共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2003,16(6):619-624
2.
3.
4.
《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2005,18(4):421-424
5.
《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2006,19(1):111-112
6.
《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2005,18(6):613-616
7.
R. Haynes 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2006,19(6):593-598
8.
《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2003,16(2):223-224
9.
《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2005,18(5):525-528
10.
11.
《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2003,16(1):103-107
12.
13.
14.
《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2000,13(1-2):177-178
15.
16.
Gerda R. Wekerle 《Local Environment》2015,20(10):1175-1193
This paper addresses issues of access to land for food production in Toronto by offering fresh perspectives on urban agriculture in the neo-liberal city of the global north. It examines attempts to scale up urban agriculture that emphasise changing the relationships between land access, property and new collaborative relationships among different stakeholders. These initiatives involve renegotiating access to land for growing food between private property owners and landless growers, concomitant shifts in control over valued resources and commercialisation. These shifts are often based on relations of trust within a sharing economy rather than public battles over political decisions to develop urban agriculture lands. Growing food on private lands in the city is political in challenging taken-for-granted ideas and practices of property and urban agriculture. New approaches offer options for training and income, as well as expanding the land base for urban agriculture. Small-scale farming projects are affirmative political manoeuvres. They challenge urban residents to consider land for food production across the categories of public and private property. We document three approaches that challenge current property relations: temporary use of a development site through “soft” squatting; redesignating suburban backyards for farmer training and community-based and private food production; and garden sharing of private home backyards for urban food production and commercial growing. Such initiatives articulate alternative visions of sustainability and food security that rely on principles of collaboration and a sharing economy that challenge prevailing notions of property ownership and food security. 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
20.
《Journal of environmental psychology》1987,7(3):273-277