Cited by 302Urban Agriculture and SustainabilityLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems

The Role of Urban Agriculture as a Nature-Based Solution: A Review for Developing a Systemic Assessment Framework

Open access
Artmann, Martina, Sartison, Katharina·2018·Sustainability

Abstract

Urbanization and achieving sustainable agriculture are both major societal challenges. By reducing food miles and connecting people with nature, food cultivation in cities has several major advantages. However, due to further urban development (peri-) urban agriculture (UPA) is under threat. To strengthen UPA, we argue for considering UPA as a nature-based solution (NbS) supporting systemic approaches for societal challenges. However, academic knowledge on UPA’s contribution to various societal challenges of urbanization is still fragmented. This study addresses the gap by conducting a systemic literature review, incorporating 166 academic articles focusing on the global north. The results of the review show that UPA contributes to ten key societal challenges of urbanization: climate change, food security, biodiversity and ecosystem services, agricultural intensification, resource efficiency, urban renewal and regeneration, land management, public health, social cohesion, and economic growth. The value of UPA is its multifunctionality in providing social, economic and environmental co-benefits and ecosystem services. When implementing UPA, social, institutional, economic, technical, geographical, and ecological drivers and constraints need to be considered. To upscale UPA successfully, the study develops an integrative assessment framework for evaluating the implementation and impact efficiency of UPA. This framework should be tested based on the example of edible cities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su10061937

Cites

176 of 176 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is inconsistency in science-policy integration and knowledge transfer at strategic and urban planning levels, as well as limited evaluation of how NbS generate or contribute to financial benefits.

    “There is related inconsistency in science–policy integration and knowledge transfer at strategic and urban planning levels (26, 48, 56, 59, 63, 66–68) as well as limited evaluation of how NbS generate or contribute to financial benefits (69).”

    From Global synthesis and regional insights for mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions (2025) · cites this paper as [63]

    Section 3.2.10 (page unavailable) says only 12 reviewed papers addressed the economic benefits of urban and peri-urban agriculture, while research more often addressed environmental or social aspects. This supports a relative gap in research on economic benefits, but the paper does not establish limited evaluation of how NbS generally generate financial benefits. Citation 69 is attached to the financial-benefits clause, not the preceding science–policy clause. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Positive benefits of NbS on human well-being from engaging with gardening and urban agriculture and employing NbS to lower health risks and vulnerabilities are supported.

    “This is further supported by positive benefits of NbS on human well-being (47, 63) from engaging with gardening and urban agriculture in general (22, 63) and employing NbS to lower health risks and vulnerabilities (30).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Artmann, M., & Sartison, K.
Affiliations
Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (DE)
Corresponding author
Artmann, Martina
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-06-09
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
1937
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808231215
Cited by
302
References
176
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2
FWCI
19.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (AR 1121/1-1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Urban Agriculture and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Innovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
Keywords
urban agriculture, peri-urban agriculture, nature-based solutions, urbanization, food security, ecosystem services, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, agricultural intensification, resource efficiency, urban regeneration, land management, social cohesion, edible cities, co-benefits

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review