Did This Study Actually Condemm Home Gardens?

“Gardeners are fuming about a study that found produce from urban farms has a high carbon footprint” (click to read)” is a headline that caught my attention this morning.

Gardeners shouldn’t fume, they should read the actual study (click to read) and not depend on the translation of a news outlet that wants to incite enough anger to encourage people to read the article. I’ve seen this study cited in several articles, all of which stir up the same sentiment that home & community gardens are under attack. THEY AREN’T, at least not by this study. People who get into growing their own food because of a concern for the environment should be willing to hear how they can improve lessen their impact instead of a knee-jerk reaction that they’re being attacked.

The study points out that urban gardening has a lot of infrastructure that commercial ag doesn’t have, and that infrastructure has a carbon cost. Raised beds, garden/potting sheds, use of municipal drinking water sources… these tend to be things that are either not utilized in commercial agriculture, or in the case of structures, in farming they tend to be utilized for a lot longer than in urban settings.

This article is NOT a condemnation of urban agriculture; in fact, it cites several cases where urban gardens actually outproduce commercial agriculture. The authors URGE the preservation of food-growing land in urban areas and make some common sense suggestions for improvement, such as utilizing rainwater, building infrastructure like sheds & raised beds to last longer (having to replace a raised bed in 5 years has a higher cost than building it to last 20 years), and proper composting techniques (improperly aerated compost piles generate methane, and this type of compost is often seen more in home gardens than in commercial ag.)

Scroll to Top