Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Received: 26 April 2021 Accepted: 23 December 2021
DOI: 10.1002/uar2.20025
SPECIAL ISSUE: URBAN AGROFORESTRY
Almost there: On the importance of a comprehensive
entrepreneurial ecosystem for developing sustainable urban food
forest enterprises
Arnim Wiek1,2Stefanie Albrecht2
1School of Sustainability, Arizona State
Univ., Tempe, AZ, USA
2Centre for Global Sustainability and
Cultural Transformation, Leuphana Univ. of
Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
Correspondence
Arnim Wiek, School of Sustainability,Ar i-
zona State Univ., Tempe, AZ, USA.
Email: arnim.wiek@asu.edu
Abstract
Sustainable food forests offer multiple benefits to urban sustainability challenges.
Research to date mostly describes structure and services of individual food forests
but provides little evidence and guidance for implementation. This study analyzes
and evaluates an ongoing, multiyear, transdisciplinary project developing a sustain-
able urban food forest enterprise in Phoenix, AZ, through a collaboration between
researchers and a coalition of nonprofit organizations. Unlike other food forest
projects run by nonprofit organizations, this food forest originated as a sustainable
enterprise that would provide jobs and livelihood opportunities in an economically
marginalized urban area while pursuing social and environmental goals such as pro-
viding healthy food and a cooler microclimate. Efforts to date have built a coalition
of supporters, secured a suitable site, codeveloped a vision and an action plan, and
fundraised a major start-up donation. We evaluate these outcomes against a suite
of success factors derived from implementation of other food forests and explain
challenges in realizing these factors through the lens of a comprehensive sustain-
able entrepreneurial ecosystem. Data for the accompanying research was collected
through direct and participant observations, review of project documents, informal
conversations, a stakeholder survey, and research diary reflections. Research find-
ings indicate that despite achieving all the success factors, at least to some extent, the
underdeveloped sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem jeopardizes long-term suc-
cess and multiplication efforts. These findings confirm the importance of a suffi-
ciently developed entrepreneurial ecosystem for successful development of sustain-
able food enterprises. They offer guidance to food entrepreneurs, urban developers,
and city officials on how to develop and support sustainable food forest enterprises.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
©2022 The Authors. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of
America
Urban Agric Region Food Syst. 2022;7:e20025. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/uar2 1of14
https://doi.org/10.1002/uar2.20025
2of14 WIEK AND ALBRECHT
1INTRODUCTION
Urban areas struggle with a plethora of sustainability chal-
lenges. Food-related sustainability challenges include land
degradation, water contamination, climate change contribu-
tions, negative health effects, as well as an unequal distri-
bution of economic benefits (Garnett, 2011; IAASTD, 2009;
Swinburn et al., 2011; Tilman & Clark, 2014). Sustainable
food forests have emerged as a promising solution to address
multiple urban sustainability challenges adaptable to local
contexts. They are biodiverse, multistrata agroforestry sys-
tems that focus on food production and yield several addi-
tional benefits including sequestering carbon, limiting soil
erosion, improving the water cycle, regulating the microcli-
mate, increasing biodiversity, offering sociocultural services
and creating livelihood opportunities (Jose, 2009;Nair&Gar-
rity, 2012; Roy et al., 2011). Organized as multifunctional
hybrids, many food forests pursue several of these services
and benefits (Albrecht & Wiek, 2020). With technical spec-
ifications, a food forest is a coherent, multistrata space with
mostly edible perennial plants, a minimum size of ∼0.5ha(1
acre), and 10% canopy cover to provide forest-like ecosystem
services and significant food production (Albrecht & Wiek,
2021a). Even in urban areas, such multistrata food-producing
polycultures, have begun to emerge as ‘urban agroforestry’
or ‘urban food forestry’ including small or spread-out edi-
ble landscapes (Borelli et al., 2017; Clark & Nicholas, 2013;
Lovell, 2010, 2020). One reason for this uptake in urban areas
is that food forests seem to be particularly potent solutions
to a plethora of urban sustainability challenges, offering ben-
efits through healthy food provision, satisfying jobs, cooling
effects, green spaces accessible to the public, and more (Clark
& Nicholas, 2013). Of the >200 food forests analyzed by
Albrecht & Wiek (2021a), 108, or 52%, are in urban areas.
Specifically, in the southwestern United States, a recent study
identified 12 out of 14 food forests/gardens located in (peri-
)urban areas (Allen & Mason, 2021).
Research has recently begun to investigate structure and
services of individual food forests (e.g., Riolo, 2019) and
larger samples of food forests (Albrecht & Wiek, 2021b).
Most research addresses the sociocultural and environmen-
tal effects of food forests (e.g., Park & Higgs, 2018;Wart-
man et al., 2018). Practical handbooks offer guidance on the
physical design of food forests (e.g., Crawford, 2010). A few
reports cover how food forests offer livelihood opportunities
(Remiarz, 2017; Shepard, 2013), while a broad comparative
study indicates that the economic dimension is underdevel-
oped in many food forests (Albrecht & Wiek, 2021a). Accord-
ing to this study, one main reason for this gap is that food
forests are often developed as variations of community gar-
dens, run by nonprofit organizations, and relying on volun-
teers as workforce, as opposed to sustainable enterprises. Very
few food forests are directly managed by a city administra-
Core Ideas
∙Sustainable food forest enterprises offer multiple
benefits to urban sustainability challenges.
∙It can be challenging to secure all factors that influ-
ence successful implementation.
∙Securing these factors benefits from a comprehen-
sive sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem.
tion, such as the Atlanta Browns Mill food forest, which offers
an approach to long-term management through public gover-
nance and funds.
A ‘sustainable’ food forest is a managed ecosystem
that produces healthy food, is economically viable (self-
sustaining), and generates environmental and social co-
benefits. It ought to comply with a set of sustainability criteria
(Albrecht & Wiek, 2021a): environment criteria, for example,
the food forest uses water efficiently, creates cooling effects,
and maintains high biodiversity; economic criteria, for exam-
ple, the food forest is economically viable and owned by the
food foresters (e.g., worker cooperative); and sociocultural
criteria, for example, the food forest facilitates community
building, a safe and healthy work environment, and engages
youth with nature and healthy food.
Most food forests struggle with one or more of these crite-
ria (Albrecht & Wiek, 2021a). In fact, many food forests are
not economically viable. This is due to structural challenges
(e.g., economic marginalization or lack of supportive policies)
as well as underdeveloped business plans and entrepreneurial
skills or over-reliance on volunteers. For food forests to
become sustainable and potentially be more widely adopted as
urban sustainability solutions, it seems promising to develop
them as sustainable ‘enterprises’ securing economic viabil-
ity in addition to creating environmental and social benefits
(Burch et al., 2013, 2016;Remiarz,2017). Sustainable enter-
prises are businesses that balance pursuits of economic via-
bility with broader social and environmental goals as the core
of their mission (Evans et al., 2017; Schaltegger et al., 2012).
Innovative business models that center on sustainability, inte-
grating economic, social, and environmental goals, include
particular types of social enterprises, cooperative businesses,
benefit corporations, and others. Successful development of
such ambitious enterprises calls for the ingenuity and dedica-
tion of entrepreneurs (Weber et al., 2020). Yet, it also depends
on several different but often interlinked ‘success factors.’
Recently, Albrecht and Wiek (2021b) have empirically identi-
fied success factors for implementing sustainable food forests,
including accessing suitable land, securing sufficient start-up
funds, and developing relevant know-how.
WIEK AND ALBRECHT 3of14
These success factors, in return, depend on a ‘sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem’ (Cohen, 2006), which is a network
of businesses and organizations that provides services and
support including financial services, training opportunities,
legal advice, political advocacy, and supportive regulations
within a region (Malecki, 2018). As research on sustainable
enterprises shows, such an ecosystem is the base for suc-
cessful development of sustainable businesses (e.g., Cohen,
2006; Uddin et al., 2015). While many regions still struggle
with providing a functional entrepreneurial ecosystem for
sustainable food forests (and similar endeavors), there are
some exceptions. In the Netherlands, for example, a large
public–private partnership facilitates an entrepreneurial
ecosystem that supports food forest development across the
country through the adoption of policies, implementation
of pilot projects, and coordination of research (Green Deal,
2020).
However, research on implementation, success factors, and
supportive entrepreneurial ecosystem functions for sustain-
able food forest enterprises is still at a nascent stage. Thus,
the research questions of this study are: How challenging is
it to secure the identified success factors for realizing sus-
tainable food forests? And what is the role of the sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem in securing them?
We address these questions through a case study on an
ongoing, multiyear, transdisciplinary project developing a
sustainable food forest enterprise in Phoenix, AZ. This project
is a collaboration between researchers and a coalition of non-
profit organizations (see section 2.1). It applied a sustainable
business development framework leading from familiariza-
tion and experiencing, through visioning and strategy build-
ing, to piloting and implementation (see section 2.2). We eval-
uate the project outputs vis-à-vis the success factors for devel-
oping sustainable food forest enterprises (Albrecht & Wiek,
2021b) and the components of a sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystem (Cohen, 2006) (see section 2.3). Accompanying
research combined direct and participant observation, project
document review, and other methods to answer the research
questions. The food forest in Phoenix, at the time of this writ-
ing, is almost implemented with major milestones achieved
(e.g., securing start-up funds, developing site and business
plans), but phases of stagnation and other turbulences con-
tinue to jeopardize the overall success. In summary, there is
growing evidence that food forests can offer various benefits,
particularly in urban areas, if carefully planned and designed
as sustainable enterprises, accounting for economic, envi-
ronmental, and social needs, and if being supported through
a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem. The results of this
study provide in-depth insights for food entrepreneurs, urban
developers, and city officials on how to develop and support
sustainable food forest enterprises as a solution to combat
multifaceted urban sustainability challenges.
2DEVELOPING A SUSTAINABLE
FOOD FOREST ENTERPRISE IN PHOENIX,
AZ
2.1 Case study selection
In fall 2018, representatives from the coalition of nonprofit
organizations called ‘Spaces of Opportunity’ and researchers
from Arizona State University formalized a long-term part-
nership on a transdisciplinary project to create a sustain-
able food forest enterprise at Spaces of Opportunity in South
Phoenix.
South Phoenix is historically stigmatized as a zone of
racial exclusion, economic marginalization, and environmen-
tal degradation (Bolin et al., 2005). A large share of Latinx
and African American communities lives here, and, despite
efforts by nonprofit organizations and the city administration,
educational and economic opportunities are still underdevel-
oped. Compared with other areas, housing prices are low, and
levels of air pollution and obesity are high (Boucher et al.,
2021; Cutts et al., 2009). Although historically a place of agri-
cultural production, South Phoenix is a food desert with little
or no access to fresh, affordable, and healthy food in walk-
able distance (USDA, 2017). Leapfrog development—were
land developers jumped to cheaper parcels—created urban
sprawl and leaves behind parcels of undeveloped land (Heim,
2001). Sparse shade and green spaces combined with con-
tinuous development of building and infrastructures increases
the urban heat island effect (Brazel et al., 2007; Zhang et al.,
2017). These challenges call for multifunctional, sustainable
solutions, such as sustainable food forests, that provide liveli-
hood opportunity, healthy food, and a cooler microclimate.
Spaces of Opportunity was founded in 2015 to address
these challenges in South Phoenix through urban agricul-
ture, food entrepreneurship, and education. The initiative
was created by nonprofit organizations located in South
Phoenix including the Orchard Community Learning Center
and TigerMountain Foundation. The initiative centers on a
∼7.7-ha (19-acre) site (1200 W Vineyard Rd, Phoenix) that
hosts an incubator farm, community gardens, and a weekly
farmer’s market (Figure 1). The site is leased for 10 yr from the
Roosevelt School District (2015–2025) with options to extend
the lease or enter an alternative ownership arrangement (e.g.,
land trust). Spaces of Opportunity cooperates with the City of
Phoenix administration (permits, etc.) and Arizona State Uni-
versity (research and development) as well as with the nearby
V.H. Lassen Elementary School including the jointly operated
Healthy Roots Café and Culinary Classroom located on the
school premises.
Accessing a suitable site is one of the main success fac-
tors to develop a sustainable food forest (Albrecht & Wiek,
2021b). The site for the food forest was selected based on
4of14 WIEK AND ALBRECHT
FIGURE 1 Spaces of Opportunity ∼7.7-ha (19-acre) incubator farm in South Phoenix. The yellow box indicates the planned location for the
∼0.5-ha (1-acre) food forest in the southeast section of the site (source: adapted Google Maps)
TABLE 1 Suitability of the site at Spaces of Opportunity for creating a sustainable food forest enterprise
Suitability criterion Fulfillment at the site of Spaces of Opportunity
Urban location South Phoenix, AZ
Urban sustainability challenges Food desert, low-income area, low canopy cover, few green spaces, low educational attainment
Size of >∼0.5 ha (1 acre) Coherent area of ∼0.5 ha (1 acre)
Access to key stakeholders Close to potential users (five schools in walking distance, established food distribution channels) and
potential entrepreneurs (members and network of Spaces of Opportunity)
Favorable land ownership Ten-year lease with school district, with the option for extensions, and interest in developing an
alternative land ownership arrangement (e.g., a land trust)
Favorable regulations No restrictions to agricultural land use; options for infrastructure permits
Critical infrastructure and
resources
Irrigation channels (water), connecting paths, composting site, storage and processing facilities, farmers
market (on Spaces of Opportunity site)
Access to relevant expertise Access to fruit tree experts and farmers
several criteria. Compared with the other 15 screened
locations, the site at Spaces of Opportunity is embedded
in a neighborhood in need of sustainable development,
is sufficiently large, offers access to potential users and
entrepreneurs, and so forth (Table 1). In summary, the site
at Spaces of Opportunity either scored higher than the other
sites on critical criteria or at least fulfilled them sufficiently.
2.2 The transdisciplinary project in
Phoenix: Design and outputs
The transdisciplinary food forest project at Spaces of
Opportunity applied a framework for sustainable business
development. This framework combines developing capacity
for adopting sustainable business practices (Wiek, 2020)
and sustainable business planning through visioning, strat-
egy building, and pilot testing (Wiek & Lang, 2016). The
capacity-building approach aimed at balancing cognitive,
affective, and practical components using visual, experiential,
and interactive activities to enhance the chance of continuous
application and engage different types of learners (Kolb,
2014; Sipos et al., 2008). The project is transdisciplinary
in nature (Lang et al., 2012), which entails a collaboration
between researchers from Arizona State University and the
Spaces of Opportunity coalition of nonprofit organizations.
The project started in 2018 and is structured into eight phases
of different durations, ranging from a few weeks to several
WIEK AND ALBRECHT 5of14
FIGURE 2 Phases of the transdisciplinary
project developing a sustainable food forest
enterprise in Phoenix, AZ (Phases 7 and 8 are
ongoing)
months, and spanning over more than 2.5 yr overall (with
dormant periods in between) (Figure 2).
Some of the phases overlapped or ran in parallel. For exam-
ple, after the project initiation (Phase 1), the inventory of food
forests (Phase 2) was continuously expanded and then fur-
ther used during networking and site selection (Phases 3) and
familiarizing with and experiencing exemplary food forests
(Phase 4). Or, after vision and strategy building (Phase 5),
their refinement and piloting (Phase 6) ran in parallel with
first explorations of transfer and scaling (Phase 8). Also, the
sequence of phases is structured in a circle to indicate various
iterations as well as the intention of the project to become a
source of inspiration for other food forest enterprise start-ups
in Arizona (and beyond). Compared with other food forests
(Albrecht & Wiek, 2021b), the development of the food forest
in Phoenix included a comprehensive planning phase. Finally,
the project is still ongoing, and thus, not all phases have
been completed at the time of this writing (Phases 7 and 8).
While the food forest is almost but not fully implemented
yet, the development process already generated several out-
puts (Table 2).
2.3 Design of accompanying research
Over the duration of the project, we conducted an accompa-
nying case study to evaluate the main project phases and their
outputs (Table 2). Success factors for developing sustainable
food forests, such as recruiting motivated entrepreneurs and
accessing suitable land, served as evaluative criteria (Albrecht
&Wiek,2021b). We focus on those factors most relevant in
the initiation and planning stage (Factors 1–4; Table 2). Other
factors are only briefly addressed as to indicate the overall sta-
tus of the business development.
Challenges to secure these factors are explained through the
lens of a comprehensive sustainable entrepreneurial ecosys-
tem (being in place or not). Since research on entrepreneurial
ecosystems is still at a nascent stage (Alvedalen & Boschma,
2017), we adapted the early work by Cohen (2006)onsustain-
able entrepreneurial ecosystem components and aligned them
with the success factors for sustainable food forests (Albrecht
&Wiek,2021b). Table 3connects the success factors rele-
vant for sustainable food forest development with the com-
ponents of a comprehensive entrepreneurial ecosystem in the
region (Arizona) and operationalizes the success factors and
the ecosystem components through two sets of guiding ques-
tions. It shows how behavioral, economic, institutional, and
infrastructure factors for successful development on the enter-
prise level (micro level) can be fostered by and, to some extent,
depend on sustainability-oriented support services offered by
the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the region (macro level). The
questions guided the qualitative analysis of data collected.
Data was collected through standard case study methods
(Somekh & Lewin, 2005) including direct and participant
observations (meetings, workshops, field trips, site visits),
review of documents (memorandums of understanding, vision
documents, draft site plan, strategy documents), informal con-
versations, a stakeholder survey, and research diary reflec-
tions (Albrecht, unpublished data). Information about the
state of the entrepreneurial ecosystem was based on >5yrof
experience through applied research on local businesses and
the local economy in Arizona.
We co-led the transdisciplinary project developing the food
forest enterprise and conducted the accompanying research
at the same time. In such a process, researchers wear ‘dif-
ferent hats’ at different times (Wittmayer & Schapke, 2014).
While the ‘double-duty’ model offers some advantages, such
6of14 WIEK AND ALBRECHT
TABLE 2 Overview of the transdisciplinary project phases and respective outputs
Phase Outputs
1 Project initiation Project coalition among representatives from Spaces of Opportunity, researchers from Arizona State
University, and a few interested entrepreneurs
Scope-of-work document mapping out project goals and the procedure to achieve them, document
vetted by urban policy makers and agroforestry experts
Memorandum of Understanding, based on scope-of-work document, signed by all partners
In-kind planning contributions ranging from expert inputs to event volunteering during the planning
phase of the project. One lead researcher (S.A.) with a 3-yr research stipend
2Compiling an inventory
of food forests
Inventory of 200+food forests that offer primarily services in food production, education, and
community building, capturing size, age, location, organization, etc. (Albrecht & Wiek, 2020)and
challenges for implementation (Albrecht & Wiek, 2021b)
Informed site selection as a definition of a food forest (coherent site, minimum size) and common
challenges and success factors were translated into site selection criteria (ownership, accessibility,
regulations, infrastructure, expertise)
Also used for initial networking and familiarizing of (potential) partners with different types of food
forests through visuals and comparative overviews
3Networking&site
selection
GIS maps for systematic exploration of suitable sites (developed by ASU researchers)
Out of 15 analyzed sites, a ∼0.5-ha (1-acre) site at Spaces of Opportunity was selected (Figure 1,
Table 1)
4Familiarization with &
experiencing of
exemplary food
forests
Through formal and informal trainings as well as site visits at urban (food) forest gardens, the project
team developed basic knowledge about food forestry, i.e.:
∙Exemplary food forests, history, services, structures, management, benefits, and challenges
∙Layers, plants, companion planting, high biodiversity, high production intensity
∙Cost, yields, products, revenue, native foods suitable for food forests
∙Alternative corporate forms (e.g., worker cooperative, B Corp)
∙Alternative ownership arrangements (e.g., land trust)
∙Resource (water) needs, irrigation infrastructure
∙Team also developed their collaborative capacities, recognizing interdependence and mutual
interests, as well as building trust and confidence in each other
5 Visioning & strategy
building
Shared vision of the sustainable food forest enterprise at Spaces of Opportunity outlining management,
products, services, land tenure, and other features for the year 2030
Strategy/action plan, consisting of 54 action items and 13 milestones, structured into action domains,
including fundraising, recruitment, business development, earthwork, planting, initial processing, and
documentation throughout
6Fundraising & piloting Business start-up fund (secured after 10 unsuccessful grant applications; based on sustainable business
plan draft (Wiek & Albrecht, 2021), a site visit at Spaces of Opportunity and a project presentation
from the entire team, a private donor decided to fund the project to the full extent ($100,000))
Additional business concepts prepared through a cooperative business development program for a
beverage company (Khalife et al., 2021), a feasibility study on developing Spaces of Opportunity into
a land trust (Mercer et al., 2020), and community conversations on preferred plants and food products
A small ($2,000) grant, used to develop a semi-functional display forest garden (∼1,500 sqft / ~140
sqm)
7 Implementing the
strategy
Business plan draft and site design (design supported by student work and paid consultants)
Implementation outputs to date: team of start-up entrepreneurs, earthwork, entrepreneurship training,
etc. (ongoing)
8Exploring transfer &
scaling
A workshop helped creating a state-wide network of stakeholders interested in or involved in food forest
projects, compiled knowledge on local challenges, coping strategies, supportive actions, and
transferability (Albrecht & Wiek, 2020)
Results were shared with the participants and distributed through the Southwest Agroforestry Action
Network (SWAAN) who supported some of the fundraising activities
WIEK AND ALBRECHT 7of14
TABLE 3 Correspondence between the success factors for developing sustainable food forest enterprises (Albrecht & Wiek, 2021b)and
relevant components of a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem (Cohen, 2006) supporting such enterprises
Success factor for
developing sustainable food
forests (Albrecht & Wiek,
2021b) Guiding question
Sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem
component (Cohen, 2006) Guiding question
1 Recruiting motivated
entrepreneurs
Is the food forest developed
and managed by
entrepreneurs who aim to
provide for livelihoods,
while producing healthy
food, and generating
environmental benefits?
Pool of skilled workers
(university)
Are there training
opportunities for
sustainable food
businesses and
entrepreneurship available
in the region?
2 Accessing suitable land Is the food forest site large
enough etc. and does the
ownership structure allow
for long-term access to the
land (>30 yr)?
[Pool of suitable and
affordable commercial
properties (local
government, real-estate
agencies)]
Are there suitable and
affordable properties for
urban agriculture available
in the region?
3 Securing sufficient start-up
funds
Are there sufficient funds for
land access, infrastructure,
plant setup, start-up
wages, etc. available?
Tax incentives, subsidies,
grants (local government)
Capital services (financial
organizations)
Are there accessible
financing options for the
start-up of sustainable
enterprises (with late
ROIs) available in the
region?
4Professionally planning and
designing the site
Are there sufficiently
complete business and site
plans available that fully
incorporate sustainability
(ecological, sociocultural,
economic) criteria?
Technical expertise
(consultants)
Training opportunities
(university)
Are there consulting services
on sustainable food
business and site planning
and development available
in the region?
5 Acquiring farming
know-how and equipment
Are there sufficient
knowledge, skills, tools for
long-term, multistrata site
management as well as
food production and
processing available?
Technical expertise
(consultants)
Training opportunities
(university)
Aretherespecifictraining
opportunities for food
forests (e.g., specialty
crop, polyculture, or
diversity farming), and
relevant equipment
available in the region?
6Acquiring entrepreneurial
know-how and tools
Are there sufficient
knowledge, skills, tools on
sustainable business
practices and models
available, incl.
organizational know-how
for structured procedures,
roles, and tasks, as well as
an entrepreneurial
mindset?
Start-up, financial, legal
support (consultants,
financial organizations)
Training opportunities
(university)
Aretherespecifictraining
opportunities for
sustainable business
practices and models (e.g.,
cooperatives, B corps) and
tools (e.g., revenue
templates, plant data base)
available in the region?
7 Informal and formal
networking
Are there opportunities to
meet stakeholders and
potential supporters across
sectors, in particular
stakeholders that can
address underdeveloped
success factor?
Network of peers
(businesses)
Networks of other ecosystem
actors (government,
financial organizations,
etc.)
Are there platforms and
forums for exchanges on
agroforestry and urban
farming as well as
sustainable business
practices available in the
region?
(Continues)
8of14 WIEK AND ALBRECHT
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Success factor for
developing sustainable food
forests (Albrecht & Wiek,
2021b) Guiding question
Sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem
component (Cohen, 2006) Guiding question
8 Diversifying revenue streams Are there plans and practices
in place that generate
revenues from multiple
products and/or services to
ensure resilience and
coverage of livelihoods?
[Financial, legal support
(consultants, financial
organizations)]
[Reliable demand
(consumers)]
Are there consulting services
for small-scale,
multifunctional farms in
the region and are
consumers willing and
able to pay for local,
small-scale farming
products?
9Overcoming regulatory
restrictions
Is there sufficient knowledge
of local regulations,
especially regarding land
use and services planned,
and procedures to navigate
restrictions?
Eliminating bureaucratic red
tape (local government)
Is there legal support for
sustainable food business
(e.g., favorable land use
regulations)?
Note. Square brackets indicate components we added to the ecosystem concept.
as access to data that would not be accessible otherwise, we
also encountered tensions and conflicts at times; most notably,
the challenge of evaluating one’s own work (Wiek et al.,
2014). While ideally there would be a separation between
the transdisciplinary team and the evaluating team, limited
financial resources often prevent this. The team committed to
avoiding biases in the self-evaluation by transparently docu-
menting data points and justifying the evaluative statements.
A comprehensive reflection is offered in a doctoral framework
paper (Albrecht, 2021).
3REVIEW OF PROJECT OUTCOMES
AGAINST SUCCESS FACTORS AND
SUSTAINABLE ENTREPRENEURIAL
ECOSYSTEM
Here, we review the presented project outputs (Table 2)
against the success factors (Table 3, left side) and explain chal-
lenges in realizing these factors through the lens of a compre-
hensive sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem (Table 3, right
side).
3.1 Recruiting motivated entrepreneurs
The project was initiated and advanced all the way to the
actual implementation phase (and beyond) through a small
team of motivated ‘change agents,’ or, in other words, through
an alternative business development team. Drivers for moti-
vation included alignment with organizational missions
(nonprofit and educational organizations), personal values
(sustainability, regeneration, healing), as well as financial
compensation (a PhD scholarship for the lead researcher,
S.A.); the latter provided for researching, networking,
facilitating as well as project management from initiation
to fundraising and piloting (Phase 1–6). Maintaining a
sufficient level of motivation, however, was difficult over
the course of the project particularly during the long series
of unsuccessful fundraising efforts. Creating a shared vision
to combat pressing, local sustainability challenges, such as
lack of healthy food, heat island effects, and social injustices
(Phase 5), contributed to perseverance. Joint activities also
had built trust in the team and helped to push through these
phases of stagnation, with some team members demonstrat-
ing leadership by identifying or contributing to fundraising
efforts, for example. As monthly stipends became available
for the start-up entrepreneurs (after securing a major start-up
donation)—who would actually build and run the cooperative
food forest enterprise—the development team was eventually
able to recruit five motivated start-up entrepreneurs.
The challenge in fully securing this success factor, in partic-
ular prior to fundraising the major start-up donation, points to
a deficit in the sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem of Ari-
zona. Economic development is dominated by conventional
processes mostly supporting standard businesses and rely-
ing on self-motivated, highly educated, and somewhat afflu-
ent entrepreneurs to pursue their goals. Targeted support for
starting a benefit corporation or a cooperative business is
very limited particularly for women, people of color, veter-
ans, and other underrepresented groups. Such services are
currently provided by a few lawyers and finance profession-
als, a few peer businesses (e.g., Technicians for Sustainabil-
ity in Tucson), a nonprofit organization (Arizona Cooperative
WIEK AND ALBRECHT 9of14
Initiative), and a research team at Arizona State University
(Sustainable Food Economy Lab). There are no dedicated
training or business development services provided for start-
ing a sustainable (food) business in Arizona, neither through
government agencies, nonprofit organizations, northe univer-
sities. The alternative business development team that enabled
this specific project came together through self-organizing
rather than through a dedicated mandate, and it does not con-
stitute a stable organization or network that would be filling
this void for similar start-up efforts in the future. Conventional
business education and preparation for standard jobs at large
corporations does not create a pool of motivated entrepreneurs
who are willing and skilled to secure loans and other means
to start a sustainable (food) business in Arizona. Yet, the sus-
tainable entrepreneurial ecosystem has very recently received
some notable additions, namely, a benefit corporation con-
sultancy (Thrive Consultancy, since fall 2020) dedicated to
sustainable business development as well as the first sustain-
able cooperative business development program in Arizona
through the City of Phoenix (approved at the City Council
meeting on 17 Mar. 2021).
3.2 Accessing suitable land
Finding a suitable site of at least ∼0.5 ha (1 acre) for the food
forest enterprise in metropolitan Phoenix was time intensive
and for quite some time unsuccessful because of financial and
land-use constraints (Phase 3). The systematic and criteria-
based approach, supported by geographical information sys-
tem and local land-use experts, proved to be beneficial for
identifying promising sites and eventually helped identifying
the Spaces of Opportunity farm as most suitable. The con-
sortium has informally agreed to lease ∼0.5 ha (of the ∼7.7-
ha [19-acre] site) to the food forest enterprise, yet the formal
approval is still pending. In this respect, the project was able
to secure this success factor. However, a food forest reaches
its full productive capacity as of operational Year 10, which
calls for a long-term (>30 yr) lease arrangement. Although
the landowner (Roosevelt School District) is supportive of the
project in general, the long-term lease or other forms of sta-
ble land access over several decades have not been officially
pursued and approved.
Like the previous success factor, the challenge of secur-
ing long-term land access points to a deficit in the sustain-
able entrepreneurial ecosystem of Arizona, in general, and
metropolitan Phoenix in particular. With several local farms at
risk of losing their land leases to housing and business devel-
opment, the region has not yet found a way in securing (urban)
agricultural land in support of a viable local food economy.
For most food production businesses, land lease costs are far
too high to allow for reaching economic viability in a rea-
sonable time frame (2–3 yr). Despite efforts from the City
of Phoenix to support and advance local food entrepreneur-
ship, little progress has been made on securing long-term
land access for urban agriculture including food forests. A
local nonprofit organization (Local First Arizona) has begun
to build and coordinate activities of an alliance with the mis-
sion to create a regional land trust for farmland; yet progress
is slow compared with the pace of land being converted and
developed.
3.3 Securing sufficient start-up funds
As described above, securing the start-up funds for this project
was tedious and took several years despite the wide range of
fundraising efforts undertaken including standard grant pro-
posals, leveraging funding through networking, and a major
competition (Phase 6). Several internal factors contributed
to this challenge. First, as mentioned above, the team had
little or no experience with actual business development.
Thus, retreating to the more familiar fundraising activities and
grant opportunities for nonprofit and educational organiza-
tions is understandable, yet did not match the actual nature
of the project (business) and the most suitable financing
options (loans, effect investment, social finance options). Sec-
ond, there were also some competing fundraising interests in
the team, as some team members wore several ‘hats.’ Thus,
fundraising efforts were often prioritized toward their home
organization or the Spaces of Opportunity farm in general
rather than toward the novel food forest enterprise. Finally,
the team did not sufficiently anticipate the obstacles to be
encountered and delayed prioritizing fundraising activities for
too long.
In addition, this challenge was aggravated by a gap in the
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem, namely, a lack of ded-
icated funding and financing services for sustainable (food)
businesses. First, there are the unique features of urban agri-
culture and the even more specific ones of urban food forests;
for example, their complex structure and synergistic nature
as well as the delay between planting and reaching high pro-
ductivity (after 10 yr), which are not understood by finan-
cial organizations. Second, most grant-giving and financial
organizations struggle with the integrated sustainability aspi-
ration of the proposed project, namely that the project pursues
economic development (of a new type) and social as well as
environmental goals. Finally, the project and the team does
not neatly fit into the simple categorization of either being a
nonprofit organization that pursues public benefits or a for-
profit organization that pursues private economic benefits.
The start-up funds were eventually secured rather by acci-
dent; a private donor learned about the food forest enterprise
start-up project who understands and appreciates its complex
nature and ambitious aspirations. The legislation for new cor-
porate forms in Arizona, namely, benefit corporation statues
10 of 14 WIEK AND ALBRECHT
(since 2014) and comprehensive cooperative business statues
(since 2016), could offer more stable financing options (if and
when fully endorsed). Both corporate forms support the pur-
suit of private economic benefits and public benefits.
3.4 Professionally planning and designing
the site
Participatory planning expertise within the team, dedicated
team members (e.g., lead researcher), (paid) external consult-
ing and student support, and community engagement helped
developing a professional vision and site plan based on a com-
prehensive set of sustainability criteria as well as a robust
strategy (action plan) and a detailed business plan draft (Phase
5–7). Not all parts of the business plan were fully devel-
oped because the plan is intended to invite and encourage
the start-up entrepreneurs to deeply engage with the plan
and make it theirs (transfer of ownership). All team members
were engaged and motivated to contribute to the site planning,
while the actual business plan development was mostly under-
taken by the project leaders (authors of this paper). Securing
this success factor largely benefited from provided funding for
the lead researcher through a PhD scholarship.
The sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem, like the pre-
vious factors, does not offer stable planning support ser-
vices. Because of extra efforts from the team, experts (e.g.,
in landscape architecture, permaculture, cooperative busi-
ness practices) were recruited and university resources were
leveraged, which required, in all cases, specific negotiations
and developing genuine planning support services. The gap
identified for the recruitment of motivated and skilled start-
up entrepreneurs extends into this area as well; Arizona, in
general, and metropolitan Phoenix, specifically, do not host
stable organizations that offer specific and comprehensive
business planning for urban farming and food businesses
with ambitious sustainability aspirations. While Arizona State
University, through its (discontinued) Prepped program, and
the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension offered
and still offer some valuable services to farmers and food
entrepreneurs, they do not cover urban agriculture, sustain-
ability, business model innovation, or novel food production
and processing structures and processes (e.g., food forests).
3.5 Securing the remaining success factors
The remaining success factors are relevant for later stages of
the implementation and the actual operation of the food for-
est enterprise (Phase 7). Some of them have been anticipated
and already secured through financial resources, which allow
for leasing land and facilities as well as purchasing equipment
and plants. Expertise in the team or partnerships allow for pro-
viding specific trainings to the start-up entrepreneurs includ-
ing specific food forest management techniques and how to
run a cooperative (food) business. Through existing networks,
team members can leverage informal and formal network-
ing to create business partnerships, cooperate with anchor
institutions, and share resources and experiences. Securing
the remaining success factors, namely diversifying revenue
streams and overcoming regulatory restrictions, has been pre-
pared through high product diversity outlined in the business
plan draft as well as through the creation and composition of
an advisory board to support the start-up entrepreneurs in nav-
igating regulatory obstacles. Yet, there are several uncertain-
ties that will require additional efforts to fully secure these
success factors. Like the previous findings, the sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem for these factors displays several
gaps that would need to be bridged for full functionality.
4 DISCUSSION
The planning and early implementation processes of a sus-
tainable food forest enterprise in South Phoenix, with all
its setbacks and preliminary achievements, offers numer-
ous insights regarding success factors and sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem for food forest development, in par-
ticular, and urban agriculture, in general. Four insights con-
nected to our research question stood out.
First, the project confirms the importance of most of the
success factors as well as their interdependence as outlined
in Albrecht & Wiek (2021b). Recruitment of motivated start-
up entrepreneurs, accessing suitable land, securing sufficient
start-up funds, and professional planning and site design were
and continue to be critical factors in this project, and the other
factors are expected to become relevant over the course of the
start-up phase. In line with previous research on small farm
and food business development (DiGiacomo et al., 2003),
insufficient realization of any of these critical factors cre-
ated major obstacles for the project, slowing down progress
(e.g., land access) or bringing it almost to a halt (e.g., start-up
funds). Most of these factors are well known in the context
of sustainable business start-ups (e.g., Hoogendoorn et al.,
2019). However, the findings also offer more nuanced inter-
pretations of the success factors. For example, considering
the complexity of the aspired food forest enterprise (e.g.,
multistrata natural system, food production and processing,
and cooperative business structure), recruiting only motivated
start-up entrepreneurs would not suffice. Experiences with the
business development team and research on capacity build-
ing for complex organizations (Taylor-Powell & Boyd, 2008)
suggest that complementary skill sets (e.g., farming, educa-
tion, sustainable business development), team orientation, and
basic project management knowledge are critical conditions to
this broader success factor. Some of these might be built over
WIEK AND ALBRECHT 11 of 14
the course of the start-up phase (cf. “trainings, coaching, men-
toring” as success factors), but resources, time, and capacities
are limited. Hence, integrating team members with business
background can be crucial when working with environmen-
tal and social entrepreneurs (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011)to
recruit a team of motivated start-up entrepreneurs for a sus-
tainable enterprise. In the marginalization context of our case,
recruiting entrepreneurs can be challenging because of lack of
business literacy, scarcity mindset, intense nonbusiness pres-
sures, and lack of safety nets, which can limit development of
an entrepreneurial mindset (Morris & Tucker, 2021).
Second, it is very challenging to secure all the critical suc-
cess factors if the sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem is not
sufficiently developed. The project encountered many obsta-
cles in realizing these factors and often relied on special ini-
tiatives from team members, generous offerings from part-
ners within the network, or luck. At times, this is not even
a result of a lack of leadership or conducive regulations (e.g.,
novel corporate forms do exist in Arizona) but rather is due
to a lack of stable support services that would allow taking
advantage of such regulations (Knapp et al., 2016). In most
cases, challenges stem from the overreliance on the conven-
tional model of economic development that places empha-
sis on self-motivated, highly educated, and somewhat afflu-
ent start-up entrepreneurs, thereby, systematically sidelining
women, people of color, and other marginalized groups that
do not have sufficient access to these resources (Edmondson,
1999).
Third, there is flexibility in securing these success factors.
In fact, the project analyzed here confirms the importance
of entrepreneurial creativity in the absence of a sufficiently
developed sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem. For exam-
ple, the success factor ‘recruiting motivated entrepreneurs’—
who take it all on themselves to develop the business—was
not the strategy pursued here. In the presented case, most of
the planning and preparation work was done by an alterna-
tive business development team, which seems a viable option
for similar endeavors. Yet, flexibility has its limits and needs
to be carefully navigated as not to jeopardize overall vision
achievement. A good example is the factor ‘land tenure,’
which is important for long-term investments such as food
trees (Belcher et al., 2005; Rois-Díaz et al., 2018). While
our research confirmed the main components of sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystems (Cohen, 2006), providing a pool
of suitable and affordable properties was added as a key com-
ponent in support of urban agriculture businesses. Private land
ownership can be a risky strategy, as food forests exceed the
lifetime of managers, and life transitions, like aging, death,
relocation or divorce, can lead to removal or decline of food
forests (Allen & Mason, 2021; Bukowski & Munsell, 2018).
Considering the development pressure in most metropolitan
areas, public–private partnerships for accessing suitable land,
as pursued in this case, seems promising as (underutilized)
public land can be used for sustainable farming at affordable
cost. Yet, it is a somewhat risky strategy because, while pro-
viding land tenure security, it may also limit entrepreneurial
land use or require time-intensive change of codes and reg-
ulations that may or may not happen (Bukowski & Munsell,
2018;Remiarz,2017). With heavy reliance on special initia-
tive and conducive circumstances, such initiatives will remain
exceptions and only the further development of the sustain-
able entrepreneurial ecosystem will allow transfer and multi-
plication (see Malecki, 2018). However, pioneering projects
like the one analyzed here are important for bridging gaps
in the ecosystem. The cooperative business development pro-
gram recently seed-funded by the City of Phoenix draws on
early efforts of this food forest enterprise start-up project
(Khalife et al., 2021). In conjunction with the outreach and
networking activities (Phase 8), niche efforts can eventually
grow into stable services provided to a broad spectrum of
entrepreneurs with sustainability ambitions.
And fourth, the findings of this study point to the fact that
a mature sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem is essential
for sustainable (food) business and economic development.
Society would be ill-advised to think that a sustainable and
just food economy happens because businesses ‘just do the
right thing.’ Current structural injustices favor privileged
entrepreneurs, and a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem
needs to be fully developed for everyone to get a fair chance
at sustainable entrepreneurial success. Most of the identified
challenges and the extra need for entrepreneurial improvi-
sation and ingenuity can be explained through gaps in the
existing ecosystem. Other cities have demonstrated how to
support sustainable and cooperative business development
more comprehensively through a broad spectrum of services
(Sutton, 2019).
5CONCLUSIONS
Successful planning and implementation of urban food
forests, in particular, and urban agricultural, in general, relies
on a suite of interconnected success factors. Although the
shared vision of a sustainable food forest enterprise that
combats pressing urban sustainability challenges can provide
strong motivation for and spark perseverance in entrepreneurs
and supporters, insufficient realization of even just one suc-
cess factor (e.g., insufficient start-up funds) might jeopar-
dize the entire success. Thereby, realizing these factors heav-
ily depends on the sufficient development of a sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem providing support services such as
training, financing, legal advice, political advocacy, among
others. If this ecosystem is not in place or not to a suffi-
cient degree, significant additional burden is put on start-
up entrepreneurs or alternative business development teams.
This study contributes to theory building by confirming the
12 of 14 WIEK AND ALBRECHT
importance of the previously identified success factors and
the sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem supporting start-up
endeavors in successfully realizing these factors. This study
implies for start-up entrepreneurs and alternative business
development teams that high levels of entrepreneurial cre-
ativity, ingenuity, and cooperative arrangements are needed
if the sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem is insufficiently
developed. Urban developers and city officials are advised to
partner with urban agriculture pioneers, such as urban food
forest entrepreneurs, to develop or enhance the ecosystem
that enables sustainable food forest enterprises to emerge and
thrive.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was made possible within the graduate school
“Processes of Sustainability Transformation,” which is a
cooperation between Leuphana University of Lüneburg and
the Robert Bosch Stiftung. Stefanie Albrecht gratefully
acknowledges financial support from the Robert Bosch
Stiftung (12.5.F082.0021.0). Arnim Wiek acknowledges
financial support from the Social Sciences and Humani-
ties Research Council of Canada (TRANSFORM: Accelerat-
ing Sustainability Entrepreneurship Experiments at the Local
Scale, 50658-10029), as well as from the Belmont Forum and
the Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe (Globally and
Locally-Sustainable Food-Water-Energy Innovation in Urban
Living Labs (GLOCULL), 730254). We would like to thank
our project partners from Spaces of Opportunity, especially
John Wann-Ángeles, Amy Simpson, Darren Chapman, Bruce
Babcock, and Sowan Thai for the fruitful collaboration over
the past several years. We would like to thank the Sustain-
able Food Economy (former) lab members Dr. Nigel Forrest,
Nicholas Shivka, and Hanna Layton for support in facilitat-
ing events and assisting with grant applications; Prof. Daoqin
Tong, Jordan Smith, Kevin Carranza, Yueling Li, and Kelly
Bitler for GIS support; Sadhbh Jouarez Bourke for facilitation
support; Maud Dieminger and Kelly Baur for visual documen-
tation of the project and the research; Jacq Davis and Pamela
Mace for the field visit of their forest gardens; and V.H. Lassen
Elementary School for hosting project events.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Arnim Wiek: Study conceptualization; Data collection and
analysis; Writing-original draft; Writing-review & editing.
Stefanie Albrecht: Study conceptualization; Project manage-
ment; Data collection and analysis; Writing-review & editing.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
ORCID
Arnim Wiek https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8058-6440
Stefanie Albrecht https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1614-4503
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S. (2021). Developing sustainable food forests—Key features,
success factors, and transdisciplinary partnerships [Doctoral disser-
tation, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany].
Albrecht, S., & Wiek, A. (2020). Implementing sustainable food
forests: A transfer workshop for stakeholders in Arizona.Sustainable
Food Economy Lab, Arizona State University. https://web.asu.edu/
sites/default/files/slfee/files/food_forest_workshop_dec_2019_final.
pdf
Albrecht, S., & Wiek, A. (2021a). Food forests: Their services and
sustainability. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Commu-
nity Development,10, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.
103.014
Albrecht, S., & Wiek, A. (2021b). Implementing sustainable food
forests—Extracting success factors through a cross-case comparison.
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development,
11, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.111.019
Allen, J. A., & Mason, A. C. (2021). Urban food forests in the American
Southwest. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems,6, e20018.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uar2.20018
Alvedalen, J., & Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial
ecosystems research: towards a future research agenda. European
Planning Studies,25, 887–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.
2017.1299694
Belcher, B., Michon, G., Angelsen, A., Ruiz Pérez, M., & Asb-
jornsen, H. (2005). The socioeconomic conditions determining
the development, persistence, and decline of forest garden sys-
tems. Economic Botany,59, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-
0001(2005)059(0245:TSCDTD)2.0.CO;2
Bolin, B., Grineski, S., & Collins, T. (2005). The geography of despair:
Environmental racism and the making of South Phoenix, Arizona,
USA. Human Ecology Review,12, 156–168.
Borelli, S., Conigliaro, M., Quaglia, S., & Salbitano, F. (2017). Urban
and Peri-urban Agrofore str y as Multifunctional Land Use. In J. Dagar,
&V.Tewari(Eds.),Agroforestry (pp. 705–724). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-10-7650-3_28
Boucher, J. L., Levenda, A. M., Carpenter, C., Morales-Guerrero, J., &
Karwat, D. M. A. (2021). Environmental justice in Phoenix, Arizona:
a neighbourhood deficit and asset score. Local Environment,26, 692–
718. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1916899
Brazel, A., Gober, P., Lee, S.‑J., Grossman-Clarke, S., Zehnder, J.,
Hedquist, B., & Comparri, E. (2007). Determinants of changes in the
regional urban heat island in metropolitan Phoenix (Arizona, USA)
between 1990 and 2004. Climate Research,33, 171–182. https://doi.
org/10.3354/cr033171
Bukowski, C., & Munsell, J. (2018). The community food forest hand-
book: How to plan, organize, and nurture edible gathering places.
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Burch, S., Andrachuk, M., Carey, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Schroeder, H.,
Mischkowski, N., & Loorbach, D. (2016). Governing and accelerat-
ing transformative entrepreneurship: exploring the potential for small
business innovation on urban sustainability transitions. Current Opin-
ion in Environmental Sustainability,22, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.COSUST.2017.04.002
Burch, S., Schroeder, H., Rayner, S., & Wilson, J. (2013). Novel multi-
sector networks and entrepreneurship: The role of small businesses
in the multilevel governance of climate change. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy,31, 822–840. https://doi.org/10.
1068/c1206
WIEK AND ALBRECHT 13 of 14
Clark, K. H., & Nicholas, K. A. (2013). Introducing urban food forestry:
A multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide
ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology,28, 1649–1669. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10980-013-9903-z
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Busi-
ness Strategy and the Environment,15, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.428
Crawford, M. (2010). Creating a forest garden. Green Books.
Cutts, B. B., Darby, K. J., Boone, C. G., & Brewis, A. (2009). City
structure, obesity, and environmental justice: An integrated analysis
of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park access.
Social Science & Medicine,69, 1314–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.socscimed.2009.08.020
DiGiacomo, G., Robert P. King, & Dale Nordquist. (2003). Building a
sustainable business: A guide to developing a business plan for farms
and rural businesses. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Edu-
cation (SARE). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/211870/files/
building_a_sustainable_business.pdf
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M.,
Silva, E. A., & Barlow, C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for
sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustain-
able business models. Business Strategy and the Environment,26,
597–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939
Edmondson, V. C. (1999). The elite theory of entrepreneurship chal-
lenged: It’s a new day and a new niche. Journal of Career Develop-
ment,26, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/089484539902600104
Garnett, T. (2011). Where are the best opportunities for reducing green-
house gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?
Food Policy,36, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.
010
Green Deal. (2020). Green Deal Voedselbossen.https:
//greendealvoedselbossen.nl
Hoogendoorn, B., Van der Zwan, P., & Thurik, R. (2019). Sustainable
entrepreneurship: The role of perceived barriers and risk. Journal
of Business Ethics,157, 1133–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
017-3646-8
Heim, C. E. (2001). Leapfrogging, urban sprawl, and growth manage-
ment: Phoenix, 1950–2000. American Journal of Economics and
Sociology,60, 245–283.
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development. (2009). Agriculture at a crossroads
- Global Report.http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.
11822/8590/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report.pdf
Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmen-
tal benefits: An overview. Agroforestry Systems,76, 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
Khalife, H., Shivka, N., Layton, H., & Wiek, A. (2021). Sustainable
cooperative business development program: Pilot project to develop a
sustainable cooperative beverage company. Sustainable Food Econ-
omy Lab, Arizona State University.
Knapp, L., Veen, E., Renting, H., Wiskerke, J. S. C., & Groot, J. C. J.
(2016). Vulnerability analysis of urban agriculture projects: A case
study of community and entrepreneurial gardens in the Netherlands
and Switzerland. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems,1,
urbanag2015.01.1410. https://doi.org/10.2134/urbanag2015.01.1410
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of
learning and development. FT Press.
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll,
P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. (2012). Transdisciplinary research
in sustainability science: Practice, principles and challenges. Sustain-
ability Science,7, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-
x
Lovell, S. (2010). Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land
use planning in the United States. Sustainability,2, 2499–2522. https:
//doi.org/10.3390/su2082499
Lovell, S. (2020). Urban agroforestry and its potential integration into
city planning efforts. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems,5.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uar2.20000
Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems. Geography Compass,12, e12359. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.
12359
Mercer, M., Lantz, J., Fehr, V., & Wiek, A. (2020). Securing farmland
for regenerative urban agriculture: Models for the spaces of opportu-
nities urban farm in South Phoenix. Sustainable Food Economy Lab,
Arizona State University.
Morris, M. H., & Tucker, R. (2021). The entrepreneurial mindset and
poverty. Journal of Small Business Management, 1–30. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1890096
Nair, P. R., & Garrity, D. (Eds.). (2012). Agroforestry - The future of
global land use.Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4676-
3
Park, H., & Higgs, E. (2018). A criteria and indicators monitoring
framework for food forestry embedded in the principles of ecologi-
cal restoration. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,190, 113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6494-9
Remiarz, T. (2017). Forest gardening in practice: An illustrated practical
guide for homes, communities & enterprises. Permanent Publications.
Riolo, F. (2019). The social and environmental valueof public urban food
forests: The case study of the Picasso Food Forest in Parma, Italy.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,45, 126225. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ufug.2018.10.002
Rois-Díaz, M., Lovric, N., Lovric, M., Ferreiro-Domínguez, N.,
Mosquera-Losada, M. R., den Herder, M., Graves, A., Palma, J. H. N.,
Paulo, J. A., Pisanelli, A., Smith, J., Moreno, G., García, S., Varga,
A., Pantera, A., Mirck, J., & Burgess, P. (2018). Farmers’ reason-
ing behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: evidence from mul-
tiple case-studies across Europe. Agroforestry Systems,92, 811–828.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0139-9
Roy, M. M., Tewari, J. C., & Ram, M. (2011). Agroforestry for cli-
mate change adaptations and livelihood improvement in Indian hot
arid regions. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences
(IJACS),3, 43–54.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2012). Business
cases for sustainability: the role of business model innovation for cor-
porate sustainability. International Journal of Innovation and Sustain-
able Development,6, 95–119.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and
sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strat-
egy and the Environment,20, 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.
682
Shepard, M. (2013). Restoration agriculture. Acres U.S.A.
Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative
sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,9, 68–86. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14676370810842193
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the
social sciences. SAGE Publications. https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/
97581/
14 of 14 WIEK AND ALBRECHT
Sutton, S. A. (2019). Cooperative cities: Municipal support for worker
cooperatives in the United States. Journal of Urban Affairs,41, 1081–
1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1584531
Swinburn, B. A., Sacks, G., Hall, K. D., McPherson, K., Finegood, D. T.,
Moodie, M. L., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2011). The global obesity pan-
demic: Shaped by global drivers and local environments. The Lancet,
378, 804–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60813-1
Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sus-
tainability and human health. Nature,515, 518–522. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nature13959
Taylor-Powell, E., & Boyd, H. H. (2008). Evaluation capacity building in
complex organizations. New Directions for Evaluation,2008, 55–69.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.276
Uddin, M., Hindu, R. C., Alsaqour, R., Shah, A., Abubakar, A., & Saba,
T. (2015). Knowledge management framework using green IT to
implement sustainable entrepreneur ecosystem. Applied Mathematics
& Information Sciences,9, 2703. https://doi.org/10.12785/AMIS%
2F090556
USDA. (2017). Food access research atlas. USDA–ERS. https://www.
ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/
Wartman, P., van Acker, R., & Martin, R. (2018). Temperate agro-
forestry: How forest garden systems combined with people-based
ethics can transform culture. Sustainability,10, 2246. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su10072246
Weber, H., Wiek, A., & Lang, D. J. (2020). Sustainability entrepreneur-
ship to address large distances in international food supply. Business
Strategy and Development,3, 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.
97
Wiek, A. (2020). Building capacity in SMEs to adopt sustainable prac-
tices. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University.
Wiek, A., & Albrecht, S. (2021). Business plan draft for the Opportuni-
ties food forest: A sustainable food forest at spaces of opportunity in
South Phoenix. Sustainable Food Economy Lab, Arizona State Uni-
versity.
Wiek, A., & Lang, D.J. (2016). Transformational sustainability research
methodology. In Heinrichs, H., Martens, P., Michelsen, G., &
Wiek,A.(Eds.),Sustainability science: An introduction (pp. 31–41).
Springer.
Wiek, A., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M., & Robinson, J. (2014). Towards a
methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participa-
tory sustainability research. Research Evaluation,23, 117–132. https:
//doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt031
Wittmayer, J., & Schapke, N. (2014). Action, research and participa-
tion: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability
Science,9, 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4
Zhang, Y., Murray, A. T., & Turner Ii, B. L. (2017). Optimizing green
space locations to reduce daytime and nighttime urban heat island
effects in Phoenix, Arizona. Landscape and Urban Planning,165,
162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.009
How to cite this article: Wiek, A., & Albrecht, S.
(2022). Almost there: On the importance of a
comprehensive entrepreneurial ecosystem for
developing sustainable urban food forest enterprises.
Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems,
7:e220025. https://doi.org/10.1002/uar2.20025
Content uploaded by Stefanie Albrecht
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stefanie Albrecht on Feb 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
