increasing emphasis was placed on the household as the most important unit ofanalysis in conceptualising <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>.As the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) notes, <strong>food</strong><strong>security</strong> is a constituent part of a broader concept of nutrition <strong>security</strong>, in whichhouseholds have access not only to adequate <strong>food</strong>, but also to other aspects of ahealthy life such as health care, an appropriately hygienic environment <strong>and</strong> awarenessof the importance of personal hygiene. In this respect, <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> becomes anecessary but insufficient condition for achieving household nutritional <strong>security</strong>. Itshould be borne in mind however, that the household scale can also mask variations<strong>and</strong> inequalities in the <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>, especially in terms of gender <strong>and</strong> age in which‘intra-household issues are central’ (Maxwell <strong>and</strong> Smith, no date: p. 4).The following diagram is taken from Maxwell & Smith’s (1992) conceptual review forIFAD of household <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> <strong>and</strong> shows the relationship between the differentelements of a relatively common conceptual model of <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>, including nutritionaladequacy, which is discussed in more detail below.Figure 1: Household Food Security: Concepts Indicators, Measurements(Maxwell & Smith, 1992)In Australia, the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering <strong>and</strong> Innovation Council ExpertWorking Group (PMSEIC), drew upon the UN Food <strong>and</strong> Agriculture Organisation’s(FAO) definition, which states that:Food <strong>security</strong> is achieved when all people at all times have physical <strong>and</strong> economicaccess to sufficient, safe <strong>and</strong> nutritious <strong>food</strong> to meet dietary needs <strong>and</strong> <strong>food</strong>preferences for an active <strong>and</strong> healthy life (PMSEIC, 2011).While early concepts of <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> refer primarily to access, affordability <strong>and</strong> theavailability of <strong>food</strong> (Patel, 2007), more recent definitions have shifted <strong>and</strong> over timehave come to give greater emphasis to the market, technological innovation <strong>and</strong><strong>Urban</strong> <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>, <strong>urban</strong> <strong>resilience</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong> 13
increasing productivity. Thus, whilst there is general agreement around the basicdefinition of <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> – the FAO definition is widely used <strong>and</strong> cited – there issignificant contestation over both the scale <strong>and</strong> the causes of <strong>food</strong> in<strong>security</strong>, <strong>and</strong> theresponses required to ensure adequate <strong>food</strong> access for what is likely to be a growingglobal population. There is even greater disagreement over the extent to which <strong>food</strong><strong>security</strong> is <strong>and</strong> should be connected with notions of sustainability.It is important to note here that despite substantial evidence that there is currentlyenough <strong>food</strong> to achieve global <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>, almost a billion people are considered<strong>food</strong> insecure, <strong>and</strong> at the same time, over one billion people are obese (Patel, 2008).Somewhat paradoxically, <strong>food</strong> in<strong>security</strong> is often linked with over-consumption <strong>and</strong> thediseases of obesity, especially amongst populations where people have access to lowcost, calorie dense (including high fat <strong>and</strong> sugar content) <strong>and</strong> nutritionally poor <strong>food</strong>, anissue we take up further below in relation to the social <strong>and</strong> economic determinants of<strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>.In our review of the literature, it is evident that <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> is recognised as beingconnected to a broad range of factors, including social, economic, spatial <strong>and</strong> politicalfactors. These typically fit within two broad categories: social <strong>and</strong> economicdeterminants of <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>food</strong> <strong>and</strong> nutrition systems.4.1.1.1 Social <strong>and</strong> economic determinants of <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>Various research suggests that <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> is connected to a range of social <strong>and</strong>economic factors, including the inability to afford to purchase available <strong>food</strong>; insufficient<strong>food</strong> availability; eating a nutritionally poor diet; energy poor diets; <strong>and</strong> chronic relianceon <strong>food</strong> aid/relief (see for example Browne, Laurence <strong>and</strong> Thorpe, 2009). Rychetnik<strong>and</strong> Webb et al. (2003) also identify employment, income, education, housing, area ofresidence <strong>and</strong> social inclusion as factors directly related to <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>. Consistentwith Sen’s (1982) analysis, poverty appears to be a key factor limiting people’s accessto <strong>food</strong>. For low-income families, <strong>food</strong> may be the only flexible item in their householdbudget – whereas there is less flexibility on items such as rent/mortgage <strong>and</strong> utilitybills. As such, households on low incomes tend to cut their <strong>food</strong> spending in order tosurvive.While Australia is broadly recognised as being <strong>food</strong> secure, especially in relation tomany other countries <strong>and</strong> regions of the world, disadvantaged <strong>and</strong> low-income groupsare especially vulnerable in terms of <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>. Recent Australian researchillustrates this trend.Lockie <strong>and</strong> Pietsch’s (2012) survey of public opinion on <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> found that16% of respondents are often or sometimes worried that their <strong>food</strong> would runout before they had money to buy more, <strong>and</strong> 4% of respondents had neededemergency assistance from a charity, <strong>food</strong> bank, soup kitchen or other source.Browne, Laurence <strong>and</strong> Thorpe (2009) found that 24% of Indigenous Australiansreported running out of <strong>food</strong> in a 12-month period (compared to 5% amongstnon-indigenous populations). In another study, 51% of Aboriginal families inVictoria reported being <strong>food</strong> insecure. Such high levels of <strong>food</strong> in<strong>security</strong> wererecognised as being related to a range of social <strong>and</strong> economic factors, includingfinancial stress, housing problems, budgeting issues <strong>and</strong> lack of knowledge of<strong>food</strong> preparation.<strong>Urban</strong> <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>, <strong>urban</strong> <strong>resilience</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong> 14
- Page 1 and 2: Synthesis and Integrative ResearchF
- Page 3 and 4: Published by the National Climate C
- Page 5 and 6: ABSTRACTFood security is increasing
- Page 7 and 8: 1. a review of the literature: on n
- Page 9 and 10: its Food for All project. This help
- Page 13 and 14: In response to the existential thre
- Page 15 and 16: 2. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCHFood i
- Page 17 and 18: debates and to the more systematic
- Page 19 and 20: organisation in the past few years.
- Page 21: 4. RESULTSIn this section we presen
- Page 25 and 26: people and the origins of their foo
- Page 27 and 28: urban food supply chains. Thus, whi
- Page 29 and 30: This logistics system is dominated
- Page 31 and 32: Like Hodgson et al., as per definit
- Page 33 and 34: esilient, powerful by being locally
- Page 35 and 36: volume or even its contribution to
- Page 37: community food growing can have on
- Page 40 and 41: generations this history has been f
- Page 42 and 43: a stronger focus on addressing the
- Page 44 and 45: The third key aspect is fairness -
- Page 46 and 47: climate (which we live and work in
- Page 48 and 49: agriculture. Eight percent is in ur
- Page 50 and 51: This concept of the ‘spaces in be
- Page 52 and 53: esearch scientist and chair of the
- Page 54 and 55: As discussed above, protection of t
- Page 56: 4.2.5 What is the extent and the im
- Page 60 and 61: no place under the panoply of pract
- Page 62 and 63: increased, the market dominance of
- Page 64 and 65: … the residents of S Park called
- Page 66 and 67: 5. CONCLUSIONSThere is growing conc
- Page 68 and 69: urban resilience. This inevitably c
- Page 70 and 71: In many respects these contrasting
- Page 72 and 73:
Many interviewees of both standpoin
- Page 74 and 75:
a given area. The rationale for thi
- Page 76 and 77:
mapping the location of sources of
- Page 78 and 79:
Australian food policy debates refl
- Page 80 and 81:
APPENDIX 1: URBAN FOOD SECURITY, UR
- Page 82 and 83:
IntroductionGlobally, and in Austra
- Page 84 and 85:
Review methodsThis stage of the res
- Page 86 and 87:
despite many of the causes of food
- Page 88 and 89:
…by 2050… food production will
- Page 90 and 91:
2. How is food security (in general
- Page 92 and 93:
the food security of cities, but no
- Page 94 and 95:
While some see the density of devel
- Page 96 and 97:
when suppliers, distributors, and c
- Page 98 and 99:
a more prominent role in enhancing
- Page 100 and 101:
community gardens webpage on the Co
- Page 102 and 103:
comprehensive description of the ca
- Page 104 and 105:
In both the developed and developin
- Page 106 and 107:
Their review notes a significant in
- Page 108 and 109:
lines of supply from often rural pl
- Page 110 and 111:
1 IntroductionCities have always be
- Page 112 and 113:
Despite some attempts to curb urban
- Page 114 and 115:
the Gold Coast remains a city that
- Page 116 and 117:
ackyard/community gardenernot affil
- Page 118 and 119:
level in local government. VicHealt
- Page 120:
Figure 2: Impacts on Municipal Food
- Page 125 and 126:
security I recognise that the cost
- Page 127 and 128:
United States, he offered the follo
- Page 129 and 130:
This vision highlights the multi-fu
- Page 131 and 132:
An environmental education centre.
- Page 133 and 134:
Melbourne Food ForestA Melbourne ga
- Page 135 and 136:
stakeholder consultations, the repo
- Page 137 and 138:
can. We sense the changes. The earl
- Page 139 and 140:
half-desert environments. We’re g
- Page 141 and 142:
etain its basic function and struct
- Page 143 and 144:
government; and that trying to get
- Page 145 and 146:
the north and the west, where it wo
- Page 147 and 148:
Why do people buy so much food that
- Page 149 and 150:
urban agriculture (however broadly
- Page 151 and 152:
enefits and risks. Before we can co
- Page 153 and 154:
Another important and tangible role
- Page 155 and 156:
coast without any problems whatsoev
- Page 157 and 158:
BIBLIOGRAPHYAECOM (2011) Scoping St
- Page 159 and 160:
Burns, C. I., A. (2007). Measuring
- Page 161 and 162:
Edwards, F., & Mercer, D. (2010). M
- Page 163 and 164:
James, S. O’Neill, P. and Dimeski
- Page 165 and 166:
Millar, R., 2012, ‘Government shi
- Page 167 and 168:
Saltmarsh, N. M., J; Longhurst, N.
- Page 169 and 170:
Walker B., 2008, Resilience Thinkin