Contents - Previous - Next

This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at

Community food production in cities of the developing nations
Isabel Wade

Urban Resource Systems, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA

Three conditions affecting many developing countries point to the need for urban food self-reliance programmes:
- a growing dependence on food and fuel imports [1],
- an increasing number of poor urban dwellers [2],
- a declining ability to supply their inhabitants' food requirements through domestic production [3].

These conditions require long-term, comprehensive strategies that maximize and enhance the productive capacity of local ecosystems to produce food and energy, that recycle wastes and protect and improve water resources, and that encourage resource-conserving modes of transportation and life-style. Such strategies are beginning to evolve in some cities. For example, Lae, Papua New Guinea, began to implement a resource-conserving strategy in the late 1 970s, including urban agriculture and forestry as well as biogas production, composting, and development of solar-energy opportunities. In the United States, such a programme is being developed in the city of St. Paul, Minnesota.

In the short term, however, food is a daily, vital necessity. It is essential that city officials and others involved in addressing the needs of the poor understand the urgency of the food crisis for residents of slums and squatter areas. In most cases it is not because the resources are lacking in some absolute sense that the poor cannot meet their food needs, but because they do not control those resources. Consequently, direct production by the poor in cities is essential because their lack of food is often a problem of access and not just a question of supply. Self-help production provides either immediate access to food grown or income to purchase it.


Efforts to produce food in the community are already under way in many cities worl-dwide. In fact, these efforts frequently move ahead despite the best intentions of planning officials bent on "modernizing" their city by removing any vestiges of "backward" activities. In some cities, citizen food production has become quite extensive. In Lusaka, Zambia, over 50 per cent of the residents in squatter areas surveyed were found to have home or distant gardens 141. In Kathmandu, Nepal, about 33 per cent of the fruit and vegetable needs of the city are estimated to be met by household production [5]. In Suva, Fiji, approximately 50 per cent of the land of the 30-square km peninsula where the capital is located is estimated to be under community cultivation [6].

Food production even in very small spaces can be significant. For example, surprisingly high yields were obtained in model small-space home gardens developed in California (1976), Puerto Rico (1978), Hawaii (1978, 1981), and Taiwan (1982). The experiments produced yields ranging from 6 to 15 kg of vegetables per square metre, or the equivalent of 66 to 165 tonnes per hectare. In comparison, world average yields reported by the FAO for rice are only 2.8 tonnes per hectare, and for carrots only 22.6 tonnes per hectare.


Given the need for the poor to produce food and the potential of intensive gardening to provide both food and income, it is important to consider ways to facilitate self-help production projects. In reviewing a wide range of community-based urban agriculture activities, it is apparent that often the most basic elements of production (e.g., land, water, seeds) are lacking and this prevents poor communities from initiating gardening efforts.

In addition to community interest, it is essential that the key ingredients for gardening be available if a project is to succeed: land, water, seeds and seedlings, tools (fencing and equipment), and fertilizers. It is usually the government that controls much of the available vacant land in cities that could be used for gardening, as well as water resources.

Each community must develop its own solution for securing and controlling the necessary elements for food production. It is useful, however, to consider how several specific communities were able to obtain the required elements in starting their projects. Three case studies of community-based food production analyse projects in Quezon City, Philippines; Lusaka, Zambia; and Mexico City, Mexico.


Quezon City, the former official capital of the Philippines, constitutes part of metropolitan Manila. In 1980 Matalahib barrio in the centre of town contained two desolate squatter communities that were the home of approximately 400 families. Housing in the barrio was substandard. The only source of water was one over-used public faucet. Another problem was considerable fighting between the squatter groups, with nightly battles on a parcel of rubble-strewn noman's-land between the housing communities.

In April 1980 two Quezon City policemen whose jurisdiction included Matalahib barrio decided to organize a community food garden on the vacant land with the hope that this would reduce the level of violence in the area. In addition, the officers believed the project would bring the communities together to work on the garden and provide needed food for the squatters.

The site was owned by the government's National Housing Administration, which gave permission to use the land for community gardening. In June 1980 the police arranged for bulldozers to be brought in to clear the rubble off the future garden, a process that took two weeks and produced numerous truckloads of masonry and debris. The total area (1.5 hectares) was divided into plots of 1 x 10 metres, and the ground was turned to form raised beds.

Once the garden was established, the police continued to support the project by assigning one policeman to work with each family that expressed an interest in having its own plot. The officers worked in their spare time in the evenings and on Saturdays. Their assistance was augmented by the technical advice of a local non-governmental agency, the Earthmen Society. The Earthmen provided gardening advice, helped to bring in agricultural experts from the University of the Philippines, and generated attention in the local media.

Originally, seeds were obtained from a government storage facility. When those failed to grow, gifts of better quality seeds were solicited from private companies. Good seeds were also collected from discarded vegetables at nearby markets. The first crops included pechay (Chinese cabbage), mustard, sweetpotato greens, kangkong (water convolvulus), and beans; additional crops for the second planting included eggplant, sitao (cowpeas), okra, and several other greens. Production soon exceeded the residents' needs. A lively trade in fresh garden vegetables, selling at half the normal market prices, began on the street fronting the garden.

In addition to vegetables, the gardeners decided to plant ipilipil (Leucaena leucocephala) around the perimeter to provide fuel wood, the principal fuel for cooking in the barrio. Eventually, the enthusiastic gardeners even added an area for raising pigs. The pigs and the Leucaena leaves were helpful in fertilizing the garden plots. Vegetable refuse and any other organic wastes from the vicinity provided other low cost fertilizers.

The Manila area has an average annual rainfall of 2,085 mm, falling primarily between May and November. The only other source of water available to the Matalahib gardeners at first was the standpipe across the street from the garden. Consequently, the police arranged for fire department trucks to bring water to the site each afternoon for a number of weeks until the rainy season started. Watering was done by hand, using watering cans. After the rainy season, the police arranged for water hook-ups for the garden site.

Large tools and machines for the project such as a tractor and bulldozer were provided by the University of the Philippines at Los Banos and by the Quezon City government. Smaller hand tools were provided by the participants, who made a variety of implemeets from scrap materials or used kitchen knives, sticks, and so on. Better tools were requested from the government but were never received. Fencing materials were also scavenged by the community from the neighbourhood or their homes.

No paid staff assisted the project, but the policeman assigned to assist each family provided enormous encouragement to the gardeners in getting started. Initial gardening techniques were improved with the technical assistance of an agricultural expert from the University. The methods he suggested both to improve productivity and to reduce water loss in the hottest months involved dense plantings and staggered plantings. The latter allowed crops to mature at different times rather than all at once, thus providing an extended harvest period.

Technical assistance was provided by the police and agricultural experts. In addition, the Earthmen Society played a key role in securing seeds and materials and providing technical expertise for the garden. Its members visited frequently, and one, who was also a local news columnist, wrote a piece about the residents' efforts which led to additional support for the garden. Unfortunately, all the media coverage and even the eventual support of the Quezon City Council did not prevent the National Housing Authority, which owned the parcel, from deciding to convert the site to commercial use.

In the fall of 1982 bulldozers once again appeared at Matalahib, this time to clear the land for a warehouse. The residents put up an initial struggle, but were unsuccessful in keeping the site. The two squatter communities have returned to their previous squabbling, and crime once again is on the rise in the area.


Urban agriculture has been an important part of city life in Lusaka for nearly two decades [5, 7]. The amount of cultivation has risen considerably in response to Zambia's severe economic problems since the mid-1970s and to the government's efforts to encourage urban food production. As early as 1977, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, the President of Zambia, appealed to Lusaka's residents to help ease the country's economic crisis by growing more of their own food. Today, the Zambian government has instructed all urban councils to help their residents find land for food production. The country's new slogan is, "Eat what you grow and grow what you eat."

Lusaka has not always had a progressive attitude toward urban agriculture. Until 1978 the city enforced ''noncultivation" laws that prohibited gardening on vacant land within the city. These laws had frequently been used to justify the destruction of corn crops on land not belonging to the cultivator. The rationale was that such crop production created a "health hazard" because of the breeding of mosquitoes and the possible spread of malaria. A decision not to enforce the non-cultivation laws greatly increased the amount of food production throughout the city.

In addition to increased community cultivation of "distant gardens" on vacant land, two programmes to encourage home garden production were initiated in the late 1970s with the assistance of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) and UNICEF. The second programme, in the township of Jack Extension, was begun by AFSC in 1978 1980. The AFSC staff and a local co-ordinator helped to secure a 20-hectare plot adjacent to the township's housing area. Technical assistance on production methods was provided, and the programme's nutritionists worked with the community to improve knowledge of nutrition and the benefits of home produce. Seeds and fertilizers were provided by the project organizers.

The AFSC terminated their involvement in the project once it was off the ground, and the leadership was assumed entirely by the local co-ordinator, who formed a non-governmental organization, Human Settlements of Zambia (HUZA), in 1982 to continue the work. This organization works in low-income settlements throughout Lusaka and carries out a variety of projects, with financial support from European church groups. One of HUZA's biggest food-production projects is in Jack Extension, with 200 households involved in the pilot programme started by the AFSC.

Jack Extension

HUZA hired project staff who lived in Jack Extension to work with the community to help them prepare the soil and start the gardens. Staff also visited the gardens regularly after they were established to offer further technical assistance as necessary. Each household had its own garden plot, on land either owned by them or lent by the Lusaka City Council. In less than three months HUZA located and secured land for families without garden space. The 200 plots are each 15 x 20 metros.

The soil is fertilized primarily with chicken and other animal manures from the area and compost, although chemical fertilizers have also been used occasionally.

Lusaka has an annual rainfall of over 800 mm, falling primarily between November and March. During the remaining seven months of the year, additional water is supplied by each household as needed. The gardens are watered with watering cans and hoses. Those who have gardens near taps have made irrigation ditches to collect escaping water and direct it toward their crops. For those with no running water, a community standpipe is located nearby. The project pays 350 kwacha per month for water.

Some seeds are donated. Additional seed is purchased by project staff and sold to participants at cost. Usually, after the first crop, the gardeners collect their own seeds. The most common crops grown are rape, cabbage, tomatoes, pumpkins, beans, carrots, okra, and maize. Most of the produce is grown for home consumption; surplus is usually sold.

Tools are generally provided by project participants. The most commonly used tools are hoes, picks, and shovels. Larger tools, such as wheelbarrows, have been lent to the project by a private agency. Some, but not all, of the gardens are fenced. Fencing was obtained locally and made by the participants from poles and grass.

In addition to the gardens at Jack Extension, local residents, in co-operation with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), have planted 12,000 fruit and shade trees at homes, schools, clinics, and other locations throughout Lusaka.


The world's most populated city presents some unique problems for those attempting food production. Not only is available space at a premium, air pollution severe, and rainfall only moderate (746 mm per year), but the soil is often salty because much of the city is located on the former bed of Lake Texcoco. The Mexican system of food production was gradually transformed over the past two decades into an export industry geared to meet the demand of developed countries in the north (especially the United States) for animal protein and out-of-season produce. Consequently, fresh produce in the Federal District (Mexico City) has become more expensive and must come from distant rural areas in Mexico.

The population of the Valley of Mexico (encompassing the Federal District and portions of the surrounding states) now requires nearly 25,000 tonnes of food per day, and an overwhelming majority of this amount is imported from outside the Valley. By the year 2000 it is estimated that the need will grow to 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes daily. These requirements and the serious economic crisis confronting the country have spurred the interest of both the government and non-governmental agencies in promoting community-based gardening efforts throughout the city, especially in low-income areas.

In the spring of 1984 a unique community gardening project was begun in a poor area of Mexico City (Ecatepec) using hydroponics (soilless agriculture) as an initial technique for coping with the area's salty soil problem.

Colonia Mexico Revolucionario, Mexico City

Ecatepec is a municipality in the northern portion of the Federal District, on land that was part of Lake Texcoco. It is a new suburb that began as a squatter area but has now become "official" and receives some infrastructure support from the government. in addition, a government housing agency for the district, Accion Urbana de Integratión Social (AURIS), is assisting residents to obtain legal land tenure. The area is in various stages of construction, with only partial water and electric service. People are living in houses being built room by room as funds permit, some with electricity and many without. Water is obtained from communal faucets located by the roadside. There is no natural vegetation in the area, but containers of flowers and some vegetables and fruit trees have been placed in front of many houses.

In 1984 several governmental and non-governmental agencies began collaborating on a food production project in a colonia of Ecatepec called Mexico Revolucionario. A local non-governmental group, Promoción del Desarollo Populare (POP), provided classes on nutrition for interested residents. These classes helped to generate enthusiasm for the idea of a school garden. While the plans never materialized, 1,000 square metros of land were made available by AURIS for a gardening project.

A second government agency involved in regularizing land tenure in the Federal District, CRESEM, became interested in the area and made one of its community workers (promotora) available to assist in organizing a project. The worker felt that food production would be a good project in light of the rising cost of food in Mexico City. Research indicated that families in the colonia were spending an average of 30 to 50 per cent of their income on food, with the lowest income residents spending as much as 60 per cent.

Hydroponics was selected as the production method because of the problems with the soil in the Ecatepec area and because AURIS, which had had some previous experience with the system, suggested its use to the CRESEM organizer. The Mexican Hydroponic Society was also willing to provide the necessary chemicals and technical support for the start-up of a pilot project.

At first the garden consisted of four long hydroponic beds constructed from concrete blocks (used in housing construction), lined with plastic and filled with lava rock, which is abundant and inexpensive in the Mexico City area. Besides the lava, the project tried sand and peat moss as growing media, but neither worked very well and peat moss was very expensive. Subsequently, the project added vertical hydroponic beds, which were large tubes of plastic filled with lava with holes along the sides for seedlings to be placed in. These were the least successful, although items under plastic tents grew better than those planted in tubes exposed to the sun and dust.

Seedlings were started in the greenhouse from seeds provided by the Hydroponic Society. Eventually, seeds were secured from crops produced and also purchased with funds provided by a non-governmental organization, Partners of the Americas.

Some crops, such as lettuce, were relatively successful, while others, such as tomatoes, were stunted. Greater success was achieved with crops that were shielded by plastic "tunnels" from the strong sun and the dust. Crops were selected on the basis of marketability and, besides lettuce, included onions, radishes, huazontle (a salad green), and Swiss chard. All crops were sold to nearby markets. Revenues were shared equally by the group.

A water tank was constructed by the community to store water for the garden. Water was obtained by tapping into a nearby pipe, an "unofficial" donation from the government. Watering and fertilizing are combined in hydroponic systems, a process that proved difficult for the community to control. The hydroponic plant-nutrition formula came in premixed packages and was mixed with water in a large barrel.

The formula was very expensive and had to be mixed accurately or it damaged the plants. Each plant was han-dirrigated individually with small watering cans. This was done daily, and the leached water was subsequently recycled for future waterings.

In June 1985 Partners of the Americas provided a small grant (US$5,000) to a local non-governmental agency in Mexico City, SERVICASA, which had begun working with the residents at the behest of the promotora from CRESEM. They provided production materials, including the hydroponic formula, seeds, plastic for the tubes, and plastic for the mini greenhouses. The funds were also used to pay the small salary of the promotora from SERVICASA to organize courses for the community on subjects ranging from managing the hydroponic systems to nutrition. The classes were aimed at the women and children of the colonia.

The project involved 30 families in the area. In the fall of 1985 a split in the community created by an election caused the decline of the garden, as leaders vied over control of the project. In addition, the difficulties of managing the hydroponic system and the various crop failures had helped to create a lack of enthusiasm for a production method that was beyond the economic means of the community to manage on their own. By the summer of 1986 little remained of the gardening effort in Mexico Revolucionario; however, several spin-off projects in nearby colonies were under way using traditional agricultural techniques.


The three gardening projects reviewed in this study were chosen because they are typical of many similar efforts by community groups in cities around the world. They also are located in three entirely different geographical settings and are in cities of widely different populations: Lusaka, 600,000; metropolitan Manila, 9 million; and Mexico City, 18 million. In addition, the purpose of gardening in the projects varied; the focus in Manila and Lusaka was on produce for home consumption, while in Mexico City it was entirely on income generation. These differences indicate that food production can take place in almost any location, for a variety of purposes, and in cities of all sizes.

Of greater interest than the obvious differences between the three projects is the question of how each was able to overcome the key obstacles to self-help food production. The most important points of comparison in this framework are those linked to physical factors such as land and water, capital requirements (e.g., tools, equipment, fencing, fertilizers), and technical assistance (either organizational or agricultural). It is interesting to consider the differences and similarities between the three projects from this perspective (table 1).

TABLE 1. Key characteristics in three community food-production projects

  Quezon City Lusaka Mexico City
Land government-owned government, private government
Water rain, government rain, government government
Seeds donated, purchased donated, purchased donated, purchased
Toots/equipment community, university community non- government
Fencing community NA NA
Technical assistance government, non-government non- government government
Primary purpose home consumption home consumption, income income
Size (hectares) 1.5 20 0.10
Rainfall (mm per year) 2,050 800 764

The most obvious similarity is the dependence of each of these projects on the government to provide the gardening site and supplemental water. A review of additional projects in many other countries also indicates the importance of government support for these two elements of project initiation. Particularly as cities increase in size and pressures to use land for many purposes become more intense, government assistance in locating and providing parcels of land may be essential in initiating self-help food programmes. For example, it is interesting to note that the amount of land used in the projects ranged from 200 hectares in the smallest city (Lusaka) to 0.10 hectare in the largest (Mexico City).

Water is probably equally critical in promoting community-based food production programmes in most cities. Even in a location such as Manila, which receives over 2,000 mm of rainfall annually, supplemental water was needed for the Matalahib project during the dry season. In fact, in some cities, rainfall is so heavy during the rainy season that only limited food production takes place at all. In the Manila project, the government provided water by a weekly visit of a water truck; in Lusaka's project, supplemental water was secured from standpipes provided by the government; and in Mexico City it was indirectly provided by the government to the project when participants simply tapped into an existing water pipe to fill their storage tank.

A third key production element that is difficult to obtain in many countries is seed or seedlings to get started. In all three case studies, seed initially had to be donated either because it was not easily available in the community or because the project participants could not afford to buy it. It should be noted that the seed provided by the government for the Matalahib project turned out to be too old, a common problem. Securing seed through donations from the nongovernmental community, as was done in these three cases, seems to be a frequent approach of many gardening projects. Here again, however, seed imported from developed countries may be too old and, in addition, may be of inappropriate species or hybrids that do not reproduce their traits in the second year if seed is collected. The Matalahib approach of collecting seeds from spoiled produce obtained for free from the market is a useful tactic for community groups faced with no seed.

Meeting the capital requirements for specific tools or equipment was accomplished in different ways in each of the three projects. The project requiring the most elaborate equipment (Mexico City) was entirely dependent on the local hydroponic society and other non-governmental organizations to provide the necessary materials. On the other hand, in the two projects using traditional gardening techniques (Manila, Lusaka), all small tools were provided by project participants. These were usually simple instruments fabricated from available resources, or tools that served several purposes in the home (e.g., spoons or knives). Large tools or equipment for clearing or tilling the land had to be borrowed in both Manila and Lusaka.

Technical assistance varied. In Manila and Mexico City, assistance in organizing the project was provided by government agencies, and agricultural expertise was provided by the non-governmental community as well as by local universities. Both non government and government agencies included nutrition classes as part of their technical assistance in Mexico City and Lusaka.

All three projects, as well as many similar efforts in other cities, illustrate the need for effective technical assistance in self-help gardening efforts. Unfortunately, the assistance many groups receive is often misguided or even detrimental in terms of promoting self-reliance. For example, the promotora from the government housing agency in Mexico City and the key non-government organization involved were skilled community organizers but were not knowledgeable about agriculture. Consequently, the gardening technique selected "hydroponics) was based on only minimal information that they were given by a proponent of hydroponics. Ultimately, the method was very difficult for the community to manage, and helped to create a sense of failure among participants that led to the demise of the effort.

Even the project in Mexico City, however, should be considered in the context of its accomplishments given a very difficult environmental setting and the selection of an inappropriate production technique for a low-income community. Local residents not only organized themselves to build the hydroponic beds but managed to generate enough produce to sell despite problems in mixing the nutrient formula. Participants also devised a clever technique to stretch the nutrient formula by watering the lava rock in advance so that less formula would be required when applied in the second watering.

Two of the three projects considered, Manila and Mexico City, are now defunct. Nonetheless, all of the projects provide important lessons for policy-makers faced with the need to improve food supplies in low-income urban communities and/or to improve nutritional levels. The problem of access by the poor to basic production elements, especially land and water, indicates that some degree of government support is needed if self-help food production is to be realized in many instances. Once given this assistance, it is apparent low-income communities and the nongovernmental community can accomplish a great deal on their own.


In designing a strategy to meet basic food needs, some initiatives should clearly receive higher priority for implementation than others, depending on the specific conditions of a city. Because space is a critical requirement in agriculture, progressive land-use policies must form the backbone of programmes to encourage production now and in the future.

Consequently, cities can begin the process of improving food self-reliance by reviewing existing landuse policies and instituting new ones that encourage rather than discourage food production. Four basic guidelines will be helpful in this process: plan for temporary land use, multiple use of land, maximum use of land, and upgrading of low-income areas.

Indeed, poor communities already operate within these guidelines as much as possible but are frequently stymied by city policies that discourage self help. City governments have spent millions of dollars on efforts at removing slums instead of assisting the poor with attempts to improve their communities.

Policies to promote temporary use of open space can be of significant value in fostering home or market gardening. Any available land, especially that located near poor communities, can produce much-needed food or generate income for the poor, even for just a season.

Planning for mixed land use in cities also makes good sense in the short term and for the future. Many existing uses of space in cities are inefficient and could easily be combined with gardening to increase the output from suitable parcels. Good opportunities for gardening exist at many schools, factories, churches, military installations. airports, and government agency headquarters and along transportation rights of way. Multiple use of urban space should not be regarded as a stopgap measure to be applied only until food supplies are adequate but rather as a long term strategy to improve economic efficiencies per land unit and also to improve the aesthetic quality of commercial and residential areas.

Strategies to promote community-based food production should encompass policies to require production space in new housing developments, including rooftop and balcony gardening where feasible. Programmes to assist the modification of existing housing or even office structures to allow ground level or upper-level intensive gardening can also be initiated at minimal cost. Finally, city officials can encourage food production in the upgrading process carried out officially or unofficially in low-income communities. Design assistance can be provided to accommodate food production in the rearranged community.

A second area of policy with tremendous impact on agricultural production is water control. Planning of drainage, flood control, water transport, and water distribution provides governments with strong tools to maintain or change agricultural conditions within urban areas. For community-based production, the availability of even a temporary water source such as a water truck can make the difference in realizing a gardening project. To encourage production in high need areas, including squatter areas intended for later development, the provision of a public water tap to gardening sites is a necessary requirement for year-round gardening.

At a larger scale of production, government water policies can provide importance incentives for market gardening. The cost of water to agricultural holdings on the urban fringe can be subsidized; programmes to assist farmers with irrigation and drainage needs can encourage production by market gardeners; and water-transport systems can be established to facilitate delivery of food from farms to market.

A third critical policy area for agriculture in cities is waste management. Low-cost fertilizer is in great demand by both home and market gardeners. At the same time, the problem of waste disposal in many cities has become enormous. Yet much of the solid waste in cities of developing countries is composed largely of organic material that could be composted and used for agricultural purposes. Microcomposting facilities could be established at community garden sites, while larger processing centres, including waste treatment ponds for animal and perhaps human waste, could be located at farms on the city outskirts. Farmers would thus have processed waste as fertilizer.

The impetus needed for these kinds of programmes and policies does not depend on arousing community interest in food production. The poor are already taking the initiative to produce their own food wherever possible in cities around the world, and market gardeners will produce food as long as it is profitable to do so. Nor are large sums of money or new government institutions required. Rather, a reorientation of existing resources and programmes to include agricultural planning in urban areas is necessary, together with more flexible land-use, water, and waste-management policies that promote community food production. Production alone cannot solve all the problems of urban food systems, but it can improve the access of millions of urban poor to needed food supplies.


1. J.E. Austin, ''Confronting Urban Malnutrition: The Design for Urban Programs," World Bank Occasional Papers, no. 28 (John's Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Md., USA, 1980)

2. P. McAuslan, Urban Land and Shelter for the Poor (Earth scan, London, 1985).

3. Food and Agriculture Organization, Ceres, 98 (17): 30 (1984).

4. M. Hoek-Smit, "Community Participation in Squatter Up grading in Zambia" (American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia, Pa., USA, 1982).

5. D. Zurick, "Food Production in the Urban Environment of Katmandu, Nepal," unpublished paper IResource Systems Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 1983).

6. R. Thaman, "Urban Agriculture and Home Gardening in Fiji: A Direct Road to Development and Independence," paper presented to the Fiji Society, Suva, Fiji, 27 June 1978.

7. R. Ledogar, "Food and Survival in Lusaka's Self-help Town ships," Carneto de l'Enfance, 43: 57-62 (1978).


Contents - Previous - Next