What Motivates Urban Dwellers to Engage in Urban Farming?

Abstract

Urban farming provides diverse benefits to cities and their residents, including access to fresh food, increased food security, healthy dietary habits, improved physical and mental health, increased green spaces, and climate regulation. Urban attitudes and perceptions play crucial roles in urban farming development. However, despite the recent interest in urban farming, studies on the profiles and perceptions of urban farmers are lacking. This study aimed to clarify the motivations of urban gardeners, features of urban farmers, and differences in motivations between urban and non-urban farmers. We used Japan as a case study to add to the knowledge of a developed Asian country regarding the challenges that society faces. Approximately one-third of the respondents practiced urban farming, while one-sixth wanted to try it. Most urbanites practiced farming around their houses or apartment buildings. The benefits of urban farming considered by Okinawan respondents were safe and fresh food, health improvement, and green spaces, which were not significantly different from those in other regions. Respondents older than 50 were more likely to engage in urban farming than younger people. The respondents did not appreciate the social benefits of urban farming, which was inconsistent with the results from other regions worldwide; this may be because most participants were home gardeners, and only a few were allotment gardeners. Challenges in the development of urban farming include the unavailability of urban farming knowledge and of allotment gardens, and negative environmental influences on neighborhoods. This research is the first to report on the motivations of urban farmers in Japan. It fills a gap in the pertinent knowledge of highly urbanized and super-aging societies worldwide.

1. Introduction

Urban farming, also known as urban agriculture, comprises cultivating, processing, distributing, and recycling food and other agricultural products within cities or urban environments. It involves food and sometimes non-food item production on land and other spaces within cities and surrounding areas [1], utilizing various methods and technologies to maximize productivity in limited spaces. Urban farming includes rooftop gardens, vertical and community gardens, and indoor and urban livestock farming [2]. A community garden is a piece of land (either public or private) gardened by a group of people. Gardens can be purely ornamental, grow vegetables for individual use or sale, or protect wildlife and native plants.

Urban farming has become mainstream, and many cities have embraced and supported initiatives encouraging local food production. Governments, non-profits, and community organizations have promoted urban farming as a sustainable solution to various urban challenges [3,4,5,6,7]. Urban farming not only produces food but also brings communities together and fosters social connections [8,9,10], recreation and leisure [11], and educational opportunities on topics such as sustainable agriculture, nutrition, and food security [9,12,13]. Many cities have implemented policies and regulations that support urban farming. These policies include zoning changes to allow agricultural activities to be within city limits, incentives for land use, and easing restrictions on the sale of locally grown produce. With growing urban populations and potential vulnerabilities in the global food supply chain, urban farming is viewed as a way to enhance food security by promoting local production and reducing dependency on distant sources [14]. Urban farming is a more sustainable approach to food production because it reduces the carbon footprint associated with long-distance food transportation and minimizes the need for chemical inputs using methods such as hydroponics.

Urban farming is vital for creating sustainable, resilient, healthy cities [15,16,17,18]. It addresses food security, environmental concerns, community well-being, and economic development, making it an important urban planning and development component. The benefits of urban farming include increased access to fresh food, reduced environmental impacts, community engagement, green spaces, biodiversity [19,20], food security, and resilience.

An American case study reported that gardening brings health benefits and that gardeners are less likely to be obese and more likely to meet healthy dietary recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption [21,22]. Urban farming also increases creativity and inspiration, improves the urban mental benefits of farmers, and increases cultural capital by establishing trust and close connections among family members, helping to create a cultural identity and feeling of belonging and providing a safe and encouraging place to acquire new knowledge while learning more about gardening [23]. Gardeners reported significantly higher levels of subjective well-being than non-gardeners [24,25,26,27]. Community gardeners have significantly better health outcomes than neighbors not engaged in gardening activities regarding life satisfaction, happiness, general health, mental health, and social cohesion [28]. An online survey of gardeners and non-gardeners aged 60–69 years in Japan demonstrated the positive effects of gardening on health and lifestyle [26]. Some studies have reported that community gardening supports and sustains healthy and active lifestyles, reducing cancer risk and other chronic diseases [29]. Urban farming is vital to promote sustainability, healthy eating habits, and community engagement.

However, several challenges must be addressed to ensure urban farms’ success and contribution to sustainable food production. Some of the key problems and challenges in urban farming include limited space [30,31], soil quality and contamination [32], access to water, land tenure [33,34,35] and regulations [36], labor and skill shortages, pest and disease management, perception and social acceptance, seasonal limitations, distribution, and marketing. Addressing these challenges can contribute to the growth and sustainability of urban farming, which is an integral part of future food systems.

Despite these challenges, urban agriculture continues to gain attention and support because it addresses food security, reduces food miles, promotes local economies, and improves urban environments. Various government initiatives, community organizations, and non-profits are working to overcome these challenges and promote the growth of urban agriculture for a more sustainable and resilient urban future.

Urban attitudes and perceptions play crucial roles in the development of urban farming for several reasons. Urban farming requires the availability of land and space in a city. If urban residents perceive urban agriculture negatively, they may resist allocating valuable urban land for farming. However, positive attitudes can increase the support for converting vacant lots or rooftops into urban farms. Local policies and regulations influence urban farming development. The attitudes and perceptions of urbanites can influence policymakers and lawmakers by encouraging them to create supportive policies for urban agriculture or discouraging them from doing so. Urban farming depends on the community’s participation and support. Suppose urbanites have a positive attitude toward farming in a city. In that case, they may be more willing to actively participate in urban farming initiatives, volunteer their time and resources, or even become urban farmers. The success of urban farming depends on economic viability. If urbanites view urban agriculture as a valuable contributor to the local economy, they may be inclined to support and invest in it. Conversely, negative perceptions can hinder financial support and investments.

Several knowledge gaps exist in the literature pertinent to urban farming. First, the current literature focuses on the effects of gardening on mental and physical health and the challenges of sustaining an urban garden [10,24,25,37,38,39,40]. However, mental and social benefits have largely lagged behind physical benefits. Second, there are several studies on the motivations of urban gardeners [22,41,42,43,44,45,46] and non-gardeners [47,48]. Most studies consider the benefits and motivations of the gardener population while ignoring the willingness to instate urban farming practices among the entire population of urbanites. Most studies surveyed urban gardeners, while other functions of urban gardening, motivation, and interest in urban farming among the total urban population were neglected. Analyzing the differences in urban farming perceptions can provide useful information for effective urban farming and planning policies. Third, the current studies are geographically unbalanced and focus on North American and European countries. In contrast, studies from other industrialized countries are still lacking. Two recent studies in Japan detailed self-reported health improvements in allotment gardeners [24,25] and retired home gardeners aged 60–69 [26].

To illustrate the abovementioned research in the fields of mental benefits, attitudes of the total population of urbanites toward urban farming, and case studies in Asian countries, we designed a questionnaire survey on Okinawa Island, Japan. This study aimed to clarify the motivations for urban gardening, features of urban farming, and challenges of urban farming promotions, explore the differences between urban farmers and non-farmers, and predict the effects of motivations and respondents’ characteristics on their experiences of urban farming. Specifically, we aimed to clarify the differences in motivations between those who farm and those who plan to farm and the features of urban farmers, and predict the effects of motivations and respondents’ characteristics on their experiences of urban farming.

We took Japan as a case study to add to the knowledge of urban farming practices in an industrial country in Asia owing to several demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental challenges that Japanese society is facing, such as a super-aging society, an aging farming population, shrinking rural regions, limited agricultural land, and a low food self-sufficiency rate. This research is the first report on the motivations of urbanites in Japan and will fill the gap in pertinent knowledge of highly urbanized and super-aging societies worldwide.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Survey Site

A self-administered questionnaire was used to survey residents’ motivation and knowledge pertinent to urban farming. A pilot survey was conducted in February 2020 to select motivation indicators. For the motivation for gardening, we referred to previous literature [24,49] to include a few topics, including growing vegetables to eat, relaxing, interacting with nature, learning farming skills, and enjoying social interactions. A few questions dealing with isolation during the pandemic were added to the measurement.

The questionnaire comprised four parts. The first part concerned participants’ experience related to urban farming and whether they planned to conduct urban farming even if they were not currently farming. Second, the motivations for conducting urban farming included 13 questions on food security, food safety, health benefits, social well-being, environmental protection, and the effects of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Thirteen motivations were identified, which included consuming fresh vegetables, insecticide-free vegetables, interaction with green spaces, physical and mental health, and time spent with family and friends. We used a 5-point Likert rating scale for questions on motivation. The third part asked about sociodemographic features, such as gender, age, education level, occupation, and household income. The last part consisted of optional and open-ended questions requesting that respondents leave their comments or suggestions on urban farming.

Approximately 80% of the population is concentrated in urban areas, with 101.43 million living in urban areas in Japan. Japan is also a super-aging society, with 10% of its population aged over 80 years. Agricultural and rural areas in Japan have been declining. This survey was conducted among the urban residents of Okinawa Prefecture, a remote island region in Japan. Okinawa, a typical archipelago, consists of 160 islands of various sizes scattered across a vast ocean (Figure 1). The remoteness and small size of the islands have resulted in numerous social and economic challenges, population aging, low productivity in agricultural farming, low income levels, and high poverty levels. Traditionally, vegetable gardens are compound (Figure 2) and produce radishes, carrots, or sweet potatoes for self-consumption [50]. Community gardens (Figure 3) were introduced to Japanese society in 1992 and have been promoted since 1999 [51].

The data were collected online and in person. Data were collected in March 2020, April 2020, November 2021, 2022, 2023, and March 2023. Data collection was first conducted in person in March 2020. It was then interrupted by the pandemic and changed to an online survey in April, followed by online surveys among students at the University of Ryukyus in Okinawa in November 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. After the pandemic, the survey resumed in person in February and March 2023.

The first author and five research assistants conducted the personal surveys. Research assistants were recruited from among university students and received training by attending lectures during face-to-face interviews. They stood at the front doors of supermarkets and approached every shopper when they finished shopping. First, the shoppers were asked whether they were willing to participate. Participants were fully informed about the purpose of the survey and how their data would be used. Seven hundred and seventy-four responses (124 online and 650 in-person) were collected. The in-person surveys were conducted on both weekdays and weekends to avoid bias.

Table 1. Description of variables of the binary logistic regress model.

	Count	Description	Mean	Std. Error
Experience of home garden	747	=1 if the answer is Yes, =0 otherwise	0.37	0.483
Education 2	745	=1 if the highest education achieved by the respondent is senior high school or university, =2 if it is a vocational school, =3 if it is above the university level	1.98	0.836
Gender	747	=1 if the respondent is male, = 2 otherwise	1.72	0.449
Age 3	749	=1 if the respondent is younger than 30 yrs, =2 if the respondent is 30–59 yrs, =3 if the respondent is above 60	2.11	0.687
Occupation 3	648	=1 if the respondent is self-employed, =2 if the respondent is an officer, =3 if the respondent is a housewife/househusband, university student, or unemployed	2.15	0.750
Household income 3	669	=1 if the respondent’s household income is lower than 2 million JPY/year, =2 if the respondent’s household income is 2–4 million JPY/year, =3 if the respondent’s household income is 4–6 million JPY/year, =4 if the respondent’s household income is above 6 million JPY/year	2.38	1.109
Valid value number	552

presents the respondents’ profiles. Approximately 244 people refused to answer the questionnaire; the major reason for rejection was that they were busy and in a hurry to leave.

2.2. Data Analysis

A binary logistic regression model predicted correlations between motivation and respondents’ socioeconomic and demographic features. Data were analyzed using Stata Version 15.1. The open-ended comments in the previous section were translated into English and analyzed using KH Coder software (Version: 3.Beta.08a) [52].

2.3. Binary Logistic Regression and Variables

The respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics and motivations for urban farming practices were assumed to significantly influence their participation. To test this hypothesis, a binary logistic model was used, in which the dependent variable, participation in urban farming, was a dichotomous variable with two possible options: whether a resident did or did not practice urban farming. The dependent variable was coded 0 for those who did not engage in urban farming and 1 for those with experience with urban farming.

A binary logistic regression model was applied to predict the effects of differences in motivation and respondents’ economic and demographic characteristics on their experiences of urban farming practices.

$$\mathrm{p}\left(\mathrm{y}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{1(b_0+b_1{x}_1+b_2{x}_2+\dots b_i{x}_i)}}}$$

(1)

In Equation (1), p(y) represents the probability of urban farming for dependent variable y, b is the coefficient of the independent variables or predictors, and x is the independent variable, as listed in

Table 2. Socio-demographic background of the respondents.

Variables	Respondents (%)	Okinawa Prefecture Population over 15 Years Old in December 2022 (%)
Age (Observations: 750)
15–19	2.9	6.5
20–29	16	12.5
30–39	16.3	14.6
40–49	16.7	16.8
50–59	18.5	15.1
60–69	16	14.9
≥70	13.6	19.8
Gender (Observations: 750)
Male	27.7	49
Female	72	51
Others	0.3
Education (Observations: 750)
Junior school or below	3.2
High school	32.7
Vocational school	18.1
College	11.9
Undergraduate	29.1
Graduate	4.53
Others	0.5
Occupation (Observations: 750)
Self-employment	12.8
Officer	36.4
Housewife/husband	18.8
University students	14.1
Unemployed	8.5
Others	9
Income (Observations: 670)
Below mil.	27.5
2–4 mil.	29
4–6 mil.	21.5
6–8 mil.	9.1
8–10 mil.	7
Above 10 mil.	6

. The xs include motivations expressed according to the 5-point Likert scale and respondents’ social, economic, and demographic features.

3. Results

3.1. Profiles of Respondents

The respondents’ age profiles (Table 1) differed somewhat from their respective profiles in the Okinawa population. However, the number of female respondents exceeded that of male respondents. Most of the 774 respondents (81%) had household incomes lower than JPY six million. Almost one-third (30.6%) of the respondents had stable jobs as teachers or public servants. Approximately one-third of respondents had a bachelor’s degree.

3.2. Knowledge of Respondents on Urban Farming

Respondents’ experiences and knowledge pertinent to urban farming are presented in

Table 3. Questions regarding urban farming practice.

Have You Known about Urban Farming before? (747 Respondents)	%
Yes, I know about urban farming.	11.8
I just heard of it before.	35
I have never heard of it before.	53.2
Do you have experience with urban farming?
Yes.	36.8
No.	63.2
We would like to ask those who chose (No) to the question, “Do you have experience in urban farming?”, do you plan to engage in urban agriculture in the future? (472 respondents)
Yes.	22.6
No.	77.2
I do not know.	0.2
What kind of urban farming are you doing now? (265 responses, multiple choices)
Vacant land in the urban area	4.5
Allotment garden	6.0
Garden around the house	61.5
Balcony at the apartment	32.8
For those who plan to do urban farming, what kind of urban farming do you want to conduct? (122 responses, multiple choices)
Vacant land in the urban area	13.1
Allotment garden	13.9
Garden around the house	47.6
Balcony at the apartment	48.4

. Regarding the question, ‘Have you known about urban farming before?’, only 12% said that they knew about it, over half (53.2%) answered that they had never heard about it, and one-third (35%) said they had just heard the word but had not understood it.

Approximately one-third (36.8%) of the 747 respondents had relevant experience in urban farming, whereas two-thirds (63.2%) did not have the relevant experience. Those who had not experienced urban farming (472 respondents) were asked whether they planned to do so soon after. Most (77.2%) respondents did not plan to conduct urban farming, whereas only 22.6% said that they planned to do so.

Respondents were asked about their urban farming style (vacant land in urban areas, allotment gardens, gardens around houses, and apartment balconies). Most (265 respondents, 94.3%) said that they used the gardens around their houses or the apartments’ balconies. Among those who did not engage in farming but planned to do so soon (122 responses), approximately 96% of the respondents said they wanted to try farming in the garden or the apartment balcony.

3.3. Motivations toward Urban Farming

Respondents were asked to report their motivations for engaging in urban farming on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (5) (

Table 4. Results of respondents’ motivations toward urban farming practice.

Variable	Obs.	Strongly Disagree (1)		Disagree (2)		Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)		Agree (4)		Strongly Agree (5)		Mean	Std. Dev.
		No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%
Eat fresh vegetables	749	11	1.5	6	0.8	28	3.7	259	34.6	445	59.4	4.5	0.7415
Eat pesticide-free vegetables	751	15	2.0	11	1.5	85	11.3	235	31.3	405	53.9	4.3	0.8822
Grow local vegetables	748	36	4.8	51	6.8	179	23.9	251	33.5	231	30.8	3.8	1.1005
Improve health and physical fitness	745	21	2.8	34	4.6	105	14.1	282	37.9	303	40.7	4.1	0.9885
Interact with green spaces	741	19	2.6	32	4.3	132	17.8	307	41.4	251	33.9	4.0	0.9600
Love farming	744	46	6.2	102	13.7	295	39.7	172	23.1	129	17.3	3.3	1.1001
Feel at ease through farming	746	39	5.2	82	11.0	230	30.8	249	33.4	146	19.6	3.5	1.0846
Farm with family	745	73	9.8	96	12.9	267	35.8	199	26.7	110	14.8	3.2	1.1506
Manage vacant land in urban areas	738	144	19.5	137	18.6	280	37.9	124	16.8	53	7.2	2.7	1.1634
Spend time with friends and family members	737	63	8.5	71	9.6	249	33.8	240	32.6	114	15.5	3.4	1.1176
Feel safer outside because of COVID-19	734	178	24.3	127	17.3	263	35.8	116	15.8	50	6.8	2.6	1.2013
Nowhere to go because of COVID-19	741	213	28.7	129	17.4	272	36.7	89	12.0	38	5.1	2.5	1.1722
Create shades to cool the house	739	117	15.8	109	14.7	273	36.9	174	23.5	66	8.9	2.9	1.1717

The responses were recorded on a 1–5-point scale: 5 represented “strongly agree”, 4 “agree”, 3 “neither agree nor disagree”, 2 “disagree”, and 1 “strongly disagree”.

).

Regarding the motivations for urban farming, the descending order of the mean Likert scale for each motivation was as follows: eating fresh vegetables (4.5), eating pesticide-free vegetables (4.3), improving health and physical fitness (4.1), interacting with green spaces (4.0), growing local vegetables (3.8), feeling at ease through farming (3.5), spending time with friends and family members (3.4), love of farming (3.3), farming with family (3.2), creating shade to cool the house (2.9), managing vacant land in urban areas (2.7), feeling safer outside because of COVID-19 (2.6), and nowhere to go because of COVID-19 (2.5) (Figure 4).

Regarding the relationship between COVID-19 and home garden practices, most respondents held a negative attitude toward the effectiveness of outside gardening during the pandemic. Of all motivation responses, “feeling safer outside because of COVID-19” and “nowhere to go because of COVID-19” ranked at the bottom of all responses, which implied that societal changes such as the COVID-19 pandemic had not changed the motivations of surveyed urbanites for urban gardening/farming.

3.4. Binary Logistic Regression Results

Logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effects of motivations for urban farming (food safety, physical fitness, mental health, and interactions with family and friends) on the urban farming experience and future planning. The logistic regression model showed statistical significance (p < 0.0005). The model explained 20.6% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in urban farming practices and correctly classified 62.5% of the cases (

Table 5. Model summary and classification table of the binary logistic regression.

Model Summary
Step		−2 Log likelihood		Cox–Snell R-Squared		Nagelkerke R-Squared
1		571.790 a		0.151		0.206
Classification Table b,c
	Observed			Predicted
				Experience of home garden		Percent correct
				0 (No)	1 (Yes)
Step 1	Experience of home garden		0	308	0	100.0
			1	185	0	0.0
	Overall percentage					62.5

^a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter estimates changed by less than 0.001. ^b. Constant is included in the model. ^c. The cut value is 0.500.

). The results of the logistic regression analysis are presented in

Table 6. Output of a binomial logistic regression of motivations and respondents’ plan to engage in urban farming.

Variables in the Equation
Motivation Variable	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp(B)	95%C.I. for Exp(B)
							Lower	Upper
Eat fresh vegetables	0.168	0.202	0.690	1	0.406	1.183	0.796	1.756
Eat pesticide-free vegetables	−0.106	0.162	0.430	1	0.512	0.899	0.655	1.234
Grow local vegetables	0.308	0.115	7.218	1	0.007	1.360	1.087	1.703
Improve health and physical fitness	−0.002	0.148	0.000	1	0.989	0.998	0.747	1.334
Interact with green spaces	0.326	0.148	4.820	1	0.028	1.385	1.036	1.853
Love farming	0.376	0.153	6.050	1	0.014	1.457	1.079	1.966
Feel at ease through farming	0.067	0.123	0.302	1	0.583	1.070	0.841	1.360
Farm with family	0.010	0.103	0.009	1	0.924	1.010	0.826	1.235
Manage vacant land in urban areas	−0.139	0.133	1.101	1	0.294	0.870	0.671	1.128
Spend time with friends and family members	−0.182	0.157	1.343	1	0.246	0.834	0.613	1.134
Feel safer outside because of COVID-19	−0.060	0.164	0.133	1	0.716	0.942	0.682	1.300
Nowhere to go because of COVID-19	−0.119	0.108	1.219	1	0.270	0.888	0.718	1.097
Education 2	0.098	0.128	0.583	1	0.445	1.103	0.858	1.418
Gender	−0.112	0.248	0.205	1	0.651	0.894	0.550	1.453
Age 3	0.530	0.175	9.176	1	0.002	1.700	1.206	2.395
Occupation 3	−0.125	0.158	0.629	1	0.428	0.883	0.648	1.202
Household income 3	−0.115	0.099	1.362	1	0.243	0.891	0.734	1.081
Constant	−3.973	0.963	17.019	1	0.000	0.019

. Increasing age was associated with an increased likelihood of urban farming experience; respondents older than 60 were 1.7 times more likely to practice urban farming. A higher motivation to “grow local vegetables” or “interact with green space” or based on “loving farming” was associated with a higher possibility of urban farming practice. The respondents with a higher motivation to “grow local vegetables” or “interact with green space” or due to “loving farming” were 1.36, 1.29, and 1.46 times more likely to practice urban farming, respectively.

A cross-table analysis (

Table 7. Cross-tabulation of experience with home gardening and respondents’ age.

Experience of Home Garden		Age							Total
		10s	20s	30s	40s	50s	60s	70s and over
0 (No)	Number	18	90	84	81	74	70	43	460
	%	81.80%	75.60%	69.40%	66.40%	56.10%	61.40%	43.90%	63.20%
1 (Yes)	Number	4	29	37	41	58	44	55	268
	%	18.20%	24.40%	30.60%	33.60%	43.90%	38.60%	56.10%	36.80%
Total	Number	22	119	121	122	132	114	98	728
	%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
			Chi-square tests
					Value	df	Exact Sig (2-sided)
			Pearson Chi-square		32.512 a	6	0.000
			Likelihood Ratio		32.707	6	0.000
			Linear-by-Linear Association		28.049	1	0.000
			N of Valid Cases		728

^a. 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.10.

) of the respondents’ age and experience in urban farming showed that those over 40 years old were more likely to have urban farming experience. More than half of the respondents aged >70 years were engaged in urban farming.

Regarding the relationship of age with their plan to engage in urban farming in the future, respondents of 40–49 years had the highest rate, accounting for one-fourth (25.3%), followed by those aged 60–69 years old (22.6%) (see

Table 8. Planned future engagement in home gardening as a function of respondents’ age.

Cross-Tabulation of Planned Future Home Gardening and Age
			Age							Total
			10s	20s	30s	40s	50s	60s	70s and over
Plan to engage in home gardening in the future as a function of a respondents’ age	1 (Yes)	Number	1	16	13	19	10	14	6	79
		%	5.6%	19.8%	16.5%	25.3%	15.2%	22.6%	14.3%	18.7%
	2 (No)	Number	17	65	66	56	56	48	36	344
		%	94.4%	80.2%	83.5%	74.7%	84.8%	77.4%	85.7%	81.3%
Total		Number	18	81	79	75	66	62	42	423
		%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-square test
	Value	df	Exact Sig (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-square	6.242 a	6	0.397
Likelihood Ratio	6.737	6	0.346
Linear-by-Linear Association	0.087	1	0.768
N of Valid Cases	423

^a. 1 cell (7.1%) has an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.36.

).

3.5. Perceptions and Attitudes toward Urban Farming

An analysis of respondents’ suggestions and comments on urban farming is presented in

Table 9. Summary of effective comments from the respondents (n = 141).

	No	%
I want to try it; I want to grow vegetables	28	19.9
I want urban farming to spread for health improvement, etc.	25	17.7
Urban farming can improve self-sufficiency in food	20	14.2
Agriculture is significant for our country	18	12.8
It is my first time hearing the terminology of urban agriculture; I do not understand the actual meaning of it	18	12.8
Do not know how to grow, seems difficult	13	9.2
An urban farm is good as a place for communication and community building	11	7.8
Can effectively utilize vacant, abandoned land, create more green space, and revitalize the community	10	7.1
It can be used for food education, environmental education, prevention of aging-related disease	10	7.1
Need more information related to urban farming	9	6.4
Need to take careful consideration not to extend bad smells to the neighborhood	6	4.3
Want to rent a plot of land for urban farming	6	4.3

. We received informative comments from 141 respondents. Approximately 20% of the respondents desired to practice farming if they could find a small piece of vacant land to produce safe and sweet vegetables in their living areas. Two participants said they might try the planter and grow vegetables on the balcony. One of the respondents wanted to engage in farming after retirement. Another six respondents (4.3%) mentioned that they would actively participate in urban farming if they could find a piece of land close to them. Thirteen respondents (9.2%) said they did not know how to grow vegetables, and another nine (6.4%) said that farming was difficult; this may suggest easy-to-grow crops as a suitable beginning.

Six respondents (4.3%) noted challenges; for example, disposal of used land and control of the smell of the fertilizer did not affect their neighborhood. Eighteen respondents (12.8%) said it was the first time they had heard about “urban farming” terminology or did not understand its meaning. Concerning the function of urban farming, 18 respondents (12.8%) said that urban farming is significant and necessary in the future of Japan, and another 20 respondents (14.2%) stated that urban farming can enhance the crop self-sufficiency rate in the social context of high living costs and expensive fresh vegetables. Many respondents stated that urban farming could provide environmental benefits, improve health, and increase green spaces. Ten respondents said that the development of urban farming could effectively utilize abandoned land and vacant land in urban areas and revitalize the region. Eleven respondents (7.8%) said that urban agriculture, such as community gardens, could provide a place of exchange for the elderly. Another ten respondents (7.1%) expressed that urban farming could be utilized as food education for kids and prevent aging-related diseases.

Crop cultivation methods, technologies, and institutional support were also mentioned. Many were interested in local crops like bitter melon and wished to grow vegetables without pesticides. However, many (13 respondents, 9.2%) said that they did not have farming knowledge and needed seminars or workshops to learn about farming. Another nine respondents (6.4%) said that they wanted more information related to urban farming. One respondent looked at allotment gardens or community gardens as a tool for regional revitalization, stating that support from the private sector and local governments is needed. Six respondents (4.3%) stated that applications for allotment gardens were too competitive.

4. Discussion

Approximately one-third of the respondents practiced urban farming; the majority of these practiced farming surrounding their houses or apartment buildings, and the area was comparatively small, revealing that the most popular urban farming in Okinawa was the home garden type. A small number (6%) of respondents farming in allotment gardens revealed the underdevelopment of allotment gardens or other types of community gardens in Okinawa. It is estimated that there will be 4235 allotment gardens open by 2022 and 3.5 million urban gardeners [53]. Okinawa has only 19 allotment gardens, with a total area of 8 ha and 1014 plots. Challenges to promoting urban farming included the unavailability of urban farming knowledge and of allotment gardens, and potential negative environmental influences on neighborhoods. Land competition is a common issue in other regions [31,32], involving land tenure [33,34,35], soil quality, and contamination [32].

In contrast, many community gardens have been developed and promoted in the United States [54], the Netherlands [55], the United Kingdom [56], Portugal [57], and Singapore [27]. Urban farms supported by agricultural organizations can attract young users because of their easy access to relevant educational programs for new users [58]. Despite the benefits generated by community gardens, the number of community gardens is much lower in Japan than in other developed countries, and academic research in this field is largely lacking, except for a few case studies [24,25,26,58]. The American Community Gardening Association estimates 18,000 community gardens in the United States and Canada. The number of Americans growing their food at home and in community gardens has increased from 36 million in 2008 to 42 million in 2013. Young people, particularly millennials (aged 18–34 years), are the fastest-growing population of food gardeners [59,60].

The benefits of urban farming considered by Okinawan urbanites were safe and fresh food, improved health, and enjoyment of green spaces; they did not differ much from those in other regions of the world [14,22,29,49]. Japanese urbanites are highly concerned about pesticide use in vegetable cultivation and prefer to eat fresh and pesticide-free vegetables. Few studies in the United States have quantified the impact of community gardens on low-income gardeners’ food and nutrient intake. It was found that community gardeners consumed cruciferous vegetables and dark green leafy vegetables and consumed fewer baked goods and soft drinks than their non-gardening counterparts [4]. Additionally, urban gardeners are more likely to be motivated to plant local crops, interact with green spaces, and love farming. Local crops that are not commonly accessible in the market have motivated the growth of urban farming. Participants’ enthusiasm for farming and farming skills motivated them to engage in it.

Except for age, respondents’ socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were not significantly correlated with their willingness to engage in urban farming practices. This case study in Okinawa found that more than one-third of respondents over 40 were engaged in urban farming. A recent survey in Nagoya City, a major city in Japan, reported that over 80% of allotment gardeners were older than 60 [51]. The difference between this case study and others in the big cities of Japan lies in the tradition of home gardening in Okinawan history and the accessibility of home gardening surrounding people’s houses or apartments. One-sixth of the respondents stated that they wanted to engage in urban farming. One-fourth of potential future urban farmers were in their 40s (25.3%) or 60s (22.6%). Both of these groups had more free time, either because their children had grown up or they were retired.

The finding that the respondents did not appreciate the social benefits of urban farming is inconsistent with results from other regions worldwide. The motivations of “farm with family” and “spend time with friends and family” were ranked seventh and eighth most important on average. This may be because most participants were home gardeners, and only a few allotment gardeners participated in the research. Recent studies from 2020–2022 revealed that social benefits were most appreciated [49,61]. In this study, the two motivations pertinent to COVID-19, “feel safer outside because of COVID-19” and “nowhere to go because of COVID-19”, were ranked lowest among all the motivations, revealing that the respondents did not consider urban farming as an escape from social isolation and lockdown. This inconsistency may be due to two reasons: one is the characteristics of urban farmers, particularly allotment gardeners, who reported that the users did not actively communicate, and the other is that the major style of urban farming is to use the land surrounding one’s residence. The Japanese researchers argued that the allotment garden is not a “place for exchange” or “emotional education for children”, and that the facilities and equipment of the garden should be improved from the citizens’ viewpoint. Kataoka [62], based on a survey in Machida City, argued that, unlike the German Klein Garten, Japanese allotment gardens do not function as places for citizen interaction. The main purpose of most citizen farm users was to grow safe vegetables for the elderly, with only a few families participating. Allotment gardens in Japan are not places of exchange “or children’s emotional education” [63]. Most allotment garden users do not seek to interact with other users. However, the gradual relationship between acquaintances and the extending of greetings as people share the same place are widely fostered among users. Although there are only a few, some take the opportunity to participate in activities in public gardens to develop friendships. A survey on the community garden established by the non farming enterprises flourished in Tokyo to satisfy the growing urban residents’ needs for convenient location in the city center and sufficient services and infrastructure [59].

The finding that respondents had low concern regarding environmental benefits and urban regeneration in terms of managing vacant urban land and providing shade to houses was highly different from the results for their Western counterparts. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) defines an urban farm as providing fresh food, farmland to experience agriculture, open spaces in case of disasters, and green spaces that regulate microclimate and recreational opportunities. However, the finding that citizens do not fully understand the official concepts of urban farming reveals that the Ministry can play a pivotal role in promoting urban farming, for example, by developing and implementing supportive policies and regulations. The MAFF can provide grants and subsidies for urban farming initiatives, making it financially feasible for individuals and communities to start and maintain urban gardens. Additionally, the Ministry can offer educational programs and resources to increase public awareness and knowledge of the benefits of urban farming. By collaborating with local governments and community organizations, the MAFF can help create a robust support network that encourages urban agriculture and integrates it into city planning and development.

5. Conclusions

The goal of maximizing the social functions of urban farming, allotments, and community gardens should be promoted in Japan. Community gardens are exchange spaces for the elderly, particularly important in the super-aging world. However, increasing competition for space and environmental constraints often limit the capacity to establish urban agriculture systems in city areas, and the negative aspects of urban agriculture can create hazards to the natural environment and local communities. Further expansion and development of urban agriculture as productive green infrastructure will require cautious planning strategies that maximize environmental and social benefits while taking advantage of vacant or underutilized pockets of urban land. Urban planning will incorporate urban agriculture more widely as another land-use type in urban space economies. This study suggests that urban gardens deserve a position in urban green space management, as they may help address societal challenges such as urbanization, health and well-being in aging populations, and climate adaptation.

However, community gardens do not automatically create communities. The social networks established by gardens may contribute to health-enabling cohesive communities. To maximize the health benefits, it is useful to make urban gardens accessible to many people, including the elderly and young. Building a strong and vibrant community in a garden involves creating a welcoming and inclusive environment where people can connect, learn, and collaborate. Many respondents found it difficult to engage in farming with related knowledge; hence, host workshops and educational sessions on gardening techniques, composting, and sustainable practices were conducted to promote learning and skill sharing. Ensure that your community garden welcomes people of all backgrounds, ages, and skill levels. Diversity and inclusivity should be encouraged to create a rich tapestry for gardeners with different perspectives and experiences. Encourage members to share excess produce or donate it to local food banks and shelters; this reduces food waste and fosters a sense of community generosity. Designate a communal space within the garden where members can relax, socialize, or hold gatherings. A picnic area or a shared seating space can be a focal point for community interaction. Collaborate with local community organizations, schools, or businesses to garner community garden support, resources, and volunteers.

This case study had several limitations. This survey used a combination of online and in-person approaches. It should be noted that university students, comprising one-third of the surveyed respondents, may have introduced bias. This survey of urban residents revealed that most farmers planted vegetables or fruit trees around their houses. There are 19 allotment gardens and 1014 plots in Okinawa [53]. However, knowledge of urban gardening in Japan is lacking. Hence, more case studies are required to understand the challenges and societal problems of extending allotment gardens to other urban farms. In our next study, we will survey allotment gardeners to reveal the perceived benefits of and motivations for urban farming.

Future research should investigate the sociocultural factors influencing urban farming motivations and practices across different age groups and demographics. Longitudinal studies examining the long-term benefits and challenges of urban farming in super-aging societies such as Japan would provide valuable insights into sustainable urban agriculture practices. Comparative studies of urban farming practices in Japan and other industrialized Asian countries highlight unique regional challenges and effective strategies. Exploring the impact of technological innovations such as vertical farming and IoT-based agriculture on urban farming efficiency and productivity is also essential. Finally, future research should investigate the role of policy frameworks and community engagement initiatives in fostering a supportive environment for urban farming, thereby addressing knowledge gaps and promoting broader participation among urban residents.