Agricultura Urbana 17

7/28/2019 Agricultura Urbana 17

1/23

URBAN AGRICULTURE

Introduction

Urban agriculture, at first glance, may appear to be a fairly simple topic: Scatter a few plots about theCity 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 citysurban form. Similarly, in spite of its seeming simplicity, urban agriculture does not just happen. Tofoster the development and growth of urban agriculture, a city may have to consider implementingtechniques 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, andimproves air quality. Because food is produced locally, urban agriculture also reduces energyconsumption and pollution associated with transportation. Urban agriculture also provides socialbenefits by providing inexpensive access to locally-grown produce.

The increasing population growth of recent years has brought the issue of sustainability to theforefront. Urban agriculture is one way to significantly impact not only peoples lives, but alsoenvironmental sustainability.

What Is Urban Agriculture?

According to the 2002 American Community Survey, the population of the United States is280,540,303 (US Census), 80 percent of which are living in metropolitan areas (Community FoodSecurity Coalition [CFSC] 2003). This growing population has created a number of questions overhow to deal with sustainability in terms of transportation demand, housing needs, recreationalinterests, food supply.

Because the global urban population is expected to double by 2038, urban agriculture has anopportunity 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 (Smitet al. 1996). Urban agriculture also contributes to a communitys nutritional self-reliance, reducinghunger and malnutrition in urbanizing areas around the world.

Food must travel through a complex network in order to supply cities. Generally speaking, foodtravels 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 supermarketshelves. 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 supplyingquality food with produced within reasonable distances for transportation. One solution is to bringagriculture near to or even within urbanized areas, creating urban agriculture. A simple definition ofurban 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 animalhusbandry in and around cities. This decreases the transportation time of food, which means that itreaches consumers more quickly, in a fresher state, and with less fuel consumption for shipping. TheUnited Nations provides a more in-depth definition of urban agriculture.

[Urban agriculture] is an industry that produces, processes and markets food and fuel, largelyin response to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on land and


2/23

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 2

water dispersed throughout the urban and peri-urban area, applying intensive productionmethods, using and reusing natural resources and urban wastes, to yield a diversity of cropsand livestock. (Smit et al. 1996)

The urban agriculture also has numerous benefits in terms of environmental sustainability. Besidesbeautifying 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 pollutionbecause of the decreased travel distances for produce. A greener urban landscape can also providepsychological, 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 productannually and consist of less than 100 acres); adaptive farms (which sell more than $10,000 annuallyand range in size from 100 to 200 acres); and traditional farms (which sell more than $10,000annually and are larger than 200 acres); (CFSC 2003). According to the CFSC most urban agricultureprograms operate on fewer than 25 acres. Not surprisingly, farm size is the limiting factor indeveloped areasfinding sufficient area for a farm is a major problem for urban farms. Many urbanfarms receive core funding from local government, but they are also required to supplement thesefunds through the sale of agricultural goods and products (Beatley 2000).

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a newer example of the urban farming enterprise. TheCSA model began in rural areas, and has now worked its way into more urban areas. A personparticipating in a CSA program buys a share in a local farm, paying up-front dues to receive produceregularly throughout the growing season. Many CSAs directly respond to food security issues byoffering shares to low-income households through grants, adopt-a-share programs, and othersubsidies (CFSC 2003).

Community Gardens

Community gardens are another example of urban agriculture. The main objective of a communitygarden is to provide land for family gardening use. This usually means that the land is divided intosmaller plots for individual household users, where each gardener is responsible for maintaining hisor her plot. Community gardeners are generally not permitted to sell the products of their labor forprofitmost community gardens are for personal use only. Community gardens can have a variety ofowners: institutions, community groups, land trusts, or private citizens.

According to the Community FoodSecurity Coalition, community gardenshave helped families grow their own foodaccording to their personal needs, thereby

providing a cost savings. In Milwaukee,Wisconsin, for instance, community gardenplots helped families save from $100 to$300 a year. In Philadelphia, communitygardeners reported annual savings of $700dollars per familya significant amountfor lower-income households. Communitygardens also provide greater access to freshand nutritious vegetables. As a result,

Figure 1.1: Portsmouth Community Garden

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


3/23


community gardens have a significant role in addressing public health and livability issues (Twiss etal. 2003).

One of the greatest benefits of community gardens is that they help build the character of aneighborhood through sustainable community development. Community gardens are sites for acombination 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 culturalexchange (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 hiddenenvironmental, 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 thefoodshed (Wisconsin Foodshed Research Project).

Understanding how food is produced, processed, distributed, and accessed, as well as how food wasteis disposed of is integral to a well-run food system (URPL 2003). Since urban agriculture is mostoften 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 inurban agriculture.

For a local food system to work, farmers must be linked to food processing, distribution, and the endof the food chain: consumers. Local consumers often struggle to support local farmers because itcan be difficult to find local food in grocery stores or restaurants. Similarly, groceries and restaurantssometimes find access to local farmers difficult because of the lack of local storage and distributionsites. Connections need to be made between all members within a food system to increase citizensaccess 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 typicalurban system is an ecological dead end. Instead of a healthy ecosystem, where nutrients are largelyrecycled, 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 ofleaves or clippings from yards and parks. Urban agriculture can address these issues and many otherenvironmental, economic, and social concerns.

Environmental Restoration

Many of the environmental or ecological benefits of urban agriculture are not quantified in the currentliterature. 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. AlthoughNugent concludes that the monetarily measurable benefits exceed the costs, she is quick toacknowledge the limitations of her study. Exclusion of important factors such as environmentalexternalities, multiplier effects, social effects, and restriction to the Hartford area provides only apartial conclusion concerning urban and peri-urban agriculture. The difficulty in measuring benefits isreflected throughout the urban agriculture literature. For the most part, the environmental benefits arelisted as given rather than as a theory that requires proof.


4/23


5/23


Power (1999) classifies urban agriculture movements as a sustainable food systems approach to foodsecurity, which is also known as community food security (CFS). By developing skills and self-reliance and fostering direct connections between farmers and urban residents, the sustainable foodssystems approach provides food for the hungry. Allen (1999) argues that urban agriculture is not, initself, a solution for food security problems. Urban agriculture can only minimally improve incomedistribution, 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 entirepopulation must also include traditional food programs that provide food access through standardapproaches.

There are several factors that can hamper consumers access to quality food. Transportation togrocery stores and markets is importantmany people do not have a car to drive themselves to thesupermarket every time they need to shop for groceries. This requires both re-thinking the locationsof food stores and modifying the transportation system to ensure that consumers can reachsupermarkets. Household income is another issue that affects food access; without adequate jobs orwages, many households lack the finances to provide food security (Fisher 2001). Communitygardens clearly benefit such households, but many already have long waiting lists. Addressing theproblem 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). HFSrelies on a mix of approaches to create and sustain an equitable food system that addresses causes ofhunger 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 andorganizing and food store development within the city in combination with urban agriculture, HFShas been able to further food security for the past 25 years.

Community Development

Multiple studies have shown that urban agriculture draws community members together. CaroleNemore, 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 fiveboroughs, social activities (either neighborhood gatherings or a meeting place for friends) were listedas the most common non-planting use of the garden. Sharp et al. (2002) also found cooperativenetworks among producers in their analysis of a single CSA. A leader of the CSA reported that theorganization enabled trades between three producers who were unaware of the others existencebefore 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 socialcapital, economic resources, and public policy through greening. The process enables interactionbetween non-profit, government, and community members and sets up gardening as a forum forsocial 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 humansand nature. For example, Growing Power seeks to address both the issue of food security and the goalof community development by rooting people to the earth and healthy food. Will Allen, co-director ofGrowing 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 thesoil, 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


6/23


production. Likewise, the Ground Up organization in Washington D.C., has focused its programs ontaking kids off the streets. By providing training in business skills and education on nutritional,environmental, and food security issues, the gardening organization has prevented neighborhoodsfrom being victims of crime (Nelson 1996). Surveys of project leaders in project YEES (YouthEconomic and Educational Sustainability) also mentioned the importance of community gardens as asafe 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 ofgovernment, can benefit economically (Herbach 1998). Furthermore, community supportedagriculture and involvement in farmers markets are two opportunities to share benefits betweenconsumers and producers (Barrs [n.d.]). Farmers markets have a locational advantage overcommercial 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 percenthigher than the returns from wholesaler or distributor sales (Abel et al 1999). In addition, the marketsprovide an alternative for consumers who value quality and variety or who wish to support localagriculture (Lyson et al. 1995).

Madison area farms have been participating in community-supported agriculture since 1992. MadisonArea Community Supported Agriculture Coalition (MACSAC) seeks to build a relationship betweenfarmers and consumers, and also between consumers and the land. Each growing season CSAmembers purchase a share from a farm, and, on a weekly basis throughout the growing season, theycan pick up food at the farm or at certain drop-off points. The direct link between farmer andconsumer 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 ofinvolvement, and not involving low-income people in the organization. Those factors have made itdifficult to get members involved in issues of land acquisition and in ensuring the social andeconomic foundations.

Recreation and Leisure

Although Nugent (1999) does not consider recreational benefits a factor for commercial farmers, shedoes 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 forwomen and men, respectively. A 1994 Gallup poll reported one percent of total American gardenersas community gardeners, but with 14 percent interested in community gardening if it becameavailable. In addition, Patel (1992) found that 26 percent of participants in Newark, New Jersey, andsurrounding 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 to425,000 additional vacant industrial sites and brownfields have been declared safe for conversion toagricultural use by the US General Accounting Office (CFSC 2003).


7/23


The Real Cost of Food

Table 1.1 illustrates some of the real costs of several common foods. Many of the nations crops comefrom 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 necessitatesincreased 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(Price)

Food Miles Genetic Diversity Social and HealthCosts

Environmental Impact

Apples($.99-$2.99/lb)

80% of thenations 2001apple crop camefrom WA, NY,MI, CA, PA,VA.

Resurgence ofinterest in uniquevarieties in the lastdecade; somenurseries offer up to200 varieties.

US apple farmersdown 23% (from1987 to 1997).USDA found 35different pesticideresidues on 99.6% ofsamples (1996).

Increasing use of integratedpest management (IPM) andorganic farming, which keepspesticides out of food, lakes,streams, and groundwater.

Potatoes

($.35-$.99/lb)

ID, ME, MN,

ND, OR, WA,and WI are mainproducers, but20% chippingplants are in theeast.

Only four major

commercialvarieties, but over5,000 varietiesworldwide, many ofwhich are naturallypest resistant.

Farmers receive about

2 cents for theaverage $1.50 retailprice for potato chips.Chips account for of potatoes consumed.

Farmers receive exemptions to

spray chemicals that arepotentially hazardous due topersistence of pests and blight.Many chemicals end up in thegroundwater since potatoesare grown in heavily irrigated,sandy soils.

Tomatoes(around$0.79/lb)

About 2,500miles. From FL,CA, TX, andMexico.

Tomatoes are bredfor durability, notflavor or nutrition,to endure longtransport.

Farm workers aredirectly exposed topesticides. Daylaborers can earn aslittle as $2.50 a day.

California tomatoes useirrigated water from hundredsor thousands of miles away,affecting water levels andwildlife in other regions.Irrigated water contains soil-degrading minerals that are

reducing the productivity ofsoil.

Strawberries($.89-$4.99/pint)

Out of season,strawberriescome from CA(83% ofproduction from1998-2000) orMexico.

Strawberries grownfor processing orwholesaledistribution are bredfor size anddurability, asopposed to flavor.

Most reportedpesticide poisoningsby laborers than forany other crop.Dependence onmigrant workers.Local berries maycontain more vitaminC than those shippedfrom a distance.

Use more pesticides per acrethan any other crop in CA.Extremely toxic chemical,methyl bromide, which causeshealth problems and depletesozone still used in FL and CA.

Source: Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, UW-Madison

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 orcomprehensive plans. Doing so would raise the profile of urban agriculture, making it easier to


8/23


operate gardens and urban farms, and making people more aware of the option of utilizing urbanagriculture.

There are many types of urban agriculture that may not fit with traditional concepts but are alreadybenefiting many cities. Some examples of nontraditional urban agriculture include: horticulture invacant 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 andrailroads (Smit et al. 1996).

The following section discusses how urban agriculture physically affects urban form, providingexamples 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 hasadopted a four-zone model that outlines the broad categories of land where urban agriculture can takeplace. Core zones have the highest density and the greatest mixture of land uses, followed by corridor

zones. The nature of the zoneaffects what type of urbanagriculture can be practiced.

According to Smit et al. (1996),because of the density of thecore area, urban agricultureusually takes place on rooftops,balconies, temporarily vacantlots, in converted buildings, andsometimes in public parks.There are also examples of

small-scale plastic greenhousefarming systems, includinghydroponics. Urban agriculturemay be forced out of core-cityareas, considering the increasingfocus of using vacant lots inurban revitalization programs.

The corridor zones are similarto, though less dense than, thecore. In the context of urbanagriculture, they basically have

the same characteristics of use.Farming in corridor zonesusually takes place along main

roads and railway lines because there are often large lots that have not yet been built out in thoseareas (Smit et al. 1996). Ornamental horticulture, grazing, market gardening, greenhouse vegetablesand flowers, poultry, and other types of small livestock can all be found in corridor zones. Thesetypes of agricultural locations usually have low-intensity crops, recycle little waste, and produce lowreturns on labor. Low returns result because farmers in these areas often have little security

Figure 1.2: The four zones city model

Source: Smit et al. 1996, Urban Agriculture Network


9/23


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 fordevelopment, such as steep slopes and wetlands (Smit et al. 1996). In larger cities, it is this type ofland 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 highopportunity cost because built use yields higher land rents than agriculture, but successfully achievesenvironmental conservation (CFSC 2003).

The periphery zone is the rural-urban fringe characterized by small and medium-size farms orientedto the metropolitan market that are more diverse than those in rural areas (CFSC 2003). Theagricultural industry in this type of land adapts to the new demands of urban markets. The acreage ofagriculture on the periphery depends on the transportation efficiency and landscape features (Smit etal. 1996). This zone usually is earmarked intensive vegetable production because of lowertransportation 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 four-zone model of the city (Figure 1.1), core zones and corridor zones have the highest density, meaningthere is not much land available for urban agriculture (Smit et al. 1996). Even if land can be found inthose zones, it tends to be used for gardening on a temporary basis. More land for agriculturalpurposes can be found in wedge and periphery zones. Land otherwise unsuitable for building can be

set aside foragricultural

activities. Eachzone has its own

characteristicswhich dictate the

appropriate typeof urbanagriculture.

Agriculture inlow densityurban areas is

commonlylocated nearriversides and

floodplains,water bodies,

wetlands, andsteep slopes.These areas are

usually not built up due to natural disaster threats such as floods and landslides. Hillsides can also beprohibitively expensive to develop. Methods of urban agriculture for steep slopes include forestry-related activities and terrace horticulture, which can help stabilize slopes, reduce erosion, and mitigateurban heat island effects (Beatley 2000). Riverside areas and floodplains, in addition to being close towater, usually have the most fertile soils (Hough 1995). Water bodies and wetlands are other possiblelocations for urban agriculture in low density areas. Possible environmental contamination, which can

Figure 1.3: Community gardens in an urban neighborhood


10/23


turn up in urban areas, can be mitigated by using aquatic plant and fish production for biologicaltreatment 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-knowntype 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 roofsof buildings. They have become increasingly common in European cities, especially in Germany andthe Netherlands (Beatley 2000), where roughly 350 million square feet have been installed. Greenroofs provide many benefits: they are aesthetically pleasing, reduce city heat island effects, reducecarbon dioxide impact, reduce summer air conditioning costs, reduce winter heat demands, lengthenroof life by two to three times, remove nitrogen pollution in rain, neutralize acid rain effects, reducenoise, reduce stormwater runoff, and provide songbird habitat (http://hortweb.cas.psu.edu). The manyadvantages 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, suchas the Cosmos Building in Saarbrcken, Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, the main library at theTechnical 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 roofsprogram in Europe. The city of Linz frequently requires building plans to compensate for the loss ofgreenspace occupied by the building footprint with the installation of greenroofs. A number ofbuildings 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 ofAtlanta, Phoenix, and Minneapolis (http://hortweb.cas.psu.edu). In the United States, the idea ofgreen roofs is relatively newand is just beginning to bepromoted.

Promoting Urban FoodProduction through

Planning

The food system is anelement generally taken forgranted in the urbanenvironment, yet it is asnecessary a function ashousing or transportation.Some would go as far as tocompare it to such essentialelements as air and water.

Pothukuchi and Kaufmann(1999) explain that thehistorical development ofcities led to the definitions ofurban problems aspredominate over rural oragricultural ones. Theindustrial revolution and modern technologies have made it possible for problems in the food system

Figure 1.4: Chicago City Halls green roof

Source: http://www.hrt.msu.edu/faculty/Rowe/ ChicagoCityHallAerial%20062702.jpg


11/23


to be overlooked. Since food has never been perceived as in crisis in the US, it has been less visiblein comparison to other problems our cities face, and its connections to other urban elements haveoften gone unnoticed as well.

Today, recognition of and interest in urban agriculture is still low among planners and politicians, andcities 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 programswith best practices in urban and regional planning, adding to established concepts of sustainable citydevelopment (Drescher 2000). The job of planners is to create a livable city, and the job of ecologicalplanners is to create a healthy one. The World Health Organization describes a healthy city as onethat is continually creating those physical and social environments and expanding those communityresources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing all functions of life andin developing to their maximum potential (URPL 1997).

Planners today are finding practical arguments for the formal recognition of urban agriculture and itsinclusion 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 theassistance 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 aresult. Urban planners can contribute to urban agriculture by identifying appropriate zones forfarming activities, encouraging the infrastructure developments needed by farmers, and implementingprotective measures to provide land security (Drescher 2000).

In addition, urban farms challenge urban residents learned disconnection from their food source andtheir environment. Urban agriculture can be a community activity that fosters environmentaleducation, 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 uniqueecological 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 canoverride many forms of land occupancy. While access to land is vital to the survival of urban farmsand community gardens, the question of how to treat urban agriculture in planning is still up in theair. Currently, many of these urban farming activities are being conducted informally and gardeningorganizations have little to no power in the political arena. Therefore, many are leaning towards amore policy-based approach.

Zoning

Planners have the ability to implement policies and land-use planning tools, such as zoning, tosupport urban agriculture. However, there is some argument over the issue of zoning for urbanagriculture. 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 preferto treat gardening as an allowed interim land use, since gardening is relatively benign and can beconsistent 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 theland from being taken over by development pressures. Naming community gardens as a permitted usein zoning code clarifies city policy, provides a shared reference point for all parties, and makesexplicit the mutual understanding of city staff, gardeners, and city residents (Felsing 2002).


12/23


Accessing land and other resources is a major concern for community gardeners. Garden lands insome jurisdictions are publicly owned. Vacant lands may be leased, specified by various authorizinglaws, for certain time periods of one, two, and five years, but these leases are usually terminable onshort notice (Felsing 2002). Gardeners sometimes seize control of privately owned vacant urban lotsby 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 thetitle for a gardening organization. In addition to assistance needed to secure the land for long-termagricultural use, community garden organizations may require legal assistance in obtaining otherrequired 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 andprovide the context for accessing many of these resources.

Formal recognition of urban agriculture in the zoning code enhances its viability. By namingcommunity gardens in codes and ordinances, support can be solidified across a range of citydepartments 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 forcommunity gardens have been put into place. If a private garden group dissolves, the city has aprocess for disposition of land, where lots revert back to city ownership and get redistributed. This isa powerful tool for gardeners, because the deed restrictions used by private groups are not as strong asBostons 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 thesurrounding community. Many officials involved in urban agriculture note that zoning will work bestin 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 localmunicipal councils are largely responsible for permitting urban agricultural activities. City planningshould 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 (Drescher2000). The coordination and facilitation of all the decisions affecting urban land uses is just asimportant as a master plan. Therefore, an important first step is to define the complex interaction ofland uses and to inform all interested stakeholders.

Axel Drescher (2000) recommends these steps to a successful and comprehensive policy approach tourban agriculture:

Incorporate mechanisms for effective coordination of urban agriculture activities and directstakeholder 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 soilsand irrigation water, and health standards tailored to the ultimate consumers of the productproduced.

Institutionalize administrative procedures to get access to the above-mentioned resources.

Institutionalize procedures to monitor the positive and negative effects of urban agriculturewith regard to social, economic, and environmental conditions, and define responsible bodies.


13/23


Zoning is still the common system used for most urban planning elements; therefore, the more it isused as a policy and regulation tool for urban agriculture, the more urban agriculture will be takenseriously 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 cityssupport of agriculture and gardening, officially recognizing the practice as an important to the cityswell-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 ofBerkeley has 17 community gardens, 11 of which are government owned (meaning they are ownedby the city, the university, or a school district), while the remainder are run by private organizationsor non-profits. In its comprehensive plan, the City of Berkeley states that additional space is desiredfor community gardens [and] farmers markets. The plan deals directly with the need for agriculturalland within the city by designating community gardens and open space as the highest priority for a14-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. Undersection OS-8, there are six goals for community gardens in the city that include encouragingneighborhood groups to organize, designing and manage community gardens, including communitygardens in the planning for the Santa Fe Right-of-Way (the aforementioned 14-block area), pursuingcommunity gardens in high-density areas, increasing support for community gardens throughpartnerships 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 needsto 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 distributionsystems. This policy comes with eight recommended actions that range from promoting seeddistribution to encouraging buildings to incorporate rooftop gardens and providing sites for localfarmers 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 1991Burlington Area Community Gardens Master Plan. Not many communities, even now, have asection of their comprehensive plan dedicated to community gardens or urban agriculture, let alone aspecific plan for community gardens that has been in place since 1991. The comprehensive planidentifies 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 thelocal level in Canada the citizens of three cities, Toronto, Saskatoon and Prince Albert have becomeso conscious of and concerned about basic food insecurity that they have created Food CharterMovements and have brought their respective City Governments to pass Food Charters. This isespecially important in Prince Albert, where a quarter of families make less than 50 percent of theaverage Canadian yearly income. The introduction of Prince Alberts Food Charter states that,


14/23


[T]he local food retailer is now likely to be a large corporate operation located half a cityaway from where we live. Domestic back yard gardens are virtually extinct, and theconnection between rural food producer and urban consumer exists only by way of verycomplex and remote connections . Having economic means will not ensure our health andfood security if there is no food available or we cannot access it . These concerns are realto 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 communityorganization, 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 tellwhat 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 statepromotion of urban agriculture should focus on how community gardening is consistent withcommunity health and welfare, environmental protection, economic development, education, youthemployment, and tourism (Schukoske).

Some state laws recognize gardens as a permissible public use of state and local land, and othersspecifically mention gardens within their provisions on food production and agriculture, education,parks and environment, and social services. State legislation typically focuses on providing clearauthorization 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 havealso led to other efforts to enable urban agriculture. New York State, for example, uses state resourcesto 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/privatecoordination 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 ofpermission to use vacant state lands for gardening purposes. Second, states can create a system fortracking vacant lots and their assignment to garden organizations. Third is the necessary step ofprotection of the state from liability for personal injury and property damages while the land is beingused by the community garden.

Schukoske recommends a list of 20 best practice local ordinances for community gardens. Some ofthese 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 fromgardens (five years recommended) and provide for the possibility of permanent dedication tothe 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.


15/23


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 flowergardening. 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 inmany of the new development areas planned in the cities mentioned above is the provision forcommunity gardens, in both rural and urban sites. Many European cities, like Helsinki, provide morethan 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 thecity, and are used for recreational, educational, and other purposes. The United Kingdom has its ownnetwork of city farms, with a National Federation of City Farms made up of sixty members (Beatley2000). These farms are often in urban environments, integrated with development, and consequentlyget 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 morereadily than traditional farms.

Personal gardens have always been a cultural tradition in European culture, and it is easy to forgetthat the predominance of large-scale industrial agriculture is uniquely American. In addition toacceptance of urban gardens as a valid land use, there is also political support for urban agriculturefound in the policies of the European Union and the United Nations. Many of these internationalsustainability goals trickle down into each country to become integrated into national and municipalgovernment. 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 aswell as developing countries, to create the conditions for sustainable agriculture and ruraldevelopment, (United Nations). This goal is also linked to the promotion of sustainabledevelopment, addressing the need for internal resource development, integration of environmentalinfrastructure, sustainable land-use planning and management, and access to land resources as anessential component of low-impact lifestyles. The eco-villages located throughout Europedemonstrate the human settlement concept and the adoption of these goals in a complete andholistic manner.

Role of City Institutions

There are three potential city institutions that could offer a more comprehensive look at urban foodsystems: 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, andfood-related services development. It could also play a role in facilitating market operations for foodsystem functions, framing and revising food system functions of local government, timing private andpublic food security programs, and analyzing the consequences of programs and project activities(Pothukuchi and Kaufmann 1999).


16/23


The City Planning Agency

The city planning agency, or metropolitan planning organization, typically takes a comprehensivelook at communities, and could have a complementary function with a Food Policy Council. Plannerscan pay particular attention to linkages among functional sectors, between the public and privatesector, 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 morecomprehensive look at what is going on in cities, on how a myriad of issues confronting cities couldbe 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 thefood system including farmers, hunger prevention organizations, food retail, nutritional educationprograms, sustainable agriculture groups, and government officials. Most FPCs function in anadvisory capacity and pursue the goals of a more equitable, effective, and ecologically sustainablefood system. FPCs typically exist outside of government structures, though the Toronto Food PolicyCouncil operates as a subcommittee of the Board of Health. FPCs are often under-funded due to alack 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 foodsystem 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-incomecommunities, improving food access through improved transportation or grocery store location,establishing community gardens and food related entrepreneurship, encouraging environmentallysustainable food production and distribution, and strengthening urban-rural links by connecting localfarmers with local consumers. Given their resource limitations, most FPCs have not yet shown thecapacity to deliver a more comprehensive understanding of the urban food system (Pothukuchi andKaufmann 1999).

The best FPCs in the US are linked both to government through official action, and to a non-profitorganization 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, mostlybecause it has been well funded and is located in a progressive city health department that takes aholistic approach to food systems. The Toronto FPC is immediately responsible to the Department ofHealth, and ultimately responsible to the Toronto City Council, so it can be directly linked with bothareas of government.

Interviews with food system academics done by the UW-Madison Department of Urban and RegionalPlanning concluded that establishment of any FPC must be county-wide. The importance of including

both rural and urban stakeholdersprivate wholesalers and retailers, agricultural interests, low-income families, government officials, planners, and land-use professionalsis emphasized. If such acouncil only addressed urban issues, key rural and agricultural voices would be lost. Interviews withcommunity members done by the same researchers concluded that FPCs can link food security issueswith land-use planning and can develop a stronger link between rural interests in the county and thecity by beginning a dialogue with key decision makers. FPCs can also encourage economicdevelopment by helping farmers organize to sell produce more efficiently to large institutions in cityregions (URPL 1997).


17/23


A successful FPC must formulate a clear mission at its inception, must invite all who are willing tohelp achieve its mission to participate, and must be willing to make politically difficult choices aboutpowerful, but potentially subversive, stakeholders. NGOs and government agencies need to workcollaboratively with FPCs for the good of the whole. Planners, governments, and non-profits mustthink across departmental lines for an interdepartmental food system planning model to work (URPL1997). 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. EntitledFood Secure City, and written by Sean Cosgrove (2000) of the Toronto Food Policy Council, theplan outlines measures that are key to improving Torontos food security. Broadly speaking, thereport 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 diversemembership. It includes representatives from the business community to farmers to communitydevelopment groups. Their mission is to end hunger and the need for food banks in Toronto and towork 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 agriculturecannot only be an environmental issue, but an economic one as well. Another way to link urbanagriculture to economics is to adopt some form of full cost accounting, which internalizes theecological externalities of urban food production (Cosgrove 2000).

The TFPC encourages a regional approach that is dedicated to balancing the urban and ruralcharacter of our region in a long-term sustainable manner. The phrase they use for this idea is thinkregionally, act neighborly. The plan combines suggestions on urban intensification (high-densityredevelopment) with preservation of prime agricultural lands to try to ensure regional sustainability offood 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 asmiddle or upper-income residents. Cosgroves report says that community gardens can play a vitalrole in local provision of healthy food. Finally, another way of making sure all sectors of society haveequal 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 certainsectors of the population (Cosgrove 2000).

Lastly, the report deals with community gardens and ecological infrastructure. Taking urbanagriculture into account in a citywide planning effort can result in much more than just localgardening. 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 side-effects that can be incorporated into any food policy program. Overall, the TFPC provides an


18/23


excellent example how food systems and urban agriculture can be related to urban planning andenvironmental sustainability (Cosgrove2000).

Distribution Programs and Partnerships

Farmers MarketsFarmers markets are one way to addressboth inner-city food access and boostincome for farmers. With a farmersmarket, growers sell their product directlyto the customer, which provides animmediate source of income. Since 1994the number of farmers markets hasincreased by almost 50 percent (Fisher2001). Markets can take many differentforms, from centralized locations to ahandful of vendors for specific housing

developments.

The Farm Fresh Atlas lists four majorfarmers markets in the City of Madison:the Dane County Farmers Market, the EastSide Farmers Market, the HilldaleFarmers Market, and the South MadisonCommunity Market. The largest of thesemarkets is the Dane County FarmersMarket, which has over 300 vendors thatsell everything from fresh produce toplants, flowers, and baked goods. Held

outdoors from late April to earlyNovember, the market takes place two daysa week. On Saturdays the market rings thecapitol square (Figure 1.5) and, onWednesdays, a smaller market is assembledon Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Allproducts sold at the market must beWisconsin-grown (Dane County FarmersMarket).

The market was initiated by former mayorBill Dyke in 1972 to provide a place for

City residents to enjoy the benefits of therich and varied agricultural activities thattook place in the surrounding rural areas.The City worked with the Dane CountyExtension Office and the Central MadisonCommittee of the Chamber of Commerceto develop the market. A Dane Countyfarmer named Jonathan Barry was hired asthe first Farmers Market manager, and the

Figure 1.5: The Dane County Farmers Market on

the Capitol Square

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


19/23


Capitol square was chosen as the site (Dane County Farmers Market). The first market in 1972 hadonly eight vendors. The market quickly grew, however, and by the next year there were three hundreddifferent vendors. Through the 1970s, 80s and 90s the market continued to grow in popularity whileadjustments were made in management and rules. Rules to ensure vendor participation in theproduction 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 20,000weekly visitors. Foremost, she says, the market has become a social event. Attendees interact withfriends 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 asculture 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 (Image1.5). Education is another benefit of the market. People learn about food production and interact withthe people who actually do the growing. And for the vendors, there is an opportunity to sell directlyto the consumer without the middle stages of distribution and processing that spell higher prices forconsumers with continued low income for producers. On average $400,000 is spent at the marketevery Saturday.

Throughout the 1990s the Dane County Farmers Market gained national notoriety from manymagazines, including Food and Wine and Good Housekeeping. It also played a key role inMadisons Best Place to Live award from Money Magazine, (Capenter 2003). In his book, MakingPlaces Special, Gene Bunnell (2002) says that

No other farmers market equals the happening that takes place in Madisons CapitolSquare on Farmers Market Saturdays. The sheer quantity and mind-boggling array ofagricultural products piled up on hundreds of long tables, lined end to end around the entireperimeter of the Capitol Square, gives full expression to the fact that Wisconsin, perhapsmore than any other state, defines its identity and character in terms of its farmland andagriculture.

As a remarkably successful farmers market, the Dane County Farmers Markets mission statementcould represent the goals for local agriculture in general. The mission statement incorporates thefollowing goals:

To give growers and producers of Wisconsin agricultural commodities and other farm-relatedproducts 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 theMadison area.

To provide an opportunity for farmers and people from urban communities to deal directlywith each other rather than through third parties, and to thereby get to know and learn fromone 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 andmarketing skills.

To enhance the quality of life in the Greater Madison area by providing a community activitywhich 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).


20/23


Farms-to-Schools

Recent literature focused on planning for food systems includes a call for policies and programs tostimulate the purchase of locally-grown and produced food products by public institutions such asschools, hospitals, universities and others. It aims to replace the current food-institution linkages thatare ecologically unsustainable with local and sustainable production and distribution linkages. Farms-

to-schools initiatives often involve collaborative arrangements between two or more of the following:farmers, non-profit organizations, universities, school district staff and interested citizens (Stouder2004).

Farms-to-schools programs have been springing up across the country as a result of efforts to linkpublic and private school systems with the food system and to incorporate food and environmentaleducation into the curriculum. In 1995, renowned chef Alice Waters of the Chez Panisse restaurant inBerkeley, 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 toprepare 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 freshingredients and seasonal recipes. The program, developed with a seed to table philosophy, has beena success. According to Waters, producing, preparing, and sharing food teaches us that actions haveconsequences, 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 programincorporates 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 low-income 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 keyelement of neighborhood development plans. Organizations and planners will need to work togetherto 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 securityinitiatives. In Madison, efforts should build on the work of the Hunger Prevention Council, which hasalready been doing much of the work. Their mission is to coordinate and improve efforts to preventhunger and promote food security throughout Dane County through information sharing, publiceducation and advocacy (URPL 1997).

ConclusionIt is apparent that urban agriculture has the potential of being at least a partial solution to many of theproblems that plague urban areas. Urban agriculture is about connecting people to the land by givingthem a chance to grow their own food. It is also about health and nutrition, and making sure thatlower incomes residents have access to quality food. The impact of urban agriculture goes beyondfood security, though, and provides environmental, economic, and social benefits. The wide-rangingpositive effects of urban agriculture show its importance to a citys well-being, and the need toincorporate urban agriculture in a citys comprehensive plan.


21/23


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 athttp://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 onlineat http://www.cityfarmer.org/barrsUAvanc.html; accessed 3 March 2004.

Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington D.C.: IslandPress.

Bunnell, Gene. 2002.Making Places Special. Chicago: Planners Press.

Carpenter, Mary. 2003. The Dane County Farmers Market: A Personal History. Madison, WI: TheUniversity 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 3March 2004.

City of Burlington, Vermont. City of Burlington Municipal Development Plan. Available on-line athttp://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 athttp://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 8March 2004.

De Zeeuw, Henk, Sabine Guendel, and Hermann Waibel. 2000. The Integration of Agriculture inUrban Policies, in Bakker, N. et al (ed.) Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agricultureon the Policy Agenda, 161-180. Feldafing, Germany: Zentralstelle fur Ernahrung undLandwirtschaft (ZEL) Food and Agriculture Development Centre.

Drescher, Axel. 2000. Urban and Periurban Agriculture and Urban Planning. University ofFreiburg, Germany.

The Edible Schoolyard. The Edible School Yard History and Overview. Available online atwww.edibleschoolyard.org; accessed 7 March 2004.

Feenstra, Gail, et al. 1999. Entrepreneurial Community Gardens: Growing Food, Skills, Jobs andCommunities, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication21587. [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.


22/23


Fisher, A. 1999. Hot Pepper and Parking Lot Peaches: Evaluating Farmers Markets in Low IncomeCommunities. Available on line; http://www.foodsecurity.org/pubs.html; accessed 9 March2004. [City]: Community Food Security Coalition.

Hall, Emma. [n.d.] Manifestations of Community Based Agriculture in the Urban Landscape: ACanadian 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 March2004.

Herbach, Geoff. 1998.Harvesting the City: Community Gardening in Greater Madison, Wisconsin.Madison Food System Project Working Paper Series MFSP-1998-01. Madison, WI: MadisonFood System Project.

Hough, Michael. 1995. Cities and Natural Resources. London: Routledge.

Leisure Trends. 2002. The Loaf Book 2: Americans at Leisure. Available athttp://www.leisuretrends.com/local/pdf/free_downloads/The_Loaf_Book_2.pdf; accessed 8March 2004.

Lyson, T. A., G. W. Gillespie, Jr., and D. Hilchey. 1995. Farmers Markets and the LocalCommunity: Bridging the Formal and Informal Economy,American Journal of AlternativeAgriculture 10 (3): 108-113.

Malakoff, David. [n.d.] What Good Is Community Greening? Research Supports All ThoseCommon 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, andSurrounding Communities: The Case of Havana, Cuba, inFor Hunger-Proof Cities:Sustainable Urban Food Systems, ed. Koc et al., 84-94. Ottawa, ON: InternationalDevelopment 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 ContestedCountryside: 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, inFor Hunger-Proof Cities:Sustainable Urban Food Systems, ed. Koc et al., 95-99. Ottawa, ON: InternationalDevelopment Research Center.

Ostrom, Marcia. 1997. Community Farm Coalitions, inFarms of Tomorrow Revisited, T. Groh andS. 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 NationalSymposium, 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 Roleof Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning,Agriculture and Human Values 16 (2):213-224.


23/23


Power, Elaine M. 1999. Combining Social Justice and Sustainability for Food Security, inForHunger-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 SocialEvolution. 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 PoliciesTransforming Urban Open Space,Legislation and Public Policy 3:351.

Sharp, Jeff, et al. 2002. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): Building Community amongFarmers and Non-Farmers,Journal of Extension 40 (3). Available online athttp://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a3.html; accessed 3 March 2004.

Smit, J. and Joe Nasr. Farming in Cities, Context42: 20-23.

Smit, J., et al. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs, and Sustainable Cities. New York: UnitedNations Development Programme.

Stouder, Heather. 2004. Linking the Land and the Lunchroom: Insights for Planners from theWisconsin Homegrown Lunch Farm-To-School Project,Progressive Planning2004(Winter).

Twiss, J, et al. 2003. Community Gardens: Lessons Learned From California Healthy Cities andCommunities,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 23March 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 athttp://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.

Agricultura Urbana 17

Documents

Transcript of Agricultura Urbana 17