Table 1. Comparison of key features between rural and urban agriculture.

Features Farm type Farming livelihood Farmer identity Community pro ile %takeholders views on importance o agriculture $olitical, social, economic and cultural context 'and use Cropping calendar %ecurity o land tenure 'abour costs ,ccess to markets-inputs ,vailability o research and extension services $olicy support Rural situation Conventional, textbook-type Farming is a primary livelihood, engaged ull-time Usually born armers "a#ority o community members engaged in arming &enerally supportive "ore homogeneous &enerally stable or agriculture %easonal periods +elatively high +elatively low . ten ar rom market location "ore likely /igh priority on policy agenda Urban situation Unconventional, mobile and transient; partly over ground or without soil Farming o ten a secondary livelihood, engaged on a part-time basis !eginners, part-time armers, in part migrants rom rural areas, hobbyists $ercent o community members engaged in arming is highly variable Contrasting views "ore heterogeneous Competing land uses (agricultural and nonagricultural) *ear-round growing o crops +elatively low +elatively high Closer to market location, avourable or perishable cash crops-products 'ess likely "ixed; policies o ten vague or non-existent

0aken rom1 Campilan, 2rechsel, and 34cker (5667), Methods for monitoring and evaluation and their adaptation to urban agriculture, $aper submitted or the +U,F-Urban /arvest expert workshop on ,ppropriate "ethodologies or Urban ,griculture: +esearch, $olicy development, $lanning, 8mplementation and 9valuation, .ctober 7- :, 5667, ;airobi, <enya