What is a plausible limitation of urban farming in boosting resilience?

• A. Urban farming has no impact on resilience.
• B. It may not scale to feed a large population or require supportive infrastructure.
• C. It always replaces traditional farming.
• D. It decreases property values.

Answer: (B)

Urban farming can boost resilience by bringing food production closer to where people live and reducing dependence on distant supply chains. But a plausible limitation is that it may not scale to feed a large population or operate without supportive infrastructure. Space in cities is scarce, and even intensive methods yield less food per unit area than rural farming. To make a meaningful impact at city scale, urban farming needs a network of infrastructure—reliable water and nutrient supply, waste recycling, processing and storage facilities, energy for climate control and equipment, plus proper zoning, permits, and trained labor. Without these, its ability to supply a substantial portion of a large population is limited. The other statements don’t fit this nuance: urban farming does have resilience benefits, it doesn’t typically replace traditional farming, and impacts on property values vary by context rather than being inherently negative.