However, there are some ederal resources or urban agriculture and local ood systems. The USDA Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program provides unding or smallscale urban agriculture projects that address ood insecurity in low-income communities, although the amount allocated to this program is inadequate to cover the growing number and variety o urban agriculture projects throughout the country, and urban agriculture is not its specic ocus. In the past several years, urban armers have qualied to receive costshare assistance or constructing hoop house high tunnels (examples exist in Kansas City, Cleveland and Harrisburg, Pa.) 26 through USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 27 Urban armers can also receive technical assistance and consulting rom NRCS. In October 2011, Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary o Agriculture, issued a memo detailing unding and assistance available or urban agriculture through USDA and other ederal agencies. 28 Other important actions to deal with barriers to urban agriculture were development o ood system assessments or action plans and direct engagement with community residents to help them practice urban agriculture. Specifc examples o how cities are dealing with various barriers to urban agriculture are urther elaborated in the Appendix.
26
McDonough, M. 2012. “Urban arm supports local community.” USDA Know Your Farmer Know Your Food Blog, March 29. http://ky.blogs.usda.gov/tag/high-tu http://ky.blogs.usda.gov/tag/high-tunnels/. nnels/.
27
See more about this initiative at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailull/nat http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailull/national/programs/?&cid=stelp ional/programs/?&cid=stelp rdb1046250.
28
Merrigan, Kathleen. 2011. “ Memo on Urban Agriculture and Gardening – Supporting arm viability, building access to nutritious, aordable ood and encouraging rural-urban linkages.” October 14. Accessed on October 31, 2011 at http://ky.blogs.usda.gov/les/20 http://ky.blogs.usda.gov/les/2011/10/USDA_U 11/10/USDA_Urban_Ag_Memo-Final.pd. rban_Ag_Memo-Final.pd.
18
BrownFIeLds And contAMInAted soILs For many urban agriculture advocates and practitioners, the large swathes o vacant land in the core o some major cities are an urban arm paradise waiting to happen, but access to land is oten more dicult than anticipated. Such access is a critical issue that was articulated many times during the Missouri Joint Committee on Urban Agriculture hearings. 29 While having a large contiguous piece o property available or ood production is extremely valuable, the soil and the contaminants it may hold are basic, critical issues or urban agriculturalists. There is also a crucial dierence between access to land and access to good soil; the latter is arguably the most important resource any armer has. For any armer, rural or urban, the structure o the soil, its organic matter content, its ability to hold water, and its microbial activity are critical to raising good crops. While armers can amend their soil through composting, application o synthetic ertilizers, use o manure, or use o cover crops to increase the availability o soil nutrients and organic matter content, the basic quality o the soil they start with aects crop yields. Soil orms over millennia, and disturbances to soil are not readily xed in one, two or even three generations. 30 Thus soil is a critical human resource that needs to be stewarded and treated as extremely valuable. Vegetable and ruit crops, in particular, need high-quality soil. Grain and vegetable crops, as well as orchards, can absorb a number o contaminants, particularly heavy metals, rom soil; thus brownelds31 and contaminated soils are o particular concern to urban ood producers. In act, brownelds and contaminated land were reported by the majority o survey respondents (18 out o 29) as sometimes, oten or always a problem or urban agriculture (see Table 2b) . However, because crops can absorb contaminants and encourage new microbial activity in the soil, agricultural uses are also benecial to browneld redevelopment. Tabl 2b. To what dgr has ach barrr rvntd rsdnts rom dvlong rban agrcltr rojcts n yor cty? (N=29)
Contamnaton/ brownfld rdvlomnt
Nvr
Rarly
3
7
Somtms
13
Otn
4
Always
No rsons
Mod
Man
1
0
Sometimes
2.75
For any urban ood producer – gardener or armer – researching the history o the proposed arm site is the rst step. Knowing what the property has been used or in the past, particularly 29
The Missouri General Assembly appointed a Joint Committee on Urban Agriculture that held our public hearings across the state rom July to October 2011 to collect inormation on critical iss ues in urban agriculture and ood systems. For more inormation see http://www.house.mo.gov/committeeIndividual.aspx?com=806&year=20 http://www.house.mo.gov/committeeIndividual.aspx?com=806&year=2012. 12.
30
In rural areas, soil is easily lost to wind and water erosion. Intense rainall events (oten occurring in spring) can cause massive soil erosion as can runo rom metropolitan areas. Recovery is centuries long as it can take 500-1000 years to orm an inch o soil. One agronomist at the University o Missouri, Peter Schar, cited data that losing one inch o topsoil leads to a permanent reduction in corn yields o 2.2 bushels per year, which on average yields o 120 bushels per acre is almost a 2 percent loss. Other crop yields can suer as much or more. In urban areas, many o which are located along rivers that created abulous soils, soils are generally lost to development. The very process o construction largely destroys the quality o the soil, which will take centuries to replace. Thus, experienced urban armers are delighted to nd areas o cities that have not been touched by these processes. Such areas are ew and ar between.
31
A browneld is dened by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as “a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse o which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence o a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” Denition accessed at http://www.epa.gov/brownelds/basic_ino.htm http://www.epa.gov/brownelds/basic_ino.htm on 6/15/2012.
19
Making an inventory o appropriate land available or potential urban agriculture plots can assist urban producers in accessing land. Additionally, a history o use o that property that is easily accessible could help urban armers avoid soil contamination issues.
i manuacturing occurred on the property, can help the producer understand what risks the soil may hold. Residential uses can also leave lasting impacts, particularly i remnants o building materials that used harmul substances remain. For cities, makng th hstory o a st asly avalabl to rban ood rodcrs is a good practice.
Farmers and gardeners nd to tst th sol to dtrmn rtlty nds and th rsnc o havy mtals . Universities and nonprots can be good partners in this step, as many university extension services oer soil testing services (mostly or a ee). (To access these services, it’s best to contact a local extension oce and to speak with the person responsible or the Master Gardener Program or agriculture and natural resources.) Some land-grant universities are involved in soil remediation strategies. Kansas State University’s Center or Hazardous Substance Research, or example, includes a research and extension project on children’s health issues in urban gardening and brownelds (http://www.engg.ksu.edu/chsr/ ). ).
Once the history o the site is known and the soil has been tested and the results interpreted, urban armers and gardeners can gure out how best to manage the risks associated with a particular site. Because testing or heavy metals or trace minerals can be expensive, gardeners and organizations oten assume soil is contaminated, building raised beds with topsoil and compost. 32 But because some plants have especially deep roots that can penetrate beyond the raised bed, it is advisable to seek expert advice on which crops are best suited to production in a particular site. Understanding the history o the site can help direct which metals to test or, and risks o contamination can be managed in a variety o ways, including construction o physical controls, use o soil amendments, soil remediation, crop selection, raised beds, and use o cover crops. In Cleveland, the cty works wth Oho Stat unvrsty to provide soil tests beore any urban plot is armed. Every state has university extension services, and most have a local extension sta that can advise gardeners and armers on the best strategy. The city o Burlington, Vt., is examining brownelds as potential sites or greenhouses, which generally do not use ground production. The Environmental Protection Agency also published a resource on urban agriculture and brownelds (discussed below). Because costs o testing and remediation could discourage needed urban agriculture, cts may consdr sbsdzng som costs . BeST ReSOuRCeS
In 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency released interim guidelines or sae gardening practices in brownelds. The report suggests potential best management practices that can signicantly reduce risks rom producing ood in brownelds. The guidelines and recorded webinars discussing the science and policy o using brownelds or urban agriculture are available at http://epa.gov/brownfelds/urbanag/ . Slightly less extensive is a practical guide to understanding soil contamination published in 2006 by Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF). It contains contamination limits applicable or Canada, discusses potential remediation strategies or contaminated soil, and provides cost estimates or these strategies. The primer is called “Soil Contamination and Urban Agriculture: A Practical Guide to Soil Contamination Issues or Individuals and Groups” and is available on the RUAF website at http://rua.org/ .
32
For instance, this is the preerred strategy o Gateway Greening, a community gardening organization located in St. Louis and working primarily in St. Louis City. See more inormation at http://gatewaygreening.org/.
20
Food PoLIcy councILs Food policy councils have existed in North America or almost 30 years, some o the oldest o which are those in Knoxville, Tenn., and Toronto. Food policy councils provide a place to discuss and plan or a city’s or region’s ood system, which is generally not the jurisdiction o a single agency or department at many dierent levels o government. The North American Food Policy Council web page, hosted by the Community Food Security Coalition, states that ood policy councils exist to “bring together stakeholders rom diverse ood-related sectors to examine how the ood system is operating and to develop recommendations on how to improve it.”33 The organization notes that because “no U.S. government entity has a Department o Food,” ood issues are oten parceled out to various agencies or let to the private sector, which “limits the potential or coordination and or government to address broad goals such as improving access to healthy oods.” Developing local ood systems, which is an important eort that many USDN members are undertaking, generally consists o a Local ood systems need projects, number o dierent eorts in the public and private sectors at the partnerships and policy to succeed. same time. These can be divided into local ood systm rojcts, Mark Winne asserts that the rst two artnrshs and olcy orts . Every city has nonprot organizations have been extremely signicant that have operated local ood systm rojcts or a number o years. in developing local ood systems, For example, community gardening organizations are widespread and but the policy aspect needs to b ocus on using communal plots o land to benet the community addressed. or neighborhood. According to Mark Winne, an expert on ood policy councils, local ood system projects are the “programs, activities, businesses, and services that make up local ood systems.” 34 In St. Louis, Gateway Greening, a community-gardening organization, operates an urban arm that provides job training to homeless men (Figure 5) . This is an important project with multiple benets or the city, including beautiying a neglected piece o property, providing organic ood, attracting pollinators in the city, and using volunteers who come in contact with diverse populations. However, this project depends upon a number o artnrshs with other groups, such as the St. Patrick’s Center, the Missouri Department o Transportation, the City o St. Louis, and numerous volunteers rom private and public groups across the city. Partnerships are important because they help accomplish things or the local ood system that no single entity can do alone. However, or Winne, it is the olcy aspect o local ood systems that needs attention. He denes polices as “the action and in-actions o government at levels that infuence the supply, quality, price, production, distribution, purchase, and consumption o ood.” In this latter case, ood policy councils can take the lead in helping to assess, discuss and plan how policies can be created, changed or removed to help grow local ood systems in a sustainable manner. Food policy councils can be organized in several dierent ways, according to Winne, who was one o the ounders o the Hartord Food Policy Council. They can be established by statute, as occurred in Hartord, Conn., and Knoxville, Tenn., or by executive order o a city or state executive, as occurred at the state level in New York, Iowa and Michigan. They can also be sel-organized in a coalition orm, which is emerging as a popular alternative. Winne estimates about 100 ood policy councils have organized over the last 15 years. Some councils stay
33
Community Food Security Coalition’s North American Food Policy Council web page at http://oodsecurity.org/ http://oodsecurity.org/ FPC/. Accessed on May 15, 2012.
34
Mark Winne. 2009. “Building Just and Sustainable Local Food Systems.” Keynote presentation at the St. Louis Food Policy Summit. March.
21
Figure 5. Gateway Greening’s City Seeds Urban Farm makes use o Missouri Department o Transportation Transportation land along Interstate 64.
active and become enduring institutions, which has happened in Toronto, where the ood policy council operates by statute and is overseen by the Board o Health. 35 In our survey o USDN members, 16 respondents (55%) said that their cities had ood policy councils. Ten survey respondents reported that their cities did not have ood policy councils, while respondents in three other cities did not know. When asked what top ood policy issues urban agriculture could address in their cities, the vast majority o respondents said health (100%), ood security (93%) and aordability (72%), while another th (21%) said energy and a tenth (10%) said climate change (Figure 6) . One task that ood policy councils oten take on is developing a ood system assessment or the city, or other inormation-gathering tasks that can help stakeholders better understand how the area’s ood system operates. Chicago, Vancouver and Calgary are all involved with ood system assessments and development o integrated ood system strategies or action plans. Lawrence, Kan., is actively working with its ood policy council to review zoning and codes that are prohibitive to urban agriculture activities. Many cities are waiting until these assessments are nished beore pursuing changes in policies or practices to support local ood system development. In Kansas City, the Greater Kansas City Food Policy Coalition was heavily involved in helping to develop and advocate zoning that addressed issues in urban agriculture.
35
The Toronto Toronto Food Policy Council maintains a website that provides inormation on upcoming meetings, includes their ood strategy or the city, and provides a history o accomplishments. See http://www.toronto.ca/health/tpc/ http://www.toronto.ca/health/tpc/ index.htm or more inormation.
22
Figure 6. Top issues that ood policy councils can address.
BeST ReSOuRCeS
Any city interested in ood policy councils should check out the North American Food Policy Council web page at http://oodsecurity.org/FPC/ . I applicable, the city should consider joining the Food Food Policy Policy Council Listserv Listserv,, which acilita acilitates tes discussion discussion and resourc resource e sharing between local and statewide council coordinators and members rom around North America. To subscribe to the listserv or or more inormation, contact Mark Winne at mark@oodsecurity. org or 505-983-3047.
In Missouri, the Greater Kansas City Food Policy Coalition exists as a grassroots coalition o armers, distributors, school ood services, hospitals, healthcare providers, city planners, university extension services, grocers, nonprots, emergency ood providers, ood assistance program coordinators, consumers and advocates or urban agriculture, local oods and healthy kids. The coalition’s mission is “to advocate or the Greater Kansas City ood system and promote ood policies that positively impact the nutritional, economic, social, and environmental health o Greater Kansas City.” The coalition works closely with the Mid-America Regional Planning Council, which exists to coordinate activities o the region’s municipal and county governments. Find more inormation about the coalition at http://kcoodpolicy.org/ . Elsewhere in Missouri, planning eorts or ood policy councils are under way in Springeld, Columbia and St. Louis. In each o these cities, it is primarily grassroots coalitions that are orming, but oten with involvement rom city or county governments.
23
HeALtHy Food Access The term “ood desert” has lately been used to indicate areas o cities where residents have diculty accessing aordable, healthy oods. Usually this reers to the lack o a nearby or accessible supermarket that carries a wide array o oods necessary or a healthy diet (Figure 7) . In 2009 the U.S. Department o Agriculture published a report summarizing the extent and characteristics o ood deserts. 36 From this report they developed a ood desert locator, which is an interactive web tool located at http://ers.usda.gov/data/ooddesert/index.htm. However, cities should understand that the Figure 7. Bob’s Quality Supermarket in St. Louis eatures very little produce. term “ood desert” has been criticized on 37 several ronts. First, developing geographic measures that can quantiy access or neighborhood residents is dicult because the measurement must be able to account or many dierent things, including: •
The availability o ood products to local residents (Is healthy ood actually in a particular place like a store?)
•
The accessibility o those products to residents (Can a resident walk, bike, ride a bus to that place?)
•
The aordability o those products or residents (I that ood is available and residents can get to it, can they aord it?)
This measurement will vary based on a number o actors, including household demographics and the variability o private enterprises that serve particular neighborhoods. Thus, residents in some places that are designated ood deserts may actually have greater access to healthy ood than it rst appears. Second, many low-income communities have protested that the term promotes a view o their neighborhoods as “wastelands devoid o people, hope or wealth” 38 and makes them susceptible to large-scale projects that may or may not solve ood access issues. Such neighborhoods may have community gardens or armers’ markets that help with ood access. Residents in these communities may also ear that cities will adopt strategies that work solely to attract grocery stores (oten with public nancing) without considering other options that may make the community more ood secure, including incubating ood businesses to promote community economic development or redeveloping empty lots as green spaces or recreation as well as healthy ood production.
36
Ver Ploeg, Michele, et al. 2009. Access to Aordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and their Consequences. Report to Congress by the Economic Research Service, US Department o Agriculture. Available at http://ers.usda.gov/Publications/A http://ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/AP P/AP036/AP036m.pd. 036m.pd.
37
Bornstein, David. 2012. “Time to revisit ood deserts.” New York Times . Accessed at http://opinionator.blogs. nytimes.com/2012/04/25/time-to-revisit-ood-deserts/ nytimes.com/2012/04/2 5/time-to-revisit-ood-deserts/ on June 15, 2012.
38
Wang, Yi, Eric Holt-Giménez, and Annie Shattuck. 2011. Grabbing the Food Deserts: Large scale Land Acquisitions and the Expansion o Retail Monopolies. Oakland, Cali.: Food First. Accessed at http://www. oodrst.org/en/Grabbing+ood+deserts.
24
Third, “ood desert” is a simple and elegant concept that is likely to mask other issues. For instance, studies on access to healthy oods and its long-term eect on diet-related diseases oten do not agree. As Bornstein rames it, “Is [lack o] access to healthy ood a primary barrier to healthy eating? And, i so, will increasing access lead to better health outcomes?” 39 From a research point o view, the jury is still out. Greater access to a wider variety o ruits and vegetables and other healthy oods actually may not change behaviors that are deeply rooted in social, cultural and economic conditions. Still, the popularity o the concept o ood deserts — the related idea “ood swamps” where the landscape is littered with availability o ast ood or otherwise unhealthy ood — tells us that there are real issues here that need to be better understood. To that end, we highlight some places where urban agriculture and local ood systems are being used to address basic ood security questions. In Kansas City, Missouri, urban agriculture advocates worked with the city council, the mayor, and the City Planning Department in 2010 to crat and adapt ordinances or urban agriculture, including changing codes that allowed or on-site sales, enabled local growers to have apprentices and interns, and allowed gardening as a principal or accessory use o a property. Advocates promoted changes in the ordinances in part based on the idea that urban growers could improve ood access or many residents in the city. In St. Louis, the Healthy Corner Store Project is a partnership between the City o St. Louis, University o Missouri Extension, and the St. Louis Development Corporation. Corner stores that agree to regularly stock a number o healthy oods and beverages, accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benets, use promotional displays or healthy oods, and keep displays resh and clean gain access to business development resources, a retail mentor, and publicity and promotion. 40 Healthy in a Hurry Corner Stores in Louisville, Ky., has a similar program. Food access concerns across the nation led to the creation o the Healthy Corner Store Network, 41 which “supports eorts to increase the availability and sales o healthy, aordable oods through small-scale stores in underserved communities.” In Kansas City, Beans and Greens (www.beansangreens.org ( www.beansangreens.org )) doubles the value o SNAP benets at participating armers’ markets. Several o these markets have a number o vendors who are urban growers. Doubling the value o SNAP benets provides new markets or local growers and improves access to healthy oods or consumers. Cities across the country, particularly in the Midwest, Southeast and Northeast, have similar programs. The Wholesome Wave Foundation has been an important impetus behind this movement and provides partner locator inormation on their interactive map, available at http://wholesomewave.org/ map/ . (Note that Beans and Greens received technical assistance rom Wholesome Wave to implement their project, but it is not identied as a partner on the map.) BeST pRACTiCeS
Many cities are changing ordinances to allow urban agriculture to fourish. Oten this means allowing urban agriculture to take place on many dierent types o property, enabling on-site sales or urban agriculture operations, or adding gardening or ood production to the list o primary uses o urban land. Such steps can improve healthy ood access in neighborhoods that are underserved as urban growers are oten able to locate their operations in those very neighborhoods.
39
Bornstein. 2012.
40
For more inormation see http://extension.missouri.edu/stlouis/healthycornerstore.aspx.
41
Good resources are available at http://www.healthycornerstores.org/
25
BeST ReSOuRCeS
The Healthy Corner Stores Network provides resources and tool kits to increase the availability o healthy and aordable oods through small-scale stores in underserved communities. Check out tools like Green or Greens: Finding Public Financing or Healthy Food Retail , the Access to Healthy Foods Toolkits, and The Supplier-Retailer Gap: Connecting Corner Stores with Local Foods on their website at www.healthycornerstores.org . The Healthy Corner Store Project in St. Louis and the Healthy in a Hurry Corner Stores project in Louisville provide assistance (nancial and technical) and mentors to help small stores stock healthy oods. See http://extension.missouri.edu/stlouis/healthycornerstore.aspx and http:// www.ymcalouisville.org/social-responsibility/social-services/healthy-in-a-hurry-corner-stores. html or more inormation.
26
LocAL Food systeM InFrAstructure Respondents to our survey were extremely interested in larger issues involved in relocalizing the ood system, or creating local/regional ood systems. As shown in Tabl 1 (.13), the most requently cited goal (mode = 7) or a city’s comprehensive plan was to “create sustainable ood systems.” In addition, respondents are looking or answers to questions about supporting local oods (e.g., How can we make institutional purchasing o local oods easible or both the city and local growers? How can we cultivate ood hubs?). Survey respondents seemed very interested in basic ood system issues that are barriers to urban agriculture, which also pose dicult questions o community development and sustainable economies. For example, some cities are struggling with the high cost o trying to implement local ood purchasing, while others are dealing with infuxes o labor and new immigrants who are interested in urban arming. Some are also interested in trying to protect agricultural lands rom development sprawl. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, in 2009 U.S. residents spent more than $600 billion on ood prepared at home and more than $526 billion on ood purchased outside the home. 42 From this statistic it would appear that promoting urban agriculture in a city would present a signicant economic opportunity or regional ood systems. Local ood system development relies on creating, strengthening and enhancing right-sized ood inrastructure. Currently, transportation and distribution systems are oriented to larger, higher volume product fows, which inadvertently shut out many small growers (especially urban armers) and smaller retailers. For instance, grocery rms like Wal-Mart or Kroger operate their own national supply chains and distribution systems. The largest ood service distributors, like Sysco and US Foods, also operate large national distribution systems, although some are organized on regional levels and do regional purchasing. US Foods, or instance, installed a new computer inventory system that allows it to track products that are grown or purchased within 300 miles o its St. Louis distribution center. 43 To ameliorate ood access problems, cities may need to help re-create critical inrastructure that can help ood systems unction eciently. Inrastructure can mean a variety o things, rom accessible storage and warehousing or distribution o locally or regionally produced ood products, to processing acilities where crop harvests can be turned into value-added ood products like jam, milled grain or rozen vegetables. For instance, every city that has a terminal produce market44 will have a number o distributors that specialize in produce or produce copacking. Building relationships between this kind o existing inrastructure and smaller growers or healthy corner stores can be especially ruitul.
42
Hodgson, K., M. C. Campbell, and M. Bailkey. 2011. 2011. Urban agriculture: Growing healthy, healthy, sustainable places. Chicago, Ill: American Planning Association. Pg. 84
43
Personal conversation with US Foods recruiter, all recruitment air 2010 or the College o Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the University o Missouri, Columbia, Mo.
44
Cities that report prices rom their terminal produce markets to the USDA Agriculture Marketing Service, include Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Columbia (S.C.), Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle and St. Louis. See list at http://ams.usda.gov. http://ams.usda.gov. Search or terminal markets.
27
AggregAtion And distriBUtion A critical issue or local ood systems is the diculty o aggregating and distributing ood products in ecient and economical ways or producers and their customers. Aggregating locally produced products rom many dierent growers in one place that can also unction as a distribution point to customers is extremely useul. For growers, aggregation allows them to a. access markets or which they do not produce enough volume; b. sort and grade products or dierent market outlets; c. collectively purchase grading, packing and washing machines, distribution boxes, labels or other needed items; d. ensure ood saety through the post-harvest handling process; and e. brand their products cooperatively.
Aggregation is the process o collecting ood products – generally resh produce, but also meat and dairy products – in one place where they can be washed, sorted, graded and packed in standard-size packaging.
On the other hand, aggregation and distribution inrastructure allows grocery stores, institutional ood services, or restaurants a way to source locally produced ood in large quantities, without having to deal with multiple vendors.
Ecient aggregation and distribution is crucial as well to moving locally produced oods into areas with limited ood access because it can reduce distribution costs or armers and retailers alike, resulting in more aordable resh ruits and vegetables. Food policy councils oten identiy distribution problems as a signicant barrier to developing viable local ood systems. Food hub is the name oten given to the places where this aggregation and distribution happens, particularly i it oers business incubation services and processing capacity. USDA denes a ood hub as “a centrally located acility with a business management structure acilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing o locally/regionally produced ood products.” 45 Food hubs can provide access to new markets or small and medium-sized producers, and increase access or consumers.” Cities can support the development o this critical inrastructure in several dierent ways. Inrastructure development should be seen as an economic development issue or which economic development resources can be used. This could include identiying existing inrastructure and networking private businesses (urban armers and existing distributors, or example). Providing tax credits or other incentives, or low-interest loans or construction could help create new inrastructure or repurpose the old. Technical assistance in business planning and marketing and energy-ecient logistics are extremely valuable. Cities should be aware that right-sizing inrastructure may mean developing several dierent levels o aggregation and distribution; that is, small corner stores and restaurants will need smaller, more requent deliveries than ull-size supermarkets or institutional ood services. Because urban armers with limited resources may also need aggregation points to be located close to their elds, zoning and ordinances may come into play.
There are also some ederal resources available or this inrastructure. USDA released a memo in October 2011 46 detailing its programs related to local oods. One that was specically highlighted is the Wholsal, Farmrs, and Altrnatv Markt Dvlomnt program . According 45
Bragg, Errol, and James Barham. Undated. “Regional Food Hubs: Linking producers to new markets.” USDA Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food (KYF2) Regional Food Hub Subcommittee. Powerpoint presentation accessed at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getle?dD http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getle?dDocName=STELPRDC ocName=STELPRDC5088011&a 5088011&acct=wdmgenino cct=wdmgenino on June 15, 2012.
46
Merrigan, Kathleen. 2011. “ Memo on Urban Agriculture and Gardening – Supporting arm viability, viability, building access to nutritious, aordable ood and encouraging rural-urban linkages.” October 14. Accessed on October 31, 2011 at http://ky.blogs.usda.gov/les/20 http://ky.blogs.usda.gov/les/2011/10/USDA_Ur 11/10/USDA_Urban_Ag_Memo-Final.pd. ban_Ag_Memo-Final.pd.
28
to the memo, this “program conducts research and provides technical assistance to State agencies, municipalities and non-prot organizations on direct arm marketing, ood supply chain practices, and market acility design and inrastructure. It also analyzes the potential o innovative delivery systems to help small and midsized producers gain access to new market channels, enhance arm protability, and expand the availability o resh ood supplies in retail and oodservice channels.” Many states have used Farm Bill programs such as the Specialty Crop Block Grant to develop marketing inrastructure, while the Federal State Marketing Improvement Program and the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program have been used to develop marketing alternatives.
Cities may nd the “Financing Healthy Food Options Resource Bank,”” a site maintained Bank, ma intained by the US Department o Treasury’s Community Development Develop ment Financial Institutions Fund a useul resource. The site provides overviews o dierent parts o the agricultural and ood sector rom a business and investment perspective, training curriculum and training webinars. Resources are available at www.cdfund.gov.
Creating this kind o inrastructure is oten reerred to as “scaling up local ood systems.” Scaling up is the process o making locally produced oods available in more places to more people more oten. While armers’ markets and other direct marketing relationships provide good ood and community connections, they also require a great deal o marketing time rom the armer without guaranteed sales, and are oten held at times or in places that are inconvenient to large numbers o consumers. Scaling up local ood systems can maintain the values and connections that both consumers and armers appreciate in local ood systems while moving larger quantities o local ood through ecient systems that are rewarding and convenient or armers, consumers, ches and others. Essentially, scaling up is about creating new ood value chains. A value chain diers rom traditional concepts o a supply chain in that members o the chain share risks and benets in true partnership across the chain (s Fgr 8). USDA’s USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food F ood program highlights a number o dierent projects that are creating the inrastructure or local ood systems at their Compass website, http://www.usda.gov/kycompass .
University extension services can be useul partners or cities interested in scaling up their local ood systems. For example, extension services in each o the 12 states that make up the North Central Region o USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program have a statewide team specically trained in scaling up local ood systems. 47 The Northeast Regional Center or Rural Development is coordinating a regionwide project that provides research and extension inormation about community, local and regional ood systems. 48 Additionally, members o the National Good Food Network (http://ngn.org/ ( http://ngn.org/ ) maintain proessional proles on their website, which can help cities who are seeking out expert advice. 49
47
The 12 states o the region are Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Miss ouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota. A reader can vi ew resources and presentations rom a regionwide training session at http://www.northcentralsare.org/Abouthttp://www.northcentralsare.org/About-Us/Regional-Initiatives/Scaling-Up-Loc Us/Regional-Initiatives/Scaling-Up-Local-Food. al-Food.
48
More inormation about “Enhancing Food Security in the Northeast with Regional Food Systems” can be ound at http://nercrd.psu.edu/esne.html.
49
As dened by the Kellogg Foundation’s Food and Community Program, “good ood” is grown in ecologically sound ways (green), is healthy or people and communities, provides air returns or armers and workers, and is aordable or all members o the community. community.
29
Figure 8. Reproduced rom “Moving Food along the Value Chain: Innovations in Regional Food Distribution” published by USDA in March 2012.
BeST ReSOuRCeS
Concentrated eorts to “scale up” local ood systems exist across the country. Through the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass program http://www.usda.gov/kycompass , USDA has produced a number o reports that highlight local ood inrastructure needs, analysis and solutions. Particularly valuable are the Moving Food Along the Value Chain: Innovations in Regional Food Distribution50 and the Regional Food Hub Resource Guide .51 The rst report analyzes eight ood value chains across the country to see how they operate, the challenges they ace, and how best to acilitate emerging opportunities in local and regional ood chains. The second describes the concepts behind ood hubs, maps where they exist, explores their impact, and examines their economic viability. The National Good Food Network ( http://ngn.org/ ) connects people working on the “good” ood system by maintaining a proessionals database, hosting and archiving monthly webinars and serving as a resource center. 50
Diamond, Adam, and James Barham. 2012. Moving Food Along the Value Chain: Innovations in Regional Food http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getle?dDocNa ?dDocNa Distribution . USDA Agriculture Marketing Service. Accessed at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getle me=stelprdc5097504 me=stelprdc5097504 on 3/31/2012. 3/31/2012.
51
Barham, James, Debra Tropp, Kathleen Enterline, Je Farbman, John Fisk, and Stacia Kiraly. 2012. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide . U.S. Department o Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Washington, D.C. April.
30
Healthy Food Systems: A Toolkit or Building Buil ding Value Value Chains 52 provides practitioners and
communities with conceptual models o ood value chains and tools or building markets, increasing supply and providing processing, aggregation and distribution. It refects on the lessons learned by armers and consumers involved in the Appalachian Harvest network. It diers rom the USDA resources mentioned above by providing practical questionnaires aimed at dierent actors in the ood value chain and helping to identiy key needs o specic value chain participants.
Processing Another critical piece o inrastructure or metropolitan areas interested in developing vibrant local and regional ood systems is processing capacity or value-added oods (e.g., salsas, jams, jellies, rozen vegetables and ruits, baked products) as well as dairy or meat products. Farmers gain new markets with value-added oods, or, in the case o dairy and meat products, eliminate signicant barriers to selling their products. Both outcomes help armers develop protable small businesses. Processing can preserve seasonal local ood products or sale year-round, and value-added activities can oer new jobs or less educated workers. Finally, processing capacity can satisy consumers seeking to buy and eat local products year-round. Dairy processing and meat slaughter require extremely specialized acilities and must comply with signicant ood saety regulations. Thus, while providing smaller scale and lower cost acilities in this arena is useul or local ood systems, it is a airly technical arena that will not be discussed urther in this report. However, by assisting in the development o shared kitchen acilities or processing local oods, cities can help entrepreneurs experiment with and develop into seasoned local businesses. Shared acilities can include everything rom kitchen incubators that provide commercial grade kitchens and storage acilities along with standard business incubation services like technical assistance and shared oce space; to shared-use kitchens that are licensed kitchen acilities available or rent or use by small-scale entrepreneurs; to community kitchens that provide communal space or storing or preserving ood products. Farmers and ood entrepreneurs should also investigate co-packing acilities, which are larger scale, private companies that manuacture and package oods or other companies to sell. 53 These companies can pack and label canned oods, sauces, condiments and the like; produce rozen oods, including rozen ruit or vegetables, baked goods or rozen dinners; and guide producers through labeling and marketing strategies. A number o U.S. and Canadian cities have kitchen incubators, including long-standing ones in places like Taos, N.M.; Denver, Colo.; Athens, Ohio; and Toronto, Ontario. In Missouri, both Kansas City and St. Louis have kitchen incubators that serve ood entrepreneurs as well as smaller catering businesses. On the western side o the state, the Independence Regional Ennovation Center54 provides business services along with its ully equipped kitchen acilities. This partnership between the Independence Council or Economic Development and the Independence School District turned an old hospital into “the largest kitchen incubator acility in the Kansas City metro area dedicated to early-stage catering, retail and wholesale ood businesses.” The acility’s ve kitchens and shared commercial equipment allow or “ood preparation, packaging and distribution o nished products in an environment that oers the top level o ood saety.” In St. Louis, the Midtown Enterprise Center houses a kitchen incubator that is supported by the St. Louis County Economic Council. 55 52
Flaccavento, Anthony. 2009. Healthy Food Systems: A Toolkit or Building Value Chains. Prepared or the Central http://www.cannetwork.org/documents/Value%20Chain%2 alue%20Chain%20T 0Toolkit%20 oolkit%20 Appalachian Network . Accessed at http://www.cannetwork.org/documents/V 07.22.09.pd 07.22.09.pd on July 22, 2009.
53
Rushing, J.E. 1999. “Choosing and using a copacker.” Department o Food Science, North Carolina State University. University. Accessed at http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/oodsci/ext/pubs/copackers.html. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/oodsci/ext/pubs/copackers.html. on June 20, 2012.
54
See http://ennovationcenter.com/ http://ennovationcenter.com/ or more inormation.
55
See http://www.slcec.com/midtown-business-incubator-space.ht http://www.slcec.com/midtown-business-incubator-space.html ml or more inormation.
31
BeST ReSOuRCeS
Appalachian Center or Economic Networks (ACEnet) in Athens, Ohio, has one o the oldest and most successul kitchen incubators in existence. ACEnet provides business incubation services, a well-equipped commercial kitchen, marketing and distribution assistance, and access to nancing as well as acilitating regional marketing campaigns. For more inormation see http://acenetworks.org/ and check out their YouTube channel through the Northeast Ohio Food Web (NEOFoodWeb). Cities might also consult Markley and Hilchey’s Adding Value or Sustainability: A Guidebook or Cooperative Extension Agents and Other Agricultural Proessionals , now available in e-book orm.56
56
Hilchey, Hilchey, Duncan, and Kristen Markley. 2000. Adding Value or Sustainability: A Guidebook or Cooperative Extension Agents and Other Agricultural Proessionals . Pennsylvania Association or Sustainable Agriculture and Cornell University’s Farming Alternatives Program.
32
MIssourI’s urBAn AgrIcuLture In 2011 the Missouri Legislature’s Joint Committee on Urban Agriculture, along with the Subcommittee Advisory Group on Urban Agriculture, conducted our hearings in Kansas City, Springeld, Columbia and St. Louis. A nal hearing was held in Jeerson City in January 2012 while the General Assembly was in session. Reviews and testimony rom these hearings were analyzed to identiy issues o concern to urban agriculture advocates in Missouri. Recommendations were also oered by residents who testied. This resulted in a nal report o the committee and proposed legislation 57 that did not pass in the 96th General Assembly. In general, Missouri’s urban agriculturalists ace similar issues to those in the nation as a whole. It is clear that urban agriculture quickly involves the larger ood system or most practitioners. For example, improving ood access, addressing obesity issues, removing the disconnect between consumers and the ood they eat, encouraging arm-to-school programs, and re-localizing the ood supply are all ood system issues identied in the hearings that oten transcend metropolitan boundaries. In addition, certain production and marketing issues, including organic and ood saety certication as well as access to markets and ood distribution, transcend urban-rural boundaries and are largely a matter o arm scale and protability. However, specic concerns about soil remediation in contaminated areas and brownelds, cost o and access to water, and land tenure and long-term security on improved urban arms remain strong barriers in Missouri’s cities and may provide opportunities or change.
Cities should clearly dene urban agriculture when approaching policies, education or technical assistance. Four Missouri urban agriculture advocates who were interviewed dened urban agriculture as “any activity that relates to the production o ood in an urban setting, including growing vegetables, ruits, herbs, grains but b ut also the raising o livestock/insects or ood production. production.”” — (D-5, L-4, N-6, S-2) Two o the interviewees expanded it to larger ood system issues as in “Growing and processing and distributing and selling produce and other agricultural produce in and around cities, emphasis on selling, and market” mar ket” — (M-1, (M- 1, R-3) One clearly articulated that urban arming is about selling products, and not using them just or home consumption; while another asserted that “Urban agriculture is community based and community minded.” — (Ni-8, M-1)
While the Missourians who testied beore the Joint Committee were interested in larger ood system issues as well as more practical urban agricultural issues, the urban agricultural practitioners and advocates we interviewed tended to dene urban agriculture in terms o production and distribution without many o the larger ood system issues. it s mortant or Mssor cts to clary thr dfntons o rban agrcltr and clarly artclat whch olcs, tchncal assstanc and dcaton can b changd and romotd basd on drnt knds o rban agrcltr and ood systm sss.
Missouri urban agriculture advocates are hoping that ood production in cities will expand and grow through the creation o more urban arms and community gardens – even through edible landscaping58 – and that by raising awareness and providing education, more people will become involved, especially among minority groups. They hope to see city or other public 57
House Bill 1660 in Missouri’s 96th General Assembly. The bill passed unanimously out o the Missouri House Agriculture Committee but did not receive a general hearing.
58
Edible landscaping “is the use o ood-producing plants in the residential landscape.” (Oregon State Extension http://extension.oregonstate.edu/mg/metro/sites/deault/les/Edible_Lan http://extension.oregonstate.ed u/mg/metro/sites/deault/les/Edible_Landscaping.pd). dscaping.pd). Edible landscaping is promoted by groups such as Food Not Lawns (http://www.oodnotlawns.com/). (http://www.oodnotlawns.com/). Edible landscaping sometimes doesn’t conorm to existing city codes, as evidenced by a recent case in Tulsa, Okla., where a resident sued the city or destroying plants the city considered a nuisance. (See http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/botanicalhttp://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/botanicalbattle-woman-suing-tulsa-ater-city-crew/nPcC battle-woman-suing-tulsa-at er-city-crew/nPcC3/ 3/ or more inormation.)
33
lands be used or ood production to address issues o ood security. in gnral, ths advocats blv thr ar cty ofcals who sort rban agrcltr and ar asy to work wth, bt thy wold lk mor awarnss o th otntal bnfts o rban agrcltr rom lctd ofcals. However, these practitioners and advocates also see substantial barriers to urban agriculture in Missouri cities: •
•
•
•
•
The need to clariy regulations, rework ordinances (especially zoning ordinances), and review policies in general (6 o 8 interviewees cited this as a barrier) Lack o access to water, including reasonable costs or hook-ups and water use (5 o 8 interviewees) The need or education and increasing involvement in urban agriculture (4 o 8 interviewees) Access to land and security on that land or urban growers, especially with transers o vacant lots (3 o 8 interviewees) Contamination o soil and lack o access to good soil (3 o 8 interviewees)
Our general sense rom the interviews is that communication between urban agriculture advocates and practitioners and city ocials has been generally good but that both can do a better job o increasing awareness o and education about city policies that allow or urban agriculture activities. This is particularly important or the average citizens who want to start in urban agriculture in their cities. Missouri cities should address the need to provide less costly access to water or urban agriculture (especially or community gardens), oer ways or urban agriculturalists to secure land and protect their land tenure, and review their city codes and ordinances that might impede the development and growth o urban agriculture (e.g., on-site sales o arm and garden products). Interviewees also identied a clear need to understand the extent o urban agriculture now practiced across Missouri. The Missouri Department o Agriculture has created a registry o gardens (including urban plots) that can provide one estimate o urban agriculture activity, 59 but there is little inormation about how many plots are devoted to urban agriculture, how much those plots produce, the economic activity generated by those plots, and the viability o urban growers. This is a refection o a more general need or better long-term research and evaluation o urban agriculture impacts at the national level. BeST pRACTiCeS
The city o Kansas City, Missouri, engaged with constituents in two dierent processes in 2010. First, the city council reviewed and updated codes aecting urban agriculture activities. The code – passed in June 2010 – secures the right o homeowners to grow produce in their ront yard or consumption or o-site sales; allows or on-site sales rom urban arms; enables local growers to have apprentices and interns; and allows gardening as a principal or accessory use o a property. The city council also sponsored a Food Summit that brought together community leaders, advocates or local ood systems, city sta and resource people to think about how to improve the ood system in Kansas City. Similar types o ood summits have been held in Columbia and St. Louis. Such summits allow or many dierent people involved in the ood system to come together to meet and share ideas.
59
See AgriMissouri’s 10,000 gardens registry at http://agrimissouri.com/gardens/
34
Mii 96h gal Ambl, 2012: H Bill 1660 This bill establishes Urban Agriculture Zones in municipalit municipalities ies in Missouri. Specically the bill Creates distinctions distinc tions or Urban Agricultu Ag riculture re Zones (UAZ) either eith er Grower, Vendor, or Processor. Provides or distinction and approval o an Urban Agriculture Zone at the discretion o municipalities. Municipalities o 5,000 residents will be eligible, ensuring local control over UAZs. Provides tax abatement or blighted properties that qualiy as UAZs (Chapter 353 Mo. Revised Statutes), as 10 years pre-assessed value, and 15 years at 50% o the assessed value. Provides a 50% discount to UAZs or hooking up to municipal water sources. Allows UAZs to be eligible or wholesale water costs. Species that sales taxes in vendor UAZs will be placed into a und overseen by the treasurer’s oce and allocated to school districts as seed money or elementary and secondary school gardens. •
•
•
•
•
•
According to the bill’s sponsors, the establishment o Urban Agriculture Zones will Provide Pro vide a hedge against rising ood costs or local residents and communities; Reduce ood miles and thus the carbon ootprint o ood transportation; Lead to less importation o ood rom other states and countries; Connect consumers to their ood sources through living illustrations o growing and distributing ood; Alleviate Alleviat e urban blight; Increase social connectedness in communities; and Mitigate criminal elements associated with abandoned and vacant lots. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
More inormation is provided below about barriers and potential remedies rom both the Joint Committee hearings and the interviews. See the blue box above or a discussion o the House Bill 1660, which resulted rom the committee hearings. Barrrs dntfd n jont commtt harngs
St. Los
Access to ood is oten inadequate, especially in ood deserts and among low-income communities
x
Organic regulations are dicult to meet
x
Kansas Cty
Colmba
Srngfld
x x
Statewide policy can be impeded by local barriers Brownelds need soil remediation
x
x
City residents need better access to water suitable or agriculture
x
x
x
x
Land tenure and land security can impact growers ability to plan and discourage improvements
x
Missouri has high obesity rates
x
Sales tax on ood can limit ood access
x
There is a disconnect between city residents and where their ood comes rom
x
x
x x
35
Barrrs dntfd n jont commtt harngs
St. Los
Oten ood produced in school gardens is not allowed to be used in school ood service (city specic)
Kansas Cty
Colmba
x
Srngfld
x
Zoning issues can aect growers’ security on land
x
State agencies oten lack coordination on ood issues
x
Urban agriculture needs new ood distribution inrastructure
x
Access to markets is a big concern or urban growers
x
Rcommndatons mad n jont commtt harngs
St. Los
Kansas Cty
Encourage composting, especially among state institutions such as universities and prisons
x
x
Find more opportunities or children to visit arms
x
Issue browneld credits or urban agricultural clean-up
x
Colmba
Use common ground or urban agriculture. Schools and parks could partner in providing land or community gardens
Srngfld
x
Subsidize heirloom crops. Subsidize organic oods, especially in ood deserts. Subsidize school lunch. Subsidize certication (organic and good agricultural practices, GAP)
x
Provide or on-site sales or gardens
x
x
x
x
Provide incentives or policies to help with the cost o water, such as subsidizing water, or providing tax incentives or creation o water catchment
x
x
Remove sales tax on ood (A related item is to tax ood not grown in Missouri)
x
x
Formulate statewide regulations to promote re-localization o the ood supply
x
Create arm-to-school programs
x
Create incentives or businesses to eliminate ood deserts
x
Adopt cottage laws on ood processing
x
36
concLusIons Many cities and towns are now looking at how they can be more sustainable, and promoting urban agriculture is one step toward a goal o increased overall sustainability. Urban agriculture also ts with increasing interest in enhancing and developing ood systems that can contribute to a community’s overall economic, social, environmental and nutritional development. Urban agriculture is one strategy or achieving sustainable ood systems and can be seen as a way to address key citizen issues such as increasing access to healthy oods, encouraging community economic development or green economy goals, and strengthening community relationships. This conclusion is supported by the experience o national listservs like COMFOOD, which receive multiple requests or inormation about urban agriculture. Not only can urban agriculture provide residents with a resh and important ood source, but it can also bring about an increased awareness o our relationship to the ood cycle. By orming just and well-thoughtout urban agriculture ordinances, cities can allow citizens the right to produce their own ood or access healthy oods while also addressing the concerns o other stakeholder groups. However, rom our research, we nd that many questions impede the urther development o urban agriculture. There are signicant questions about what kinds o tools cities can use to promote and encourage urban agriculture. These and other questions might be best addressed through inormation sharing among cities about ordinances and planning tools, as well as among practitioners and advocates. We believe that this sharing o inormation can be accomplished by continuing to populate the searchable database that we constructed through this project. While USDN members can already share ood systems inormation, this searchable database brings in other inormation and resources while providing or public access. The landscape o urban agriculture and local ood systems is extremely dynamic at the present time. An enormous amount o inormation has been published during the very time period o our project, refecting the intense interest in this topic. Where USDN might help is in the clarfcaton o trms and concts sd n rban agrcltr and local ood systms , especially as the diverse sectors and interests involved have specialized concepts and language. For instance, city planners oten use language that is not understood by the general public, while armers and ood entrepreneurs have developed their own concepts and terms. What exactly are USDN members interested in – urban arming, community gardens, developing local ood systems, institutional purchasing? Most likely it is all o the above, but they cannot be all lumped into the terms “urban agriculture” or “local and regional ood systems.” I local and regional ood systems are to be pursued, then issues o scale and boundaries are particularly important or USDN members. This may require urther refection and thought about ways that USDN members can help bridge these boundaries in developing local and regional ood systems. There is a great deal o interest rom cities as well as practitioners and advocates in data about urban agriculture – how it is practiced, what benets it provides, and what city ordinances will either limit or encourage urban agriculture. While there is signicant data about urban agriculture at the international level, it appears there is a big gap in data that is useul in the U.S. and Canadian contexts, especially as it relates to inventories o urban agriculture land or plots, and valaton and rsarch on urban agriculture that could hl cts mlmnt vdnc-basd stratgs . A orthcoming drat analysis rom OSEDA, MU o studies o the impacts o community gardens (one part o the urban agriculture community) reveals that certain economic, health and social benets accrue with community gardens, but there is little longitudinal analysis o impacts. Across the three groups surveyed, interviewed or considered or this project – USDN
37
members, urban agriculture practitioners and advocates, and those who testied beore the Joint Committee on Urban Agriculture – there are also questions o how best to organize communities around urban agriculture. While we have provided some inormation in this report, this may be an area that USDN is interested in pursuing. 60 These summary points are urther explored below.
Best PrActices for encoUrAging And Promoting UrBAn AgricUltUre AgricUltUre During this study, several best practices have become apparent and many USDN members have adopted them. First, urban agriculture is emerging as important or many cities, but as cities grapple with ways to support and encourage urban agricultural activities, there is no one “best” path. As the report by Goldstein et al. 61 indicated, urban agriculture will necessarily be rooted in place, and best practices or urban agriculture are specic to the local context. Thus, those cities that are undertaking a rvw o cods and cty ordnancs that may inhibit the development o urban agriculture, or workng wth stakholdrs n ood olcy concls or ood systm assssmnts are taking important steps that will help them understand and engage with urban agriculture as it is practiced in their cities. Perhaps because o these reviews, many o the respondents to our survey suggested that a place to share resources and inormation would be helpul. Sharing as a strategy should be accomplished in the new web page rom the University o Missouri that results rom this project. Cities will want to explore the sarchabl databas to nd examples o successul policies, useul resources or academic research. Each orm o urban agriculture included is given a brie description and a list o resources and policies related to that orm. As we’ve identied problems in the communication o existing and new policies between municipalities and advocates and practitioners, one o main components o this database is its ability to grow. This will allow or the web page to be kept up to date with new and revised policy changes. Another useul strategy or cities to support and encourage urban agriculture is drct ngagmnt wth commnty rsdnts and stakholdrs n rban agrcltr . Because so many cities are overhauling or rethinking zoning and ordinances that constrain urban agriculture, now is the time to undertake education and outreach eorts to ensure that city ocials and urban agricultural practitioners and advocates understand what is and isn’t working in their cities. Many o the practitioners and advocates o urban agriculture in metro areas in Missouri believe that cities have policies in place to allow or successul urban agriculture projects but that a majority o citizens don’t know about the policies or the support that cities can provide. Thus, they end up making mistakes or criticizing the cities or not supporting urban agriculture. Engaging with stakeholders and community residents can help cities take a “how to do” urban agriculture approach, one that promotes overall objectives o a particular city, rather than saying in absolute terms “Yay or Nay” to urban agriculture. It may also help or cities to have a designated point o contact or residents and stakeholders who want to “do” urban agriculture. This point o contact could bridge knowledge and communication gaps between city administrations and city dwellers.
how-to APProAches rely on commUnicAtion Cty concls shold adot a “how to” aroach to rban agrcltr rathr than a “ys” or “no,” as a growng lst o cts romotng rban agrcltr across th naton shows that t can b don sccsslly. 60
Colleagues at the University o Mi ssouri’s Oce o Social and Economic Data Analysis were commissioned to review research literature on community gardens. The authors have seen a drat report issued in May 2012, but it is undergoing revision. Once the report is complete, it will be uploaded to the searchable database created through this project.
61
Goldstein, et al. 2011.
38
Communication is the key to having a good urban agriculture strategy. In interviews, Missouri advocates and experienced practitioners say that many barriers can be worked out or addressed through current city ordinances and ocials but that olks new to urban agriculture or less experienced – the so-called everyman in urban agriculture — don’t have the inormation they need to get started or do urban agriculture in compliance with city policies. Thus, more communication o and education about city policies is necessary to promote urban agriculture well within a city. Cities want to avoid a reactionary approach that deals with issues o urban agriculture ater a arm or garden is already started and in violation – knowingly or not – o city policies. Approaching the issue beorehand means cities can set the ground rules, in dialogue with stakeholders and practitioners, to encourage urban agriculture in many dierent orms. In dealing with ood system issues in general, and urban agriculture in particular, language is extremely important. The language o planning and city ordinances is oten oreign to urban agriculture practitioners and advocates, while agricultural knowledge systems and practices are oten specialized and not widely shared by the community at large. Thus, while cities and practitioners and advocates may have the same goal in mind, the communication process could be tripped up by specialized language and knowledge. For instance, in Seattle, there is an “FAQ” associated with the permitting process that basically simplies the ordinances so that everyday olks trying to do urban agriculture can gure it out. In essence, helping practitioners understand what the city already has in place and what they need to know could help residents comply with ordinances.
Bridging the gAPs: whAt work mAy need to Be done? While communication gaps might occur at the local level, there are certain knowldg gas generally about urban agriculture that the USDN could work to eliminate. First, or city planners and urban agriculture practitioners alike, there is little valaton and rsarch on urban agriculture that is widely available to hl cts mlmnt vdnc-basd stratgs . The searchable database that is beginning to be populated through this project and will remain a dynamic tool can help to share inormation about cities’ current policy tools and education eorts, but there needs to be evidence o the social, economic and nutritional benets o dierent orms o urban agriculture to assist cities in using urban agriculture to accomplish sustainability goals. The term rban agrcltr s bng sd broadly by many cities to ncld what are usually reerred to as ood systm sss , including development o local ood systems, ood access, and institutional purchasing o locally produced oods. The production and distribution o ood in local ood systems in the volume necessary to address institutional ood purchasing or ood access issues, is regionally based and necessarily will include the metro area and beyond. Metro areas that straddle multiple city, county and state jurisdictions already have signicant coordination issues to address as the development o regional ood systems will necessarily extend into rural counties several hours rom the metro area. embddng rban agrcltr n dscssons o ths largr ood systm sss s xtrmly bnfcal, bt t s mortant to clary qstons o scal and th lvl at whch lannng or organzng shold tak lac. Cities that are using a ood policy council approach are already dealing with these issues, generally by including at least city and county jurisdictions. 62 Thr ar a nmbr o tools, rsorcs and artnrshs that wll hl cts. USDA’s Know
Your Farmer, Know Your Food program synthesizes and aggregates a vast amount o resources on creating local ood systems. Nonprot groups and educational entities like universities 62
For instance, the Greater Kansas City Food Policy Coalition, which is a grassroots organization, works closely with the Mid-America Regional Planning Council (MARC), which coordinates planning and policies or the twostate metro area on behal o multiple municipal and county political entities. This planning area includes nine counties across the two states, and several cities, including Kansas City, Lee’s Summit and Independence on the Missouri side and Kansas City (Kan.), Overland Park, Olathe and Lenexa, all o which rank on top ten population centers in their respective states. The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Food Policy Coalition similarly works across jurisdictions and includes private-public approaches.
39
and university extension services have developed and are providing resources in urban ood production (e.g., soil testing, dealing with contaminated soil, best practices or production), ood distribution (e.g., ood hubs, institutional purchasing o oods), community ood assessments, and evaluation. We have listed some o these resources throughout the report, but many more have been included in the searchable database. While these resources can help cities, the act remains that supporting urban agriculture and strengthening local and regional ood systems is at heart a local process o communication between and among city ocials, practitioners and advocates, nonprots, neighborhood groups, private business and state and ederal agencies. Because urban agriculture and local ood systems continue to be high priority areas or USDN members, ongoing discussions in the new Food System User Group and new innovation grant projects provide an opportunity to build upon the research and ndings o this project. These ongoing discussions should also be used to determine how best to utilize and update the new searchable database created through this project in concert with the resources and inormation available on the USDN website. While the USDN website is a valuable tool to share inormation among USDN members, the searchable database provides an open orum to communicate and share inormation among USDN members, urban agriculture practitioners, local ood policy council members, university extension sta, elected ocials, and interested members o the public. Bridging communication gaps between networks or interest groups may be a dicult process, but it will be essential or achieving the ull potential o urban agriculture and local ood systems.
40
APPendIx This appendix contains quoted or paraphrased responses to the survey o USDN members and interviews with practitioners and advocates in Columbia, Kansas City and St. Louis. Tabl A1: What rsondnts wold lk to s rom ths stdy? Cty
Gnral ss
Scfc qstons
Calgary, Calgary, Burlington, Edmonton
Land use/City ordinances
•
•
•
•
Calgary, Calgary, Portland Maine, Milwaukee
Food system issues
•
•
•
• •
Calgary, Calgary, Fort Myers, Raleigh
Political engagement/ community organizing
•
•
•
•
41
How has urban agriculture been incorporated into land use zoning and bylaws, including any spatial considerations and allocations in land use planning? How has or can the issue o urban sprawl and associated land costs and value be addressed to ensure protection o agricultural lands or arming versus presumption or development while still considering the average age o armers and their desire to retire with sucient nancial support? How cities can work together to change cumbersome and long-standing city ordinances that thwart urban agriculture? How can areas like greenbelts and rootops be utilized or urban agriculture? It would be great to gain insight into how other municipalities are dealing with land use issues (e.g., preservation o agriculture land) and economic issues. How can we address the nancial viability o urban or peri-urban arming or create incentives or urban and peri-urban agriculture to increase ood security but also consider issues o aordability? How can we address the labor shortage or competition or labor and associated high wages that aect the cost o ood, including the potential impacts immigrant workers? How can we access unding (be it government led or through social nance initiatives) to support sustainable local ood production? What other cities have ood security plans? Can urban agriculture create ull-time employment through ood production? How have the values o urban agriculture successully been delivered or communicated to gain political support? How to create incentives and involve the community in these types o projects (urban agriculture)? What models have other communities used to organize their urban agriculture eorts? How does one acilitate urban agriculture with no money?
Tabl A1: What rsondnts wold lk to s rom ths stdy? Cty
Gnral ss
Balt Baltim imor ore, e, Milw Milwau auke kee e
Cont ontamin aminat atio ion/ n/pr prod odu uctio ction n
Scfc qstons •
•
•
Baltimore, Cleveland
Access to capital
•
•
Cleveland, Lawrence, Salt Lake City
Local oods
•
•
•
Lawrence, Kan., Minneapolis, Raleigh, Milwaukee
Resources and research
•
•
• •
Knoxville, Raleigh, Madison
Insurance/liability
•
• •
Burlington
Poultry/livestock
•
•
42
How are cities successully dealing with the problem o soil contamination and potential health risks versus the expense o testing and remediation? How can northern-tier cities easily expand urban agriculture despite being subject to severe winters? Milwaukee is considered as a national innovation center or urban agriculture and aquaponics, and the city is committed to the sustainability o its urban agriculture system. How are cities successully dealing with access to capital or beginning urban armers What about access to capital? We are looking at Slow Money and other examples, but this is a barrier or growers. How to make institutional purchasing o ood produce within the city easible or growers and institutions? I am most interested in research that supports institutional ood purchasers’ conversion to local ood buying. Here we have a university, university, a jail, many schools, a hospital, etc. that would all benet rom that. How to cultivate ood hubs? I nd model policies and ordinances to be most helpul. Thereore, any recommendations that are accompanied by models are most useul. Evaluation o current systems that tie urban agriculture and economic development. Evaluation o current urban agriculture marketing programs. What are other cities doing? Milwaukee is considered as a national innovation center or urban agriculture and aquaponics, and the city is committed to the sustainability o its urban agriculture system. How, in the absence o a carrying nonprot, do community groups overcome the insurance requirement costs associated with my legal department’s department’s requirements? How have other cities handled the liability issues? Resolving liability issues to acilitate the planting o community gardens and edible landscaping on public lands How can chickens and livestock be incorporated into an urban agriculture plan when there is limited space? How can issues o smell and noise successully be addressed?
Tabl A2: Basd on yor answrs to th rvos qston (on barrrs), what solton(s) ar yo alyng or consdrng? Cty
Gnral ss
Scfc sss
Columbia, St. Louis, Fort Myers, Fayetteville, Salt Lake City
Direct engagement
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chicago, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Raleigh, St. Paul, Burlington, Dallas, Flagsta, Minneapolis, Vancouver, Vancouver, Knoxville, Cleveland, Salt Lake City
Ordinance revision
•
•
•
• • •
• • • • • •
•
43
It’s typically a person-to-person discussion, when a situation comes up restricting urban agriculture projects developing. Outreach to civic leaders to engage them and have them see urban agriculture projects throughout the city and county. Integration with other agencies such as the health department and ood pantries in the development o uture policies. None in particular. Each group working in the realm o urban agriculture addresses an issue as they come to it and usually it is worked around in one way or another. Work with the health department to help provide education to address health concerns. Work with residents to ensure that best management practices are applied in urban agriculture projects. Developing urban agriculture site environmental and site preparation protocols on city-owned property. The largest barrier to gardening in San Francisco is access to land, which is being addressed in zoning code changes and city programs to increase access - such as the Street Parks program and the land audit. City review o zoning and ordinances should initiate changes benecial to the urban agriculture community. Revising the zoning code Rewriting zoning regulations and city ordinances, Trying to change zoning and city ordinances to make it a more riendly environment or urban agriculture. Working to change zoning and ordinances. Updating codes. Zoning amendments going through city council. Policy changes. Zoning overhauls that address each issue. We have worked to update codes, policy and zoning to accommodate urban agriculture. We have revised our ordinances to remove barriers related to regulations or zoning.
Tabl A2: Basd on yor answrs to th rvos qston (on barrrs), what solton(s) ar yo alyng or consdrng? Cty
Gnral ss
Scfc sss
Chicago, Portland Maine, Fort Myers, Fayetteville, Flagsta, Minneapolis, Lawrence, Baltimore
Policy review
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
Chicago, Vancouver, Calgary
Assessment/action plans
•
•
•
St. Louis, San Francisco, Provision o water Milwaukee, Madison, Saint Paul, Dallas, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Dubuque
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
44
Internal city working group to review city policies and codes related to ood enterprises, code changes as warranted. We are undertaking a review o potential sites or community gardens to identiy the best sites or expanding the program and establishing a process to site new gardens. The intent is to streamline the site plan review process. Comprehensive review o city policies. In the case o zoning, I am imagining that planning sta will eventually bring orward new use units that will allow one to get a conditional use permit or certain agricultural activities not currently allowed. Working with the comprehensive plan committee to incorporate ood policy. policy. Working through various business licensing related to ood restrictions. We are actively working with the Food Policy Council to review zoning and codes that are prohibitive to urban agriculture activities. Investigating a policy or dealing with soil contamination. The ood plan incorporates drat recommendations to develop business, site development and training resources or ood enterprises. Development o urban health strategy and ood strategy. These will be identied and addressed through our current Food System Assessment and Action Plan, which includes a parallel report specic to land use. Securing water rom a hydrant has not been dicult and it does not allow or drip irrigation. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has identied $100,000 to install water meters or urban agriculture zoned and community gardens. Water department cooperating with urban agriculture groups on access to water; ater years o ew restrictions, the water department is tightening access to water or urban agriculture, but helping to nd alternate solutions. Working with the water utility to provide service and adjust rates. Looking into unds or water access. Working to develop best practices or water (collection, conservation, exploring reduced rates). Developed more transparent process on how to access water. We oer reduced water rates. Use o rain barrels at community garden sites.
Tabl A2: Basd on yor answrs to th rvos qston (on barrrs), what solton(s) ar yo alyng or consdrng? Cty
Gnral ss
Scfc sss
St. Louis, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Baltimore
Provision o capital
•
• •
•
St. Louis, Milwaukee, Madison, Dallas, Dubuque
Funding
•
•
• • • •
St. Louis, Ft. Collins, Other Milwaukee, Burlington, Dallas, Flagsta, Cleveland
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
45
We also work with several armers and agencies to secure the capital through grant unding. Providing low-interest business loan. Cleveland’s economic development department oers small, Neighborhood Retail Assistance Program grants or market growers. Working with local lenders to investigate options or capitalizing urban agriculture operations (small grants, revolving loan und, micro-loans). Looking or other alternatives to und necessary inrastructure or urban agriculture projects. City is applying or a greater number o grants directly related to urban agriculture as well as browneld clean-up. Grants or new garden proposals, Working to secure grant monies and donations. Working to secure browneld mitigation grants. Creation o wading pool garden grant program (to address landlord restrictions or renters). St. Louis is working to start a centralized incubator arm to establish inrastructure necessary or operation and subsequent Land Reutilization Authority lots or growing crops. We were orced to remove our beehives because the neighborhood association called or a community vote rom uneducated neighbors who voted “no hives” out o ear. We used a large amount o ree mulch delivered by the city and raised berm systems because soil tests showed the land was ree o contaminants but was not nutrient dense. Having the soil brought in was extremely costly. Learning more about how ordinances and zoning issues are developed and decided upon. Build community gardens in local parks. City is cooperating with initiatives such as mobile ood marts and armers’ markets on health issues Working on browneld issues - looking into using brownelds to house greenhouses. Homeowners associations are powerul in our state; will require legislative change. Providing access to gardening in low-income, highdensity areas. Work with university extension to oer soil tests beore arming in the city.
Tabl A3: Lst th nams o agncs, advocats and racttonrs that hav bn most ntrstd n romotng rban agrcltr n yor cty.
As Mark Winne said, local ood systems (and urban agriculture) require partnerships. This table highlights the partnerships that exist in cities. The majority are community groups, which which have no highlighting, while other other partnerships are coded in the ollowing ways: Food policy coalition; Task orce; Urban agriculture alliances alliances;; City and state oces; oces; University University,, School, Education; Education; Community groups Baltmor
Baltimore Oce o Sustainability; Sustainability; University o Maryland Extension; Extension; Civic Works; Parks & People Foundation; Power in Dirt.
Boston
The Food Project; Garden Girl; ReVision Urban Farm; Massachusetts Department o Agriculture;; Allandale Farm; Boston Natural Area Network Agriculture
Brlngton, Vt.
Urban Agriculture Task Force; Force; Friends o Burlington Gardens; Burlington Permaculture; City Market Co-op; Community and Economic Development Oce; Oce; University o Vermont Extension program; program; University o Vermont Agriculture and Lie Sciences; Sciences; Intervale Food Hub; Burlington Farmers’ Market.
Calgary
University o Calgary SAIT; SAIT; Calgary Parks Foundation; The City o Calgary, Calgary, Parks (Community Gardens and Orchards), The Oce o Sustainability and Environmental and Saety Management (ecoootprint rom ood); Calgary Horticulture Society; Slow Food Calgary; Calgary Farmers Market; Kingsland Farmers Market; Sunnyside Market; Millarville Farmers Market; Community Natural Foods; Verge Permaculture; Big Sky Permaculture; Backyard Bees; Community Garden Resource Network; Network; Calgary Food Bank; GFSA - Growing Food Security Security in Alberta; Alberta Farm Fresh Producers Producers Association; Calgary Zoo Master Gardener Program; GoodFoodBox/Community Kitchens; Calgary Food Policy Council; Council; L.E.A.F.; L.E.A.F.; Dine Alberta; Meals on Wheels; River Caé.
Chcago
City o Chicago; Chicago; Advocates or Urban Agriculture; NeighborSpace; others
Clvland
Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Food Policy Coalition; Coalition; City o Cleveland; Councilman Joe Cimperman; Cimperman; Local Food Cleveland; GrowOhio; Ohio State University Agricultural Extension o Cuyahoga County; County; Cleveland Foundation; and many individual entrepreneurs and dedicated community gardeners.
Colmba, Mo.
Columbia Center or Urban Agriculture; Main Squeeze; Community Garden Coalition; Coalition; University o Missouri Extension; Extension; Unite or Health Neighborhoods; PedNET; PedNET; Columbia Farmers Market; Boone County Farmers Market; numerous providers, educators, columnists, etc.
Dallas
Gardeners in Community Development, Dallas County Master Gardeners [associated with Texas AgriLie Extension rom Texas A&M]; A&M]; Multiple community garden organizations; City o Dallas Oce o Environmental Quality; City o Dallas Sustainable Planning and Development.
Dbq
City o Dubuque; Dubuque; Green Dubuque; Dubuque; Multiple armers markets; Crescent Community Health Center; Iowa State University Extension; Extension; Dubuque Jaycees.
edmonton
There is wide support or promoting urban agriculture within the city rom various levels o government, interest groups, and individual citizens.
Fayttvll, Ark.
City o Fayetteville; Fayetteville; GrowGreen; Fayetteville Community Garden Coalition, Coalition, Appleseeds; National Center or Appropriate Technology; Technology; University o Arkansas (to some extent); extent); Fayetteville Public Schools
Flagsta
City o Flagsta Sustainability Program; Program; Flagsta Foodlink; Willowbend Environmental Education Center; SEDI and Northern Arizona University
Fort Collns, Colo.
City o Fort Collins; Collins; Gardens on Spring Creek; Coalition or Activity & Nutrition to Deeat Obesity; Obesity; Larimer County Youth Conservation Corp (Agricorps); Home Grown Food Colorado; Be Local Northern Colorado; The Growing Project; Local CSAs; Colorado State University Extension and Master Gardner Program; Program; Food Co-op; Poudre School District. District.
Fort Myrs, Fla.
The Roots Heritage Garden
Kansas Cty
City Planning & Development Dept.; Dept.; The City’s Oce o Environmental Quality; Quality; Cultivate Kansas City; Greater Kansas City Food Policy Coalition; Coalition; University o Missouri Kansas City Urban Design & Planning program; program; Kansas City Community Gardens; City Market o Kansas City
Knoxvll
Knoxville’s Food Policy Council; Council; El Puente; Knox County Heath Dept.; Dept.; St. John’s Lutheran Church; Beardsley Community Farm; Farmers Market.
46
Tabl A3: Lst th nams o agncs, advocats and racttonrs that hav bn most ntrstd n romotng rban agrcltr n yor cty.
As Mark Winne said, local ood systems (and urban agriculture) require partnerships. This table highlights the partnerships that exist in cities. The majority are community groups, which have no highlighting, while other other partnerships are coded in the ollowing ways: Food policy coalition; Task orce; Urban agriculture alliances alliances;; City and state oces; oces; University University,, School, Education; Education; Community groups Lawrnc, Kan.
Douglas County Food Policy Council; Council; Lawrence Fruit Tree Project; Community Mercantile Education Foundation; Kansas State University Extension; Extension; Douglas County/Master Gardeners (Note: University extension supported).
Lncoln, Nb.
Community Crops Parks and Recreation Farmer’s Markets
Madson, Wsc.
Community Action Coalition o SW Wisconsin; Wisconsin; REAP; MAC-SAC (A CSA coalition); University o Wisconsin-Extension
Mlwak, Wsc.
Milwaukee Urban gardens; Victory garden Initiative Growing Power; Sweetwater Organics; Braise Center or Resilient Cities; Walnut Way; Kilbourn Gardens; Fondy Food Market; University o Wisconsin Extension; Extension; MKE Metropolitan Sewerage District; District; City o MKE Oce o Environmental Sustainability; Sustainability; Department o City Development
Mnnaols
Institute or Agriculture and Trade Policy; Gardening Matters; [University o] Minnesota Extension;; Farmers Markets; Food Coops; CSAs; Restaurants; Blue Cross Blue Shield etc. Extension
portland, Man
Cultivating Communities; Healthy Portland; Portland Farmers Market; Portland Fish Exchange; Dept. o Public Services; Environmental Programs Division. Division.
Ralgh, N.C.
Advocates or Health and Action; Master Gardeners; Gardeners; Interaith Food Shuttle
Sant pal, Mnn.
City o Saint Paul, Paul, Gardening Matters; Ramsey County and Saint Paul Food and Nutrition Commission;; local CSA’s. Commission
San Francsco
Mayor’s Oce; Oce; Department o the Environment; Environment; Recreation and Parks Department; Department; Department o Public Works; Works; SF Unied School District and the Green Schoolyard Alliance;; Public Utilities Commission; Alliance Commission; Planning Department; Department; The Parks Alliance; Alliance; San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance; Alliance; Garden or the Environment; Little City Gardens; *many* community gardens and individual advocates — too many to list.
St. Los
Gateway Greening; University o Missouri Extension; Extension; Lincoln University Small Farms Outreach;; Lincoln University Urban Impact Center; Outreach Center; The International Institute; Oce o the Mayor/Vanguard Cabinet; Cabinet; Local Harvest Grocery; Washington University; University; Catholic Charities; Saint Louis University; University; Forest Park Greenhouse; New City Christian Fellowship.
Vancovr
City o Vancouver; Vancouver; Vancouver School Board; Board; Vancouver Food Policy Council; Vancouver Urban Agriculture Network; Network; Vancouver Urban Farmers Network; Network; Environmental Youth Alliance; Community Garden Coordinators; Neighbourhood Food Networks; Neighbourhood Houses; other NGOs.
47
Note that Tables A4-A12 come rom interviews with urban agriculture advocates and practitioners in the cities o Columbia, Kansas City and St. Louis. Interviewee responses are coded or confdentially (example L-4). Tabl A4: intrvw rsonss to “How do yo dfn rban agrcltr?”
Production-orientation
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
Distribution
D-5 The production o ood and ber crops in the city or suburban area L-4 Any activity that relates to the production o ood in an urban setting, including growing vegetables, ruits, herbs, grains but also the raising o livestock/insects or ood production M-1 Growing and processing and distributing and selling produce and other agricultural produce in and around cities, emphasis on selling, and market; N-6 The ability or residents to undertake agricultural related unctions within the city not necessarily on a typical arm but can be within single amily residential properties N-8 Any orm o growing edible ood in the city, dierence between community and home gardening is or personal consumption or community consumptions, urban arming is or sale city, town R-3 Growing and distributing ood within an urban area, city, S-2 Food production in the city, it take many dierent orms, in general it’s the production o ood in and around the city. S-7 Any type o production o ood in an urban area, produce such as ruits/ vegetables, livestock, eggs or even fowers, shrubs, and trees should be included too
•
M-1 Growing and processing and distributing and selling produce and other agricultural produce in and around cities, emphasis on selling, and market; city, town R-3 Growing and distributing ood within an urban area, city,
Community-orientation
•
M-1 Urban agriculture is community based and community minded
Distinguish or-prot
•
•
•
M-1 Growing and processing and distributing and selling produce and other agricultural produce in and around cities, emphasis on selling, and market N-8 Any orm o growing edible ood in the city, dierence between community and home gardening is or personal consumption or community consumptions, urban arming is or sale
Tabl A5: What orms o rban agrcltr crrntly xst n yor cty?
Nmbr o thos ntrvwd rsondng afrmatvl afrmatvlyy
Community gardens and gardens at institutions such as schools or churches. Also one indicated edible landscaping as a separate area.
8 o 8
Private gardens: backyard gardens, kitchen gardens, container gardens and rootop gardens.
8 o 8
Urban arms (Note how these were dened: urban arm or garden that is a small arm or market; commercial arms; or traditional traditional arms. This indicates arm means something very dierent than gardening.)
8 o 8
Micro-livestock, including chickens, bees and aquaponics.
5 o 8
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) (Note that one interviewee said that he doesn’t consider CSA urban agriculture i the ood is not grown within the city; Doesn’t include armers markets – [that’s] part o urban ood system.)
4 o 8
Orchards and berry patches
3 o 8
Farmers’ markets (see CSAs)
2 o 8
Nursery stock production
1 o 8
48
Tabl A6: intrvw rsonss to “What wold yo lk to s han wth rban agrcltr n yor cty?” Gnral ss
Scfcs
Increase in production
D-5 To expand, increase the amount o ood and other products being produced; L-4 More people are aware o opportunities to engage in urban agriculture; N-8 Urban arms in every neighborhood – similar to victory garden movement; S-2 Growth – expanding what’s currently there (i.e. backyard gardens and ruit trees, training/education center); S-2 Expand micro-livestock production, and aquaponics; S-7 More individuals having gardens at home; S-7 More people getting into urban gardening and urban agriculture as a orm o supplemental; S-7 More urban armers/gardens using greenhouses/hoop houses to extend the growing season.
Expanded opportunities
L-4 Make more use o community gardens; More community gardens available; M-1 Opportunities or larger garden plots – 20x20; N-8 To have a community garden on every corner; S-2 More community gardens, more sites or urban arming, Pocket garden in neighborhoods; S-7 More schools involved in urban gardens.
Use o public land
M-1 Parks and Rec should provide more resources – developing gardens in parks; R-3 Some type o policy where community gardens are in all parks, re stations; S-7 More vacant lots transerred at no cost rom land trust to neighborhood organizations that could turn them into community gardens, which could become neighborhood gathering places; S-7 More ruit trees in public places.
Community involvement
M-1 More participation rom Arican American community – better outreach, involvement; N-6 Raising awareness and education about urban agriculture to everyday people and growers; N-8 Emphasis on the community/social aspect o urban agriculture; More neighborhood organizations based around urban agriculture.
Food security
L-4 Use o public land or individual urban agriculture users or nonprot users to supplement ood insecurity issues; N-6 For it to grow and or more people have access to resh oods at a reasonable price.
Scaling up
dairy, meat and produce products; S-7 More institutional purchases o locally grown dairy, S-7 Development o ood processing acilities; Licensed kitchen space, central kitchen space.
Codes/ordinances
L-4 Update the codes to incorporate livestock, apiaries, etc. into planning even more; S-2 Development – incorporating new pieces into existing structure.
Water
L-4 Water access issues addressed to make ood production nancially aordable.
Nature/sustainability
D-5 Shit in attitude or mental shit by reconnecting people with nature and redene our understanding o sustainability (use urban agriculture and exposure to it to help create this change).
City interest
M-1 City is taking more o an interest; M-1 Public works – garden at the health department.
Other
D-5 Vocal support o visionary dialogue about what a city can be with urban agriculture; L-4 Investments necessary to meet demands o community gardens; R-3 Increased activity discussion o the idea o ood policy councils; S-2 Sees an opportunity to expand the denition o agriculture include to uel and ber. Thereore Thereore it reads the ood, uel and ber production within the constraints o the city. S-7 Using edible plants as part o landscaping; S-7 More outlets or locally produce products at armers market (not just ruits and vegetables, but also sauces); S-7 Study the advantages o vertical agriculture/aquaponics in vacant buildings.
49
Tabl A7: intrvw rsonss to “What ar th man challngs to rban agrcltr n yor cty?” Gnral ss
Scfc ss
Codes/ordinances
D-5 Regulation and zoning and ordinances – overall evaluation o policies in relation to all orms o urban agriculture needs to be done; L-4 Clarity o codes and ordinances; M-1 Interpretation o code or structures on vacant lots – don’t x it i it’s not broke; N-8 Lack o clarity on high tunnels being allowed on empty lots by city government; R-3 Zoning; S-2 The city has been positive in their working relationship in various projects and agencies rom the city. They haven’t put a lot o money behind it but they have been very supportive as ar as policies. S-7 Ordinances were there but never allowed selling o produce on site.
Access to land
Trusts – County vs. City ownership/expenses, who owns the property, how L-4 Land Trusts to easily identiy trust properties; N-6 Land trust lots; Empty big lots; N-8 Access to sunlight and good soil; S-7 Slow movement on transorming o vacant lots (policies are in place); Vacant lots are even a drain on the city’s economy because o upkeep and they have no economic value as they currently are.
Access to water
L-4 Water accessibility and expenses; M-1 Access to water – installing water hydrants; N-6 Access to water; N-8 Access to water; S-7 Access to water (reasonable water hookup costs and water rates).
Community involvement
M-1 Participation – bulk o the work alls on a ew people; N-6 Lack o education and awareness; N-8 Drawing people out their homes to participate/work in community gardens; R-3 Urban agriculture is a new concept to people /education especially low-income communities; S-2 Keeping people involved in year ater year.
Food security
N-6 Higher premium attached to higher quality, local products.
Sel-interest
D-5 Individual human tendencies to want a comortable liestyle and agriculture is not seen that way; L-4 Local realtors association – questioned that this would do to their neighborhoods.
Other
N-6 Access to capital; N-6 Contamination redevelopment o properties; N-8 Contamination o vacant lots; D-5 We undersell the importance o engaging with nature; M-1 Fencing costs; M-1 Thet – produce.
Tabl A8: intrvw rsonss to “How do yo l Food polcy Concls can b mortant n dscssng or advancng rban agrcltr n yor cty?” Gnral iss
Scfcs
Transparency
D-5 Could benet rom transparency to the public, typical people wouldn’t know what’s going on behind closed doors; R-3 Important in getting missing groups involved
Work with public ocials
L-4 Helping people who are passionate about urban agriculture understand changes to policy, regulations thus becoming better advocates; L-4 Also how to work with elected ocials and ways policies are implemented and organized; N-6 and S-7 oremost promoted and acts as an umbrella agency or small groups/ nonprots working with urban agriculture to be heard; S-2 also help nd public/ private partnerships.
Education
L-4 Yes, it plays a critical role in helping people understand the totality o the ood system and the role urban agriculture plays in that.
Dialogue
it’s a starting point or people to start talking, the city thinks that it’s R-3 Yes, it’s important that it’s not a government driven entity; S-2 it’s important; currently looking to see what advisory council, organization could help address specic ood policy barriers to production in the city.
Food security
N-8 Yes, some o their work is on ood desert issues.
Scaling up
N-8 they are working on local/regional ood hub (aggregation point or regional producers or small-medium arms).
50
Tabl A9: intrvw rsonss to “What dos yor cty do to romot rban agrcltr?” (Not: in gnral th ntrvws dd not dstngs dstngsh h btwn cty govrnmnt and nonroft orts. Also not most sad cts wr on to nw das.)
Promotion
M-1 Parks and Rec is becoming more involved – nding land on city property; Public works – garden on health department; N-8 Urban arm tour around the city; N-8 local organization expos and open houses promoting the urban ood scene; S-7 urban garden tours.
Education
R-3 There a some within government that are supportive but there still needs to be more education o why it could be benecial or the city (economic/development opportunity); S-7 Several programs work to promote urban agriculture through education resources, providing seeds; Two interviewees rom D-5 and L-4 said the city was open to hearing new ideas.
City codes/ordinances
M-1 Zoning un-enorcement; M-1 City is open to allowing on-site sales or urban arms; N-6 There has been a zoning ordinance since 1926 allowing arming in the city, there’s there’s not prohibition against growing in agriculturally zoned areas.
Food access/health
N-8 [Nonprot] program that matches SNAP dollars to allow or more aordability o products; S-2 Several programs are based around concerns o ood s ecurity, ecurity, deserts and overall human obesity; S-7 even medical centers becoming interested in developing a local supermarket.
Tabl A10: Do yo l ol n cty govrnmnt ar on to harng nw das on rban agrcltr? •
D-5 Yes, but need people to come out and make it clearer what is available within the city.
•
L-4 Yes, quite a ew, but there also people who are opposed to it at state and local levels.
•
N-8 For the most part, most are supportive. You run into more issues when you start to involved livestock, chickens, etc. However, when it’s dealing with just produce, there isn’t much opposition.
•
it’s a new concept to some people, need the hard numbers to drive home its benets R-3 Yes, but it’s
•
S-2 Yes, haven’t had any problems and they’ve been really supportive.
•
•
•
S-7 Yes, when ordinance amendments were made there were oppositions rom city ocials, there was also a concern by realtors associations and the state department [o agriculture] has been very helpul. M-1 There are people within city government that are; Unsure about the city council – probably a ew. N-6 Overall yes, there are a ew councilmen and women who are currently involved but overall there is a need to raise awareness and educate more city ocials to understand the benets o urban agriculture and begin to break down barriers related to uncertainties surrounding urban agriculture.
51
Tabl A11: intrvw rsons to “How do yo l that yo can mact th growth o rban agrcltr n yor cty?” Ovrall stratgy
Scfcs
Education
D-5 Educate other on how to implement urban agriculture in their lives; D-5 Parallels to urban planning design through teaching rom eld research; S-2 Yes, through non-traditional education (technical, social, critical thinking).
Grassroots support
M-1 Maintain viable organizations; S-2 Finding people (get them to buy i n).
Providing opportunities
L-4 Continuing to promote armers markets and on-site sales or community gardens and armer’s markets; M-1 Continuing to provide opportunities or people to become involved (community gardening); S-2 Starting new projects; S-2 Setting up large arm model.
Advocacy
L-4 Getting people that are heavily invested to negotiate with the city on ordinances and zoning regulations; N-6 Work with stakeholders to update ordinances; N-6 Being an advocate o urban agriculture in government structure; R-3 Continuing benets discussion o urban agriculture.
Addressing barriers
L-4 Reorm o land trust to give more control to city ownership o property; Addressing water access/aordability issues; R-3 Looking at policies that would allow gardens in the city parks; S-7 Facilitate the approval o the access o water to community gardens when it arises.
Food Policy Council
R-3 Working towards development o a ood policy council to involve more parties/ voices.
Other
D-5 Allowing sel to be open to dierent orms o social arrangements, leading by example; N-8 Knowing people in the city and being a resource o who to contact or others.
Tabl A12: intrvw rsonss to “For yo to bttr romot rban agrcltr n yor cty, what qstons wold yo lk to hav answrd n or fnal rort?”
Land use and city ordinances
N-6 Not much inormation out there related to other city ordinances; S-2 sample joint use agreements with the city; S-2 what they can do on the local level; Urban Agriculture Enterprise Zone – reduce operation and land costs.
Best practices or ood production and ood saety in urban agriculture
L-4 Best practices rom other cities in Missouri and nationally; D-5 How to make urban agriculture possible in cities (technical, inrastructure, society as a whole); N-6 What can we do to better educate, raise awareness and get more people involved?; N-8 Come up with a guide sheet (you want to grow carrots, how much space do you need and how much will you yield rom your investment); S-2 What are some o the best management practices (ood handling procedures – begin with good agricultural practice (GAP) standards, community garden models and internal policies to make groups more ecient; S-7 Giving examples o successul urban agriculture projects and what’s been done in those neighborhoods or cities that have proved to be most successul; What other cities have done to better promote urban agriculture.
Research and evaluation o urban agriculture’s agriculture’s economic, social and other benets
L-4 Examples o research and sources o documentation to the positive impacts or economies/communities or dierent parts o urban agriculture (ood security, crime rates, consumption data); L-4 Data to better address myths o urban agriculture (dispelling myths); N-8 How many acres are in cultivation in the region? What kinds o things people are growing and what they are doing with it? Providing useul statistics to educate people about urban agriculture; R-3 What are the economic benets o urban agriculture or cities – helps sell it better; S-2 Where are we? What’s the inventory o where we are as ar as urban agriculture stands? Inventory o production – Sq. t. o production – thereore they can best harvest the production o the city.
Future trends in urban agriculture, including larger questions o overall development strategies or cities
D-5 How do we begin to re-envision our own target as a whole? S-2 What’s the trajectory or projection o urban agriculture; S-2 Big picture o policy and where’s it going.
Other
M-1 Doesn’t want it to turn into another government program, needs to be grass roots eort; I a city is going to get active in urban agriculture that they have a citizen practitioner advisory to not lose grass roots character.
52
