4.6 Article

The Impact of COVID-19 on Urban Agriculture in Sao Paulo, Brazil

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13116185

关键词

urban agriculture; commercial farmers; noncommercial community gardens; COVID-19; Sao Paulo; pandemic

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil (CAPES) [001]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, farmers worldwide were greatly affected by disruptions in the food chain. In Sao Paulo city, 50% of farmers were impacted by the pandemic with drops in sales, while 22% claimed that obtaining inputs became difficult. Work on community gardens decreased, but no garden permanently closed.
During the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, farmers worldwide were greatly affected by disruptions in the food chain. In 2020, Sao Paulo city experienced most of the effects of the pandemic in Brazil, with 15,587 deaths through December 2020. Here, we describe the impacts of COVID-19 on urban agriculture (UA) in Sao Paulo from April to August 2020. We analyzed two governmental surveys of 2100 farmers from Sao Paulo state and 148 from Sao Paulo city and two qualitative surveys of volunteers from ten community gardens and seven urban farmers. Our data showed that 50% of the farmers were impacted by the pandemic with drops in sales, especially those that depended on intermediaries. Some farmers in the city adapted to novel sales channels, but 22% claimed that obtaining inputs became difficult. No municipal support was provided to UA in Sao Paulo, and pre-existing issues were exacerbated. Work on community gardens decreased, but no garden permanently closed. Post COVID-19, UA will have the challenge of maintaining local food chains established during the pandemic. Due to the increase in the price of inputs and the lack of technical assistance, governmental efforts should be implemented to support UA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据