Contemporary Urban Agriculture in European and Chinese Regions: A Social-Cultural Perspective

Abstract

With its early start in urbanization, Europe has accumulated a wealth of practical experience in urban agriculture (UA), exploring various development models. This paper compares and analyzes the characteristic patterns of UA in Europe and China through theoretical research, academic frontier exploration, and case analysis. In order to investigate and analyze theoretical developments and the current state of academic frontiers in a systematic, accessible, and comprehensive approach, the methodology of bibliometric analysis has been utilized. A bibliometric method is applied to analyze relevant data from the Web of Science (WoS) core collection database and 2230 CNKI publications. The case study section conducts separate field research on nine representative European practices of urban food gardening and urban farming. Additionally, the study scrutinizes UA research development and its implementation in Hangzhou, China. Based on the findings of this study, the authors recommend that European approaches to the development of UA in China’s future UA practice be taken into account, in particular their methods and strategies for realizing social and cultural benefits. It is imperative to integrate UA projects into urban green space system planning and to rationalize their construction types. Simultaneously, Chinese scholars are encouraged to explore the socio-cultural functions of UA, with a particular focus on urban agricultural heritage conservation.

1. Introduction

Urban agriculture (UA) includes commercial activities that produce food in greenhouses and open spaces; such production takes place on rooftops, in community gardens, and in public spaces. It also includes non-commercial and hybrid production technologies. The construct of UA can be bifurcated into two distinct forms: agriculture within urban locales and agriculture in peri-urban areas. Broadly speaking, UA encompasses both intra-urban and peri-urban dimensions, thereby including domains such as forestry, fisheries, and a portion of peri-urban agriculture, succinctly encapsulated as “cultivating plants and rearing animals in and around urban settings” [1,2].

A widely endorsed definition of UA, as posited by Mougeot in 2000 [3], articulates: “Urban agriculture is situated either within (intra-urban) or on the outskirts (peri-urban) of a town, city, or metropolis. It involves cultivating a variety of food and non-food products, (re-)utilizing predominantly human and material resources, products, and services found in and around the urban area, and, in return, supplying a substantial portion of these resources, products, and services to the urban area”. In fact, the concept is constantly being updated over time.

Generally, UA encompasses diverse modes of agri-food production, including conventional land-based agriculture, livestock/animal husbandry, greenhouse cultivation, aquaculture, mycoculture, apiculture, and more. Some scholars assert that UA entails agri-food production within the administrative perimeters of cities and in their surrounding peri-urban areas, extending to food production as well as the horticulture of ornamental flora (e.g., flowers) [4]. The notion and associated practices of UA have evolved amidst rapid urbanization processes. Presently, UA manifests in a variety of functional forms, labor compositions, and management models [5]. Some academics view UA as a multifunctional modern agricultural approach pivotal in ensuring food security, sustaining urban ecosystem services, enhancing urban life quality, diversifying diets, and fostering social cohesion and community empowerment [6]. This is a very critical point, thereby pointing and focusing on the social functions of UA.

UA models are diverse, often categorized based on the spatial context of cultivation, such as in allotment and community gardens. Additionally, UA increasingly focuses on functional expansion, including innovative practices like green wall and aquaponic cultivation [7]. Overall, UA is progressively permeating various facets of everyday life. In the rapidly evolving context of modern societies, UA has emerged as an efficacious solution to numerous contemporary societal challenges. The United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) mirror the types of UA initiatives that both developed and developing nations can adopt [8].

By 2022, projections indicate that 75% of Europe’s populace will reside in urban areas, in contrast to 64% in China. Moreover, China’s urban population is expected to ascend to 80% by 2050. Present data reveal that upwards of 800 million individuals globally engage in UA-related endeavors [9]. With the burgeoning urban demographic, the significance of UA’s evolution is increasingly paramount.

In terms of corresponding policies within the European context, the European Union (EU) has implemented several targeted policies that either directly or indirectly bolster UA. Regionally, as a principal strategy of The European Green Deal (EGD) formulated by the European Commission in 2020, the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy encompasses several policy goals impacting EU agricultural production. It includes specific actions like ensuring sustainable food production, fostering sustainable food consumption, encouraging shifts to healthier diets, and minimizing food loss and waste, thereby guiding UA development [10,11]. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), intended to reinforce economic, social, and territorial cohesion within the EU, advocates for green and low-carbon strategies to ameliorate the urban milieu. This includes initiatives such as brownfield regeneration and air pollution reduction, offering avenues for UA development [12].

RURBAN (Partnership for sustainable urban-rural development), a preparatory action endorsed by the European Parliament, involves research on establishing effective and sustainable urban-rural partnerships for enhanced economic development [13]. The Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP) [14], an international accord of substantial significance for Europe, was ratified in 2015 by over 100 cities. It underscores the sustainable evolution of urban food systems achievable through inter-city cooperation and the exchange of exemplary practices. Moreover, regarding research and innovation policy, the Horizon Europe program, the EU’s premier funding scheme for research and innovation, addresses major concerns shared by European citizens and beyond. The EU’s support for numerous multi-stakeholder UA research projects since 2010 accentuates the prominence of UA development within the EU. Under Horizon 2020 (the precursor to Horizon Europe), the EU financed approximately 28 projects related to UA research topics. Concurrently, diverse multi-stakeholder UA research programs have garnered support, highlighting the current significance of UA in the European context [15].

From an academic perspective, globally, there are significant differences in the patterns and processes of UA development between the southern and northern hemispheres. Research on UA in the southern hemisphere tends to focus on food production, household livelihoods, etc. In contrast, studies in the northern hemisphere tend to discuss the multi-functionality of UA, such as its ability to respond to climate change, enhance urban resilience, and promote public participation [16,17].

It is undeniable that the development of UA in the northern hemisphere does have certain drawbacks and shortcomings. Firstly, its land resources are limited and production costs are expensive, which leads to relatively high capital investment in UA projects, and later development will face certain risks. At the same time, the cost of technical training for farmers or workers is high. Due to the development model of UA, a certain number of laborers might be required to participate, which is likely to face the problem of labor shortage. Meanwhile, many countries in the northern hemisphere are highly industrialized, and with the acceleration of urbanization, UA is facing more serious problems of soil, water, and air pollution than in the southern hemisphere. These issues and challenges constrain the development of UA in the northern hemisphere to some extent. Although the UA model has strong limitations, it does have multiple functions and has been developed and practiced over a long period of time. Overall, it can be seen as a model of agriculture that is adapted to urban development, thereby bringing multiple benefits to urban dwellers.

As a populous country, China had a per capita arable land area less than 40% of the global average by the end of 2019 [18]. To manage the increasing annual food demand, it is crucial to explore diverse avenues for ensuring food security. Consequently, the development of UA becomes especially important.

The Five-Year Plan for Agricultural and Rural Development in China (2016–2020) proposes to focus on promoting the multi-functionality of UA. The National Plan for Sustainable Agricultural Development (2015–2030) (a long-term plan) outlines the development of circular agriculture, and the 14th Five-Year Plan for Circular Economy Development (2021–2025) emphasizes the establishment of circular agriculture. However, China’s progress in UA is relatively recent and still in its nascent stages, characterized by singular and non-innovative development models [19]. Therefore, it is imperative to draw from successful international experiences to enrich UA practices in China.

In general, as for Asia, the high-input, high-consumption development model of UA is still common. Such a mode of agricultural production may lead to varying degrees of pollution of urban land and water resources. In addition, for the development mode of UA, which is characterized by original ecological and organic production methods, in the case of imperfect production and inspection systems, people might be worried that agricultural production will be polluted by urban and industrial waste water and gas, thus making it impossible for them to obtain green and healthy agricultural products.

There are differences in the conditions for the development of UA in Asia and Europe, mainly in terms of city size, population density, and environmental condition. Firstly, many Asian city sizes and population density are generally large. Therefore, the food production function is the primary function of UA to be maintained for a long time. At the same time, due to the large population, Asian UA may face pressure to meet the needs of residents in their daily lives. Secondly, with regard to the problems of environmental pollution, UA was proposed in conjunction with the deterioration of environmental problems during the process of industrialization and rapid urbanization, as well as the promotion of the concept of sustainable development. Environmental pollution might still exist. In contrast, Europe has more experience in environmental protection.

Although Europe is in many ways significantly different from China, in terms of the UA development model, on the whole, we believe that a certain amount of inspiration can still be given to China, especially in terms of cultural-social functioning. Scholars such as researcher Ilieva contend that the socio-cultural benefits of UA include fostering engaged and cohesive communities, promoting health and well-being, creating economic opportunities, and providing educational experiences [20]. Concrete examples might include community gardens that boost neighborhood participation and urban farms with instructional capacities. Additionally, some researchers posit that UA can serve as a vehicle for transmitting traditional agricultural knowledge and historical development. One instance is traditional Chinese Xuanhua vineyards, which have been effectively preserved as heritage sites while remaining operational [21]. This paper’s approach to analyzing European and Chinese UA projects from a socio-cultural perspective is notably innovative. It facilitates extensive cross-learning and sharing in an area currently under-explored in research.

We begin by employing a bibliometric approach to collate and analyze the theory of UA in Europe, exploring cutting-edge academic research. Subsequently, we perform systematic field research, examining nine representative European UA practices. Next, we turn our attention to the theoretical development and academic research of UA in China. Ultimately, we posit that Europe’s developmental approaches and methods of UA, especially those that cultivate socio-cultural benefits, hold significant value for emulation, potentially enriching the future expansion of UA practices in China.

2. Materials and Methods

In the beginning, a bibliometric analysis of the theoretical development of UA in Europe is carried out in order to perceive its general development. For the state-of-the-art academic research on UA, we sourced bibliographic data from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database, including SCIE, SSCI, AHCI, CPCIS, ESCI, CCRE, and IC (SCIE: Science Citation Index Expanded; SSCI: Social Sciences Citation Index; AHCI: Arts & Humanities Citation Index; CPCIS: Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes; ESCI: Emerging Sources Citations Index; CCRE: Current Chemical Reactions (Expanded); IC: Index Chemicus). WoS was used as the research object with the keyword theme of “urban agriculture”, and we extracted a total of 3188 scientific articles published in the core collection of WoS during the period 2020–2022. (The date of inquiry was 27 April 2022. The following contents related to WoS check time are all for this purpose.) Europe was the top region in terms of the number of articles published globally, dominated by the UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy (see Figure 1).

After that, the research method involves the following three-step process. The first step is an analytical summary of the European situation. Through a summary of the literature, data, and books on the development of theories related to UA in Europe, we outlined the various UA-related theories, their historical background, and the ideological focus when they were proposed, in order to compile a timeline chart.

We used CiteSpace to quantitatively analyze the literature related to the field of UA. Currently, bibliometric analysis is a widely used method for literature research. CiteSpace (v.6.1.R2) is one of the most influential JAVA applications. By constructing a knowledge graph, it is possible to visualize the relationships between the literature data. Keyword (“urban agriculture”) co-occurrence analysis is a method for identifying research areas based on high-frequency keywords. The co-occurrence and clustering analysis of keywords can help us to summarize the focus and core issues currently discussed in the field of urban agriculture.

As for the case study, we selected nine cases for analysis. These cases were selected through the authors’ research and fieldwork in Europe between 2018 and 2022 for various reasons, such as scholars’ recommendations, field surveys, and scientific conference suggestions. Research information such as case selection principles, types, research methods, interviewees, and survey time are indicated in

Table 1. Specific process and approach to the implementation of case selection.

Site No.	Time	Research Method	Research Instrument	Questioner	Interviewee	Criteria for Case Selection
1	August 2018	Literature analysis, semi-structured interviews, fieldwork	Interview outlines, audio and photographic recording equipment, transcripts	The authors	Sample A1–6 (expert consultation) Sample A7–8 (random selection)	As a typical Local Food Farm, the case is highly relevant to the stronger protection of regional food products, preserving local economic development and ensuring food safety.
2	October 2019	Literature analysis, semi-structured interviews, fieldwork	Interview outlines, audio and photographic recording equipment, transcripts	The authors	Sample B1–3 (expert consultation) Sample B4 (expert consultation)	As an Educational Garden, the case is able to show the functioning of the ecosystem in a good way and is highly innovative.
3	February 2020	Literature analysis, semi-structured interviews, fieldwork	Interview outlines, audio and photographic recording equipment, transcripts	The authors	Sample C1–3 (expert consultation) Sample C4 (random selection)	The case is a prototypical, long-established Allotment Garden that is well worth studying and learning from.
4	May 2020	Literature analysis, semi-structured interviews, fieldwork	Interview outlines, audio and photographic recording equipment, transcripts	The authors	Sample D1 (expert consultation)	As an Environmental Farm, this excellent case is highly innovative in its ability to remediate pollution and reuse wasted space.
5	March 2021	Literature analysis, semi-structured interviews, fieldwork	Interview outlines, audio and photographic recording equipment, transcripts	The authors	Sample E1–2 (expert consultation)	Recommenders suggest it as representative of a typical Community Garden with a strong social function.
6	March 2022	Literature analysis, semi-structured interviews	Interview outlines, audio recording equipment, transcripts	The authors	Sample B1 (expert consultation)	Recommender suggests it as representative of a typical Therapeutic Garden with a function of physical and mental treatment.
7	August 2022	Literature analysis, conference participation, data collection	/	/	/	It has a significant social service function, which can be regarded as a typical example of a Social Farm.
8	August 2022	Literature analysis, semi-structured interviews	Interview outlines, audio recording equipment, transcripts	The authors	Sample B1, C1 (expert consultation)	This case is an influential Leisure Farm with comprehensive features that are of importance to the city and thus worthy of reference.
9	October 2022	Literature analysis, semi-structured interviews	Interview outlines, audio recording equipment, transcripts	The authors	Sample A1–3, B1, C1 (expert consultation)	The case is a prototypical, long-established Cultural Heritage Farm that is well worth studying and learning from.

.

These nine cases are considered suitable for guiding the development of UA in China by both the scholars and authors. For example, some community gardens have a significant social service function, and certain urban farms serve as excellent platforms for showcasing agricultural heritage. Other cases demonstrate high environmental friendliness and sustainability in food and energy production through organic or renewable ecosystem service approaches, thus mitigating issues like soil erosion and water pollution. These representative cases offer valuable insights for the advancement of UA in China.

It is worth mentioning that due to time and space constraints, we were limited in the selection of UA cases and the number of interviews conducted. Therefore the selected cases are not representative of all European UA case types, but are of some guidance and relevance.

Then, we quantitatively analyzed these cases from health, social, ecological, and economic perspectives. First, the criteria used in the evaluation were based on relevant studies issued by the European Commission for Agriculture and Rural Development, and the final assessment was conducted using a five-point Likert scale. Then, we mainly used a combination of expert consultation and feedback from on-site investigators to average the scores after comprehensive rating by three or more people. Finally, the relevant conclusions were drawn.

The second step is to comprehensively explain the theory and practice of UA in China. Through a literature review and the collection of historical data/maps, we drew a diagram of the distribution of UA activities in the city during ancient times. Subsequently, the development of UA theory in China was summarized. As for the academic frontier research, the bibliographic data were obtained from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) platform. CiteSpace (v.6.1.R2) software (keyword co-occurrence analysis) was also used to perform a quantitative analysis of the relevant literature in the UA field.

The third step is to compare the theory and practice of the two regions and summarize the aspects that are useful for China, with a view to providing further orientation for future development. As for the methods, the study of theory and practice, case studies, and field research were considered. As a result of the analysis, relevant issues that emerged in China were pointed out. In conjunction with the authors’ field research on specific cities (e.g., Hangzhou), strategies for enhancing and optimizing the future development of social-cultural UA in China were proposed specifically.

The concrete research framework and methods are illustrated in Figure 2. The main methodology, i.e., theoretical organization, case study collection, and comparative analysis, is combined and advanced in layers, so as to interpret and analyze Chinese and European UA theories and cases from multiple perspectives.

3. Results

3.1. Theory and Practice of Contemporary UA in Europe

3.1.1. Main Theoretical Overview

UA is often developed as a social innovation platform, seeking innovative solutions to tackle the social, economic, and environmental challenges of cities [22]. A review of the historical literature indicates that during the 18th and 19th centuries, several major theories originating within Europe significantly influenced the development of UA in the region. In 1826, German agricultural economist von Thünen formulated the theory of agricultural location, providing a detailed exploration of the geographical distribution of urban agricultural production space [23]. Specifically, von Thünen hypothesized that urban suburbs would form six concentric circles of agricultural production, each with its distinct primary products and agricultural systems [24,25]. The theory interpreted UA from the perspectives of geographical location and functional zoning at that time, but the current development pattern of UA has gone far beyond the scope of the theory.

Some scholars argue that the formal inception of the “urban agriculture” concept can be traced back to 19th century German allotment gardens [26,27]. Moving into the 20th century, The Garden Cities theory, proposed by British scholar Ebenezer Howard, is an approach to urban planning that aims to equilibrate the proportions of residential, industrial, and agricultural areas by enclosing human communities in areas of fields or gardens [28]. The “Garden City” is the first example of the unification of UA and urban planning, in which the practice of UA has two main functions: economic and recreational [29]. Furthermore, the Victory Garden in the UK cannot be ignored either. During World War II, the government encouraged the planting of victory gardens not only to increase food supplies and thus reduce the pressure on wartime food availability, but also for defense against foreign enemies and to boost morale.

Theories that have had a major impact on contemporary UA have been put forward individually in the 21st century. These theories basically address the functions of UA in contemporary society from different perspectives and with different disciplinary tendencies. However, no uniformity has been achieved regarding the specific typology of UA.

Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPULs), proposed by architects Katrin Bohn and Andre Viljoen in 2005, offer urban planning and design strategies based on an agricultural perspective from the disciplines of planning, architecture, and landscapes [30]. Andres Duany introduced the concept of Agrarian Urbanism [31], which emphasizes the function of daily work in local communities. In particular, this concept involves developing sustainable communities centered around food production and marketing, reducing food miles, ensuring residents’ food independence and viability, and creating a development model of small farms and courtyard gardens [32].

Edible Urbanism, first proposed by the American scholar Esperdy in 2002 [33], focuses on the importance of traditional markets in the process of urban regeneration. The main thrust of this theory is ensuring that urban residents have access to fresh produce and its sellers. In 2019, Russo and Cirella reformulated the concept as “a sustainably planned network of edible food components and structures within an urban ecosystem, which can serve to manage and design the supply capacity of ecosystem services” [34], emphasizing UA as an important component of urban green infrastructure (edible green infrastructure). Furthermore, they elaborated on the socio-ecological benefits of UA: the ability to contribute to the health and well-being of citizens through ecological improvements and public participation (e.g., preventing malnutrition and other digestive disorders).

In summary, while each theory was developed in a specific historical context, the overall idea is focused on the issues of securing food supply and food security, reducing energy consumption, and promoting employment. Simultaneously, there are studies that demonstrate the social benefits of UA, which can provide more sustainable livelihoods and food security for refugees and their families [35]. UA is an excellent way of solving the problem of livelihoods for refugees. The surge in the number of refugees in recent years has led to a growing number of European scholars undertaking innovative theoretical and practical research on UA.

On the whole, CPULs focus on the integration of urban open spaces and agricultural systems while taking into account landscape aesthetics and ecology. In addition to the ecological functions of UA, the theories of Agrarian Urbanism stress the importance of community participation in urban agricultural activities. The reinterpretation of Edible Urbanism focuses on the enrichment of urban food systems while expanding the scope to the multiple benefits of agricultural systems in urban green infrastructure.

European scholars have also focused on follow-up research related to agrarian urbanism [36]. In addition, some scholars have begun to focus on the links between urban agriculture and cultural heritage preservation and tourism development, highlighting the potential of urban agricultural projects to realize cultural and historical values.

3.1.2. Academic Frontiers

According to Figure 1 and its corresponding literature data, we continued our quantitative analysis of the literature. Our analysis focused on publications from the European region. The definition of the research content for “European countries” is based on the direct manipulation of the interface options of the WoS system. We primarily used CiteSpace software (keyword co-occurrence analysis) to analyze the data. Integrated, the main keywords of research themes explored by the European studies included climate change, mitigation strategies, urban development, agricultural landscapes, as well as water pollution and its management. At the technical level, related studies focus on the spatial distribution of 3S (global position system, geography information system, and remote sense) technology and its potential for sustainable agricultural development through nature-based solutions (NbS). Specifically, in the health dimension, the focus is on food safety, public health, and other issues; in the economic dimension, the tendency is to study the role of urban agriculture in enhancing the regional economy (e.g., increasing employment opportunities); in the social dimension, the main focus is on local food-related policies, food democratization, and tourism development; and in the ecological dimension, the focus is on the study of climate change and adaptation, water pollution prevention, and low-carbon agricultural development.

Furthermore, in recent years, European academics have begun to dig deeper into the cultural values of the UA. Two recent monographs have laid the groundwork for this.

One is the book entitled AgriCultura, which was published in 2020. It highlights the fact that there has been little research in the scientific field on the historical study of UA. The historical development of UA and the related cultural context cannot be ignored. Aspects related to local characteristics of agriculture such as social organization, culture, and traditions need to be urgently investigated [37].

The other book is Urban Agricultural Heritage which was published in 2023. It is emphasized that traditional food production systems should be considered as an aspect of urban cultural heritage, and that the agricultural landscape acts as a cultural resource in the urban context [38]. Numerous cases are cited in this publication, thus expanding the multiple values of UA and emphasizing its efficacy in the cultural and social sphere. This study proposes new perspectives and guidelines to consider UA as an aspect of cultural heritage and to address UA in a global context. For example, UA can be regarded as an important part of the urban landscape as it has a strong cultural landscape features. Moreover, the book suggests that UA can be embodied in different forms of civic engagement, which contributes to the sustainable development of the region. The proposal of this theory constitutes essential guidance for a country like China, which has a strong background of cultivation and farming culture. Future cultural-social-oriented UA development can be extensively referenced by China.

3.1.3. Practices in European Countries

It is clear that UA practice types have been the subject of ongoing discussion among European scholars. In 2015, the German scholar Lohrberg systematically discussed the shape, function, and business models of different European UA practice projects [39]. Two main types of UA practices have been identified: urban food gardening (UFG) and urban farming (UF). UFG consists mainly of “agricultural activities with a low economic dependence on material output” (mostly small scale crop production) to realize other (e.g., social, cultural) values. In contrast, UF refers to a profit-oriented “business model that takes advantage of proximity to the city and is conducted purposefully by providing local or regional agricultural products or services”.

Independent of their foundational concepts, UA projects are widely initiated and implemented across Europe. From 2018 to 2022, through extensive field research, a comprehensive review of the pertinent literature, and consultations with European UA experts, the authors meticulously selected nine distinct and exemplary cases for this study. The entire case selection is shown in Section 2, and the main processes and selections are as follows. Interviews were conducted primarily with relevant local people, thus facilitating an understanding of the context, type, and main functions of the UA program. The interviews focused on assessing four aspects (health, social, economic, and environmental functions) of UA. We consulted university scholars, local farmers, project managers, and management staff in terms of expertise and field knowledge. Those randomly selected for interviews were local farmers and management staff. Furthermore, the specific selected types are detailed in

Table 2. Explanation of the UA’s typology * in Europe and the case selection situation.

Overall Typology	Specific Types	Selected as Case Study	Reasons for Not Being Chosen
Urban food gardening	Allotment Gardens	√
	Therapeutic Gardens	√
	Educational Gardens	√
	Community Gardens	√
	Family Gardens		This type is more similar to Chinese Family Gardens in both function and form, so the authors believe it can be omitted from the comparative study.
	Squatter Gardens		Squatter settlements have different scopes and definitions in Chinese and European perspectives. To avoid ambiguity, the authors believe that they should also be omitted from the comparative study.
Urban farming	Leisure Farms	√
	Social Farms	√
	Educational Farms		Very similar to the functionality of Educational Gardens
	Therapeutic Farms		Very similar to the functionality of Therapeutic Gardens
	Cultural Heritage Farms	√
	Experimental Farms		In terms of the findings, the authors believe that the types of experimental farms are too diverse to select a representative case to analyze and interpret, and for the sake of objectivity, these types have therefore been excluded from the case study in this paper.
	Local Food Farms	√
	Environmental Farms	√

Note *: The typology of UA in Europe is based on the concepts of the book Urban Agriculture Europe [39] (scientific research results of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

.

• Urban food gardening (UFG)

UFG comprises AGs, TGs, EGs, and CGs (Figure 3). Allotment gardens (AGs) are mostly managed by local allotment garden associations, and the land under their jurisdiction is divided into small plots and leased to members of the association (on an individual or family basis) at a low cost [40]. In Germany, members of garden associations are entitled to use allotment gardens and can grow fruits and vegetables there for their own consumption. However, according to the German Federal Allotment Garden Act (BKleinG), members are not allowed to sell their produce. Each allotment garden should not exceed 400 m² and the maximum allowed floor space is 24 m² (for non-residential buildings) [41]. For example, the Groß Tivoli project in the German city of Aachen, built in 1922, currently consists of 39 allotment gardens [42], which are more typical of German allotment gardens.

Therapeutic gardens (TGs) have been argued to reduce mental illness, slow the progression of dementia, and promote cardiac rehabilitation [43]. Currently, gardens dedicated to rehabilitation are growing rapidly in the United States [44]. Such gardens can be attached to hospitals, nursing homes, retirement communities, etc. They are complex in type and broadly classified as therapeutic, meditative, contemplative, or restorative [45]. The Living Lab in Zagreb, Croatia, one of the EU Horizon 2020-funded proGIreg projects, was designed in consultation with local disability groups. The garden as a whole was designed as a multi-sensory site so that users can experience, explore, and understand the spatial site using all their senses [46].

Educational gardens (EGs) come in many forms. Aquaponics (aquaculture), a form of cultivation that combines aquaculture with hydroponic crops, is a symbiotic ecosystem centered on the principle that microorganisms in water can break down organic matter from fish excreta into inorganic salts that can be absorbed by plants [47]. For example, a small greenhouse built by die Urbanisten in Dortmund, Germany, is equipped with ecological boxes for aquaponic systems. This organization offers various guided tours to the public, holds seminars on scientific hydroponics [48], and has established close links with many research institutions.

As for the community gardens (CGs), the Lea Garofalo Community Garden is an open and shared green space located in the urban center of the Milan metropolitan area, Italy [49]. In 2013, an agreement was signed with the Municipality of Milan for the temporary use of the space and support for G.i.T management of the community garden in full compliance with the “Guidelines for Sharing Gardens” issued by the Municipality of Milan [50]. The guidelines aim to support non-profit volunteer organizations and citizens who come together to engage in gardening activities to rebuild degraded or abandoned areas.

• Urban farming (UF)

UF comprises LFs, SFs, CHFs, LFFs, and EFs (Figure 4). There are many types of leisure farms (LFs), offering different types of recreational activities due to the diversity in citizens’ leisure activity behavior. For example, Belvedere Park in Cologne, Germany, is a comprehensive park designed with the themes of agricultural landscape and agritourism [51]. As an important part of Cologne’s green infrastructure, it consists of several small farms. The three parties decide on the size of the crop-growing area, the selection of crop varieties, and the division of functional areas within the park boundaries while keeping the future development of the recreational park in mind [52].

As for social farms (SFs), although the main function of the urban farm concept is to realize the sale and service of agricultural products with commercial behavior as the main focus, its social service role cannot be ignored. Due to the influx of refugees into Europe in recent years, societies are actively searching for ways to facilitate intercultural exchange so that refugees can integrate better and more quickly into their new living environments and earn an income. There are many such social service farms in Berlin, Germany; for instance, the Haus Leo project provides accommodation and shelter for refugees, and promotes integration and intercultural exchange through gardening activities [53].

Cultural heritage farms (CHFs) have a distinctive character, that is, a model of agricultural production and life that combines UA with the preservation of traditional tangible or intangible cultural heritage. The conservation of agricultural heritage is of great importance [54], especially in urban contexts where protecting the few remaining elements of traditional agriculture is vital. Elche, Spain, a city with a strong Muslim cultural background, is home to the Elche Palm Garden, which was included in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2000 [55]. There are terraces for the cultivation of vegetables and fruits, and the planting of palm trees stabilizes the soil and reduces water evaporation, thus protecting farmland distributed in the forest from high winds [56]. The original irrigation system and plant varieties have been preserved.

Local food farms (LFFs) echo the above-mentioned food urbanism and edible urbanism in that they promote the consumption of local produce. The Rice Agricultural Park in Milan is a notable example. The park was created in 2008 after consultation with non-profit organizations, farmers, and citizens with the aim of preserving the original ecology and crops [57]. The park combines recreational, educational, and ecological conservation functions with a focus on local agricultural traditions and food culture. The traditional farm buildings and the courtyard layout of the site have been preserved.

The conservation of the ecological environment is a key concern for farms. The type of environmental farms (EFs) is closely related to the concepts of “ecological agriculture” and “sustainable agriculture”, which aim to produce food and energy in a sustainable way. The Hansa Coking Plant in Dortmund, one of Germany’s leading coal production and processing sites, is currently considered an industrial heritage site, but it remains partially unused or abandoned. The ProGIreg Program plans to build an agricultural garden on the site [58] to regenerate the brownfield. Part of the former industrial site will be used for fish farming and fruit and vegetable cultivation, which will be carried out using an aquaponics system so that fruit can be grown and fish can be bred simultaneously in an ecological and sustainable manner in an urban area. At the same time, to enhance the ecology and increase the biodiversity of the post-industrial heritage site, there are plans to establish several vegetable and insect gardens [59].

In summary, these nine types of UA practice projects have different forms and functions (

Table 3. Potential functional benefits for different types of UA projects in Europe.

Dimension	Contents 1
Health dimension	Access to healthy food, food health literacy, healthy eating, physical activity, recreation/spiritual experience, mental health
Social dimension	Mobilization/empowerment, personal safety, socially integrated aging, community building/social inclusion, social interaction capacity, skills/knowledge acquisition opportunities, youth development/education, trust in producers/food, food security, urban/landscape design, place making/identity
Economic dimension	Local economy stimulation, job creation, job readiness, food affordability/cost savings, food chain transparency/traceability, income generation, market accessibility, productive use of vacant land, innovation/competitiveness
Environmental dimension	Environmental awareness, environmental conservation and biodiversity, water and soil management, natural disaster control, carbon dioxide reduction/sequestration, land use/cropping diversity, nutrient recycling, food waste reduction, air quality improvement and noise reduction, local climate regulation/cooling

¹ Source: Research for AGRI Committee-Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in the EU [60], pp. 22–23. Redrawn by the authors.

), and each has different functional aspects. Taking into account the functional classification indicators related to urban (peri-urban) agricultural research in 2018, as well as the authors’ research, they were assessed in a comprehensive manner (see Figure 5).

It can be concluded that in the health dimension, CG and AG have high scores, which basically meet the social needs of health and can guarantee the safety of food. In terms of the economic dimension, systematically, CF scores high because of the employment opportunities provided by groups such as refugees. In addition, LFF, which tends to promote local food sales, and LF, which is more closely integrated with tourism, have high scores. Regarding the social dimension, it is clear from the analysis of the cases that SF, CG, AG, TG, and CHF all have a high advantage in this dimension. In the ecological dimension, the criteria include soil and water conservation and the protection of species diversity, etc. EF has the highest score, followed by AG and LFF.

In more depth, with respect to their social-cultural function, according to the analysis (shown in

Table 4. Socio-cultural functional analysis of nine cases and their concrete measures.

Typology	Cases	Main Social-Cultural Functions	Concrete Measures
UFG	CG	Community building, cross-cultural communication, social interaction capacity, skills/knowledge acquisition opportunities, trust in producers/food, urban/landscape design	Promoting interaction between residents of different cultural backgrounds; Promoting neighborhood development and bringing communities together to engage in gardening activities; Encouraging citizens to build landscapes and redevelop abandoned areas of the city; Self-sufficiency in food; Enhancing the agronomic skills of the residents.
	AG	Social interaction capacity, skills acquisition opportunities, trust in producers/food, food security	Providing adequate space for social interaction; Self-sufficiency in food; Providing professional horticultural training.
	TG	Socially integrated aging, social inclusion, social interaction capacity, urban/landscape design	Ensuring excellent urban ecosystems; Providing an excellent living environment for residents; Strong care for the elderly.
	EG	Knowledge acquisition opportunities, youth education	Educational functions, especially for young people, in the various forms of educational programs and seminars
UF	SF	Cross-cultural communication, personal safety, socially integrated aging, social inclusion, social interaction capacity, skills acquisition opportunities, youth education, food security, place making/identity	Promoting interaction between residents of different cultural backgrounds (refugees in particular); Promoting neighborhood development and bringing communities together to engage in farming activities; Access to local food supply channels; Enhancing the agronomic skills of the residents; Strong care for the elderly and young people.
	CHF	Cultural heritage preservation, urban/landscape design, knowledge acquisition opportunities, cultural identity	Various measures to preserve local agricultural heritage; Promoting cultural tourism and sightseeing activities; Developing a traditional agricultural landscape.
	LFF	Food security, urban/landscape design, cultural identity, knowledge acquisition opportunities	Promoting cultural tourism and sightseeing activities; Developing a traditional agricultural landscape; Native species conservation.
	EF	Knowledge acquisition opportunities, youth education	Site visits and related activities
	LF	Urban/landscape design	Development of agricultural landscapes

), these nine types of UA projects are relatively strong in terms of their social benefits. In terms of cultural features, SF, CG, CHF, and LFF have a strong manifestation. Among them, the cases of SF and CG focus on different cultural background groups and promote cultural exchanges among them through a variety of measures. CHF and LFF, on the other hand, are more directed at the preservation and inheritance of agricultural heritage or local agro-cultural landscapes and traditional activities. The measures taken in specific cases have also been analyzed in depth, and are detailed in Table 4.

3.2. Analysis of UA Development in China

3.2.1. The Process of UA Development

China, a nation with an extensive agricultural tradition, spans a vast territory with diverse agricultural practices and resources that vary significantly across different regions [61,62,63]. Its rich history in farming and agriculture is well documented.

The oldest agricultural production in China can be traced back to more than 7000 years ago [64]. Since 220-202 BC, hunger has been recognized as a cause of political turbulence: the motto “food is the paramount necessity of the people” is considered one of the major principles for governance [65].

According to Shi [66], before the Qing dynasty (1636–1912), most royal residences were located in the privileged city center and much agricultural land was available for their use. They could even use parts of their royal gardens to grow vegetables, grains, and fruit. Government officials were permitted to live in any location other than the city center. Urban farming activities mainly involved the growth of vegetables in or near their yards in the city or on the outskirts of urban areas.

Other citizens and farmers usually lived outside the city center. A large proportion of these settlements were spread along the outer city wall. Farmlands in the peri-urban area of the city were concentrated on vegetable and fruit cultivation. Residents often conducted agricultural activities in their yards. In addition, they sold vegetables and foodstuffs in relatively regular locations, such as at markets and on the streets (Figure 6).

It can be seen that UA had already taken shape in ancient China and has a long history of development. The process of UA development in China can be illustrated as follows.

According to the analysis of the related literature, the rapid development of urban society and the economy was accompanied by the derivation or transformation of traditional peri-urban agriculture. As the growth of Chinese cities was centered on urban areas, agricultural production activities were mostly located on the city outskirts, reflecting suburban agriculture. UA mainly served to supply the agricultural products necessary for urban residents, stabilize prices, and serve society. However, with the rapid economic development of cities, people established more stringent requirements for consumption; therefore, new requirements for the development of agriculture were proposed to keep pace with the times.

Many scholars argue that the first period of contemporary UA in China was theoretical research (1989–1993). It is worth explaining that the concept and specific theory of UA is not considered to have begun formally in China until the 20th century. However, there were in fact many prototypes of UA, such as traditional residential gardens, street plots, and growing spaces in public parks. However, the literature in this field has not been well researched and evidenced.

In the late 1980s, Shanghai researchers began to translate and introduce foreign UA research, sparking the use of the term “urban agriculture” in China [67]. The second stage was the period of practical exploration (1994–2004), during which some regions in Beijing adopted UA as a strategic agricultural development approach. In 1997, the Beijing Rural Economy Research Center published the first academic publication towards UA in China [68]. The third period was the process of rapid development (2005–present). In 2005, the Beijing Municipal Government issued opinions on accelerating the development of modern UA. After that, some cities began to incorporate the development of UA into their urban development plans, and formulated relevant policies and regulations. In 2012, China’s State Council released the National Development Plan for Modern Agriculture (2011–2015), which proposed to “…take the lead in realizing modern agriculture in multifunctional agricultural areas on the outskirts of large cities⋯”. Many cities began to issue specific policies and opinions to promote UA growth, and increased policy and financial support for UA development.

3.2.2. Academic Frontiers

In the context of China’s actual situation, the scholars Yang and Cai point out that the current demand for UA in China’s metropolitan cities is focused on achieving its leisure and environmental protection functions, and local governments also hope that the development of UA can promote local agricultural employment opportunities [69]. At the same time, UA in regions with rapid economic growth is mostly focused on fulfilling the needs of tourism, leisure, and ecology, while regions with slower economic development mainly emphasize the economic functions of UA projects.

In terms of the academic research, we used CiteSpace to analyze 2230 relevant studies published on the CNKI platform (Master’s and doctoral theses, academic journals, conference journals, newspapers, and books) over the past seven years (2016–2022), using “urban agriculture” as the keyword of theme. Figure 7 shows that according to the number of occurrences, the keywords in descending order are “development model”, “leisure agriculture”, “landscape design”, “rural revitalization”, as well as “rural tourism”. The reason is that in China today, UA projects are mostly located in peri-urban areas or the outskirts of towns and cities. That is why UA is also being associated with elements related to rural development or rural revitalization. UA projects are not well distributed in urban centers due to limited urban land resources and high business costs. But more importantly, in actual planning and practice, large areas of agricultural land cannot occur in built-up urban areas. As a result, UA can only exist in other forms of land categories, which often creates a number of other external problems for traditional agricultural producers and operators.

3.2.3. Practices of UA in China

From the perspective of project implementation, several scholars have delineated the primary models of modern UA in China. These predominantly manifest as leisure and tourism models, public education initiatives, family gardening, online farm markets, and sustainable production models [70]. Additionally, this perspective highlights that there are predominantly three major types of UA in China: leisure tourism agriculture, industrial development-focused agriculture, and science and technology innovation-driven agriculture. Notably, researchers are increasingly focusing on three Chinese megacities—Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen—to typify UA, thereby aiming to encapsulate the overarching characteristics and developmental trends of UA across China [71].

In Beijing, UA demonstrates a composite model of multifaceted development. The form and function of UA vary according to natural features and geographic locations. Proximal urban areas, endowed with abundant technological and human resources, are inclined towards the development of “agricultural industrial parks” and leisure agriculture. In contrast, more remote suburban regions lean towards intensive agricultural production and ecological preservation efforts [72]. The functional role of agriculture in Beijing’s urban development has evolved significantly, transitioning from a singular emphasis on agricultural production and supply to a more multifaceted role, encompassing the enhancement of urban life and ecological environment optimization. For instance, the “Xiao Mao Lv” Urban Farm in Beijing exemplifies a complex UA practice. It prioritizes organic and ecological agriculture, adopting the community-supported agriculture (CSA) model to facilitate direct interactions between farmers and municipalities. This includes promoting self-production, direct marketing, and the dissemination and popularization of urban farming techniques among citizens [73].

The overall UA development strategy of Shanghai is quite consistent with that of Beijing. The development of UA has multiple significance for urban and social development, including producing and supplying fresh and high-quality agricultural products, protecting the ecological environment and natural space, meeting diverse social and cultural needs, and promoting rural economic development [74].

For the suburban area, according to the Fourteenth Five-Year Plan for the Revitalization of Shanghai’s Rural Areas issued in 2021, the construction of an efficient and technologically advanced suburban agricultural development model has been highlighted [75]. UA projects tend to be developed in the form of “agricultural self-picking gardens”, “ecological demonstration gardens”, or “Nongjiale”, and are mostly located in the suburbs. In addition, in 2021, the Chongming District in Shanghai has developed the first domestic negative behavioral list for green agricultural development, defining criteria for ecological evaluation indicators of agricultural production. These initiatives are Shanghai’s innovative practices in UA, demonstrating the city’s practical actions in green and sustainable development [76].

Within urban built-up areas, the development of community gardens has gained significant traction. The “Knowledge & Innovation Community” (KIC) garden, championed by Yuelai Liu, is a noteworthy example, focusing on fostering resident interaction and cooperation through community gardens and organizing regular social activities, including educational lectures [77].

In Shenzhen, UA development is distinctly characterized by a focus on ecological benefits, a comprehensive logistics system, and the application of cutting-edge technology. A prime example is the Guangming Farm in the suburban Guangming District, leveraging its abundant agricultural resources to establish a holistic agricultural development model. This model integrates sightseeing, tourism, science education, animal husbandry, and high-tech agricultural parks, among other comprehensive UA projects [78].

Overall, UA projects in China predominantly concentrate in peri-urban areas, with an emphasis on ecological and economic benefits. Compared to Europe, cultural and social UA projects are less prevalent, and urban center projects excel in intelligent, intensive management, community-shared garden construction, and high-technology utilization. However, there is an observed deficiency in cultural or social UA projects, indicating an avenue for enhancement.

The authors argue that the rationality of introducing the European experience into China deserves further in-depth discussion. The potential types of UA in China are more complex and diverse, and there is a lack of uniform construction and management standards. Some scholars believe that in China, “……there are a multitude of benefits accrued through small-scale intra-urban agriculture; however, it has largely been left out of formal policy” [79]. According to Wang, as far as the scope of intra-urban areas is concerned, currently “agricultural land is neither urban land nor urban green space” [80]. Many small, spontaneous vegetable gardens are often found in public and ancillary green spaces, such as comprehensive municipal parks, overpasses, street green belts, old residential areas, campuses, communities, office buildings, old industrial bases, and urban open spaces. Some vegetable gardens are “often regulated and suppressed, and in some places are explicitly prohibited”. In addition, permanent or temporary urban food markets can also be classified as UA projects. According to Liang, the process of transforming farms into supermarkets in China has resulted in the alienation of everyday living spaces, thus losing the original urban atmosphere [81]. The construction of farmers’ markets is also a key part of UA practice.

Significantly, China is home to numerous agricultural and cultural heritage sites within urban areas. For instance, the Haizhu high bed-low ditch agroecosystem [82] in Guangzhou and the traditional grape garden in Zhangjiakou [83,84] are renowned for their lengthy history and unique cultivation methods. However, issues like inadequate safeguarding and monolithic development modes persist. The social and cultural aspects of European UA project models offer valuable insights for preserving and developing China’s urban agricultural heritage. These models can foster public engagement through diverse social and cultural activities, ensuring that agricultural heritage garners heightened awareness and protection through various societal endeavors.

From a societal perspective, the future of UA theory and practice in China can benefit significantly from the adoption of European experiences. In particular, the social functions of UA need to be emphasized and promoted, aligning with global trends, especially in the post-pandemic era. In the wake of COVID-19, UA has the potential to play an instrumental role in ensuring food and nutrition security, as well as bolstering social resilience, chiefly through community gardens [85,86].

4. Discussion

4.1. Discussion of European UA Development

Through literature analysis, case collection, and interviews and surveys, we found that, in terms of theoretical development, European theories on UA are relatively well developed and updated according to the times and different needs. However, the authors believe that the current categorization in Section 3.1 has some limitations and that the categorization still has the potential for further refinement. For example, in Montreuil, a suburb of Paris, France, there is a small special peach orchard [87] where peaches are planted along the walls, which act as insulation from cold temperatures. This method of cultivation dates back to the 17th century [88]. However, the peach orchard’s main income now comes from renting space for cultural events such as art exhibitions or music festivals. Strictly speaking, it belongs to the heritage conservation category of urban fruit and vegetable gardens, rather than being commonly regarded as a for-profit farm that mainly supplies and sells agricultural products according to the categorization criteria. In addition, the nine cases mentioned above serve a variety of functions, so many fall into the category of gardens or farms with educational, recreational, and social service functions rather than a single type. However, following the principle of optimal function, the authors focus on the typology according to the prominent function of the case in their analyses and introductions, but in fact, many of the UA cases have multiple benefits.

4.2. Discussion of Chinese UA Development

Through literature analysis and case collection, we argue that the development of a standardized framework and criteria to support different functions and a manageable diversity of UA forms or models are demanded. Future urban planning in China should consider how to regulate and improve these phenomena.

Effective UA project implementation necessitates identifying diverse urban needs across megacities, large cities, medium-sized cities, and smaller cities, focusing on realizing distinct functional characteristics. Additionally, the disparity between suburban and inner urban development types must be delineated. Most inner cities should prioritize small-scale urban fruit and vegetable gardens, focusing on social and cultural values and fostering community co-production participation. Conversely, peri-urban area constructions should consider medium- and large-scale farms, adopting various industrial agricultural production modes to meet urban demands and fulfill different functions.

4.3. Specific Type: Urban Agricultural Heritage

The theoretical development process outlined above, coupled with a quantitative analysis of academic frontiers, suggests that the development of UA in Europe has shifted gradually from an economic orientation to a focus on exploring the ecological, social, and cultural benefits of UA projects. The theory and practice of UA in China, having developed later than in Europe, can greatly benefit from current European theoretical advancements and the socio-cultural values highlighted in the nine case studies presented in Section 3.1. Of particular note is the profound significance of recognizing the cultural heritage features of UA in China, a topic that some scholars have already begun to explore [89,90].

The related doctoral thesis of the first author also comprehensively explores the need to preserve urban agricultural heritage in China. In particular, the city of Hangzhou has been thoroughly researched and analyzed [91]. As an example, many types of traditional agricultural heritage are currently present in the city. They consist of multiple elements: traditional culinary products, local species, ancient fields, old barns, tea processing and production methods, etc. Typical examples include Xiaolin ginger growing area, octagonal diagram field relic park, persimmon in Jiang village, tea plantation in Meijiawu, museum of Hangzhou dishes, Tongjian lake, as well as Fuyi Barn, However, during conversations with local people in Hangzhou, we discovered that few people were aware of the importance of the agricultural heritage and its potential for future development. UA heritage in Hangzhou is still not a significant matter of public concern. According to our views, Hangzhou’s agricultural heritage has great value for further development, especially from the perspective of multifunctional UA construction. For instance, the CHF and LFF models fit well with the conservation of Hangzhou traditional species (ginger, tea, and persimmon) and can be implemented directly. The old barn is currently being renovated and updated as a creative industrial park. A CG model can be built to serve as a place for people to socialize. At the same time, the food culture can be inherited and promoted.

Our research is subject to certain limitations. While we have striven for a comprehensive literature review based on available academic publications and official web resources, our findings are restricted by the scope of these sources. Consequently, theories and academic frontiers of UA not yet documented in the literature or reported on the internet are omitted. Future research can seek to obtain a more comprehensive dataset using alternative methods. Another limitation lies in our case selection of UA practices and the limited number of interviews conducted. Future work can widen the survey scope to include representative cases from more countries for a more in-depth comparative analysis. Although additional interviews or surveys could not be carried out at this time, we are confident that our research provides a robust foundation for future studies.

5. Conclusions

This paper first analyzes and evaluates the theoretical and practical aspects of UA in Europe quantitatively. It then outlines and summarizes the development of UA in China, and finally proposes how China should enhance UA programs in the future, especially for their socio-cultural benefits.

There is a need for further technical exploration and innovation in the ecological environment dimension. In the future, relevant support policies should develop functional assessment criteria for UA. They should also focus on supporting and developing specific types and scales of UA projects in conjunction with regional characteristics. This approach can allow UA activities to fully realize their multifunctional and compound benefits.

Moreover, the concept of the Eco-city, emphasizing the development of circular agriculture, serves as a guiding principle for China’s future development. This approach advocates for the economical use of agricultural resources and the resourceful utilization of agricultural waste, yielding positive impacts on the urban environment. Strategies include dispersing organic solid waste into sewage recycling systems, conducting in-depth research on the physiological and biochemical mechanisms of ecological agriculture, and incorporating UA projects into urban land-use planning [92,93].

From a cultural perspective, the current impact of urban construction on historical and cultural heritage has received significant attention at the national level in China. In September 2021, the State Council issued the Opinions on Enhancing the Conservation and Inheritance of Historical Culture in Urban and Rural Construction. The council stated that by 2025, the preservation of historical and cultural heritage in urban areas, including agricultural heritage, should be prioritized. Since the document is newly issued and belongs to a macro-strategic approach, it does not contain any guiding suggestions or requests for concrete measures. In our view, this precisely reflects the importance of this study, which is to find approaches for the implementation of the UA cultural construction.

Urbanization often results in the loss of agricultural land and the de-agriculturalization of residents. This trend is a major factor affecting the preservation of agricultural culture. Yet, academic research on the conservation of agricultural culture in urban and peri-urban areas is limited. In China, many urban agglomerations (e.g., the Greater Bay Area) have reached levels of urbanization comparable to those in developed countries. In this context, it is important to explore how to preserve agricultural culture through various measures. European scholars have highlighted several urban agricultural heritage projects that can be instructive. Future research can investigate how to combine these advanced UA practices to better preserve agricultural culture.