{"title":"谁重视城市社区菜园,重视程度如何?","authors":"Liqing Li , Dede Long","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>With the rising interest in urban agriculture (UA), community gardens have emerged as a common instrument in UA policies aimed at addressing issues related to food security, environmental sustainability, and equality in urban development. As an impure public good, they deliver both private benefits, such as fresh produce, and public benefits, including ecosystem services. However, there has been limited research estimating the value of various features of community gardens. Consequently, assessing the benefit–cost ratio of community garden development policies is a challenging task. Furthermore, many existing community gardens might have been established without a comprehensive understanding of public preferences. To address this gap, we adopt a discrete choice experiment to quantify residents’ willingness to contribute money and time to community gardens in Los Angeles County, California. Our findings indicate that while residents highly value the gardens’ private benefits, they are not inclined to contribute to their public benefits. Additionally, residents’ preferences for community gardens differ based on their socioeconomic status and level of accumulated gardening experience.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"126 ","pages":"Article 102649"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who values urban community gardens and how much?\",\"authors\":\"Liqing Li , Dede Long\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102649\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>With the rising interest in urban agriculture (UA), community gardens have emerged as a common instrument in UA policies aimed at addressing issues related to food security, environmental sustainability, and equality in urban development. As an impure public good, they deliver both private benefits, such as fresh produce, and public benefits, including ecosystem services. However, there has been limited research estimating the value of various features of community gardens. Consequently, assessing the benefit–cost ratio of community garden development policies is a challenging task. Furthermore, many existing community gardens might have been established without a comprehensive understanding of public preferences. To address this gap, we adopt a discrete choice experiment to quantify residents’ willingness to contribute money and time to community gardens in Los Angeles County, California. Our findings indicate that while residents highly value the gardens’ private benefits, they are not inclined to contribute to their public benefits. Additionally, residents’ preferences for community gardens differ based on their socioeconomic status and level of accumulated gardening experience.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Policy\",\"volume\":\"126 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102649\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224000605\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224000605","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
With the rising interest in urban agriculture (UA), community gardens have emerged as a common instrument in UA policies aimed at addressing issues related to food security, environmental sustainability, and equality in urban development. As an impure public good, they deliver both private benefits, such as fresh produce, and public benefits, including ecosystem services. However, there has been limited research estimating the value of various features of community gardens. Consequently, assessing the benefit–cost ratio of community garden development policies is a challenging task. Furthermore, many existing community gardens might have been established without a comprehensive understanding of public preferences. To address this gap, we adopt a discrete choice experiment to quantify residents’ willingness to contribute money and time to community gardens in Los Angeles County, California. Our findings indicate that while residents highly value the gardens’ private benefits, they are not inclined to contribute to their public benefits. Additionally, residents’ preferences for community gardens differ based on their socioeconomic status and level of accumulated gardening experience.
期刊介绍:
Food Policy is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original research and novel evidence on issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies for the food sector in developing, transition, and advanced economies.
Our main focus is on the economic and social aspect of food policy, and we prioritize empirical studies informing international food policy debates. Provided that articles make a clear and explicit contribution to food policy debates of international interest, we consider papers from any of the social sciences. Papers from other disciplines (e.g., law) will be considered only if they provide a key policy contribution, and are written in a style which is accessible to a social science readership.