did in thehomelands during the apartheid era because they could not work. Furthermore,questionnaire responses, as well as follow-up interviews, revealed that agriculture inthe urban areas is not what the youth consider to be part of an ‘urban lifestyle.’

Hence, should the social welfare system in South Africa collapse, the paucity ofalternative means to secure a livelihood (particularly in small towns) could lead to adramatic decline in the quality of life of urban poor households, to levels resemblinghouseholds in low-income African countries. Although this is unlikely, should sucha collapse occur, results from the community-based intervention revealed that theregion has the necessary physical characteristics to support more low-intensiveagriculture (gardens and livestock). Further, the majority of households haveadequate plot size (in particular, if using permaculture and inter-cropping methods)to accommodate home gardens, and substantial peri-urban land is available, as islegislation to allow people to use it (though awareness of this is lacking).

UPA by Gender

When making distinctions between gender roles and types of UPA activity, thepercentage of Rhini female and male practitioners who only cultivate a garden (nolivestock) were evenly distributed (41%). However, more men (12%) tended to beinvolved in rearing livestock (either with or without a garden) compared to women(6%). Respondents claim that this is due to the traditional importance of status,which men attach to keeping livestock, in particular grazing livestock (cattle, goatsand sheep). In Peddie, female practitioners are generally well represented in eachtype of UPA activity. Of note, the percentage of women (54%) engaging in therearing of livestock (either with or without a garden) is nearly double that of the men(28%), a fact likely explained by the tendency of Peddie respondents to rearlivestock for subsistence and commercial reasons. Despite Peddie’s rural nature,keeping livestock for traditional or cultural reasons was minimal. Comparatively,

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

Peddie respondents are more active than Rhini respondents in both communitygardens and rearing livestock for commercial purposes.

Community-based Intervention

During the ground truthing, transect walks and informal interview stages of theresearch, opportunities for a community-based intervention emerged. In Peddie,intervention facilitated formal market access at a ‘Fruit and Veg City,’ nationalgreengrocer, for an informal and female-led community garden called ‘TheMasizame Community Garden Project.’ The success of this community gardenindicated that some potential exists for urban agriculturalists to produce in bulk forthe informal–formal market. Community gardens exist in the intra-urban areas inboth research sites but are limited and vary in terms of their production capacity,size, ‘membership’ and purpose.

In Rhini, an intervention process involving the analysis of soil and water samplesfor agricultural suitability was carried out in the mixed-race area of GrahamstownWest and in the largely black ‘locations’ in Rhini. This process revealed that theurban environment has the physical carrying capacity to support UA (and UPA)activities. The results were translated (from English to Xhosa, the dominantindigenous language spoken in the EC) for the community and disseminatedthrough focus groups and face-to-face-meetings. During this process, UA practi-tioners felt that they could try to achieve larger yields, while non-UA practitionersindicated that they would re-consider home gardening as a livelihood option.Previous analyses of the physical environment in Peddie revealed the capacity of theregion to support low-intensive forms of agriculture (Higginbottom 1995; Manona etal. 1996; Deshingkar and Cinderby 1998).

Summary of Findings

The small-scale, on-plot and intra-urban nature of ‘UPA’ in Grahamstown renderslimited visible signs of its existence. Hence, UPA is generally not viewed bygovernmental, institutional, NGO and other local actors to be a reality. However, inPeddie, being a more historically agrarian community, with a small, nearly entirelyblack population, as a result of the apartheid era homeland system, local municipaland non-governmental actors are aware of UPA occurrences but not of its impact onpracticing households.

Although UPA was not directly prohibited, apartheid-era policies that confinedsmall-scale black farmers to subsistence-orientated, rural agriculture (Lester et al.2000) and the effect of ‘functional urbanisation’ (Nel 1997) are viewed as keyfactors in explaining a negative stigma in contemporary South Africa towardssubsistence agriculture amongst the urban poor. At a minimum, the legacies of thecolonial and apartheid eras have, arguably, negatively shaped the attitudes ofcontemporary black South Africans towards agriculture. As former homeland ruraldwellers migrate into urban areas, they may carry a negative stigma towardssubsistence food production with them. This negative stigma towards ‘urban

A. Thornton

farming’ is most noticeable amongst the youth in the case study areas, where theywere vocal in dismissing the idea of UPA arguing that they were ‘not interested’ andthe notion of UPA is ‘not modern’ (Table 2).

Other rationales for limited UPA activity include that densely settled urban areas inparts of South Africa offer little open space for the poor to grow food (Potts 1997).However, despite ‘densely settled urban areas,’ IUA exists in the case study sites,though vast amounts of commonage land are not used for peri-urban agriculture.

The importance of social grants in providing a livelihood for the poor appears tosupport the contention that “poor people want livelihoods more than employment,where livelihoods mean adequate assets, food and cash for physical and social well-being and security against impoverishment” (Chambers 1993: 10). Although notemerging as the most dominant UPA-practicing group, those households notreceiving a social grant (30%, overall) were the most destitute (earning less thanR500 p/m) and actually depended on home gardens for survival, despite Webb’sassertion that the ‘poorest of the poor’ do not.

The majority of households in both research areas (83% in Peddie, 85% in Rhini)claimed to have the resources to purchase food and could afford to buy enough foodwithout the contribution from their gardens. Consequently, UPA in those householdswhere members have formal sector employment is negligible. Thus, unemployed,grant-receiving households are the dominant UPA-practicing group in both researchzones. This is important in terms of the UPA literature, which claims that all incomegroups practice UPA, including employed households in wealthy suburbs (Mougeot1999; Mbiba 2000). However, households in Grahamstown’s wealthy and largelywhite suburbs simply maintain recreational, ornamental and herb gardens.

Although landownership, whether allocated by the government, through purchaseor inheritance was high, UPA was more prevalent in the government subsidisedhousing ‘locations’ (as part of the Reconstruction and Development Programme,RDP, Republic of South Africa Information 2001), in comparison with the moreestablished parts of Rhini, such as Fingo Village, where the housing plots arecomparably much larger than those currently available in the RDP areas.

When comparing the intra-urban nature of UPA in the case studies with views ofUPA from within the African continent, three contrasts were drawn, whichemphasised unique qualities of UPA in the case study and the apparent limits toUPA in the literature concerning other African countries. First, these unique qualitiesinclude limited (or negligible) occurrences of peri-urban agriculture amongst all ofthe households surveyed in the study. Rather, in terms of households meeting theirfood needs, the importance of the cash economy emerged in households receiving asingle (R740 p/m) or multiple (R1,480 p/m) social grants, despite occurrences of

Rhini, n=191(%)

Peddie, n=61(%)

They want to earn money/finda job

29 12

Not interested 40 30Belongs to the past/not modern 23 53Don’t want to get dirty 8 5

Table 2 Why are the youthperceived to be too ‘lazy’to grow food?

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

home or on-plot IUA. Secondly, although still living below the poverty lineaccording to official household size compared to income ratios, households in theR700–900 and R1,100–1,400 p/m income brackets represented the majority of UA-practicing households. These households do not depend on UA as a livelihood orsurvival strategy. Finally, the provision of government-allocated housing (RDP) andsocial grants has combined to effectively provide the majority of households with themeans to avoid complete destitution. However, this situation has fuelled the Republicof South Africa’s concern that the social welfare system has had the negative effect(Republic of South Africa 2006), creating a ‘culture of dependency,’ where a degreeof self-sufficiency might be desirable.

The study also investigated the role or impact of partnerships and institutions insupporting UPA activities and where UPA can develop informal–formal marketlinks. First, UPA appears to be of limited significance in the informal and formaleconomy of the EC and does not receive adequate support from institutional andnon-governmental actors, individually or in partnership. In place of cooperation areprevailing negative attitudes, where suspicion and distrust persist amongst localresidents, municipal officials, academia and NGOs. Secondly, despite highunemployment, the social grant system appears to encourage spending as opposedto saving or investing in developing employable skills. This is further aggravatedwhere the minimum amount of income required for opening a store-credit account isequivalent to the amount received for a monthly SOAP and DG. Thirdly, a negativestigma persists amongst the youth, which links subsistence agriculture to theapartheid legacy of the homeland system.

Together with the social welfare grants, there is little incentive for the urban poor,particularly young unemployed people, to strive for subsistence or commercialbenefits from UPA and to supplement household incomes. Finally, households donot appear to have a diverse range of informal income sources. The most commonform of informal employment or activities includes casual labour and ‘streethawkers,’ who purchase produce from chain stores or surplus from large commercialfarmers and sell them on the street.

Thus, in both cases, improving stakeholder awareness of the possibilities ofagriculture, realities of urban poor livelihoods and the national government’sencouragement of the use of unused municipal or commonage land by the poor foragricultural purposes may help to promote the idea of UA and UPA as an alternativeor supplemental to social grant income.

Conclusion

Despite recent developments in the case study areas, such as garden competitions,basic production systems and intra-urban location of EC UA does not reflect generalviews of UPA found in the thematic and case study literature. In considering UPA tocombat urban poverty and unemployment, local policy makers and NGOs must beclear on the following key issues. First, social grants are the primary and, often, onlysource of household income. Secondly, the youth deems urban (as well as rural)agriculture as ‘not modern’ and, thus, not an alternative to social grant dependencyand unemployment.

A. Thornton

Thirdly, policy makers and institutional stakeholders may want to seriouslyconsider developing the capabilities of the urban poor to pursue subsistence orcommercial agricultural activities to, at least, supplement income received throughthe social grant scheme. Finally, there are large amounts of vacant or under-usedperi-urban and intra-urban land in the research zones, which can physically carrylow-intensity forms of UPA activity. Concerning livestock, a secure area forresidents to keep their urban livestock could help to bridge the differences of viewbetween informal urban stockowners and the municipality regarding livestock inresidential areas. The integration of agriculture in urban development planning is notwithout precedent in South Africa and may indicate an emerging trend in eco-systems approaches to urban renewal.

Finally, despite the Republic of South Africa’s claims of the success of the socialwelfare grant scheme, the case studies have provided evidence that the social grantshave not led to improvements in the productivity of workers, nor has it correlatedwith job growth, decreased spending on tobacco and debt and increased spending onbasic needs – with the exception of food expenditures (Dekker 2003; EconomicPolicy Research Institute 2004). As the case study findings revealed, householdemployment, expenditures and grant statistics from UPA and non-UPA householdsdo not support these claims.

Overall, with UPA and social welfare grants providing some relief to urban poorhouseholds, this paper suggests the following policy recommendations. First, theRepublic of South Africa could re-evaluate its social welfare policy to address, whatthey have determined to be, an emerging dependency on social welfare. Moreover,improvements to social welfare grant policies could facilitate greater acceptance andparticipation of grant recipients in the informal and formal economy, in which UPAcould begin to assume a more significant role. Secondly, government and non-governmental stakeholders could make an effort to identify and register, with theDepartment of Social Welfare, those households not receiving a social welfare grant.Despite their UPA activities, these households are at the extreme end of poverty andare the most vulnerable to illness and malnutrition. Thirdly, the potential to expandDOA extension services to urban township and squatter settlement areas could beinvestigated, in an effort to improve the quality and increase quantities of householdurban food production. Finally, institutions and NGOs could collaborate in futurecampaigns to better inform and educate grant recipients to the purpose of the grantsystem and how to efficiently use the grants as a ‘stepping stone’ to a sustainablelivelihood.

References

Armar-Klemesu, M., & Maxwell, D. (2000). Accra: Urban agriculture as an asset strategy, supplementingincome and diets. In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, G. Sabina, U. Sabel-Koschella, & H. De Zeeuw(Eds.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: GermanFoundation for International Development.

Binns, T., & Lynch, K. (1998). Feeding Africa’s growing cities into the 21st century: The potential ofurban agriculture. Journal of International Development, 10(7), 777–793.

Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the professions: Frontiers for rural development. London: IntermediateTechnology.

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

Companioni, N., Hernandez, Y., Paez, E., & Murphy, C. (2002). The growth of urban Agriculture. In F.Funes, L. Garcia, M. Bourque, & P. Rosset (Eds.), Sustainable agriculture and resistance:Transforming food production in Cuba. Oakland, CA: Food First.

De Zeeuw, H., Gundel, S., & Waibel, H. (2000). The integration of agriculture in urban policies. In N.Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing:German Foundation for International Development.

Deelstra, T., & Girardet, H. (2000). Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.),Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftungfuer internationale Entwicklung, DSE.

Dekker, A. (2003). The role of informal social security in an inter-generational society. In: Proceedings ofthe 4th International Research Conference on Social Security. http://www.issa.int/pdf/anvers03/topic2/2dekker.pdfAccessed 10 August 2005.

Deshingkar, P. & Cinderby, S. (1998). Renewable natural resource use in post-apartheid South Africa.http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/sei/pubs/booklet.pdf Accessed 01 April 2006.

Drakakis-Smith, D. (1992). And the cupboard was bare: food security and food policy for the urban poor.Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe, 23, 38–58.

Economic Policy Research Institute, (2004). Final report: The social and economic impact of SouthAfrica’s social security system. http://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/view/00010352.pdf Accessed04 May 2005.

Ellis, F., & Sumberg, J. (1998). Food production, urban areas and policy responses. World Development,26(2), 213–225.

Foeken, D., & Mwangi, A. (2000). Increasing food security through urban agriculture in Nairobi. In N.Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing:German Foundation for International Development.

Foeken, D., & Owuor, S. (2000).Urban farmers in Nakuru, Kenya. ASC Working Paper 45/2000, Centre forUrban Research, University of Nairobi, Kenya http://www.cityfarmer.org/nakuru.html [01/11/2004]

Foeken, D., Owuor, S., & Klaver, W. (2002). Crop cultivation in Nakuru town, Kenya: Practice andpotential. Leiden: African Studies Center.

Frayne, B. (2005). Survival of the poorest: Migration and food security in Namibia. In L. Mougeot (Ed.),Agropolis: Social, political and environmental dimensions of urban agriculture. London: EARTHSCAN.

Freeman, D. (1991). A city of farmers: Informal urban agriculture in the open spaces of Nairobi, Kenya.Montreal and Kingston, McGill: Queens University Press.

Higginbottom, K. (1995). The Fate of the commons: Urban land reform, squatting and environmentalmanagement in the Eastern Cape province. Institute of Social and Economic Research, DevelopmentStudies Working Paper No. 65. Grahamstown: Rhodes University.

Hopkins, R. (2000). The Food Producing Neighbourhood. In H. Barton (Ed.), Sustainable communities:The potential for eco-neighbourhoods (pp. 199–216). London: EARTHSCAN.

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

Iaquinta, D., & Drescher, A. (2000). Defining peri-urban: Understanding rural–urban linkages and theirconnection to institutional contexts. Food and Agricultural Organization, 2, 9–26.

Jacobi, P., Amend, J., & Kiango, S. (2000). Urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam: Providing for anindispensable part of the diet. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urbanagriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development.

Kline, E. (1997). Sustainable community indicators: How to measure progress. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-City dimensions: Healthy communities healthy planet. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.

Lee-Smith, D., & Ali Memon, P. (1994). Urban agriculture in Kenya. In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), Citiesfeeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: IDRC.

Legido-Quigley, H. (2003). The South African old age pension: Exploring the role of poverty alleviationin households affected by HIV/AIDS. Available via: International Social Security Association (ISSA),http://www.issa.int/pdf/anvers03/topic2/2legido-Quigley.pdf. Cited 11 Jan 2005

Lester, A., Nel, E., & Binns, T. (2000). South Africa: Past, present and future. London: Prentice Hall.Lynch, K. (1995). Sustainability and urban food supply in Africa. Sustainable Development, 3, 79–88.Lynch, K. (2005). Rural–urban interaction in a developing world. London: Routledge.Lynch, K., Binns, T., & Olofin, E. (2001). Urban agriculture under threat: The land security question in

Kano, Nigeria. Cities, 18(3), 159–171.Manona, C., Bank, L., & Higginbottom, K. (1996). Informal settlements in the Eastern Cape province,

South Africa. Institute of Southern Africa Studies, Working Paper No. 10. Lesotho: NationalUniversity of Lesotho.

A. Thornton

Martin, A., Oudwater, N., & Sabine, G. (2001). Methodologies for situation analysis in urban agriculture.Greenwich, UK: Livelihoods and Institutions Group, Natural Resources Institute, University ofGreenwich http://www.ruaf.org/conference/methods/papers/upa_methods_topic1_situation_analysis_en.doc [13/10/2004].

Maxwell, D. (1994). The household logic of urban farming in Kampala. In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.),Cities feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa (pp. 45–62). Ottawa: IDRC.

May, J. (2000). Poverty and inequality in South Africa: Meeting the challenge. London: Zed.Mazambani, D. (1982). Peri-urban cultivation in Greater Harare. The Zimbabwe Science News.Mazingira Institute (1987). Urban food production and the cooking fuel situation in urban Kenya.

Nairobi: Mazingira Institute.Mbaye, A., & Moustier, P. (2000). Market-oriented urban agriculture production in Dakar. In N. Bakker, et

al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (pp. 235–256).Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development.

Mbiba, B. (1995). Urban agriculture in Zimbabwe: Implications for urban management and poverty.Avebury: Aldershot.

Mbiba, B. (2000). Urban agriculture in Harare: Between suspicion and repression. In N. Bakker, et al.(Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (pp. 285–302).Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development.

Mbiba, B., & Huchzermeyer, M. (2002). Contentious development: Peri-urban studies in sub-SaharanAfrica. Progress in Development Studies, 2(2), 113–131.

McGregor, D., Simon, D., & Thompson, D. (2006). The peri-urban interface: Approaches to sustainable,natural and human resource use. London: Earthscan.

Mlozi, M., Lupanga, I. J., & Mvena, Z. K. S. (1992). Urban agriculture as a survival strategy. In J. Baker,& P. O. Pedersen (Eds.), The rural urban interface in Africa: Expansion and adaptation. Copenhagen:Nordiska Africainstitutet.

Möller, V. (2001). Living in Grahamstown East/Rini: A social indicators report. Institute of Social andEconomic Research, Research Report Series, 6. Grahamstown: Rhodes University.

Moser, C. (1997). Urban social policy and poverty reduction. In R. Burgess, M. Carmona, & T. Kolstee,(Eds.), The challenge of sustainable cities: Neoliberalism and urban strategies in developingcountries (pp. 44–61). London & New Jersey: Zed Books.

Mougeot, L. (1994). African city farming from a world perspective. In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), CitiesFeeding People: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: IDRC.

Mougeot, L. (1999). For self-reliant cities: Urban food production in a globalizing south. In M. Koc, et al.(Ed.), For Hunger-proof cities: Sustainable urban food systems. Ottawa: IDRC.

Mougeot, L. (2000). Urban agriculture: Definition, presence, potentials and risks. In N. Bakker, et al.(Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: GermanFoundation for International Development.

Mtani, A. (1997). Urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe, 28, 49–58.Nel, E. (1997). Poverty and inequality in South Africa: The small town dimension. Input report prepared

for the Poverty and Inequality Report. Grahamstown: Rhodes University.Nel, E., & Rogerson, C. M. (2007). Evolving local economic development policy and practice in South

Africa with special reference to smaller urban centres. Urban Forum, 18, 1–11.Nell, W., Wessels, B., Mokoka, J., & Sophy, M. (2000). A creative multidisciplinary approach towards the

development of food gardening. Development Southern Africa, 17(5), 807–819.Newman, P. (1997). Greening the city: The ecological and human dimensions of the city can be part of

town planning. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-city dimensions: Healthy communities, healthy planet (pp.14–26). Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.

Ngqushwa Municipality IDP (2001). First draft of the integrated development plan. Peddie, NgqushwaMunicipality: Office of the Municipal Manager.

Nugent, R. (2000). The impact of urban agriculture on the household and local economies. In N. Bakker,et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing:Deutsche Stiftung fuer internationale Entwicklung.

Obosu-Mensah, K. (1999). Food production in urban areas: A study of urban agriculture in Accra,Ghana. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Potts, D. (1997). Urban lives: Adopting new strategies and adapting rural links. In C. Rakodi (Ed.), Theurban challenge in Africa: Growth and management of its large cities. Tokyo: United NationsUniversity Press.

Rambaldi, G. (2005). Barefoot mapmakers and participatory GIS. ICT Update, 27, 1–8 (also available at:www.ictupdate.cta.int).

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

Republic of South Africa, (1995). White paper on agriculture. http://www.gov.za/whitepaper/1995/agriculture.html Accessed 10 February 2003.

Republic of South Africa, (1998). White paper on a national water policy for South Africa. http://www.gov.za/reports/1998/pirsum/htm. Cited 20 April 2003.

Republic of South Africa, (2001). White paper on spatial policy and land use management. http://www.land.pwv.gov.za/White%20Paper/whitetab.htm. Cited 05 May 2003.

Republic of South Africa, (2006). Linking social grant beneficiaries to poverty alleviation and economicactivity. Available via: Department of Social Development. http://www.welfare.gov.za/documents/2006/link.pdf. Cited 23 March 2007

Republic of South Africa Information, (2001). Keynote address by Housing Minister, Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele. In: Proceedings of the IHSA Conference, Pietersburg, 11 October 2001. http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/index.htm. Cited 16 Aug 2005

Rogerson, C. (1992). Feeding Africa’s cities: The role and potential for urban agriculture. Africa Insight,22(4), 229–234.

Rogerson, C. (1996). Urban cultivation and urban reconstruction in South Africa. Geographical Journal ofZimbabwe, 27, 11–20.

Rogerson, C. (2003). Towards ‘pro-poor’ urban development in South Africa: The case of urbanagriculture. Acta Academica Supplementum, 1, 130–158.

Rosset, P., & Benjamin, M. (1994). The greening of the revolution. Melbourne: Ocean.Sachs, W. (2001). Environment. In W. Sachs, (Ed.), The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as

power (pp. 26–37). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.Sawio, C. J. (1994). Who are the farmers of Dar es Salaam? In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), Cities feeding

people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: IDRC.Slater, R. (2001). Urban agriculture, gender and empowerment: An alternative view. Development

Southern Africa, 18(5), 635–650.Smit, W. (1998). The rural linkages of rural households in Durban, South Africa. Environment and

Urbanization, 10(1), 77–87.Smit, J., Ratta, A., & Nasr, J. (1996). Urban agriculture: Food, jobs and sustainable cities. Habitat II

Series. New York: The Urban Agriculture Network, UNDP.Smith, D., & Tevera, D. (1997). Socio-economic context for the householder of urban agriculture in

Harare, Zimbabwe. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe, 28, 25–38.South African Regional Poverty Network, SARPN, (2004). Fact sheet: Poverty in South Africa. Available

via: Human Sciences Research Council. http://sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000990/p1096-Fact_Sheet_No_1_Poverty.pdf. Cited 18 January 2005

Statistics South Africa, (2001). Census 2001. http://www.statssa.gov.za.html. Cited 26 August 2003Thorns, D. (2002). The transformation of cities: Urban theory and urban life. New York: Palgrave

MacMillan.Thornton, A. C. (2006). Urban land use policy in Peddie: A former homeland town in Eastern Cape

province, South Africa. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 16, 58–59.Thornton, A. C., & Nel, E. (2007). The significance of urban and peri-urban agriculture in Peddie, in the

Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Africanus: Journal of Development Studies, 37(1), 13–20.Tinker, I. (1994). Foreword: Urban agriculture is already feeding cities. In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), Cities

feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: IDRC.Van Veenhuizen, R., Prain, G., & De Zeeuw, H. (2001). Appropriate methods for urban agriculture

research, planning implementation and evaluation. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 5, 1–5.Webb, N. (1998a). Urban agriculture: Environment, ecology and the urban poor. Urban Forum, 9(1), 95–

107.Webb, N. (1998b). Urban cultivation: Food crops and their importance. Development Southern Africa, 15

(2), 201–213.Webb, N. (2000). Food gardens and nutrition: Three Southern African case studies. Journal of Family

Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28, 66–67.

About the Author

Alexander Thornton is Research Fellow in the Department of Geography at University of Otago,Dunedin, New Zealand.

A. Thornton