Rethinking urban agriculture futures in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: evidence from a rapidly urbanizing city in the global south
Luitfred Kissoly
探讨达累斯萨拉姆城市农业现状与未来,提出五条基于证据的发展路径。
定性案例研究、政策分析、52次关键知情人访谈。
城市农业受非正规性、土地不安全等制约,需多元化、风险敏感的支持路径。
可研究如何利用数字技术(如GIS、物联网)支持城市农业的规划与管理,提升资源循环效率。
主题为非洲城市农业,与三农、农业信息化等无关,不进入精选。
Urban agriculture (UA) remains an important but unevenly governed part of urban food systems in many rapidly urbanizing cities of the Global South. Existing research has documented its contribution to food access, livelihoods and urban resilience, but less attention has been given to locally grounded pathways for supporting UA in African cities. This paper examines the current landscape and possible future trajectories of UA in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Using an exploratory qualitative case-study and policy-analysis approach, the study draws on targeted literature and document review, a policy and regulatory scan, and 52 key informant interviews conducted between April and September 2025 with municipal actors, urban farmers and food-system practitioners. The findings show that UA is valued for household food supplementation, small-scale income generation and fresh-food provisioning, particularly through short-cycle vegetable production close to consumers. However, it remains shaped by tolerated informality, insecure land access, fragmented regulation, contamination risks, weak institutional coordination and pressure on peri-urban land. Based on the combined analysis, the paper proposes five evidence-informed trajectories: managed river-corridor cultivation; sacks, buckets and roofs for dense-ward micro-production; institutional land clusters; peri-urban foodshed belts with circular-resource hubs; and small-scale aquaculture and insect-based feed systems. These pathways are not presented as tested feasibility models, but as differentiated options requiring further technical, environmental, spatial and economic assessment. The paper argues that the future of UA in cities such as Dar es Salaam is unlikely to depend on a single large-scale model, but on risk-sensitive and institutionally grounded forms of support that align food access, livelihoods, public health and urban planning.