URBAN AGRICULTURE Introduction Urban agriculture, at first glance, may appear to be a fairly simple topic: Scatter a few plots

about the City and let residents start gardening. In reality, however, urban agriculture impacts a community in a variety of ways, from providing food security, environmental benefits, and even modifying a citys urban form. Similarly, in spite of its seeming simplicity, urban agriculture does not just happen. To foster the development and growth of urban agriculture, a city may have to consider implementing techniques that include zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans and, in some cases, state legislation. Urban agriculture plays an important role as part of an environmental sustainability program. Physically, it increases green space, which reduces the urban heat island, stormwater runoff, and improves air quality. Because food is produced locally, urban agriculture also reduces energy consumption and pollution associated with transportation. Urban agriculture also provides social benefits by providing inexpensive access to locally-grown produce. The increasing population growth of recent years has brought the issue of sustainability to the forefront. Urban agriculture is one way to significantly impact not only peoples lives, but also environmental sustainability. What Is Urban Agriculture? According to the 2002 American Community Survey, the population of the United States is 280,540,303 (US Census), 80 percent of which are living in metropolitan areas (Community Food Security Coalition [CFSC] 2003). This growing population has created a number of questions over how to deal with sustainability in terms of transportation demand, housing needs, recreational interests, food supply. Because the global urban population is expected to double by 2038, urban agriculture has an opportunity to make a positive impact on the worlds food systems. Cities must generate food security for themselves, since food distribution becomes more complicated as a metropolitan area grows (Smit et al. 1996). Urban agriculture also contributes to a communitys nutritional self-reliance, reducing hunger and malnutrition in urbanizing areas around the world. Food must travel through a complex network in order to supply cities. Generally speaking, food travels between 1,500 and 2,500 miles from farm to plate, about 25 percent farther than in 1980 (Halweil [n.d.]). At the same time, peoples expectations of a foods freshness continue to increase. Only food with a high durability can make a long journey and still appear fresh on the supermarket shelves. Consequently, appearance often trumps taste and nutrition in many supermarkets. A few local governments around the nation have been trying to address the problem of supplying quality food with produced within reasonable distances for transportation. One solution is to bring agriculture near to or even within urbanized areas, creating urban agriculture. A simple definition of urban agriculture is provided by Bailkey and Nasr (2000): [urban agriculture] is the growing, processing, and distribution of food and other products through intensive plant cultivation and animal husbandry in and around cities. This decreases the transportation time of food, which means that it reaches consumers more quickly, in a fresher state, and with less fuel consumption for shipping. The United Nations provides a more in-depth definition of urban agriculture. [Urban agriculture] is an industry that produces, processes and markets food and fuel, largely in response to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on land and

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 2 water dispersed throughout the urban and peri-urban area, applying intensive production methods, using and reusing natural resources and urban wastes, to yield a diversity of crops and livestock. (Smit et al. 1996) The urban agriculture also has numerous benefits in terms of environmental sustainability. Besides beautifying city landscapes, urban agriculture can also aid environmental restoration and remediation through reusing abandoned areas, vacant lots, and certain waste streams, such as yard waste compost, from the urban landscape. In addition, urban agriculture reduces fuel consumption and air pollution because of the decreased travel distances for produce. A greener urban landscape can also provide psychological, emotional, and general health benefits (Beatley 1997). Urban Farms Urban farms, which can vary widely in size and scale, are the primary form of urban agriculture. Urban farms into three categories: recreational farms (which sell less than $10,000 worth of product annually and consist of less than 100 acres); adaptive farms (which sell more than $10,000 annually and range in size from 100 to 200 acres); and traditional farms (which sell more than $10,000 annually and are larger than 200 acres); (CFSC 2003). According to the CFSC most urban agriculture programs operate on fewer than 25 acres. Not surprisingly, farm size is the limiting factor in developed areasfinding sufficient area for a farm is a major problem for urban farms. Many urban farms receive core funding from local government, but they are also required to supplement these funds through the sale of agricultural goods and products (Beatley 2000). Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a newer example of the urban farming enterprise. The CSA model began in rural areas, and has now worked its way into more urban areas. A person participating in a CSA program buys a share in a local farm, paying up-front dues to receive produce regularly throughout the growing season. Many CSAs directly respond to food security issues by offering shares to low-income households through grants, adopt-a-share programs, and other subsidies (CFSC 2003). Community Gardens Community gardens are another example of urban agriculture. The main objective of a community garden is to provide land for family gardening use. This usually means that the land is divided into smaller plots for individual household users, where each gardener is responsible for maintaining his or her plot. Community gardeners are generally not permitted to sell the products of their labor for profitmost community gardens are for personal use only. Community gardens can have a variety of owners: institutions, community groups, land trusts, or private citizens. According to the Community Food Security Coalition, community gardens have helped families grow their own food according to their personal needs, thereby providing a cost savings. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for instance, community garden plots helped families save from $100 to $300 a year. In Philadelphia, community gardeners reported annual savings of $700 dollars per familya significant amount for lower-income households. Community gardens also provide greater access to fresh and nutritious vegetables. As a result,
Figure 1.1: Portsmouth Community Garden

Source: http://www.parks.ci.portland.or.us

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 3 community gardens have a significant role in addressing public health and livability issues (Twiss et al. 2003). One of the greatest benefits of community gardens is that they help build the character of a neighborhood through sustainable community development. Community gardens are sites for a combination of activities: food production, sharing of basic resources such as land and water, and recreation. As a result, community gardens provide many opportunities for social and cultural exchange (Raja 2000). The Foodshed Most of the food eaten in the United States arrives at the table after crossing state, and sometimes, national boundaries. Though food remains inexpensive, it comes to us with many hidden environmental, social, and human health costs. In order to anticipate and mitigate these costs, producers and consumers need to develop sustainable, self-reliant, local and regional food systems. That is, residents must work to reduce the area that supplies our food, otherwise known as the foodshed (Wisconsin Foodshed Research Project). Understanding how food is produced, processed, distributed, and accessed, as well as how food waste is disposed of is integral to a well-run food system (URPL 2003). Since urban agriculture is most often an informal activity, it faces maintaining production from year-to-year can be challenging. Increasing corporate consolidation of agriculture, the loss of farmland and farm jobs close to cities, and the scarcity and insecurity of existing community gardens are several emerging problems in urban agriculture. For a local food system to work, farmers must be linked to food processing, distribution, and the end of the food chain: consumers. Local consumers often struggle to support local farmers because it can be difficult to find local food in grocery stores or restaurants. Similarly, groceries and restaurants sometimes find access to local farmers difficult because of the lack of local storage and distribution sites. Connections need to be made between all members within a food system to increase citizens access to local farm products in everyday supermarkets, as well as increase local farmers ability to sell products to those supermarkets. The Benefits of Urban Agriculture Urban farms and community gardens both produce benefits for the city and the region. The typical urban system is an ecological dead end. Instead of a healthy ecosystem, where nutrients are largely recycled, most cities dump, haul, or pipe away tons of organic garbage and sewage (Nelson 1996). Cities generate organic waste from food preparation, defecation of people and pets, and clearing of leaves or clippings from yards and parks. Urban agriculture can address these issues and many other environmental, economic, and social concerns. Environmental Restoration Many of the environmental or ecological benefits of urban agriculture are not quantified in the current literature. Nugent (1999a) addresses costs and benefits of urban agriculture in Hartford, Connecticut, but she restricts her analysis to a comparison of monetarily measurable inputs and outputs. Although Nugent concludes that the monetarily measurable benefits exceed the costs, she is quick to acknowledge the limitations of her study. Exclusion of important factors such as environmental externalities, multiplier effects, social effects, and restriction to the Hartford area provides only a partial conclusion concerning urban and peri-urban agriculture. The difficulty in measuring benefits is reflected throughout the urban agriculture literature. For the most part, the environmental benefits are listed as given rather than as a theory that requires proof.

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 4 The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems at the University of Wisconsin, Madison has specified some of the environmental and social costs associated with different farm products (see Table 1.1). Oftentimes, consumers are unaware of the differences between commercial and locally-grown produce. Commercial mass production often relies upon pesticides or other farming practices that deplete the natural environment and yields less flavorful food options. In addition, the longer distances for commercial produce from food source to consumption yield environmental costs by reducing energy use (De Zeeuw et al. 2000). Some ecological manifestations of urban agriculture are: improved hydrology, better air and soil quality, biodiversity, and energy savings through local production (Hall). In addition, specific initiatives in urban agriculture focus on organic gardening and waste reduction, which are beneficial to the environment. Barrs ([n.d.]) further breaks down many of the above benefits. For instance, there are several benefits to reduced energy consumption through urban agriculture: less pollution because of the proximity of food to consumers and the greater intensity of labor used to produce food (hence a less dependence on fossil fuels), and the reduction of waste heat from roofs on residential and commercial buildings because of rooftop gardens or greenhouses. The animal and plant population also potentially stand to gain from urban agriculture (Barrs [n.d.], Woodsworth). Urban gardens can add value by creating animal, bird, and insect habitats within the traditional urban form. For example, the bee population on Vancouver Island, which is crucial to pollination for area farms, has fallen by over 80 percent in recent years (Woodsworth). The addition of urban gardens could provide a long-term habitat for these and other insects, thereby benefiting the entire agricultural system. The Food Project in Boston works on two urban mini-farms, which originated as part of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI). Although DSNI views its major accomplishment to be the organization and empowerment of the community, their conversion of vacant and abandoned land was integral to the revitalization of the neighborhood. The combined 3.6 acres of mini-farm property are part of the 1,300 parcels acquired through eminent domain for DSNI. The Food Project has committed to environmental sustainability through using remediated land and sustainable agricultural practices, such as using healthy alternatives to pesticides and fertilizers. Though the benefits of urban agriculture clearly outweighs its social and economic costs, the issue of food waste resulting from urban farms is an important element to consider. The food system cycle, no matter how efficient, will still produce waste food products. This food waste fills landfills, impacting environment quality. Food waste can cause foul odors, attract pests, and contribute to water pollution that can threaten public health. In anticipation of these matters, local government and residents need to work together to support food waste recycling systems to reduce the amount of food waste disposed of in landfills and prevent the accompanying environmental problems. Food Security As with many urban agriculture programs in North America, the Food Project is an important part of developing sustainable agriculture and sustainable food systems. Whereas the developing world has used urban agriculture to increase the supply of food, urban farming and gardening in the developed world is geared towards issues of equity and providing a good source of food for the poor, elderly, or sick. Nelson (1996) argues that farmers produce enough food to provide the world with an adequate diet, and therefore attributes the hunger problems to the distribution of food, where wealthy consumers increasingly squeeze the poor out of the market. Barrs, however, indicates that, based on recent population trends and our current approach to agriculture, the food security most of us enjoy is not guaranteed to last far into the next century.

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 5 Power (1999) classifies urban agriculture movements as a sustainable food systems approach to food security, which is also known as community food security (CFS). By developing skills and selfreliance and fostering direct connections between farmers and urban residents, the sustainable foods systems approach provides food for the hungry. Allen (1999) argues that urban agriculture is not, in itself, a solution for food security problems. Urban agriculture can only minimally improve income distribution, but it can still be a source of important nutrients for overall health and an important addition to regular production. The solution to meeting the food security needs of the entire population must also include traditional food programs that provide food access through standard approaches. There are several factors that can hamper consumers access to quality food. Transportation to grocery stores and markets is importantmany people do not have a car to drive themselves to the supermarket every time they need to shop for groceries. This requires both re-thinking the locations of food stores and modifying the transportation system to ensure that consumers can reach supermarkets. Household income is another issue that affects food access; without adequate jobs or wages, many households lack the finances to provide food security (Fisher 2001). Community gardens clearly benefit such households, but many already have long waiting lists. Addressing the problem of food security in a citywide plan would ensure inexpensive access to healthy food for all sectors of society. One example of a multi-tiered approach to food security is the Hartford Food System (HFS). HFS relies on a mix of approaches to create and sustain an equitable food system that addresses causes of hunger and poor nutrition in Connecticut. HFS projects include farmers markets, urban agriculture, non-farm food distribution, and policy advocacy. By using financial resources of government and organizing and food store development within the city in combination with urban agriculture, HFS has been able to further food security for the past 25 years. Community Development Multiple studies have shown that urban agriculture draws community members together. Carole Nemore, in her report to the New York State Senate, surveyed community gardeners (with 738 responding) in the five New York boroughs about garden attributes and significance. For all five boroughs, social activities (either neighborhood gatherings or a meeting place for friends) were listed as the most common non-planting use of the garden. Sharp et al. (2002) also found cooperative networks among producers in their analysis of a single CSA. A leader of the CSA reported that the organization enabled trades between three producers who were unaware of the others existence before participating. In addition, urban agriculture can empower neighborhoods in the process of greenlining (Bjornson, in Malakoff). Neighborhoods redlined by banks and insurance agencies can gain access to social capital, economic resources, and public policy through greening. The process enables interaction between non-profit, government, and community members and sets up gardening as a forum for social change. Gardening provides opportunities to establish a community voice and to access local government that may not otherwise be available to all neighborhoods. Many proponents of urban agriculture stress the physical connection it establishes between humans and nature. For example, Growing Power seeks to address both the issue of food security and the goal of community development by rooting people to the earth and healthy food. Will Allen, co-director of Growing Power, also notes the positive effect of gardening on children: when kids come in here, theyve got their pockets full of candy, and theyre pretty wild. But when they get their hands on the soil, they just mellow out This is a place where they can come and get hands-on experience, (Penn 2003). The community has benefited through the projects training, networking, and food

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 6 production. Likewise, the Ground Up organization in Washington D.C., has focused its programs on taking kids off the streets. By providing training in business skills and education on nutritional, environmental, and food security issues, the gardening organization has prevented neighborhoods from being victims of crime (Nelson 1996). Surveys of project leaders in project YEES (Youth Economic and Educational Sustainability) also mentioned the importance of community gardens as a safe place, particularly for youths, which sometimes coincided with a reduction in crime or drug sales (Feenstra et al 1999). Economic Development While most forms of urban agriculture are not for profit, participants, and sometimes units of government, can benefit economically (Herbach 1998). Furthermore, community supported agriculture and involvement in farmers markets are two opportunities to share benefits between consumers and producers (Barrs [n.d.]). Farmers markets have a locational advantage over commercial producers since the distance of transport is shorter and there is less need for packaging (Nugent 1999). The gross returns to farmers market participants are generally 200 to 250 percent higher than the returns from wholesaler or distributor sales (Abel et al 1999). In addition, the markets provide an alternative for consumers who value quality and variety or who wish to support local agriculture (Lyson et al. 1995). Madison area farms have been participating in community-supported agriculture since 1992. Madison Area Community Supported Agriculture Coalition (MACSAC) seeks to build a relationship between farmers and consumers, and also between consumers and the land. Each growing season CSA members purchase a share from a farm, and, on a weekly basis throughout the growing season, they can pick up food at the farm or at certain drop-off points. The direct link between farmer and consumer supports small and moderate scale family farms and may help them resist development. Ostrom (1997) has criticized MACSAC for being farmer-driven, lacking a consumer sense of involvement, and not involving low-income people in the organization. Those factors have made it difficult to get members involved in issues of land acquisition and in ensuring the social and economic foundations. Recreation and Leisure Although Nugent (1999) does not consider recreational benefits a factor for commercial farmers, she does point out the prevalence of recreational gardening in the United States. Leisure Trends (2002) listed gardening as the fifteenth and twentieth highest did yesterday recreational activities for women and men, respectively. A 1994 Gallup poll reported one percent of total American gardeners as community gardeners, but with 14 percent interested in community gardening if it became available. In addition, Patel (1992) found that 26 percent of participants in Newark, New Jersey, and surrounding communities gained personal satisfaction and enjoyment from community gardening. Landscape Beautification Depending on location, a community garden or urban farm can enhance the aesthetic environment. In the case of Havana, Cuba, many gardeners started their gardens in abandoned lots or trash dumps, which greatly improved the beauty and safety of the surrounding neighborhood (Moskow 1999). Many agricultural programs have utilized abandoned or vacant lots, converting eyesoresweedy, trash-ridden, dangerous gathering places into gardens (CFSC 2003). Furthermore, 130,000 to 425,000 additional vacant industrial sites and brownfields have been declared safe for conversion to agricultural use by the US General Accounting Office (CFSC 2003).

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 7 The Real Cost of Food Table 1.1 illustrates some of the real costs of several common foods. Many of the nations crops come from a few select areas, and have to be shipped cross-country before they reach the local supermarket. Only a small selection of varieties of each product is growna boon for pests, which necessitates increased pesticide use. The social costs, health costs, and environmental impact of our food system are not always reflected in the price we pay at the supermarket.
Table 1.1 Price Tag/ Cost Tag of Selected Foods Product Food Miles Genetic Diversity (Price) Apples 80% of the Resurgence of ($.99nations 2001 interest in unique $2.99/lb) apple crop came varieties in the last from WA, NY, decade; some MI, CA, PA, nurseries offer up to VA. 200 varieties. Potatoes ($.35-$.99/lb) ID, ME, MN, ND, OR, WA, and WI are main producers, but 20% chipping plants are in the east. About 2,500 miles. From FL, CA, TX, and Mexico. Only four major commercial varieties, but over 5,000 varieties worldwide, many of which are naturally pest resistant. Tomatoes are bred for durability, not flavor or nutrition, to endure long transport. Social and Health Costs US apple farmers down 23% (from 1987 to 1997). USDA found 35 different pesticide residues on 99.6% of samples (1996). Farmers receive about 2 cents for the average $1.50 retail price for potato chips. Chips account for of potatoes consumed. Farm workers are directly exposed to pesticides. Day laborers can earn as little as $2.50 a day. Environmental Impact Increasing use of integrated pest management (IPM) and organic farming, which keeps pesticides out of food, lakes, streams, and groundwater. Farmers receive exemptions to spray chemicals that are potentially hazardous due to persistence of pests and blight. Many chemicals end up in the groundwater since potatoes are grown in heavily irrigated, sandy soils. California tomatoes use irrigated water from hundreds or thousands of miles away, affecting water levels and wildlife in other regions. Irrigated water contains soildegrading minerals that are reducing the productivity of soil. Use more pesticides per acre than any other crop in CA. Extremely toxic chemical, methyl bromide, which causes health problems and depletes ozone still used in FL and CA.

Tomatoes (around $0.79/lb)

Strawberries ($.89$4.99/pint)

Most reported pesticide poisonings by laborers than for any other crop. Dependence on migrant workers. Local berries may contain more vitamin C than those shipped from a distance. Source: Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, UW-Madison

Out of season, strawberries come from CA (83% of production from 1998-2000) or Mexico.

Strawberries grown for processing or wholesale distribution are bred for size and durability, as opposed to flavor.

Urban Form and Urban Agriculture Extensive urban development has meant the loss many green spaces in the cities of the United States (Beatley 2000). Urban agriculture can be part of an effort to provide more land for green space. Unfortunately, urban agriculture is not commonly mentioned in most cities zoning ordinances or comprehensive plans. Doing so would raise the profile of urban agriculture, making it easier to

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 8 operate gardens and urban farms, and making people more aware of the option of utilizing urban agriculture. There are many types of urban agriculture that may not fit with traditional concepts but are already benefiting many cities. Some examples of nontraditional urban agriculture include: horticulture in vacant lots; raising fish and other aquatic products in tanks, ponds, rivers, and estuaries; farming small livestock like chickens, rabbits, and guinea pigs; growing vegetables in hydroponic solutions; and developing market gardens in green wedges between urbanized corridors or along highways and railroads (Smit et al. 1996). The following section discusses how urban agriculture physically affects urban form, providing examples of different urban agriculture types in relation to urban density. The Role of Urban Agriculture in Shaping Urban Form Urban agriculture can take place on different types of urban land. The Urban Agriculture Network has adopted a four-zone model that outlines the broad categories of land where urban agriculture can take place. Core zones have the highest density and the greatest mixture of land uses, followed by corridor zones. The nature of the zone Figure 1.2: The four zones city model affects what type of urban agriculture can be practiced. According to Smit et al. (1996), because of the density of the core area, urban agriculture usually takes place on rooftops, balconies, temporarily vacant lots, in converted buildings, and sometimes in public parks. There are also examples of small-scale plastic greenhouse farming systems, including hydroponics. Urban agriculture may be forced out of core-city areas, considering the increasing focus of using vacant lots in urban revitalization programs. The corridor zones are similar to, though less dense than, the core. In the context of urban agriculture, they basically have the same characteristics of use. Farming in corridor zones Source: Smit et al. 1996, Urban Agriculture Network usually takes place along main roads and railway lines because there are often large lots that have not yet been built out in those areas (Smit et al. 1996). Ornamental horticulture, grazing, market gardening, greenhouse vegetables and flowers, poultry, and other types of small livestock can all be found in corridor zones. These types of agricultural locations usually have low-intensity crops, recycle little waste, and produce low returns on labor. Low returns result because farmers in these areas often have little security

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 9 concerning how long they can continue farming, which prevents long-term planning or investment (Beatley 2000). Wedge zones are generally classified as having an extensive amount of land not suitable for development, such as steep slopes and wetlands (Smit et al. 1996). In larger cities, it is this type of land that is typically used for urban agriculture. Milk production, egg production, orchards, and fish ponds also take place in this zone. Keeping wedge land in high intensity agriculture may have a high opportunity cost because built use yields higher land rents than agriculture, but successfully achieves environmental conservation (CFSC 2003). The periphery zone is the rural-urban fringe characterized by small and medium-size farms oriented to the metropolitan market that are more diverse than those in rural areas (CFSC 2003). The agricultural industry in this type of land adapts to the new demands of urban markets. The acreage of agriculture on the periphery depends on the transportation efficiency and landscape features (Smit et al. 1996). This zone usually is earmarked intensive vegetable production because of lower transportation costs compared to more rural areas. Urban Agriculture and Urban Density As mentioned earlier, the type of urban agriculture depends on urban density. According to the fourzone model of the city (Figure 1.1), core zones and corridor zones have the highest density, meaning there is not much land available for urban agriculture (Smit et al. 1996). Even if land can be found in those zones, it tends to be used for gardening on a temporary basis. More land for agricultural purposes can be found in wedge and periphery zones. Land otherwise unsuitable for building can be set aside for Figure 1.3: Community gardens in an urban neighborhood agricultural activities. Each zone has its own characteristics which dictate the appropriate type of urban agriculture. Agriculture in low density urban areas is commonly located near riversides and floodplains, water bodies, wetlands, and steep slopes. These areas are usually not built up due to natural disaster threats such as floods and landslides. Hillsides can also be prohibitively expensive to develop. Methods of urban agriculture for steep slopes include forestryrelated activities and terrace horticulture, which can help stabilize slopes, reduce erosion, and mitigate urban heat island effects (Beatley 2000). Riverside areas and floodplains, in addition to being close to water, usually have the most fertile soils (Hough 1995). Water bodies and wetlands are other possible locations for urban agriculture in low density areas. Possible environmental contamination, which can

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 10 turn up in urban areas, can be mitigated by using aquatic plant and fish production for biological treatment of the contaminants (Smit et al. 1996). Types of urban agriculture found in high density urban areas are community gardens and green roofs, roadsides, and other rights-of-way (Smit et al. 1996). Community gardening is the most well-known type of urban agriculture (Twiss et al. 2003). Green roofs are a method of gardening that is gaining more attention in the US. Green roofs (or eco-roofs), as the name implies, contain plantings on roofs of buildings. They have become increasingly common in European cities, especially in Germany and the Netherlands (Beatley 2000), where roughly 350 million square feet have been installed. Green roofs provide many benefits: they are aesthetically pleasing, reduce city heat island effects, reduce carbon dioxide impact, reduce summer air conditioning costs, reduce winter heat demands, lengthen roof life by two to three times, remove nitrogen pollution in rain, neutralize acid rain effects, reduce noise, reduce stormwater runoff, and provide songbird habitat (http://hortweb.cas.psu.edu). The many advantages of green roofs have an important role in any environmental sustainability agenda. Beatley (2000) lists some prominent examples of green roof implementation in European cities, such as the Cosmos Building in Saarbrcken, Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, the main library at the Technical University of Delft, and the GWL-Terrain housing projects in Amsterdam. Though green roofs have taken hold in Germany and the Netherlands, Austria has the most extensive green roofs program in Europe. The city of Linz frequently requires building plans to compensate for the loss of greenspace occupied by the building footprint with the installation of greenroofs. A number of buildings in Britain also have applied the technology. In comparison, the United States has relatively few examples of green roofs: Chicago City Hall (Figure 1.4), Fords River Rouge renovation in Detroit, and a few scattered projects in the cities of Atlanta, Phoenix, and Minneapolis (http://hortweb.cas.psu.edu). In the United States, the idea of green roofs is relatively new and is just beginning to be Figure 1.4: Chicago City Halls green roof promoted. Promoting Urban Food Production through Planning The food system is an element generally taken for granted in the urban environment, yet it is as necessary a function as housing or transportation. Some would go as far as to compare it to such essential elements as air and water. Pothukuchi and Kaufmann (1999) explain that the historical development of cities led to the definitions of urban problems as Source: http://www.hrt.msu.edu/faculty/Rowe/ ChicagoCityHallAerial%20062702.jpg predominate over rural or agricultural ones. The industrial revolution and modern technologies have made it possible for problems in the food system

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 11 to be overlooked. Since food has never been perceived as in crisis in the US, it has been less visible in comparison to other problems our cities face, and its connections to other urban elements have often gone unnoticed as well. Today, recognition of and interest in urban agriculture is still low among planners and politicians, and cities rarely have an established approach to food security. There is an emerging group of practitioners, however, who are beginning to realize the need to integrate urban agriculture programs with best practices in urban and regional planning, adding to established concepts of sustainable city development (Drescher 2000). The job of planners is to create a livable city, and the job of ecological planners is to create a healthy one. The World Health Organization describes a healthy city as one that is continually creating those physical and social environments and expanding those community resources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing all functions of life and in developing to their maximum potential (URPL 1997). Planners today are finding practical arguments for the formal recognition of urban agriculture and its inclusion into municipal zoning and policies. Since urban agriculture is, by definition, within the city, it does not fit the popular understanding of farming. It is a different sort of farming that requires the assistance of urban planning mechanisms in order to thrive in the urban environment. Urban farmers often have few tenure rights over land or water, and are usually pushed out by land development as a result. Urban planners can contribute to urban agriculture by identifying appropriate zones for farming activities, encouraging the infrastructure developments needed by farmers, and implementing protective measures to provide land security (Drescher 2000). In addition, urban farms challenge urban residents learned disconnection from their food source and their environment. Urban agriculture can be a community activity that fosters environmental education, which is an essential element in the building of sustainable communities. Tools for Promotion of Urban Agriculture Land is a key element of urban agriculture, and agricultural land in urban areas suffers unique ecological and economic pressures that rural agriculture does not (Drescher 2000). Land in urban areas is almost always of much higher value than rural farmland, and development pressures can override many forms of land occupancy. While access to land is vital to the survival of urban farms and community gardens, the question of how to treat urban agriculture in planning is still up in the air. Currently, many of these urban farming activities are being conducted informally and gardening organizations have little to no power in the political arena. Therefore, many are leaning towards a more policy-based approach. Zoning Planners have the ability to implement policies and land-use planning tools, such as zoning, to support urban agriculture. However, there is some argument over the issue of zoning for urban agriculture. For instance, some consider the treatment of gardens in community planning codes to be one more thing for the planning staff to handle. Members of the P-Patch organization in Seattle prefer to treat gardening as an allowed interim land use, since gardening is relatively benign and can be consistent with any other surrounding land use (Felsing 2002). In most cases, gardens are a permitted use for open space and public lands which does not protect the land from being taken over by development pressures. Naming community gardens as a permitted use in zoning code clarifies city policy, provides a shared reference point for all parties, and makes explicit the mutual understanding of city staff, gardeners, and city residents (Felsing 2002).

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 12 Accessing land and other resources is a major concern for community gardeners. Garden lands in some jurisdictions are publicly owned. Vacant lands may be leased, specified by various authorizing laws, for certain time periods of one, two, and five years, but these leases are usually terminable on short notice (Felsing 2002). Gardeners sometimes seize control of privately owned vacant urban lots by beginning to use them after they fall out of use, which can result in prosecution for trespassing. Outright ownership of garden land provides the most control, but unless the ownership organization is non-profit, property taxes may be a burden. The most secure ownership option is to have the assistance of a land bank or land trust to hold the title for a gardening organization. In addition to assistance needed to secure the land for long-term agricultural use, community garden organizations may require legal assistance in obtaining other required resources like water, materials, technical expertise, or approval from local municipalities. Familiar land use review processes, like zoning, can mediate competition for the same parcel and provide the context for accessing many of these resources. Formal recognition of urban agriculture in the zoning code enhances its viability. By naming community gardens in codes and ordinances, support can be solidified across a range of city departments and public agencies, which may not happen in the absence of a clear directive or formal city policy. Zoning districts have proven extremely effective in Boston, where zoning provisions for community gardens have been put into place. If a private garden group dissolves, the city has a process for disposition of land, where lots revert back to city ownership and get redistributed. This is a powerful tool for gardeners, because the deed restrictions used by private groups are not as strong as Bostons zoning ordinance. Zoning is a solution which helps urban agriculture in more ways than one, and is best used to mediate compromises between the needs of the gardeners and the needs of the surrounding community. Many officials involved in urban agriculture note that zoning will work best in the context of a package of reinforcing policy elements (Felsing 2002). It is usually the responsibility of urban planners to identify locations for urban agriculture, while local municipal councils are largely responsible for permitting urban agricultural activities. City planning should incorporate an understanding of household food security and nutrition, agricultural research, and economic, as well as the marketing and distribution of food from rural areas into cities (Drescher 2000). The coordination and facilitation of all the decisions affecting urban land uses is just as important as a master plan. Therefore, an important first step is to define the complex interaction of land uses and to inform all interested stakeholders. Axel Drescher (2000) recommends these steps to a successful and comprehensive policy approach to urban agriculture: Incorporate mechanisms for effective coordination of urban agriculture activities and direct stakeholder participation in planning and implementation. Provide a legal framework for urban agriculture activities. Regulate access to land and water as well as urban organic wastes and wastewater. Define environmental and health standards: minimum quality standards for agricultural soils and irrigation water, and health standards tailored to the ultimate consumers of the product produced. Institutionalize administrative procedures to get access to the above-mentioned resources. Institutionalize procedures to monitor the positive and negative effects of urban agriculture with regard to social, economic, and environmental conditions, and define responsible bodies.

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 13 Zoning is still the common system used for most urban planning elements; therefore, the more it is used as a policy and regulation tool for urban agriculture, the more urban agriculture will be taken seriously and have a secure future. Comprehensive Plans and Urban Agriculture The comprehensive plan can be an important tool in accomplishing urban agriculture related goals. Integrating urban agriculture into a comprehensive plan gives notice to the community of a citys support of agriculture and gardening, officially recognizing the practice as an important to the citys well-being. Currently, relatively few cities include urban agriculture in their comprehensive plans. There are, however, a few examples that stand out. One of those is Berkeley, California. The City of Berkeley has 17 community gardens, 11 of which are government owned (meaning they are owned by the city, the university, or a school district), while the remainder are run by private organizations or non-profits. In its comprehensive plan, the City of Berkeley states that additional space is desired for community gardens [and] farmers markets. The plan deals directly with the need for agricultural land within the city by designating community gardens and open space as the highest priority for a 14-block area of City-owned right-of-way. Community gardens and open space are given a higher priority than affordable housing for that particular plot of land (City of Berkeley, CA). Furthermore, Berkeley designates a portion of their open space plan to Community Gardens. Under section OS-8, there are six goals for community gardens in the city that include encouraging neighborhood groups to organize, designing and manage community gardens, including community gardens in the planning for the Santa Fe Right-of-Way (the aforementioned 14-block area), pursuing community gardens in high-density areas, increasing support for community gardens through partnerships with other government agencies, and supporting school-based gardens (City of Berkeley, CA). The City of Berkeley also has a policy that deals with food systems, which states that the City needs to increase access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate foods for the people of Berkeley by supporting efforts to build more complete and sustainable local food production and distribution systems. This policy comes with eight recommended actions that range from promoting seed distribution to encouraging buildings to incorporate rooftop gardens and providing sites for local farmers markets and community gardens (City of Berkeley, CA). Another city that effectively promotes urban agriculture in its comprehensive plan is Burlington, Vermont. The City of Burlington Parks Department maintains 350 plots that serve 1,400 people. According to their comprehensive plan, Burlington is currently in the process of updating the 1991 Burlington Area Community Gardens Master Plan. Not many communities, even now, have a section of their comprehensive plan dedicated to community gardens or urban agriculture, let alone a specific plan for community gardens that has been in place since 1991. The comprehensive plan identifies needs for future garden space, and recommends relocation of some current gardening activities that are not convenient to residents (City of Burlington, VT). Several cities in Canada are also leading the urban agriculture movement. Notes Regnitter, at the local level in Canada the citizens of three cities, Toronto, Saskatoon and Prince Albert have become so conscious of and concerned about basic food insecurity that they have created Food Charter Movements and have brought their respective City Governments to pass Food Charters. This is especially important in Prince Albert, where a quarter of families make less than 50 percent of the average Canadian yearly income. The introduction of Prince Alberts Food Charter states that,

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 14 [T]he local food retailer is now likely to be a large corporate operation located half a city away from where we live. Domestic back yard gardens are virtually extinct, and the connection between rural food producer and urban consumer exists only by way of very complex and remote connections . Having economic means will not ensure our health and food security if there is no food available or we cannot access it . These concerns are real to all our citizens, and a responsible and responsive community will consider the situation and act prudently in the present to ensure the well being of our citizens into the future. (Prince Albert Food Charter) It is important to note that the impetus for the Prince Albert Food Charter started with community organization, not city initiative. However, once citizens had expressed their interest in food systems, the City responded with support and expertise. As the Food Charter is still new to Prince Albert, having only been approved by the mayor and the city council in March of 2003, it is too early to tell what the effects have been (Regnitter). State and Local Legislation on Community Gardens In the United States, any city is subject to the broader realm of state law, and urban agriculture can use state law to build upon its policy support base. Legislators who wish to start the process of state promotion of urban agriculture should focus on how community gardening is consistent with community health and welfare, environmental protection, economic development, education, youth employment, and tourism (Schukoske). Some state laws recognize gardens as a permissible public use of state and local land, and others specifically mention gardens within their provisions on food production and agriculture, education, parks and environment, and social services. State legislation typically focuses on providing clear authorization of the use of public lands, limiting time for garden use by providing short lease periods, and protecting governments from liabilities. There are some examples of state regulations that have also led to other efforts to enable urban agriculture. New York State, for example, uses state resources to compile an inventory of vacant lots, permits the use of public lands for community gardens, and coordinates gardening groups and state and local agencies to facilitate the use of vacant public lands. The states current statutory scheme provides for interagency, intergovernmental, and public/private coordination of community gardens through the states Office of Community Gardens. There are three ways that state legislation can affect community gardens. First, there are grants of permission to use vacant state lands for gardening purposes. Second, states can create a system for tracking vacant lots and their assignment to garden organizations. Third is the necessary step of protection of the state from liability for personal injury and property damages while the land is being used by the community garden. Schukoske recommends a list of 20 best practice local ordinances for community gardens. Some of these include: Inventory vacant public and private lots and make such information publicly available. Authorize contracting with private landowners for lease of vacant lots. Authorize use of municipal land for minimum terms long enough to elicit commitment from gardens (five years recommended) and provide for the possibility of permanent dedication to the parks department after five years use. Provide for interagency coordination of resources for the creation of gardens. Provide for the clearing of rubble and contamination, as well as regular trash pickup. Provide for tilling and building of raised beds.

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 15 Provide water access at no charge. Provide technical assistance to support programs. Provide for liability insurance against personal injury.

Lessons from Europe Cities in Europe have a tradition of gardening on small plots for personal vegetable and flower gardening. Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Berlin are large cities that illustrate this cultural practice. Berlin has more than 80,000 allotment gardens in public use (Beatley 2000). One important feature in many of the new development areas planned in the cities mentioned above is the provision for community gardens, in both rural and urban sites. Many European cities, like Helsinki, provide more than just garden space, but services like lending tools and providing information. City farms are municipally-owned and operated farms, which are usually on the outskirts of the city, and are used for recreational, educational, and other purposes. The United Kingdom has its own network of city farms, with a National Federation of City Farms made up of sixty members (Beatley 2000). These farms are often in urban environments, integrated with development, and consequently get a fair number of recreational and educational users who are local residentssomething that is not as feasible for a rural farm. City farms are also able to obtain direct customers for their products more readily than traditional farms. Personal gardens have always been a cultural tradition in European culture, and it is easy to forget that the predominance of large-scale industrial agriculture is uniquely American. In addition to acceptance of urban gardens as a valid land use, there is also political support for urban agriculture found in the policies of the European Union and the United Nations. Many of these international sustainability goals trickle down into each country to become integrated into national and municipal government. It is recognized in Agenda 21 that major adjustments are needed in agricultural, environmental and macroeconomic policy, at both national and international levels, in developed as well as developing countries, to create the conditions for sustainable agriculture and rural development, (United Nations). This goal is also linked to the promotion of sustainable development, addressing the need for internal resource development, integration of environmental infrastructure, sustainable land-use planning and management, and access to land resources as an essential component of low-impact lifestyles. The eco-villages located throughout Europe demonstrate the human settlement concept and the adoption of these goals in a complete and holistic manner. Role of City Institutions There are three potential city institutions that could offer a more comprehensive look at urban food systems: a Municipal Department of Food, the City Planning Agency, and a Food Policy Council. Municipal Department of Food A Department of Food might offer a new focal point for local food issues and perform multiple functions associated with outreach and community education, regulation, capital programming, and food-related services development. It could also play a role in facilitating market operations for food system functions, framing and revising food system functions of local government, timing private and public food security programs, and analyzing the consequences of programs and project activities (Pothukuchi and Kaufmann 1999).

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 16 The City Planning Agency The city planning agency, or metropolitan planning organization, typically takes a comprehensive look at communities, and could have a complementary function with a Food Policy Council. Planners can pay particular attention to linkages among functional sectors, between the public and private sector, and among multiple perspectives on community life. According to Pothukuchi and Kaufmann (1999), planners have an important role because they are oriented towards taking a more comprehensive look at what is going on in cities, on how a myriad of issues confronting cities could be dealt with, and on planning for a citys future. Food Policy Council A Food Policy Council (FPC) is usually comprised of representatives from different segments of the food system including farmers, hunger prevention organizations, food retail, nutritional education programs, sustainable agriculture groups, and government officials. Most FPCs function in an advisory capacity and pursue the goals of a more equitable, effective, and ecologically sustainable food system. FPCs typically exist outside of government structures, though the Toronto Food Policy Council operates as a subcommittee of the Board of Health. FPCs are often under-funded due to a lack of legitimacy, and currently there is no political constituency that exists beyond issues that deal with food security and hunger prevention (Pothukuchi and Kaufmann 1999). Food insecurity, however, is symptomatic of larger, deeply rooted problems in our current food system. Some food system scholars prefer to address root causes and take a systemic approach to food system issues, rather than simply addressing its symptoms (URPL 1997). Some of the roles of an FPC include: analyzing the impact of the private food industry on low-income communities, improving food access through improved transportation or grocery store location, establishing community gardens and food related entrepreneurship, encouraging environmentally sustainable food production and distribution, and strengthening urban-rural links by connecting local farmers with local consumers. Given their resource limitations, most FPCs have not yet shown the capacity to deliver a more comprehensive understanding of the urban food system (Pothukuchi and Kaufmann 1999). The best FPCs in the US are linked both to government through official action, and to a non-profit organization that champions the same issues. Representatives of FPCs in Austin, Knoxville, St.Paul, Hartford, Los Angeles, and Toronto all said that the closer the FPC is linked to governmental power, the more clout the FPC will have (URPL 1997). Torontos FPC has had the most success, mostly because it has been well funded and is located in a progressive city health department that takes a holistic approach to food systems. The Toronto FPC is immediately responsible to the Department of Health, and ultimately responsible to the Toronto City Council, so it can be directly linked with both areas of government. Interviews with food system academics done by the UW-Madison Department of Urban and Regional Planning concluded that establishment of any FPC must be county-wide. The importance of including both rural and urban stakeholdersprivate wholesalers and retailers, agricultural interests, lowincome families, government officials, planners, and land-use professionalsis emphasized. If such a council only addressed urban issues, key rural and agricultural voices would be lost. Interviews with community members done by the same researchers concluded that FPCs can link food security issues with land-use planning and can develop a stronger link between rural interests in the county and the city by beginning a dialogue with key decision makers. FPCs can also encourage economic development by helping farmers organize to sell produce more efficiently to large institutions in city regions (URPL 1997).

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 17 A successful FPC must formulate a clear mission at its inception, must invite all who are willing to help achieve its mission to participate, and must be willing to make politically difficult choices about powerful, but potentially subversive, stakeholders. NGOs and government agencies need to work collaboratively with FPCs for the good of the whole. Planners, governments, and non-profits must think across departmental lines for an interdepartmental food system planning model to work (URPL 1997). A city that is overspecialized cannot easily resolve problems that cross departmental lines, and in order to handle the complexity of food systems. An excellent illustration of the Food Policy Council concept can be found in a Toronto plan. Entitled Food Secure City, and written by Sean Cosgrove (2000) of the Toronto Food Policy Council, the plan outlines measures that are key to improving Torontos food security. Broadly speaking, the report covers five areas: Urban intensification and agricultural land preservation. Further development of agricultural initiatives. Making quality food retail an essential service. Developing an affordable housing policy. Integrating ecology into the urban infrastructure.

Established in 1990 by the City Council, the Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC) has a diverse membership. It includes representatives from the business community to farmers to community development groups. Their mission is to end hunger and the need for food banks in Toronto and to work with all sectors to establish a food system that is just and ecologically sustainable. A lofty goal, considering it involves coordinating issues of hunger, health, food quality, safety, production, processing, distribution, and ensuing environmental issues, such as agro-ecosystem sustainability. The plan points out that many cities have a sizable food economydealing with urban agriculture cannot only be an environmental issue, but an economic one as well. Another way to link urban agriculture to economics is to adopt some form of full cost accounting, which internalizes the ecological externalities of urban food production (Cosgrove 2000). The TFPC encourages a regional approach that is dedicated to balancing the urban and rural character of our region in a long-term sustainable manner. The phrase they use for this idea is think regionally, act neighborly. The plan combines suggestions on urban intensification (high-density redevelopment) with preservation of prime agricultural lands to try to ensure regional sustainability of food systems (Cosgrove 2000). On a more local scale, the TFPC says that access to food is a basic prerequisite to health. Often, low-income residents, as well as other sensitive populations like people with disabilities or illness, seniors, immigrants and the homeless do not have the same type of access to nutritional foods as middle or upper-income residents. Cosgroves report says that community gardens can play a vital role in local provision of healthy food. Finally, another way of making sure all sectors of society have equal access to reasonably-priced, good-quality food is to have an affordable housing policy. If people of different income levels are in the same proximity then food stores cannot avoid certain sectors of the population (Cosgrove 2000). Lastly, the report deals with community gardens and ecological infrastructure. Taking urban agriculture into account in a citywide planning effort can result in much more than just local gardening. Brownfield remediation, food waster recovery, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, reduction of landfill leachate from food waste, and composting of food waste are all beneficial sideeffects that can be incorporated into any food policy program. Overall, the TFPC provides an

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 18 excellent example how food systems and urban agriculture can be related to urban planning and environmental sustainability (Cosgrove Figure 1.5: The Dane County Farmers Market on 2000).
the Capitol Square

Distribution Programs and Partnerships Farmers Markets Farmers markets are one way to address both inner-city food access and boost income for farmers. With a farmers market, growers sell their product directly to the customer, which provides an immediate source of income. Since 1994 the number of farmers markets has increased by almost 50 percent (Fisher 2001). Markets can take many different forms, from centralized locations to a handful of vendors for specific housing developments. The Farm Fresh Atlas lists four major farmers markets in the City of Madison: the Dane County Farmers Market, the East Side Farmers Market, the Hilldale Farmers Market, and the South Madison Community Market. The largest of these markets is the Dane County Farmers Market, which has over 300 vendors that sell everything from fresh produce to plants, flowers, and baked goods. Held outdoors from late April to early November, the market takes place two days a week. On Saturdays the market rings the capitol square (Figure 1.5) and, on Wednesdays, a smaller market is assembled on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. All products sold at the market must be Wisconsin-grown (Dane County Farmers Market). The market was initiated by former mayor Bill Dyke in 1972 to provide a place for City residents to enjoy the benefits of the rich and varied agricultural activities that took place in the surrounding rural areas. The City worked with the Dane County Extension Office and the Central Madison Committee of the Chamber of Commerce to develop the market. A Dane County farmer named Jonathan Barry was hired as the first Farmers Market manager, and the

Source: http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/images/ schuette.urban.mkt.jpeg

Figure 1.6: The Dane County Farmers Market promotes cultural interaction

Source: http://www.dcfm.org

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 19 Capitol square was chosen as the site (Dane County Farmers Market). The first market in 1972 had only eight vendors. The market quickly grew, however, and by the next year there were three hundred different vendors. Through the 1970s, 80s and 90s the market continued to grow in popularity while adjustments were made in management and rules. Rules to ensure vendor participation in the production of the products sold at the market were tightened and strictly enforced (Carpenter 2003). Carpenter (2003) lists many benefits of the market to its three-hundred plus vendors and 20,000 weekly visitors. Foremost, she says, the market has become a social event. Attendees interact with friends and become acquainted to the Madison Community. The fun of food shopping ranks high, says Carpenter, since the tense, lets get this over with attitude of supermarkets is gone. Food as culture is another important impact of the marketthe vendors and customers are extremely diverse, and the specialty products that are sold encourage interaction and learning between cultures (Image 1.5). Education is another benefit of the market. People learn about food production and interact with the people who actually do the growing. And for the vendors, there is an opportunity to sell directly to the consumer without the middle stages of distribution and processing that spell higher prices for consumers with continued low income for producers. On average $400,000 is spent at the market every Saturday. Throughout the 1990s the Dane County Farmers Market gained national notoriety from many magazines, including Food and Wine and Good Housekeeping. It also played a key role in Madisons Best Place to Live award from Money Magazine, (Capenter 2003). In his book, Making Places Special, Gene Bunnell (2002) says that No other farmers market equals the happening that takes place in Madisons Capitol Square on Farmers Market Saturdays. The sheer quantity and mind-boggling array of agricultural products piled up on hundreds of long tables, lined end to end around the entire perimeter of the Capitol Square, gives full expression to the fact that Wisconsin, perhaps more than any other state, defines its identity and character in terms of its farmland and agriculture. As a remarkably successful farmers market, the Dane County Farmers Markets mission statement could represent the goals for local agriculture in general. The mission statement incorporates the following goals: To give growers and producers of Wisconsin agricultural commodities and other farm-related products alternative marketing opportunities. To promote the sale of Wisconsin-grown farm products. To improve the variety, freshness, taste and nutritional value of produce available in the Madison area. To provide an opportunity for farmers and people from urban communities to deal directly with each other rather than through third parties, and to thereby get to know and learn from one another. To provide an educational forum for consumers to learn the uses and benefits of quality, locally grown or prepared food products. To provide educational opportunities for producers to test and refine their products and marketing skills. To enhance the quality of life in the Greater Madison area by providing a community activity which fosters social gathering and interaction. To preserve Wisconsin's unique agricultural heritage and the historical role which farmers' markets have played in it (Dane County Farmers Market).

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 20 Farms-to-Schools Recent literature focused on planning for food systems includes a call for policies and programs to stimulate the purchase of locally-grown and produced food products by public institutions such as schools, hospitals, universities and others. It aims to replace the current food-institution linkages that are ecologically unsustainable with local and sustainable production and distribution linkages. Farmsto-schools initiatives often involve collaborative arrangements between two or more of the following: farmers, non-profit organizations, universities, school district staff and interested citizens (Stouder 2004). Farms-to-schools programs have been springing up across the country as a result of efforts to link public and private school systems with the food system and to incorporate food and environmental education into the curriculum. In 1995, renowned chef Alice Waters of the Chez Panisse restaurant in Berkeley, California started a program called The Edible Schoolyard at Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School. In the school garden, which was originally an abandoned lot, kids could learn to prepare plant beds, plant and harvest produce, and compost food waste. In the kitchen classroom, children were taught to prepare lunches from their harvest, share meals, and cook with fresh ingredients and seasonal recipes. The program, developed with a seed to table philosophy, has been a success. According to Waters, producing, preparing, and sharing food teaches us that actions have consequences, that survival requires cooperation, and that people and nature are interdependent (Edible Schoolyard). The Wisconsin Homegrown Lunch Project is a similar program in Madison, Wisconsin. This program incorporates locally grown food products into Madison Metropolitan School Districts foodservice (Stouder 2004). Opportunities to eat local and organic produce are not readily available to many lowincome households, and this program attempts to reach that population. Health and Food Security Partnerships Non-profit groups and municipal councils can play a part in securing essential services to people, such as easy access to grocery stores or alternative food sources, and can also coordinate food provisioning programs. The location of quality, affordable food stores can be included as a key element of neighborhood development plans. Organizations and planners will need to work together to develop such plans. In addition, the systemic elements of food security should also be considered, including diverse and dependable transportation options, affordable housing, and urban employment (Cosgrove 2000). The Dane County Hunger Prevention Council has been an active player in the regions food security initiatives. In Madison, efforts should build on the work of the Hunger Prevention Council, which has already been doing much of the work. Their mission is to coordinate and improve efforts to prevent hunger and promote food security throughout Dane County through information sharing, public education and advocacy (URPL 1997). Conclusion It is apparent that urban agriculture has the potential of being at least a partial solution to many of the problems that plague urban areas. Urban agriculture is about connecting people to the land by giving them a chance to grow their own food. It is also about health and nutrition, and making sure that lower incomes residents have access to quality food. The impact of urban agriculture goes beyond food security, though, and provides environmental, economic, and social benefits. The wide-ranging positive effects of urban agriculture show its importance to a citys well-being, and the need to incorporate urban agriculture in a citys comprehensive plan.

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 21 Bibliography Abel, Jennifer, et al. 1999. Extensions Role with Farmers Markets: Working with Farmers, Consumers, and Communities, Journal of Extension 37 (5). Available on-line at http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a4.html; accessed 24 March 2004. Allen, Patricia. 1999. Reweaving the Food Security Net: Mediating Entitlement and Entrepreneurship, Agriculture and Human Values 16: 117-129. Barrs, Robert. [n.d.] Sustainable Urban Food Production in the City of Vancouver. Available online at http://www.cityfarmer.org/barrsUAvanc.html; accessed 3 March 2004. Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Bunnell, Gene. 2002. Making Places Special. Chicago: Planners Press. Carpenter, Mary. 2003. The Dane County Farmers Market: A Personal History. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. City of Berkeley, California. City of Berkeley General Plan. Available on-line at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/planning/landuse/plans/generalPlan/gppdfs.html; accessed 3 March 2004. City of Burlington, Vermont. City of Burlington Municipal Development Plan. Available on-line at http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/planning/mdp/07comfacserv.pdf; accessed 8 March 2004. City of Prince Albert, [Province?]. [n.d.] Prince Albert Food Charter. Available on-line at http://www.votenga.ca/Common%20Pages/BackgrounderTextFiles/princealbertcharter.pdf; accessed 6 February 2004. Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC), North American Urban Agriculture Committee. 2003. Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe. [City]: North American Urban Agriculture Committee. Available at http://www.foodsecurity.org/PrimerCFSCUAC.pdf; accessed 8 March 2004. Cosgrove, Sean. 2000. Food Secure CitySubmission to the Toronto Official Plan. Toronto, ON: Toronto Food Policy Council. Dane County Farmers Market. Home page. Available on-line at http://www.dcfm.org/; accessed 8 March 2004. De Zeeuw, Henk, Sabine Guendel, and Hermann Waibel. 2000. The Integration of Agriculture in Urban Policies, in Bakker, N. et al (ed.) Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, 161-180. Feldafing, Germany: Zentralstelle fur Ernahrung und Landwirtschaft (ZEL) Food and Agriculture Development Centre. Drescher, Axel. 2000. Urban and Periurban Agriculture and Urban Planning. University of Freiburg, Germany. The Edible Schoolyard. The Edible School Yard History and Overview. Available online at www.edibleschoolyard.org; accessed 7 March 2004. Feenstra, Gail, et al. 1999. Entrepreneurial Community Gardens: Growing Food, Skills, Jobs and Communities, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 21587. [City]: University of California. Felsing, Richard. 2002. The Pros and Cons of Zoning for Community Gardens. Madisonn, WI: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin Madison.

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 22 Fisher, A. 1999. Hot Pepper and Parking Lot Peaches: Evaluating Farmers Markets in Low Income Communities. Available on line; http://www.foodsecurity.org/pubs.html; accessed 9 March 2004. [City]: Community Food Security Coalition. Hall, Emma. [n.d.] Manifestations of Community Based Agriculture in the Urban Landscape: A Canadian Compendium and Four Winnipeg Case Studies. Available online at http://www.cityfarmer.org/winnipeg.html; accessed 3 March 2004. Halweil, Brian. Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market. Worldwatch Paper #163. Available online at http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2002/11/21/; accessed 4 March 2004. Herbach, Geoff. 1998. Harvesting the City: Community Gardening in Greater Madison, Wisconsin. Madison Food System Project Working Paper Series MFSP-1998-01. Madison, WI: Madison Food System Project. Hough, Michael. 1995. Cities and Natural Resources. London: Routledge. Leisure Trends. 2002. The Loaf Book 2: Americans at Leisure. Available at http://www.leisuretrends.com/local/pdf/free_downloads/The_Loaf_Book_2.pdf; accessed 8 March 2004. Lyson, T. A., G. W. Gillespie, Jr., and D. Hilchey. 1995. Farmers Markets and the Local Community: Bridging the Formal and Informal Economy, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10 (3): 108-113. Malakoff, David. [n.d.] What Good Is Community Greening? Research Supports All Those Common Sense Answers Youve Been Using for YearsBut There Is Still More to Learn. Available at http://www.communitygarden.org/pubs/whatgood.html; accessed 8 March 2004. Moskow, Angela. 1999. The Contribution of Urban Agriculture to Gardeners, Their Households, and Surrounding Communities: The Case of Havana, Cuba, in For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems, ed. Koc et al., 84-94. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Center. Nelson, Toni. 1996. Closing the Nutrient Loop, World Watch 1996 (November/December): 10-17. Nugent, Rachel. 1999a. Is Urban Agriculture Sustainable in Hartford, CT? in Contested Countryside: The North American Rural Urban Fringe, eds. O. Furuseth and M. Lapping, 207-230. Avebury, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. . 1999b. Measuring the Sustainability of Urban Agriculture, in For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems, ed. Koc et al., 95-99. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Center. Ostrom, Marcia. 1997. Community Farm Coalitions, in Farms of Tomorrow Revisited, T. Groh and S. McFadden, 87-102. Kimberton, PA: The Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Inc. Patel, Ishwarbhai C. 1992. Socio-Economic Impact of Community Gardening in an Urban Setting, in The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium, ed. D. Relf. Portland, OR: Timber Press. Penn, Michael. 2003. Will Power, Wisconsin Academy Review 49 (1):10-15. Pothukuchi, K. and J. L. Kaufman. 1999. Placing the Food System on the Urban Agenda: The Role of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning, Agriculture and Human Values 16 (2): 213-224.

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 23 Power, Elaine M. 1999. Combining Social Justice and Sustainability for Food Security, in For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems, ed. Koc et al., 30-37. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Center. Regnitter, Gerald. [n.d.] A Food Charter for Prince Albert: A Model for Positive Political and Social Evolution. Available online at http://www.votenga.ca/Common%20Pages/BackgrounderTextFiles/FoodCharters.htm; accessed 3 March 2004. Schukoske, Jane E. Community Development through Gardening: State and Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space, Legislation and Public Policy 3:351. Sharp, Jeff, et al. 2002. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): Building Community among Farmers and Non-Farmers, Journal of Extension 40 (3). Available online at http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a3.html; accessed 3 March 2004. Smit, J. and Joe Nasr. Farming in Cities, Context 42: 20-23. Smit, J., et al. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs, and Sustainable Cities. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Stouder, Heather. 2004. Linking the Land and the Lunchroom: Insights for Planners from the Wisconsin Homegrown Lunch Farm-To-School Project, Progressive Planning 2004 (Winter). Twiss, J, et al. 2003. Community Gardens: Lessons Learned From California Healthy Cities and Communities, American Journal of Public Health 92 (9):1435-1438. Urban and Regional Planning Department, University of WisconsinMadison. 1997. Fertile Ground: Planning for the Madison/Dane County Food System. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development. Agenda 21. Available online at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/index.html; accessed 23 March 2004. United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 2002. American Community Survey. Available online at http://www.census.gov; accessed 4 March 2004. Wisconsin Foodshed Research Project. Home page. Available online at http://www.foodshed.wisc.edu; accessed on 4 March 2004. Woodsworth, Alexandra. [n.d.] Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Cities, http://www.cityfarmer.org/alexandraUA.html#alexUA; accessed 8 March 2004.