3.8 Review

Assessing motivations and perceptions of stakeholders in urban agriculture: a review and analytical framework

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2021.1904247

Keywords

Stakeholder analysis; social acceptance; urban food systems; analytical approaches; literature review

Funding

  1. ILS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interest in urban agriculture has been growing, with the compatibility with urban social context and stakeholders' attitudes being crucial for successful implementation. A literature review identified main approaches to assessing stakeholders' and farmers' perceptions, leading to the design of an integrated framework to support the development of context-tailored analytical approaches. This study aims to address conflicts between UA practitioners and urban stakeholders, adapting implementation to contextual factors, and increasing the possibility of developing successful UA strategies for urban food systems.
Interest in the adoption of urban agriculture (UA) has grown in recent years. The compatibility of UA with the urban social context, in particular with urban stakeholders' attitudes, is crucial for its successful implementation and represents one of the key factors influencing its development. To this end, a literature review on different approaches to analysing stakeholders' and farmers' perceptions of UA is performed. The paper identifies the main approaches to assessing these aspects and designs an integrated framework to support the development of context-tailored analytical approaches for UA drivers' and stakeholder perceptions. The study aims to address and solve potential conflicts between UA practitioners and urban stakeholders and adapt the implementation of UA to contextual factors. This increases the possibility of developing successful UA strategies that meet the challenges currently facing urban food systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available