A recent study analyzed the carbon footprint of urban agricultural sites in comparison to their more conventional agricultural counterparts. The study found that while 43% of urban farms have a smaller carbon footprint than conventional farms, food from the remaining 57% of urban farms and gardens leaves a significantly greater carbon footprint — up to six times greater than conventional farms. The study was organized by researchers at universities around the world — including the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, University Paris-Saclay and University of Kent School of Architecture and Planning — and the Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development.
The data used in the study was collected by citizen scientists, or members of the general public trained in the methods required for the city, from 73 urban-agricultural sites across France, Poland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. The researchers studied the environmental impacts of three kinds of urban farms: high-production urban farms, volunteer-led community gardens, which have a social-impact orientation, and individual gardens.
In an interview with The Michigan Daily, Rackham student Jason Hawes, a co-lead author of the study, said the infrastructure of certain urban agriculture sites influenced how carbon-intensive they were, even more so than conventional agriculture.
@media ( min-width: 300px ){.newspack_global_ad.scaip-1{min-height: 250px;}}@media ( min-width: 728px ){.newspack_global_ad.scaip-1{min-height: 90px;}}
“The primary contributor to environmental impact was infrastructure on the sites, the things that people built in order to enable food growing, so that could be raised beds, pathways or garden sheds,” Hawes said.
Hawes also said there are lesser, but still substantial, negative environmental effects from certain supplies such as compost and water irrigation. He identified three practices that can make an urban agricultural site more carbon-friendly, including treating sites as permanent rather than temporary and reusing urban waste. Hawes also said though it seems counterintuitive to grow relatively carbon-intensive foods on-site, it can also reduce the carbon footprint of urban farms because there is no need to transport foods with a high carbon footprint to a secondary location.
“If you look for examples of food products that are grown in