carvalho final literature review update · 2!|carvalho!!!!!final!literaturereview! i....

FINAL LITERATURE REVIEW

Have Your Park and Eat it Too

Integrating Edible Landscaping Projects in Penitencia Creek Park, San Jose, CA

Brent Carvalho

4/22/2013

Photograph taken by Brent Carvalho

1 | C a r v a l h o F i n a l L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w

To: Richard Kos, AICP

From: Brent Carvalho

Date: April 22nd, 2013

Re: Final Literature Review

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2

II. Main Themes and Debates ................................................................................................................... 3

1. Proximity vs. capacity for food production in urban areas .......................................................... 3

2. Policy and planning effects on the food system ........................................................................... 6

3. Assessing/measuring food access and distribution .................................................................... 10

4. Roles and responsibilities of local agencies, community members, and educators .................. 14

III. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 19

IV. Annotated Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 21

V. Appendix A: List of On-‐line Databases, Catalogs, and Keywords Searched ....................................... 24

VI. Appendix B: Summary Table of Literature Reviewed ......................................................................... 25


I. Introduction

The purpose of this literature review is to substantiate why planning is needed to address

the integration of edible landscapes into public parks and also to gain insight into the most

effective methods of analyzing food access and production potential in urban areas. Due to a

lack of literature specifically addressing “edible landscaping” in public parks, the scope of

literature evaluated for this report includes research on related topics such as food systems,

food access, and urban agriculture. In particular, articles or studies which detail planning

implications or methods for analyzing urban food systems and urban agriculture were included.

Appendix A details all of the keywords used in searching for related articles. In Appendix B,

findings are synthesized under four main themes which arose from the literature: proximity vs.

capacity for food production in urban areas, policy and planning effects on the food system,

assessing food access and distribution, and roles and responsibilities of local agencies,

community members, and educators.

Findings derived from the literature review will be utilized in the final report. Evidence from

the first two categories, proximity vs. capacity for food production in urban areas and policy and

planning effects on the food system, detail the benefits and problems with creating and

managing edible landscapes. These findings will be included in the introductory section of the

final report, which will introduce readers to the topics of urban food systems and edible

landscaping. Findings collected under the category, assessing food access and distribution, will

be synthesized in order to substantiate the data collection procedures and GIS analysis of this

research project. These findings will be included in the community profile and site assessment


of the final report. Finally, the category, roles and responsibilities of local agencies, community

members, and educators, will serve as a guide for collaboratively managing edible landscaping

projects in public parks. These findings will be included in the recommendations section of the

final report.

II. Main Themes and Debates

1. Proximity vs. capacity for food production in urban areas

A major theme in the literature was access to suitable land for urban food production.

While a number of studies would lead readers to believe that rural areas are the only viable

places for food production, multiple studies also provide evidence which suggests that urban

areas play a significant role in supporting the food needs of urban residents.

Five studies substantiated the idea that rural areas are better suited for food production

than urban areas. Ellis and Sumberg’s 1998 study in Tanzania found that proximity to urban

areas offers a cost savings advantage in the production of perishable foods (e.g. vegetables,

eggs, and milk).1 However, the study concluded by saying that, agricultural production requires

large amounts of land and is better suited to the urban periphery or rural areas where land is

cheaper.2 Ellis and Sumberg’s findings are supported through the 2011 study conducted by

Broadway and Broadway in Vancouver, which surveyed retailers offering local foods, finding

that the biggest impediment to urban agriculture is the growing population and rising property

1 Frank Ellis and James Sumberg, “Food Production, Urban Areas and Policy Responses,” World Development

26, no. 2 [February 1998]: 214. 2Ibid: 221.


values.3 The study uses the example of the Omni Community Garden, which lasted for two

years before being developed for housing, as a clear example of the lack of viable space for

urban food production in the face of residential development.4 Furthermore, Schmidt’s 2012

investigation into urban agriculture in Tanzania found that urban cultivators, utilizing open

space or privately held land, are frequently displaced due to the lack of ownership.5 The case

study found that from 1992-‐2005 the percentage of agricultural land did not change much.

However, the spatial distribution of urban agriculture changed as land became developed and

new areas became cultivated.6 While the study by Ellis and Sumberg was a meta-‐analysis and

arrived at its conclusions based on the premise that cheap and abundant land is more viable

than expensive proximal land, both the Broadway and Broadway study and Schmidt’s study are

case studies that provide concrete evidence as to why the displacement of centralized

agricultural land makes it difficult for agriculture to survive in urban areas.

In the same vein, Asomani’s 2002 survey of urban cultivators in Accra, Ghana, confirms the

difficulty in accessing urban land, finding that gaining access to suitable land was the most

common problem brought up by urban cultivators.7 Asomani’s investigation directly references

land use planning as one of the primary reasons in the City of Accra’s failure to facilitate urban

agriculture.8 Interestingly, Jarosz’s 2008 investigation into agriculture in and around Seattle,

3 Michael J. Broadway and John M. Broadway, “Green Dreams: Promoting Urban Agriculture and the

Availability of Locally Produced Food in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area,” FOCUS on Geography 54, no. 1 [Spring 2011]: 35.

4 Ibid. 5 Stephan Schmidt, “Getting the Policy Right: Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,” International

Development Planning Review 34, no. 2 [2012]: 140. 6 Ibid: 138-‐9. 7 Raymond Asomani-‐Boateng, “Urban Cultivation in Accra: An Examination of the Nature, Practices, Problems,

Potentials and Urban Planning Implications,” Habitat International 26, no. 4 [December 2002]: 600. 8 Ibid: 604.


Washington, found that while farms continue to move further from city boundaries, the

demand for farmer’s markets increases.9 Jarosz’s interviews with organic farmers also noted

their concern over the loss of manures from dairy farms leaving the region, exemplifying the

ripple effect of agricultural displacement.10 Both Asomani and Jarosz provide direct evidence

from people actively involved in food production, confirming that access to land for urban

agriculture continues to be a problem which drives farmers out of urban areas.

Although ample evidence supports the fact that rural areas offer access to more abundant,

cheap land, various studies highlight the potential for the expansion and innovation of urban

food production. Koont’s 2009 investigation into Havana, Cuba’s system of urban agriculture

provides evidence of such success. In Havana, production increases over time were attributed

to increases in cultivated land along with advances in technology and organization in cultivation

practices.11 Furthermore, the study found that urban food production minimized transportation

costs as well as the need for machinery.12 These advances were the result of a major effort by

the government to create a localized and sustainable food system, resulting in a complete

transformation of the country’s food system. Similarly, Hagey’s 2012 case study of Oakland,

California looked at the transformative food revolution currently happening there. The case

study found that one urban farming operation, City Slickers Farms, cultivates 21,569 sq ft of

land on seven farm sites in the city, producing 9,600 lbs of food in 2010, while additionally

9 Lucy Jarosz, “The City in the Country: Growing Alternative Food Networks in Metropolitan Areas,” Journal of

Rural Studies 24, [2008]: 238. 10 Ibid: 237. 11 Sinan Koont, “The Urban Agriculture of Havana,” Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 60,

no. 8 [January 2009]: 51. 12 Ibid: 45.


aiding West Oakland residents in backyard gardening to produce about 24,000 lbs of food.13

Although this is not enough food to meet the needs of an entire city the size of Oakland, it is a

considerable amount nonetheless and demonstrates the potential that urban agriculture has in

supporting the food needs of urban residents.

Another example of the food production potential that urban areas offer is evidenced by

Grewal and Grewal’s 2012 study which found that fifty acres of community gardens in

Cleveland, Ohio, generate approximately $1.2 -‐$1.8 million worth of produce annually.14 The

analysis also estimated that the city has the potential to meet 100 percent of fresh produce

needs.15 While Hagey’s analysis is based on actual volumes of production, Grewal and Grewal’s

assessment is an estimation of potential food production projected from data gathered from

the city’s community gardens. Grewal and Grewal’s assessment is idealistic in scope because it

requires the city’s entire stock of vacant land and rooftops to use hydroponic systems, which

are soilless systems that recirculate water and nutrients. These findings, in conjunction with

those that suggest the preference for rural agriculture, help to paint a more holistic picture of

the food system. Urban and rural food production can coexist and the former is not likely to

replace the latter. However, they can operate as complementary models of food production.

2. Policy and planning effects on the food system

Policy and planning have been identified as playing a significant role in shaping the food

system, whether through facilitating or restricting food production and food retailing. Three

13 Paul Hagey, “Urban Farming Grows in Oakland,” BioCycle [March 2012]: 23-‐26. 14 Sharanbir S. Grewal, and Parwinder S. Grewal, “Can Cities Become Self-‐Reliant in Food?,” Cities 29, no.1

[February 2012]: 4. 15 Ibid: 6.


studies directly referenced that local agencies restricted food access and production at the

policy level. Black et al.’s 2011 investigation in British Columbia revealed that restrictive zoning

was a key variable in the distribution of food retailers.16 Likewise, Rogerson’s 2011 study of

Gauteng, South Africa and Schmidt’s 2012 study in Tanzania both found that policy restricted

agricultural cultivation in urban areas.17 Although the three studies varied in their objectives,

combined together their findings illustrate that local agencies play a vital role in planning for

and creating policy which facilitates access to food and food production in urban areas.

Similarly, Hubbard and Onumah’s 2001 international meta-‐analysis found that one of the

primary contributors to the inefficiencies in urban food supply and demand was that

developing cities are growing rapidly and city policy has not been able to adequately address

urban food supply and distribution problems.18 The investigation further noted that gaining

legal access to farming urban land is considered a burden,19 and concluded by saying that local

authorities need to lead improvements in urban food supply and distribution.20 The significance

of policy and planning is further echoed by Ellis and Sumberg’s 1998 study in Tanzania which

claims that urban agricultural policy should legitimize subsistence farming and gardening for

16 Jennifer L. Black, Richard M. Carpiano, Stuart Fleming, and Nathanael Lauster, “Exploring the Distribution of

Food Stores in British Columbia: Associations With Neighbourhood Socio-‐demographic Factors and Urban Form,” Health & Place 17, no. 4 [July 2011]: 962.

17 Christian M. Rogerson, “Urban Agriculture and Public Administration: Institutional Context and Local Response in Gauteng,” Urban Forum 22, no. 2 [February 2011]: 186-‐7.

Stephan Schmidt, “Getting the Policy Right: Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,” International Development Planning Review 34, no. 2 [2012]: 134.

18 Michael Hubbard, and Gideon Onumah, “Improving Urban Food Supply and Distribution in Developing Countries: The Role of City Authorities,” Habitat International 25, no. 3 [September 2001]: 432-‐34.

19 Ibid: 438. 20 Ibid: 442.


the urban poor,21 also suggesting that comprehensive policy is needed in order to address how

urban cultivators use and access land, including their cultivation operations and management

of agricultural inputs and outputs.22

Structuring and implementing urban food policies is often easier said than done. Martin

and Marsden’s 1999 study in England and Wales, which surveyed local agencies, found that

24.1 percent of respondents considered establishing urban food production initiatives;

however, the majority of respondents did not have a strategy for developing urban food

production.23 The survey also revealed that local authorities cited urban food production as a

method for combating poverty, amongst other benefits.24 However, Webb’s 2011 meta-‐analysis

of urban agriculture in Sub-‐Saharan Africa criticizes the economic benefits of urban agriculture

and cautions against the promotion of urban agriculture as a path out of poverty.25 Regardless

of whether urban food production can solve the problem of poverty there is clear evidence

which suggests local agencies are in a prime position to facilitate urban food production, with

the potential to supplement the food needs of any and all urban residents. Pothukuchi and

Kaufman’s 1999 meta-‐analysis of the involvement of local agencies in food systems planning

found that “local government agencies have responsibilities for such programs as nutrition

education, food stamps, WIC, food health and safety regulation, and school breakfast and lunch

21 Frank Ellis and James Sumberg, “Food Production, Urban Areas and Policy Responses,” World Development

26, no. 2 [February 1998]: 221. 22 Ibid: 219. 23 Ruth Martin, and Terry Marsden, “Food for Urban Spaces: the Development of Urban Food Production in

England and Wales,” International Planning Studies 4, no. 3 [1999]: 393. 24 Ibid: 397 25 Nigel L. Webb, “When is enough, enough? Advocacy, Evidence and Criticism in the Field of Urban

Agriculture in South Africa,” Development Southern Africa 28, no. 2 [June 2011]: 205-‐6.


programs.”26 However, Pothukuchi and Kaufman’s 2000 survey of twenty-‐two planning

agencies in the U.S. found that their involvement was primarily related to locations of food

retailers and design of food outlets, and to a far lesser extent in community gardens, food

sector/economic impact studies, farmer’s markets, food-‐related comprehensive neighborhood

plans and economic development, hunger prevention, and agricultural land preservation. 27

Together, Pothukuchi and Kaufman’s studies demonstrate that there is a clear disconnect

between the potential that local agencies have in facilitating urban food access and production

and reinforcing the social welfare programs they operate. Planning agencies appear to have

prioritized their involvement with food retailers over food producers.

While policy and planning can often be restrictive, it is also foundational in facilitating food

access and production. Broadway’s 2009 meta-‐analysis of urban agriculture in North American

cities traced the origins of community gardens back to 1893, when the City of Detroit, with high

unemployment, began converting vacant lots to gardens, noting that community gardens

evolve as a response to economic depression.28 Broadway also points out the example of

California, which in 1995 adopted the policy for a “Garden in Every School”, which has been

credited with creating 3,000 school gardens by 2009.29 In the Broadway and Broadway 2011

Vancouver survey, it was found that the City Council made an effort to actively improve urban

food access and production by increasing community garden plots, easing restrictions on

26 Kameshwari Pothukuchi and Jerome L. Kaufman, “Placing the Food System on the Urban Agenda: The Role

of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning,” Agriculture and Human Values 16, no.2 [1999]: 218. 27 Kameshwari Pothukuchi and Jerome Kaufman, “The Food System: A Stranger to the Planning Field,” Journal

of the American Planning Association 66, no. 2 [Spring 2000]: 115. 28 Michael Broadway, “Growing Urban Agriculture in North American Cities: The Example of Milwaukee,”

FOCUS on Geography 52, no. 3 [Winter 2009]: 24. 29 Ibid: 24.


biodiversity and farmer’s markets, and adopting an edible landscaping policy.30 Hagey’s 2012

case study of Oakland’s burgeoning urban agriculture system was partly the result of the city

taking the initiative to facilitate urban food production by setting clear objectives. In 2006,

Oakland set a goal of accessing 30 percent of food from the local region, also initiating a food

systems assessment and food policy council.31 Without well-‐defined goals and sound policies to

facilitate urban food production, many communities will struggle to meet the food needs of

urban residents without relying heavily on the private sector for imported food.

3. Assessing/measuring food access and distribution

All but one of the studies which focused on food accessibility and distribution used GIS

analysis; most of the studies utilized GIS in conjunction with some form of survey in order to

further substantiate their findings. The variables used in the assessments were not consistent

across studies, with most acknowledging the need for further investigation. Eckert and Shetty’s

2011 study in Toledo, Ohio, highlights an important overarching theme in assessing food access,

finding that access to food is two-‐fold: access to any food and access to healthful food.32 The

study also cites the lack of a standard measurement for accessing food, which makes it difficult

to make comparisons across studies or regions.33 For example, most studies focus on

supermarkets as the primary unit of measurement while Eckertt and Shetty found that small or

30 Michael J. Broadway and John M. Broadway, “Green Dreams: Promoting Urban Agriculture and the


31 Paul Hagey, “Urban Farming Grows in Oakland,” BioCycle [March 2012]: 23-‐24. 32 Jeanette Eckert and Sujata Shetty, “Food Systems, Planning and Quantifying Access: Using GIS to Plan for

Food Retail,” Applied Geography 31, no. 4 [October 2011]: 1218. 33 Ibid: 1219


locally owned food retailers fill in the gaps where larger chain retailers are not available.34 The

significance of convenience stores and smaller food retailers in providing access to food seems

to be supported by Hubley’s 2011 study and also Gordon et al.’s 2011 study. Hubley’s analysis

focused on Somerset County, Maine, finding that convenience stores in rural areas function

similarly to grocery stores, but in urban areas they did not.35 Gordon et al.’s analysis showed

that bodegas offering “healthy” food played a role in offering neighborhoods greater access to

healthy foods.36 Depending on the type of region being evaluated, the analysis needs to take

into consideration the way that retailers operate in the community before excluding them from

the analysis altogether.

The complicated nature of this problem is further evidenced by Burns and Inglis’ 2007 study

in Melbourne, Australia, which found that while areas with greater socio-‐economic advantages

had greater access to supermarkets than less socio-‐economic advantaged areas which were

closer to fast food outlets, over 50 percent of fast food chains were located next to or inside

grocery stores.37 Clearly, the use of supermarkets in measuring access to food, particularly

“healthy” food, is problematic. The Burns and Inglis study recognizes that there is a need to

better understand the relationship between food buying habits and food access.38 This

sentiment is echoed in Widener et al.’s 2012 study in Buffalo, New York where it was noted that

there is a need for a more complete approach in order to understand the consumer driven

34 Ibid: 1222 35 Teresa A. Hubley, “Assessing the Proximity of Healthy Food Options and Food Deserts in a Rural Area in

Maine,” Applied Geography 31, no. 4 [October 2011]: 1229-‐30. 36Cynthia Gordon, Marnie Purciel-‐Hill, Nirupa R Ghai, Leslie Kaufman, Regina Graham, and Gretchen Van Wye,

“Measuring Food Deserts in New York City's Low-‐Income Neighborhoods,” Health & Place 17 [January 2011]: 699. 37 C.M. Burns and A.D. Inglis, “Measuring Food Access in Melbourne: Access to Healthy and Fast Foods by Car,

Bus and Foot in an Urban Municipality in Melbourne,” Health & Place 13, no. 4. [December 2007]: 882. 38 Ibid: 883


market forces behind food purchasing behaviors.39 The research in Buffalo demonstrated that

mobile produce vendors are capable of increasing access to healthy foods in food deserts.40

While both the Burns and Inglis study and the Widener et al. study found that shopping

behaviors play a role in food access, they arrived at this conclusion through very different types

of analysis, which would suggest shopping behavior is valuable evidence in assessing and

understanding food access. Simply stated, food access is less about proximity and more about

the food choices that are available.

Demographic variables like income and poverty rates, educational attainment, and racial

composition were commonly used when assessing food access at various levels of geography.

McEntee and Ageyman’s 2010 study found that in the State of Vermont, twelve census tracts

(4.5 percent of the state’s total population) are food deserts, with the nearest supermarkets at

least ten miles away.41 Possession of high school diplomas or higher education achievement in

those census tracts (81 percent) were slightly less than the state (86 percent); average poverty

rates were noted as higher (10.2 percent) versus the state’s average (9.8 percent); however,

the study noted that areas with the highest poverty rates and lowest educational achievement

were in urban areas.42 Based on these findings the correlations between food deserts and

poverty rates are weak, while the relationship between food deserts and lower educational

achievement is slightly stronger. Gordon et al.’s 2011 investigation into food access in New York

39 Michael J. Widener, Sara S. Metcalf, and Yaneer Bar-‐Yam, “Developing a Mobile Produce Distribution

System for Low-‐Income Urban Residents in Food Deserts,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 89, no. 5 [2012]: 744.

40 Ibid: 742. 41 Jesse McEntee and Julian Agyeman, “Towards the Development of a GIS Method for Identifying Rural Food

Deserts: Geographic Acces in Vermont, USA,” Applied Geography 30 [2010]: 170.

42 Ibid: 171.


City utilized GIS analysis in conjunction with a food store index that rated the availability of

healthy foods at various food retailers. The study found that in Harlem and Brooklyn, food

deserts corresponded to areas with the highest proportions of Black populations and also the

lowest median household incomes, while neighborhoods with the highest proportions of

Latinos had greater access to healthy foods.43 Black et al.’s 2011 study in British Columbia

acknowledges that there are contradictory findings amongst other studies, ultimately

questioning the correlations between food deserts and income level or minority status.44 In

fact, Black et al.’s study, which looked at residential proximity to food stores, found that small

food retailers were more frequent than large supermarkets and areas with higher income levels

had less access to all types of food retailers.45 These findings conflict with the findings from

both McEntee and Agyeman’s study as well as Gordon et al.’s study. Furthermore, Black et al.’s

study found that small food retailers correlated with availability of ethnic foods.46

If racial composition of a community plays a factor in food access, there is clear evidence

that smaller food retailers play a significant role in the availability of ethnic foods. It should also

be noted that McEntee and Agyeman’s study analyzed the entire State of Vermont by

measuring stores within ten miles of residences and the study also excluded convenience stores

from the analysis. Gordon et al.’s study recognized the value of small retailers by including

43 Cynthia Gordon, Marnie Purciel-‐Hill, Nirupa R Ghai, Leslie Kaufman, Regina Graham, and Gretchen Van Wye,

“Measuring Food Deserts in New York City's Low-‐Income Neighborhoods,” Health & Place 17 [January 2011]: 699. 44 Jennifer L. Black, Richard M. Carpiano, Stuart Fleming, and Nathanael Lauster, “Exploring the Distribution of

Food Stores in British Columbia: Associations With Neighbourhood Socio-‐demographic Factors and Urban Form,” Health & Place 17, no. 4 [July 2011]: 961.

45 Jennifer L. Black, Richard M. Carpiano, Stuart Fleming, and Nathanael Lauster, “Exploring the Distribution of Food Stores in British Columbia: Associations With Neighbourhood Socio-‐demographic Factors and Urban Form,” Health & Place 17, no. 4 [July 2011]: 965.

46 Ibid: 968.


bodegas in the assessment. It was not clear whether each study categorized small or

independent food retailers along with convenience stores. Again, this draws attention to the

need for a more consistent standard of measurement in assessing food deserts and food

access.

Interestingly, none of the studies took into consideration proximity to farms or community

gardens for measuring access to food. Kremer and DeLiberty’s 2011 study in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, found that over 50 percent of the local community gardens were located in low-‐

income neighborhoods (median income of $18,000 or less annually).47 Similarly, Corrigan’s

2011 study, the only analysis that did not use GIS as a tool for assessment, found that the

Duncan Street Miracle Garden in Baltimore is located in a region with few “quality” food

options, mostly corner stores, liquor stores, and bars or restaurants.48 Corrigan surveyed urban

cultivators, finding that most gardeners rarely buy produce from local stores because they grow

their own and donate any surplus.49 If community gardens allow residents greater access to

food small markets and convenience stores may be useful in providing other food needs. The

issue of food access is further compounded when taking into consideration the way urban

gardeners contribute to urban food production.

4. Roles and responsibilities of local agencies, community members, and educators

With respect to roles and responsibilities for urban food production, the overall finding

throughout the literature was that everyone has some degree of responsibility in sustaining and

47 Kremer, Peleg, and Tracy L. DeLiberty. “Local food practices and growing potential: Mapping the case of Philadelphia.” Applied Geography 31, no. 4 [October 2011]: 1254.

48 Michelle P. Corrigan, "Growing What You Eat: Developing Community Gardens in Baltimore, Maryland," Applied Geography 31 [2011]: 1235.

49 Ibid: 1236.


supporting the urban food system. Six different studies suggest that urban food production is

highly dependent on collaboration between several key players: local government agencies,

non-‐government organizations (NGOs), educators, and community members. Feenstra’s 2012

analysis of California grant recipients of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

Program (SAREP) notes three main themes: public participation, partnerships, and principles or

values, further noting that projects take two to three years to develop, on average.50

Pothukuchi and Kaufman’s 1999 study points to potential partners in improving urban food

systems as the department of food (non-‐existent in the U.S.), food policy councils, and city

planning agencies.51 Similarly, Rogerson’s 2011 examination in South Africa found that urban

agriculture initiatives are the result of joint efforts of multiple stakeholders (provincial

government, NGOs, and local municipalities).52 Further supporting the need for collaboration,

Spencer’s 2011 case study of the Philadelphia Orchard Project found that one of the key

components in the program’s success was their partnerships with organizations with legal

access to land and water.53 Mendes et al.’s 2008 case study of two collaborations between local

governments and universities in Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Canada, highlighted the role

education can play in practical planning problems. The Portland City Council approached the

Department of Urban and Regional Planning at Portland State University to perform a land

50 Gail Feenstra, “Creating Space for Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons From the Field,” Agriculture and

Human Values 19, no. 2 [2002]: 105. 51 Kameshwari Pothukuchi and Jerome L. Kaufman, “Placing the Food System on the Urban Agenda: The Role

of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning,” Agriculture and Human Values 16, no.2 [1999]: 218-‐20. 52 Christian M. Rogerson, “Urban Agriculture and Public Administration: Institutional Context and Local

Response in Gauteng,” Urban Forum 22, no. 2 [February 2011]: 187. 53 Miranda C. Spencer, “Edible Landscapes: The Philadelphia Orchard Project Combines Urban Forestry and

Urban Agriculture,” American Forestry Association 116, no. 4 [Winter 2011]: 42.


inventory to assess land for community gardens and other forms of urban agriculture.54 An

assessment following the lead of the study performed by students in Portland was conducted in

the City of Vancouver and the Mendes et al.’s study found that both land inventories enabled

integration of urban agriculture into planning and policy making.55 Local governments are well

positioned to collaborate with universities, NGOs, and community members alike.

Westphal’s 2001 case study of the agricultural preservation effort on the Old Mission

Peninsula in Michigan exemplifies the key role community members play in protecting

agricultural resources. Originating from the bankruptcy of a 500-‐acre farm, residents came

together to form an oversight committee to protect the agricultural land from development.56

In order to preserve the agricultural zone, community members recognized the need for the

community to pay for the preservation of the land. It was decided that the community would

enact a 1.25 millage increase on property taxes in order to provide money to facilitate the

purchase of development rights. The tax increase was made possible by a voter referendum;

however, state law prohibited local government from taking part in issues relating to

referendum, requiring the formation of an oversight committee to facilitate the funding for the

purchase of development rights.57 All six studies were either case studies or meta-‐analyses with

the exception of Feenstra’s study which included a survey of SAREP recipients. All of the studies

exemplify the importance of collaboration between government agencies, NGOs, educators,

and community members.

54 Wendy Mendes, Kevin Balmer, Terra Kaethler, and Amanda Rhoads, “Using Land Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture,” Journal of the American Planning Association 74, no.4 [Autumn 2008]: 439.

55 Ibid: 446. 56 Joanne M. Westphal, “Managing Agricultural Resources at the Urban–Rural Interface: A Case Study of the Old

Mission Peninsula,” Landscape and Urban Planning 57, no. 1 [November 2001]: 17. 57 Ibid: 20.


Local agencies play a significant role in facilitating urban food production. Martin and

Marsden’s 1999 study in England and Wales found that local authorities owned suitable vacant

land.58 Martin and Marsden further noted that, “urban food production promotes local

distinctiveness, encourages community development and self-‐sufficiency.”59 Thornton et al.’s

2010 survey of urban agriculturalists in Zambia found that the majority of respondents in four

different cities expressed the need for help from the government in farming, marketing,

training, disease control, and extension support.60 The study cites that lack of policy support,

funding, and land were identified as the main obstacles for urban cultivators, indicating that the

government should play a role in facilitating urban agriculture.61

Examining agriculture in Somerset, England, Nichol’s 2003 study found that food producers

are experiencing pressure to expand their operations into food processing and retailing.62 The

review of planning documents revealed 309 instances where local producers contacted

planning authorities (253 were planning applications, 69 percent were for new buildings,

facilities or extensions).63 Upon surveying the food producers, “half of producers reported that

the planning system had been a problem for their business.”64 Local government agencies,

particularly planning, are clearly in the position to promote and facilitate urban food

58 Ruth Martin and Terry Marsden, “Food for Urban Spaces: the Development of Urban Food Production in

England and Wales,” International Planning Studies 4, no. 3 [1999]: 397. 59 Ibid: 405. 60 Alec Thornton, Etinne Nel and Godfrey Hampwaye, “Cultivating Kaunda’s Plan for Self-‐Sufficiency: Is Urban

Agriculture Finally Beginning to Receive Support in Zambia?,” Development Southern Africa 27, no. 4 [October 2010]: 617.

61 Ibid: 620. 62 Lucy Nichol, “Local Food production: Some Implications for Planning,” Planning Theory and Practice 4, no. 4

[December 2003]: 411. 63 Ibid: 413. 64 Ibid: 420.


production, food producers have expressed that there is room for improvement in regards to

the way local agencies regulate food production and retailing.

While local agencies hold significant power in the development and preservation of urban

food production, NGOs are also responsible for the success of urban agriculture projects. Two

studies showed evidence of NGOs that were created through active community members and

cultivators. Metcalf’s 2011 case study of Buffalo, New York, mentions how in 2008, several

urban farms came together to create a Community Garden Task Force, later known as the

Buffalo Growing Coalition, which serves as a network and resource group for local food

producers.65 Broadway’s 2011 case study of Vancouver, Canada, showed how a local non-‐profit,

City Farmer, ultimately came to serve as the office of urban agriculture, a resource and

educational center.66 Both studies illustrate how non-‐government organizations are useful in

assisting urban food producers.

Along the same line, Hamm’s 2003 meta-‐analysis of community food security programs in

the U.S. emphasizes the importance of nutritional educators as individuals who are trained to

identify problems and offer solutions, possessing specialized skills in research and analysis, and

also having the ability to critique and influence social welfare policies.67 The need for nutrition

educators in supporting urban food production is supported by Hu et al.’s 2013 neighborhood

assessment of an unidentified mid-‐Atlantic city which utilized interviews and focus groups with

65 Sara S. Metcalf and Michael J. Widener, “Growing Buffalo’s Capacity for Local Food: A Systems Framework

for Sustainable Agriculture,” Applied Geography 31, no. 4 [October 2011]: 1246. 66 Michael J. Broadway and John M. Broadway, “Green Dreams: Promoting Urban Agriculture and the


67 Michael W. Hamm and Anne C. Bellows, “Community Food Security and Nutrition Educators,” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 35, no. 1 [January/February 2003]: 40.


community members to gather findings. Community members identified the need for

education around nutritious food preparation along with the need for easily accessible,

consistent farmers markets.68 While the availability of locally produced foods is important to

urban residents, food preparation and preservation need to be addressed in order to help

community members make the most of the locally produced foods. Another benefit is

exemplified in Travaline’s 2010 study in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which interviewed

participants in urban agriculture organizations, finding that social learning benefits included a

greater awareness of food origins as well as learning how to be effective citizens through group

participation.69 Community members are at the heart of urban food production. Without a

population to support local food producers, it would not be feasible for them to maintain their

operations in the urban environment.

III. Conclusion

Proximity to urban populations and capacity of urban land are major factors in many of the

problems related to the urban food system and the resulting effects on food access and

distribution. In most places, policy and planning have produced mixed results in facilitating

urban agriculture. The research identifies land inventories as important tools in locating space

for urban agriculture; however, site suitability is not something that has been fully addressed.

68 Alice Hu, Angela Acosta, Abigail McDaniel, and Joel Gittelsohn, “Community Perspectives on Barriers and

Strategies for Promoting Locally Grown Produce From an Urban Agriculture Farm,” SAGE Publications (originally published online [November 2011]), Health Promotion Practice 14, no. 1 [January 2013]: 72.

69 Katharine Travaline and Chrstian Hunold, “Urban Agriculture and Ecological Citizenship in Philadelphia,” Local Environment 15, no.6 [July 2010]: 584.


It is also apparent that there is a lack of consensus regarding the variables for assessing

access to food. Demographic variables used in analyzing communities did not produce

consistent results across studies but revealed a need for a better way to assess food access.

Some studies indicated the need for a greater emphasis on evaluating food choices, particularly

in regards to “healthy” food. In terms of roles and responsibilities, it is apparent that key

players at all levels play significant roles in the successful implementation and viability of urban

food systems, but community members are perhaps the most vital in the future and

sustainability of urban food production.

The majority of literature reviewed in this research focuses on urban agriculture projects,

which are led by non-‐profits, NGOs, or as private enterprises. However, edible landscaping in

public parks is more likely to be a collaborative effort between local government agencies,

NGOs, and community members. The analysis of how to integrate edible landscaping in public

parks will provide insight into methods for implementing and managing edible landscapes. GIS

analysis examining park proximity to schools, community centers, libraries, and public

transportation systems, in conjunction with a site assessment to evaluate growing conditions,

will provide a method for assessing the viability of edible landscaping in public parks.


IV. Annotated Bibliography

Citation Type

1. Asomani-‐Boateng, Raymond. “Urban Cultivation in Accra: an Examination

of the Nature, Practices, Problems, Potentials and Urban Planning Implications.” Habitat International 26, no. 4 [December 2002]: 591-‐607.

Peer-‐reviewed journal article

2. Black, Jennifer L., Richard M. Carpiano, Stuart Fleming, and Nathanael Lauster. “Exploring the Distribution of Food Stores in British Columbia: Associations With Neighbourhood Socio-‐demographic Factors and Urban Form.” Health & Place 17, no. 4 [July 2011]: 961-‐970.


3. Broadway, Michael J., and John M. Broadway. “Green Dreams: Promoting Urban Agriculture and the Availability of Locally Produced Food in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area.” FOCUS on Geography 54, no. 1 [Spring 2011]: 33-‐41.


4. Broadway, Michael. “Growing Urban Agriculture in North American Cities: The Example of Milwaukee.” FOCUS on Geography 52, no. 3 [Winter 2009]: 23-‐30.


5. Burns, C.M., and A.D. Inglis. “Measuring Food Access in Melbourne: Access to Healthy and Fast Foods by Car, Bus and Foot in an Urban Municipality in Melbourne.” Health & Place 13, no. 4. [December 2007]: 877-‐885.

Journal article

6. Corrigan, Michelle P. "Growing What You Eat: Developing Community Gardens in Baltimore, Maryland." Applied Geography 31 [2011]: 1232-‐1241.


7. Eckert, Jeanette, and Sujata Shetty. “Food Systems, Planning and Quantifying Access: Using GIS to Plan for Food Retail.”Applied Geography 31, no. 4 [October 2011]: 1216-‐1223.


8. Ellis, Frank, and James Sumberg. “Food Production, Urban Areas and Policy Responses.” World Development 26, no. 2 [February 1998]: 213-‐225.

Journal article

9. Feenstra, Gail. “Creating Space for Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons From the Field.” Agriculture and Human Values 19, no. 2 [2002]: 99-‐106.

Journal article


10. Gordon, Cynthia, Marnie Purciel-‐Hill, Nirupa R Ghai, Leslie Kaufman, Regina Graham, and Gretchen Van Wye. “Measuring Food Deserts in New York City's Low-‐Income Neighborhoods.” Health & Place 17 [January 2011]: 696-‐700.

Journal article

11. Grewal, Sharanbir S., and Parwinder S. Grewal. “Can Cities Become Self-‐Reliant in Food?” Cities 29, no.1 [February 2012]: 1-‐11.


12. Hagey, Paul. “Urban Farming Grows in Oakland.” BioCycle [March 2012]: 23-‐26.


13. Hamm, Michael W., and Anne C. Bellows. “Community Food Security and Nutrition Educators.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 35, no. 1 [January/February 2003]: 37-‐43.


14. Hu, Alice, Angela Acosta, Abigail McDaniel, and Joel Gittelsohn. “Community Perspectives on Barriers and Strategies for Promoting Locally Grown Produce From an Urban Agriculture Farm.” SAGE Publications (originally published online [November 2011]), Health Promotion Practice 14, no. 1 [January 2013]: 69-‐74.


15. Hubbard, Michael, and Gideon Onumah. “Improving Urban Food Supply and Distribution in Developing Countries: The Role of City Authorities.” Habitat International 25, no. 3 [September 2001]: 431-‐446.

Journal article

16. Hubley, Teresa A. “Assessing the Proximity of Healthy Food Options and Food Deserts in a Rural Area in Maine.” Applied Geography 31, no. 4 [October 2011]: 1224-‐1231.


17. Jarosz, Lucy. “The City in the Country: Growing Alternative Food Networks in Metrpolitan Areas.” Journal of Rural Studies 24 [2008]: 231-‐244.


18. Koont, Sinan. “The Urban Agriculture of Havana.” Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 60, no. 8 [January 2009]: 44-‐62.


19. Kremer, Peleg, and Tracy L. DeLiberty. “Local food practices and growing potential: Mapping the case of Philadelphia.” Applied Geography 31, no. 4 [October 2011]: 1252-‐1261.


20. Martin, Ruth, and Terry Marsden. “Food for Urban Spaces: the Development of Urban Food Production in England and Wales.” International Planning Studies 4, no. 3 [1999]: 389-‐412.



21. McEntee, Jesse and Julian Agyeman. “Towards the Development of a GIS Method for Identifying Rural Food Deserts: Geographic Acces in Vermont, USA.” Applied Geography 30 [2010]: 165-‐176.


22. Mendes, Wendy, Kevin Balmer, Terra Kaethler, and Amanda Rhoads. “Using Land Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture.” Journal of the American Planning Association 74, no.4 [Autumn 2008]: 435-‐449.


23. Metcalf, Sara S., and Michael J. Widener. “Growing Buffalo’s Capacity for Local Food: A Systems Framework for Sustainable Agriculture.” Applied Geography 31, no. 4 [October 2011]: 1242-‐1251.

Journal article

24. Nichol, Lucy. “Local Food production: Some Implications for Planning.” Planning Theory and Practice 4, no. 4 [December 2003]: 409-‐427.


25. Pothukuchi, Kameshwari, and Jerome L. Kaufman. “Placing the Food System on the Urban Agenda: The Role of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning.” Agriculture and Human Values 16, no.2 [1999]: 213-‐224.

Journal article

26. Pothukuchi, Kameshwari, and Jerome Kaufman. “The Food System: A Stranger to the Planning Field.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66, no. 2 [Spring 2000]: 113-‐214.


27. Rogerson, Christian M. “Urban Agriculture and Public Administration: Institutional Context and Local Response in Gauteng.” Urban Forum 22, no. 2 [February 2011]: 183-‐198.


28. Schmidt, Stephan. “Getting the Policy Right: Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.” International Development Planning Review 34, no. 2 [2012]: 129-‐145.


29. Spencer, Miranda C. “Edible Landscapes: The Philadelphia Orchard Project Combines Urban Forestry and Urban Agriculture.” American Forestry Association 116, no. 4 [Winter 2011]: 41-‐44.

Journal article

30. Thornton, Alec, Etinne Nel and Godfrey Hampwaye. “Cultivating Kaunda’s Plan for Self-‐Sufficiency: Is Urban Agriculture Finally Beginning to Receive Support in Zambia?” Development Southern Africa 27, no. 4 [October 2010]: 613-‐625.


31. Travaline, Katharine and Chrstian Hunold. “Urban Agriculture and Ecological Citizenship in Philadelphia.” Local Environment 15, no.6 [July 2010]: 585-‐590.

Journal article


32. Webb, Nigel L. “When is enough, enough? Advocacy, Evidence and

Criticism in the Field of Urban Agriculture in South Africa.” Development Southern Africa 28, no. 2 [June 2011]: 195-‐208.


33. Westphal, Joanne M. “Managing Agricultural Resources at the Urban–Rural Interface: A Case Study of the Old Mission Peninsula.” Landscape and Urban Planning 57, no. 1 [November 2001]: 13-‐24.


34. Widener, Michael J., Sara S. Metcalf, and Yaneer Bar-‐Yam. “Developing a Mobile Produce Distribution System for Low-‐Income Urban Residents in Food Deserts.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 89, no. 5 [2012]: 733-‐745.


V. Appendix A: List of On-‐line Databases, Catalogs, and Keywords Searched

Essentially the all of the keywords listed below were searched in all the databases using the

San Jose State University Urban and Regional Planning cross-‐database search. The table below

details the databases which returned results for the corresponding keywords. Pothukuchi and

Kaufman were responsible for writing the groundbreaking report on food systems which

identified its absence from the planning field. A number of studies referenced their work and

Pothukuchi was included as a keyword to locate articles related to their work.

Database Keywords

Academic Search Premier Urban Agriculture, Food System Planning, Edible Landscaping, Urban Orchard

Ominfile FT Mega Edition Urban Agriculture, Urban Orchard, Pothukuchi

ProQuest Pothukuchi

San Jose Library Catalog Urban Agriculture, Urban Orchard

ScienceDirect Urban Agriculture, Food System Planning

carvalho final literature review update · 2!|carvalho!!!!!final!literaturereview! i....

Documents