Preparing Urban Agriculture as a Tool for Food Security in a Municipality: A Case Study of the Huay Lan Subdistrict Municipality, Dok Khamtai District, Phayao Province, Thailand

Abstract

This research examines the socio-economic and environmental conditions of farmers in a subdistrict municipality in northern Thailand. The objectives are to explore the potential of urban agriculture in sustainable agriculture and food security and to spatially classify farm plots to support decision-making in the formation of a farmer coalition based on the collected data. The study surveyed 80 farm households selected based on their participation in a sustainable agriculture workshop in 2018, which focused on biochar technology and reducing open burning. Structured questionnaires covering social, economic, and environmental variables were used between December 2018 and January 2019. The impacts of natural disasters in 2021 and 2022 were also monitored. Statistical analyses, including mean, correlation, and clustering techniques (K-means and TwoStep clustering), were conducted. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were employed to create thematic maps based on the classification results. The findings highlight uncertainties in future food security due to labor shortages, low productivity, income, and chemical use. The spatial clustering results provide insights into weaknesses and development opportunities. A farmer coalition can advocate, train, share experiences, and engage the community in a commercial agriculture plan, enhancing food security. This approach leverages spatial clustering to identify improvements and drive sustainable agricultural development through collective efforts.

1. Introduction

In 2021, the global urban population accounted for 56.61% of the world’s total population, marking a 1.69% increase from 2020 [1]. Based on the most recent projections from the United Nations, it is anticipated that the world’s population will reach approximately 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050, and 10.4 billion by 2100. With the population growth, the demand for food to sustain this increase is projected to rise by 70% compared to the present [2]. However, the expansion of urban areas has led to the conversion of agricultural lands in rural areas into cities [3]. This shift has raised concerns about food security in terms of whether increased urbanization will impact the availability of food.

The reduction of agricultural land in rural areas is not the only factor affecting food security; natural disasters and climate changes, e.g., temperature rise, sea level rise, and extreme weather events such as drought and heavy rainfall, have also caused significant damage to food production. Other issues include the equitable distribution of nutritious food, ensuring access for all, minimizing the use of toxic agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and achieving a balanced approach to agricultural development encompassing social, economic, and environmental aspects. Given these challenges, urban agriculture has emerged as a potential solution for enhancing food security within cities. Urban agriculture allows cities to play a dual role as both consumers and producers of food. By implementing urban agriculture, the delivery distances of food can be reduced, enhancing accessibility and potentially lowering food prices. Additionally, urban agriculture can generate employment opportunities for the urban poor and migrants from rural areas.

This research aims to encourage subdistrict municipalities to proactively adopt urban agriculture as a means of ensuring food security and to assist municipalities that have recently transitioned from rural to urban areas and still possess existing agricultural lands that are available for development. The objectives of the research are to explore the potential of urban agriculture to achieve sustainable agriculture and food security goals in the subdistrict municipality and to investigate the practical approach to forming a farmer coalition to support food security policies through training, knowledge sharing among farmers, and agricultural development marketing. The research will involve an analysis of the socio-economic and environmental conditions and a spatial classification of farm plots based on these data within the subdistrict municipality.

By promoting urban agriculture as an essential method for food security, this research endeavors to inspire subdistrict municipalities to take proactive measures to advance urbanization and population growth. By harnessing the potential of urban agriculture, these municipalities can enhance their resilience and contribute to sustainable development.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Dynamic Concept of Food Security

The focus on addressing food-related crises at the global level has led to a shift in the concept of food security [4]. The widely accepted definition, established during the 1996 World Food Summit, states that food security exists when every person has the ability and financial means to obtain an ample supply of safe and nutritious food that satisfies their dietary requirements and personal preferences, ensuring a healthy and active lifestyle. This definition encompasses four fundamental components of the food security framework [4]:

• Availability: Ensuring an adequate amount of food with appropriate nutritional value;
• Accessibility: Ensuring suitable food choices for a nourishing diet;
• Utilization: Satisfactory nutrition, access to clean water, sanitation, and healthcare that meet the requirements for both nutritional well-being and physiological needs.
• Steadiness: Continued accessibility and food obtainability.

During the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP 22) in 2016, the focus was on the influence of climate change on agricultural practices and the resultant food insecurity. The conference also addressed the integration of urban food policy into policies related to social, economic, and environmental aspects to foster sustainable development. Additionally, discussions revolved around building networks between global and local food-related policies and programs, emphasizing the participation of all stakeholders in their development, execution, and evaluation [5].

In 2017, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) introduced the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This significant decision aimed to challenge the impact of climate change on agriculture by integrating various topics, including soils, nutrient use, water, livestock, adaptation assessment methods, and the socio-economic and food security dimensions. This concept was accepted for inclusion into COP 27 in 2022 to facilitate climate mitigation in agriculture and sustain food security [6].

The initiative known as Food for the Cities, established in 2009, has played a crucial role in facilitating increased dialogue and partnerships between international and national institutions, particularly with municipalities. This initiative operates as an online platform that provides tools and services to connect individuals and organizations in the international development community. Over time, this network has evolved into a community of practices, boasting more than 2500 members from 114 countries. It includes a global community of experts ranging from professionals in the field of development to academic experts, fostering connections between research and practices on sustainable food systems and urbanization [7].

Research on food security conducted between 1991 and 2021 can be classified into three stages: an early period from 1991 to 2003, a development phase from 2004 to 2012, and a highly productive and active period from 2013 to 2020 [8].

Food Security, Sustainability, and Food Policy were found to be the top three journals discussing food security issues. Within the field of food security, climate change, agriculture, food security, policy, and management emerge as high-frequency keywords. Currently, the most popular themes revolve around food production, climate change, and sustainable development [8].

2.2. Urban Agriculture Concept Development

Urban agriculture (UA) has been practiced in tandem with growing cities since 3500 B.C. [9]. The concept of UA has evolved over time in response to various social, political, economic, and environmental factors within different countries. Dobele and Zvirbule [10] outlined the development of the UA concept into three stages:

• The basic principles of urban planning (3500 B.C.–17th century): Driven by the establishment of cities, regional autonomy, and population expansion;
• The changing function of UA (18th century–1st half of the 20th century): Influenced by industrialization, economic and social depression resulting from world wars, and limited resources;
• The resurgence of urban agriculture (2nd half of the 20th century–present): Marked by the adoption of sustainable development concepts, science and research, technological advancements, and shifting societal values.

Urban agriculture takes on various forms depending on inputs, outputs, multiple benefits, and management strategies to address the challenges posed by limited land availability for agricultural activities. These variations are contingent upon technological advancements and different business models. Urban agriculture plays a central role in potentially contributing to numerous sustainable development goals (SDGs) while addressing various environmental aspects, including land, water, and climate [11]. In densely populated cities with limited land, urban agriculture approaches vary based on factors such as local government policies, private sector support, community norms, topography, and the availability of vacant or public land for cultivation. Five notable examples include [12,13,14,15]:

• Rosario city, Argentina: Public land is utilized to grow crops without the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, emphasizing self-sustainability and environmental friendliness;
• Shanghai city, China: Former trash dumps have been transformed into effective composts used as fertilizers in urban farms, addressing pollution issues and providing food for the growing population.
• Melbourne, Australia: Urban agriculture primarily focuses on horticulture, community gardens, and street gardens. These contemporary gardens prioritize sustainability, producing fresh food or enhancing the urban landscape with ornamental foliage without the use of chemical fertilizers.
• Saskatoon, Canada: The city encourages young individuals to transform containers into gardens for horticulture in the central region of Saskatoon’s west side.
• Medellín, Colombia: The municipality developed an urban kitchen gardens program to guarantee access to food and encourage a nutritious diet among local inhabitants. The program encourages participation by providing tools, seeds, workshops on gardening techniques, and opportunities to sell excess produce.

However, studies conducted in Bolgatanga Township, Ghana have shown a decline in urban agricultural lands and practices due to conversion into urban infrastructure and residential areas driven by urbanization. To address this, the study emphasized the need for relevant policy interventions that preserve agricultural lands and advocate for food-inclusive planning schemes as the basis for future physical plans to guide land use in peri-urban and rural zones [16].

In India, urban agriculture predominantly centers around the growth of edible crops such as vegetables, fruits, and flowers, with the primary aim of meeting the dietary needs of the local population. To address water shortages for agriculture, urban farming practices across India incorporate treated wastewater for irrigation. Furthermore, organic waste is utilized in the production of fertilizers to reduce urban waste accumulation on land, mirroring a case reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Havana, Cuba, where extensive farming led to the near elimination of local refuse dumps for household waste [17,18].

A study conducted by Bannor et al. [19] examined the food security situation of households engaged in urban agriculture in Ghana and India. The results indicated that, on average, households in Ghana encounter a certain level of food insecurity, whereas households in India experience a higher degree of food insecurity. The extent of urban agriculture participation and various demographic, economic, and institutional factors influence urban food security in different ways in both countries. Notably, the study demonstrated that a significant positive relationship exists between the extent of urban agriculture and food security in both countries.

On 10 November 2022, the FAO co-hosted an event during COP 27 to discuss the role of cities in transforming food systems within a multi-level governance context. With food systems contributing up to 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions and over 70% of food consumption occurring in urban areas, cities play a critical role in both the challenges and solutions. City leaders are essential in the identification of relevant strategies to address social, economic, and environmental issues while strengthening urban–rural connections for increased resilience [20].

In 2015, Milan, Italy hosted the World Expo event under the theme “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life”. During the event, mayors from 150 cities signed the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP), the world’s first international agreement on sustainable urban food systems. The pact acknowledges the noteworthy contributions that urban agriculture can offer in terms of achieving the social, economic, and ecological goals of sustainable urban development. However, it highlights the need for proper municipal policies and legislation to support urban farmers and mitigate potential risks. The challenge lies in integrating urban agriculture into sustainable urban development and recognizing its value as a social, economic, and environmental benefit [21,22,23].

2.3. Biochar Technology and Applications in Thailand

Biochar technology is a carbon-negative approach that involves the production of carbon-rich material from biomass through pyrolysis. It is primarily used for soil improvement and has additional benefits in terms of atmospheric carbon capture and storage [24]. The International Panel on Climate Change officially recognized biochar as a negative emissions technology in 2018 [25].

During the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2022, the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) representatives actively participated and discussed carbon removal and other topics. Prominent organizations like Base Carbon, NetZero, and Trinity Biocarbon were involved in these discussions. The conference also highlighted the expansion of carbon markets to include soil, potentially transforming farming practices [26,27].

Haffner Energy presented their negative carbon footprint technology at the conference, emphasizing the role of biochar in achieving a negative carbon footprint. They showcased their HYNOCA^® module, which co-produces biochar while producing hydrogen, resulting in carbon sequestration. Biochar derived from biomass residues serves as a stable and long-lasting carbon sink with various applications [28].

In Thailand, the BEBC En SAFE Life Foundation, established in 2017, plays a pivotal role in promoting and supporting the Biomass to Energy and Biochar Community (BEBC) project. This initiative focuses on the implementation of sustainable, scalable, and replicable solutions for converting waste biomass, exploring alternative energy sources for cooking, and utilizing biochar in agriculture. The project builds upon the successful pilot carried out by the Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute (KURDI) between 2013 and 2015. The foundation collaborates with universities, government agencies, and private sectors to facilitate biochar applications through comprehensive training programs and lifelong learning initiatives [29].

The adoption of the BEBC concept in Thailand has resulted in significant social, economic, and environmental impacts. Users of BEBC stoves have experienced increased engagement in lifelong learning and knowledge sharing through social media platforms. The technology has also brought economic benefits, such as a notable reduction in LPG consumption for cooking, amounting to 10,080,000 baht, and a decrease of 14,797.5 tons of CO₂ in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), along with the improvement of the soil quality of 1764 rais of land, as reported during the period from 2017 to 2022 [30]. In Nakhon Phanom province, the adoption of BEBC has had a significant impact on agricultural and environmental policies by incorporating cost reductions in farming practices and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, farmers have experienced positive business outcomes [31].

The adoption of BEBC offers numerous benefits, including access to alternative cooking gases, enhanced soil fertility, increased agricultural productivity, non-toxic food production, carbon credits, and additional income. It also leads to reductions in biomass waste, chemical fertilizer and pesticide usage, cultivated land requirements, the consumption of toxic food, the carbon footprint, and poverty [32]. Biochar technology presents an integrated solution to address multiple challenges by mitigating biomass burning, minimizing chemical inputs in the soil, and sequestering carbon. It contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and supports sustainable agricultural development [33,34].

3. Methodology and Background of the Case Study

3.1. Study Area

The location of the study area is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Municipailties in Thailand and the Huay Lan Subdistrict Municipality (Case Study)

In 2022, the total population of Thailand was 71,697,030, with a growth rate of 0.13%. In 2021, the population was 71,601,103, with a growth rate of 0.18%. Out of the total population, 51% (36,488,459 individuals) resided in urban areas, representing a growth rate of 1.64% [35].

As of 2020, Thailand comprised 2472 municipaslities, classified into three levels, cities, towns, and subdistrict municipalities, accounting for 30, 195, and 2247 units, respectively [36]. The areas beyond the municipality boundaries are considered rural areas and are governed by subdistrict administrative organizations (SAOs).

This research focuses on the Huay Lan Subdistrict Municipality (HLSM), which is located in Dok Khamtai District, Phayao Province. Designated as an urban area on July 18, 2008, the HLSM covers approximately 88.848 square kilometers or 55,530 rais (8884.8 hectares) of land. Nearly 49.6% of this area, around 27,548 rais or 4407.68 hectares, is devoted to agricultural activities and has a sandy loam soil texture. The primary agricultural practices in this region include paddy rice cultivation, corn farming, and cassava production [37].

The landscape in the HLSM is mostly flat in the middle, while the eastern and southern parts are bordered by high mountains. The area is intersected by a river and has two major reservoirs, which serve as essential water resources [37].

The climate in the HLSM is classified as tropical dry winter. The period from mid-May to October is influenced by the Southwest Monsoon, resulting in significant rainfall and moisture generation from the sea and ocean. Conversely, from November to February, the region experiences cool and dry weather due to the impact of the Northeast Monsoon. Throughout the year, there are three distinct seasons [37]:

• Summer season (March to May): The average temperature is 30 °C, with a maximum of 42 °C. The weather is warm and dry during this time;
• Rainy season (mid-May to September): The temperature hovers around 27 °C, with an average rainfall of about 134 mm. June experiences heavy rain, high humidity, and strong winds, including thunderstorms, sometimes accompanied by hailstorms;
• Winter season (October to February): The average temperature drops to 20 °C. The daytime is characterized by strong winds and lower humidity levels, while nights are cooler. December sees the coolest temperatures.

In 2021, the total population of HLSM was approximately 8837 individuals, accounting for 13% of the total population (67,681 individuals) and 30% of the total urban population (29,545 individuals) in Dok Khamtai district [38].

3.3. Five-Year Local Development Plan (2018–2022) of the Huay Lan Subdistrict Municipality

The five-year Local Development Plan (LDP) (2018–2022) of the HLSM consisted of five key development strategies: (1) economic development, (2) social development with a focus on education and culture, (3) natural resource and environmental management, (4) security and order maintenance, and (5) the promotion of management efficiency [37].

The Economic Development Strategy (EDS) was formulated in response to two national strategies: (1) strengthening agriculture and ensuring food and energy security, and (2) adjusting the economic structure for sustainable and quality growth. An analysis of the LDP identified weaknesses such as a lack of effective leadership in the community and commercial agriculture planning as well as an insufficient local budget for management [37].

The total budget of 7,443,869 baht (100%) for 217 projects under the EDS was allocated across different project types as follows: physical infrastructure (52% for 108 projects), addressing community flooding issues (18% for 59 projects), addressing flooding issues in agricultural land (15% for 14 projects), and water supply for consumption (15% for 36 projects). Other agriculture-related projects were included in different strategic plans. For instance, under Strategic Plan 5, there were training projects on protection against plant pests and diseases (300,000 baht for one project) and training on plowing and composting (100,000 baht for one project). Under Strategic Plan 3, there were projects related to waste/garbage reduction and sorting (920,000 baht for two projects), tree cultivation and conservation (300,000 baht for two projects), and the construction of check dams for forest resource conservation (250,000 baht for one project). Under Strategic Plan 4, there were three projects focusing on the economy, environment, and agriculture: the establishment of a low-carbon community (150,000 baht for one project), the provision of training on biogas production (50,000 baht for one project), and the promotion of community participation in the reduction of open burning (100,000 baht for one project) [37].

Despite being an urban area for 14 years (2008–2022), the HLSM lacks a comprehensive database and land use planning for the preservation of existing agricultural land and the support of sustainable food production in the future.

3.4. Data and Methods

The research population consisted of 110 farm households whose heads had participated in a sustainable agriculture seminar focused on environmentally friendly practices and the application of biochar technology as part of an open burning reduction project organized by the municipality in 2018. For data collection related to socio-economic and environmental aspects, a sample of 80 households was selected using simple random sampling with the aid of a random table. Structured questionnaires were utilized to interview the heads of households or their spouses, if available. The interviews and field observations were conducted between 2018 and 2019 at the farmers’ homes or farm plots after conducting a pretest involving 30 cases. For data validation, the principal component analysis (PCA) was applied. Additionally, spatial data, including the locations of the farmers’ houses and farmlands, were collected using a global positioning system (GPS). The monitoring of drought and flood situations in 2021 and 2022 was also included.

Descriptive statistics (mean), correlation coefficients, K-means clustering, and TwoStep clustering were employed for statistical analyses. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were utilized for spatial data analyses, including the creation of GIS databases and the generation of thematic maps based on the analysis outputs. The analyses aimed to address the following questions:

What is the overall socio-economic and environmental condition of the samples based on descriptive analyses and the spatial distribution of farm plots classified into groups using key single variables related to social, economic, and environmental situations?

How can the spatial distribution of farm plots be classified to form farmer coalitions based on socio-economic and environmental conditions identified through multivariate analyses, such as K-means clustering and TwoStep clustering?

Multiple key social variables were used, including the ages of the household heads/respondents (in years), the number of household members, and the number of relatives living in the household, to indicate the potential of future farm labor forces and agricultural successors. Economic variables selected to indicate the potential of the future food supply included the total agricultural land area (in rai), the amount of owned land (in rai), the cultivated land area (in rai), agricultural yields (in kg/rai), and the percentage of agricultural product sales. Variables related to biomass management, flood crises, and drought were used to indicate the environmental situation.

4. Results

4.1. Overall Socio-Economic and Environmental Aspects Based on Descriptive and Spatial Classifications of Farm Plots Using Single Variables

4.1.1. Social Situation

It was found that the respondents ranged in age from 23 to 81 years, with an average age of 58 years. Among the 77 cases, 43% were over 60 years old. The majority of the respondents were female (60%) and had a primary-level education. A total of 54% of the respondents were heads of households, while the remaining participants were either spouses or household members who were available during the interview period and could provide information. Most of the respondents were married (72%), with only 8% being single, and the remaining 20% were either divorced or widowed. On average, each household consisted of four individuals, with 35% having more than four members, and 89% had relatives living with them, accounting for one person. Additionally, 83% of the respondents used mobile phones for daily communication.

Figure 2 displays the spatial distribution of the farm plots, labeled with the numbers of household members. The farm plots were classified into six groups based on the ages of the respondents. Group 3, consisting of individuals aged 51–60 years, and group 4, consisting of individuals aged 61–70 years, were the largest groups, accounting for 51 farm plots out of 70 cases, which amounted to 72.85% of the total. These groups were spatially distributed across the municipality. On average, group 3 comprised four household members, while group 4 had three household members. Additionally, group 2 had nine cases, consisting of individuals aged 40–50 years, with an average of three household members. These cases were also spatially distributed across the municipality. In contrast, group 1, comprising individuals younger than 40 years old, only had four cases with an average of three household members. One case was located in the northern part, and three cases were in the southern part of the municipality. The analysis revealed no significant correlation between ages and household members, with a correlation coefficient of 0.090.

4.1.2. Economic Situation

The majority of households (81%) were engaged in rainfed agriculture. Among them, 65% cultivated mixed paddy fields and orchards, while 30% only cultivated paddy fields, and 5% solely focused on orchards. The average total agricultural land size (owned and rented) per household was 14 rais. A total of 60% of households had an agricultural land size of 15 rais or less, and 57% owned less land than the average household. The average amount of land owned per household was 11 rais, while the average amount of rented land was 3 rais, with a rental cost of 206 baht per rai. The average amount of total cultivated land per household was 11 rais. The majority of households (69%) practiced chemical agriculture, using chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which accounted for 13 rais per household. On average, 1 rai was dedicated to organic agriculture. Paddy fields accounted for 12 rais per household on average, with 89% of households cultivating them once per year. Most households (69%) purchased paddy seeds, while only 31% prepared their own. The most commonly used rice seed variety was RD6 rice (62%), followed by Jasmine rice 105 (28%), with the remaining percentage using Sanpatong rice (7%), RD14 rice (3%), and Tansirin rice (1%).

The average total rice production quantity per household was 4485.88 kg, equivalent to 374 kg per rai. A total of 54% of households achieved rice production below the average. The average quantity of total agricultural products sold amounted to 3073.69 kg, which accounted for 67.7% of the total rice quantity produced per household. On average, each household expected to earn 28,152.86 baht from selling their products at a rate of 9.15 baht per kg. However, the actual average income per household from sales was 32,566.49 baht at a rate of 10.60 baht per kg. This was 16% higher than expected. The average production cost was 17,937.82 baht, or 1495 baht per rai. If the rent costs were deducted (615 baht for 3 rais at a rental cost of 205 baht per rai), the profit per household would be 1852 baht per rai. If the incomes were calculated based on the actual products sold, while the production costs were calculated based on the total production, the profit per household would be 1219 baht per rai. This would amount to 14,628 baht per household per year or 3657 baht per person per year (calculated based on an average of four household members). It is important to note that households consumed their own rice without purchasing it. The majority of households (76%) sold their products to local mills, followed by selling it to middlemen (10%), while 14% did not sell their products.

Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of farm plots based on the total agricultural land size (rai), categorized into five classes. Group 2 was the largest, consisting of 29 households/farm plots with land ranging from 11 to 20 rais. This was followed by group 1 with the smallest agricultural land size of between 3 and 10 rais. Groups 3, 4, and 5 together comprised 13 farm plots with land sizes ranging from 21 to 50 rais. The average size of households’ own land, in ascending order of groups classified by cultivated lands, was 6.21, 13.17, 15.13, 24.75, and 42 rais, respectively. There was a moderate association between the total agricultural land and own land sizes (correlation coefficient = 0.684 at a significance level of 0.05), but there was a high association between the total agricultural land and cultivated land sizes (correlation coefficient from the analysis = 0.949 at a significance level of 0.05).

Figure 4 displays cultivated land categorized into five groups. Group 1 was the largest, containing 31 farm plots, followed by group 2 with 30 farm plots. On the other hand, groups 3, 4, and 5 together comprised only nine farm plots. It is worth noting that group 1 and group 2 in this figure (classified by cultivated land) had more members than the ones in Figure 3 (classified by total agriland) whereas groups 3, 4, and 5 had fewer members compared to those in Figure 2. This is because there were some group members cultivating less than their total agricultural land size. The average agricultural yield, in ascending order of groups classified by cultivated lands, was 447, 372, 371, 307, and 150 kg/rai, respectively. There was no association between cultivated land and the production yield (correlation coefficient from the analysis = 0.0216).

4.1.3. Environmental Situation

The average application of compost was 294 kg, and chemical fertilizers such as formula 16-20-0, 15-15-15, and 46-0-0 accounted for 252 kg, 105 kg, and 81.87 kg per household per crop, respectively. The total cost of chemical fertilizers and composts combined averaged 5480 baht. Only one household applied 20 kg of biochar for soil improvement in addition to chemical fertilizers and composts. Agricultural waste in paddy fields consisted of rice straw, averaging 2916.67 kg per household per year.

The majority of households (71.4%) disposed of biomass waste (rice straw) through landfill, while 7% resorted to open burning, and 5.7% utilized the waste to raise animals. The remaining households employed both landfill and the raising of animals as disposal methods. The average cost of pesticide applications per household per year was 450 baht.

Figure 5 illustrates the spatial distribution of farm plots, which were categorized into five groups based on the types of agri-inputs used. Each group is labeled with the size of the cultivated land. Group 1, the largest group, relied solely on chemical fertilizers and consisted of 42 members. Group 2, with 22 members, used a mixture of chemical fertilizers and composts. These groups were distributed across the municipality, whereas only one farm plot was classified in group 5 within the circle that incorporated a mixture of chemical fertilizer, compost, and biochar derived from the pyrolysis conversion of agricultural waste (rice straw). The average size of cultivated land in ascending order for the groups classified by types of agricultural inputs was 14, 14, 13, 10 and 8 rais, respectively.

Based on monitoring data collected in 2021 and 2022, as illustrated in Figure 6, the spatial distribution of farm plots, labeled with the number of floods they were affected by in 2022, was classified into four groups based on the management of biomass waste. Group 1, consisting of 50 members, was the largest group and utilized landfill as its waste management method. This group was distributed across the municipality. On the other hand, groups 2 and 3, with only five and four members, respectively, resorted to open burning and raising animals for waste management. The average number of floods affecting these groups, listed in ascending order based on their biomass management practices, was 2, 3, 1, and 3 times, respectively.

Figure 7 shows that 65.7% (46 cases) of all farm plots were affected by drought in 2021, and these were distributed across the municipality. The average size of the cultivated land in this group was 13 rais.

In Figure 8, it is illustrated that 68.57% (48 cases) of all farm plots were impacted by heavy floods, resulting in the destruction of farm crops. The occurrence of floods varied, with eight cases experiencing one flood, eighteen cases experiencing two, fourteen cases experiencing three, and eight cases experiencing four in June–October 2022. The average size of cultivated land in ascending order of groups, classified by the number of floods experienced (from group 1 to group 4), was 15, 12, 11, and 14 rais, respectively.

4.2. Classification of Farm Plots Using Multiple Variables

4.2.1. Classification by Multiple Social Variables

Farm plots were classified based on three social variables: the ages of the respondents, household members, and relatives living with them. This classification aimed to examine the potential family labor force and successors in agriculture. However, according to the correlation analysis, no associations were found among these variables.

As shown in Figure 9, the largest class was group 2, which consisted of 35 farm plots. The average age of the respondents in this group was 56 years old. Following that, group 3 contained 25 farm plots, with an average respondent age of 68 years old. These groups were distributed across the municipality. The combined total of group 2 and group 3 members accounted for 85.7% of all cases, representing the average age of elderly individuals. In contrast, group 1 had only 10 members, with an average age of 40 years old. Across all groups, the average number of household members was four.

When forming farmer coalitions with specific criteria, such as the requirement for a farmer aged around 40 years old to be the leader of the group, it becomes crucial to effectively manage and carry out various activities. The classification results presented in Figure 9 can further assist the division of the space into the northern, central, and southern regions of the municipality. Each region can then select young farmers from group 1 (40 years by average), which consists of 10 members distributed in the north, middle, and south areas of the municipality, to serve as leaders in their respective regions. This spatial representation provides a clear understanding of the distribution and selection process.

4.2.2. Classification by Multiple Variables including Social and Economic Aspects

Figure 10 integrates five economic variables, including the total agricultural land size (rai), own land size (rai), cultivated land size (rai), yield from agricultural production or productivity (kg/rai), and the percentage of products sold. These variables, along with the previous three social variables, were used in the cluster analysis.

Group 2 emerged as the largest class, comprising 41 cases with an average age of 60 years old. This group had moderate values for the total agricultural land size, cultivated land size, and productivity. On average, they sold 59% of their total agricultural products. Group 2 was distributed across the municipality. The most intriguing group was group 1, which was the smallest, consisting of only nine cases with an average age of 57 years old. Despite having the smallest values for total agricultural land size, own land size, and cultivated land, it exhibited the highest productivity level. The percentage of products sold accounted for 55.03% of all agricultural products, approaching the level of group 2. Group 3 was a moderate-sized group, comprising 20 cases. It possessed the largest total agricultural land and cultivated land sizes, and had a moderate own land value, the lowest productivity, and the lowest percentage of total products sold. All groups had an average of four household members.

Multiple criteria should be considered when forming the farmer coalitions, to ensure effective knowledge sharing and training opportunities. One crucial aspect is selecting a farmer with notable profiles in terms of age and agricultural yield performance to lead and share experiences with other farmers. The individuals in group 1 of Figure 10 can serve as local training centers, facilitating knowledge exchange among farmers. This group, comprising nine members, boasts an average age of 57 years and achieves the highest production yield. It is highly suitable for selection as pilot farms. These farms can be strategically distributed across the northern, central, and southern regions of the municipality. In addition, this spatial distribution enables targeted incentive training programs, particularly for groups that exhibit weaknesses in certain areas. For instance, group 3, characterized by a large farm size but a low yield, can undergo training to address and improve upon this weakness.

By leveraging the specific groups identified, the formation of these farmer coalitions facilitates knowledge transfer and enables the dissemination of best practices throughout the region. This approach not only benefits individual farmers but also contributes to the overall agricultural development of the municipality.

4.2.3. Classification by Multiple Variables including Social, Economic, and Environmental Aspects

Figure 11 displays the results of farm plots clustered based on 11 variables. These variables comprise three social factors, five economic factors, and three environmental factors. The environmental variables, integrated with previous social and economic factors, are the number of floods affecting farm plots, the impact of drought in 2021 (a categorical variable), and types of biomass management (another categorical variable). The TwoStep clustering analysis was applied, resulting in two clusters.

The most influential variable in determining the group division was the impact of drought, followed by the total agricultural land and cultivated land sizes. Group 1 consisted of 30 cases, including six plots that were affected by drought. On the other hand, group 2 comprised 40 cases, all of which were affected by drought.

It is worth noting that group 2 had lower averages in terms of age, number of household members, number of relatives living with them, total agricultural land size, owned land size, cultivated land size, and percentage of product sales, as well as fewer landfill cases compared to group 1. However, group 2 had higher values in terms of yield, number of flood crises in 2022, and cases of drought impact in 2021, as well as more cases of biomass waste burning compared to group 1.

The classification results presented in Figure 11 provide valuable information for the municipality in terms of formulating local plan developments, considering multiple criteria to encourage the formation of a farmers’ coalition for achieving sustainable agriculture development and advocating for a food security policy. This information can assist in addressing the impacts of drought and burning practices among farmers in group 2, as well as improving production yields and offering more effective waste management options for farmers in group 1.

5. Discussion

5.1. Policy and Actions by the Municipality

According to the local development plan of the Huay Lan Subdistrict Municipality (2018–2022), nearly 50% of the municipal areas consist of agricultural land. Two national strategies that focused on agriculture, food, and energy security, as well as the adjustment of the economic structure for qualified and sustainable growth, were implemented at the municipality level through an economic development strategic plan comprising 217 projects. However, more than 50% of the budget allocated to this plan was directed towards physical infrastructure projects, such as road construction for improved communication and flood management in communities (18%). In contrast, strategies to address flood problems in agriculture received only 15% of the allocated budget. The strategic plans lacked comprehensive projects related to the training of farmers in plant pest and disease outbreak prevention, composting, and community waste management. With the upgrade of subdistrict administrative organizations to subdistrict municipalities, agricultural issues received less attention as the municipality’s authority and function primarily focused on urban growth. Furthermore, the national level strategic plan on food security and sustainable economic growth was broadly transformed into an economic development plan at the local level, resulting in a lack of specific directions for long-term food security. Other important issues included the absence of a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database and information system for monitoring changes in agricultural land use.

To achieve sustainable land use, it is interesting to draw experiences from Ghana: Ghana has promoted sustainable land use practices to protect agricultural land from urbanization and ensure its productivity. By designating specific areas for urban agriculture and implementing zoning regulations, they have safeguarded arable land, allowing it to be used for food production [16].

The insufficient budget for the management of the Huay Lan Subdistrict municipality, as mentioned in the local development plan, could be resolved by integrating agriculture into municipal land use planning and climate change mitigation, as recommended in the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) held in Egypt in November 2022. Coordinating with universities to leverage their knowledge and utilizing available satellite data for land use monitoring, which are often freely accessible, could be viable options to overcome budget limitations.

5.2. Potential Farmer Coalition Based on Social, Economic, and Environmental Conditions

In addition to the support from the municipality, the achievement of food security policies relies on the advocacy and efforts of farmer coalitions as well as the existing socio-economic conditions. The municipality’s plans and budgets for local activities primarily focus on physical infrastructure and residential issues, while the rapid urbanization rate indicates a trend of agricultural land conversion to residential or industrial areas due to urban growth and infrastructure development. Moreover, the majority of farmers are aging, and their families have fewer members on average, posing a challenge for sustaining agriculture with limited household labor unless the use of hired labor or machinery is adopted, which can be costly. Low agricultural productivity, prevalent use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and practices such as landfilling and open burning of agricultural waste contribute to negative health effects for farmers and consumers. These practices are not aligned with the United Nations’ concept of sustainable development and the global agreement to integrate agriculture into climate change mitigation in COP27.

However, the application of biochar technology could address these issues. Biochar technology offers multiple benefits, including the reduction of agricultural waste in an environmentally friendly manner, an increase in the use of alternative energy (syngas) sources for cooking, the reduction of chemical inputs like fertilizers and pesticides while improving soil fertility, the optimization of land use by increasing productivity, the provision of non-toxic food for food security, the reduction of the carbon footprint while generating carbon credits, and the alleviation of poverty through income from agricultural products and the sale of biochar. The potential of biochar technology to be used for sustainable development in agriculture was confirmed in COP27 for agricultural carbon sequestration projects. One farmer who implemented biochar mixed with chemical fertilizers demonstrated high yields of paddy rice (as shown in Figure 4) and experienced drought resilience in 2021 while mitigating the effects of drought through improved soil moisture retention. To encourage farmers to adopt improved agricultural practices, promoting the understanding of food security concepts and facilitating lifelong learning in biochar technology for sustainable agriculture are essential. Farmers can also join the BEBC networks available in Thailand for support and knowledge sharing.

Food security is the ultimate goal of a food system that involves farmers, food processing, distribution, and consumption working together in a positive, closed system or feedback loop. The achievement of food security requires sustainable food production, which relies on productive land and proactive farmers. The weaknesses highlighted in the five-year local development plan (2018–2022) of the municipality were the lack of effective leadership in the community and commercial agriculture planning, as well as an insufficient local budget for management. Effective and strong farmer coalitions can be formed and developed by utilizing the information obtained from the spatial classification of farm plots through multivariate analyses, as presented in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11. An effective farmer coalition can facilitate training and experience-sharing among farmers, and low-cost intensive training courses tailored to meet the specific needs of farmers can be organized.

6. Conclusions and Recommendation

6.1. Conclusions

This research aimed to investigate the potential of urban agriculture to achieve food security within a subdistrict municipality that has recently undergone a transition from rural to urban. The main objectives were to explore the social, economic, and environmental conditions of farmers in the municipality and utilize these data to spatially classify farmers. This spatial classification provides suggestive information for the formation of farmer coalitions to address the identified weaknesses and enhance the strength of farmers in terms of sustainable agriculture development while also advocating for food security policies.

The research findings revealed several weaknesses that could hinder the achievement of sustainable agriculture and food security goals:

Social aspect: The majority of the sampled family heads were elderly farmers aged 51–80 years old with few family members. This suggests that agricultural land and practices may decline with the growth of the urban population in the future.

Economic aspect: There were three types of agricultural land ownership—own land, rented land, and a combination of both. The average land owned per household was a small size of 11 rais, and 57% of households owned less land than the average value. Most farmers used chemical fertilizers and pesticides, leading to high input costs but low yields and profits. Only one farmer with a small farm size used biochar mixed with compost and chemical fertilizers, resulting in higher yields compared to other plots without biochar.

Environmental aspect: The prevalent use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, as well as landfill and open burning practices for agricultural waste management, raised concerns about farmers’ health and food safety. These practices also contribute to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

By leveraging the specific groups identified through a spatial classification based on socio-economic and environmental conditions and applying multivariate analyses and geographic information systems, farmer coalitions can be formed to improve community leaders’ strength and agricultural development activities and support food security policies within the municipality. These groups could facilitate knowledge transfer and the dissemination of best practices throughout the region.

Additionally, preparing farmer coalitions in this way, considering the social, economic, and environmental conditions, can cater to the real needs of both farmers and the municipality, saving management budgets, reducing monitoring efforts, and paving the way for future research conducted in this field. This proactive approach can help to ensure there is sufficient food production aligned with the growth of the city and urbanization, preventing potential food shortages in the future.

This approach benefits individual farmers and contributes to the overall agricultural development of the municipality. Taking into account the municipality’s food security situation, as defined by the FAO, the sampled households can ensure food availability and accessibility within their own households by saving an average of 30% of their produce for personal consumption. However, further research is needed to determine how to achieve sustainable levels of food availability and accessibility with a qualified nutrition status to meet the community’s well-being needs within the municipality and the district.

6.2. Recommendations

6.2.1. Measures for Preserving Land and Practices for Urban Agriculture in the Municipality

To ensure the preservation of agricultural practices in alignment with national and global food security and sustainable development goals, it is imperative to incorporate agricultural land use into the municipality’s land use planning. In anticipation of potential agricultural land conversions, measures should be developed and implemented to protect land and food shortages when the city becomes crowded in the future due to the growth of the population and urbanization. This can be learned from Ghana’s experiences.

To address the sustainable land use issue, the municipality can explore collaborations with nearby universities to undertake projects and facilitate knowledge transfer, such as by utilizing freely available satellite remote sensing data to monitor changes in land use. Furthermore, insights from various forms of urban agriculture, as identified in the conducted literature review under the theoretical background, should be considered.

6.2.2. Measure to Improve Land Productivity with Social and Environmentally Friendly Technology

The effective dissemination of biochar technology among farmers throughout the municipality, coupled with lifelong learning opportunities, is of utmost importance. Biochar technology offers a comprehensive solution, addressing multiple issues simultaneously, including soil improvement and carbon sequestration. This has positive implications for health, the economy, and the environment. Moreover, establishing a carbon offset project for the sale of carbon credits can provide long-term benefits for both the municipality and farmers. The municipality can engage with existing BEBC networks in Thailand for knowledge exchange and mutual learning among network members. In the study area included in this article, only one sample already practiced this, showing positive results that can be shared with other farmers in the municipality.

6.2.3. Measure to Encourage Farmers to Advocate Food Security Policy

In this study, in order to advocate for food security policies, foster skill development, establish pilot farms for on-field demonstrations, and oversee agricultural development activities, the municipality should form farmer coalitions. To optimize resource allocation and learning, comprehensive training courses should be provided to all farmers, focusing on the social, economic, and environmental impacts of agricultural practices. Additionally, tailored courses should be designed to address the specific needs of distinct groups of farmers. The outcomes of the classification process can be utilized to create specialized farmers’ groups based on identified weaknesses and best practices, fostering a culture of knowledge sharing among farmers.

Furthermore, to ensure this approach of farmer coalition formation benefits the municipality’s management in terms of achieving urban agriculture preparation for food security, continued research should be undertaken.