Journal of Environmental Science Studies

Journal of Environmental Science Studies

A Meta-Analytic Review of Theoretical Perspectives on Environmental Education through Participatory Urban Agriculture

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Reyhaneh Ashena 1
Maryam Larijani 1
Mohammad Rezvani 2
Mehran Farajollahi 3
1 Department of Environmental Education, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Educational Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/jess.2026.561419.2427
Abstract
Introduction
Urban agriculture is widely advocated as a multifunctional response to contemporary urban challenges, offering pathways to enhance local food security, optimize resource flows, and bolster urban resilience in the face of climatic variability and demographic change. The degree to which urban agriculture can deliver these benefits is contingent not only on land availability and technical inputs but critically on the knowledge base, dispositions, and practical competencies of urban residents who manage productive green spaces. Within this nexus, environmental education emerges as a pivotal enabling strategy—one that aims to build capacity among local actors, promote sustainable, practice-oriented resource use, and catalyze participatory governance of urban green infrastructures. Despite proliferating programs and policy interest, the evidence base linking environmental education interventions to measurable outcomes in participatory urban agriculture has remained fragmented. This meta-analytic review integrates empirical studies published between 1995 and 2024 to quantify the magnitude of educational effects on knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and ecological outcomes in urban agriculture, and to elucidate the mechanisms and contextual moderators that shape those effects.
Materials and methods
Study design and selection criteria: We undertook a systematic review coupled with meta-analysis to synthesize quantitative and qualitative evidence on the impacts of environmental education interventions on urban-agriculture-related outcomes. Comprehensive searches were executed across international and national bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed articles published in English and Persian through 2024. Eligible studies explicitly evaluated the effects of pedagogical interventions—ranging from school- and community-based curricula to peer-led trainings and extension-style workshops—on at least one of the following outcome domains: environmental or urban-agriculture knowledge, attitudes and participatory intention, observed practices, resource-use efficiency (e.g., water or nutrient use), soil health indicators, input-use patterns (fertilizer, pesticide), biodiversity metrics, or other ecological indicators. Methodological rigor, clear intervention description, and availability of extractable quantitative outcomes were required for inclusion. Seventy studies satisfied these criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis.
Data extraction and effect-size computation: For each retained study we systematically extracted publication metadata, geographic and socioecological context, sample characteristics, design features (randomization, controls), intervention attributes (delivery mode, content focus, degree of localization and stakeholder co-design), duration and intensity (frequency and follow-up), measured outcomes, and reported statistics or raw data. Where necessary, means, standard deviations, proportions, or test statistics were converted into standardized mean differences (Cohen’s d) or comparable metrics. We pooled effect sizes using random-effects models to accommodate between-study heterogeneity, and we conducted moderator analyses to test the influence of intervention format (interactive/practice-based versus lecture-based), localization and stakeholder participation, duration (short versus sustained), and study quality. Publication-bias diagnostics and sensitivity checks were performed. Complementing quantitative synthesis, a thematic qualitative analysis distilled theorized mechanisms of change and recurring implementation barriers reported across studies.
Results and discussion
Aggregate effects across outcome domains: The pooled analysis of 70 studies demonstrates that environmental education interventions exert statistically significant positive effects across three principal domains relevant to participatory urban agriculture: (1) domain-specific knowledge about environmental processes and urban cultivation; (2) attitudinal shifts and motivational dispositions toward participation and pro-environmental management; and (3) observable practices and on-site performance in urban growing systems. Effect-size estimates reveal a clear gradient: interventions generate moderate-to-large impacts on cognitive and attitudinal outcomes (pooled d ≈ 0.45–0.75), while impacts on behavioral and biophysical outcomes measured in situ—such as adoption of sustainable practices, water-use efficiency, reduced chemical-input application, and soil-health improvements—are smaller but still positive (pooled d ≈ 0.25–0.50). This pattern indicates that educational inputs more readily shift knowledge and attitudes than they immediately transform ecological or agronomic indicators, reflecting the additional temporal, infrastructural, and institutional requisites for behavioral translation into measurable ecological change.

Moderators of intervention effectiveness: Subgroup analyses identify consistent moderators associated with larger and more durable effects. Interventions that prioritized interactive, experiential pedagogies—field exercises, hands-on demonstrations, participatory problem-solving, and peer-to-peer learning—produced larger effect sizes than predominantly lecture-based or one-off informational sessions. Programs that were co-designed with local stakeholders and tailored to place-specific agroecological and socio-cultural contexts also yielded stronger outcomes, as did interventions implemented over sustained timelines with explicit follow-up, monitoring, and technical support. Conversely, short-term, didactic trainings and externally imposed curricula exhibited lower effectiveness in changing practice and sustaining outcomes. Study design quality further moderated effect estimates, with better-controlled evaluations generally reporting more conservative but robust effect sizes.
Environmental and ecosystem-service outcomes: Empirical findings indicate that when environmental education is tightly integrated with participatory urban-agriculture practices, it can lead to measurable environmental benefits. Reported gains include increases in water-use efficiency (frequently in the range of ~15–30% in studies that quantified irrigation practices or volumetric use), reductions in synthetic input dependence (reported declines in fertilizer and pesticide application ranging roughly ~10–40% where measured), and improvements in soil health indicators such as enhanced organic matter content, improved aggregate stability, and ameliorated compaction. Biodiversity-related outcomes—such as increases in pollinator abundance, native flora cover, and functional diversity in multispecies plots—were also documented in a subset of studies that explicitly measured ecological assemblages. Nevertheless, the magnitude and persistence of these environmental gains varied substantially across contexts: larger, longer-lasting impacts were concentrated where enabling conditions—access to inputs and organic amendments, irrigation infrastructure, extension services, secure land tenure, and supportive policy frameworks—were present. Where institutional support or resource access was lacking, educational gains in knowledge and attitude often failed to scale into substantive ecological improvements.
Limitations, heterogeneity, and theoretical implications: The qualitative synthesis highlighted methodological and conceptual limitations pervasive in the literature. Many studies lacked explicit theoretical articulation of behavioral-change mechanisms, limiting causal interpretation of how cognitive and affective shifts translate into sustained practice change. Heterogeneity in outcome measures, short follow-up windows in numerous evaluations, and variable measurement rigor constrained cross-study comparability. Publication-bias diagnostics suggested modest asymmetry consistent with under-reporting of null or small effects in some subfields. Despite these limitations, the aggregated evidence aligns with behaviorally oriented and experiential-learning frameworks: approaches emphasizing active participation, situated practice, social learning, and iterative feedback loops are most plausibly linked to sustained adoption of sustainable urban-agriculture practices. The observed lag between attitudinal gains and ecological outcomes further underscores that behavior-change theories must account for structural enablers and constraints—material, institutional, and socio-economic—that mediate the relationship between knowledge and environmental performance.
Conclusion
Environmental education embedded in participatory urban-agriculture initiatives produces consistent, positive effects on citizens’ domain-specific knowledge and pro-participation attitudes, and yields positive but more context-sensitive improvements in on-site practices and ecological indicators.
Interventions employing interactive, practice-based pedagogies, local adaptation and co-design with stakeholders, and sustained engagement with follow-up and monitoring achieve the largest and most durable outcomes.
When effectively implemented and supported by enabling infrastructure and institutions, integrated education–practice programs can improve water-use efficiency, reduce dependence on chemical inputs, enhance soil quality, and bolster urban biodiversity; however, the degree and longevity of these benefits depend on local conditions and policy support.
Absence of structured, practice-oriented environmental education risks perpetuating maladaptive practices that can exacerbate soil degradation, water contamination, and ecological decline in urban agricultural settings.
Research priorities include longer-term, well-controlled evaluations; explicit theoretical development and testing of behavioral mechanisms linking education to practice and ecological outcomes; comprehensive assessments of socio-economic impacts; and focused analyses of how urban policy and governance arrangements can scale and institutionalize effective education–agriculture models.
Programmatic implications: design participatory environmental-education initiatives that emphasize hands-on training, stakeholder engagement, local contextualization, sustained timelines, and continuous monitoring and adaptive feedback to secure enduring environmental and socio-economic benefits from urban agriculture.
Keywords
environmental education
participatory urban agriculture
environmental sustainability
meta-analysis
educational programs
1.       Ahn, S., et al. 2023. A double-edged sword: Examining the structures that afford and limit practices of environmental learning and community building in an urban community garden in South Korea, Asia-Pacific Science Education, Vol. 9, P. 413–445.
2.       Akyol, M., et al. 2018. Urban agriculture as a tool for environmental awareness for future generations, Conference Proceedings, Istanbul, P. 21–24.
3.       Altieri, M. A. 2019. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 74, P. 19–31.
4.       Alves, D., et al. 2024. Commercial urban agriculture for sustainable cities, Cities, Vol. 150, P. 1–26.
5.       Amdur, M. O., et al. 1997. Educational and informational strategies to reduce pesticide risks, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 26, P. 191–200.
6.       Arslan, Y., Albay, F. 2019. The effect of outdoor sports as undergraduate elective course on environmental sensitivity, Journal of Education and Learning, Vol. 8, P. 52–57.
7.       Ballard, H. L., et al. 2024. Environmental education outcomes of community and citizen science: A systematic review of empirical research, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 1, P. 1007–1040.
8.       Bhanja, R., Bannerji, P. 2024. City growth and periurban linkages: Land transformation, rural-urban linkages, and the environmental implications of the Kolkata Municipal Development Authority region, India, Modern Cartography Series, Vol. 11, P. 141–159.
9.       Bretzel, F., et al. 2016. Wildflowers: From conserving biodiversity to urban greening—A review, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 20, P. 428–436.
10.   Brown, K. H., Jameton, A. L. 2000. Public health implications of urban agriculture, Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 21, P. 20–39.
11.   Bueno, J. A., et al. 1995. South Florida greenways: A conceptual framework for the ecological reconnectivity of the region, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 33, P. 247–266.
12.   Chen, S., et al. 2023. Linking social-ecological management and ecosystem service bundles: Lessons from a peri-urban agriculture landscape, Land Use Policy, Vol. 131, P. 1–10.
13.   Clerino, P., Fargue, A. 2020. Formalizing objectives and criteria for urban agriculture sustainability with a participatory approach, Sustainability, Vol. 12, P. 7503.
14.   Cohen, J. 1998. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
15.   Cohen, N., Reynolds, K. 2021. Urban agriculture: Policy, law, strategy, and implementation.
16.   Daher, L. A., et al. 2023. Urban agriculture and the perspective of fulfilling land's socio-environmental function—a case study of Brazilian Cerrado cities, Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment, Vol. 1, P. 317–338.
17.   Debucquet, G., et al. 2022. Bringing nature into private urban housing: Environmental, social and food connections for urban resilience, Cities, Vol. 131, P. 1–10.
18.   Deelstra, T., Girardet, H. 2017. Urban agriculture and sustainable cities, In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel, U. Sabel-Koshella, & H. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda, P. 43–66.
19.   Ding, Q., Du, J. 2024. Impact of innovative capacity on agri-environmental efficiency and mechanism research, International Review of Economics & Finance, Vol. 94, P. 103–139.
20.   Dorr, E., et al. 2023. Life cycle assessment of eight urban farms and community gardens in France and California, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 192, P. 1–11.
21.   Du, S., Tanaka, K. 2024. Residents' preferences for urban agriculture in Shanghai, Heliyon, Vol. 10, P. 1–10.
22.   Dubbeling, M., de Zeeuw, H., van Veenhuizen, R. 2020. Cities and agriculture: Developing resilient urban food systems.
23.   Elhini, M., et al. 2024. The land degradation and desertification-socioeconomic nexus in Egypt's delta region: A case study on Alexandria and Beheira, Heliyon, Vol. 10, P. 311–365.
24.   Eom, B. H., Jang, E. J. 2016. Awareness of Daegu citizens on urban agriculture, Journal of Korean Society for People, Plants and Environment, Vol. 19, P. 539–547.
25.   Etshekape, P. G., et al. 2018. Tree planting in urban and peri-urban of Kinshasa: Survey of factors facilitating agroforestry adoption, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 30, P. 12–23.
26.   Ferreira, A. J. D., et al. 2018. Urban agriculture, a tool towards more resilient urban communities? Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, Vol. 5, P. 93–97.
27.   Fischer, L. K., et al. 2019. Biodiverse edible schools: Linking healthy food, school gardens and local urban biodiversity, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 40, P. 35–43.
28.   Frontiers. 2024. Sustainability assessments of commercial urban agriculture, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Vol. 8, P. 1–14.
29.   Garrity, K., et al. 2024. Local food system approaches to address food and nutrition security among low-income populations: A systematic review, Advances in Nutrition, Vol. 15, P. 1–29.
30.   Giefer, M. M., An, L. 2022. Divergent impacts of the grain to green program, landholdings, and demographic factors on livelihood diversification in rural China, World Development, Vol. 156, P. 235–269.
31.   Grewal, S. S., Grewal, P. S. 2012. Can cities become self-reliant in food? Cities, Vol. 29, P. 1–11.
32.   Guitart, D. A., et al. 2014. Color me healthy: Food diversity in school community gardens in two rapidly urbanising Australian cities, Health & Place, Vol. 26, P. 110–117.
33.   Hands, T., et al. 2018. People and their plants: The effect of an educational comic on gardening intentions, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 30, P. 132–137.
34.   Hassan, Z., et al. 2024. Roots to roofs: Farmers' perceived socio-ecological impacts of converting mango orchards to urban areas in Multan, Pakistan, Environmental Challenges, Vol. 15, P. 1–10.
35.   Jepson, W. 2006. Private agricultural colonization on a Brazilian frontier, 1970–1980, Journal of Historical Geography, Vol. 34, P. 839–863.
36.   Johansson, J., et al. 2024. Co-creation of urban agriculture through participatory processes in residential building environment: Insights from Finland, Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, Vol. 13, P. 1–10.
37.   Jones, M. E., Thompson, L. J. 2024. Educational practice in education for environmental justice: A systematic review of the literature, Sustainability, Vol. 16, P. 1–7.
38.   Jones, M., Brown, A. 2023. Quantitative review techniques: A guide.
39.   Kim, Y. J., Park, S. H. 2021. The impact of environmental education on students' environmental attitudes and behaviors, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18, P. 8100.
40.   Kusiluka, M. M., et al. 2011. The negative impact of land acquisition on indigenous communities’ livelihood and environment in Tanzania, Habitat International, Vol. 35, P. 66–73.
41.   Lal, R., et al. 2021. Soils and sustainable development goals of the United Nations: An International Union of Soil Sciences perspective, Geoderma Regional, Vol. 25, P. e00398.
42.   Lomas, J., et al. 2000. Education and training in agricultural meteorology: Current status and future needs, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol. 103, P. 197–208.
43.   My, N. H. D., et al. 2017. Consumers’ familiarity with and attitudes towards food quality certifications for rice and vegetables in Vietnam, Food Control, Vol. 82, P. 74–82.
44.   Nadal, A., et al. 2018. Rooftop greenhouses in educational centers: A sustainability assessment of urban agriculture in compact cities, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 626, P. 1319–1331.
45.   Nesheli, S., Temeljotov Salaj, A. 2024. Urban farming for social benefit. IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol.85, p. 351–356.
46.   Nogeire-McRae, T., et al. 2018. Role of urban agriculture in a secure, healthy, and sustainable food system, BioScience, Vol. 68, P. 748–759.
47.   Noor Azmi, N. S., et al. 2024. Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of farmers towards urban agroecology in Malaysia, Heliyon, Vol. 10, P. e33365.
48.   Orsini, F., et al. 2013. Urban agriculture in the developing world: A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 3, P. 695–720.
49.   Pearson, L. J., et al. 2010. Sustainable urban agriculture: Stocktake and opportunities, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, Vol. 8, P. 7–19.
50.   Pilz, V., et al. 2023. Urban agriculture: A closer look at the metropolitan area of Barcelona, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 905, P. 1–17.
51.   Pollalis, S. 2016. Urban agriculture and the sustainability nexus in South Africa: Past, current, and future trends, In Urban Agriculture and Water Use in the Search for Sustainability Options, Vol. 15, P. 35–83.
52.   Pradhan, P., et al. 2024. A systematic review highlights that there are multiple benefits of urban agriculture besides food, Global Food Security, Vol. 38, P. 100700.
53.   Prado, P., et al. 2021. Perceptions on barriers and opportunities for integrating urban agri-green roofs: A European Mediterranean compact city case, Cities, Vol. 114, P. 103196.
54.   Pretty, J. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 363, P. 447–465.
55.   Rickinson, M. 2001. Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 7, P. 207–320.
56.   Rotolo, G. C., et al. 2022. Perception and awareness of circular economy options within sectors related to agriculture in Argentina, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 373, P. 133805.
57.   Russ, A., Madeline, B. G. 2021. Urban agriculture education and youth civic engagement in the U.S.: A scoping review, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Vol. 5, P. 707896.
58.   Schobesberger, B., et al. 2008. Consumer perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand, Food Policy, Vol. 33, P. 112–121.
59.   Shammi, M., et al. 2018. Pesticide exposures towards health and environmental hazard in Bangladesh: A case study on farmers’ perception, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 19, P. 161–173.
60.   Shang, C., et al. 2019. Weak sustainability is not sustainable: Socioeconomic and environmental assessment of Inner Mongolia for the past three decades, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 141, P. 243–252.
61.   Shendell, D. G., et al. 2012. Outdoor near-roadway, community and residential pollen, carbon dioxide and particulate matter measurements in the urban core of an agricultural region in central CAI, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 50, P. 103–111.
62.   Simon, S. 2021. Territorial education through urban agriculture: Contributing to building sustainable cities in times of a pandemic, Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol. 23, P. 31–47.
63.   Slavik, M. 2004. Changes and trends in secondary agricultural education in the Czech Republic, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 24, P. 539–545.
64.   Smith, J. 2022. Meta-analysis in social research.
65.   Smith, J. R., Brown, A. K. 2024. Environmental education: A systematic review on the use of digital tools for fostering sustainability awareness, Sustainability, Vol. 16, P. 32–37.
66.   Sonti, N. F., et al. 2016. Long-term outcomes of an urban farming internship program, Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 39, P. 269–287.
67.   Srinivasan, K., Yadav, V. K. 2024. Fresh bell peppers consumed in cities: Unveiling the environmental impact of urban and rural food supply systems, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 927, P. 1–12.
68.   Sun, C., et al. 2024. Coupling and coordination of food security and agricultural carbon emission efficiency: Changing trends, influencing factors, and different government priority scenarios, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 370, P. 1–10.
69.   Thompson, S. G., Sharp, S. J. 1999. Comparison of methods, Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 18, P. 2693–2708.
70.   Tindale, S., et al. 2023. Citizen perceptions and values associated with ecosystem services from European grassland landscapes, Land Use Policy, Vol. 127, P. 106574.
71.   Torrijos, V., et al. 2021. Integration of food waste composting and vegetable gardens in a university campus, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 315, P. 128175.
72.   Tuijl, E., et al. 2018. Opportunities and challenges of urban agriculture for sustainable city development, European Spatial Research and Policy, Vol. 25, P. 5–22.
73.   Tuncer, G., et al. 2005. Environmental attitudes of young people in Turkey: Effects of school type and gender, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 11, P. 215–233.
74.   Vargas, D., et al. 2021. Impact of urban agriculture on the environmental education of children and young people of the city of Cuenca, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, Vol. 252, P. 391–403.
75.   Vieira, T. A., Panagopoulos, T. 2024. Urban agriculture in Brazil: Possibilities and challenges for Santarém, eastern Amazonia, Land Use Policy, Vol. 129, P. 107082.
76.   White, P. J., Black, R. M. 2022. The role of environmental education in promoting sustainable development, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 1, P. 752–758.
77.   Wilson, R. 2021. Combining research findings: Methods and applications.
78.   Wolf, F. M. 1986. Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis.
79.   Yu, X. 2014. Is environment ‘a city thing’ in China? Rural–urban differences in environmental attitudes, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 38, P. 39–48.
80.   Yuan, G. N., et al. 2022. A review on urban agriculture: Technology, socio-economy, and policy, Heliyon, Vol. 8, P. e11583.
81.   Yuniarsih, E. T., et al. 2024. Determinants determining the adoption of technological innovation of urban farming: Employing binary logistic regression model in examining Rogers' framework, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 10, P. 100307.
82.   Zhao, H., et al. 2024. Public perceptions of multiple ecosystem services from urban agriculture, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 251, P. 105170.
83.   Zhu, Z., et al. 2024. Implementing urban agriculture as nature-based solutions in China: Challenges and global lessons, Soil & Environmental Health, Vol. 2, P. 100063.
84.  ازکیا، م.، توکلی، م.، 1385. فراتحلیل مطالعات رضایت شغلی در سازمان‌های آموزشی، مجله علوم اجتماعی، سال 27، شماره 27، ص 1-26.
85.  بازگیر، س.، فیروزی، ز.، شمسی‌پور، ع.، مقبل، م.، 1401. تحلیل فضایی شرایط محیطی کشاورزی شهری در کلان‌شهر تهران (مطالعه موردی: منطقه 5)، پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، سال 1، شماره 7، ص 111-125.
86.  پورجاوید، ث.، پورسعید، ع.، میردامادی، م.، 1399. عامل‌های تأثیرگذار بر عملکرد فراگیران شرکت‌کننده در دوره‌های آموزشی ترویج کشاورزی شهری (مورد مطالعه: دوره آموزشی باغبانی-پرورش سبزی و صیفی)، پژوهش مدیریت آموزش کشاورزی، سال 12، شماره 53، ص 139-161.
87.  جم، ف.، 1402. شناسایی اولویت شاخص‌های تأثیرگذار بر رضایت کاربران از طراحی منظر پارک با رویکرد کشاورزی شهری، هنر مدیریت سبز، سال 2، شماره 1، ص 75-86.
88.  حسینی‌مفرد، ص.، عباسی، ع.، صدیقی، ح.، 1401. رفتار‌سنجی شهروندان تهرانی برای مشارکت در انجام کشاورزی شهری (مطالعه موردی: منطقه 22 شهر تهران)، پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، سال 10، شماره 4، ص 82-100.
89.  حق دوست، ع.، 1390. مرور ساختار یافته و متاآنالیز، مفاهیم، کاربردها و محاسبات، کرمان: مؤسسه پژوهشگران بدون مرز.
90.  حمیدی، ک.، یعقوبی، ج.، 1394. جایگاه و اهمیت توسعه فعالیت‌های کشاورزی شهری در عصر جدید، ترویج علم، 6(2)، 75-83.
91.  حمیدی، ک.، یعقوبی، ج.، 1395. نیازهای آموزشی کشاورزان شهری از دیدگاه شهروندان زنجان، پژوهش مدیریت آموزش کشاورزی، سال 8، شماره 39، ص 80-93.
92.  خزایی، م.، باباجانی، م.، 1403. تحلیلی بر مقوله کشاورزی شهری و امکان پیاده‌سازی آن در کلان‌شهر تهران، جغرافیا و روابط انسانی، سال 6، شماره 4، ص 320-357.
93.  داوری‌نژاد، م.، ابدی، ف.، 1398. بررسی ضرورت کشاورزی شهری در راستای دستیابی به برنامه‌ریزی سلامت در کلان‌شهر مشهد، مطالعات طراحی شهری و پژوهش‌های شهری، سال 8، شماره 2، ص 41-56.
94.  دریکوند، م.، مریدسادات، پ.، رضویان، م.، 1400. شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر توسعه پایدار کشاورزی شهری و پیراشهری با رویکرد کارآفرینانه (مورد مطالعه: بخش مرکزی شهرستان خرم‌آباد)، پژوهش‌های روستایی، سال 12، شماره 3، ص 426-445.
95.  رحمتی، ع.، نوحه‌گر، ا.، نبی‌بیدهندی، غ.، 1401. تعدیل اثرات تغییرات آب‌وهوایی با ارتقاء الگوی کشاورزی شهری پایدار با استفاده از روش‌های BWM و ARAS (مطالعه موردی: منطقه 22 شهرداری تهران)، پژوهش‌های تغییرات آب و هوایی، سال 3، شماره 12، ص 91-108.
96.  روضاتی، ح.، قنبران، ع.، 1392. ارتقاء کیفیت محیط‌زیستی شهرها با رویکرد کشاورزی شهری (نمونه موردی: شهر اصفهان)، معماری و شهرسازی پایدار، سال 1، شماره 1، ص 1-12.
97.  زارعی‌پور، م.، عسکری، ا.، 1402. آموزش سواد محیط‌زیست جهت ارتقاء رفتارهای حفاظت از محیط‌زیست، مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشکی جیرفت، سال 10، شماره 1، ص 1165-1169.
98.  زرکش، ن.، ضرابی، س.، 1398. سایت موزه کشاورزی، راهبردی آموزشی جهت ارتقاء محیط‌زیست شهری، علوم و تکنولوژی محیط‌زیست، سال 7، شماره 86، ص 285-298.
99.  شمشیری، س.، 1395. کشاورزی شهری با رویکرد مشارکتی (نمونه موردی: محوطه دانشگاه سیدجمال‌الدین اسدآبادی)، مطالعات علوم محیط‌زیست، سال 1، شماره 2، ص 41-50.
100.                      فرزام، م.، امیدی‌نجف‌آبادی، م.، لشگرآرا، ف.، فرج‌الله‌حسینی، ج.، 1402. طراحی الگوی تأثیر کشاورزی شهری بر امنیت غذایی (مورد مطالعه: مناطق 22 گانه کلان‌شهر تهران)، تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی ایران، سال 54، شماره 1، ص 165-183.
101.                      کاووسی، م.، خطیبی، م.، 1401. ارائه سیاست‌های برنامه‌ریزی در خصوص توانمندسازی ساختاری محله پونک قزوین با رویکرد کشاورزی شهری، مطالعات بین‌رشته‌ای در تعالی معماری و شهرسازی، سال 1، شماره 1، ص 131-146.
102.                      کرمی، ر.، صلاحی‌اصفهانی، گ.، 1399. نوع‌شناسی کشاورزی شهری و نقش آموزش آن در توسعه پایدار شهری استان زنجان، فصلنامه علمی آموزش محیط‌زیست و توسعه پایدار، سال 9، شماره 1، ص 153-170.
103.                      محبی، ز.، عبادی، ه.، 1401. توسعه کارآفرینی شهر سبز: ملزومات تولید پایدار کشاورزی شهری در دانشگاه رازی کرمانشاه، مطالعات کارآفرینی و توسعه پایدار کشاورزی، سال 9، شماره 4، ص 167-184.
104.                      محمدی، م.، ابراهیمی‌نیا، د.، 1398. کاربست اصول کشاورزی شهری در مقیاس محلات (نمونه موردی: محله امام‌زاده یحیی در تهران)، منظر، سال 11، شماره 46، ص 24-39.
105.                      محمدی، ن.، بابایی، ف.، محمدی، ع.، حیات‌غیب، د.، 1396. بررسی وضعیت آموزش محیط‌زیست در سازمان‌های مردم‌نهاد محیط‌زیستی ایران، علوم و تکنولوژی محیط‌زیست، شماره 1، ص 393-402.
106.                      محمودی، ح.، ویسی، ه.، 1384. ترویج و آموزش محیط‌زیست: رهیافتی در حفاظت اصولی از محیط‌زیست، علوم محیطی، سال 8، ص 57-64.
107.                      ملکی‌نژاد، ح.، محمدزاده، ف.، طاهرپور، م.، 1399. جایگاه کشاورزی شهری در ارتقاء بهره‌وری کشاورزی و امنیت غذایی، مجله علمی سامانه‌های سطوح آبگیر باران، سال 8، شماره 3، ص 43-58.
108.                      یادآور، ح.، لطیفی، س.، خرازی‌شهریر، ن.، 1399. تحلیل ظرفیت‌های کشاورزی شهری از دیدگاه دانشجویان دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه تبریز، علوم ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی ایران، سال 16، شماره 1، ص 183-196.
Journal of Environmental Science Studies
Volume 10, Issue 4
Winter 2026
Pages 10949-10976