This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]On: 29 October 2014, At: 23:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cage20

Domestic Residential Garden FoodProduction in Melbourne, Australia: afine-grained analysis and pilot studyZainil Zainuddina & David Mercera

a RMIT University, AustraliaPublished online: 27 Oct 2014.

To cite this article: Zainil Zainuddin & David Mercer (2014) Domestic Residential Garden FoodProduction 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 tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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 FoodProduction 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 landarea, they are often located on what previously was prime agricultural land. In line withwhat was common historically, many cities around the world are now deliberately seeking topromote and expand agricultural production within their borders. Pressure for change iscoming from a number of sources, including both governments and private citizens. Poten-tially, community gardens and domestic backyard food production have an important roleto 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 believethis to be the first project to carefully document measured output by multiple households. Thepaper presents the results of a fine-grained study of 15 selected householders in metropolitanMelbourne. Participants collected detailed daily information about their food productionover a three-month period. In addition, two of the respondents had been keeping dailyproduction records continuously for one or more years. The results demonstrate enormousdiversity in the food harvested, as well as some extremely high levels of productivity fromrelatively small domestic spaces. Participants were also questioned about their motivationsfor engaging in backyard food production and dealing with surpluses.

KEY WORDS Gardens; gardening; domestic food production; Melbourne; urbanagriculture.

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) remindsus that:

Phillip’s plan was out of hand within a few years. However, it has laid theseeds for what would become the norm in the 20th century subdivision:an emphasis on a spread of homes and gardens rather than a densenetwork of terraces—characteristically suburban forms as distinguishedfrom the urban forms of the industrial city.

Australian Geographer, 2014Vol. 45, No. 4, 465–484, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.954299

© 2014 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

While we certainly need to recognise major differences in block- and dwelling-sizebetween ‘older’ and ‘newer’ (post-1990) suburbs—typically, 9–13 dwellings perhectare (dph) and 13–20 dph respectively—there have been a number of estimatesof the size of the ‘suburban form’ in Australia. Writing in 2006, Timms, forexample, calculated a total figure of 70 000 square kilometres, or ‘more than twicethe 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 majorcities is now accounted for by private outdoor spaces adjacent to residentialdwellings, it is surprising that so little attention has been given to the value and useof such areas by urban researchers. Halkett’s (1976; Halkett et al. 1978) pioneeringwork in Adelaide is a notable exception, building as it did upon his mentor’scelebration of Australian suburbia in the classic text, Ideas for Australian Cities(Stretton 1975). Yet, surprisingly this research interest effectively evaporated forsome three decades until the simultaneous publication—in 2006—of Gaynor’sexcellent historical overview, Harvest of the Suburbs and Timms’s Australia’s QuarterAcre, Head & Muir’s (2007) Backyard—Nature and Culture in Suburban Australia ayear later, and, more recently, Hall’s (2010) The Life and Death of the AustralianBackyard.

One likely explanation for this 30-year research hiatus is that, increasingly,unregulated ‘sprawl’ was seen as a ‘bad thing’ and widely condemned by academicsand planners alike. Australian cities, it was argued, were too ‘wasteful’ of space andenergy, overly dominated by the automobile and the residential densities far toolow (Davison 2004; Johnson 2006). It was also pointed out by many commentatorsthat unchecked, outer-suburban residential expansion was often taking place onAustralia’s all too scarce, prime agricultural land (Buxton et al. 2007). This trend isaccelerating. The most recent population projections, for example, point toMelbourne and Sydney experiencing growth rates of up to 50 per cent in thecoming decades and both having populations of around 7.9 million by 2053(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013). While some of this increase undoubtedlywill 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-densityhousing on the ever-expanding urban fringe and shrinking agricultural estate.

To take one metropolitan example, James (2009) calculated recently thatSydney’s market gardens account for approximately 40 per cent of food consumedin New South Wales. However, it has also been estimated that 52 per cent of allcommercial properties growing vegetables in the Sydney Basin are in areas officiallydesignated as ‘Growth Centres’ for future housing (James 2014). Further, a reportby the Food Alliance and the Victorian Chapter of the National Heart Foundationof Australia (2012, p. 14) revealed that currently more than 50 per cent ofVictoria’s vegetables are grown within 100 kilometres of Melbourne. To put this ina historical context:

In the 1950s, Melbourne had over 2000 km2 of agricultural land withinthe urban boundary, and approximately 90 km2 of land for fruit andvegetable growing. By 2030, it is estimated that none of the originalfruit and vegetable-growing areas will be left, and there will be less than200 km2 of agricultural land.

466 Z. Zainuddin & D. Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The value of preserving good quality agricultural land from competing uses wascertainly recognised in Victoria in the 1950s. The then overarching planningauthority—the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW)—warnedthat ‘a line must be drawn somewhere, or the city will continue sprawling over awider and wider area, increasing the disabilities inherent in this type of growth andputting out of production more and more food producing areas’ (Melbourne andMetropolitan Board of Works 1954, p. 22). More recently, since 2002 the VictorianState government has shifted the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) outward on fourseparate occasions, including re-zoning 5000 hectares of prime agricultural land inthe south-east growth corridor for residential use (Burton et al. 2013).

Aside from the obvious observation that mainstream market forces dictate thatresidential use is far more ‘profitable’ than agriculture, another reason for thisdramatic land-use shift is that, increasingly, local agricultural producers—especiallyin the horticultural sector—find it impossible to compete with aggressive overseascompetitors. The introduction and rapid uptake of refrigeration technology, both inthe home and in transportation, since the 1950s, played a major role here. Foodcould now be transported over longer and longer distances and stored in homesand retail outlets until required. Prior to this technological revolution it wasnecessary for fresh food to be both produced and consumed close to the point ofconsumption and within a relatively short time period. Today, cheap garlic soldin Australian supermarkets, for example, is routinely transported almost 10 000kilometres from China and citruses 12 000 kilometres across the Pacific fromCalifornia. A large proportion of tomatoes consumed in Australia, too, areimported from Italy. Overall, around 20 per cent of vegetables and 34 per cent ofthe fruit consumed in Australia are now imported and the proportions are rising(Lawrence et al. 2013). These activities are highly oil-dependent and any disruptionto 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, interalia, intersects the areas of politics, human rights, social justice, resource depletionand environmental management. Lord Cameron of Millington, former head of theUnited Kingdom Countryside Agency, once declared that that nation was ‘ninemeals from anarchy’ (Cockrall-King 2011). He was referring to a global food chainin potential crisis and the vulnerability of the system to external threats such as anatural disaster or the volatility of oil prices, inferring that local, UK supermarketshave a carrying capacity of only three days’ worth of essential supply. In theAustralian context, Blackburn (2013) too highlighted that in New South Walesalone there are 25 000 truck-trips for food each week. He estimated that in theevent of fuel supply interruptions, frozen foods in supermarkets would last for onlya 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, makingthe system highly vulnerable. Boycott (2008), for example, highlights the chaos andcivil unrest in the southern United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrinawhere widespread looting for food took place as a means of survival. More recently,

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 467

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

an Australian report on cyber security has underscored the growing vulnerability ofthe electricity networks of Australia’s major cities to cyber attack. One scenario forthe year 2025 presented in this study is that of a series of cascading failuresdeliberately triggered across the electricity grid during a heatwave. The possibleconsequences for food storage and distribution in urban areas are both obvious andprofound (Arico & Srinavasan 2014).

As a reaction to many of the vulnerability issues within the contemporary,industrialised food system—including supply disruptions and health scares—anumber of alternative food movements have emerged across the world in recentyears (Scrinis 2007) (see Figure 1). Invariably, these start locally and initially tendto be small in scale, although many—like the Slow Food Movement (Petrini 2007)—have grown subsequently to establish an international reach. These emerginginitiatives are now attracting the attention of researchers. These include such featuresas farmers’ markets, community gardens (Beilin & Hunter 2011) and local foodswaps, which tend to be informal and often held at public spaces like a reserve, schoolyard 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 suburbiashown by Stretton (1975) in the early 1970s was his observation that the wave ofpost-war migration from Italy, Greece and Lebanon, in particular, to such cities asAdelaide, saw an extraordinary explosion of ‘micro-scale’, agricultural productivityin Australian backyards. The climate was not dissimilar to the host countries andmany varieties of hitherto virtually unknown heritage fruits and vegetables werecultivated, often from imported seeds and stock, in order to satisfy culinary tastesquite different from the traditional Australian diet which was strongly based aroundthe consumption of meat. This represented a relatively recent revolution inAustralian urban agriculture. But it needs to be remembered that in the earlier,

FIGURE 1. The current food system nested by order of relevance—adapted fromenergy-descent scenario (Holmgren 2009).

468 Z. Zainuddin & D. Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

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 werearound 40 000 owners (one in six households) of 900 000 fowls in metropolitanMelbourne.

Given the above, we were interested in extending the largely theoretical work ofGhosh (2014) and investigating the actual experience and potential of contemporarybackyard food production in Australian cities—specifically Melbourne—as areaction to the globalisation of food production and distribution and the ongoingattenuation of ‘food miles’. In an earlier paper, Ghosh & Head (2009, p. 320)highlighted the need to ‘understand the cumulative sustainability potential ofmillions of private outdoor spaces’.

There is a notable dearth of academic literature on domestic, urban backyardfood production, not just in Australia but worldwide. There is also a lack of detailedquantitative data on domestic urban food production that could provide usefulinformation on its capacity and potential. Indeed, we could find only three previousstudies from Australia or New Zealand that provided data on domestic householdfood production. The first was a 1992 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)household survey that asked interviewees to estimate their annual production of fruitand vegetables. The average was 70.4 kg. The second was a more recent study thatalso 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 afurther 13 per cent report that they intend to start’. As noted, the problem withsuch surveys is that only estimates are provided and it is difficult to assess howmuch credibility to accord the results. The final study of note was a year-longanalysis 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 haveemphasised, access to food should be regarded as a fundamental human right(De Schutter 2014). Access to fresh and diverse food is crucial for the maintenanceof good health, regardless of one’s locality (Neff et al. 2009; Demaio 2013). A poorand unhealthy diet runs the risk of triggering many chronic diseases such asdiabetes and cardiovascular-related complications. Poor diet is also a majorcontributing factor to the growing epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especiallyamong young children and teenagers (Crawford 2013).

In the State of Victoria (Australia) alone, less than half of the adult population eatthe recommended number of servings of fruit per day in addition to the less than10 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 foodinsecure due to a lack of financial means to buy food. Food ‘insecurity’ is notnormally an issue that one associates with an affluent country such as Australia butthere is ample evidence that it is looming as a significant concern (Farmar-Bowerset al. 2013; Lawrence et al. 2013).

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 469

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The focus

For the purpose of this research, the term ‘backyard’ includes all the areas on thesides of the dwelling, those at the back of the house as well as the front areas, andin some instances the so-called ‘nature strip’ adjoining the street, immediatelybelonging to the household and—wholly or in part—cultivated with edible crops(Wilken & Olsen 2002). Even though many residences in Australia sport sizeablefront gardens it is rare for these to be used for intensive horticultural productionother than for the occasional fruit tree. This is an interesting cultural phenomenon,not easily explained. As in certain parts of Florida (USA), for example, localmunicipalities in Melbourne do not have zoning ordinances in place specificallyprohibiting the use of front gardens for vegetable and fruit production (Patrick2013). 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 sampledhousehold 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 kitchengardens, restaurant and market gardens and any other commercialised spaces, evenif privately owned and managed.

Using empirical data from a sample population, the research reported in thispaper focuses on production capacity, variety of produce, methods of production,treatment of surpluses and motivations for engaging in food production. It isbeyond 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 ofpersonnel who fulfilled a basic requirement. All participants were subject to bothquantitative and qualitative data collection.

A targeted demography was initially identified and contacted, in this case fivenon-random groups. Based on the information gathered from that first initialcontact, a new level, or layer of connections, was made and the process thenrepeated. People were chosen on the basis of their current ongoing involvement infood growing or production based on the fact that they were willing, available andreadily accessible. Given the circumstances, this study should not be considered adefinitive sample nor in any way representative of the general population. The aimis to determine the potential for urban backyard food production capacity (i.e. cropyield) based on a selected sample population. The proportion of the populationengaged in food production is not the focus of this research.

The participants were selected on the basis of: (i) their location; and (ii) foodproduction activities. It was important that they be located within roughly a70-kilometre radius of the Melbourne CBD and it was equally crucial that they arealready engaged in food production for all practical purposes. Several differentavenues were used for the recruitment process. The first was an appeal throughpersonal friends, family members, peers and colleagues. The next approach was toleverage on social media platforms, namely personal blogs, Facebook, LinkedInand Google Plus. These early initiatives created a ‘chain of referral’ (Neuman 2011)

470 Z. Zainuddin & D. Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

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 localactors and agencies helped to spread the word through their newsletters andlocal meetings. All participants were recruited either through referrals from theselocal networks or through word-of-mouth via personal networks and otherinfluences. The idea of quantifying urban backyard food production in some detailgenerated considerable interest.

The data collection process used in this research was straightforward. It involvedmeasuring (or more precisely in this instance the regular weighing of harvestedproduce), and collating related data (e.g. types of produce being harvested andweighed) by the participants themselves for a set period of time, to produce precisenumerical information. A few comments on the use of weight as a key measure arein order. We deliberately chose this approach because it is relatively easy forparticipants to undertake and, as noted above, it had been used in two earlierstudies. However, inevitably high totals generally will be recorded from larger plotsand/or from gardens concentrating on such crops as pumpkins and potatoes.Ideally, nutritional value would be a more appropriate metric but we discountedusing this because of the complex measurement problems involved.

The initial number of participants was 20, with a 25 per cent attrition rate. Giventhe necessary daily commitment to the fairly rigorous measurement regime, thisis not altogether surprising. Three withdrew for various personal reasons, onereturned 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 and80 per cent homeowners. Figure 2 shows the locations of the sampled residencesand Table 1 itemises details of the participants. All are from middle-classbackgrounds, and are either currently in professional employment or retired. Theage range is from the early 30s to late 60s and the gender ratio is 3.75 female toone male.

The size of cultivated plot ranged from a modest 7 square metres to a relativelylarge 250 square metres. The highest yield of 50.227 kg was produced from acultivated plot measuring 80 square metres for a data collection period between theend of July 2012 to mid-October 2012. Some of the individual collection periodswere in between seasons—for example from the end of autumn to mid-spring. Thelargest plot of 250 square metres produced 5.420 kg worth of food over the summercollection 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 July2013, with several overlapping phases. This was deliberately designed to reflectinter-seasonal production capacity. The aim was not to concentrate solely onsummer yield. The design of the data collection time span is more reflective of howurban food production is widely practised. During this 12-month period, eachparticipant contributed 12 weeks’ worth of data, i.e. the total amount of foodgenerated within three consecutive months. The collection periods lapsed fromearly summer to early autumn, when Melbourne experienced a slightly hotter anddrier 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 theusual recorded 154.7 mm (Bureau of Meteorology 2013).

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 471

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

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 Manager2 Preston M Detached house Home owner Scientist3 Coburg North F Detached house Renting Gardener4 Coburg North F Detached house Renting Self-employed5 Ascot Vale F Detached house Home owner Minister of Religion6 Coburg F Detached house Home owner Retiree7 Werribee F Detached house Home owner Homemaker8 Coburg North F Detached house Home owner Volunteer9 Werribee F Detached house Home owner Supervisor10 Thornbury M Detached house Renting IT Specialist11 Coburg North F Detached house Home owner Midwife12 East Bentleigh M Detached house Home owner Technology Manager13 Hoppers Crossing M Detached house Home owner Director14 Clifton Hill F Detached house Home owner Lecturer15 Pascoe Vale South F Detached house Home owner Landscape gardener

472 Z. Zainuddin & D. Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Production and yield

Excluding eggs, the total collective yield of all sampled backyards was 388.728 kg ofnuts, fruits, vegetables, honey and meat. There is a notable difference in yieldbetween each sampled backyard. However, the study reveals no direct correlationbetween plot size and yield (see Table 2). This is because the home garden is acombination of recreational space for entertainment and socialising as well as forfood 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 arenot included in the calculation. It is difficult to calculate the size of pots and othersimilar containers. However, it is worth noting that the measured yield includesproduce from pots and containers.

One notable finding is the diverse food-growing technologies and practicesemployed. One exemplary backyard was established in 2008 using permaculturedesign principles. The owner has managed to create an urban food forest in theMelbourne suburb of Preston. The concept of ‘forest garden’ was first madepopular by American horticulturist Robert A de J. Hart (1996). The Prestonbackyard boasts 16 different types of berries and more than 30 fruit trees inaddition to over 70 varieties of medicinal plants and herbs. The total yield of thisbackyard over the 12-week period was 50.227 kg.

Table 2 lists the start and end dates of the data collection period for eachparticipant and the associated crop yields. The total includes meat, honey andhoney by-products such as beeswax and honeycombs. In all, 101 different types ofnuts, fruits, vegetables and other edible produce were generated by all participantscollectively over the study period. The total size of the combined plots was 1096square metres, which produced 388.728 kg worth of food (including quail meat,honey, honey by-products and mealworms) and 1015 eggs (of which 326 werequail eggs).

All participants reported a surplus of between 10 and 25 per cent, which wasshared among other family members, friends and neighbours, or distributedthrough 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 iscapable of producing a considerable diversity of horticultural produce fromcommon 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 varietiesincluded asparagus, globe artichoke, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Jerusalem arti-choke, leek, lettuce, onion, potato, tomato, zucchini, a wide variety of commonculinary herbs, a selection of fruits from stone-fruits like nectarine, peach and plumto a variety of berries and citruses, plus apple, cherry and fig. In addition, 60 percent of participants kept chickens, quail and mealworms. Chickens were keptexclusively for their eggs while quails were for both eggs and meat. Another sourceof protein which is less common is mealworms (Tenebrio molitor), the larvae ofdarkling beetle.

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 473

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

TABLE 2. Summary of urban backyard food production

No. Start date End dateSize of

householdPlot size(sq m)

Total food growingexperience (year)

Totalyield (kg)

No. of eggs(including quail)

1 18 July 2012 10 October 2012 2.5 46 8 39.460 412 27 July 2012 19 October 2012 2 80 10 50.227 03 05 August 2012 27 October 2012 2 60 5 27.175 1874 31 August 2012 24 November 2012 2.5 55 13 22.520 1135 01 September 2012 23 November 2012 2 70 20 7.950 786 04 September 2012 26 November 2012 1 20 30 35.015 07 01 October 2012 31 December 2012 2 145 35 39.999 878 14 October 2012 08 January 2013 2 48 3 27.211 699 28 October 2012 20 January 2013 4 45 5 16.020 710 08 November 2012 31 January 2013 2 16 21 40.644 7111 11 November 2012 04 February 2013 2 24 2.5 12.585 012 12 November 2012 03 February 2013 4 80 8 11.750 3613 15 December 2012 08 March 2013 4 250 4 5.420 32614 22 December 2012 15 March 2013 3 150 15 47.475 015 06 May 2013 29 July 2013 4 7 20 5.277 0

39 1096 199.5 388.728 1015

474Z.Zainuddin

&D.Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

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, stringbean, 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 fruitslike apple, apricot, babaco, cherry, fig, nectarine and plum which are logged under‘Fruit’. Kale, Mustard green, spinach, silverbeet, rainbow chard, Warrigal green aswell 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 Westernand Oriental cooking. Entomophagy, the practice of eating insects as a dietarysupplement, is widely practised in parts of Asia and Africa, but it is not common inthe Western world. The consumption of tenebrious molitor falls under this category.

Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of the 19 categories of produce. The chartdoes not include eggs, honey and honey by-products and quail meat. At 20 percent, ‘Other’ is by far the largest segment in the pie chart (see Table 3). Thisincludes 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 andwater chestnut. This is followed by ‘Fruit’ at 15 per cent and ‘Leafy green’ at 12 percent. ‘Citrus’, which makes up 10 per cent of the total, includes a wide variety, suchas grapefruit, lemon, lime and orange.

All respondents were engaged in both fruit and vegetable production but only 11people (73.3 per cent) kept fowl (chicken and quail) for eggs. One respondent alsoconsumed quail meat and insects and raised fish for home consumption. However,fish were not harvested during the data collection period. One other participantreported keeping bees for honey, beeswax and honeycomb, in addition to yabbiesand 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 traditionalmethod of gardening, i.e. digging and tilling the soil. Nine out of the 11 whopractice permaculture design principles have incorporated raised beds as part oftheir 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, foodforest (the combination of the three methods proved to be the most productive at50.227 kg worth of food over a period of 12 weeks from a cultivated area of 80square metres), wicking bed, aquaculture, hydroponic, entomophagy and rooftopgardening. All indicated that they are engaged in organic food production (i.e.without the use of artificial fertiliser, toxic pesticide and herbicide). Twopractise companion planting as part of their pest management regime while three

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 475

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

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

476Z.Zainuddin

&D.Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

participants follow the bio-dynamic principle. Composting of kitchen scraps andgardening waste is practised by all. However, only eight keep a worm farm for theproduction of worm casting and juice.

From the sampled group, permaculture design is widely adopted and integratedin urban food production methodology. This involves an approach to foodproduction of no-dig, raised beds for food growing, the use of compost and/orworm farm for soil improvement (and the use of animal manure for those involvedin fowl and poultry raising), companion planting for organic pest management andrainwater harvesting. Table 4 summarises the types of garden and growingmethods used.

Surplus and motivations

As noted, all gardeners in this study registered a surplus of between 10 and 25 percent, depending upon the crops and seasons. Invariably produce is redistributedwithin the immediate family and local communities through a variety of channelslike local food swaps or the church. Food preservation is another way of managingsurpluses.

The motivations given for engaging in backyard production can be dividedinto five broad categories: (i) health and nutrition, including taste and freshness;(ii) ecology and environment, e.g. issues like GE-free and organic; (iii) foodsecurity and self-reliance; (iv) cost; and (v) pleasure and enjoyment includinglifestyle and spirituality. Similar motivations have been identified in Kortright &Wakefield’s (2011) study in Toronto, Canada and in Wise’s (2014) Australia-widesurvey, referred to above.

Of the five categories, the most frequently mentioned is ‘environment andecology’ at 80 per cent. This is followed by ‘food security’ and ‘self-reliance’ at 73.3per cent. Equally important to 73.3 per cent of the participants is the enjoymentand pleasure derived from gardening. ‘Health and nutrition’ account for 66.6 percent, 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 NA2 Yes Yes No No NA3 Yes Yes Yes No NA4 Yes Yes Yes No NA5 Yes Yes Yes No NA6 Yes Yes Yes No NA7 Yes Yes Yes No NA8 Yes Yes Yes No NA9 Yes Yes Yes No Quail, insect, fish10 Yes Yes No No NA11 Yes Yes No No NA12 Yes Yes Yes No NA13 Yes Yes No No Almond14 Yes Yes Yes No NA15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yabby, mushroom

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 477

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

TABLE 4. Type of garden, food growing habits and practices

PermacultureRaisedbed

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 No3 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Wicking bed Yes Yes No No Yes No4 Yes Yes No No No NA Yes No No No Yes No5 No Yes No No Yes NA Yes No No No Yes Yes6 Yes No No No Yes NA Yes No No No Yes No7 Yes Yes Yes No Yes NA Yes No No No Yes Yes8 Yes Yes No No No Companion

plantingYes 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 Yes11 No Yes No No No NA Yes No No No Yes Yes12 Yes Yes No No No NA Yes No No No Yes No13 Yes No No Yes Yes NA Yes No No No Yes No14 Yes Yes No No No Companion

plantingYes No No No Yes No

15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wicking bed, roofgarden

Yes No No No Yes Yes

478Z.Zainuddin

&D.Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

For those who highlight ‘environmental’ and ‘ecological’ reasons, some of theconcerns mentioned are food miles, organic, GE-free, peak oil, climate change andstewardship. Those who cite lifestyle and pleasure as a motivation also allude to asense of achievement, connection to nature and spiritual fulfilment. In the surveyresponse, participant No. 1 (as featured in Table 1) notes:

Homegrown food is healthy, tastes better and has higher nutritional valuethan commercially grown produce. You can grow organic produce of yourchoice, including varieties that cannot be bought commercially. It’s verycheap to grow your own food, you know exactly what goes into the foodbecause you grow it, and it’s part of a healthy lifestyle that reconnectspeople to nature, puts you back in touch with the cycles of naturethroughout the seasons of the year, and provides a healthy pastimeworking with, and nurturing, living things, which has many flow-onbenefits, physical, psychological and spiritual.

Taste and health benefits are often mentioned as reasons for growing food in thebackyard, as noted by participant No. 6 (Table 1):

You appreciate food more when you know where it comes from and haveseen the amazing process of it growing. Home grown has the best flavourand freshness and I prefer to be eating seasonally. I believe there is [sic]more health benefits from eating local produce. I love the reward andenjoyment of growing things, of creating an edible ecosystem. Nature isreally very generous. It is expensive to buy organic and you can be surefood is safe—GE free and chemical free.

Upbringing and cost have an influence on an individual’s decision to produce foodat home, as explained by participant No. 8:

Reason for growing food; upbringing. I was given the example by mygrandparents and mother and various other relatives. Health; home-grownfood is fresher. Taste; home-grown food is tastier. Cost; I like eatingorganic food and could not afford to buy all my fresh produce organically.

Participant No. 8 also mentions ‘self-reliance’ and ‘helping the environment’ asrelated motivations:

I like to make do; independence and self-sufficiency. Growing my ownfood, 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 theenvironment in comparison to commercially grown food.

Creating food security for the family and inspiring others to do the same are thereasons for participant No. 10:

To establish some food security for my family, and to inspire others tomake similar changes to their lifestyles.

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 479

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

There are many other reasons mentioned such as the pleasure of cultivation andeating fresh organic food. Participant No. 11 noted:

I love watching my veggies grow and love the sense of subsistence livingit provides. I have an organic garden so know it is providing healthy foodfor us—it is personal passion as well as stewardship of the planet. I buyorganic food so it makes veggies affordable to eat this way also. Alwaysknow 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. ParticipantNo. 13 had this to say:

Main motivation since having children for them to see and help withgrowing and to know here produce comes from, to know how good ittastes 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 preserveheritage 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 cancontribute to the preservation of some old varieties that are notcommercially viable. I can gather the produce when it’s at its best, notwhen to transport it. I can cook within minutes of picking so my produceis nutritionally superior to commercially produced produce. Mostly, I liketo eat seasonally. For example, I have not bought a fresh tomato in the lastfive years (but I do process and freeze excess tomatoes from my garden soI have pasta sauce and pizza toppings available throughout winter). It givesme great sense of achievement and pleasure as well as plenty of exercisewhen preparing soil. It makes me very happy.

Conclusion

The focus of this paper has been the capacity of urban backyard food production inMelbourne and its potential to address food security issues. On the basis of anadmittedly highly selective sample, the study has found that this is a thriving activitywith productive outcomes. Participant No. 2 (in Table 1), for example, has keptdetailed annual records for several years and his average production is 190.4 kg.Similarly, Participant No. 3 has averaged 197 kg annually. There is enormousdiversity and experimentation in the food production methods with equally diversetypes of produce.

The overall trends, as demonstrated from the qualitative data, are beneficial atmany different levels, from health and general wellbeing to control over foodquality and the minimisation of environmental impact. Surplus harvest is frequentlyshared with others thereby fostering strong community connections.

480 Z. Zainuddin & D. Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

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 formaround sustainability imperatives’ (Gleeson 2013, p. 312). The central concernhere has been to explore the many possibilities and potentials for restoringfood production closer to where it will be ultimately consumed, i.e. urbanneighbourhoods.

To further encourage the growth of an alternative food system, like urbanagriculture, planning policy has a role to play at both the State government andmunicipal levels. In a recent report, the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance(2013), for example, makes several recommendations to encourage the expansionof urban agriculture. These include: (i) within five years aim to increase by 25 percent the number of households with access to suitable land for growing and raisingtheir own food; (ii) give residents access to free, non-hybrid seeds paid for by theirlocal municipal rates; (iii) set aside a percentage of land with adequate sun accessand uncontaminated soil in new private dwellings for food production; and(iv) where possible, provide every dwelling with at least 1 square metre ofproductive food space per person.

Needless to add, these objectives assume continuing access to adequate space ata time when many inner-suburban local governments, in particular, are also seekingto greatly increase residential densities by encouraging the subdivision of residentialallotments with large, private gardens. Potential high-value horticultural spacesare now being built over at a rapid rate and overshadowing is also adding to thedifficulties being faced by urban gardeners. Nevertheless, our research hasdemonstrated that even relatively small spaces can be highly productive if managedeffectively.

The pilot study reported upon here raises a number of interesting issues thatwould be worth following up in future research. In particular, we would welcome abroader scale analysis to determine the precise extent of backyard food productionacross the wider population and urban area. Our suspicion is that relatively highlevels 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 onlya tiny minority had highly productive gardens. It is worth emphasising that theresearch reported here was conducted almost exclusively in older suburbs whererelatively large back gardens still exist and where walking or cycling are commonforms of transport. In Melbourne the suburbs investigated are also gentrifyingrapidly and often exhibit a strong ‘green consciousness’ and awareness on the partof a well-educated citizenry. Yet, they often also still have sizeable populations ofpost-war European migrants and more recent Asian settlers with wide-ranging skillsin urban agriculture, food preparation and preserving. All this makes for aparticularly 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 anecdotalevidence that, over time, the children of post-war migrants from southern Europein particular have become far less interested in using their private gardens for fruitand vegetable production than their parents. In many cases—especially in what areperceived to be ‘more desirable’, post-1990 suburban developments—it wouldappear that the ‘garden’ effectively has been obliterated altogether, with muchlarger homes taking up the entire residential block. In other cases concrete hasroutinely replaced greenery and garden beds and fruit trees have given way to

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 481

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

swimming pools, spacious garages and spaces devoted to tennis and basketball.The vision of the ‘ecological city’ would see these spaces of consumption beingtransformed into spaces of agricultural production such as we have highlighted inthis 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, yearended in April 1992, ABS, Canberra.

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2013) Population projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to2101, 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, Commonwealthof 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, NationalClimate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, QLD.

BUXTON, M., ALVAREZ, A., BUTT, A., FARRELL, S. & O’NEILL, D. (2007) Change andcontinuity 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, UnitedNations 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.

482 Z. Zainuddin & D. Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

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 throughVictoria’s metropolitan planning strategy, VicHealth, Melbourne.

GAYNOR, A. (2006) Harvest of the suburbs - an environmental history of growing food in Australiancities, University of Western Australia Press, Crawley.

GHOSH, S. (2014) ‘Measuring sustainability performance of local food production in homegardens’, Local Environment 19(1), pp. 33–55.

GHOSH, S. & HEAD, L. (2009) ‘Retrofitting the suburban garden: morphologies and someelements 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?: acomparative study of the activities and attitudes of residents of high, medium and low densityhousing, 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 ofWollongong 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 climatechange, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction.

JAMES, S.W. (2009) Submission to senate inquiry into food production in Australia, UrbanResearch 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 householdfood 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 ofneoliberalism, productivism and climate change’, Journal of Rural Studies 29, pp. 30–39.

MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (1954) Melbourne metropolitan planningscheme 1954 report, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Melbourne.

NEFF, R.A., PALMER, A.M., MCKENZIE, S.E., & LAWRENCE, R.S. (2009) ‘Food systems andpublic 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’, FloridaWatchdog.org, November 19.

PETRINI, C. (2007) Slow food nation - why our food should be good, clean and fair, Rizzoli ExLibris, New York.

SCRINIS, G. (2007) ‘From techno-corporate food to alternative agri-food movements’, inMulligan, 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 toresilience, 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.

Domestic Residential Garden Food Production in Melbourne, Australia 483

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

TIMMS, P. (2006) Australia’s quarter acre: the story of the ordinary suburban garden, MiegunyahPress, Carlton, VIC.

WILKEN, R. & OLSEN, K. (2002) ‘Nature strips’, in Aitken, R. & Looker, M. (eds) The oxfordcompanion to Australian gardens, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, p. 434.

WISE, P. (2014) Grow your own. The potential value and impacts of residential and communityfood gardening. Policy Brief No. 59, The Australia Institute, Canberra.

484 Z. Zainuddin & D. Mercer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

42 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014