Urban Agriculture for Post-Disaster Food Security: Quantifying the Contributions of Community Gardens

Abstract

Wellington, New Zealand, is highly vulnerable to disaster-induced food security crises due to its geography and geological characteristics, which can disrupt transportation and isolate the city following disasters. Urban agriculture (UA) has been proposed as a potential alternative food source for post-disaster scenarios. This study examined the potential of urban agriculture for enhancing post-disaster food security by calculating vegetable self-sufficiency rates. Specifically, it evaluated the capacity of current Wellington’s community gardens to meet post-disaster vegetable demand in terms of both weight and nutrient content. Data collection employed mixed methods with questionnaires, on-site observations and mapping, and collecting high-resolution aerial imagery. Garden yields were estimated using self-reported data supported by literature benchmarks, while cultivated areas were quantified through on-site mapping and aerial imagery analysis. Six post-disaster food demand scenarios were used based on different target populations to develop an understanding of the range of potential produce yields. Weight-based results show that community gardens currently supply only 0.42% of the vegetable demand for residents living within a five-minute walk. This rate increased to 2.07% when specifically targeting only vulnerable populations, and up to 10.41% when focusing on gardeners’ own households. However, at the city-wide level, the current capacity of community gardens to provide enough produce to feed people remained limited. Nutrient-based self-sufficiency was lower than weight-based results; however, nutrient intake is particularly critical for vulnerable populations after disasters, underscoring the greater challenge of ensuring adequate nutrition through current urban food production. Beyond self-sufficiency, this study also addressed the role of UA in promoting food diversity and acceptability, as well as its social and psychological benefits based on the questionnaires and on-site observations. The findings indicate that community gardens contribute meaningfully to post-disaster food security for gardeners and nearby residents, particularly for vulnerable groups with elevated nutritional needs. Despite the current limited capacity of community gardens to provide enough produce to feed residents, findings suggest that Wellington could enhance post-disaster food self-reliance by diversifying UA types and optimizing land-use to increase food production during and after a disaster. Realizing this potential will require strategic interventions, including supportive policies, a conducive social environment, and diversification—such as the including private yards—all aimed at improving food access, availability, and nutritional quality during crises. The primary limitation of this study is the lack of comprehensive data on urban agriculture in Wellington and the wider New Zealand context. Addressing this data gap should be a key focus for future research to enable more robust assessments and evidence-based planning.

1. Introduction

1.1. Post-Disaster Food Security

Ensuring food security for the rapidly growing global population is one of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century [1]. This challenge becomes even more critical during natural disasters—such as earthquakes and climate-induced extreme weather events—which can severely disrupt food production, supply chains, and access to nutritious food [2,3]. Food security is immediately threatened following disasters [4]. Food availability and access might be impacted by disruptions in production, distribution, affordability, and allocation [5]. These disruptions are often caused by damage to utilities and infrastructure [4,6]. For example, the 2011 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand caused severe road damage due to liquefaction, leaving the affected population isolated and without access to local food [7]. Similarly, the 2023 severe weather events in New Zealand’s North Island resulted in widespread flooding and isolation, compelling many communities to rely on locally available food and supplies [8].

Furthermore, emergency food might be unsuitable for or even unfamiliar to the affected population [4]. A government report on the New Zealand 2023 severe weather events stated that evacuation centres were unable to meet the dietary needs of the elderly due to a lack of appropriate food options [8]. Vulnerable groups—including the elderly, children, and pregnant or lactating women—often require higher-quality, nutrient-rich food [9,10]. Many may already face food insecurity before a disaster, making it even more challenging to ensure their food security in the aftermath [9,10]. In contrast, the report observed that individuals who were more ‘self-reliant’ were less affected, as they had better access to food and water supplies ([8] p. 142).

Even when food assistance is provided, maintaining a degree of self-reliance before, during, and after disasters remains crucial [11,12]. Recommendations for stockpiling emergency food at home are encouraged as part of the post-disaster emergency response in seismically hazardous countries like New Zealand and Japan [6,13]. These foods typically are non-perishable, whereas nutrient-rich and fresh products have much shorter shelf lives [6]. Relying solely on emergency food can cause health issues due to limited nutritional diversity [5,9]. A long-term monotonous diet will increase the risk of micronutrient deficiencies like anemia (lacking iron) and scurvy (lacking Vitamin C), or even mortality [14].

Preparing food stock before disasters is essential, but a food security crisis may still arise. This underscores the importance of food self-reliance through multiple sources—fresh produce and emergency rations—to ensure food security during emergencies.

1.2. Urban Agriculture in Enhancing Post-Disaster Food Security

Urban agriculture (UA) has been defined as cultivating plants and raising animals within and around city limits [15]. It encompasses a variety of forms, including home gardening, community-shared gardening, urban farms, and continuous productive urban landscapes [16,17,18]. While conventional farming supplies the majority of the world’s food, UA offers distinct advantages for disaster resilience [19]. Conventional food systems rely on extensive supply chains and transportation networks that are highly susceptible to disruption during disasters [5,20]. In contrast, UA enables local food production that reduces reliance on transport infrastructure and enhances community resilience over food access during emergencies [10]. Furthermore, UA can supply fresh produce that complements, rather than competes with, rural staple crop production—addressing specific nutritional needs often unmet by conventional emergency food aid [10]. This supplementary role is particularly valuable during prolonged recovery periods when restoring external supply chains may take weeks or months [21].

UA has contributed positively by being a supplemental food source during several disasters and crises. Examples could be observed from the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes in Christchurch, where local community gardens offered food to those experiencing shortages in availability and access during the initial phases of disaster recovery [22]. Similarly, following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, local food security was bolstered by urban farms established prior to the earthquake [23]. The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic is the most recent global event to trigger worldwide renewed interest in urban gardening and farming [24]. In terms of post-disaster food security, UA is recognized for its various contributions in terms of

• Food availability, which promotes local food production sources in situations where external food sources are unavailable or constrained within affected areas [25];
• Food access, which enhances affordable and familiar food by supplementing local food supplies [2];
• Food utilization, in which fresh produce provides essential nutrients [9].

The preceding discussion highlights the potential of UA as a supplementary strategy for addressing food insecurity in post-disaster contexts. However, conventional disaster preparedness frameworks have largely overlooked UA’s role in enhancing urban resilience [10,26]. While UA may not be able to meet all food needs following a disaster, its contribution as a local, adaptable food source should not be underestimated [27]. Compared to conventional agriculture, UA has attracted limited academic attention, resulting in notable knowledge gaps [28]. Research focusing specifically on UA’s capacity to enhance post-disaster food security remains limited [9]. One notable study from Japan applied the self-sufficiency method to assess UA’s capacity to meet post-disaster food demands [9]. Urban self-sufficiency has emerged from the literature as a widely used metric for assessing UA’s performance, particularly in terms of food production and nutrient contribution—two critical dimensions of food security [5,9,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. The relevant studies often prioritize vegetables due to their relatively high yields and superior nutritional value compared to staple crops and animal products [39,40]. While full urban self-sufficiency is generally deemed unrealistic, the concept offers a valuable framework for assessing local food system contributions in the context of post-disaster [41]. Accordingly, this study adopts a self-sufficiency approach to evaluate UA’s potential in supporting food security by assessing its capacity to meet post-disaster vegetable production and nutritional needs. Given the variability of UA practices across contexts, selecting a suitable case study location is an essential first step.

1.3. Wellington as a Case Study

Wellington City in New Zealand was selected as the case study for three main reasons.

First, it is in one of New Zealand’s most seismically active regions, making it highly vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis [42,43]. Its location, bounded by mountains and the sea, increases the risk of isolation following a major disaster (Figure 1) [43,44]. The Wellington Earthquake National Initial Response Plan (WENIRP) provides emergency management guidance for the first three to five days after a major earthquake [45]. Under the worst-case scenario, WENIRP anticipates complete isolation of the city for three to five days, with full recovery potentially taking weeks or months, even after communication is restored. Wellington City currently sources most of its fresh food from surrounding regional farms [46,47], relying heavily on two north–south land transport corridors and maritime freight via the Cook Strait (Figure 1b) [48]. This infrastructure dependence poses a significant risk to food security if roads or ports are damaged. For example, the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake severely impacted Wellington’s port, disrupting food supply chains due to impaired freight operations [49]. As the capital and the third most densely populated city, Wellington must develop a food system capable of withstanding post-disaster disruption [49,50,51].

Second, despite evident post-disaster food security risks, the issue remains underexplored in New Zealand’s disaster planning discourse, as identified through a preliminary review of Wellington-related policy and planning documents. Seismic activity is expected to persist over the long term, yet the city’s level of preparedness remains inadequate [50,52]. Recent failures to ensure food security during the Christchurch and North Island disasters have exposed critical gaps in the country’s traditional disaster preparedness systems [53]. Integrating UA as an alternative strategy may help build more resilient food systems in disaster-prone urban areas across New Zealand [21,54].

Third, the growing public interest in UA presents an opportunity to integrate it into broader strategies for food system resilience and disaster preparedness [55]. Wellington’s temperate climate also supports the potential for year-round food production [46]. UA has been a tradition in Wellington since the colonial period through the 1950s, with most residents cultivating food in their backyards [56]. Although this practice declined in the following decades, UA has seen a notable resurgence in recent years, particularly through community garden [55,56,57,58]. Wellington City Council (WCC) has integrated UA into its wider sustainability agenda and actively promotes it through public outreach and informational initiatives [59]. As of May 2024, 28 community gardens were listed on the WCC website [60]. Community gardens are usually open productive spaces maintained by local residents for a range of purposes, from individual allotments to urban farms [61]. According to WCC, community gardens must be open to the public and operate on a not-for-profit basis. While categorized under the broad term “community gardens”, this study identified that the 28 gardens actually fall into three distinct types of UA in Wellington City:

• Allotments, managed individually by plot holders and their families [62];
• Communal gardens, a collaborative effort where multiple individuals grow plants together in a shared space [16];
• Urban farms, operated by charitable organizations with full-time employees maintaining the farm [62].

In this study, the term “community garden” for Wellington City encompasses the three UA types listed above.

In summary, the specific challenges Wellington faces in ensuring food security during disasters underscore the relevance of incorporating UA into broader resilience strategies. Although prior studies in New Zealand—especially those focused on the Christchurch earthquakes—have explored the social and cultural functions of community gardens, their potential as a reliable post-disaster food source remains largely underexamined [7,22,25]. Specifically, no existing studies have assessed the role of UA in strengthening post-disaster food security in Wellington.

This study proposes UA as a complementary food source in Wellington’s post-disaster context. Although the original study intended to include all types of UA in Wellington City, relevant data for certain UA types were unavailable during the data collection phase. As a result, this study focused exclusively on community gardens. Given Wellington’s seismic vulnerability and growing local interest in UA, this research aims to evaluate the current capacity of community gardens to contribute to food security by calculating vegetable self-sufficiency, following methodologies established in previous relevant studies [9,21,29,63,64]. By establishing baseline data for Wellington, this study provides a foundation for future in-depth investigations into other dimensions of UA’s post-disaster potential. To achieve the above objective, the study addresses the following research question: What is the current vegetable productivity of community gardens in Wellington City, and to what extent can it meet post-disaster vegetable and nutritional demands?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

Based on the discussions in Section 1.2 and Section 1.3, urban self-sufficiency was employed as the primary method to examine Wellington’s current UA capacity in supporting post-disaster food security. To contextualize the use of this method, a preliminary review of existing research on urban self-sufficiency through UA was undertaken [5,9,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Drawing on insights from this review, the following formula was applied to calculate vegetable self-sufficiency:

$$\% \mathrm{Self}\text{-}\mathrm{sufficiency}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Yield}\times \mathrm{Area}}{\mathrm{Demand}}}$$

The method was to identify the extent to which post-disaster food demands could be met by the current UA supply from community gardens. UA’s potential was assessed by analysing and calculating self-sufficiency in two attributes:

• City-wide vegetable productivity (by weight)
• Nutrient provision from a single community garden.

The decision not to examine city-wide nutrient provision was due to the fact that only one garden provided yield data for individual crops—data essential for such analysis. As a result, nutrient provision could only be assessed for this garden.

Based on the formula, the three variables (yield, area, and demand) are needed to quantify self-sufficiency rates. Surveys and literature reviews of previously published studies were used to obtain these data. The surveys included questionnaires, on-site observation and mapping, and high-resolution aerial photo mapping (Figure 2).

Of the 28 WCC listed gardens, 22 were included as targeted gardens because they primarily grow vegetables (Figure 3). Among them, one is an urban farm, fifteen are communal gardens, and six are allotments. Additionally, one urban farm located within the Wellington Region, but outside the Wellington City boundary, was included as a reference garden due to its yield data availability.

2.2. Step 1: Surveys on Yield and Area

Step 1 involved surveys on collecting data of garden yield and area. Questionnaires were distributed to all targeted gardens via email or as hard copies during on-site visits from November 2023 to August 2024. The questionnaires collected detailed information on each garden’s size, yield, and crop types to assess production capacity. Additional questions addressed garden history, management structures, and operational challenges. Prior to conducting the survey, ethics approval was obtained from Victoria University of Wellington. Due to challenges in accessing certain information through the questionnaires alone, a review of previous studies and on-site visits were also conducted. Aerial photo analysis was employed as an auxiliary tool when the other methods were not feasible.

2.2.1. Yield Data

Obtaining urban farming food yields has been widely acknowledged as a challenge due to limited empirical research and significant regional variability [38,56,65,66]. To collect yield from existing urban gardens, self-collected data through citizen science has been most used in previous studies [67,68,69]. This method collects self-reported yields or productivities from the targeted gardens through questionnaires, self-recording surveys, and/or interviews [28,70,71].

In this study, although the initial aim of the questionnaire was to collect vegetable yield from the targeted gardens, only 1 urban farm out of the 28 community gardens had recorded its harvest. Most urban gardeners do not track their food yields. An attempt was made to implement harvest self-recording survey among the existing community gardeners. However, it failed due to the difficulty of recruiting sufficient participants, leading to an inadequate sample size.

Since food yields differ among UA types, data from this urban farm cannot be generalized to other forms of UA. Therefore, two additional methods were conducted: review of previous published studies and conventional agriculture (Conventional agriculture is a high-input, industrialized system that heavily relies on external resources and energy, often at the expense of environmental sustainability [72]) data [38,73].

A key selection criterion for the reviewed studies was their use of first-hand yield data. Gardens in these studies were categorized into three types according to the definitions and descriptions (Table 1):

• Allotments, including home/private/backyard gardens due to their similarity to allotment yields, where individuals grow their own crops [74];
• Communal gardens, including community gardens and shared gardens, as some studies define community gardens exclusively as shared productive spaces;
• Urban farms, including gardens with hired staff and more intensive maintenance.

Table 1. Comparisons of yield data between previous studies, conventional farming and current survey.

Conventional Farming Data 1 [75]			2.5 (kg/m2)
Allotment 1
Location	Allotment	Garden Numbers	Yield (kg/m2)
South Australian [67]	Home gardens	34 gardeners	3.4
Brighton and Hove, UK [28]	Allotment and Home gardens	185 gardeners	1.0
Paris [76]	Family gardens	7 gardeners	1.2
San Jose, California, USA [70]	Home gardens	8 families	6.0
Laramie, Wyoming, USA [71]	Home gardens	31 gardeners	2.4
Leicester, UK [29]	Allotments	80 allotments	2.3
Guelph, Canada [64]	Backyard gardeners	50 gardeners	1.4
Mean			2.5
Median			2.3
Allotment yield used for this study 2			2.5 2
Communal garden 1
Location	Communal gardens	Garden numbers	Yield (kg/m2)
Paris [76]	Shared gardens	7 gardeners	1.4
Montreal [76]	Community gardens	14 gardeners	1.9
New York, USA [77]	Community gardens (2010)	67 gardens	5.8
	Community gardens (2011)	43 gardens	1.6
UK [78]	Community gardens	8 gardens/farms	1.6
Mean			2.5
Median			1.6
Communal garden yield used for this study 2			1.9 2
Urban farm 1
Location	Urban farms	Garden numbers	Yield (kg/m2)
Chiba and Tokyo, Japan [79]	Urban farms A	5 farmers	4.2
	Urban farms B	5 farmers	8.5
Manila, the Philippines [80]	Urban farms	1 urban farm	3.0
Mean			5.2
Median			4.2
Urban farm yield from current survey			4.0
Urban farm yield used for this study 2			4.0 2

¹ Grey-shaded rows indicate yield data by urban agriculture type. ² The bold and underlined numbers indicate the vegetable yield data for each UA type used in this study.

Table 1. Comparisons of yield data between previous studies, conventional farming and current survey.

Conventional Farming Data 1 [75]			2.5 (kg/m2)
Allotment 1
Location	Allotment	Garden Numbers	Yield (kg/m2)
South Australian [67]	Home gardens	34 gardeners	3.4
Brighton and Hove, UK [28]	Allotment and Home gardens	185 gardeners	1.0
Paris [76]	Family gardens	7 gardeners	1.2
San Jose, California, USA [70]	Home gardens	8 families	6.0
Laramie, Wyoming, USA [71]	Home gardens	31 gardeners	2.4
Leicester, UK [29]	Allotments	80 allotments	2.3
Guelph, Canada [64]	Backyard gardeners	50 gardeners	1.4
Mean			2.5
Median			2.3
Allotment yield used for this study 2			2.5 2
Communal garden 1
Location	Communal gardens	Garden numbers	Yield (kg/m2)
Paris [76]	Shared gardens	7 gardeners	1.4
Montreal [76]	Community gardens	14 gardeners	1.9
New York, USA [77]	Community gardens (2010)	67 gardens	5.8
	Community gardens (2011)	43 gardens	1.6
UK [78]	Community gardens	8 gardens/farms	1.6
Mean			2.5
Median			1.6
Communal garden yield used for this study 2			1.9 2
Urban farm 1
Location	Urban farms	Garden numbers	Yield (kg/m2)
Chiba and Tokyo, Japan [79]	Urban farms A	5 farmers	4.2
	Urban farms B	5 farmers	8.5
Manila, the Philippines [80]	Urban farms	1 urban farm	3.0
Mean			5.2
Median			4.2
Urban farm yield from current survey			4.0
Urban farm yield used for this study 2			4.0 2

¹ Grey-shaded rows indicate yield data by urban agriculture type. ² The bold and underlined numbers indicate the vegetable yield data for each UA type used in this study.

As shown in Table 1, the yield range varies significantly within each category. This variability arises from the limitations of citizen science data, which include inconsistencies in recording methods, participant variations, and limited sample sizes [68,70,77]. To enhance accuracy, the median yield was used as the reference data for each category. Conventional farming yields serve as a benchmark for low-intensity UA [81].

For this study’s allotment data, New Zealand conventional farm yields were comparable to allotment yields reported in previous studies (median yield in Table 1) and Auckland home gardens (2.9 kg/m²) [82]. Therefore, conventional farm data were used to estimate community garden productivity.

For communal gardens, the yield was assumed to be 75 percent of conventional farming data, following similar studies [32,83]. This estimate was then compared with the median yield of communal gardens from previous studies, revealing similar figures.

For the only urban farm that provided productivity data, its average annual yield was comparable to the median yield figure from the literature review.

2.2.2. Land Area

To quantify existing UA land, the first author employed questionnaires, field mapping, and analysis of aerial imagery [9,30,38]. First, questionnaires were distributed for collecting garden area data. The next stage consisted of on-site mapping to determine more precise information on cultivated and total areas. For the accessible gardens, maps were created based on the measurement of their cultivated and total land areas. Google Earth was utilized as an auxiliary tool [29] to map gardens that were either inaccessible or difficult to map on-site due to irregular shapes and steep terrains.

2.3. Step 2: Post-Disaster Food Demand Scenarios

This study assessed food demand in terms of weight and nutrients. As mentioned in Section 2.1, crop-specific vegetable yield data were only available for a single garden (the urban farm), which made it impossible to conduct a nutrient-based analysis at the city scale. Accordingly, two scales of demand scales were considered:

• City-wide vegetable demand by weight;
• Nutrient demand for the population surrounding the single garden.

These demands were assessed based on two key factors: per capita vegetable intake and the targeted population. Since per capita intake is assumed constant, post-disaster food demand scenarios were developed for different population groups.

2.3.1. City-Wide Vegetable Demand

For city-wide demands, scenarios were developed based on six different target populations (

Table 2. City-wide demand analysis.

City-Wide Vegetable Demand in Weight
Minimum daily vegetable intake (g/day/capita)			Sources
Vegetable demands		375	[84]
Targeted population scenarios
1	Entire population	216,200	[85]
2	Displaced population	67,000	[45]
3	Vulnerable population	54,300	[85]
4	Population within 5 min walking distance of community gardens	19,273	[86]
5	Vulnerable population within 5 min walking distance of community gardens	3916	[86]
6	Gardeners’ families (allotments)	559	This study

). These included the entire Wellington population, a potentially displaced population in the event of a major weekday earthquake (the displaced population estimates were based on WENIRP projections for earthquakes occurring during working hours [45]), and vulnerable groups with higher food needs (since data on pregnant or lactating individuals was unavailable, the vulnerable population only included the elderly and children (age under 15 or over 65)). As self-sufficiency rates for these three groups were found to be limited, the study also examined three additional groups—residents living near the gardens—to assess their potential value at the neighbourhood scale.

These nearby residents were identified based on zones within a five-minute walking distance (approximately 400 metres) from each garden. This distance aligns with standards for community service network planning [87,88]. Due to the unavailability of accurate population data within these zones, the population was estimated by multiplying the zone area by the corresponding population density. The specific zone area around each garden was defined and calculated using ArcGIS 3.2. The population density was determined based on census data at the Statistical Area 1 level, the smallest geographic unit containing detailed census data by age and gender [89].

The last scenario focused solely on the families of allotment gardeners as the target population, as it was difficult to estimate the number of participants involved in the other two UA types—communal gardens and urban farms. The six allotments contained 221 plot holders (gardeners), a number determined through inquiries with garden coordinators or by counting plots using Google Earth. The total target population was estimated by multiplying the number of plot holders by the average household size of 2.6 persons [90].

2.3.2. Nutrient Demand for the Population Surrounding the Single Garden

Nutrient demand was assessed for the single garden (the urban farm) with available data, specifically targeting its surrounding population as defined by the five-minute walking distance method described in Section 2.3.1. Eight nutrients were selected based on two aspects: the major nutrients vegetables can provide and their importance to the vulnerable population [91,92]. Food production by weight was converted to nutrient values using Food Composition Tables to determine the contribution of various food sources to dietary nutrients [93,94]. As in Section 2.3.1, precise population data by age and gender within this zone was unavailable. Instead, the population was estimated by applying the overall population density of the zone to the age and gender distribution of the broader area around the urban farm [86].

2.4. Step 3: Calculating Rates of Vegetable Self-Sufficiency

As mentioned earlier in this manuscript, the annual average vegetable self-sufficiency rate was calculated using the formula provided in Section 2.1. For the city-wide calculation, vegetable self-sufficiency in vegetable weight was assessed across the 22 gardens for the six scenarios. For the single garden calculation, self-sufficiency in both vegetable weight and nutrients was evaluated for its surrounding residents. This study applied an average crop loss rate of 20% to all produce, accounting for losses along the supply chain—from farm through retail to consumer—as well as inedible portions [82,95,96]. Although previous studies reported crop loss rates ranging from 20% to 30%, a lower rate was adopted here, as UA typically involves fewer steps from field to table, resulting in reduced produce loss compared to conventional farming [32,82,95,97].

3. Findings

Figure 4 shows the locations of the 22 targeted community gardens in Wellington. Among these, 20 were visited at least once, while the remaining two were inaccessible due to inability to establish contact. A total of 20 questionnaires were completed. To gain a deeper understanding of the gardens, the first author participated in 11 garden working bee sessions, which also facilitated building strong connections with garden participants. Informal conversations were conducted with volunteers, plot holders, coordinators, and managers at each site. Additionally, discussions were held with WCC to better understand the broader context of community gardens.

3.1. Garden Current Situation

Of the 20 gardens that finished the questionnaire, 45% have been established for more than 10 years, while over 35% were founded after 2020. In terms of land ownership, over half are owned by WCC, with most of the remainder situated on other types of public land. Garden maintenance varies by type, with communal gardens typically managed by regular volunteers and occasional weekly working bees. Allotments are primarily maintained by plot holders according to their individual schedules. The urban farm is unique in employing staff, ensuring it is well-maintained throughout the week, with working bees held two to three times weekly. Maintenance generally occurs more frequently in summer than in winter due to the increased workload. Over three-quarters of the gardens share their produce with the community, food banks, or other organizations, while fewer than half retain their harvest for self-sustenance. The urban farm additionally sells vegetables through a community-supported agriculture (CSA) programme (not-for-profit), where members pay in advance for a growing season’s salad or vegetable produce.

As mentioned in Section 2.2.1, most gardens do not tend to document their food yield data. The urban farm was the only garden to document this information. From 2021 to 2023, the urban farm had an average annual productivity of 2400 kg. This was a food yield of 4 kg per square meter. This yield is comparable to data from the reference urban farm located outside Wellington City but within the Wellington Region (as noted in Section 2.1), which reported annual yields of 3.65 kg per square metre based on the authors’ questionnaire. However, for the other two UA types (communal garden and allotment), despite the absence of accurate data, on-site observations suggest that many may have lower yields due to less intensive maintenance.

In terms of cultivated area,

Table 3. Proportion of garden land currently under cultivation.

Garden No.	Total Area (m2)	Cultivated Area (m2)	Cultivation Percentage
Communal gardens
1	1085	85	8%
2	312	229	73%
4	160	11	7%
6	100	14	14%
9	408	34	8%
11	87.5	13	14%
15	957	23	2%
16	180	16	9%
17	512	131	26%
18	313	98	31%
20	78	27	35%
21	414	31	7%
22	1292	13	1%
12	76	43	57%
7	1291	41	3%
Total	7265.5	809	11%
Allotment gardens
3	3038	406	13%
8	575	92	16%
10	326	127	39%
13	2582	563	22%
14	3853	1405	36%
19	2918	1420	49%
Total	13,292	401	30%
Urban farm
5	1683	606	36%
Total	1683	606	36%
All community gardens
Total	22,240.5	5429	24%

shows that the proportion of garden land currently under cultivation ranges from 1% to 73%. Although the proportion varies significantly between each garden, communal gardens generally had the lowest average figure at 11%, while the urban farm had the highest at 36%, with allotments falling in the middle at 30% (Table 3).

3.2. Post-Disaster Vegetable Self-Sufficiency Rate

The following findings are based on

Table 4. City-wide self-sufficiency rate of Wellington community gardens.

Post-Disaster Vegetable Demand Scenarios (City-Wide)		Demands (Kg)	Annual Productivity (Kg)	Self-Sufficient Rate
1	Entire population	29,592,375	11,120	0.04%
2	Displaced population	9,170,625	11,120	0.12%
3	Vulnerable population	7,432,313	11,120	0.15%
4	Population within 5 min walking distance	2,637,963	11,120	0.42%
5	Vulnerable population 5 min walking distance	535,980	11,120	2.07%
6	Gardeners’ families (allotments)	76,513	7963	10.41%

, which presents post-disaster vegetable self-sufficiency rates for Wellington City under the six scenarios outlined in Section 2.3. The annual average self-sufficiency rate of current community gardens in meeting the vegetable needs of the entire city population was 0.04% (Table 4). The rates are slightly higher for displaced and vulnerable populations but remain low overall. The current community gardens meet 0.42% of the vegetable needs for all residents within a five-minute walk and 2.07% for vulnerable groups (Table 4). However, when considering only the gardeners themselves, produce from community gardens satisfies 10.41% of their post-disaster vegetable requirements (Table 4).

Only one garden (the urban farm) tracked nutrient analysis data. The targeted population was defined as those living within a five-minute walking radius of the urban farm. The 2023 vegetable harvest from this garden totalled 1921 kg before accounting for crop loss rate. Considering vegetable weight alone, this urban farm could meet 1.09% of the vegetable needs for all residents within the five-minute walk, and 6.72% for vulnerable groups (

Table 5. Analysis of available nutrients, demands, and self-sufficiency rate of population within 5 min walking distance from the urban farm.

Nutrient	Vitamin A	Vitamin B1	Vitamin B6	Vitamin C	Calcium	Potassium	Fibre	Folic Acid	Average Nutrient Self-Sufficiency Rate	Weight-Based Self-Sufficiency Rate
Available (Kg)	0.00322	0.00068	0.00282	0.16580	0.73680	4.72801	31.78184	0.00070
Demand for all (Kg)	0.29087	0.41994	0.49426	16.51124	394.46450	1204.14995	9983.72273	0.14591
Self-sufficiency rate for all	1.11%	0.16%	0.57%	1.00%	0.19%	0.39%	0.32%	0.48%	0.53%	1.09%
Demand for the vulnerable (Kg)	0.06209	0.11925	0.14008	5.93423	142.98778	391.23190	3082.20431	0.03980
Self-sufficiency rate for the vulnerable	5.18%	0.57%	2.01%	2.79%	0.52%	1.21%	1.03%	1.76%	1.88%	6.72%

). This equates to potentially supplying enough vegetables for 11 people. However, when nutrient requirements are taken into account, this urban farm could meet roughly about 0.53% of the demand for the surrounding residents and 1.88% for vulnerable populations (Table 5).

4. Discussion

This study found that although community gardens offer a degree of self-reliance for the gardeners themselves, the overall vegetable self-sufficiency rate for Wellington City remains low when relying solely on these gardens. The following sections discuss the underlying reasons for this limited self-sufficiency, the current challenges facing UA in Wellington, its role in post-disaster context, and the study’s limitations.

4.1. Self-Sufficiency Rates Discussion and Comparisons with Other Studies

In a comparison with other cities in other countries, Wellington’s community gardens produce far less of its own vegetables for the city’s population than other cities (

Table 6. Comparisons of city’s self-sufficiency rate to support their populations.

Studies	Garden Numbers	Garden Types	Urban Population	Population Density (People/km2)	Self-Sufficiency Rate
Cleveland, USA, study [63,98]	200	Community gardens	431,363	2142	1.70%
Nerima, Japan, study [9]	1475	Professional farms, hobby farms, and allotments	721,709	15,019	6.18%
Leicester, UK, study [29,99]	64	Allotments	330,000	4500	2.60%
Guelph, Canada, study [64]	10,964	Backyard gardens	122,362	1644	2.00%
This study (Wellington, New Zealand) [85]	22	Community gardens (communal gardens, allotments, and urban farms)	216,200	746	0.04%

), with Wellington at a self-sufficiency rate of 0.04% while other cities in the comparison ranged from 6.18% (Nerima, Japan) to 1.70% (Cleveland, USA) (Table 6).

Several reasons exist for these potential discrepancies, including methods for calculating yields and how much gardens are used. Although most previous studies typically did not account for crop loss rate in their calculations, this study did incorporate them, which may have reduced the estimated self-sufficiency. However, crop loss rate was not a major factor influencing the low self-sufficiency rate observed in Wellington, as its inclusion had minimal impact on the overall results. Another possible reason for this discrepancy is the low utilization rate of the gardens. Observations during on-site visits indicated that most community gardens allocate very little area for vegetable planting. On average, only 24% of garden land is currently under cultivation (Table 3). In comparison, a study on community gardens in Paris and Montreal reported utilization rates of 55–91% and 82–96%, respectively [76]. This comparison suggested that Wellington’s gardens have considerable potential to increase production through more efficient use of available space. However, even under hypothetical scenarios where 50% and 75% of the available garden area is cultivated, the city’s overall food self-sufficiency would only reach 0.07% and 0.11%, respectively. This suggests that low land utilization is not the primary factor limiting food self-sufficiency.

A comparison of garden numbers in Table 6 reveals a relatively limited number of gardens in Wellington City. Previous studies encompassed a broader range of UA types—such as backyard gardens and commercial farms—whereas this study focused exclusively on community gardens. This narrower scope led to the lower self-sufficiency estimates observed here compared to earlier research (Table 6) [9,64]. This study examined 22 community gardens listed by the WCC. This represents one-third of the number assessed in the Leicester study [29] and 15% of those included in the Nerima study [9]. Consequently, only a small portion of Wellington’s land was evaluated for vegetable production, making it challenging to achieve a high level of self-sufficiency.

Conversations with WCC revealed that the listed community gardens do not represent all community gardens in Wellington. Additional unlisted gardens exist; however, those numbers and locations are difficult to estimate. This indicates that the actual extent of community gardening activity may be underrepresented in official records, suggesting a potentially greater capacity and reach than currently documented.

If the target population is limited to gardeners’ households, the rate increased to 10.41%. Although these figures remain lower than those reported in previous studies (32% for London, 16% for Ljubljana, and 27% for Milan [30]), the gap is significantly smaller than in scenarios assessing the entire population’s needs.

Focusing on the urban farm—the most productive site—the self-sufficiency rate for the nearby vulnerable population within a five-minute walking distance increased to 6.72% (Table 5). However, when assessing nutrient self-sufficiency, the rate dropped to approximately 25% of the self-sufficiency in food weight (Table 5). This finding is consistent with a previous study, which indicated that achieving nutrient self-sufficiency is more challenging than attaining self-sufficiency based on food weight [9]. For this urban farm, when targeting the entire population within a five-minute walking zone, Vitamin A had the highest self-sufficient rate at 1.11%, while Vitamin B1 had the lowest at 0.16% (Table 5). However, when focusing on the vulnerable population, the highest rate remained for Vitamin A at 5.18%, while the lowest was Calcium at 0.52% (Table 5). This disparity indicates that in disaster planning, specific nutrient needs of vulnerable groups should receive special attention, as their requirements may differ from those of the general population.

The relatively higher self-sufficiency rates for populations surrounding the gardens suggest that community gardens may play a more critical role for nearby residents, or for the gardeners’ families. However, in general, the current community gardens in Wellington are not sufficient to enhance post-disaster food security for most Wellingtonians.

4.2. Current Challenges in UA and Lessons from Other Studies

In Wellington, community gardens were mostly initiated through grassroots efforts [100]. While WCC is supporting the existing community gardens in some aspects [101], this study reveals that most gardens are struggling with various challenges. The most significant issue is insufficient labour input, with over half of the surveyed gardens reporting this as a concern. Often, only a small group of people, sometimes just one person, regularly manages the gardens. They handle tasks such as maintenance, organizing working bees, managing websites and social media, and making financial decisions. Finding long-term volunteers with both interest and time for gardening has proven difficult. One garden coordinator expressed that if he were to leave the group, the garden might not survive.

The second major challenge is the inconsistent water supply, followed by inadequate funding, soil contamination, weed management, and limited space. Some gardens also mentioned natural constraints, including wind and insufficient sunlight due to sloped terrain. Issues related to water supply, soil quality, and space can be addressed through proactive interventions. For instance, some gardens have used raised planting beds or planting plots to avoid contaminated soil. One garden mentioned successfully modifying their shed to collect more rainwater for irrigation. However, issues such as soil treatment and contamination testing must be addressed as part of future UA development, which will require both technical and financial support.

The only urban farm demonstrated a better yield and management performance, attributed to its employed staff and consistent maintenance. Additionally, selling vegetables through a CSA programme contributed to financial stability. Indeed, gardens that sell their produce may achieve higher yields, suggesting that such engagement can foster greater motivation to enhance production [102].

Additionally, instability of land availability is not a negligible issue. One garden reported that it might be closed at any time due to the potential sale of the land. Compared with other cities (Table 6), the relatively lower population density gives Wellington potential to have more UA land. However, fragmented and unclear zoning planning policy, coupled with the absence of a targeted strategic direction for UA has hindered its development [57,100,103].

As an island country, Japan faces earthquake threats similar to those in New Zealand. The potential of UA in supporting post-disaster self-sufficiency in the Japan study is significantly higher (Table 6). This is likely due to greater UA engagement and government support [9,104]. The study by Sioen et al. [9] highlighted high participation in UA in Tokyo’s Nerima Ward. The engagement was supported by local government initiatives that encouraged and financially backed UA activities. The Nerima municipality had a dedicated UA section that provided a platform that promoted various types and developments in UA. This included traditional urban gardens and hobby farms. These hobby farms have gained popularity for education, leisure, and livelihood, while also boosting self-sufficiency. Additionally, in terms of urban planning policies, the Productive Green Land Act, amended in 1992, aims to protect farming activities in cities [105]. This legislation also designates productive land in Tokyo as potential evacuation sites during disasters [106]. UA sites in Tokyo thus offer multiple functions [66]:

• Pre-disasters, improving diet and fostering community integration;
• Post-disasters, enhancing food security and serving as evacuation spots.

Cuba provides another notable example of using UA to enhance food security. The Cuban government has facilitated UA development by modifying laws to grant free access to public land for productive use [107]. Farming knowledge was disseminated through government-organized networks [108]. The food security crisis and the above measures have led to the high participation in UA initiatives in Cuba, resulting in a 90% self-sufficiency rate in vegetables and fruits [108,109].

The examples of Japan and Cuba demonstrate that beyond grassroots enthusiasm, local policy and land-use support are crucial for UA’s successful development. Although the number of community gardens in Wellington has grown in recent years, without sufficient policy, financial, and land-use support, as well as strong community engagement, UA is unlikely to provide food security in a post-disaster context.

4.3. Existing and Potential Roles of Urban Agriculture in Post-Disaster Wellington

In Wellington, community gardens have been proposed as a strategy to strengthen resilience against natural hazards like earthquakes and flooding, helping reduce the risks these events pose to the city’s urban food systems [110,111]. However, this study finds that community gardens currently fall short of supporting resilient food systems, as their low levels of self-sufficiency are insufficient to sustain the wider population during disasters. On the other hand, these gardens were found to provide additional benefits in the areas of social cohesion, food diversity, and food acceptance in a post-disaster context.

Previous studies demonstrate that community gardens have the potential contribute significantly to social interactions during disasters [25]. For instance, after the earthquakes in Christchurch in 2010 and 2011, community gardens served as places for social exchange and became essential assets for enhancing community resilience during disasters [22]. Similarly, the observations from the current study indicate that community gardens in Wellington may provide more social benefits than food production.

Based on questionnaires, on-site observations, and conversations with gardeners and volunteers, participants in community gardens in Wellington have a range of motivations. Most view the gardens as spaces for socializing and relaxation, rather than as sources of food production. Many gardeners already have their own private yards and join community gardens for engaging with their communities or gaining knowledge about gardening. For those without private yards, community gardens offer a chance to experience gardening and enjoy some fresh produce. Although gardens often share their harvest with volunteers, this is not the primary motivation for participation. Sixteen gardens reported sharing their harvests with the community or donating to charitable organizations like Soup Kitchen. For example, produce from gardens located within community centres are frequently shared in weekly community kitchens. Most gardens have strong ties to their communities, frequently hosting activities such as Matariki (Māori New Year) celebrations or outdoor lectures for school students. One garden, located next to a school, has an outdoor classroom where the coordinator has volunteered for over 10 years, teaching students about plant knowledge. This strong bond between the gardens and surrounding residents illustrates how community gardens in Wellington City contribute to strengthening social capital, a key element in disaster resilience [25].

Another benefit of Wellington community gardens is the remarkable diversity of food types. This study identified 95 different species of food grown in these gardens, including vegetables, fruits, herbs, and edible flowers. This figure does not account for varieties within the same species, suggesting that the actual diversity is even greater than reported. Accessing food through local alternative providers could significantly enhance overall diet quality and increase the variety of vegetables consumed [112]. This is particularly important during disasters, especially for vulnerable populations [9]. As mentioned in Section 1.1, post-disaster emergency food is usually mononutrient, as the primary goal is to restore energy levels in humans [113]. It has led to the majority of relief food supplies primarily consisting of carbohydrates. For example, in both the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake and the 2004 Niigata Chūetsu Earthquake in Japan, emergency food supplies primarily consisted of carbohydrates like rice balls, bread, and instant noodles, while vegetables were scarce [113]. If people rely on emergency food for an extended period, it can cause physical health issues and even mental health disorders [9]. Based on suggestions from ‘Food and nutrition in emergencies’ [14], to increase nutrient intake during emergencies, incorporating fresh vegetables and fruits into relief food is recommended. If this demand cannot be fulfilled through external provisions, the affected population were encouraged to grow their own vegetables and fruits in the long term, if feasible. The diverse range of vegetables from Wellington’s community gardens offers a valuable variety and thus could enhance food security.

In addition to variety, local gardens also offer familiar and acceptable foods, which are particularly important during disasters for maintaining well-being and ensuring adequate food intake. During the 1999 earthquake in Athens, Greece, elderly individuals experienced reduced food intake because the provided food was often too hard or cold to swallow [113]. In the face of a disaster, which already presents considerable hardship, access to familiar food can offer both comfort and a sense of resilience [2]. This issue has been observed in traditional post-disaster food assistance, where the focus tends to be on the quantity of food rather than its quality, including factors such as warmth and acceptability [6].

However, as discussed in Section 4.1, the limited number of community gardens significantly restricts the overall potential of UA to contribute meaningfully to food security. Nevertheless, UA extends beyond community gardens alone. Integrating various types of UA, such as private yards, could significantly enhance its capacity to support food security, particularly in post-disaster contexts. A growing interest in home gardening was observed during the process of surveying the UA context in Wellington City. As suggested by a garden coordinator during an on-site visit, a network of community gardens and private yards could enhance community resilience. If implemented in Wellington, such a network could strengthen disaster preparedness by fostering community connections and providing an alternative source of fresh food. Based on this envisioned network, if only certain areas of residential zones are considered as private yards, they could cover an area of 28 km². This scenario considers only single-unit parcels (designed for one household) and vacant parcels (undeveloped) in residential zone, as these are the zones currently permitted for UA activities under Wellington’s district plan and are more likely to offer sufficient space for cultivation [114,115]. Utilizing just 5% of this land for vegetable cultivation could supply 9.43% of the entire population or 30.42% of the vulnerable population during a disaster. This would enable 20,387 residents to access fresh vegetables in the event of severe disruptions, thereby reducing reliance on emergency food supplies. Furthermore, if more residential parcels are designated as private farming yards, along with more public spaces allocated for community gardens or allotments, the potential of UA in Wellington to support food security should not be underestimated.

Overall, the strong social bonds observed in the current Wellington community gardens highlights their potential social benefits. The well-established relationships between local residents and these gardens before disasters could play a crucial role in supporting the community recovery post-disaster [54,116]. To enhance UA’s potential as an accessible, acceptable, and nutritious food source, efforts should focus on expanding the variety of UA types and increasing its presence in diverse locations. Additionally, integrating UA into disaster management planning could enhance food security and resilience in times of crisis. In Wellington City, as part of post-disaster community-level preparation, community emergency hubs serve as places where individuals can seek assistance after a disaster [117]. Although these hubs do not store food, they list potential food sources, including community gardens. Many hubs are located in community centres, some of which already host community gardens. Although the current self-sufficiency rate of these gardens is too low to serve as a reliable food source, it presents an opportunity to envision the integration of community gardens with community emergency hubs. By strategically including UA gardens into disaster management planning, we could create not only an alternative source of fresh vegetables but also familiar space where affected populations could support each another [66].

4.4. Strategies to Enhance Self-Sufficiency Through Urban Agriculture

Indeed, urban self-sufficiency through traditional UA remains low globally. A review conducted by the authors found that even the highest reported rate was just 16%, with most studies reporting averages below 7% [9,29,31,33,64,118,119]. Nevertheless, several strategies—particularly those aimed at improving urban garden standards, as evidenced by international examples in Section 4.2—could significantly enhance Wellington’s UA self-sufficiency in the context of disaster preparedness.

First, policy interventions similar to Japan’s Productive Green Land Act could safeguard and expand UA land while formally recognizing its role in emergency response. As discussed in Section 4.3, allocating just 5% of residential land to food production could substantially increase city-wide self-sufficiency, demonstrating the transformative potential of policy support for private yard cultivation.

Second, addressing infrastructure and operational constraints could enhance the productivity of existing gardens. Survey from this study results identified labour shortages, inadequate water access, and limited funding as key barriers. Drawing on Cuba’s example of government-supported knowledge-sharing networks, coordinated support initiatives—including volunteer programmes, technical training, and resource-sharing platforms—could help overcome these challenges.

Third, expanding the scope of UA beyond community gardens could dramatically boost overall capacity. While this study focused exclusively on community gardens due to data limitations, Wellington’s UA includes a variety of forms—such as private yards, productive urban landscapes, and commercial urban farms [21]. As discussed in Section 4.3 and observed during fieldwork, a coordinated network that integrates these diverse UA types could serve as the foundation for a comprehensive post-disaster urban food resilience strategy.

Finally, planning for seasonal variability and investing in food preservation infrastructure would address concerns about year-round production in disaster scenarios. Community preservation facilities, season extension technologies, and coordinated planting plans could help ensure more stable food availability throughout the year [76,95,120].

5. Conclusions

Although the benefits of UA as a post-disaster food supply have been widely acknowledged, few studies have conducted in-depth assessments of its actual contribution, particularly in the context of Wellington City. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the current capacity of UA to enhance post-disaster food security through self-sufficiency calculations in vegetable weight and nutrient provision. It establishes baseline data previously undocumented for Wellington. Due to data constraints, the analysis focused solely on existing community gardens.

The findings reveal that while these gardens offer more meaningful contributions to the food security of gardeners’ households and nearby vulnerable populations—with vegetable self-sufficiency rates of 10.41% and 2.07%, respectively—their impact at the city-wide level is minimal (0.04%). These results are significantly lower than those reported in comparable international studies. Nutrient analysis further reveals that nutrient self-sufficiency is more difficult to attain than weight-based self-sufficiency. It also highlights that the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups differ from those of the general population, underscoring the importance of identifying and addressing these needs prior to disasters.

These results confirm that the current UA system, as analyzed, has limited capacity to meet city-wide post-disaster food and nutrition needs in Wellington. However, this limitation reflects the small land area considered and the narrow range of UA types included, rather than the full potential of UA. As noted in Section 4.2, other UA forms—such as private yards—remain underexplored and could significantly improve overall self-sufficiency if incorporated. In addition, existing community gardens face operational and infrastructure challenges that constrain their productivity. To address these constraints, this study draws on international examples from Japan and Cuba to underscore the importance of supportive policies, strategic land-use planning, and targeted infrastructure improvement in realizing the full potential of UA as a component of disaster preparedness.

While this study primarily focused on assessing post-disaster vegetable self-sufficiency through UA, additional benefits were also identified. First, the diversity of vegetables observed from the existing community gardens suggests the potential of more familiar and diverse food choices for affected populations during disasters. It would mitigate health issues caused by reliance on emergency food supplies with limited nutritional value [113]. Second, the social benefits of UA—particularly the strong relationships observed between gardens and local residents—may play a critical role in community resilience and post-disaster recovery [121].

6. Limitations and Future Direction

This study was primarily limited by insufficient data on UA in Wellington and across the broader New Zealand context, highlighting the urgent need for further research. The full potential of UA in post-disaster contexts has yet to be thoroughly investigated due to the following limitations.

First, although this study aimed to assess the current vegetable production potential, specific yield data from most gardens were unavailable. Only one garden provided its yield data, while yields for the other gardens were estimated using assumptions based on New Zealand’s conventional yields and prior UA studies. Since conventional yields are comparable to those of low-intensity UA, this approach ensured conservative estimates [81]. Also, the yields reported in the previous studies were based on either whole-year or harvest season records. As a result, actual harvests in some gardens may exceed the current estimates. However, more localized UA yield data are needed in future research to better assess its potential in Wellington.

Second, there were discrepancies in the population data. The data were not uniformly sourced from the same year due to availability issues. The 2023 New Zealand census provided total population figures, while the 2018 census offered detailed age and gender breakdowns. However, a comparison between the 2018 and 2023 data revealed little to no difference in the city-wide self-sufficiency rate calculation. Therefore, only the city-wide calculation used 2023 data, whereas the remainder used 2018 data due to the need for age and gender-specific population information. Future studies could enhance accuracy by using the latest available census data.

Third, this study considered only the elderly and young as vulnerable populations due to the unavailability of data on pregnant and lactating individuals. Given the elevated nutritional needs of all these groups, they should receive particular attention in disaster contexts [91]. Future research should further investigate data on vulnerable groups to achieve more precise conclusions.

Fourth, seasonality was not considered in this study due to the lack of related data. Seasonality could significantly impact results, as vegetable harvests vary by season. A study in Japan found nutrient self-sufficiency to be highest in winter and lowest in spring [9], though seasonal patterns in Wellington may differ. Techniques such as seasonal extension and food preservation could help improve self-sufficiency during periods of lower harvest [76,95,120]. Future research could incorporate seasonality into calculations if more data becomes available.

Fifth, this study focused on a quantitative assessment of UA’s production and nutrient capacity, without incorporating qualitative methods such as interviews with gardeners to explore UA’s social benefits in post-disaster contexts. While the primary aim was to establish baseline data on production and nutrient potential, other important factors—such as food quality and economic feasibility—were not addressed, though they are critical to the practical implementation of UA for enhancing self-sufficiency. Additionally, although Section 4.4 discusses ways to improve urban garden standards, the development of comprehensive standards would require extensive stakeholder engagement and technical analysis, which falls beyond the scope of this study. Future research should build on these findings by integrating both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the social value, economic viability, and food quality outcomes of UA, as well as to support the development of standardized frameworks. Such work would provide deeper insights into how UA’s theoretical potential can be effectively translated into practical post-disaster resilience.