Beyond the Hype and Carbon Conundrum of Urban Farming
Written by Sarah Sikich, with contributions from Naim Edwards and Stathis Pauls, Michigan State University-Detroit Partnership for Food, Learning, and Innovation
Urban farming has solidified its place in food security since 2022 as our nation was reminded of the importance of resilient food systems. Today, in some urban centers, rooftop gardens brim with greens, vacant lots sprout pear and apple fruitlets, and new gardens thrive – becoming green oases in the heart of urban metropolitans. A recent study out of the University of Michigan has thrown cold water on these thriving local food systems, claiming urban agriculture's carbon footprint is six times bigger than conventional farming. Before we uproot our city-grown dreams, let's delve deeper, past the sensational headlines, and look at the cracks in this research.
Paper Planes to Spaceships
Naim Edwards, Director of MSU-Detroit Partnership for Food, Learning, and Innovation (DP-FLI) and Giving Grove partner, has skepticism when reviewing this research. “This study claims that collective (or community) gardens and individual gardens had significantly higher carbon footprints than conventional ag. This was based on lifecycle assessments and carbon footprint per serving of food,” states Edwards. “Collective and individual gardens are not managed to maximize servings of food or profits. Although they are integral threads in the urban ag fabric, individual gardens should not be compared to conventional farms based on servings of food. Further, 75% of the study sample is individual gardens (‘small plots managed by individual gardeners’).” Comparing a backyard garden to an industrial monoculture farm feels like comparing paper planes to spaceships.
Stathis Pauls, Site Manager and Programs Coordinator of DP-FLI adds another layer of doubt when considering the typical impacts of conventional agriculture: "Were the synthetic fertilizers, the massive machinery, the industry-standard waste considered?" This research is an uneven playing field, tilting the scales against the city saplings before they even sprout.
Sunshine Beyond the Carbon Shadow
While the study raises valid concerns, it paints an incomplete picture. As Edwards reminds us, "urban agriculture [community and individual garden-grown food] rarely travels over 20 miles," a far cry from the 500-mile treks conventional produce often endures. Local production inherently cuts down on transportation emissions, a win for air quality and climate change.
And let's not forget the social impacts of urban farms and gardens. Children are learning to nurture life beside neighbors, sharing wisdom and coming together over shared meals grown from their own hands. As Pauls points out, "the non-environmental advantages... contribute to the holistic appeal of urban agriculture." Can we truly measure the value of social cohesion and mental well-being solely through the lens of carbon emissions?
Data from the research supports this point. In a survey conducted for the study, urban agriculture farmers and gardeners overwhelmingly reported improved mental health, diet and social networks. While increasing these “nonfood outputs” does not reduce its carbon footprint, “growing spaces which maximize social benefits can outcompete conventional agriculture when [urban agriculture] benefits are considered holistically,” according to the study authors. (University of Michigan)
Cultivating a Greener Future
While urban agriculture is not perfect, the path forward lies in acknowledging both its challenges and immense potential. The research paper suggests these actions to lower carbon emissions of urban agriculture:
Extend infrastructure lifetimes. Extend the lifetime of materials and structures such as raised beds, composting infrastructure, and sheds. (University of Michigan)
Use urban wastes as inputs. Conserve carbon by engaging in “urban symbiosis,” which includes giving a second life to used materials, such as construction debris and demolition waste, that are unsuitable for new construction but potentially useful for [urban agriculture]. The most well-known symbiotic relationship between cities and [urban agriculture] is composting. The category also includes using rainwater and recycled grey water for irrigation. (University of Michigan)
For the past decade, The Giving Grove has integrated ecological practices the study described into its very foundation. Here are ways that Giving Grove programs help local orchards not only lower their carbon footprint, but also sequester thousands of pounds of city carbon:
The fruit grown is distributed directly to the community surrounding the orchard, thus eliminating carbon emitted by food transportation – which is typically hundreds of miles from commercial operations to supermarkets.
Planting materials, fertilizers, and compost are organic, and only used if they benefit the local soil biome. (Find a holistic fruit spray guide here.)
Every orchard program practices reuse. Examples: Trees are potted in reusable cloth bags, and soil amendments are bought in bulk and distributed in recycled containers, eliminating waste.
The average orchard lives 20-30 years or more, sequestering over 2.7 tons of carbon in its lifetime. That far outweighs any carbon emissions that might occur during the planting and annual maintenance.
The Giving Grove helps partner programs track carbon sequestration using iTree data collected and encourages them to plant in areas experiencing low tree equity.
Beyond the Binary
This research, while sparking important conversations, shouldn't pit urban agriculture against conventional agriculture. Both systems have their flaws and strengths, and our future lies in a diverse, nuanced food system that embraces both. Let's celebrate the bounty of local production, invest in sustainable practices across all farms, and encourage responsible consumer choices.
Ultimately, urban settings can offer fertile ground for innovation and progress. By learning from this research, embracing critical thinking, and nurturing responsible practices, we can cultivate urban farms that are not just carbon-conscious but vibrant beacons of community, health, and sustainable living. We must continue to consider research like this and let the fruits of urban agriculture bloom into a future where cityscapes and nature harmoniously thrive.
Sources:
Hawes, J.K., Goldstein, B.P., Newell, J.P. et al. Comparing the carbon footprints of urban and conventional agriculture. Nat Cities 1, 164–173 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-023-00023-3