Can everyone be an Urban Farmer?

can everyone be an urban farmer?

Rachel Ng

Can everyone be an Urban Farmer?

Factors enabling the adoption of an agricultural mindset in Singapore local residents

NG Q.R.R

An IRP submitted for the degree of Master of Science in

Urban Science, Policy and Planning Supervisor: Dr. Jose Rafael Martinez Garcia

2021

This work was created using LATEX typesetting language in the Overleaf environment (www.overleaf.com).

Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to express utmost gratitude to my supervisor, mentor and advisor - Dr. Rafael Martinez, whose expertise pushed me to sharpen my thinking and brought my work to a higher level. This piece of work would not have been possible without his generous time and guidance.

I would like to extend appreciation for course instructor Dr. Olivia Nicol for her boundless encouragement and consistent advice throughout the entire IRP process.

Additionally, a word of gratitude goes to Singapore University of Technology and Design, Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities for the continuous support throughout the entire MUSPP program.

Moreover, I would like to thank fellow peers - Mr. Akbar Makani, Mr. Huang Yimin, and Ms. Shaila Narendran for their opinions in selected portions of this work.

Furthermore, I am indebted to the many study participants who shared considerable amount of time and thoughts. The inputs have definitely shaped this piece of study in one way or another.

Last but not least, I wish to acknowledge the great love received from my family, and friends. They kept me going on and this work would not have been possible without them.

iii

Abstract This work holds great importance in increasing the resilience of local food systems, thus contributing to the nation’s defence strategy. We would study the enabling factors for the adoption of an agricultural mindset in local residents; as we hypothesise that Singapore’s urban farming community has the potential to support the adoption of an agricultural mindset but is yet to be fully explored. In addition, many feel little for the need to grow edible crops [1]. Therefore, some interventions may be necessary to allow most local residents to adopt the agricultural mindset.

Keywords Urban Farming; Urban Agriculture; Urban Planning; Singapore; Community Farm

v

Contents 1 Why?

1

1.1 the Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

1.1.1 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

1.1.1.A What does it mean to adopt the agricultural mindset? . . . . . . . . . . .

3

1.1.1.B Backyard Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

1.1.1.C Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

1.2 the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

1.2.1 Resilience of Singapore food systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

1.2.2 Backyard Farming in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

2 How?

7

2.1 the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2.1.1 Site Observations and Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2.1.2 Individual Experimental Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2.1.3 Social Media Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2.1.4 Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

2.1.5 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

3 What?

13

3.1 the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

3.1.1 Mindset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

3.1.2 Time & Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

3.1.3 Built Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

3.1.4 Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.1.5 Cost-effectiveness of adoption (and commercial produce) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.1.6 Technical Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

3.1.7 Community Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

vii

4 What?

23

4.1 the Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

4.1.1 Urban Farming co-operative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

4.1.2 UF Movement - “Farming starts with me!!” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

4.1.3 Community Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

4.1.4 Farming @ Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

4.1.5 Latent Food Bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

4.1.6 Long term design and planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

5 What?

35

5.1 the Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Bibliography

39

A Interview

47

A.1 Socio-demographic profile of interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

A.2 List of interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

A.3 List of informal interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

A.4 Interview Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

B Survey

51

B.1 Socio-demographic profile of survey respondents (SV1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

B.2 Socio-demographic profile of survey respondents (SV2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

B.3 Socio-demographic profile of survey respondents (SV3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

B.4 Survey 1 (SV1) - Questions and Responses

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

B.5 Survey Guidelines (SV2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

B.6 Survey 3 (SV3) - Questions and Responses

54

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C Coding of Data

57

C.1 Stages of becoming an Urban Farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

C.2 “Emergent” [2] categories of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

viii

List of Figures 3.1 Activities at Residential areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

3.2 SV1 - Mindset towards Urban Farming (116 pax) (for more details, see fig. B.1) . . . . . .

16

3.3 SV2 - Emergent categories of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

3.4 Activities at community areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

4.1 Urban Farming co-operative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

4.2 Estimated yield of vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

4.3 Long term designs [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

B.1 SV1 - Mindset towards Urban Farming (116 pax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

B.2 SV3 - Response towards enablers (152 pax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

ix

x

List of Tables 2.1 Types of interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

A.1 Socio-demographic profile of interviewees (33pax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

A.2 List of interviewees (non-exhaustive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

A.3 List of informal interviewees (non-exhaustive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

A.4 Interview Guidelines [4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

B.1 Socio-demographic profile of SV1 respondents (116pax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

B.2 Socio-demographic profile of SV2 respondents (130pax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

B.3 Socio-demographic profile of SV3 respondents (184pax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

B.4 Survey Guidelines [4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

C.1 Stages of becoming an Urban Farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

C.2 Emergent categories of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

xi

xii

Acronyms SFA

Singapore Food Authority

GSB

Greening Schools for Biodiversity

HDB

Housing Development Board

NParks

National Parks Board

NS

National Service

PUB

Public Utilities Board

PSUF

Punggol Shore Urban Farm

RC

Residents’ Committee

SLA

Singapore Land Authority

UA

Urban Agriculture

UF

Urban Farming

URA

Urban Redevelopment Authority

xiii

xiv

1 Why?

Contents 1.1 the Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

1.2 the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

1

2

1.1

the Introduction

Humans has been stressing Earth’s systems at an unimaginable rate through ruthless exploitation of natural resources and excretion of waste, leading to irreversible climatic changes, and biodiversity losses etc [5]. This worrying situation thus begs the question of how are cities going to secure enough food within their boundaries to feed their inhabitants, for which Urban Agriculture (UA) has been proposed to tackle [6].

1.1.1

Research Objectives

It is first hypothesised that Singapore’s community of people involved in urban farming activities (urban farming community) has the potential to support the adoption of an agricultural mindset but currently is yet to be fully examined, explored, expanded and leveraged on. Because, it is hypothesised that the Singapore population is increasingly wealthy, individualised and digitalised, and have came to expect food to be in pre-packaged and pre-cooked forms, thus, feel little for the need to grow edible crops. When one is said to have adopted an agricultural mindset, it is hypothesised that it could contribute to increasing resilience of the Singapore local food system, thus contributing to the nation’s defence strategy. And, we hypothesise that backyard farming is a means to increase the population of local residents with an agricultural mindset.

1.1.1.A

What does it mean to adopt the agricultural mindset?

Having adopted an agricultural mindset, one is said to have gained awareness about the importance of backyard farming and is at least somewhat engaged in the urban farming conversation. S/he could be classified as an Urban Farmer through a direct engagement in backyard farming activities (for at least 6 months). Or, another example of having adopted the agricultural mindset is through an indirect involvement in urban farming conversation like supporting locally grown produce arising from backyard farming activities or local urban farms. In other words, when an agricultural mindset is properly cultivated in local residents, these like-minded members of the urban farming community will have the ability to collectively provide fresh food together with a range of other tangible and intangible benefits.

3

1.1.1.B Backyard Farming

In Singapore, urban farms have different social goals, economic yields or even production outputs. So, first thing first, based on the idea of profit and non-profit urban farming in cities, Brown’s et al. [7] three types of urban farms would be re-categorised into two main types of food production. Firstly, commercial farms are generally located on the most conducive sites where all the productive farming takes place, and are usually operated by paid employees for profits with high output yields [8]. Secondly, non-profit Backyard Farming will include: (a) Community Gardens which are non-profit and relies heavily on volunteer operations; and (b) Residential Gardens which are spaces related to residential areas, including home balconies and patio, residential front-yards and backyards, public housing common corridors and void decks etc. Therefore, Backyard Farmers are Singapore local residents involved in the process of growing horticulture crops in their backyards.

1.1.1.C

Limitations

Nonetheless, we like to put forth several limitations in this proposal to be corrected or avoided in a full-scale study. First, the period of the study could be extended to at least 6 months long for richer data collection so as to take into account the situational factors like Covid-19, which could have affected peoples’ habits during the period of study. Second, due to the design of the study, the younger age group (i.e., age group 13 - 21) was left out. Third, this study is limited as it was designed with a bottomup approach to collect rich data, and thus the recommendations were designed around inputs from stakeholders that constitute an urban farming co-operative, therefore it lacked views from governmental stakeholders, urban planners or policymakers. Finally, the skewed age group of online survey respondents due to the fact that the elderly population (age group 55 - 70 and >70) who are less present on online platforms for which we accommodated for, by conducting in-person interviews.

Henceforth, this exploratory work through literature review, will first seek to highlight the importance of individual efforts contributing to the resilience of local food systems and the policy vacuums in area of the backyard farming . Subsequently, we will study local residents and their mindsets towards urban farming. Lastly, through uncovering enabling factors for the adoption of an agricultural mindset, some interventions will be designed. This will be backed by findings from surveys, interviews and field work over a period of slightly over 4 months (April 2021 to August 2021). This work hopes to provide a spectrum of actionable recommendations for city planners, urban designers, and or local authorities facing similar constraints as the city of Singapore.

4

1.2 1.2.1

the Issue Resilience of Singapore food systems

More and more of the land was used up for residential, commercial or other purposes when Singapore undergone urbanisation. To date, Singapore produces only approximately 10% of the total food consumed, and has no desire to produce all the food it consumes [9]. Because “the government strategy was to ‘increase GDP, and have the means to purchase food, then we don’t have to worry because somebody will always have food to sell...and this is fine if there is no disruption to the [food] production and supply chain’” - says Professor Paul Teng [10]. In fact, there was even one policy decision made to contain Urban Farming (UF) activities to about 1% of the total land area, thus greatly reducing Singapore’s local food production capacity and along with it, a generation of agricultural farmers and knowledge were wiped out [1]. Not to mention, the disturbances to local food supply systems like the 2008 food crisis [11] and especially so the recent Covid-19 pandemic proved to be an effective wake up call. Thus, allowing the local government to revisit its food supply diversification strategies: (a) Importing food from multiple sources; (b) Increasing local production; and (c) Growing food overseas. With steadfast planning and prudent investments, the local food sector can do much more to emulate the successful food steps of Singapore’s Water Story in order to achieve more resilience for Singapore’s local food systems [12].

Food Resilience, or resilience of a food system refers to the ability “to withstand perturbations to the food supply”, said Professor Paul Teng. Our work is especially interested in contributing to the area of local production, which falls under the Core Strategies of the AVA Food Security Roadmap for Singapore [13]. The local government have ambitiously set aside up to US$107 million [10] to increase local production and R&D activities, for example, the Food Fund [13], the Singapore Food Authority (SFA) ”30 by 30” [14], the Agri-Food corridor [15], the commercial rooftops urban farms [16], and even Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) LUSH 3.0 programme [17] which included rooftop farms as a type of the green landscape. Currently, Singapore is currently capable of producing 11,000 tonnes of vegetables (per annum) [9], which is equivalent to 12% of the 91,451 tonnes of leafy green vegetables consumed per year [18]. That means there is a need to produce an additional 80,451 tonnes of vegetables annually within the next 9 years to achieve that target.

And looking forward to year 2030, even if Singapore manages to produce 30% of food locally, great work is still required to buffer and to produce the other 70% [12]. The grand challenge of a resilient food system in Singapore is further ameliorated by the growing urban population, the ongoing ”tit-fortat” food tariffs [19], and competition from larger importers (i.e., Singapore accounts for only 0.8% global vegetable imports etc) [9]. Nonetheless, in 2019, Singapore was ranked the most food secure country by 5

Global Food Security Index (GFSI) [20]. However, Singapore dropped to the 19th position in 2020 when the “Natural Resources and Resilience” was included into the main index. Reportedly, some residents rushed to stock up on essentials or some even attempted to buy directly from the local farms when Malaysia announced a total lockdown [21]. Therefore, the small city-state once again demonstrated great vulnerabilities because of the high dependence on foreign import of produce for sustenance [22].

However, bringing back farming into Singapore is easier said than done, because of the high costs of maintaining and starting up commercial urban farms [23], notwithstanding the many uncertainties and risks, coupled with the low profit margins of leafy Asian greens [9]. Hence, it is critical to buffer against short-term supply chain disruptions by increasing resilience of our local food systems through ramping up the ability to produce more food on less land through unconventional methods.

1.2.2 Backyard Farming in Singapore Therefore, that would mean that not all local produce needs to be farmed in high-tech indoor commercial environments, nor does it have to be from conventional soil-based farms. It could simply be through more effective utilisation of our existing resources, be it at a backyard, at one’s residential areas or at a nearby community garden. Even recently, although there have been an increase of informal UF activities locally [24], there has been a lack in a holistic growth surrounding these backyard farming activities.

Nonetheless, there are 1,600 such community gardens and 40,000 gardening enthusiasts [25], along with National Parks Board (NParks) corridor gardening [26], Gardening with Edibles program [27], Community in Bloom initiatives [25], and school-based gardening activities [28]. These programs and spaces could be quickly adapted to productive food producing spaces [29] but is not yet fully explored.

Paradoxically, urban planners tend to think of UF as a messy business and have “little understanding of people’s need to grow food in cities” [30]. It could be due to the fact that many a times, non-profit urban farming is greatly underestimated because success is measured through material outputs and economic value [31], and is sometimes assumed as another means of poverty alleviation for the urban poor [32], leisure repose or recreation. Moreover, urbanisation has influenced lifestyles, with many city dwellers expecting food in pre-cooked and pre-packaged forms [1]. All in all, backyard farming in Singapore still sits in unregulated policy vacuums with inadequate funding.

6

2 How?

Contents 2.1 the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

9

8

2.1

the Approach

This section is focused on detailing the bottom-up data collection method to accessing the viability of backyard farming in increasing the resilience of local food systems and uncovering the factors which enable local residents to adopt an agricultural mindset. As such, Eisenhardt et al. [33] recommends an inductive methodology due to the complex nature of the study and the hard-to-measure outcomes of UF activities. To arrive at a more definitive conclusion, data was collected via multiple mixed methods (i.e. both online and offline methods) from a diverse demographic groups and stakeholders.

2.1.1

Site Observations and Fieldwork

Engaging in fieldwork and conducting observations on-site helps us to acclimatise with the UF community [34]. Throughout the process, fieldwork provides the opportunity to collect fresh new insights like non-verbal cues, interactions or even details that people cannot and will not express on the field or information not found on existing literature [35]. We approached fieldwork by putting on 5 different hats during site observations, which is to visit the various types of urban farms in Singapore (1) as a student through guided field trips; (2) as a consumer at a local farm bistro; (3) as a resident at a public housing estate; (4) as a volunteer at community gardens; (5) as a researcher. By studying the current users and uses of the urban farms on-site, we aim to be exposed to the different perspectives, revelations and epiphanies (read: motivations and challenges of UF) from the different stakeholders.

2.1.2

Individual Experimental Work

Research findings [36] has revealed that with deliberate farming, a garden plot (253ft2 ∼ = 23.5m2 ) could produce the daily recommended vegetables for 1 adult daily for 8 months, approximating to 3m2 for 1 adult for 1 month. Therefore, we will aim to translate the technical know-how of farming from literature into a practical experience by planting edibles at the common corridor of a public housing estate.

2.1.3

Social Media Ethnography

By conducting ethnography on social media platforms [37], we are able to observe participants and their behaviour directly in a neutral and natural way without having to physically travel to a field site during the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, the researcher recruited potential interviewees from diverse demographic groups. Our study would follow a passive ethnographic approach to trawl [38] a few Facebook 9

(Urban Farming) interest groups, relevant YouTube channels and LinkedIn platforms. The Facebook interest groups include ”Urban Farmers (Singapore)”, ”Plant Swap Singapore” and more. Overall, when combined with other data sources, it will yield sufficient cogency between what people say and what people actually do.

2.1.4

Surveys

We strategically chose descriptive surveys [39] to passively sample the local residents in place of a population census. After filtering, only 116 valid responses from SV1 (see fig. B.1 in appendix B), 130 responses from SV2 (see fig. 3.3) and 184 responses from SV3 remain (see fig. B.2 in appendix B).

First, SV1 was meant to understand the local residents’ perception of urban farming through a series of “yes” and “no” questions. Second, SV2 was designed to collect ideas about how to better enable local residents to adopt the agricultural mindset through an open-ended format (see appendix B.4 in appendix B). Third, SV3 was meant to understand preliminary impediments for the proposed recommendations. The surveys were designed in English and hosted on Office 365 Forms, then posted to relevant Telegram channels, urban farming Facebook interest groups and to our social network.

Because of the open-ended format, we first allowed categories to “emerge [naturally] from...data [collected]” [2], resulting in “HARD” and “SOFT” factors (see table C.2), prior to further analysis.

2.1.5

Interviews

A total of 26 interviews (i.e., 20 individual, 6 group interviews) were conducted with 33 interviewees (see table A.1 in appendix A). Questions were mainly designed to understand factors which have enabled and will enable local residents (i.e. both practitioners and non-practitioners) to adopt the agricultural mindset in Singapore. Interviewing local residents from a diverse demographics allowed us to better understand motivations and challenges from different aspects and perspectives (see table 2.1 below).

It is also worth noting that majority of the interviewees were conducted with residential farmers so as to understand factors that would enable the adoption of an agricultural mindset through backyard farming. Moreover, we scheduled interviews with a few non-practising residents to understand views from members outside the UF community. The socio-demographic profile of interviewees (i.e., age group and 10

if they consider themselves to be an Urban Farmer 1 ) are appended (see table A.1 in appendix A). When combined with data from other sources, it provides the researcher a strong data generalisation.

Interviewer and interviewee(s) mainly conversed in English with some interjection of Mandarin, dialect and Singlish; and was conducted via online platforms due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The participants will be presented with a digital copy of the participant information sheet prior to the interview and by proceeding with the interview they are consenting to participate in the study. Pseudonyms would be used if interviewee chooses to remain anonymous (see table A.2 in appendix A).

Group Academia Experts Commercial Social Enterprises Backyard Non-practising

Aspect Technical (theoretical) Technical (practical) Economic Economic, Social Social, Spatial Social, Spatial

Category of work E.g., Professors, Researchers E.g., Staff, Directors at commercial urban farms, and or local parks E.g., CEO, Directors, Managers of commercial farms E.g., CEO, Directors, Managers of social farms E.g., Residential farmers, Community farmers E.g., Aspiring urban farmers

Table 2.1: Types of interviewees

The structure of the interview (see table A.4 in appendix A) used in this study would be built upon Scharf et al. [4] three blocks: (1) Introductory questions to initiate storytelling by the interviewee. (2) Three lead questions that aim at successful response to the research questions. (3) Concluding questions to allow the interviewee an opportunity to mull over, affirm, append or relativise the previous statements.

We acknowledge that although the interview guidelines are somewhat similar to the survey guidelines, the interview is semi-structured [40] and “problem-centered” [41] which means that the interviewee is able to actively participate in discussions, independently steering of conversation and freely expressing ideas upon elicitation from a set of thematic questions. The order of lead questions is as flexible as possible to accommodate for the naturally flowing ideas, without forcefully interrupting the respondent.

Thereafter, the information collected would be similarly coded for further analysis.

1 Participants

are classified as an Urban Farmer if they have been planting edible crops for at least 6 months

11

12

3 What?

Contents 3.1 the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

13

14

3.1

the Findings . “we consume so much ... but we don’t produce enough lor” - Grady .

When walking through a matured residential estate at different times of the day and different days of the week, we noticed backyard farming activities extending into common ground-floor areas surrounding the blocks, however, the yield was relatively low. Additionally, a sizeable number of residents even extended into the common areas and corridors (see fig. 3.1(a) below). Therefore, I started planting edible crops at the corridor of a public housing estate for a better perspective.

(a) Extension into common areas

(b) Dangerous planting outside residential flat

Figure 3.1: Activities at Residential areas

The above revealed that local residents do have some interest in backyard farming, and the capabilities of current urban farming community to support such activities should be further explored to determine its possibilities of contributing to the resilience of our local food systems. Therefore, in this section we seek to summarise findings from local residents about: (1) Their mindset towards urban farming. (2) The current inhibitors that prevent them from picking up backyard farming. (3) And, thus, the factors enabling more local residents to adopt the agricultural mindset - either directly or indirectly.

15

From SV1, we first categorised the local residents into three groups (see table C.1) - Stage One, Stage Two and Stage Three. Out of the 116 respondents (see table B.1), almost half (49%) of the local residents shared that they plant, however, there are only 17% who consider themselves to be an Urban Farmer (see fig. 3.2 below). From SV2, the majority of them (85%) plants at their personal residences, a handful (10%) volunteers at community farms, and only two individuals (one works at a commercial farm, while another volunteers at an organisation) fall under the “others” categories.

3.1.1

Mindset

Figure 3.2: SV1 - Mindset towards Urban Farming (116 pax) (for more details, see fig. B.1)

37% of SV1 respondents (see fig. B.1) thinks that it is not important for local residents to be an Urban Farmer. Of which, 63% thinks that it is a “waste time”, 60% of local residents think that “Singapore will always have food”, 51% attribute it to that fact that “no one told [them] to plant lor”, 42% agrees that “there is simply no need to”, and 23% acknowledges that “there will always be vegetables in the supermarket”.

The above findings strongly indicate that residents who lacks the understanding of the importance of Urban Farming in Singapore, and therefore feel little for the need to grow their own edibles. . “food security.. is our problem...and we need to rethink the importance of planting [edibles]” - Dr. Wilson Wong .

Moreover, lack of the agricultural mindset can result in different forms of boorish behaviours like vandalising or stealing of crops (see fig. 3.2 above). Delilah

1

shared in an interview that her bunch of

bananas got stolen overnight, revealing the “ugly” side of local residents. Not adopting the agricultural mindset could also result in intolerance for fellow Backyard Farmers (see fig. 3.2 above), as shared by 1 see

table A.2 in appendix A for full list of interviewees

16

Emma during an interview that she had to personally connect with her neighbour when the plants were “spilling over” into her neighbour’s “territories”, she remarked with a laugh “I even had to invite him into my house to take a look at my plants!”. Lack of an awareness could take the form of bigoted views about visually attractive and well maintained edible landscapes in residential areas says Dr. Wilson Wong (during an interview). Not adopting the agricultural mindset could also take the form of a lack of exposure to local indigenous naturally-thriving crops, and thus an exclusion from local diet. To add, interviewees Adeline and Bennett shared that local residents consume only a limited variety of crops like caixin, which are like “princesses” - difficult to care for and are resource-intensive.

Figure 3.3: SV2 - Emergent categories of data

Although, there have been an increased interest in planting edibles, both Professor Paul Teng and Dr. Wilson Wong, mentioned about the general lack of interest towards Urban Farming in Singapore.

In addition, Harper and Isabelle (during an interview) remarked that they would be more interested in partaking in the activity, if urban farming only takes just a bit of time, or if could be doubled up as a form of entertainment which one could partake with their friends. It is worth nothing the juxtaposition with the recommendations from the younger interviewees in SV2. During the period of seeds distribution under the NParks Gardening with Edibles program, the element of surprise sparked interest with the younger adults says Isabelle. Therefore, there lies a dormant pool of residents who could be enabled to adopt the agricultural mindset, thus contributing to the increasing resilience of our food systems.

The above findings lend support to our hypothesis that local residents are not entirely aware of the importance of backyard farming and its ability to contribute to resilience of Singapore’s food systems and therefore feels little for the need to grow edibles. In fact after coding, there are indeed other factors (see fig. 3.3 above) that facilitates the adoption of an agricultural mindset including: (1) Mindset, (2) Built Infrastructure, (3) Hardware, (4) Technical Extension, (5) Time & Effort, (6) Cost-effectiveness of adoption (and commercial produce), and (7) Community Support.

17

3.1.2

Time & Effort

Analysis of SV1 revealed that 63% of local residents do not plant because it is a “waste [of] time”, or rather, the amount of “time & effort” that is required (see fig. 3.2 above). Interview with Isabella revealed that her work schedule has made it difficult to be consistent in planting edibles, however, she does occasionally help out with watering. Emma shares that she took approximately 6-8 weeks to grow 2.5 servings of vegetables in a planter box. As juxtaposed in SV2, “time & effort” is indeed a factor to consider for adoption of an agricultural mindset. In addition, Dr. Wilson Wong opines succinctly that “1 pot [of vegetables] takes [approximately] 5 weeks to grow.... so they may not be able to fill their stomachs.. but the whole experience is a very intangible thing...”. These findings lent support to our hypothesis that many prefer to buy food in pre-cooked or pre-packaged foods as it takes less time & effort, and definitely more convenient.

3.1.3

Built Infrastructure

First, as seen in fig. 3.2 above, 51% of SV1 respondents agree that “the local rules and regulations” makes it difficult to plant. And, it could be attributed by the guidelines undergirding the use of common areas in public housing estates [42], thus severely limiting the amount of plantable space. This above is supported by trends on social media platforms where successful urban farmers often has the luxury of extra space in the comfort of their homes. It is seen that those who struggles with the current built infrastructure in their residential areas have even resorted to dangerous ways of planting (see fig. 3.1(b), circled in red above) or even extending into the entire span of the Housing Development Board (HDB) corridor space [43].

Paradoxically, Delilah shared that although she has been living in properties with generous land space, but she has only recently started planting during the pandemic. She adds that there are many residents (in private properties with generous land space) who do not fully utilise for planting edibles, which is “such a waste”. Similarly, during an interview with Caixia Zhang revealed that she started planting (edibles) because she moved into an apartment with more space and sufficient sunlight.

Third, interviewees Davey, Emma, and Fiona opines succinctly that most public housing estate are designed to face the north-south direction to avoid direct exposure to sunlight for human comfort [44], and as a result, the corridor does not receive sufficient sunlight for growing. During an interview with Roc Koh, he shared that some community gardens suffers from low productivity because of poor construction which is due to little consultation with urban farmers on their farming needs.

18

3.1.4

Hardware

Upon further analysis (see fig. 3.2 above), it is found that the one reason that local residents do not plant because of the lack of proper hardware. This is because the lack of proper equipment, combined with the other factors like the lack of space have deterred many from engaging in this conversation. However, when we started planting, we realised that hardware (i.e. soil, fertiliser, pots and other accessories etc) were widely available in big supermarket chains.

Paradoxically, these findings revealed that the choice to adopt the agricultural mindset belongs to the individuals more so than the lack of hardware (or the improperly built infrastructure). And thus, once again lending support to our hypothesis that local residents need to be aware about the importance of backyard farming and feel the need to grow edibles. This means that everyone could potentially be an urban farmer, if they choose to.

3.1.5

Cost-effectiveness of adoption (and commercial produce)

During an interview, Austin, Harper, Emma and Isabella highlighted that the cost for adoption could be a deterring factor, and thus if the costs is lowered or shared, more would be interested in owning one.

As juxtaposed in SV1, 47% of the respondents think it is “expensive activity” (see fig. 3.2 above). For which, Roc Koh agreed that there is a high cost involved in order to achieve quantifiable yield, moreover, he shared that there are a few passionate backyard farmers who hoped to defray costs so as to maintain the expensive activity.

Second, it is worth noting the juxtaposition that 74% thinks it is ”cheaper to buy produce commercially”. For example, a pack of caixin (250g == 2.5 servings) grown by Punggol Shore Urban Farm is selling at SG$2 [45], while local supermarket is selling a pack (300g) of commercially grown baby caixin at SG$2 [46]. As compared to Emma who has to spend 3 - 5 times more to produce the same quantity of caixin.

The above findings explains that it is only financially viable for a local resident who would purchase vegetables instead of planting them. Paradoxically, on the other hand, as Professor Paul Teng, Roc Koh and (interviewee) Belle all highlighted that during times of a crisis, local residents are seen to be stocking up on food despite the price hikes [47].

19

3.1.6

Technical Extension

Austin shared that when the free seeds were given out through the NParks Gardening with Edibles program, many local residents rushed to procure the necessary hardware, only to realise that they did not know how to begin. Moreover, Jack Tan divulged during an interview that this resulted in failed attempts, and many residents lost the motivation to pursue the activity thereafter. As juxtaposed, in SV2, “technical extension” emerged as one of the top factors (see fig. 3.3 below).

Second, during a causal chat with interviewee Zoe (see table A.3 in appendix A), revealed that local residents often struggle with pest issues and are not entirely sure of how to solve them. In contrary, successful backyard farmers often relied on the advice from the skilled farmers on Facebook groups, Tik Tok channel [48], YouTube channel [49]. Similarly, successful backyard farmers like Delilah, Emma and (interviewee) Finn shared that they are easily connected with a personal network of experts who helped greatly with troubleshooting. Davey agreed that his close network of friends appreciated his roles as a technical advisor and a personal supplier of seedlings. By planting edible crops ourselves, we relied on these online resources when faced with technical problems with the crops and pests.

Third, an interview with Roc Koh from Corridor Farmers revealed that it is critical to round up and capture the valuable real knowledge 2 from the last few remaining older generation of expert agricultural farmers. The juxtaposition in findings revealed a gap between the technical knowledge and those who actually will benefit from having them.

3.1.7

Community Support

As a non Urban Farmer, I volunteered at a community garden (S04). We found that community gardens are great nurturing grounds for the adoption of an agricultural mindset. In addition, Austin, Finn and (interviewee) Crystal shared that these community gardens are great spaces that hold great potential for novice Urban Farmers or the current “gardeners” to get exposed to Urban Farming without the hefty initial investment on proper equipment (see section 3.1.4 above). I started off with simple duties, and these small steps allowed me to experience the fruits of my labour, and I became the beneficiary of excess produce on days of good harvest. While volunteering at another community garden (managed by a volunteering organisation), the excess produce is regularly donated to a nearby nursing home. In addition, the residential estate in Toa Payoh shares the monthly excess produce with the less fortunate [51].

2 defined

as the wisdom that is true and justified, is derived from experimentation, practice and testing [50]

20

(a) Un-gated community garden

(b) Gated community garden

Figure 3.4: Activities at community areas

Second, Jack Tan reports that Punggol Shore Urban Farm (PSUF) with a total floor space of 2,000m2 , equating to 400m2 plantable area is able achieve up to 200kg worth of produce in good months [45]. This is because the farm was able to circumvent the shortage of manpower by employing two commercial farmers who could also provide technical support. Having said that, if all community gardens each produces 200kg of vegetables monthly, that would amount to approximately 3,840 tonnes of vegetables in a year (see eq. (3.1) below), which equates to approximate 4% of Singapore’s annual leafy vegetable consumption (see chapter 1 above). Fiona and Finn agree that when these spaces are properly managed, the produce in excess could even be barter traded or sold off, thus reflecting the potential of community gardens contributing to increased the resilience of our local food systems.

AnnualY ield = 200kg ∗ 1, 600gardens ∗ 12months = 3, 840, 000kg = 3, 840tonnes

(3.1)

However, on the other hand, Jack Tan highlighted some of the other underlying challenges like the inconsistent pool of volunteers which is mainly due to the lack of incentives. As Houston opines succinctly during an interview that “the carrot instead of the stick should be used to enable more people to engage in this conversation”. As juxtaposed with findings from SV1 and SV2, Delilah shared there is a lack of incentives as a form of motivation. Many a times, people who are “sitting on the fence” just needs a push to tip them over into engaging in this conversation.

Lastly, these spaces although labelled as Urban Commons, are gated communities which serve an enclave of the invited few in its the physical fenced up compounds (see fig. 3.4(b) above), thus revealing a lack in sharing of collective labouring. Moreover, conflicts do occur within the community gardens 21

and with the Residents’ Committee (RC)

3

are one of the other reason deterring people from feeling

welcomed in these spaces, as disclosed by Pui Cuifen during an interview. Therefore, if more of the community is to be engaged in this conversation, more work needs to be done to replicate the welcoming nature from the un-gated community garden in a public park (see fig. 3.4(a) above).

All in all, the findings in this section were found to cut through the multiple sources of data as reflected in the characteristics of qualitative research [53], thus reflecting the potential for most local residents to be an urban farmer, if they choose to. It is worth nothing that the urban farming community holds great potential for local residents to enable the adoption of an agricultural mindset as aligned with increasing resilience of the local food systems, thus lending support to our hypothesis. Henceforth, through some interventions, more local residents could be engaged on the individual, community and hyperlocal levels.

3 defined

as the committee by the residents for the residents with residents and government agencies [52]

22

4 What?

Contents 4.1 the Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

23

24

4.1

the Recommendations

As established previously, there is a potential of the current Urban Farming community to increase the resilience of Singapore food systems but is yet to be explored. Henceforth, this chapter studies some interventions which could enable more local residents to engage in this conversation.

4.1.1

Urban Farming co-operative

Figure 4.1: Urban Farming co-operative

We propose the Urban Farming co-operative (see fig. 4.1 above) to be a multi-stakeholder cooperative [54], comprising of stakeholders like: (i) The academics who will contribute the theoretical knowledge from research and academic work. (ii) The backyard farmers are the local residents who are involved directly in backyard farming activities. (iii) The people who runs commercial urban farms would contribute the knowledge from an economic standpoint. (iv) The experts who would contribute the practical know-how from working directly on farms. (v) The people who knows how involve a large community of people to work together for a common social cause with respect to urban farms. Most importantly, the members of this co-operative would cooperate for a common intention of increasing the amount of backyard farming, from their standpoints.

The co-operative would seek to bridge the vertical gap between its members and the multi governmental agencies by creating the environment for nurturing of symbiotic relationships by suggesting policy recommendations, necessary economic incentives and regulatory directives. It can be said that the co-operative is like the “middle man” between the members of the co-operative, multi governmental agencies, policymakers, and think tanks etc. And, the multi-agency taskforce could include infrastructure (i.e., HDB), land (i.e., Singapore Land Authority (SLA)), utilities (i.e., Public Utilities Board (PUB)), food (i.e., SFA), urban planners (i.e., URA), policymakers etc. While, its members could include stakeholders 25

from the public, private, formal, and informal sector but is not limited to the academics, the experts, the commercial people, the social enterprises, the urban farmers, and the consumers etc.

The Urban Farming co-operative would move people one step towards the left (see fig. 4.1 above) by generating interest for local residents with different levels of interest. For example, it could be done through: (a) Increasing awareness through the UF movement which will allow residents to understand the importance of urban farming, and through this process the agricultural mindset could be adopted. (b) Systematically upgrading community gardens to be more productive and by ensuring a more symbiotic ecosystem with the outside. (c) By lowering barriers for technical extension and hardware adoption and upgrade etc. That means “Stage Two” and even “Stage Three” (see table C.1) local residents who wished to start planting edibles at their backyard could easily do so.

Collectively, the co-operative would facilitate the activities arising from backyard farming by holistically bringing together the whole system of members to work closely towards increasing resilience of local food systems. For example, the co-operative could organise participatory planning sessions with governmental agencies to understand problems and brainstorm ideas with people for the growth of backyard farming in Singapore (see fig. 4.1 above). Or, the co-operative will seek to effectively distil food innovations for use within the co-operative. And, by cooperating, the commercial businesses and backyard farmers can symbiotically work together to utilise resources more efficiently. For example, the commercial farms can tap on the active throng of backyard farmers to get around the manpower shortages. Vice versa, the backyard farmers can leverage on the technical expertise of commercial farms at their community gardens. Another example includes the co-operative giving out memberships to members within the urban farming community. And as a member, entitlements could be in the form of discounts for produce and mechanise at local urban farms or nurseries. The workings of the symbiotic relationships within the co-operative, and with stakeholders outside the co-operative would be demonstrated in the following sections.

4.1.2

UF Movement - “Farming starts with me!!” . “..at least get the awareness, and get it going.. at least we know how to do it...”

- Dr. Wilson Wong .

Getting more local residents to be engaged in this Urban Farming conversation has been at the center of discussion. Therefore, the co-operative would first kick start the UF movement to enable local 26

dwellers to want to engage in this Urban Farming conversation, then these residents would subsequently go on to exploit their local residential areas and their limited devices.

First, the surprise element surrounding the types of seeds distributed during the NParks Gardening with Edibles program, did sparked some interest with the younger adults as established above (see section 3.1.1). However, the image and idea of urban farming needs to be re-imagined to appeal to younger adults and next generation of local residents. For example, with the support of the local authorities, the co-operative would gamify the experience urban farming through use of social media platforms to set trends, or that could mean designing farming activities that has several categories like “family and kids”, or “new friends”. Through the process, the technical knowledge of the non-farmer, including young children could be extended through participation in friendly activities.

Second, educating children from a young age is one of the best ways to inculcate the interest of Urban Farming. This is because, children of today will be the future generations of local residents responsible for producing more food through unconventional methods. And, by starting at a young age, children perforce absorb knowledge about growing their own food, can be activated when required in the future. For example, if we can imagine a primary school student who receives proper training all throughout his 10 odd pre-tertiary years, would be already quite proficient in planting edibles by the age of 20. In fact, Spectra Secondary School has been quite successful [55] in planting edibles. Therefore, reflecting the great possibilities of schools under the Greening Schools for Biodiversity (GSB) being capable of contributing to the resilience of local food systems, by gearing more towards planting edibles.

And, the co-operative together with the (Singapore) Ministry of Education to design nation-wide school curriculum to include mandatory theoretical and practical sessions about planting edibles. Additionally, if the student is given the choice to further his tertiary education in the field of urban agriculture, he could even pursue his career aspiration as an urban farmer. And it would be more ideal if there are more full-time higher learning programs and scholarships up from the limited courses available in Singapore, like the part-time program offered by Republic Polytechnic [56]. The co-operative would take the lead to change the image and mindset towards growing food on land-scare Singapore by charting one’s possible career prospects in urban agriculture. Having said this, the commercial stakeholders within the co-operative would have first hand opportunities to recruit students when they graduate.

Third, since planting edibles is a “just in case” [57] strategy just as Bennett suggested, it could be incorporated into the Singapore defence strategy. Hence, the co-operative could work closely with the (Singapore) Ministry of Defence to incorporate a training regime of planting edibles. If we can envisage that in 9 years (i.e., till year 2030), we would already have approximately 171,000 young males who 27

have already been equipped with farming knowledge and be activated “[just] in time” of need if we start today. This is because an average of 19,000 males will be born each year [58], which translates into the number of young males which would be enlisting into the Singapore National Service (NS)1 . More males could come together to plant edibles at their backyards and defend against eminent disruptions in food supply.

Lastly, the co-operative could create more promotional videos, campaigns and advertisements which includes the numerous benefits of local produce which is otherwise unknown. This would mean creating more awareness for “Stage Three” residents, and ability to create more job opportunities in the area of urban farming. In addition, when one is regularly exposed, one would tend to have an increased appreciation of locally grown produce [60] - which is one of the intangible benefits of adopting an agricultural mindset, as aligned to increasing resilience of the local food system.

. “...so the mindset shift needs to happen...”

- Caleb .

4.1.3

Community Farms

Second, having a community farm needs to benefit the immediate hyperlocal community. The current community gardens in Singapore have the potential to be converted to what Professor Paul Teng defines as a “community farm”. To add, Jack Tan from PSUF agrees that there is a potential for community garden to be more productive by physically modifying its built infrastructure. For example, by converting to an aquaponics setup, there would be minimal resources required and lesser waste generated. Most importantly, it is said that one such system could conservatively triple the yield of a traditional soil-based setup [61].

Drawing upon the previous example (see eq. (3.1) above), if all the 1,600 gardens were to adopt an aquaponics system, total annual vegetable production could be bumped up to about 11,000 tonnes of vegetables, approximating to 12% of total vegetable consumption (see eq. (4.1) below) as compared to the 4% yield of a traditional soil-bsed setup. Therefore, these community farms have the potential to serve the “just in time” needs. Furthermore, other advantages of this system include close-looping on the food waste collected from the hyerlocal community which could be used for worm feed, and subsequently fish feed. Additionally, the fishes could either be ornamental or edible fishes breed [62], 1 defined

as the mandatory conscription service for every Singaporean and Permanent Resident male [59]

28

thus revealing a whole plethora of “just in case” possibilities contributing to the increased resilience of local food systems.

AnnualY ield(upgrade) = 200kg ∗ 1, 600gardens ∗ 12months ∗ 3 = 11, 520, 000kg = 11, 520tonnes (4.1) Third, setting up such a niche system in the community could create unique jobs opportunities [61] and encourages collective labouring. In addition, there are many vulnerable pockets of people that the Urban Farming community could empower like the “cardboard elderly”, which Dylan Soh advocated for.

Fourth, community farms could serve as an “in-situ conservation” for the local indigenous naturallythriving crops but are no longer carried by supermarket chains says Professor Paul Teng. With the right economic incentives and regulatory directives in place, the co-operative would facilitate partnerships between community farms and local restaurants or chefs, who could popularise dishes using these crops says Dr. Wilson Wong. Together with social media campaigns, residents are more exposed and equipped to use and consume varieties of vegetables which are well-suited for the local tropical climate.

And that would mean current resources could be better allocated to produce a higher quantity of the not-so-resource-intensive crops, thus leading to increased resilience of local food systems.

Lastly, community gardens are technical extension hub for residents. The community garden in Dover rooftop carpark [63] is one example, or, could community garden replicate Rooftop Republic Academy’s idea of getting “city dwellers from all walks of life to get their foot in the door” [64].

4.1.4

Farming @ Home

First, the co-operative could work closely with the commercial farms to meet the farming demand of residential farmers. As established previously, many backyard farmers do fail at the initial stages of the planting stage, because of the lack of technical know-how. And hence, if the commercial business since equipped with the technical knowledge and proper resources could help to germinate the seeds into seedlings and passing it on to the local residents to continue growing them into edible vegetables. By doing that, it could minimise resources for commercial businesses to complete a growing cycle of a crop.

This would mean these businesses could sell more seedlings in the same amount of time, with the help of the co-operative.

Second, another means of getting more people to adopt this urban farming activity could be subsidising the adoption of starter kits, which could contribute some amounts of produce (see fig. 4.2 below).

29

Davey agreed that the necessary hardware must first be available for the “gardeners” or the interested to adopt the agricultural mindset. For example, (a) The all-in-one, tabletop “Click & Grow” indoor gardening kits is able to circumvent the limitations in floor space [65] yet is able to produce quantifiable yield. (b) The Corridor Gardening program which was piloted in one district saw a successful distribution of subsidised traditional planter boxes [26]. Planter boxes can be mounted on corridor railings, thus freeing up vertical corridor spaces. (c) Or, the “One Kind Block” [66] which is versatile because it can mounted on most spaces like on corridor railings, window grilles or even walls. It is said that when multiple blocks are put together, a 1m2 area will be capable of producing 3 kilograms of vegetables per month, where the daily recommended vegetable consumption per person is around 200g [67] therefore equating to about 2 weeks worth of vegetables for 1 adult. Henceforth, it can be said that with the right hardware paired with concerted individual efforts and dense high-rised residential buildings could ignite productive backyard farming in underutilised urban residential spaces.

Figure 4.2: Estimated yield of vegetables

Third, by first building trust within the community could encourage people with underutilised spaces in their residential areas to engage in this conversation. For example, this initiative could start off with the trust jar, which could build trust and discourage theft of crops within their hyperlocal communities.

To add, the urban farming co-operative will design appropriate policies in the field of backyard farming 30

could change production of on an ad-hoc basis to being reliable sources of produce in their hyperlocal community. Moreover, with appropriate regulatory directives, there is certain degrees of accountability (i.e., pests and contamination etc) for the produce sold off to the community. Future work will also have to go into accessing the potential undesirable outcomes arising from over-zealous urban farming activities [68].

Fourth, as the amount of Backyard Farming increases with the UF Movement, it is crucial for the residential farmers to be able to tap on the resources of the community and vice versa. Therefore, we suggest the co-operative to design a digital marketplace which could allow for richer interactions between members within the hyperlocal backyard farming circle and to symbiotically support each other.

The digital marketplace is an extension of the urban farming community, making it a great way for people in the community to exchange technical knowledge, tips, hardware or produce from a network of people they are familiar with. For example, the resident could use the marketplace to request for an item from fellow backyard farmers in exchange for either a monetary fee, or in other forms (i.e., produce, hardware etc.) which is mutually agreed upon on. Or, a resident could choose to request for help, either from the hyperlocal community (i.e., within a 1km radius) or from the nationwide urban farming community.

Essentially, a resident can use the app to request for help, pose questions related to backyard farming, share about good lobangs

2

or even barter trade. The app is also a library of the different types

crops and their care directions, and is a digital repository for methods to deal with common pests issues.

This app leverages on the element of neighbourliness within the community [70], is a consolidation of lobangs [71], also an amalgamation the functionality of current Facebook interest groups [72] and much more.

Lastly, by providing the necessary opportunities for technical extension when necessary, would allow for backyard activities to thrive in residential areas. For example, the backyard farming extension service is a subsidised service, like the National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s cooperative extension service [73], whereby information from academic research will be effectively distilled by the co-operative for the targeted audiences. In this case, the co-operative would work closely with the local broadcasting channel to disseminate information on national TV, and working closely with local farms to hire agents (equipped with farming knowledge) to assist with farming issues in residential areas etc. . “getting every home to contribute to a system..is very important” - Caleb .

2 defined

as the Singlish term for deals, promotions, opportunities, or chances [69]

31

4.1.5

Latent Food Bowls

Studies have shown that residents prefer to plant outdoors, yet somewhere close by to where they live [74]. Therefore, backyards, public housing corridors, kerbside, multi-storey carparks, vicinity of outdoor sports and recreational facilities, or even community gardens are great resources to tap on [75].

With the appropriate set of regulatory directives could allow squatter gardens [76] to flourish on vacant land (i.e. vacated industrial or office buildings, emptied schools that were merged etc). Together with the co-operative, residents in each estate would map out the underutilised spaces (like the areas surrounding the neighbourhood amenities - playgrounds and multi storey carparks) which could be converted into spaces for backyard farming activities.

Second, by literally exploring our latent food sources could boost the resilience of our local food production. For example, conversion of the current attractions like the Gardens-by-the-Bay or the Singapore Botanical Gardens into a national exhibition for various indigenous edible varieties. This could not only be a viable business option, it could also be an avenue for increasing awareness for local residents in Singapore. Or, with the regulatory directives set out, the fruits from matured public trees along our landscapes, residential estates and nature parks could be harvested. This closes the gap between the food we consume, and how it was produced could perhaps to increased awareness towards urban farming.

. “...slowly the acceptance will be wider... and then these spaces can be converted...”

- Caleb .

32

4.1.6

Long term design and planning

Some designs could be incorporating permanent add-on or built-in structures onto the facades of residential buildings (see fig. 4.3 below) [3]. Long-term designs could include multi-functional designs which could be converted to “just in case” amenities which could be used to buffer against short-term disruptions in food supplies. For example, multi-use spaces for productive planting, like on the uppermost levels of multi-storey carparks and residential buildings could be easily converted based on the requirements of the community using the space. Other designs include built-in planter boxes for farming outside residential units, design of the facing of residential blocks to be conducive for planting at home, or design of void decks to accommodate for high-tech farming units.

(a) Facades

(b) Landscapes

Figure 4.3: Long term designs [3]

33

34

5 What?

Contents 5.1 the Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

35

36

5.1

the Conclusion . “multiple efforts ... together ... growing in the backyards ... will do much” - Dr. Paul Teng [29] .

The urban farming community and backyard farming in Singapore has demonstrated the potential to support the adoption of an agricultural mindset, which means that “everyone can be an Urban Farmer”.

And, when more individuals “know how to do it” then we can all contribute to the Singapore food system says Dr. Wilson Wong.

Second, although getting residents to adopt the agricultural mindset is a “just in case” strategy for Singapore, preliminary findings resoundingly reflect (see fig. B.2 behind) that residents are receptive to the idea of interventions to encourage backyard farming. And having said that, the onus is still on them to make the decision.

Third, even by having the policy recommendations, economic incentives or the regulatory directives put in place for backyard farming to support local food production, Singapore “[has no] desire to produce all of the food it consumes” [9]. But rather, by increasing resilience of local food systems, Singapore would be better prepared to defend against short term disruptions.

Lastly, some more work will have to be put in to determine achievable goals like the project timeline and cost so as to justify the funds and space allocated in the immediate short and mid term. Lastly, considerable efforts has to be put in to continue and magnify the efforts while the “while the iron is hot [while Covid-19 is present]”.

37

38

Bibliography [1] Tomorrow’s Build. (2021, July) Singapore’s Bold Plan to Build the Farms of the Future. [YouTube video]. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ueVw83Plec [2] M. Schreier, Qualitative content analysis in practice.

Sage publications, 2012.

[3] N. F. B. Nordin, “Productive Green Cities, scalable and adaptable urban injections for food production within communities,” M.Arch. thesis, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, 2020.

[4] N. Scharf, T. Wachtel, S. E. Reddy, and I. Säumel, “Urban commons for the edible city—First insights for future sustainable urban food systems from Berlin, Germany,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 966, 2019.

[5] J.-C. Bolay, Urban Planning Against Poverty: How to Think and Do Better Cities in the Global South.

Springer Nature, 2020.

[6] K. Specht, R. Siebert, I. Hartmann, U. B. Freisinger, M. Sawicka, A. Werner, S. Thomaier, D. Henckel, H. Walk, and A. Dierich, “Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings,” Agriculture and human values, vol. 31, no. 1, pp.

33–51, 2014.

[7] K. H. Brown, A. Carter, and M. Bailkey, Urban agriculture and community food security in the United States: Farming from the city center to the urban fringe.

Community Food Security

Coalition, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://foodsecurity.org [8] Bay Localize. (2007) Tapping the Potential of Urban Rooftops: Roof top Resources Neighborhood Assessment: Final Report. [Online]. Available: www.baylocalize.org [9] J. M. L. Montesclaros, S. Liu, and P. P. Teng, “Scaling up commercial urban agriculture to meet food demand in singapore: An assessment of the viability of leafy vegetable production using plant factories with artificial lighting in a 2017 land tender (first tranche),” February 2018. [Online].

Available:

https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/nts/scaling-commercial-urban-agriculture-in39

singapore-an-assessment-of-the-viability-of-leafy-vegetable-production-using-plant-factorieswith-artificial-lighting-in-a-2017-land-tender-first-tranche/#.YORb2C0Rrs9 [10] S. Ong, “Singapore cultivates ’Silicon Valley of food’ in a hungry Asia,” Nikkei Asia, July 2021.

[11] P. Teng, 19,”

“Assuring food security in Singapore,

Food Security,

vol. 12,

no. 4,

a small island state facing COVID-

pp. 801–804,

2020. [Online]. Available:

https:

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338144/ [12] P. Teng and J. Montesclaros, “Singapore’s ’30 by 30’ strategy: be achieved?”

Can food self-production

RSIS Commentary, no. 54, March 2019. [Online]. Available:

https:

//www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CO19054.pdf [13] Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority Singapore, “Ava’s food security roadmap for singapore,” Food for Thought, February 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-for-thought/article/ detail/ava’s-food-security-roadmap-for-singapore [14] Singapore Food Authority. (2021,

February) Food Farming. [Online]. Available:

https:

//www.sfa.gov.sg/food-farming [15] A. Qing, “Part of Rail Corridor in Kranji preserved in plans for Agri-food Innovation Park,” The Straits Times, March 2021.

[16] C. Tan, “Tenders awarded to turn 9 HDB carpark rooftops into urban farming sites,” The Straits Times, February 2021.

[17] Urban Redevelopment Authority. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Enhanced LUSH to take urban greenery to new heights. [Online]. Available: https://www.ura.gov.sg/-/media/User%20Defined/ URA%20Online/media-room/2017/Nov/pr17-77a.pdf [18] Singapore Food Agency. (Retrieved on 2021, August) Per capita consumption. [Online]. Available: https://www.sfa.gov.sg/docs/default-source/tools-and-resources/yearly-statistics/per-capitaconsumption.pdf [19] P. Teng, “Overcoming fragmented food systems and trade wars,” RSIS Commentary, no.

154, September 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ CO18154.pdf [20] The Economist Intelligence Unit, “Global Food Security Index 2019,” The Economist Intelligence Unit, Tech. Rep., 2019.

[21] J. S. Ng, “The Big Read: Singapore has been buttressing its food security for decades. Now, people realise why,” Channel News Asia, March 2020.

40

[22] Z. Abdullah, “COVID-19 pandemic highlights importance of strengthening Singapore’s food security, say experts,” Channel News Asia, April 2020.

[23] S. Tang, “Commentary: Singaporeans are proving you can grow your vegetables and eat them too,” Channel News Asia, August 2021.

[24] H. M. Chew, “Interest in urban farming sprouts amid COVID-19 outbreak,” Channel News Asia, May 2020.

[25] National Parks Board . (Retrieved on 2021, July) Community in Bloom Initiatives. [Online].

Available: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardening/community-in-bloom-initiative [26] SCEC CCK, “2021-01-09 CCK Corridor Gardening Program at Teck Whye Blk2,” Facebook update, January Retrieved on 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.facebook.com/1505394626420455/ posts/2021-01-09-cck-corridor-gardening-program-at-teck-whye-blk2/2535339523425955/ [27] National Parks Board . (Retrieved on 2021, July) Gardening with Edibles. [Online]. Available: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardening/gardening-with-edibles [28] ——. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Greening Schools for Biodiversity. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/community-in-nature-initiative/greening-schools-for-biodiversity [29] P. Teng, “Covid-19: Its impact on food sufficiency,” RSIS Commentary, no. 48, March 2020.

[Online]. Available: https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CO20048.pdf [30] T. Deelstra, H. Girardet et al., “Urban agriculture and sustainable cities,” Bakker N., Dubbeling M., Gündel S., Sabel-Koshella U., de Zeeuw H. Growing cities, growing food. Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing, Germany: Zentralstelle für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (ZEL), pp.

43–66, 2000.

[31] J. R. Taylor and S. T. Lovell, “Urban home food gardens in the global north: research traditions and future directions,” Agriculture and human values, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 285–305, 2014.

[32] L. J. Mougeot et al., “Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks,” Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda, vol. 1, p. 42, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/26429/117785.pdf?sequence=12 [33] K. M. Eisenhardt, M. E. Graebner, and S. Sonenshein, “Grand Challenges and Inductive Methods: Rigor without Rigor Mortis,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1113–1123, 2016.

[34] L. R. Johnson, “Observations, fieldwork, and other data collection,” in Community-based qualitative research: Approaches for education and the social sciences.

104–119.

41

Sage Publications, 2016, ch. 6, pp.

[35] B. A. Bechky, “Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders,” Organization Science, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1157–1167, 2011.

[36] S. J. Conk and C. M. Porter, “Food gardeners’ productivity in Laramie, Wyoming: More than a hobby,” American journal of public health, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 854–856, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985081/ [37] J. Postill and S. Pink, “Social media ethnography: The digital researcher in a messy web,” Media International Australia, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 123–134, 2012.

[38] Government introduction,”

Social Social

Research Media

(UK),

“Using

Research

social

Group,

media May

for

social

2016.

research:

[Online].

An

Available:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/ file/524750/GSR Social Media Research Guidance - Using social media for social research.pdf [39] K. Williamson and G. Johanson, Research methods: Information, systems, and contexts. Chandos Publishing, 2017.

[40] Institute of Development Studies. Semi-structured Interview. [Online]. Available:

https:

//www.participatorymethods.org/glossary/semi-structured-interview [41] A. Witzel and H. Reiter, The problem-centred interview.

Sage, 2012.

[42] Singapore Civil Defence Force. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Guidelines on the use of common areas in HDB estates. [Online]. Available:

https://www.scdf.gov.sg/docs/default-source/scdf-

library/publications/publications/guidelines-on-hdb-common-areas.pdf [43] Mediacorp 8world. (Retrieved on 2020, June) 狮城有约— 专题：住家版本的城市农夫. [YouTube video]. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v64BXaag0rw [44] B. Low, “HDB flats designed to capitalise on wind flow,” today, November 2014.

[45] Punggol Shore Urban Farm, Facebook profile, Retrieved on July 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.facebook.com/Punggol-Shore-Urban-Farm-101437618418662/ [46] NTUC Fariprice. (Retrieved on 2021, August) Simply Finest Baby Cai Xin. [Online]. Available: https://www.fairprice.com.sg/product/simply-finest-baby-cai-xin-300g-13167827 [47] Statista. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Share of people feeling safe after buying goods in bulk due to coronavirus (COVID-19) among respondents in Singapore in 2020, by gender.

[Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1120907/singapore-share-of-people-feelingsafe-after-stockpiling-items-after-coronavirus-outbreak-by-gender/ 42

[48] C. Yap, TikTok profile, Retrieved on July 2021. [Online]. Available:

https://www.tiktok.com/

@cassiopeayap?lang=en&is copy url=1&is from webapp=v1 [49] NParksSG, YouTube channel, Retrieved on July 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube. com/user/nationalparksboard [50] P. D. Klein, “Real knowledge,” Synthese, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 143–164, 1983.

[51] 李赠谊, “大巴窑中设室内水培农场未来或智能化,” 8world, March 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.8world.com/singapore/toa-payoh-community-garden-project-iot-vertical-farming1418516?fbclid=IwAR2ossMQrVZl1-hTGLIscz28aiRa10pADaNwFr6dRJKCAG6GQhU93yYO mU [52] People’s Association. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Residents’ Committees. [Online]. Available: https://www.pa.gov.sg/our-network/grassroots-organisations/residents-committees [53] J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.

Sage publications, 2017.

[54] University of Winconsin-Madison, UW Center for Cooperatives. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Multistakeholder Cooperatives. [Online]. Available: https://uwcc.wisc.edu/resources/multi-stakeholdercooperatives/ [55] V. Vinod, “Spectra Secondary School’s programme bears fruit – and veggies,” The Straits Times, April 2016.

[56] Republic Polytechnic. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Diploma in Applied Science (Urban Agricultural Technology). [Online]. Available:

https://www.rp.edu.sg/ace/course-summary/Detail/diploma-in-

applied-science-(urban-agricultural-technology) [57] D. D. Chan, E. Chiu, A. Firdaus, and E. K. Ludher, “Singapore’s COVID-19 Response and Rethinking the New Urban Normal,” CLC Publications, Singapore, 2021. [Online]. Available:

https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/commentaries/commentary-singapore-covid19-

response-interactive.pdf [58] Data.gov.sg. able:

(Retrieved

on

2021,

July)

Newborns

by

Gender.

[Online].

Avail-

https://data.gov.sg/dataset/newborns-by-gender?view id=1e5dac00-e55c-4743-a1c4-

636caa96dbf3&resource id=6ed0a70b-5559-480e-a76f-cbe55e59a7a7 [59] CMPB. (Retrieved on 2021, July) What NS is. [Online]. Available: https://www.cmpb.gov.sg/web/ portal/cmpb/home/about-us/discover-ns [60] D. Tan, Facebook post, Retrieved on July 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.facebook.com/ photo?fbid=224996686117138&set=pcb.224996809450459 43

[61] E. Okemwa, “Effectiveness of aquaponic and hydroponic gardening to traditional gardening,” International Journal of Scientific Research and Innovative Technology, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 21–52, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.ijsrit.com/uploaded all files/3563230518 m3.pdf [62] Tucson Aquaponics Project, Facebook profile, Retrieved on July 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.facebook.com/Tucson-AquaPonics-Project-192160687481522/ [63] Channel 8 stories. (Retrieved on 2021, May) My Neighbourhood. [Facebook video]. [Online].

Available: https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1151355712007467 [64] D. A. Paulo, R. Smalley, and C. Yip, “From Singapore to Hong Kong, how urban farming can help tackle food waste — but is it enough?” Channel News Asia, March 2021.

[65] Click & Grow Asia. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Indoor Herb Gardens and Indoor Gardening Kits.

[Online]. Available: https://asia.clickandgrow.com [66] One Kind Block, Facebook profile, Retrieved on July 2021. [Online]. Available:

https:

//www.facebook.com/onekindblock/ [67] Health Hub. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Fruits and Veggies. [Online]. Available:

https:

//www.healthhub.sg/programmes/56/fruits-and-veggies [68] A. H. Mahmud, “As Singapore gets the gardening bug, NParks stresses importance of being considerate to neighbours,” Channel News Asia, August 2021.

[69] Singlish dictionary. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Lobang. [Online]. Available: http://www.singlish.net/ lobang/ [70] Sctachbac. (Retrieved on 2021, July) About Us. [Online]. Available: https://www.scratchbac.com/ about-us [71] M. Teng, “NTU Student Creates New Lobang Website To Make Finding Good Deals Easier,” today, April 2021.

[72] Urban Farmers (Singapore), Facebook group, Retrieved on July 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.facebook.com/groups/sgurbanfarmers/ [73] National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture. (Retrieved on 2021, July) Cooperative Extension System. [Online]. Available: https://nifa.usda.gov/cooperativeextension-system [74] V. Kosorić, H. Huang, A. Tablada, S.-K. Lau, and H. T. Tan, “Survey on the social acceptance of the productive façade concept integrating photovoltaic and farming systems in high-rise public housing blocks in singapore,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 111, pp. 197–214, 2019.

44

[75] I. Soetikno, “Typology or Urban Public Space in Singapore,” M.Sc. Independent Research Project, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, 2019.

[76] M. Simon-Rojo, X. Recanes, S. Cllau, B. Duzi, S. Eiter, V. Hernández-Jiménez, P. Kettle, R. Laviscio, F. Lohrberg, D. Pickard et al., “From urban food gardening to urban farming,” in Urban Agriculture Europe.

Jovis, 2016, ch. 1.3, pp. 22–28.

45

46

A Interview

47

A.1

Socio-demographic profile of interviewees

Age Group

Urban Farmer

Type of Urban Farmer

21 - 34 35 - 54 55 - 70 >70 Yes No Academia Experts Commercial Social Enterprise Backyard Non-practising

N 12 13 6 2 27 4 1 3 4 6 15 4

% 36.36 39.39 18.18 6.06 84.85 15.15 3.03 9.09 12.12 18.18 45.45 12.12

Table A.1: Socio-demographic profile of interviewees (33pax)

A.2

List of interviewees

Group

Type

Academia

Adjunct Senior Fellow (Food Security)

Experts Commercial

Social Enterprise

Backyard

Non-practising

Deputy Director Staff Staff Founder & CEO Founder & CEO Program Designer Co-founder Co-founder Co-founder Co-founder Co-founder Co-founder Residential Residential Residential Residential & Community Residential Residential Residential & Community Residential Residential Community Aspiring Urban Farmer non Urban Farmer non Urban Farmer non Urban Farmer

Description Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) National Parks Board (NParks) Urban farm World Farm Co Pte Ltd Agriculture Technology startup Agriculture Technology company Cangkul Zen That runs urban farms in Singapore One Kind Block Corridor Farmers Corridor Farmers Corridor Farmers Foodscape Collective Appears in many social media discourses Advocate for sustainability Business Entrepreneur NParks Community-In-Bloom ambassador Taking part-time diploma in Agriculture Technology Retiree Student Ambassador for an agtech company Used to grow up on farms, in Malaysia Novice; working adult Punggol Shore Urban Farm grew up in close proximity to agriculture working full-time; is close friends with an commercial farmer working full-time; daughter of a backyard farmer working full-time; partner of a backyard farmer

Table A.2: List of interviewees (non-exhaustive)

48

Name

Pseudonym

Paul P.S. Teng

-

Wilson W.S. Wong Nazzer Dylan Soh Roc C.S. Koh Tan Teck Liang Marc S.T. Liang Pui Cuifen Caixia Zhang Jack Y.M. Tan -

Adeline Austin Belle Bennett Caleb Crystal Delilah Emma Fiona Davey Elliot Finn Gisele Grady Harper Isabella Houston

A.3

List of informal interviewees

Type Student Retiree

Description Undergraduate involved in designing solutions for planting along corridor of public housing estate Homemaker, with kids. Family used to sell vegetables for a living

Pseudonym Zoe Ysabelle

Table A.3: List of informal interviewees (non-exhaustive)

A.4

Interview Guidelines

Block

Question(s)

Introduction

Do you plant edibles? And yes, how long and where have you been planting them?

Body

What do you think can motivate/ obstruct residents to plant edibles in their backyards?

Why do you think it is important for people to actually plant edibles at their backyards?

How could Urban Farming be better integrated to ensure better food security in Singapore?

With the right support, do you think there will be more people engaging in this conversation?

Conclusion

Do you have any further comments?

Table A.4: Interview Guidelines [4]

49

50

B Survey

51

52

B.1

Socio-demographic profile of survey respondents (SV1)

Age Group

Do you plant?(“gardeners”) Are you an Urban Farmer?

21 - 34 35 - 54 55 - 70 >70 Yes No Yes No

N 80 23 12 1 57 59 20 96

% 69.00 20.00 10.00 1.00 49.00 51.00 17.00 83.00

Table B.1: Socio-demographic profile of SV1 respondents (116pax)

B.2

Socio-demographic profile of survey respondents (SV2)

Age Group

Where do you farm at?

21 - 34 35 - 54 55 - 70 >70 Community Farm Personal Residences Others

N 54 49 24 3 6 47 2

% 41.54 37.69 18.46 2.31 10.91 85.45 3.64

Table B.2: Socio-demographic profile of SV2 respondents (130pax)

B.3

Socio-demographic profile of survey respondents (SV3)

Age Group

21 - 34 35 - 54 55 - 70 >70

N 152 22 9 0

% 83.15 11.96 4.89 0.00

Table B.3: Socio-demographic profile of SV3 respondents (184pax)

53

B.4

Survey 1 (SV1) - Questions and Responses

**see appended after this section

B.5

Survey Guidelines (SV2)

Block

Question(s)

Introduction

Do you plant?

Are you consider yourself to be an Urban Farmer?

And, how long and where have you been planting edibles?

Body

Why do you think it is important for all local residents to be an Urban Farmer?

What do you think can motivate residents to take up Urban Farming?

What are the current obstructions preventing residents from taking up Urban Farming?

How could Urban Farming be better integrated to ensure better food security in Singapore?

Conclusion

Would you like to take part in an interview?

Table B.4: Survey Guidelines [4]

B.6

Survey 3 (SV3) - Questions and Responses

**see appended after SV1

54

Figure B.1: SV1 - Mindset towards Urban Farming (116 pax)

55

Figure B.2: SV3 - Response towards enablers (152 pax)

56

C Coding of Data

57

58

C.1 No. One Two Three

Stages of becoming an Urban Farmer Stage Urban Farmer Gardener Novice Urban Farmer Affiliated with an Urban Farmer Others

Someone who ... is currently in the Urban Farming circle. is not an Urban Farmer, but has some knowledge and is currently planting, or has planted edibles before. is starting out to plant edibles in the recent 6 months. has close affiliations with an Urban Farmer. has no keen interest or does not know the presence of Urban Farming in Singapore.

Table C.1: Stages of becoming an Urban Farmer

C.2

“Emergent” [2] categories of data Factors Built Infrastructure Technical Extension

HARD

Weather Conditions Proper Hardware Mindset Community Support

SOFT

Incentives Costeffectiveness

Elaboration Defined as the spatial factors and continuous area or built environment which is free, available, or unoccupied to support the activity of Backyard Farming.

Defined as the platform and opportunities meant to provide technical advice, information and other support services to Backyard Farmers regarding specific problems with their edibles so as to increase productivity of their crops.

Through the process, knowledge can be obtained.

Defined as the the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as described by the heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain with regards to planting of edible crops.

Defined as the physical items like tools, equipment, soil, seeds, seedlings, cuttings etc used for Backyard Farming activity.

Defined as how local residents can “recognise” the existence and understand the importance of the Backyard Farming in Singapore.

Defined as having friends and other people, including family, in times of need and challenges faced when engaging in Backyard Farming activities. These supportive resources can be emotional, informational, or companionship; tangible or intangible.

Defined as the monetary concession or payment to motivate someone to pick up Backyard Farming.

Defined as the relative monetary costs involved in starting and sustaining Backyard Farming. It is usually compared to buying readily available produce.

Table C.2: Emergent categories of data

59

60

61