Investments in urban agriculture (UA) initiatives have been increasing in the United States, but the costs and benefits to society are poorly understood. Urban agriculture can link socioeconomic and health systems, support education and societal engagement, and contribute to a range of conservation goals, including nutrient recycling and biodiversity conservation. Urban agriculture is spatially dispersed and small scale, creating opportunities to redirect underutilized land, water, and nutrient resources. Urban agriculture reduces water and carbon footprints when it replaces lawns. Labor and time requirements, potential for environmental and nutrient pollution, and scarce water resources are challenges that UA must address. Based on our review of the literature, it is unclear whether UA provides economic or nutritional benefits to urbanites, but our case study shows that UA can provide some benefits when replacing other land uses.

Farm to school programs (F2SPs) operate in 42% of school districts and are supported in part through federal and state policies as well as philanthropic funding. Although research evaluating the effects of farm to school-related activities on student outcomes is growing, a systematic review of the results and thus a synthesis of implications for future programming have not occurred. The primary objective of this systematic literature review is to summarize and evaluate studies on student outcomes associated with farm to school-related activities up to 1 September, 2017. Four databases spanning 4 research disciplines were used to identify full-text, English-language studies. Twenty-one studies were reviewed: 7 explicitly investigated F2SPs, and 14 evaluated the impact of school-based interventions that were relevant to activities reported in the 2013 and/or 2015 Farm to School Census. All of the F2SP studies (n = 7) and 85.7% of farm to school-related activity studies (n = 12) were multicomponent, and there was a wide variety of implemented intervention components across the reviewed studies. Results from F2SP and farm to school-related activity studies consistently show positive impacts on food and nutrition-related knowledge; most studies also suggest a positive relation between farm to school-related activities and healthy food selection during school meals, nutrition self-efficacy, and willingness to try fruits and vegetables. The impact of farm to school activities on fruit and vegetable consumption and preferences is unclear. The most common F2SP study limitations were study designs that preclude causal inference, outcome measurement with no reported or limited psychometric testing, lack of long-term outcome evaluation, and challenges related to quantifying intervention implementation. These findings underscore the need for more conclusive evidence on the relation between farm to school-related activities and changes in fruit and vegetable consumption.

The number of food hubs—businesses that aggregate and distribute local food—in the United States is growing, fueled in part by increasing public support. However, there have been few data-driven assessments of the economic impacts of these ventures. Using an input-output-based methodology and a unique data set from a successful food hub, we measure net and gross impacts of a policy supporting their development. We estimate a gross output multiplier of 1.75 and an employment multiplier of 2.14. Using customer surveys, we estimate that every $1 increase in final demand for food hub products generates a $0.11 reduction in purchases in other sectors.

This study explores how participation in direct and intermediated marketing channels and key operational factors influence agricultural producers’ financial performance. Accordingly, we divide the sample of local and regional food marketers into quartiles segmented by profitability performance as an initial exploration of how strong and weak performance may vary across scale, location, and choice of direct and intermediated channels. Moreover, other financial metrics that vary across types of producers and performance-based quartiles are analyzed. This paper provides initial evidence that participation in direct and intermediated markets may allow farms of any scale of sales volume to be financially viable.

The changing structure of agriculture strains the historically close relationship between commodity agriculture and rural development. Meanwhile, growth in consumer interest for differentiated, value-added products has the potential to create community economic development opportunities. However, the evidence regarding the benefit of value-added programs for broader community wealth is mixed. We argue that the mixed findings result, in part, from differences in how “value-added” is defined. Value-added agriculture has been conceptualized in many ways. Taking a US-focused approach, we first review four main concepts: value-added, short food supply chain, values-based supply chain, and civic agriculture. Building on these, we present our definition of a value(s)-added food and agriculture sector, incorporating three features: (1) Consumers make purchases that simultaneously provide utility and enable a price premium; (2) the shared principles among firms and their relational arrangement support the distribution of the value, and thus the premium, across the chain and between owners and employees (the use of “principles” or “values” prompts the “(s)” in our definition); and (3) supply chain actors have a demonstrated commitment to the community. We discuss how this definition contributes to debates in, and has implications for, community economic development policy.