This paper examines the social, economic and environmental potential of Urban Agriculture (UA) based on information from forty distinct locations in each of the two regions: Adelaide, South Australia and Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, representing the diverse developmental background. Modelling is used to estimate equivalent employment, scale appropriateness, and earnings in comparison to labour use from commercial urban farming and gardening style UA, together with carbon dioxide emissions for two vegetable types. The study investigates the influence of distance and production scale under manual to modest mechanisation for urban vegetable production, finding that the interplay between labour use and mechanisation can favour scale-appropriate UA practices with better labour productivity and economic and social advantage. The distribution (assumed to be by car for UA) contributes the largest proportion of emissions, and the production component (even with mechanisation) contributes a relatively small portion per unit of production. We recommend that governments and planners should facilitate scale-appropriate mechanisation through better planning and policy instruments for UA’s sustainability.

Urban Agriculture (UA) is the widespread practice of food production within available city space using non-commercial, commercial and hybrid production technologies. The economic viability of UA remains a concern among UA practitioners. To investigate UA’s viability; land, labour and distribution cost are analyzed, and margin and benefit–cost ratio (BCR) under vacant lot, rooftop/backyard and discretionary labour UA are calculated. We present a straightforward approach to gauge the economic viability of UA taking examples from 40 distinct locations of two divergent development contexts of Adelaide, South Australia and Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. UA seems potentially viable by selecting high-value crops in Adelaide but showed little chance of viability under low-value crop scenarios in both contexts. The high cost of land is shown to be the primary driver of cost for UA. Labour cost appears to be a critical difference between the two cities, being an important constraint for the economic viability in Adelaide, where the wage rate is high. To improve economic viability, the respective governments and planners should consider better ways to avail subsidised land through policy intervention and volunteer or subsidised labour arrangement mechanisms. Home food gardens accessing available land and labour as a discretionary/spare time activity with zero distribution cost may represent the best way to produce food without exceeding market costs in cities.

Urban agriculture (UA), for recreational (gardening) and or commercial (farming) purposes, is commonly practised around the world, and uptake is increasing globally. There are many claims regarding UA’s social, economic and environmental benefits with scant exploratory research. The overarching objective of this paper is to access the potential economic, social and environmental contribution of UA based on five major features that have previously been shown to be critical to optimising the benefits of UA: area, purpose (gardening or commercial), crop value (mixed, mid to high), mechanisation level (none to partial mechanisation) and market mechanism (retail versus wholesale) based on past studies focusing on Adelaide, Australia and the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Including the reviewed 15 past studies that closely reflect the above five features of UA, most UA research has focused on the social benefits and potential cost savings of growing food in cities, with few studies interrogating its economic viability, employment potential or opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a clear need to study UA using a systems approach to ensure viability, replicability and sustainability. Real-world case studies focusing on diverse settings will help to characterise key features and corrective actions for improving overall sustainability.

Urban Agriculture (UA) is widely presented as a feature of sustainable cities, with various claims around economic, social, and/or environmental benefits. However, the extent to which these different benefits may reinforce or compete with one another is not clear. This paper presents an integrated modelling framework using proxy measures for economic benefit (the net margin, NM), social benefit (the full-time farmer employment equivalent (FTE) per consumer) and environmental benefit (reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, CO₂). The model is applied in two divergent development scenarios, including Adelaide, Australia, and the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, to study the characteristic features of UA in different settings. Two-stage optimisation is used to explore trade-offs and synergies when pursuing different objectives (NM, FTE and CO₂). The model seeks the optimal farming area and selects from three levels of mechanisation (non-mechanised, garden tiller and garden cultivator), two purposes (gardening and commercial), two crop value categories (mixed and mid- to high-value vegetables) and two market mechanisms (wholesale vs. retail). The results of the optimisation provide insights into the key features of a UA system depending on the objective(s) being pursued, which we believe is a novel approach to justify UA research. For instance, the model favours a commercial UA form (in which both land and labour are costed) with a larger area when pursuing an economic objective, whereas it favours a gardening form of UA when aiming to maximise participation in the food system, with the preferred area depending on the extent to which either the economic or environmental objective is also being pursued. In Adelaide, the model favours commercial UA for the best-case profit and carbon emissions, and gardening for FTE maximisation. In the Kathmandu Valley, the model chooses the gardening UA within the given model assumptions.

The citrus industry has grown substantially, supported by increasing trade and consumption driven by the distinctive sensory and nutritional qualities of citrus fruit. As consumer awareness is increasing, quality has become a central focus in the market. However, citrus fruit quality is multidimensional and is shaped by interactions among genotypes, environment, and preharvest and postharvest management practices. Understanding the attributes valued by consumers is therefore important for developing targeted marketing strategies and aligning value chain (VC) activities tailored to specific market segments. This study systematically reviewed 71 peer‐reviewed articles published between 1984 and September 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses protocol. Of these, 58 were biophysical studies, and only 13 were consumer studies covering nine countries. The limited consumer studies identified sensory and eating‐quality attributes, including flavor, juiciness, taste, aroma, sweetness, and ease of eating, as important attributes in Israel, China, and Oman. In contrast, appearance, price, freshness, country of origin, and production method were important to consumers in France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Mexico. Across the biophysical studies, citrus quality was influenced by scion and rootstock varieties, cultural practices, maturity stage, fertilization, packaging, phytosanitary treatments, storage temperature, degreening, coatings, dipping, and with‐leaf storage. These findings highlight the need for market‐specific consumer research and coordinated VC practices to produce, maintain, and deliver citrus attributes valued in intended markets.