ZZ & DM

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]
On: 29 October 2014, At: 23:42
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Australian Geographer
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cage20
Domestic Residential Garden Food
Production in Melbourne, Australia: a
fine-grained analysis and pilot study
Zainil Zainuddin
a
& David Mercer
a
a
RMIT University, Australia
Published online: 27 Oct 2014.
To cite this article: Zainil Zainuddin & David Mercer (2014) Domestic Residential Garden Food
Production in Melbourne, Australia: a fine-grained analysis and pilot study, Australian Geographer,
45:4, 465-484, DOI: 10.1080/00049182.2014.954299
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.954299
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

Domestic Residential Garden Food
Production in Melbourne, Australia:
a fine-grained analysis and pilot study
ZAINIL ZAINUDDIN & DAVID MERCER, RMIT University, Australia
ABSTRACT Even though cities cover approximately only 3 per cent of the earth’s land
area, they are often located on what previously was prime agricultural land. In line with
what was common historically, many cities around the world are now deliberately seeking to
promote and expand agricultural production within their borders. Pressure for change is
coming from a number of sources, including both governments and private citizens. Poten-
tially, community gardens and domestic backyard food production have an important role
to play in this process, but while there now exists a sizeable body of research on the former,
there is a serious lack of data on current productive practices in private domestic gardens.
While other researchers have asked householders to estimate garden production, we believe
this to be the first project to carefully document measured output by multiple households. The
paper presents the results of a fine-grained study of 15 selected householders in metropolitan
Melbourne. Participants collected detailed daily information about their food production
over a three-month period. In addition, two of the respondents had been keeping daily
production records continuously for one or more years. The results demonstrate enormous
diversity in the food harvested, as well as some extremely high levels of productivity from
relatively small domestic spaces. Participants were also questioned about their motivations
for engaging in backyard food production and dealing with surpluses.
KEY WORDS Gardens; gardening; domestic food production; Melbourne; urban
agriculture.
Introduction
In 1789 the first Governor of the Colony of New South Wales, Arthur Phillip,
regulated that dwellings should be situated on blocks measuring, on average,
18.3m × 45.7m, or just under a quarter of an acre. Hall (2010, p. 5) reminds
us that:
Phillip’s plan was out of hand within a few years. However, it has laid the
seeds for what would become the norm in the 20th century subdivision:
an emphasis on a spread of homes and gardens rather than a dense
network of terraces—characteristically suburban forms as distinguished
from the urban forms of the industrial city.
Australian Geographer, 2014
Vol. 45, No. 4, 465–484, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.954299
© 2014 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at23:4229October2014

While we certainly need to recognise major differences in block- and dwelling-size
between ‘older’ and ‘newer’ (post-1990) suburbs—typically, 9–13 dwellings per
hectare (dph) and 13–20 dph respectively—there have been a number of estimates
of the size of the ‘suburban form’ in Australia. Writing in 2006, Timms, for
example, calculated a total figure of 70 000 square kilometres, or ‘more than twice
the area of Belgium’ (p. 203). Ghosh (2014, p. 2), too, notes that in Australia,
‘Residential gardens as urban green space constitute the largest single urban land-
use type’.
Given that such a significant proportion of the total area of Australia’s major
cities is now accounted for by private outdoor spaces adjacent to residential
dwellings, it is surprising that so little attention has been given to the value and use
of such areas by urban researchers. Halkett’s (1976; Halkett et al. 1978) pioneering
work in Adelaide is a notable exception, building as it did upon his mentor’s
celebration of Australian suburbia in the classic text, Ideas for Australian Cities
(Stretton 1975). Yet, surprisingly this research interest effectively evaporated for
some three decades until the simultaneous publication—in 2006—of Gaynor’s
excellent historical overview, Harvest of the Suburbs and Timms’s Australia’s Quarter
Acre, Head & Muir’s (2007) Backyard—Nature and Culture in Suburban Australia a
year later, and, more recently, Hall’s (2010) The Life and Death of the Australian
Backyard.
One likely explanation for this 30-year research hiatus is that, increasingly,
unregulated ‘sprawl’ was seen as a ‘bad thing’ and widely condemned by academics
and planners alike. Australian cities, it was argued, were too ‘wasteful’ of space and
energy, overly dominated by the automobile and the residential densities far too
low (Davison 2004; Johnson 2006). It was also pointed out by many commentators
that unchecked, outer-suburban residential expansion was often taking place on
Australia’s all too scarce, prime agricultural land (Buxton et al. 2007). This trend is
accelerating. The most recent population projections, for example, point to
Melbourne and Sydney experiencing growth rates of up to 50 per cent in the
coming decades and both having populations of around 7.9 million by 2053
(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013). While some of this increase undoubtedly
will be accommodated in high- or medium-density housing developments in inner-
city locations, much of it will also take the form of relatively cheaper, low-density
housing on the ever-expanding urban fringe and shrinking agricultural estate.
To take one metropolitan example, James (2009) calculated recently that
Sydney’s market gardens account for approximately 40 per cent of food consumed
in New South Wales. However, it has also been estimated that 52 per cent of all
commercial properties growing vegetables in the Sydney Basin are in areas officially
designated as ‘Growth Centres’ for future housing (James 2014). Further, a report
by the Food Alliance and the Victorian Chapter of the National Heart Foundation
of Australia (2012, p. 14) revealed that currently more than 50 per cent of
Victoria’s vegetables are grown within 100 kilometres of Melbourne. To put this in
a historical context:
In the 1950s, Melbourne had over 2000 km2
of agricultural land within
the urban boundary, and approximately 90 km2
of land for fruit and
vegetable growing. By 2030, it is estimated that none of the original
fruit and vegetable-growing areas will be left, and there will be less than
200 km2
of agricultural land.
466 Z. Zainuddin & D. Mercer

The value of preserving good quality agricultural land from competing uses was
certainly recognised in Victoria in the 1950s. The then overarching planning
authority—the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW)—warned
that ‘a line must be drawn somewhere, or the city will continue sprawling over a
wider and wider area, increasing the disabilities inherent in this type of growth and
putting out of production more and more food producing areas’ (Melbourne and
Metropolitan Board of Works 1954, p. 22). More recently, since 2002 the Victorian
State government has shifted the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) outward on four
separate occasions, including re-zoning 5000 hectares of prime agricultural land in
the south-east growth corridor for residential use (Burton et al. 2013).
Aside from the obvious observation that mainstream market forces dictate that
residential use is far more ‘profitable’ than agriculture, another reason for this
dramatic land-use shift is that, increasingly, local agricultural producers—especially
in the horticultural sector—find it impossible to compete with aggressive overseas
competitors. The introduction and rapid uptake of refrigeration technology, both in
the home and in transportation, since the 1950s, played a major role here. Food
could now be transported over longer and longer distances and stored in homes
and retail outlets until required. Prior to this technological revolution it was
necessary for fresh food to be both produced and consumed close to the point of
consumption and within a relatively short time period. Today, cheap garlic sold
in Australian supermarkets, for example, is routinely transported almost 10 000
kilometres from China and citruses 12 000 kilometres across the Pacific from
California. A large proportion of tomatoes consumed in Australia, too, are
imported from Italy. Overall, around 20 per cent of vegetables and 34 per cent of
the fruit consumed in Australia are now imported and the proportions are rising
(Lawrence et al. 2013). These activities are highly oil-dependent and any disruption
to oil supply can have a huge impact on the price of food and its availability
(Cribb 2010).
The global food system and localised responses
The current global food system is a complex multi-layered matrix, one which, inter
alia, intersects the areas of politics, human rights, social justice, resource depletion
and environmental management. Lord Cameron of Millington, former head of the
United Kingdom Countryside Agency, once declared that that nation was ‘nine
meals from anarchy’ (Cockrall-King 2011). He was referring to a global food chain
in potential crisis and the vulnerability of the system to external threats such as a
natural disaster or the volatility of oil prices, inferring that local, UK supermarkets
have a carrying capacity of only three days’ worth of essential supply. In the
Australian context, Blackburn (2013) too highlighted that in New South Wales
alone there are 25 000 truck-trips for food each week. He estimated that in the
event of fuel supply interruptions, frozen foods in supermarkets would last for only
a week (see, also, Parker & Stewart 2014).
As Simms (2008) points out, the highly globalised and industrialised economy,
with its over-dependence on oil and heavily-centralised distribution networks,
created the current model organised along ‘just-in-time’ delivery principles, making
the system highly vulnerable. Boycott (2008), for example, highlights the chaos and
civil unrest in the southern United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
where widespread looting for food took place as a means of survival. More recently,
Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 467

an Australian report on cyber security has underscored the growing vulnerability of
the electricity networks of Australia’s major cities to cyber attack. One scenario for
the year 2025 presented in this study is that of a series of cascading failures
deliberately triggered across the electricity grid during a heatwave. The possible
consequences for food storage and distribution in urban areas are both obvious and
profound (Arico & Srinavasan 2014).
As a reaction to many of the vulnerability issues within the contemporary,
industrialised food system—including supply disruptions and health scares—a
number of alternative food movements have emerged across the world in recent
years (Scrinis 2007) (see Figure 1). Invariably, these start locally and initially tend
to be small in scale, although many—like the Slow Food Movement (Petrini 2007)—
have grown subsequently to establish an international reach. These emerging
initiatives are now attracting the attention of researchers. These include such features
as farmers’ markets, community gardens (Beilin & Hunter 2011) and local food
swaps, which tend to be informal and often held at public spaces like a reserve, school
yard or neighbourhood house, as well as the more radical actions such as gleaning and
‘urban foraging’ (Carolsfeld & Erikson 2013; Edwards & Mercer 2013).
One of the main reasons for the above-mentioned enthusiasm for suburbia
shown by Stretton (1975) in the early 1970s was his observation that the wave of
post-war migration from Italy, Greece and Lebanon, in particular, to such cities as
Adelaide, saw an extraordinary explosion of ‘micro-scale’, agricultural productivity
in Australian backyards. The climate was not dissimilar to the host countries and
many varieties of hitherto virtually unknown heritage fruits and vegetables were
cultivated, often from imported seeds and stock, in order to satisfy culinary tastes
quite different from the traditional Australian diet which was strongly based around
the consumption of meat. This represented a relatively recent revolution in
Australian urban agriculture. But it needs to be remembered that in the earlier,
FIGURE 1. The current food system nested by order of relevance—adapted from
energy-descent scenario (Holmgren 2009).

pre-refrigeration era, as well as difficult economic times such as the 1930s,
domestic production of agricultural produce in cities was widespread and common.
Gaynor (2006) reports that a census conducted in 1933 revealed that there were
around 40 000 owners (one in six households) of 900 000 fowls in metropolitan
Melbourne.
Given the above, we were interested in extending the largely theoretical work of
Ghosh (2014) and investigating the actual experience and potential of contemporary
backyard food production in Australian cities—specifically Melbourne—as a
reaction to the globalisation of food production and distribution and the ongoing
attenuation of ‘food miles’. In an earlier paper, Ghosh & Head (2009, p. 320)
highlighted the need to ‘understand the cumulative sustainability potential of
millions of private outdoor spaces’.
There is a notable dearth of academic literature on domestic, urban backyard
food production, not just in Australia but worldwide. There is also a lack of detailed
quantitative data on domestic urban food production that could provide useful
information on its capacity and potential. Indeed, we could find only three previous
studies from Australia or New Zealand that provided data on domestic household
food production. The first was a 1992 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
household survey that asked interviewees to estimate their annual production of fruit
and vegetables. The average was 70.4 kg. The second was a more recent study that
also asked respondents to estimate production. In an online, Australia-wide, survey,
Wise (2014, p. 1) contacted 1390 households and concluded that ‘more than half
(52 per cent) of all Australian households are growing some of their own food and a
further 13 per cent report that they intend to start’. As noted, the problem with
such surveys is that only estimates are provided and it is difficult to assess how
much credibility to accord the results. The final study of note was a year-long
analysis of actual yield from one 48 square metre demonstration garden in Mangere,
Auckland in 1999/2000 (Ho 2001). Here, production peaked at 285.2 kg.
As recent reports from the United Nations Human Rights Council have
emphasised, access to food should be regarded as a fundamental human right
(De Schutter 2014). Access to fresh and diverse food is crucial for the maintenance
of good health, regardless of one’s locality (Neff et al. 2009; Demaio 2013). A poor
and unhealthy diet runs the risk of triggering many chronic diseases such as
diabetes and cardiovascular-related complications. Poor diet is also a major
contributing factor to the growing epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especially
among young children and teenagers (Crawford 2013).
In the State of Victoria (Australia) alone, less than half of the adult population eat
the recommended number of servings of fruit per day in addition to the less than
10 per cent who consume the daily recommended servings of vegetables
(Food Alliance and National Heart Foundation of Australia [Victorian Division]
2012). Further, this report also points out that one in 20 people in Victoria are food
insecure due to a lack of financial means to buy food. Food ‘insecurity’ is not
normally an issue that one associates with an affluent country such as Australia but
there is ample evidence that it is looming as a significant concern (Farmar-Bowers
et al. 2013; Lawrence et al. 2013).

The focus
For the purpose of this research, the term ‘backyard’ includes all the areas on the
sides of the dwelling, those at the back of the house as well as the front areas, and
in some instances the so-called ‘nature strip’ adjoining the street, immediately
belonging to the household and—wholly or in part—cultivated with edible crops
(Wilken & Olsen 2002). Even though many residences in Australia sport sizeable
front gardens it is rare for these to be used for intensive horticultural production
other than for the occasional fruit tree. This is an interesting cultural phenomenon,
not easily explained. As in certain parts of Florida (USA), for example, local
municipalities in Melbourne do not have zoning ordinances in place specifically
prohibiting the use of front gardens for vegetable and fruit production (Patrick
2013). Roof areas, balconies and verandas are also included in the present study.
It is a well-defined private space, or space directly controlled by the sampled
household where food is produced or grown, as opposed to public open spaces.
‘Private’, in this instance, includes both ownership and rental households. As such,
this research excludes community gardens, private allotments, school kitchen
gardens, restaurant and market gardens and any other commercialised spaces, even
if privately owned and managed.
Using empirical data from a sample population, the research reported in this
paper focuses on production capacity, variety of produce, methods of production,
treatment of surpluses and motivations for engaging in food production. It is
beyond the scope of this paper to examine the material inputs (such as fertiliser,
herbicides and pesticides) or time inputs associated with food production.
Methodology
The sampling strategy used for this study was the non-probability technique,
namely modified snowball sampling that allows for non-random selection of
personnel who fulfilled a basic requirement. All participants were subject to both
quantitative and qualitative data collection.
A targeted demography was initially identified and contacted, in this case five
non-random groups. Based on the information gathered from that first initial
contact, a new level, or layer of connections, was made and the process then
repeated. People were chosen on the basis of their current ongoing involvement in
food growing or production based on the fact that they were willing, available and
readily accessible. Given the circumstances, this study should not be considered a
definitive sample nor in any way representative of the general population. The aim
is to determine the potential for urban backyard food production capacity (i.e. crop
yield) based on a selected sample population. The proportion of the population
engaged in food production is not the focus of this research.
The participants were selected on the basis of: (i) their location; and (ii) food
production activities. It was important that they be located within roughly a
70-kilometre radius of the Melbourne CBD and it was equally crucial that they are
already engaged in food production for all practical purposes. Several different
avenues were used for the recruitment process. The first was an appeal through
personal friends, family members, peers and colleagues. The next approach was to
leverage on social media platforms, namely personal blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn
and Google Plus. These early initiatives created a ‘chain of referral’ (Neuman 2011)

to other groups such as the Moreland Energy Foundation Limited (MEFL), More-
land Food Gardens Network (MFGN), Permablitz, Transition Town Coburg,
Transition Town Darebin and Swap Shuffle and Share (SSS). These key local
actors and agencies helped to spread the word through their newsletters and
local meetings. All participants were recruited either through referrals from these
local networks or through word-of-mouth via personal networks and other
influences. The idea of quantifying urban backyard food production in some detail
generated considerable interest.
The data collection process used in this research was straightforward. It involved
measuring (or more precisely in this instance the regular weighing of harvested
produce), and collating related data (e.g. types of produce being harvested and
weighed) by the participants themselves for a set period of time, to produce precise
numerical information. A few comments on the use of weight as a key measure are
in order. We deliberately chose this approach because it is relatively easy for
participants to undertake and, as noted above, it had been used in two earlier
studies. However, inevitably high totals generally will be recorded from larger plots
and/or from gardens concentrating on such crops as pumpkins and potatoes.
Ideally, nutritional value would be a more appropriate metric but we discounted
using this because of the complex measurement problems involved.
The initial number of participants was 20, with a 25 per cent attrition rate. Given
the necessary daily commitment to the fairly rigorous measurement regime, this
is not altogether surprising. Three withdrew for various personal reasons, one
returned corrupted data and one did not return any data for final analysis. In total,
15 sets of data were tabulated and analysed. Of these, 20 per cent were renters and
80 per cent homeowners. Figure 2 shows the locations of the sampled residences
and Table 1 itemises details of the participants. All are from middle-class
backgrounds, and are either currently in professional employment or retired. The
age range is from the early 30s to late 60s and the gender ratio is 3.75 female to
one male.
The size of cultivated plot ranged from a modest 7 square metres to a relatively
large 250 square metres. The highest yield of 50.227 kg was produced from a
cultivated plot measuring 80 square metres for a data collection period between the
end of July 2012 to mid-October 2012. Some of the individual collection periods
were in between seasons—for example from the end of autumn to mid-spring. The
largest plot of 250 square metres produced 5.420 kg worth of food over the summer
collection period from the middle of December 2012 to early March 2013.
The overall data collection period for the entire study ran from July 2012 to July
2013, with several overlapping phases. This was deliberately designed to reflect
inter-seasonal production capacity. The aim was not to concentrate solely on
summer yield. The design of the data collection time span is more reflective of how
urban food production is widely practised. During this 12-month period, each
participant contributed 12 weeks’ worth of data, i.e. the total amount of food
generated within three consecutive months. The collection periods lapsed from
early summer to early autumn, when Melbourne experienced a slightly hotter and
drier season than average. The day time maximum temperature averaged 27.4°c.
Meanwhile, the total rainfall for the same period was 108 mm, slightly less than the
usual recorded 154.7 mm (Bureau of Meteorology 2013).

FIGURE 2. The sampled backyards.
TABLE 1. Profile of participants
Suburb Gender Type of dwelling Tenure Profession
1 Coburg F Detached house Home owner Office Manager
2 Preston M Detached house Home owner Scientist
3 Coburg North F Detached house Renting Gardener
4 Coburg North F Detached house Renting Self-employed
5 Ascot Vale F Detached house Home owner Minister of Religion
6 Coburg F Detached house Home owner Retiree
7 Werribee F Detached house Home owner Homemaker
8 Coburg North F Detached house Home owner Volunteer
9 Werribee F Detached house Home owner Supervisor
10 Thornbury M Detached house Renting IT Specialist
11 Coburg North F Detached house Home owner Midwife
12 East Bentleigh M Detached house Home owner Technology Manager
13 Hoppers Crossing M Detached house Home owner Director
14 Clifton Hill F Detached house Home owner Lecturer
15 Pascoe Vale South F Detached house Home owner Landscape gardener

Production and yield
Excluding eggs, the total collective yield of all sampled backyards was 388.728 kg of
nuts, fruits, vegetables, honey and meat. There is a notable difference in yield
between each sampled backyard. However, the study reveals no direct correlation
between plot size and yield (see Table 2). This is because the home garden is a
combination of recreational space for entertainment and socialising as well as for
food production; not every inch of space is dedicated to food production.
The plot size is a rough estimate of actual food growing area, since containers are
not included in the calculation. It is difficult to calculate the size of pots and other
similar containers. However, it is worth noting that the measured yield includes
produce from pots and containers.
One notable finding is the diverse food-growing technologies and practices
employed. One exemplary backyard was established in 2008 using permaculture
design principles. The owner has managed to create an urban food forest in the
Melbourne suburb of Preston. The concept of ‘forest garden’ was first made
popular by American horticulturist Robert A de J. Hart (1996). The Preston
backyard boasts 16 different types of berries and more than 30 fruit trees in
addition to over 70 varieties of medicinal plants and herbs. The total yield of this
backyard over the 12-week period was 50.227 kg.
Table 2 lists the start and end dates of the data collection period for each
participant and the associated crop yields. The total includes meat, honey and
honey by-products such as beeswax and honeycombs. In all, 101 different types of
nuts, fruits, vegetables and other edible produce were generated by all participants
collectively over the study period. The total size of the combined plots was 1096
square metres, which produced 388.728 kg worth of food (including quail meat,
honey, honey by-products and mealworms) and 1015 eggs (of which 326 were
quail eggs).
All participants reported a surplus of between 10 and 25 per cent, which was
shared among other family members, friends and neighbours, or distributed
through local swap and share networks. Perhaps surprisingly, of the 15 participants,
only five engaged in food preservation, such as bottling, drying and freezing.
The study found that, certainly for Melbourne, backyard food production is
capable of producing a considerable diversity of horticultural produce from
common kitchen garden herbs to less commonly cultivated fruits and vegetables,
as well as less commercially available varieties like amaranth, apple cucumber,
acorn squash, butter squash, babaco, cape gooseberry, edible canna, elderflower,
gem squash, loganberry, nettle, oca, orache, purslane, rat-tailed radish, viola flower,
warrigal green, white mulberry and yacon.
Some of the more commonly cultivated and commercially available varieties
included asparagus, globe artichoke, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Jerusalem arti-
choke, leek, lettuce, onion, potato, tomato, zucchini, a wide variety of common
culinary herbs, a selection of fruits from stone-fruits like nectarine, peach and plum
to a variety of berries and citruses, plus apple, cherry and fig. In addition, 60 per
cent of participants kept chickens, quail and mealworms. Chickens were kept
exclusively for their eggs while quails were for both eggs and meat. Another source
of protein which is less common is mealworms (Tenebrio molitor), the larvae of
darkling beetle.

TABLE 2. Summary of urban backyard food production
No. Start date End date
Size of
household
Plot size
(sq m)
Total food growing
experience (year)
Total
yield (kg)
No. of eggs
(including quail)
1 18 July 2012 10 October 2012 2.5 46 8 39.460 41
2 27 July 2012 19 October 2012 2 80 10 50.227 0
3 05 August 2012 27 October 2012 2 60 5 27.175 187
4 31 August 2012 24 November 2012 2.5 55 13 22.520 113
5 01 September 2012 23 November 2012 2 70 20 7.950 78
6 04 September 2012 26 November 2012 1 20 30 35.015 0
7 01 October 2012 31 December 2012 2 145 35 39.999 87
8 14 October 2012 08 January 2013 2 48 3 27.211 69
9 28 October 2012 20 January 2013 4 45 5 16.020 7
10 08 November 2012 31 January 2013 2 16 21 40.644 71
11 11 November 2012 04 February 2013 2 24 2.5 12.585 0
12 12 November 2012 03 February 2013 4 80 8 11.750 36
13 15 December 2012 08 March 2013 4 250 4 5.420 326
14 22 December 2012 15 March 2013 3 150 15 47.475 0
15 06 May 2013 29 July 2013 4 7 20 5.277 0
39 1096 199.5 388.728 1015
474Z.Zainuddin&D.Mercer

For analysis, the types of produce were broadly segregated into 19 categories.
The category ‘Beans’ covers a wide variety, e.g. broad bean, French bean, string
bean, etc. Blueberry, Cape gooseberry, loganberry, strawberry, raspberry, etc.
are logged under ‘Berry’. Similarly ‘Citrus’ includes grapefruit, lime, lemon,
orange, etc.
Urban backyard food growers in Melbourne also produce a wide variety of fruits
like apple, apricot, babaco, cherry, fig, nectarine and plum which are logged under
‘Fruit’. Kale, Mustard green, spinach, silverbeet, rainbow chard, Warrigal green as
well as leafy Asian greens such as bok choi and gailan, are grouped together under
‘Leafy green’. ‘Herb’ covers all manner of culinary herbs used in both Western
and Oriental cooking. Entomophagy, the practice of eating insects as a dietary
supplement, is widely practised in parts of Asia and Africa, but it is not common in
the Western world. The consumption of tenebrious molitor falls under this category.
Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of the 19 categories of produce. The chart
does not include eggs, honey and honey by-products and quail meat. At 20 per
cent, ‘Other’ is by far the largest segment in the pie chart (see Table 3). This
includes a wide variety of vegetables and other edibles such as almond, amaranth,
asparagus, artichoke, celery, edible canna, garlic, gem squash, Jerusalem artichoke,
nettle, onion, oca, olive, orache, parsnip, purslane, rat-tailed radish, yacon and
water chestnut. This is followed by ‘Fruit’ at 15 per cent and ‘Leafy green’ at 12 per
cent. ‘Citrus’, which makes up 10 per cent of the total, includes a wide variety, such
as grapefruit, lemon, lime and orange.
All respondents were engaged in both fruit and vegetable production but only 11
people (73.3 per cent) kept fowl (chicken and quail) for eggs. One respondent also
consumed quail meat and insects and raised fish for home consumption. However,
fish were not harvested during the data collection period. One other participant
reported keeping bees for honey, beeswax and honeycomb, in addition to yabbies
and mushrooms.
Gardening practices, trends and patterns
All participants are involved in composting as one of their soil-building strategies.
Another is worm farming, which is practised by 53.3 per cent of the respondents.
Eighty-six per cent of the participants also use rain harvesting.
As for growing methods, 80 per cent indicated raised bed as a preferred method,
followed by pots and containers at 53.3 per cent. There is no clear-cut preference;
the tendency is for more than one method. One participant follows the traditional
method of gardening, i.e. digging and tilling the soil. Nine out of the 11 who
practice permaculture design principles have incorporated raised beds as part of
their garden design. One has opted for purely pots and containers while one other,
in addition to pots and containers, also grows food vertically.
Other methods of food production include water garden, orchard culture, food
forest (the combination of the three methods proved to be the most productive at
50.227 kg worth of food over a period of 12 weeks from a cultivated area of 80
square metres), wicking bed, aquaculture, hydroponic, entomophagy and rooftop
gardening. All indicated that they are engaged in organic food production (i.e.
without the use of artificial fertiliser, toxic pesticide and herbicide). Two
practise companion planting as part of their pest management regime while three

FIGURE 3. Yield percentage of urban backyard fruit and vegetable production.

participants follow the bio-dynamic principle. Composting of kitchen scraps and
gardening waste is practised by all. However, only eight keep a worm farm for the
production of worm casting and juice.
From the sampled group, permaculture design is widely adopted and integrated
in urban food production methodology. This involves an approach to food
production of no-dig, raised beds for food growing, the use of compost and/or
worm farm for soil improvement (and the use of animal manure for those involved
in fowl and poultry raising), companion planting for organic pest management and
rainwater harvesting. Table 4 summarises the types of garden and growing
methods used.
Surplus and motivations
As noted, all gardeners in this study registered a surplus of between 10 and 25 per
cent, depending upon the crops and seasons. Invariably produce is redistributed
within the immediate family and local communities through a variety of channels
like local food swaps or the church. Food preservation is another way of managing
surpluses.
The motivations given for engaging in backyard production can be divided
into five broad categories: (i) health and nutrition, including taste and freshness;
(ii) ecology and environment, e.g. issues like GE-free and organic; (iii) food
security and self-reliance; (iv) cost; and (v) pleasure and enjoyment including
lifestyle and spirituality. Similar motivations have been identified in Kortright &
Wakefield’s (2011) study in Toronto, Canada and in Wise’s (2014) Australia-wide
survey, referred to above.
Of the five categories, the most frequently mentioned is ‘environment and
ecology’ at 80 per cent. This is followed by ‘food security’ and ‘self-reliance’ at 73.3
per cent. Equally important to 73.3 per cent of the participants is the enjoyment
and pleasure derived from gardening. ‘Health and nutrition’ account for 66.6 per
cent, while ‘cost’ accounts for only 40 per cent.
TABLE 3. Yield percentage of sampled backyards over a 12-month period
Vegetable Fruit Egg Honey Other
1 Yes Yes No No NA
2 Yes Yes No No NA
3 Yes Yes Yes No NA
4 Yes Yes Yes No NA
5 Yes Yes Yes No NA
6 Yes Yes Yes No NA
7 Yes Yes Yes No NA
8 Yes Yes Yes No NA
9 Yes Yes Yes No Quail, insect, fish
10 Yes Yes No No NA
11 Yes Yes No No NA
12 Yes Yes Yes No NA
13 Yes Yes No No Almond
14 Yes Yes Yes No NA
15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yabby, mushroom

TABLE 4. Type of garden, food growing habits and practices
Permaculture
Raised
bed
No-
dig Vertical
Pot/
container Other Organic Biodynamic Aquaponic Hydroponic Compost
Worm-
farm
1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Water-garden,
backyard orchard,
urban food forest
Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
2 No No No No No NA Yes No No No Yes No
3 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Wicking bed Yes Yes No No Yes No
4 Yes Yes No No No NA Yes No No No Yes No
5 No Yes No No Yes NA Yes No No No Yes Yes
6 Yes No No No Yes NA Yes No No No Yes No
7 Yes Yes Yes No Yes NA Yes No No No Yes Yes
8 Yes Yes No No No Companion
planting
Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
9 Yes Yes No No No Aquaculture,
entomophagy
Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
10 No Yes No No Yes Wicking bed Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
11 No Yes No No No NA Yes No No No Yes Yes
12 Yes Yes No No No NA Yes No No No Yes No
13 Yes No No Yes Yes NA Yes No No No Yes No
14 Yes Yes No No No Companion
planting
Yes No No No Yes No
15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wicking bed, roof
garden
Yes No No No Yes Yes

For those who highlight ‘environmental’ and ‘ecological’ reasons, some of the
concerns mentioned are food miles, organic, GE-free, peak oil, climate change and
stewardship. Those who cite lifestyle and pleasure as a motivation also allude to a
sense of achievement, connection to nature and spiritual fulfilment. In the survey
response, participant No. 1 (as featured in Table 1) notes:
Homegrown food is healthy, tastes better and has higher nutritional value
than commercially grown produce. You can grow organic produce of your
choice, including varieties that cannot be bought commercially. It’s very
cheap to grow your own food, you know exactly what goes into the food
because you grow it, and it’s part of a healthy lifestyle that reconnects
people to nature, puts you back in touch with the cycles of nature
throughout the seasons of the year, and provides a healthy pastime
working with, and nurturing, living things, which has many flow-on
benefits, physical, psychological and spiritual.
Taste and health benefits are often mentioned as reasons for growing food in the
backyard, as noted by participant No. 6 (Table 1):
You appreciate food more when you know where it comes from and have
seen the amazing process of it growing. Home grown has the best flavour
and freshness and I prefer to be eating seasonally. I believe there is [sic]
more health benefits from eating local produce. I love the reward and
enjoyment of growing things, of creating an edible ecosystem. Nature is
really very generous. It is expensive to buy organic and you can be sure
food is safe—GE free and chemical free.
Upbringing and cost have an influence on an individual’s decision to produce food
at home, as explained by participant No. 8:
Reason for growing food; upbringing. I was given the example by my
grandparents and mother and various other relatives. Health; home-grown
food is fresher. Taste; home-grown food is tastier. Cost; I like eating
organic food and could not afford to buy all my fresh produce organically.
Participant No. 8 also mentions ‘self-reliance’ and ‘helping the environment’ as
related motivations:
I like to make do; independence and self-sufficiency. Growing my own
food, I feel as if no matter what happens, I will be able to feed myself.
Helping the environment; home-grown food has a positive impact on the
environment in comparison to commercially grown food.
Creating food security for the family and inspiring others to do the same are the
reasons for participant No. 10:
To establish some food security for my family, and to inspire others to
make similar changes to their lifestyles.

There are many other reasons mentioned such as the pleasure of cultivation and
eating fresh organic food. Participant No. 11 noted:
I love watching my veggies grow and love the sense of subsistence living
it provides. I have an organic garden so know it is providing healthy food
for us—it is personal passion as well as stewardship of the planet. I buy
organic food so it makes veggies affordable to eat this way also. Always
know we can eat out of the garden if low on bought food too.
For others, the need for their children to make the connection with food’s origins,
and also to pass on knowledge of cultivation practices are important. Participant
No. 13 had this to say:
Main motivation since having children for them to see and help with
growing and to know here produce comes from, to know how good it
tastes fresh from the garden and to have an appreciation of home-
grown food.
Eating food that is in season, and the need to be in control and to help preserve
heritage seeds are also reasons according to participant No. 12:
I know exactly what goes into the food I grow and I can control that input.
I can grow varieties not generally available in the shops and I can
contribute to the preservation of some old varieties that are not
commercially viable. I can gather the produce when it’s at its best, not
when to transport it. I can cook within minutes of picking so my produce
is nutritionally superior to commercially produced produce. Mostly, I like
to eat seasonally. For example, I have not bought a fresh tomato in the last
five years (but I do process and freeze excess tomatoes from my garden so
I have pasta sauce and pizza toppings available throughout winter). It gives
me great sense of achievement and pleasure as well as plenty of exercise
when preparing soil. It makes me very happy.
Conclusion
The focus of this paper has been the capacity of urban backyard food production in
Melbourne and its potential to address food security issues. On the basis of an
admittedly highly selective sample, the study has found that this is a thriving activity
with productive outcomes. Participant No. 2 (in Table 1), for example, has kept
detailed annual records for several years and his average production is 190.4 kg.
Similarly, Participant No. 3 has averaged 197 kg annually. There is enormous
diversity and experimentation in the food production methods with equally diverse
types of produce.
The overall trends, as demonstrated from the qualitative data, are beneficial at
many different levels, from health and general wellbeing to control over food
quality and the minimisation of environmental impact. Surplus harvest is frequently
shared with others thereby fostering strong community connections.

For a city to be resilient it is critical to address the issue of food security/
vulnerability by examining its ‘ability to consciously shape the evolving urban form
around sustainability imperatives’ (Gleeson 2013, p. 312). The central concern
here has been to explore the many possibilities and potentials for restoring
food production closer to where it will be ultimately consumed, i.e. urban
neighbourhoods.
To further encourage the growth of an alternative food system, like urban
agriculture, planning policy has a role to play at both the State government and
municipal levels. In a recent report, the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance
(2013), for example, makes several recommendations to encourage the expansion
of urban agriculture. These include: (i) within five years aim to increase by 25 per
cent the number of households with access to suitable land for growing and raising
their own food; (ii) give residents access to free, non-hybrid seeds paid for by their
local municipal rates; (iii) set aside a percentage of land with adequate sun access
and uncontaminated soil in new private dwellings for food production; and
(iv) where possible, provide every dwelling with at least 1 square metre of
productive food space per person.
Needless to add, these objectives assume continuing access to adequate space at
a time when many inner-suburban local governments, in particular, are also seeking
to greatly increase residential densities by encouraging the subdivision of residential
allotments with large, private gardens. Potential high-value horticultural spaces
are now being built over at a rapid rate and overshadowing is also adding to the
difficulties being faced by urban gardeners. Nevertheless, our research has
demonstrated that even relatively small spaces can be highly productive if managed
effectively.
The pilot study reported upon here raises a number of interesting issues that
would be worth following up in future research. In particular, we would welcome a
broader scale analysis to determine the precise extent of backyard food production
across the wider population and urban area. Our suspicion is that relatively high
levels of production such as reported in this paper are far from the norm. Head &
Muir’s (2007) research of a sample of 265 households, for instance, found that only
a tiny minority had highly productive gardens. It is worth emphasising that the
research reported here was conducted almost exclusively in older suburbs where
relatively large back gardens still exist and where walking or cycling are common
forms of transport. In Melbourne the suburbs investigated are also gentrifying
rapidly and often exhibit a strong ‘green consciousness’ and awareness on the part
of a well-educated citizenry. Yet, they often also still have sizeable populations of
post-war European migrants and more recent Asian settlers with wide-ranging skills
in urban agriculture, food preparation and preserving. All this makes for a
particularly fertile demographic environment favouring backyard farming.
Finally, another interesting question is: what has been the nature of intergenera-
tional change with respect to backyard land use? There is considerable anecdotal
evidence that, over time, the children of post-war migrants from southern Europe
in particular have become far less interested in using their private gardens for fruit
and vegetable production than their parents. In many cases—especially in what are
perceived to be ‘more desirable’, post-1990 suburban developments—it would
appear that the ‘garden’ effectively has been obliterated altogether, with much
larger homes taking up the entire residential block. In other cases concrete has
routinely replaced greenery and garden beds and fruit trees have given way to

swimming pools, spacious garages and spaces devoted to tennis and basketball.
The vision of the ‘ecological city’ would see these spaces of consumption being
transformed into spaces of agricultural production such as we have highlighted in
this study.
Correspondence: Zainil Zainuddin, School of Global, Urban & Social Studies
(GUSS), RMIT University, Swanston St, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia.
E-mail: zainil.zainuddin@rmit.edu.au
REFERENCES
ARICO, S. & SRINIVASAN, V. (2014) Enabling Australia’s digital future, CSIRO Futures,
Canberra.
AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1992) Home production of selected foodstuffs, Australia, year
ended in April 1992, ABS, Canberra.
AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2013) Population projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to
2101, Catalogue No. 3222.0. Released 26/11/2013, ABS, Canberra.
AUSTRALIAN FOOD SOVEREIGNTY ALLIANCE (2013) The people’s food plan - policy directions,
Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance, Kambah, ACT.
BEILIN, R. & HUNTER, A. (2011) ‘Co-constructing the sustainable city: how indicators help us
“grow” more than just food in community gardens’, Local Environment 16(6), pp.
523–538.
BLACKBURN, J. (2013) Australia’s liquid fuel security, NRMA, Sydney.
BOYCOTT, R. (2008) ‘Nine meals from anarchy - how Britain is facing a very real food crisis’,
Main Online, June 7.
BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY (2013) Melbourne metropolitan area and environs in summer 2012–13:
lengthy warm and sunny periods; rainfall slightly less than that usually received, Commonwealth
of Australia, Melbourne, available from: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/
vic/archive/201302.melbourne.shtml (accessed 19 August 2013).
BURTON, P., LYONS, K., RICHARDS, C., AMATI, M., ROSE, N., DES FOURS, L., PIRES, V. &
BARCLAY, R. (2013) Urban food security, urban resilience and climate change, National
Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, QLD.
BUXTON, M., ALVAREZ, A., BUTT, A., FARRELL, S. & O’NEILL, D. (2007) Change and
continuity in peri-urban Australia, peri-urban case study: Bendigo corridor, RMIT University,
Melbourne.
CAROLSFELD, A.L. & ERIKSON, S.L. (2013) ‘Beyond desperation: motivations for dumpster™
diving for food in Vancouver’, Food and Foodways 21(4), pp. 245–266.
COCKRALL-KING, J. (2011) Food and the city: urban agriculture and the new food revolution,
Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
CRAWFORD, F. (2013) ‘Neighbourhoods and healthy nutrition’, in Stock, C. & Ellaway, A.
(eds) Neighbourhood structure and health promotion, Springer, New York, pp. 305–316.
CRIBB, J. (2010) The coming famine: the global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it,
University of California Press, Berkeley.
DAVISON, G. (2004) The car wars, Allen & Unwin, Melbourne.
DE J. HART, R. (1996) Forest gardening: cultivating an edible landscape, Chelsea Green
Publishing, White River Junction, VT.
DE SCHUTTER, O. (2014) Report of the special rapporteur on the right to food. Final report: the
transformative potential of the right to food, A/HRC/25/57, Human Rights Council, United
Nations General Assembly, New York.
DEMAIO, A.R. (2013) Affordable fresh food for every Australian child - regardless of their postcode
[online], The Conversation Media Group, Melbourne, available from: http://theconversa-
tion.com/affordable-fresh-food-for-every-australian-child-regardless-of-their-postcode-
15969?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for
+19+July+2013 (accessed 20 July 2013).
EDWARDS, F. & MERCER, D. (2013) Food waste in Australia: the freegan response,
The Sociological Review 60(S2), pp. 174–191.

FARMAR-BOWERS, Q. HIGGINS, V., & MILLAR, J. (eds) (2013) Food security in Australia,
Springer, New York.
FOOD ALLIANCE AND NATIONAL HEART FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA (VICTORIAN DIVISION)
(2012) Planning for food: towards a prosperous, resilient and healthy food system through
Victoria’s metropolitan planning strategy, VicHealth, Melbourne.
GAYNOR, A. (2006) Harvest of the suburbs - an environmental history of growing food in Australian
cities, University of Western Australia Press, Crawley.
GHOSH, S. (2014) ‘Measuring sustainability performance of local food production in home
gardens’, Local Environment 19(1), pp. 33–55.
GHOSH, S. & HEAD, L. (2009) ‘Retrofitting the suburban garden: morphologies and some
elements of sustainability potential of two Australian residential suburbs compared’,
Australian Geographer 40(3), pp. 319–346.
GLEESON, B. (2013) ‘A new harvest of the suburbs’, in Farmar-Bowers, Q., Higgins, V. &
Millar, J. (eds) Food security in Australia, Springer, New York, pp. 311–324.
HALKETT, I.P.B. (1976) ‘The quarter-acre block: the use of suburban gardens’, PhD thesis,
University of Adelaide.
HALKETT, I.P.B., TRUST, S.A.H. & COMMISSION, S.A.M.D. (1978) A quarter-acre or less?: a
comparative study of the activities and attitudes of residents of high, medium and low density
housing, Housing Trust of South Australia, Adelaide.
HALL, T. (2010) The life and death of the Australian backyard, CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood.
HEAD, L. & MUIR, P. (2007) Backyard - nature and culture in suburban Australia, University of
Wollongong Press, Wollongong.
HO, S. (2001) ‘Urban food growing and the sustainability of cities’, Masters thesis,
University of Auckland, New Zealand.
HOLMGREN, D. (2009) Future scenarios - how communities can adapt to peak oil and climate
change, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction.
JAMES, S.W. (2009) Submission to senate inquiry into food production in Australia, Urban
Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Sydney.
JAMES, S.W. (2014) ‘Protecting Sydney’s peri-urban agriculture: moving beyond a housing/
farming dichotomy’, Geographical Research. DOI:10.1111/1745-5871.12048
JOHNSON, L.C. (2006) ‘Style wars: revolution in the suburbs?’, Australian Geographer 37(2),
pp. 259–277.
KORTRIGHT, R. & WAKEFIELD, S. (2011) ‘Edible backyards: a qualitative study of household
food growing and its contributions to food security’, Agriculture and Human Values 28(1),
pp. 39–53.
LAWRENCE, G., RICHARDS, C. & LYONS, K. (2013) ‘Food security in Australia in an era of
neoliberalism, productivism and climate change’, Journal of Rural Studies 29, pp. 30–39.
MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (1954) Melbourne metropolitan planning
scheme 1954 report, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Melbourne.
NEFF, R.A., PALMER, A.M., MCKENZIE, S.E., & LAWRENCE, R.S. (2009) ‘Food systems and
public health disparities’, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 4(3–4), pp.
282–314.
NEUMAN, W.L. (2011) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston.
PARKER, R. & STEWART, J. (2014) ‘Energy and food security: is Australia fragile or resilient?’,
Security Challenges 10, pp. 51–64.
PATRICK, W. (2013) ‘Pure manure: city uproots FL couple’s 17-year-old garden’, Florida
Watchdog.org, November 19.
PETRINI, C. (2007) Slow food nation - why our food should be good, clean and fair, Rizzoli Ex
Libris, New York.
SCRINIS, G. (2007) ‘From techno-corporate food to alternative agri-food movements’, in
Mulligan, M. & Nadarajah, Y. (eds) Local-global, Globalism Institute (RMIT), Mel-
bourne, pp. 112–140.
SIMMS, A. (2008) Nine meals from anarchy - oil dependence, climate change and the transition to
resilience, NEF, Leeds, available from: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/
nine-meals-from-anarchy (accessed 8 August 2013).
STRETTON, H. (1975) Ideas for Australian cities, Georgian House, Melbourne.

TIMMS, P. (2006) Australia’s quarter acre: the story of the ordinary suburban garden, Miegunyah
Press, Carlton, VIC.
WILKEN, R. & OLSEN, K. (2002) ‘Nature strips’, in Aitken, R. & Looker, M. (eds) The oxford
companion to Australian gardens, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, p. 434.
WISE, P. (2014) Grow your own. The potential value and impacts of residential and community
food gardening. Policy Brief No. 59, The Australia Institute, Canberra.

ZZ & DM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Similar to ZZ & DM

Similar to ZZ & DM (20)

ZZ & DM