Ph.D

The present study entitled “Ecosystem Services and Livelihood Outcomes of Urban Agriculture: A Critical Analysis” was conducted with the objectives of assessing the nature and scale of urban agriculture in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, assessing the livelihood outcomes of urban agriculture, analyzing ecosystem services, and formulating strategies for scaling up of urban agriculture, along with studying respondents’ urban agriculture characteristics. The study was conducted in 20 purposively selected wards of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, the largest urban local body by area and population in Kerala, after consultations with allied departments and residents' associations. The sample included five respondent categories, totaling 390 participants. The first category comprised 200 intensive house terrace and homestead cultivators, with ten respondents randomly selected from 20 selected wards. The second category included 60 urban livestock and poultry farmers, with three respondents randomly selected from each ward. The third category consisted of 60 intensive house terrace and homestead cultivators along with allied activities, with three respondents from each ward. Also, 40 urban non-agricultural practitioners were selected randomly, and 30 policy experts on urban agriculture were selected purposively. The dependent variables of the study were livelihood outcomes and ecosystem services of urban agriculture, which were assessed using developed scale and arbitrary scales, respectively. Livelihood outcomes were evaluated across five dimensions: nutritional security, income generation, health, wellbeing, and recognition. Ecosystem services were measured through environmental and social factors, with environmental factors covering regulating and supporting services, and social factors including provisioning and cultural services. Twenty independent variables were selected to explore respondents' urban agricultural characteristics. Statistical tools used included frequency and percentage analysis, mean, standard deviation, Kruskal-Wallis test, Z-test, ANOVA, chi-square analysis, and correlation analysis. Thematic analysis with intercoder reliability using Cohen’s Kappa was also conducted. The study found that land ownership was high across all categories: 92.00 per cent (Category I), 98.33 per cent (Category II), and 96.67 per cent (Category III). Regarding cultivation area, 68.50 per cent of Category I, cultivated in area of 100-1000 m² and vegetables were the dominant crop with mean value of 0.253, while 96.67 per cent of Category II used less than 100 m² area based on the size of cage/shed with hens showing highest species dominance with mean value of 0.669. More than half of the respondents in Category III (56.67%) cultivated in area of 100-1000 m² with vegetables as the dominant crop with mean value of 0.375, and composting as the most practiced allied activity (63.33%). The study showed that most respondents in Category I (69.50%), Category II (61.67%), and Category III (68.33%) had medium levels of livelihood outcomes. Urban agriculture contributed 5.46 per cent, 7.40 per cent, and 8.86 per cent of household income for Categories I, II, and III, respectively. The analysis of ecosystem services indicated that provisioning services scored highest for all categories: 4.42 for Category I, 4.47 for Category II, and 4.65 for Category III. The study found that most respondents were in middle (39-55 years) and late adulthood (56-71 years). Males comprised 52.00 per cent of Category I, while Category II had more females (58.33%), and 53.33 per cent of Category III were male. Medium-sized families (4-6 members) were common, with 50.00 per cent in Category I, 51.67 per cent in Category II, and 53.33 per cent in Category III. In terms of education, 32.00 per cent of Category I and 50.00 per cent of Category II had completed high school, while 43.33 per cent of Category III were graduates. Urban agriculture was the sole occupation for 40.00 per cent in Category I, 63.33 per cent in Category II, and 26.67 per cent in Category III. Regarding, average monthly household income, most respondents among the categories belonged to the medium category (86.50%, 66.67%, and 58.33% in Category I, II & III respectively). Regarding, adequacy of income, most respondents among the categories belonged to the medium category (64.50%, 58.33%, and 80.00% in Category I, II & III respectively). Medium average monthly food expenditure was reported by 74.00 per cent of Category I, 65.00 per cent of Category II, and 71.67 per cent of Category III. Majority of respondents in Categories I (57.50%) and II (53.33%) had 15-28 years of urban farming experience, while Category III (56.67%) had over 28 years. All respondents among the three categories reported domestic consumption as their main purpose of produce. The most common production modes were house terrace and yard combinations (38.00%) for Category I, poultry farming (55.00%) for Category II, and combination of house terrace and homestead with allied activities (46.67%) for Category III. Medium sufficiency of farm produce was reported by 66.50 per cent of Category I, 68.33 per cent of Category II, and 78.33 per cent of Category III. Direct sales were prevalent among 67.11 per cent of Category I, 88.46 per cent of Category II, and 81.48 per cent of Category III. Family labor utilization was medium for 68.50 per cent in Category I, 63.33 per cent in Category II, and 68.33 per cent in Category III. Medium knowledge levels were shown by 51.50 per cent in Category I, 71.67 per cent in Category II, and 50.00 per cent in Category III. Health consciousness was medium for 62.00 per cent of Category I, 60.00 per cent of Category II, and 61.67 per cent of Category III. High environmental orientation was seen in 37.50 per cent of Category I, while 80.00 per cent of Category II and 48.33 per cent of Category III displayed medium levels. Most respondents relied on scientific knowledge: 55.00 per cent in Category I, 66.67 per cent in Category II, and 60.00 per cent in Category III. Medium extension orientation was noted in 67.50 per cent of Category I, 71.67 per cent of Category II, and 65.00 per cent of Category III, while medium management orientation was seen in 71.00 per cent of Category I, 65.00 per cent of Category II, and 60.00 per cent of Category III. In Category I, the variable rational orientation showed significant association with livelihood outcome of urban agriculture at the 1 per cent level. For ecosystem services, the variable mode of production showed significant at the 5 per cent level. In Category II, the variables occupation and rational orientation were significant at the 5 per cent level for livelihood outcomes. For ecosystem services, rational orientation was significant at the 1 per cent level. In Category III, the variables occupation and rational orientation were significant at the 5 per cent level and mode of production was significant at the 1 per cent level for livelihood outcomes. For ecosystem services mode of production and rational orientation were significant at the 5 per cent level. For livelihood outcomes in Category I, variables such as urban farming experience, family labour, knowledge level, and extension orientation were significant at the 5 per cent level. Purpose of produce, sufficiency of farm produce, environmental orientation, health consciousness, and management orientation were significant at the 1 per cent level. In Category II, the variables such as average monthly household income, urban farming experience, knowledge level, and management orientation were significant at the 5 per cent level, and purpose of produce, sufficiency of farm produce, family labour utilization, environmental orientation, health consciousness, and extension orientation were significant at the 1 per cent level. In Category III, urban farming experience, sufficiency of farm produce, knowledge level, environmental orientation, health consciousness, and extension orientation were significant at the 1 per cent level, with purpose of produce and family labour utilization significant at the 5 per cent level. For ecosystem services, in Category I, urban farming experience, purpose of produce, sufficiency of farm produce, family labour utilization, knowledge level, health consciousness, management orientation, and extension orientation were significant at the 5 per cent level, while environmental orientation was significant at the 1 per cent level. In Category II, purpose of produce, knowledge level, environmental orientation, and health consciousness were significant at the 5 per cent level, while urban farming experience, sufficiency of farm produce, family labor utilization, and extension orientation were significant at the 1 per cent level. In Category III, urban farming experience and sufficiency of farm produce were significant at the 5 per cent level, while purpose of produce, knowledge level, environmental orientation and extension orientation were significant at the 1 per cent level. The study concluded that the majority of respondents experienced a medium level of livelihood outcomes from urban agriculture, with higher perceived ecosystem service benefits. Based on this, urban agriculture can be viewed as an integrated approach that combines technological, social, and ecological measures to address urban challenges. However, limited land access hinders its broader adoption. To overcome this, the adoption and integration of innovative agricultural technologies or models should be pursued judiciously.