Food In the City: An old way, in a new time by The Conway School

Winter 2014

Holyoke

West Springfield Food in the City

Springfield Connecticut River

FOOD IN THE CITY Across the country, interest is growing in the promise of urban agriculture to support more efficient, sustainable, and equitable ways of life. In Springfield, Massachusetts, through the leadership of the Springfield Food Policy Council and other community-based organizations, projects are underway to promote community-oriented and commercially oriented youth farms, home gardens, orchards, and community gardens. Significant challenges remain, however, to accessible, sustainable, and successful food production in the city.

An old way, in a new time A process to assess land suitable for urban agriculture.

This report examines some of the benefits of and obstacles to urban agriculture in Springfield, and identifies strategies for overcoming the most significant barriers. It uses a GIS-based methodology, developed specifically for the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical and social conditions, to evaluate the suitability of land for community gardens, commercial farms, community farms, and urban orchards, with a particular emphasis on city-owned, structure-free vacant lots. The process is meant to be scalable and applicable to other land suitability assessments. This report offers a model for how landscape designers and planners can work hand-in-hand with communities to develop achievable and sustainable urban agriculture plans. Springfield, Massachusetts

The Conway School 332 South Deerfield Road Conway, MA 01341 www.csld.edu

The Conway School is the only institution of its kind in North America. Its focus is sustainable landscape planning and design. Each year, through its accredited, ten month graduate program just eighteen to nineteen students from diverse backgrounds are immersed in a range of applied landscape studies, ranging in scale from residents to regions. Graduates go on to play significant professional roles in various aspects of landscape planning and design.

Prepared for the Springfield Food Policy Council Urban Agriculture Committee Emily Berg, Abigail Elwood & Marie Macchiarolo The Conway School April 2014

FOOD IN THE CITY an old way in a new time

A process to assess land suitable for urban agriculture

We would like to thank the Springfield Food Policy Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Urban Agriculture Committee and the stakeholders who provided valuable input throughout this project. Thanks also to the organizations featured as case studies in this document for their cooperation and inspiration. We are grateful for the GIS resources and guidance provided by the Springfield Planning Department, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, and Dana Tomlin. Finally, innumerable thanks to the Conway School faculty, staff and classmates for their continued guidance, kindness, patience, and support.

Photo credit: City of Somerville, MA

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 6 The Current Food System 8 Food Insecurity & Deserts 11 BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE 13 CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY 20 COMMUNITY GARDENS 23 Case Study: Nuestras Raices 24 Tier Results 25 COMMERCIAL FARMS 33 Case Study: Greensgrow Farm 34 Tier Results 35 COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS 43 Case Study: Lynchburg Grows 44 Tier Results 45 URBAN ORCHARDS 53 Case Study: Philadelphia Orchard Project 54 Tier Results 55 ROOFTOP GARDENS 62 Case Study: Philadelphia Rooftop Farm (PRooF) 63 AQUAPONICS 64 Case Study: Jonathan Bates 65 HOMESTEADING 66 Case Study: Kristin Brennen & Daniel Staub 67 SCHOOL GARDENS 68 Case Study: Edible Schoolyards 69 BUILDING CAPACITY: Next Steps 71 CONCLUSION 76 APPENDICES I. Funding Sources 79 II. Process 82 III. Map Data Sources 84 IV. GIS Raster Analysis 88 V. Tier Analysis Findings 92 VI. Sources 106

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The food system in Springfield, Massachusetts, does not fully serve the needs of residents. Food-insecure households and food deserts are increasing annually. With high unemployment and low incomes, residents face challenges to access healthy, affordable, and fresh food. Much of the population has been identified as “at-risk” for preventable health issues such as obesity and diabetes, and these are related to the current food system. Now, some citizens of Springfield are working towards urban agriculture as one possible solution to these socio-economic and health issues, and positive momentum with regard to urban agriculture is building. In 2010, the Springfield Food Policy Council (SFPC) was established and it formed the Urban Agriculture Committee immediately. In 2012, the City Council passed a Community Gardening Ordinance, allowing any resident to apply to adopt a vacant lot for community gardening through the City Planning and Economic Development Department. Through funding from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Mass in Motion has coordinated five new school gardens. The Kennedy Farm was built at the John F. Kennedy Middle School in Indian Orchard with the help of City Parks and Recreation and school staff. Five preschools in Springfield have built gardening into their curriculum. In 2014, Springfield Public Schools won a competitive Farmto-School grant from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) enabling them to commit to purchasing over 50 percent of their produce from local farms and adding 15 more school gardens in the district. There is other evidence of a growing urban agriculture movement in Springfield. This year, wellattended gardening trainings were hosted by the libraries of Springfield and the SFPC. Gardening the Community (GTC) is an organization that supports youth development through growing food. GTC has recently submitted a Request For Proposal to the City for a vacant lot on Walnut Street. Additionally, the Wellspring Initiative is starting a worker-owned greenhouse. Over five institutions, including Baystate Health, have agreed to purchase the produce grown in the greenhouse.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

In Springfield there are over 500 vacant lots that have defaulted back to the City. Vacant lots are often seen as a nuisance by municipalities, and the City of Springfield has expressed an interest in reducing the number of vacant lots it owns. These lots have been recognized by the Rebuild Springfield Master Plan as potential community assets. Urban agriculture is one way to make use of these vacant lots by improving neighborhood aesthetics and quality of life, while increasing property values. This report considers the growing momentum of urban agriculture and explores the benefits for Springfield. These benefits include providing fresh food; creating new jobs; stimulating the local economy; and managing stormwater. With a map of city-owned vacant lots, a Geographic Informations System (GIS) land suitability analysis was performed to identify which vacant lots may best accommodate different types of urban agriculture in Springfield. Site specific criteria were identified for four types of urban agriculture— community gardens, commercial farms, community farms, and urban orchards. These types were identified as accessible and desirable methods of urban agriculture by residents in Springfield. The criteria for each of these types were gathered through research of national best practices, case study analysis, interviews with experts, and stakeholder input through community meetings. The criteria were mapped using GIS, weightedraster-overlay analysis. Results show a range of vacant lots suitable for these different types of urban agriculture, prioritized by their positive attributes. The criteria mapped consisted of desirable physical and neighborhood characteristics. The analysis also prioritizes areas based on disparities of income and food-access for urban agriculture. The results of this suitability analysis show that the highest density of priority sites for all four types of urban agriculture are located in the Upper Hill and Six Corners neighborhoods. This analysis should not be interpreted as meaning that other sites may not be suitable for community gardens and other forms of urban agriculture. Subsequent suitability analysis should also include “ground-truthing,” whereby

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

sites are visited and criteria that could not be mapped are evaluated. This process of assessing land suitability is meant to be scalable and repeatable for future applications. This application can guide policy-makers and people interested in implementing urban agriculture in Springfield today. This report also examines commonly identified barriers to implementing urban agriculture and strategies to overcome these barriers. Identified barriers include: • lack of land tenure, • lack of water access, • soil contamination, • lack of equipment, • lack of training, • insufficient capital, • needed agency support. Strategies to secure long-term use of land include: • establishing a city land trust, • urban agriculture easements, • partnering with businesses that own vacant lots with long-term lease agreements, • a city-operated “adopt-a-lot” program and “land bank inventory,” • food grown in mobile containers or on vertical frames. Strategies to identify ways to access water include: • growers working with neighbors, • the City donating or providing resources at low costs, • creating a “Garden Irrigation Fund” in Springfield, • preserving existing water infrastructure, • partner organizations and the City helping to establish rainwater catchment systems.

• building raised beds and/or hydroponic systems, • creating a tool sharing initiative, • developing local compost, and using mulch and greenhouses. Strategies to leverage local and regional resources to help growers expand urban agriculture in Springfield include: • new local grant and lending programs, • federal grants available to help homeless and ex-offenders, • partnering with the USDA and the EPA, and using services at reduced costs to save money. Strategies to streamline operations, regulations, and staffing to support growers include: • creating an Office of Sustainability with designated positions to oversee urban agricultural operations, • establishing incubator farms and training programs, • revising micro-livestock regulations, • using partnerships to gain affordable liability insurance, • educating and engaging citizens with help from institutions, organizations, and the City. Strategies for increasing income include: • extending seasonal production, • processing food for added-value, • establishing farm-to-institution contracts, • incorporating urban agriculture into land-use and open-space plans, • developing a food system plan that aims to reach a goal of a certain percentage of local foods, • marketing and educating for urban agriculture.

Strategies to build safe, urban soils and increase access to equipment include: • developing easily accessible soil standards and guidance for identifying and managing contaminated soil, • using a variety of remediation techniques,

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION This report explores the promise of urban agriculture in Springfield, Massachusetts. It looks at the broad health, social, economic, and ecological benefits of urban agriculture, and explores types of urban agriculture that may help address issues of food insecurity, food deserts, and poverty in Springfield. The cornerstone of this report is an assessment, using a Geographic Information System (GIS), of the suitability of city-owned, structure-free vacant lots for agricultural use, and identification of possible changes to infrastructure to better support urban agriculture in Springfield.

INTENDED AUDIENCE

The primary audience for this document is the Springfield Food Policy Council Urban Agriculture Committee, the Springfield Food Policy Council, the mayor and staff of the City of Springfield, partner organizations of the Food Policy Council, and citizens of Springfield interested in implementing urban agriculture methods. This report is a tool for decision-makers, planners, and interested residents to expand and support urban agriculture in Springfield.

HISTORY & CONTEXT

Springfield sits on the Connecticut River in the heart of the fertile Connecticut River Valley. It is located at the confluence of four rivers, which contributed to its status as a nexus for trading routes in the northeast during the 1600s. Springfield also began as a rich agricultural settlement, and is noted as the birthplace of many inventions, such as basketball and vulcanized rubber. But like many early cities built along the Connecticut River, as Springfield experienced booming industrial growth it grew less food within its boundaries. In the mid-twentieth century, Springfield experienced economic decline, depopulation, a rise in unemployment, and increases in vacant lots which defaulted back to the city. Today there are over 500 vacant lots owned by the city of Springfield. Now, some residents of Springfield see an opportunity for their city’s revitalization rooted in its agricultural history. They are inspired by other cities’ efforts across the country to implement urban agriculture to alleviate food insecurity,

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

impoverished neighborhoods, disinvestment, obesity, and malnutrition. Urban farming is hardly a new concept. Farms persisted inside city limits around the country well into the twentieth century, and more recently, intensive growing on small plots—both on the ground and on rooftops—has flourished in municipalities such as Milwaukee, Detroit, New York, and San Francisco (Harris and Lyon). For the purposes of this report, urban agriculture is defined as food production, distribution, waste management, and education, in a densely populated area. Urban agriculture methods can have a variety of physical expressions. For example, people can grow food on rooftops, or on vertical structures, and food produced in cities can be sold to the public, to schools, and other institutions. The Springfield Food Policy Council (SFPC) advocates for policies and resources to strengthen the local food system. It is composed of representatives from diverse sectors of the community: relevant municipal departments, non-profit organizations devoted to food security and public health, faithbased organizations, neighborhood councils, farmers, grocers, food producers and youth organizations (WMFB, 2009). SFPC was formed in 2007 in response to the fact that “thousands of Springfield residents are facing a food crisis because they cannot afford and/or do not have access to affordable and nutritious food”(WMFB, 2009). In 2010, the Urban Agriculture Committee was formed by SFPC to advocate for policies that create opportunities and infrastructure for people to grow their own food in Springfield. In May 2012, with the help of robust residence advocacy and support of the Urban Agriculture Committee, the City of Springfield passed a new ordinance to establish support and regulations for community gardens.

INTRODUCTION

This new community gardening ordinance states that: • access to healthy and affordable food options determines public health across the socioeconomic spectrum; • community garden projects provide employment and leadership development for both adults and youth; • by allowing residents to grow their own food and make it available to others, community garden projects encourage an urban community’s food security and increase healthy, affordable food access; • community gardens build community among diverse groups of neighborhood residents and are a productive and beautifying use of vacant and/or abandoned land; • communities with gardens experience less crime and vandalism and increase property values; • community gardens connect people to the environment and educate community members about sustainable living practices. (City of Springfield, 2013)

Many different types of urban agriculture can be implemented on vacant lots, including community gardens, commercial farms, community farms, urban orchards, homesteads, school gardens, rooftop farms, and aquaponics. This report follows a process of identifying requirements for some of these different types of urban agriculture to determine their suitability for implementation of vacant lots, and then maps sites which meet the selected criteria. This process is demonstrated for four of the above eight types: community gardens, commercial farms, community farms, and urban orchards.

The community gardening ordinance encourages citizen engagement in urban agriculture, acknowledges the benefits of urban agriculture, and permits people to petition to temporarily use vacant lots for urban agriculture.

The Urban Agriculture Committee is interested in taking the next steps to implement urban agriculture city-wide. Exploring the suitability of vacant lots for this implementation is an initial step in this process.

These types of urban agriculture were identified at two community meetings as accessible and desirable to residents of the city. A map of cityowned vacant parcels obtained from the city Planning Department (February 2014) was used to begin the assessment. Due to the ongoing changes of ownership common to vacant lots, parcel numbers must be checked in the assessors database for current ownership status when considering use of specific parcels.

VACANT LOTS AS A RESOURCE FOR URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

Vacant lots are seen by many city governments as undesirable because it is believed they cost money to maintain, create safety issues, do not bring in tax revenue, and perpetuate an image of blight and economic decline. However, when all the benefits of urban agriculture are understood, Springfield’s 500-plus vacant lots, distributed across the city, can be viewed as a resource for, rather than a threat to, the economic and social vitality of the city. Indeed, the Rebuild Springfield Master Plan calls for a process to transform vacant lots into assets (developspringfield.com), and the community gardening ordinance acknowledges the role that agriculture can play in such transformations.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

INTRODUCTION

THE CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM A BRIEF LOOK

According to data from the United States Census Bureau, 92.9 percent of Americans live in small or large cities, and the remaining 7.1 percent live in suburban or rural areas (Census, 2010). This is significantly different from a century ago when 50 percent of Americans lived in cities and 50 percent lived on farms or in small rural communities where they fed themselves with locally grown food (UACCFSC). As urban populations have grown, so too has the complexity involved in feeding people who are now far removed from food production. For example, Springfield started as an agricultural settlement in the 1600s, but because of industrial booms between 1777 and 1968, people grew less food. Over the last forty years, acreage in agricultural production has decreased by 24 percent in Springfield, while more land is zoned for industrial use with hopes of city revitalization (PVPC). In 2012, Springfield had a population of 153,552, but only a fraction of the food needed to feed these people was produced within the city. As a whole, estimates suggest that Massachusetts is producing only enough food to meet 4 to 5.6 percent of its total food needs. However, according to the University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension, Massachusetts â&#x20AC;&#x153;has the potential to produce 35 percent [of its food needs], and this does not take into consideration vacant lots or rooftops in urban areasâ&#x20AC;? (PVPC; UMass, 2012). To feed urban populations, massive amounts of food must be transported into cities daily. This process requires vast economic and material resources, and is reliant on crude oil. The average supermarket food item in North America travels 1,400 miles, but because of globalization, consumers expect to have access to food from all over the world (UACCFSC, 2012). Springfield, for example, receives some of its food from Asia, Puerto Rico, California, and Florida. While many people have access to an array of nutritious and exotic food, there are also serious social, economic, environmental, and public health costs associated with the existing food system. This food system is imbalanced. Environmentally, industrial agriculture has caused groundwater contamination, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

(UACCFSC). Socially, 17.7 percent of rural communities, or 8.5 million people in the United States, are impoverished, and there are increasing levels of hunger even in the cities of the developed world (Census; UACCFSC). Economically, 71 percent of vendors at farmers markets make less than $5,000 in sales annually, and yet the owners of the food distributor Wal-Mart have as much wealth as the bottom 40 percent of Americans combined (thinkprogress.org). Families Living Under the Poverty Line

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey

According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2012, 15 percent of Americans (46.5 million people) are living in poverty; they earn less than $18,000 annually (Census, 2010). In Springfield, as of 2009, 34.6 percent of residents live below the poverty level, compared to the Massachusetts state average of 13.4 percent. This is nearly 56,000 people living in poverty in Springfield, and the majority of these people are Hispanic or Latino between the ages of 5 and 18. In Springfield, 43.8 percent of children are living in poverty compared to the Massachusetts state average of 12.8 percent (City-Data). In fact, Springfield has been identified as an Environmental Justice community by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which means the residents of Springfield are at risk for significant and preventable health issues due to the environmental factors around them, including poverty.

INTRODUCTION

People in poverty face many challenges. Relevant to this report is the health crisis related to the current food system—epidemic levels of obesity and diet-related diseases. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, more than onethird of U.S. adults (35.7% or 112.5 million people) are obese, and approximately 17 percent (or 12.5 million) of children and adolescents between 2 and 19 years old are obese (CDCP, 2012). Obesity among children and adolescents has almost tripled since 1980, and now one of every seven low-income, preschool-aged children is obese (CDCP, 2012). Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer; these are some of the leading causes of preventable death (CDCP, 2012). According to the CDCP, 59.3 percent of Massachusetts’ adults are overweight and 23 percent are obese, 14.3 percent of adolescents are overweight and 10.9 percent are obese, and of children 2 to 5 years old, 16.3 percent are overweight and 16.1 percent are obese (CDC, 2012). A study by Dr. Jennifer Sacheck found that “Massachusetts ranks 33 percent for children who are obese, and last for high school students engaged in the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity daily,” and that, “Springfield has one of the highest obesity rates in Massachusetts” (Sacheck, 2012). According to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, “in Massachusetts, there are approximately 360,000 adults diagnosed with diabetes and another estimated 115,000 adults living with diabetes who do not know it” (MDPH, 2010). These public health statistics have grave and expensive ramifications. According to the CDCP, the estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008, and the medical costs for people who were obese were $1,429 higher than for those who were not (CDCP, 2010). Today, “obesity costs our nation more than 190 billion annually which amounts to a quarter of all health care expenditures,” according to a Healthy People, Healthy Economy survey, and this is likely to increase with increasing rates of obesity (CommunityGarden.org, 2010). A 2012 study by Cawley and Meyerhoefer found that “overweight

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment

and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies Meaningful Involvement means that:

• people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; • the public’s contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; • their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and • the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected (epa.gov).

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MAP

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

INTRODUCTION

children have medical costs on average $200 more each year when compared to healthy counterparts” (Cawley and Meyerhoefer, 2012). Additionally, the American Diabetes Association released new research in 2013 that estimated the total costs of diagnosed diabetes to have risen to $245 billion in 2012 from $175 billion in 2007 (ADA). In urban communities, the $435 billion spent on preventable conditions could be distributed elsewhere to improve the quality of life, if it weren’t needed to treat obesity and diabetes. Health policy researchers, policymakers, advocates, and health care providers have acknowledged the influence of community factors, including the local food environment, on health (Haan et al., 2013). Studies find that “disparities in food access contribute to subsequent chronic health conditions, including obesity, cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease as well as to higher mortality rates and years of potential life lost” (Gallagher, 2007). Furthermore, it has been found that people who live near grocery stores are more likely to eat recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables and less likely to be obese or have a diagnosis of diabetes (Morland et al., 2006). This means that food access and availability directly affect people’s health, and when there is low access to and availability of healthy food, people’s health is compromised. Overall, adult obesity rates are 51 percent higher for African Americans than Whites and 21 percent higher for Latinos. African American and Latino children are more at risk for obesity than white children. In Western Massachusetts, in 2005, 21.6 percent of white residents were obese compared to 33.7 percent of Hispanics and 47.7 percent of African Americans. This study also found that African Americans eat more fruits and vegetables when they have access to these foods at supermarkets (Morland, et al., 2006). In fact, the more supermarkets in an area, the more produce consumption increases for African Americans (CDCP; Morland, et al, 2006). This study demonstrates the relationship between a lack of food access and health, and suggests that people would likely eat healthier, leading to lower rates of obesity and diabetes, if they had access to healthy food. 10

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

INTRODUCTION

FOOD INSECURITY & DESERTS FOOD INSECURITY, FOOD DESERTS, & THEIR EFFECTS ON COMMUNITIES

The Urban Agriculture Committee of the North American Community Food Security Coalition concludes that “one preventable consequence of our food system is hunger in the midst of plenty” (UACCFSC). Food insecurity, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2013), occurs when, “consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money or other resources at times during the year” (USDA, 2013). Food insecurity is increasing annually in the U.S. (TFBN, 2012). According to a study by Coleman and Jensen in 2012, 49 million Americans (14.5 percent of households) lived in food-insecure households—33.1 million adults and 15.9 million children. Another 5.6 percent of households (7 million households) experienced very low food security (Coleman- Jensen, 2013).

In Western Massachusetts, one in five children live in a food-insecure household (WMFB, 2013). More than 200,000 people face hunger (one in every eight residents), and each week 15,000 people seek food assistance from the Western Massachusetts Food Bank and its 300 member agencies (WMFB, 2013). In 2011, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC, 2011) released national data on food insecurity. It reported that 34.4 percent of households in Massachusetts are food-insecure, and for the Springfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), 44.5 percent of households are foodinsecure (FRAC, 2011). Springfield ranks at number 37 out of the 100 largest MSAs in the country for food insecurity, and Springfield has the highest childhood food insecurity rate of all the MSAs in Massachusetts (FRAC, 2011). In addition, 13.6 percent of households in Hampden County earn too much to qualify for government assistance, but not enough to pay for medical bills, utilities, mortgage or rent, and food (WMFB, 2013). These 63,000 people experience what is known as the “Meal Gap.” They often have no other choice but to turn to charitable food assistance to make ends meet, and the number of meals missed because of their situation is estimated to be 10,842,44 per year (FRAC, 2011).

FOOD DESERTS

Many people in Springfield who have difficulty affording food also live in “food deserts.” The USDA defines food deserts as “urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable options” (USDA, 2013). The USDA also acknowledges that “the lack of access contributes to a poor diet and can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease” (USDA, 2013). The food desert map on the following page indicates that a high percentage of Springfield residents, distributed across the City, lack access to a supermarket within a half-mile and one-mile walking distances, and a high percentage of people do not own cars. According to the U.S. Census, low-income minority households make up a disproportionately large share of the food insecure households, and in Springfield, 40.8 percent of residents are Hispanic and another 18.5 percent are African American (USDA; CityData, 2014). Eighty-nine national and local studies document uneven geographic access to supermarkets in urban areas according to income, race, or both. Lower-income communities and communities of color are found to have fewer supermarkets, more convenience stores, and smaller grocery stores than wealthier and predominantly white communities (GroceryGap, Percentage of Springfield Residents with Vehicles

Vehicles

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

INTRODUCTION

PolicyLink). In fact, a study by Moore et al., Associations of the Local Food Environment with Diet Quality, found that low-income neighborhoods have half as many supermarkets as the wealthiest neighborhoods (Moore et al., 2008). The same study found four times as many supermarkets in predominantly white neighborhoods compared to predominantly black ones.

agriculture programs in food deserts would improve food security and improve the quantity, quality, regularity and nutritional balance of food, thereby reducing hunger and improving nutrition (UACCFSC, 2013). Urban agriculture can offer a wealth of health, economic, social and ecological benefits to the communities implementing it.

Increasingly, â&#x20AC;&#x153;research suggests that the foods available in communities influence dietary behaviors and related health outcomes,â&#x20AC;? according to the study Healthy Food, Healthy Communities: Improving Access and Opportunities through Food Retailing (PolicyLink, 2005). Therefore, the worse the food environment is, the more likely it is that people will have unhealthy diets. However, urban

FOOD DESERTS MAP

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

INTRODUCTION

BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE FOOD SECURITY BENEFITS

As previously discussed, though individuals make some choices about their diets, studies show that undoubtedly their decisions are influenced by the food that is locally accessible. There is increasing evidence that eating habits, obesity patterns, and related health conditions are influenced by the foods available in the neighborhoods in which people live. Unfortunately, too many Americans, and too many Springfield residents, live in unhealthy food environments. However, urban agriculture operations are being established in underserved neighborhoods across the country. This allows greater access to healthy, affordable produce for local residents. For example, in Boston, The Food Project farm sells its produce at four farmers markets (all accepting EBT) in low-income neighborhoods and has contributed approximately 49,000 pounds of produce to antihunger organizations in the area (FoodProject, 2013). In Brooklyn, Added Value Farm helped establish a new farmers market in the underserved neighborhood of Red Hook and runs a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program for the surrounding community, with a sliding scale and work shares (AddedValue, 2013). In West Oakland, City Slicker Farms operates a farm stand on a sliding scale, allowing very-low-income residents to pick up produce for free. Residents with limited means may purchase produce at below market rate prices, and higher-income customers may purchase at a standard rate (CitySlicker, 2013). In Seattle, the Department of Neighborhoods found that families who participated in the City’s gardening program were able to cover 30 to 60 percent of their produce needs. Patch, a local community gardening program, donated 25,000 pounds of food to local food banks (City of Seattle, 2010).

HEALTH BENEFITS

As discussed earlier, rates of obesity and associated health problems are higher than ever before and these conditions have risen most rapidly among low-income communities and people of color (CDCP; PolicyLink). A healthy diet that includes fresh fruits and vegetables has been shown to reduce the incidence of obesity and other chronic illnesses in people of all ages and races (PolicyLink, 2013). URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

It has also been proven that if healthy produce were accessible, people would be more likely to eat it (Morland, 2006). Urban agriculture makes fresh produce more available. According to studies such as the North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture, the likelihood of successful health intervention would be even greater if people were growing the food themselves (CFSC, 2012). The North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture suggests that when people grow their own food they are more likely to eat that food (CFSC, 2012). City Slicker Farms in Oakland surveyed their backyard gardeners and found that 61 percent of garden participants reported improving their diets by eating produce from their gardens (PolicyLink, 2013). This is further supported by a study of 144 community gardeners with the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project. The study found that, “gardeners ate 6 out of 14 vegetable categories significantly more frequently and milk products, citrus, sweet food, and drinks less frequently than non-gardeners” (Blair, Giesecke, Sherman, 2012). This may be because people tend to believe that the food they grow is healthier for them than store-bought food (UACCFSC, 2013). The USDA recommends Americans eat four and a half cups of fruits and vegetables every day (USDA, 2014). According to The Mother Nature Network, there are many easy-to-grow, nutrient dense fruits and vegetables, such as berries, broccoli, peas, beans, brussel sprouts, tomatoes, peppers, beets, carrots, and leafy greens (MNN). Moreover, Sommers and Smit, in Promoting Urban Agriculture: Strategy Framework for Planners in North America, argue that “a 1000 square foot plot and a 130 day period with temperatures suitable for growing food can sustain a family for a year with fruit and vegetables and a nutritional intake of vitamin A, vitamin C, and half the vitamin B complex and iron needed” (Sommers, Smit, 1994). Additionally, in a study from the University of Illinois, Barbara Klein found that produce loses 30 to 50 percent of its nutritional value over a five to ten day period of transportation and storage (Klein, 1987). Nutrients in locally grown produce are not diminished by long travel distances, unlike those found in supermarket food. BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

Furthermore, according to City Growers, an organization facilitating urban agriculture in Boston, exercise is another benefit of urban agriculture (CityGrowers, 2013). Growing food involves people in healthy, active work and recreation which can span generations of gardeners (CFSC, 2012). Additionally, the North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture found that urban agriculture is associated with satisfying labor, physical and mental relaxation, socializing, and a means to produce food and beauty (CFSC, 2012).

population from Puerto Rico. Since the 1980s, the Puerto Rican population of the Connecticut River Valley has grown, making Springfield and Holyoke into regional centers of Latino Culture (STCC, 2013). Urban agriculture can provide an opportunity for people to grow traditional food from their culture. Nuestras Raices, in Holyoke, Massachusetts, is an example of an urban agriculture organization that provides an opportunity to grow culturally appropriate foods for families and communities (Nuestras Raices, 2014).

The positive health benefits of urban agriculture can help to nourish the people of Springfield. In Springfield, where obesity, diabetes, and poverty are real issues, urban agriculture can become a form of public health intervention. According to the North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture, “when used well, gardening can be a key element in successful health intervention programs because it addresses simultaneously the physical, mental, spiritual, and social health of individuals and their communities” (CFSC, 2012).

Urban agriculture can empower communities. Mark Francis, a professor at UC Davis, has done extensive studies of the community benefits and perceptions of parks and community gardens. His studies have revealed that gardens “provide opportunities for neighborhood residents to develop and control part of their neighborhood…[they] are active places that people make themselves, use for work and socializing, and can ‘love’”(Francis, 1995). The Detroit Black Food Security Network (D-Town, 2013) formed in 2006, to addresses food insecurity in Detroit’s black community and organizes members of that community to play a more active leadership role in the local food security movement (D-Town, 2013). First-hand accounts from D-Town members provide qualitative evidence for the important social benefit of urban agriculture—empowerment. One member, Abiba, commented that “the farm is a light in the neighborhood. Helps people see what can be done with nothing…. Look at what we have done on a vacant land with nothing… it feels like a light, an example of what anyone can do” (D-Town, 2013). She also stated that at D-Town, “you get to help in the entire process of growing the food. That addressed the problem of self-reliance.… I feel more empowered by growing my own [food]. I have experienced not having it, and I felt powerless. The [grocery stores] can come and go.… If I grow it myself, I know what’s going to happen. I get more peace of mind knowing that I can grow it, freeze it, dry it” (D-Town, 2013).

SOCIAL BENEFITS

Urban agriculture brings people together around fresh food. In his 1995 study, What Good is Community Greening?, David Malakoff found that urban agriculture can help residents pull together and improve their communities. Interviews with participants in the New Brunswick Community Gardening Program in New Jersey reveal that having a garden significantly increased the frequency of interaction among gardeners, even outside of the gardening season (Malakoff, 1995). Charles Lewis, a passionate greening advocate, explains that “a community activity such as gardening can be used to break isolation, creating a sense of neighborliness among residents. Until this happens, there is no community, but rather separate people who happen to live in the same place” (Lewis, 1995). Urban agriculture can increase access to culturally appropriate foods. In many urban areas today, communities and neighborhoods are home to diverse residents, many of whom come from cultures outside of the continental United States. Springfield, for example, is a city with a large

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

When people in the community feel empowered, they often help other members of the community to feel empowered as well. The Detroit Black Food Security Network is an example of supportive

BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

“I heard that if you control the food supply, you can control the people; you don’t need guns, you don’t need bombs. To control what my children eat is very important to me. Community gardening is very political because it puts control in my hands. We won’t have to live from someone else’s hands, and neither will my children when they learn how to grow their own food.” -Mtima, 2013

D-Town member

community volunteers, and a center where people learn about healthy eating, access healthy food, and receive healthy screenings and services (DTown). Urban agriculture can help to connect youths and seniors. The Detroit Black Food Security Network and Nuestras Raices are two organizations of urban agriculture that connect younger residents with elders in the community who can share their skills and perspectives on food. East New York Farms! in Brooklyn is another example of urban agriculture facilitating cross-generational connection. This organization runs twelve community gardens that connect youth gardeners with older gardeners who need help tending their plots. Many of the seniors receive food stamps and their garden plots help supplement their diet with healthy and culturally appropriate food (ENYFarms!). Not only can urban agriculture engage young people and get them involved in active recreation to address the lack of physical activity and obesity widespread today, it can also help develop young people into responsible leaders in the community. In Springfield, Gardening the Community (GTC) hires and trains young people to grow food on vacant and abandoned lots and teaches them about sustainable living and urban agriculture (GardeningTheCommunity). The youth of GTC are also engaged in the community planning process URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

for urban agriculture in Springfield, and participate in conferences and field trips to other farms and non-profits to deepen knowledge of agriculture, social change, and community service (GTC). The Food Project, a similar project in Boston, employs approximately 150 youth per year from diverse backgrounds in eastern Massachusetts. This organization hires these teens for work that teaches them responsibility and a greater awareness of food justice issues (FoodProject). Urban agriculture reduces recidivism—a person’s relapse into criminal behavior after having served for a previous crime. According to the latest data from the Massachusetts Department of Correction, the average rate of recidivism in Massachusetts among adults, both male and female, is 19 percent (Mass.gov). In 2014, Massachusetts launched a $27 million dollar initiative to reduce recidivism among at-risk youth. Currently in Massachusetts 64 percent of young male ex-offenders re-offend within five years and only 35 percent of the young men gain employment within a year of release (thirdsectorcap.org). Recidivism has enormous social and financial costs for the Commonwealth. But urban agriculture can help to reduce recidivism by giving people who had been previously incarcerated a second chance through employment, training, and a meaningful place to be. Growing Home in Chicago is an organization that helps to build community by working with these ex-offenders. Since the program began in 2002, Growing Home has trained 150 formerly incarcerated individuals on its farm (GrowingHome). As of 2008, 76 percent of participants had been previously incarcerated and 59 percent had been homeless (GrowingHome). Of those who had been incarcerated, 95 percent did not return to jail, compared to the average recidivism rate of 50 percent in the state of Illinois (GrowingHome). Furthermore, 90 percent of Growing Home’s formerly incarcerated and/or homeless participants end up renting their own apartments or finding stable housing, and over two-thirds get fulltime jobs or further job training after graduating (GrowingHome).

BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Urban agriculture has significant economic benefits for communities that embrace it. In 2011, President Obama and Congress established a $400 million dollar budget to establish the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (US Congress). The initiative provides assistance in order to improve access to healthy food in underserved areas, provide assistance to create and preserve quality jobs, and provide assistance to revitalize low-income communities through loans and grants to eligible food retailers (USCongress). Though the cost of starting and maintaining an urban farm varies widely depending on the size, location, and purpose of the farm, the USDA claims that community gardens cost only approximately $1 per square foot per year, including all materials necessary (USDA). This is an incredibly low cost for an urban agriculture endeavor that could potentially contribute much to a local economy. Urban agriculture supports local economies by producing food that can be bought and sold locally. The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association estimates that if every family in Maine spent $10 dollars a week on local food, it would put $104 million into the local economy (Creamer). Maine has 518,200 households; Springfield has 260,745 households. By the same logic, if every family in Springfield spent $10 dollars a week on local food, it would put $52.3 million into the local economy. In Holyoke, Massachusetts, Nuestras Raices, by supporting the creation of some two dozen food and agriculture businesses, is estimated to have added $2 million dollars of economic activity to Holyoke per year (PolicyLink). Urban agriculture tends to be an open and inclusive industry, creating jobs for people with various backgrounds from recent immigrants, to teenagers, to ex-offenders, and the homeless. In Springfield, which has an unemployment rate of 11.6 percent, urban agriculture could make a meaningful difference in the lives of residents struggling and willing to work (USLabor). Green City Growers, a new farming cooperative in Cleveland, expects to provide dozens of long-term, living wage jobs for

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

low-income residents living in the surrounding area, and worker-owners will build thousands of dollars in savings over time (PolicyLink). Urban agriculture can save people money. In a study of Milwaukee, Katherine Brown found that “nearly half the community gardeners said they saved between $100 and $300 with the food they raised in their garden plots” (Brown). Moreover, Brown found for Philadelphia that community gardeners reported an annual savings of nearly a thousand dollars per family (Brown). This compares favorably to the $600 economic stimulus checks President Bush issued in 2008, suggesting that urban agriculture can be a great source of economic stimulus. If located on formerly vacant lots, urban agriculture tends to increase property values. Vacancy has been shown to decrease property values. In a Pennsylvania study by the Temple University Center for Public Policy and Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project, it was found that “homes within 150 feet of vacant or abandoned properties suffered a net loss of $7627 in value. Additionally, homes within 150 to 300 feet of vacant or abandoned properties experienced a net loss of $6819 and homes within 300 to 450 feet lost $3542 in value. Overall the study concluded that all else being equal houses on blocks with abandonment sold for $6715 less than houses on blocks with no abandonment” (TUCPPE). Vacant lots decrease property values and additionally are eyesores that invite dumping and crime. Fortunately, urban agriculture on vacant lots can change this pattern of use for vacant lands and beautify neighborhoods as well as increase surrounding property values. The study, The Effect of Community Gardens on New York Property Values, found that community gardens increased property values (NELLCO). It can be extrapolated that using vacant lots for other forms of urban agriculture would have a similar effect on property values in a neighborhood. Replacing vacant lots in Springfield with community gardens or other forms of urban agriculture could add thousands of dollars to the value of homes nearby. Furthermore, urban agriculture can potentially produce tax revenue for Springfield; on average, commercial farms contribute 25 percent of their income to taxes (Aubrey). BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS

Aside from the social, economic, and health disparities that urban agriculture can help address, it can also help improve many ecological conditions, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, improved stormwater management, reduced heatisland effect, improved biodiversity in urban areas, waste management solutions, soil conservation, micro-climate improvement, and nutrient recycling. In addition, urban agriculture brings nature into the urban environment and gives the residents of a city the chance to rediscover the seasonal cycles of plant growth. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to it (EPA.gov). The EPA claims changing the average global temperature by even a degree or two can lead to serious consequences, and for every 2 degree warming we can expect “significant (5-15 percent) reductions in yields of crops as currently grown and significant (3-10 percent) increases in rainfall during heavy precipitation events increasing flooding risk” (EPA. gov). Urban agriculture can help to off-set reduced crop yields by producing more food that can be available locally. Urban agriculture can also mitigate the risk of flooding in cities by contributing to stormwater management. As storms intensify, they can release large volumes of precipitation in shorter intervals and often overload stormwater management infrastructure. If there were increases in the amount of rainfall during these events because of climate change, then there would be an even greater likelihood for stormwater systems to be overwhelmed. When stormwater infrastructures cannot handle the volume of stormwater, flooding often results, polluting waters and eroding soil. During major storm events, wastewater may be discharged into nearby waterbodies when storm, sanitary, and sewer systems are combined (DPW). Combined sewer overflow, or CSO, occurs when the volume of stormwater overwhelms the system. When this happens, stormwater, untreated human waste, and industrial waste are discharged into waterbodies at designated outfall locations.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

According to a 2010 United Nations Environment Program report, “untreated urban waste water contains high concentrations of organic material, pathogens, and toxic compounds, ranging from heavy metals to newly emerging contaminants such as endocrine disrupting substances and pharmaceutical products” (Corcoran, et al.). According to the Springfield Department of Public Works (DPW), the city has a combined sewer system that was constructed to collect and transport sanitary sewage and stormwater together in one pipe (DPW). Stormwater that is not infiltrated into the ground runs into street drains where it combines with wastewater during major storm events; excessive flow is discharged untreated into the Connecticut River (DPW). According to the DPW, the combined sewer overflows of Springfield are already a major water pollution concern (DPW). Springfield has the second largest water treatment facility in New England (DPW). On average it treats 40 to 42 million gallons of wastewater daily. But these efforts are not enough during intense storm events, and CSOs contribute major pollution into the Connecticut River. In order to address this concern, Springfield has created a Capital Improvement Plan, CSO Long Term Control Plan, and the Washburn CSO Control Project to update the CSOs in Springfield (DPW). But urban agriculture can help these efforts too. When soil is cultivated for urban agriculture through composting and tilling, it loosens the compaction that typically prevents urban soils from infiltrating water effectively. Furthermore, if paved areas are replaced by urban agriculture, the permeability of the city is increased, which also allows for increased infiltration of stormwater. Even raised beds on top of asphalt can be a quick and relatively inexpensive way to hold stormwater that is then either absorbed by plants or evaporates. Farming on rooftops can also help to manage stormwater, but at a larger scale. The Brooklyn Grange in New York City is 40,000 square feet and grows over 50,000 pounds of produce and manages over one million gallons of stormwater per year (BrooklynGrange). Many types of urban agriculture can help Springfield manage stormwater and ease the burden on the often overtaxed wastewater treatment facility.

BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

Climate change poses specific problems for cities. In cities there are typically fewer plants and less green space to absorb the carbon dioxide emissions that affect the globe, and more impervious dark surfaces that absorb heat. The resulting effect is an urban heat island, where the city is much warmer than its surrounding areas. The health effects of the urban heat island relate not only to the direct effects of temperature but also to the related production of ozone and various factors, such as urban geometry and captured and stored solar heat (Arnfield). NASA has found that northeastern cities are 7 degrees C warmer than the areas surrounding them on average (NASA.gov). In Springfield, the heat island effect is shown in recorded temperatures by The Weather Channel from 2013. In July of 2013, Springfield had 2 to 4 degree higher temperatures than surrounding towns (WeatherChannel.com). Springfield had higher temperatures than other towns at similar elevations in Massachusetts likely because of the heat island effect. Urban agriculture can act to assuage the uncomfortable heat island effects by revegetating cities.

Photo credit: City of Somerville, MA 18

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

SECTION TITLE

An Example of Potential Food Yields on Vacant Lots According to intensive gardener and ecologist Bill Lattrell, high-intensity gardening on small plots can yield great amounts of food. For example, on one acre of high-intensity planting, 500 dwarf apple trees could yield 20,000 to 40,000 pounds of apples. Once mature, each tree yields one to two bushels of apples, depending upon the year (pollination, weather, late frost, etc.). If all 500 vacant lots in Springfield were planted this way, the yields would be 10 million pounds of apples (Lattrell). The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) estimates that .6 acres of farmland per resident could feed Franklin Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s expected population of 77,000 residents in 2035. The PVPC supports the New England Food Vision, produced by Food Solutions New England, a food research institute based at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. The vision expresses two goals for the amount of food that can be produced for consumption in New England; at least 50% of the food consumed in New England could be grown within the six-state region by 2060, and up to 80% of the food consumed in New England could be grown here by 2060 in the event of dire scarcity in food supplies or prohibitively high energy costs, assuming residents adopted diets with less animal protein than today. The PVPC acknowledges that advancing toward the aspiring goals expressed above will require that significant additional resources be devoted to local food production. A New England Food Vision: Healthy Food For All, a study by Brian Donahue of Brandeis University (forthcoming in 2014), explores in great depth and detail potential yields of individual crops and their land requirements. Once published, this report will be a great resource for Springfield to use to understand the land requirements and yields per food type.

Photo credit: Philadelphia Orchard Project URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

SECTION TITLE

CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

The numerous benefits of urban agriculture provide a convincing argument for implementing these methods in Springfield. The cornerstone of this study is an assessment of city-owned, structurefree, vacant parcels to determine their suitability for urban agriculture. No privately owned lands were considered in this study. To assess the suitability of these vacant parcels for different forms of urban agriculture, a GIS analysis was performed using ArcMap10.2. This program allowed for a city-wide analysis to be completed using available data. The four types of urban agriculture evaluated include community gardens, commercial farms, community and youth farms, and urban orchards. A detailed, technical description of the GIS raster analysis process can be found in Appendix IV.

CRITERIA AND TIERS

Each form of agriculture was evaluated using three levels or â&#x20AC;&#x153;tiersâ&#x20AC;? of criteria. Each tier was used to identify which parcels should be prioritized for urban agriculture. The criteria in each tier were chosen based on case studies, research, and expert interviews.

CITY-OWNED VACANT LOTS IN SPRINGFIELD

Tier 1 criteria focus on the immediate and neighborhood conditions of the site. Tier 2 criteria also relate to neighborhood conditions for which mappable data was not available. Tier 3 criteria relate individual vacant lots to broad, city-wide considerations. For ease of processing, Tier 2 and 3 criteria were assessed visually. All site conditions must be verified by groundtruthing and soil testing to evaluate conditions that could not be evaluated remotely. Tier 1b, Tier 2, and Tier 3 criteria were used in this study to show a process of identifying parcels that meet a range of physical, environmental, and social characteristics. Each successive tier after Tier 1a is useful in identifying priorities but is not used to eliminate parcels as undesirable. The results are not meant to show that only a few sites can be used but rather highlight additional positive characteristics.

TIER 1A CRITERIA

Tier 1a criteria are specific to the site and include; physical characteristics, such as size, slope, and impervious surfaces; environmental constraints such as wetlands, priority habitats, and flood zones; and legal constraints, such as zoning and ownership. Only sites that received the highest possible Tier 1a score were considered further. Therefore, all sites that emerged under Tier 1a results may be appropriate for urban agriculture because they met the above criteria.

TIER 1B CRITERIA

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

Tier 1b criteria deal with the relationships between a parcel and its broader neighborhood context. As the relationships between the neighborhood context and a specific type of urban agriculture vary, so do the criteria. For this reason, the four types of urban agriculture evaluated in this study have different criteria, outlined in the sections that follow. The range of Tier 1b criteria includes proximity to centers of community (schools, health centers, community centers, places of worship, food

CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY

pantries), proximity to other gardens, proximity to markets (farmers markets, mobile markets, grocery stores), vacancy of adjacent parcel, and whether the parcel is a corner lot, all of which are desirable.

TIER 2 CRITERIA

Like Tier 1b criteria, Tier 2 criteria relate the parcel to the broader neighborhood context. However the method of evaluation differed due to the lack of readily available data. Therefore, Tier 2 analysis was completed by manually looking at the relationship of the parcels to sidewalk location and renter density for the types of urban agriculture to which these criteria apply. Sites with sidewalk access were considered desirable as they would be accessible on foot. Renter density was examined because where a high percentage of residents rent their homes, they may lack access to growing space. Therefore, residents in those areas may benefit from a community garden.

TIER 3 CRITERIA

Tier 3 criteria candidate parcels were evaluated against a series of map overlays (outlined in the following sections) including environmental justice, food deserts, regional impervious surface, proximity to existing open spaces, and tree cover. No parcels are excluded in the Tier 3 analysis. Instead these social and environmental components are a factor in highlighting sites that should be prioritized. The Tier 3 analysis is a tool used in this process to determine which sites are best suited to be ground-truthed.

GROUND-TRUTHING

Ground-truthing is the final step in this land assessment process. This process consists of site visits used to verify the accuracy of the GIS-based assessment and other information not available in GIS. During the ground-truthing visits the following conditions are assessed: • Street width. Is ample street parking available? Can delivery trucks navigate the streets? • Vehicular traffic. Do current traffic patterns indicate congestion? Is the site visible by passing vehicles? • Fencing. Is fencing needed for protection from pests, if not already present?

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

• Surrounding buildings and existing vegetation. Is significant shade cast on the site? Data for some site-specific criteria were not readily available or easy to map. Sunlight, soil types and availability of water, three critical criteria for growing, were not included in the mapping process. It is assumed that city water can be accessed from every city parcel, but may incur significant costs if re-connection is required. Soil quality can only be determined through soil tests. Therefore, all soils should be tested before final site selection or planting (soils test information, labs and prices can be found in the appendices). Ensure adequate sun for desired crops. The process used in this analysis was determined using two basic assumptions: 1. Priority should be given to sites that receive the highest possible Tier 1a score. All sites that emerge from the Tier 1a analysis may be appropriate for urban agriculture. Ground-truthing must be completed on these sites to evaluate conditions such as sun/shade, soils, and water access. 2. The Tier 1b, Tier 2, and Tier 3 criteria influence how sites can be further prioritized using broader social and environmental conditions that may influence a site. The following results, outline the desirable sites for community gardens, commercial farms, community and youth farms, and urban orchards. This methodology can also be applied in developing and applying criteria for other types of urban agriculture, named, but not analyzed in this study (school gardens, homesteading, rooftop gardens, and aquaponics). The detailed GIS process presented in Appendix IV can be repeated or revised. In the future, as more data becomes available, or as conditions of the surrounding environment change, it may prove useful to repeat this process to identify additional suitable sites that reflect the dynamic needs of the community.

CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY

COMMUNITY GARDENS Community gardens comprise individual garden plots within one larger site. Plots are gardened by different individuals, usually from the neighborhood in which the garden plot is sited. Produce grown in community gardens is generally consumed by the gardeners, their families, and other people with whom the produce is shared or donated. These gardens can include one or a combination of crops, including vegetable, livestock, orchards, and other perennial food plants. As one of the most common forms of urban agriculture, community gardens provide access to gardening and community space to people who may not otherwise have one. “Gardens are active places that people can make themselves, use for work, socializing and can ‘love’”(Malakoff, 1995). Furthermore, a community garden is often an inclusive community space that allows personal expression by the gardener. These gardens frequently reflect the personality and story of the gardeners and the neighborhood that surrounds it.

WHY FOCUS ON COMMUNITY GARDENS?

Community gardens can build community and transform neighborhoods. Strong ties between neighbors can be created in these communal spaces. “Community gardens are important social neighborhood spaces that contribute to the city parks and open space system and support neighborhood livability” (Mendes et. al). A source of active recreation and healthy produce, the garden contributes to the vitality of the community. Through recreating together, planting together, and building a community space together, community gardens provide residents with a sense of community empowerment. The Urban Agriculture

Task Force in Providence, Rhode Island asserts that, “by creating a garden, local residents and organizations can transform under-used, blighted properties into productive, safe and beautiful green spaces. Many community gardening projects have been used to increase a community’s agency in their neighborhoods, such as D-Town in Detroit. The presence of a garden beautifies and stabilizes a neighborhood, raises property values and reduces local crime” (Urban Agriculture Task Force, 2006, 10). Community gardens strengthen and revitalize neighborhoods by building social bonds and improving aesthetics, while improving quality of life and health for residents by improving access to healthy and affordable food. Many areas in Springfield have been identified as food deserts, where a lack of supermarkets makes access to healthy foods difficult. Also, many residential areas in Springfield have been identified by the EPA as low income and thus at risk for negative environmental factors, one of which is food insecurity. The Department of Neighborhood Programs in Seattle, Washington found that families using that city’s gardening programs were able to provide 30 to 60 percent of their produce (policylink.org). Therefore, it can be argued that residents of Springfield can use community gardens to supplement their food needs and reduce instances of food insecurity.

Springfield currently has 3 community gardens located at: Beaumont Street Community Garden 78 Beaumont Street Forest Park Dickinson Street Community Garden 20 Dickinson Street Forest Park Gasoline Alley Green Street 250 Albany St. McKnight

Photo credit: La Finquita, Nuestras Raices, Holyoke, MA URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY GARDENS

CASE STUDY LA FINQUITA, NUESTRAS RAICES, HOLYOKE, MA ESTABLISHED Holyoke boasts nine community gardens managed and coordinated by a team of gardeners. The oldest of these is Nuestras Raices’ La Finquita which was founded in 1991. Today the garden has 32 family plots each averaging 150 square feet. Nuestras Raices estimates that each family produces $1000 worth of produce per year. MISSION At the outset, La Finquita was inspired by the assumption that “a vegetable garden in a lowincome neighborhood has the potential to improve the nutrition of the participating families.” (NuestrasRaices) La Finquita also set out to link the people of South Holyoke to their Puerto Rican heritage, and serve as an oasis within the urban neighborhood. The gardeners felt there was a need for cultural preservation and a desire for a sense of place amidst the brick tenements. PARTNERS Integral in establishing La Finquita was a partnership between the founder, the Holyoke Community Land Trust, and the Housing Director at the Valley Opportunity Council (VOC). The VOC provided administrative support, and community organizers Ruth Cruz and Cecilia Martinez at Nueva Esperanza were invaluable at spreading the word about these efforts.

ACCESSING AND REMEDIATING LAND The soil tests of the potential garden site showed low levels of lead, and so the people got to work, marked their own plots, and organized a community site cleanup to dispose of the syringes and garbage. A structural plan for the garden plots was created. WATER La Finquita initially had no water access. However through a joint effort between the community and the city, connection to water was established. The VOC was able to find a plumber who would do the connection work if the garden would provide the ditch necessary for the implementation. The community got together with their shovels and dug the ditch. NOW With the help of additional grants, and a group of gardeners who volunteered to be lead coordinators, the annual lease for the property was renewed. La Finquita gave birth to many other community gardens throughout Holyoke. LESSONS LEARNED: • Involve the community from the very beginning, including in the land acquisition and site selection. • Tap into all potentially available resources (local farmers, public works departments, the National Guard etc.) • Establish a community coordinator to manage and oversee operations • Understand the culture of the community the garden will serve. • Cultivate leaders within garden the community to share oversight responsibilities. • Develop a system for dealing with theft. For example, plant an extra plot in the front of the garden with a sign that reads, “If you must take food from this garden, take it from this plot.”

Photo credit: La Finquita, Nuestras Raices, Holyoke, MA 24

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY GARDENS

TIER RESULTS COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 1A CRITERIA Sites with wetlands and those which were not vacant, city-owned lots were excluded in the Tier 1a analysis. A parcel was set as a priority if it met all of the following: • is less than 5000 square feet. The Springfield Planning Department noted that parcels less than 5000 square feet are considered notbuildable and therefore future development plans would not compete with garden establishment. Sites larger than 5000 square feet may be given preference for development over urban agriculture. • the slope is less than five percent, which is the maximum slope for handicapped accessibility and may not require regrading to build gardens.

• not zoned as Commercial P, the only district where community gardens are prohibited by the zoning ordinances. • not listed as a site with reported release of oil or hazardous material in Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) 21E database. • not in a flood zone, wetland, or priority habitat. These are sensitive resource areas that should remain undisturbed. • is almost completely free of impervious surface to ease in establishing gardens and improve stormwater infiltration.

Tier 1a Criteria < 5000 SQ FT

Tier 1b Criteria

< 5 % Slope

Adjacent Vacant Lot

Not Zoned Commercial P

Corner Lot

Not Hazardous Not a Flood Zone

Near Gardens

Tier 2 Criteria Tier 3 Criteria High Renter Density Sidewalks along site

Near Centers of Community

Environmental Justice Proximity to Parks Food Deserts

Not a Wetland Not Priority Habitat Permeable Surface

Land Assessment Criteria

Ground-Truthing

COMMUNITY GARDENS Priority Sites Identified

City-owned Vacant Lot Tiers of criteria used to evaluate community gardens. URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY GARDENS

COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 1B CRITERIA

COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 2 CRITERIA

A parcel ranked as desirable if it met the following:

Sites were given priority in the Tier 2 analysis if:

• all of the Tier 1a criteria were met. • has a vacant lot directly adjacent, for possible expansion. • is a corner lot which offers increased visibility and increased solar access. • is near other gardens to support a network of gardening resources. • is less than a half mile to a center of community (places of worship, schools, universities, soup kitchens and food pantries, health centers) to increase integration of the garden into the social structure of the surrounding community. Stakeholders expressed that this criterion was significant for community gardens and was therefore weighted twice that of the other criteria. (See Appendix IV GIS Raster Analysis for detailed explanation).

• a sidewalk is present along the property. This was used to determine some amount of neighborhood walkability. • the site is located in an area where more than 20 residents per census block responded to the American Community Survey indicating that they rent their homes. Residents who rent their homes may not have access to growing space, and would therefore benefit from a community garden in their neighborhood.

Tier 1b Criteria

Old Hill and Six Corners

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

This maps shows in red the 27 parcels that met the Tier 1b Criteria. The majority of these parcels are concentrated in the Old Hill and Six Corners neighborhoods. One site located in the top left corner of this map is in Memorial Square neighborhood. 26

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY GARDENS

COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 3 CRITERIA

The function of the Tier 3 analysis was to identify priority sites to be ground-truthed. (See Appendix V Tier Analysis Findings).

Of the over 500 structure-free, city-owned, vacant lots evaluated using the previously outlined criteria, 39 met the Tier 1a Criteria. Of those, 27 met the Tier 1b Criteria. Of those, 6 met the Tier 2 Criteria. Three sites met the Tier 3 Criteria. This process was developed to identify sites that meet a full compliment of criteria identified in each tier. Therefore this process identified 3 sites that have the most positive attributes for community gardens. However, the 39 sites that met the Tier 1a Criteria may be suitable for community gardens.

This table illustrates the number of sites identified in each tier analysis.

A complete listing of site information can be found in Appendix V.

Tier 3 is a combination of relational criteria including: • environmental justice • food deserts • proximity to open space

Tier 1a Tier 1b Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 2 Criteria

39 sites 27 sites 6 sites 3 sites

Using the Nuestras Raices model of community garden production, these 3 sites could serve 69 families producing approximately $69,000 of produce per year.

Old Hill, Six Corners, and Memorial Square

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

This maps shows in red the 6 parcels that met the Tier 2 Criteria. Three parcels are located in Old Hill, two in Six Corners, and one in Memorial Square.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY GARDENS

COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 3 CRITERIA

FOOD DESERTS The Food Desert map shows three areas of food insecurity: residents who have limited vehicle access, residents who live more than a half mile from a supermarket, and residents who live more than a mile from a supermarket. The six parcels identified in Tier 2 are more than a half mile from a supermarket. Of those six parcels, three parcels fall within neighborhoods where residents have low vehicle access (Six Corners and Memorial Square). Therefore, community gardens could benefit the residents with limited vehicle access in these neighborhoods. These parcels should be given equal consideration for ground-truthing.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY GARDENS

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The Environmental Justice map shows how the six Tier 2 parcels overlay with populations at risk for environmental health issues. Six of the sites are located in the environmental justice areas where there are a high percentage of people of color and residents with low income. Additionally, one of the six sites is identified in an area where no one over the age of 14 speaks only English or speaks English less than “very well” per household. This means these households have low English fluency. Community gardens can help improve access and affordability of healthy and fresh food, rehabilitate soils and provide green-space which can act as “lungs” cleaning air and filtering airborne pollutants. Planting gardens on these sites may help to address inequalities in environmental health. Garden programs in these areas may be eligible for funding from the EPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grants programs.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY GARDENS

OPEN SPACE The Open Space map shows the spatial relationship between the six parcels identified in Tier 2 and Springfield City parks and other parks with public access. All six parcels are within a quarter mile of a public park, and therefore identified as adjacent to open space. These parcels should be considered equally because each are situated in close proximity to other open spaces and parks. Had sites emerged in Tier 2 been greater than a quarter mile from an open space, priority would have been given to those sites. Similar to parks, community gardens can provide an outdoor recreational space, therefore preference should be given to those sites that are in areas where open space is limited.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources 30

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY GARDENS

GROUND-TRUTHING The 3 parcels meeting the Food Desert criteria overlapped with the Environmental Justice Criteria and were prioritized in the Tier 3 analysis because residents in those areas: • have limited vehicle access and • live less than a half mile from a grocery • meet the outlined Environmental Justice. An initial examination of these sites using GoogleEarth ortho photography showed one site was partially wooded. After a site visit to all three parcels, one site emerged as the site with the highest priority for community gardens. The following observations were made during ground-truthing at 14 Grosvenor Street: • • • • • •

sits on a narrow two-way road existing split-rail fence surrounds the property lot mostly cleared and covered in grass some tree debris on the property will need to be cleared good solar access trees and scrub to the east of the property

Data verification of the ground-truthing show that this open space is actually three contiguous city-owned sites: 06090-0003 04222-0291 04222-0288 These sites combined are approximately 0.11 acre. According to the University of Missouri Extension, approximately 40,000 pounds of tomatoes can be grown on one acre (Missouri.edu).

View of 14 Grosvenor Street, Springfield, MA looking Northeast URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

This would mean this site could produce 4,400 pounds of tomatoes per year depending on site conditions. The site can also hold about twenty, 150 square foot plots for community gardens. Next Steps for Springfield:

• Ground-truth Tier 1b sites. • Create an organization that would manage all city community gardens. • Create a best practices handbook for creation, care and upkeep of garden. • Search for funding to begin a community garden land trust (do not forget “newer” sources of funding such as Kickstarter). • Hold community meetings in neighborhoods with sites which satisfied ground-truthing to assess interest in community gardens. • Purchase a plot from the city using the land trust in a neighborhood where need and interest have been expressed. • Involve those residents who expressed interest in the planning and cleanup of the site. • Make these actions events and invite families and friends of future gardeners. • Involve gardeners in creating tighter garden rules. • Keep a dialogue going with the community around the garden as well as the gardeners, involve them with garden events and ensure there is a contact for any concerns.

Aerial view of parcels at 14 Grosvenor Street, Springfield, MA COMMUNITY GARDENS

COMMERCIAL FARMS

WHY COMMERCIAL FARMS IN SPRINGFIELD?

Stakeholders voiced a growing interest in developing commercial farms in Springfield because commercial farms can create jobs. According to Growing Green: Measuring Benefits, Overcoming barriers, and Nurturing Opportunities for Urban Agriculture in Boston, one acre of city land in Boston turned over to farming could create two to five direct farm jobs. Support jobs and food system jobs increase as well, while keeping local money in the local economy (The Conservation Law Foundation, 2014). Springfieldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unemployment rate is approximately one and a half times higher than Massachusetts as a whole. While supporting the creation of commercial farms in Springfield could help to create jobs, workforce development organizations seem unaware of these opportunities in the local food system (Local Food, Local Jobs; Schroeder, Alex). Additionally, urban farms may help

to raise awareness in Springfield of the financial, social and ecological benefits of urban agriculture for the city. Commercial farms also positively affect the environment within and outside of a city. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are created by vehicles used to transport and distribute food, and through the release of methane from rotting food left to waste in landfills. Commercial urban farms can help reduce these GHGs by lessening the distances food has to travel and by using compost in their production processes. Urban farms can even reuse their own waste and/or collect organic waste from other sources in the city to build their compost.

Unemployment Rate Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey

A commercial urban farm is a for-profit or notfor-profit farm focused on income generation. Commercial urban farms can sell their produce to restaurants, wholesalers, neighborhood stores, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs, farm stands, or farmers markets. Urban plots for commercial farms are generally over a quarter acre in size and may grow produce, fruit/perennial food plants, and/or livestock/bees.

Photo Credit: Greensgrow Philadelphia Project

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS

HEADING CASE STUDY placeholder GREENSGROW FARM: PHILADELPHIA, PA Greensgrow began in 1997 when founders Mary Seton Corboy and Tom Sereduk leased a brownfield capped in concrete. With the assistance of a Ben Franklin Technology loan and their own funds they grew greens hydroponically that were sold in restaurants. In the first two years, they increased their sales by 1,000 percent. Greensgrow Farm is part of the larger nonprofit organization Greensgrow Philadelphia Project, and is dedicated to “revitalizing livable communities through the practice of sustainable entrepreneurial urban agriculture.” BUILDING Greensgrow erected a greenhouse in 2001 with recycled materials, and began a CSA the next year. In 2002, Greensgrow built three large raised beds and turned adopted beehives into the “Honey from the Hood” initiative. Greensgrow Farm has since become a creative and diversified commercial farming venture. They grow twenty types of vegetables and produce about 2,000 pounds of produce to sell at farmers markets and through their CSA each year. Greensgrow utilizes raised beds, high tunnels (which produce year-round greens), and containers, in off-site farm plots as well. Greensgrow’s distribution has grown as well, selling their produce not only wholesale, but also at a retail center, a nursery, through the CSA shares, and in conjunction with their community outreach and education efforts.

placeholder PRACTICES Greensgrow farm focuses on sustainable practices and green technology. Beds are fertilized solely with farm-made compost, water is conserved and runoff from the site is reduced by installing green roofs on all permanent structures. Plants border all of the beds to infiltrate additional runoff, and drip irrigation is used in the high tunnels along with rain barrels on structures (such as the greenhouse) where a green roof is not feasible. SUCCESS AND PARTNERSHIPS A large part of Greensgrow’s financial success is due to the diverse services it offers. Greensgrow hosts the “Greensgrow Idea Farm” where people discuss, create, and contemplate new ideas to implement at the farm. Their services include: design, tours, wholesale, retail, nursery, rentable community kitchen, business planning consultation, value added products, CSA, farm stand, and they rent out property for functions as well. Some partnerships include Green Mountain Energy (which awarded them the Sun Club Award, a $20,000 grant to erect a solar power array on the farm, now in planning stages), Philadelphia Brewing Company, Recycle Bank, and Shoebox Recycling. In February of 2013 they were named to the EPA’s Green Power Partner list. LESSONS LEARNED: • Diversify services for a wider customer base and increased resiliency. • Create a think tank at the farm, and allow ideas to be considered with cost-benefits analysis. • Seek partnerships with non-profits and businesses in the area that share similar missions and goals. • Consider the obstacles (such as concrete cap) as opportunities (created a need for sustainable practices that has led to funding and partnerships). • Manage water on site with green roofs or other rainwater receptive systems. • Where possible install border beds with perennials (which also add aesthetics, and filtering). • Combine nonprofit community and commercial ventures, which can improve both business resiliency and increase benefits to community.

Photo credit: Bryn Ashburn 34

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS SECTION TITLE

TIER RESULTS COMMERCIAL FARMS TIER 1A CRITERIA Sites with wetlands and those which were not vacant, city-owned lots were excluded in the Tier 1a analysis. A parcel was identified as a priority if it met all of the following: • is more than a quarter acre because this size was determined to be the minimum based on case studies and interviews with farmers. • the slope is less than eight percent which may not require regrading to build garden beds. If handicapped accessibility is necessary for the desired farming operation, regrading may be needed. • not zoned as Commercial P, the only district where urban agriculture is prohibited by the zoning ordinances.

• not listed as a site with reported release of oil or hazardous material in Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) 21E database. • not in a flood zone, wetland, or priority habitat. These are sensitive resource areas that should remain undisturbed. • is almost completely free of impervious surface to ease in establishing gardens and improve water infiltration

Tier 1a Criteria > 1/4 Acre < 8 % Slope Not Zoned Commercial P Not Hazardous

Tier 1b Criteria

Adjacent Vacant Lot Corner Lot

Tier 2 Criteria Tier 3 Criteria No Tier 2 Criteria Assessed

Near Markets

Not a Flood Zone

Environmental Justice Regional Impervious Surface Food Deserts

Not a Wetland Not Priority Habitat

Land Assessment Criteria

COMMERCIAL FARMS

Ground-Truthing

Permeable Surface

Priority Sites Identified

City-owned Vacant Lot

Tiers of criteria used to evaluate commercial farms. URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS

COMMERCIAL FARMS TIER 1B CRITERIA

COMMERCIAL FARM TIER 3 CRITERIA

A parcel ranked as desirable if it met the following:

Tier 3 is a combination of relational criteria including:

• all of the Tier 1a criteria were met • has a vacant lot directly adjacent for possible expansion • is a corner lot which offers increased visibility and increased solar access. • is less than a half mile to a grocery store, farmers market or mobile market location to facilitate ease in distribution of produce.

COMMERCIAL FARM TIER 2 CRITERIA Proximity to sidewalks and renter density were determined to be irrelevant to the placement of a commercial farm and was therefore not assessed.

Tier 1b Criteria West:

• environmental justice • food deserts • regional impervious surface The function of the Tier 3 analysis was to identify priority sites to be ground-truthed. (See Appendix V Tier Analysis Findings) This table illustrates the number of sites identified in each tier analysis.

Tier 1a Tier 1b Tier 2 Tier 3

19 sites 18 sites 6 sites

Old Hill, Six Corners, and Bay Neighborhoods

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

This map shows in red the 11 parcels that met the Tier 1b Criteria located in the Old Hill, Six Corners and Bay neighborhoods. 36

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

Tier 1b Criteria Northeast Boston Road, Pine Point, and Indian Orchard Neighborhoods

The above map shows in red the 3 parcels that met the Tier 1b Criteria located in the Boston Road, Pine Point, and Indian Orchard neighborhoods. The map below shows the 4 parcels located in Sixteen Acres neighborhood.

Sixteen Acres Neighborhood

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

Tier 1b Criteria Southeast

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS

COMMERCIAL FARMS TIER 3 CRITERIA

FOOD DESERTS The Food Desert map identifies three areas of food insecurity: residents who have limited vehicle access, residents who live more than a half mile from a supermarket, and residents who live more than a mile from a supermarket. One of the 18 parcels identified in Tier 1b falls into both low vehicle access and at least 1 mile from a grocery store. As commercial farms may sell their produce to local corner stores, restaurants or through CSAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, priority should be given to this site both to benefit the populationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s food access as well as for the potential to develop customers for the farm in this area. Five of the 18 Tier 1b parcels fall into low vehicle access and are at least a half mile from a supermarket. These 6 parcels were considered priorities for ground-truthing.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The Environmental Justice map shows how the 18 Tier 1b parcels overlay with populations that are at risk for environmental health issues. Twelve sites meet two of the environmental justice population criteria, while six parcels meet one criteria. While improving environmental justice conditions is not an intrinsic function of a commercial farm, some farms have a mission to support underserved populations. Farms can also provide environmental benefits by improving soils and air quality, and facilitating stormwater infiltration.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE The Impervious Surface map shows the amount of ground that is covered in concrete, asphalt or any other non-porous material (in white). Eleven of the 18 Tier 1b sites located in Six Corners, Old Hill and the Rebecca Johnson Park are in the areas with the most percentage of impervious surface. A commercial farm might improve soils and therefore create opportunities for more efficient stormwater infiltration.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS

GROUND-TRUTHING Six of the eighteen parcels meeting the Food Desert criteria overlapped with the Environmental Justice Criteria. These six parcels were prioritized in the Tier 3 analysis because residents in those areas: • have limited vehicle access • live less than a half mile from a grocery • meet the Environmental Justice criteria for minority and low income. An initial examination of these sites using GoogleEarth ortho photography revealed that two sites were wooded, and therefore not visited in person. The remaining four sites were visited and one site emerged as the site with the highest priority for commercial farms. The following observations were made during ground-truthing at Central Street that informed this decision: • • • • • • •

Next Steps for Springfield:

• Market Springfield as an appropriate place to farm. • Hold workshops for decision-makers and potential farmers to discuss the constraints and opportunities for starting a commercial farm in Springfield. • Hold education seminars for the public, to explain the possibility of job creation, and the other benefits of the creation of commercial farms in Springfield. • Revisit the City ordinances, and compare zoning with the identified priority sites for commercial farms. • Currently Springfield considers all farmed areas under 5 acres a community garden. Reconsider and discuss if this is realistic. Greensgrow Farm sits on a site approximately one acre, and they have a greenhouses, nursery, and retail center all on site. • Explore the connection between commercial farming and green job training. • Create relationships with workforce development agencies in Springfield. Discuss possibilities of partnerships where resource needs overlap.

located on a two-way road no on-street parking corner lot with split rail fence on all sides no shade from trees or nearby buildings cleared and covered with grass large truck access

Data verification of the ground-truthing identified this open space as four contiguous city-owned parcels: 02560-0071 02560-0072 02560-0073 02560-0070

Aerial view of parcels at Central Street, Springfield, MA

Panorama view of Central Street, Springfield, MA URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMERCIAL FARMS

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARM Community farms are operated by a group of people invested in a common goal. Often these farms are formed with the intent to enhance the social autonomy and physical well-being of a community. Many community farms are formed to specifically address social issues of concern in their area, such as food insecurity, urban blight, or youth engagement.

WHY COMMUNITY FARMS IN SPRINGFIELD?

A common type of community farm is an incubator farm. Incubator farms may be autonomous, or they may be attached to community gardens, or in partnership with a community center or college. Incubator farms are created to support new and aspiring farmers, and to educate farmers and gardeners about less known farming techniques. Often they provide education about issues surrounding food access, health and nutrition, and farming methods. Many also support aspiring small business owners with business plan training and information on funding resources. Often incubator farms will rent plots to aspiring farmers, giving them the space to begin farming in regions where land tenure is difficult to secure, or unavailable to farm. Community farms may be part of a community center, and serve as a gathering place for residents. They can socialize, learn about the food grown, and how to cook that food at a community farm. The Stop, a community center and food bank in Toronto, began as a food bank and community dropin center. They now offer a myriad of community services, a perinatal program, a community action program, bake ovens and local food markets, community cooking, community advocacy, sustainable food systems education and urban agriculture. They recently renovated an old street car garage into what is now called The Green Barn. It serves as a center for education and sustainable food production, as well as houses a greenhouse, food systems education programs, the Global Roots Garden, a community bake oven and a compost demonstration center (theStop.org).

Youth farms, another type of community farm, often involve youth in developing a farm, and growing and distributing produce. Some youth farms are at community and recreation centers, schools, and faith-based sites with a strong youth component. These types of community farms teach young people social and leadership skills important for their participation in the job market and leadership positions in the community. For example, Gardening the Community, an active non-profit organization in Springfield, employs interested neighborhood youth on its farms. The youth actively farm the organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban gardens and use bicycles to distribute the produce to local vendors. The youth also participate in field trips and conferences to further develop their knowledge on sustainable practices, urban agriculture, community service and food justice. This benefits their communities by guiding youth to become socially-aware and sustainably-minded adults active in their community. The knowledge gained positions the youth to possibly enter the burgeoning green jobs work force. The Food Project plays a similar role in eastern Massachusetts, by placing urban and suburban teenagers in roles requiring a high amount of responsibility. The Food Project employs over a hundred teens per year to grow and distribute produce, gaining job and social skills along the way.

Photo credit: Gardening the Community, a youth farm in Springfield, MA

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

CASE STUDY LYNCHBURG GROWS MISSION Lynchburg Grows, a 6.8-acre community farm in Lynchburg, VA, teaches sustainable food production through workshops, vocational job training for the disabled, and nutrition and food system programming for elementary students. The H.R. Schenkel Urban Farm and Environmental Education Center at Lynchburg Grows has 9 greenhouses, a root cellar, a farmhouse, and a production center. The administrative building holds classes and workshops all year and expansion plans include a fruit orchard, an aquaponics system, a poultry yard, and an apiary (lynchburggrows.org). ESTABLISHED Paul, a man who lived with disabilities in a group home in Lynchburg had his beloved garden destroyed by a mistake. When Michael Van Ness and Derek Cunningham heard about this story they decided they wanted to build Paul a new garden. Michael and Derek recruited support from local businesses and influential people to help fund their cause. One business donated an adjacent parcel to expand the old garden while others donated equipment and supplies. Paul’s garden inspired the founders to increase access to growing space for people with disabilities. A 6.8 acre plot in the middle of Lynchburg was identified. The property owners’ family had cultivated roses on this plot for generations and didn’t want the land to be subdivided or developed. It seemed Michael and Derek’s project was a perfect fit. They kept the land in agriculture as well as preserved some of the surviving rose bushes on the property. The owners negotiated the terms under which Michael and Derek could lease-to-buy the property. After the money was raised, the non-profit Lynchburg Grows was born.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT Michael and Derek made the most of the social capital in Lynchburg. Over 6,000 hours donated by 700 volunteers over an eighteen-month period resulted in the repair of most of the nine greenhouses. They were cleared of debris and surviving roses were salvaged and consolidated into one greenhouse. The soils were replaced with compost, made from school and college cafeteria waste. The city delivered over 2,000 tons of its chipped branches and other organic material from spring cleanup to the farm instead of the facility it usually used. This saved the city $96,000 and helped the farm to build safe soil (story sourced from Hardy, Hay; Virginia Sportsman). Lynchburg Grows partners with local schools, the Central Virginia Community College, and the juvenile detention center, among many others. Its crops are grown in the old rose greenhouses, nine in all. In fact, one of the Greenhouses has even been “adopted” by a partner organization who uses the space but also is responsible for its upkeep. The farm also runs a CSA in addition to their many education programs. They have raised more than 2 million dollars since they began in 2004, through donations (Barnes, Home). LESSONS LEARNED • Find landowners who have a shared interest in having land remain open and/or available for agriculture. • Secure land tenure with purchase. • Inquire about lease-to-own options for land purchase. • Find areas where municipal interests and farm interests coincide, as in wood chippings, compost, and food waste. • Recruit community, students, businesses and local politicians to assist in your cause. • Create a clear mission statement. • Work to create new community habits about environmental stewardship through child education programs.

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

TIER RESULTS COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARM TIER 1A CRITERIA Sites with wetlands and those which were not vacant, city-owned lots were excluded in the Tier 1a analysis. A parcel was identified as a priority if it met all of the following: • more than a quarter acre, which is the minimum size preferred according to case studies and interviews with farmers (Gardening the Community). • slope is less than five percent, which is the maximum slope for barrier-free handicapped accessibility and may not require regrading to build gardens.

• not zoned as Commercial P, the only district where urban agriculture is prohibited by the zoning ordinances. • not listed as a site with reported release of oil or hazardous material in Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) 21E database. • not in a flood zone, wetland, or priority habitat. These are sensitive resource areas that should remain undisturbed. • is almost completely free of impervious surface to ease in establishing gardens and improve stormwater infiltration.

Tier 1a Criteria > 1/4 Acre

Tier 1b Criteria

< 5 % Slope

Adjacent Vacant Lot

Not Zoned Commercial P

Corner Lot

Not Hazardous Not a Flood Zone

Tier 2 Criteria Tier 3 Criteria Sidewalks along site

Environmental Justice Proximity to Parks

Near Gardens

Food Deserts

Near Centers of Community

Not a Wetland

Ground-Truthing

Not Priority Habitat

Land Assessment Criteria

Permeable Surface

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS Priority Sites Identified

City-owned Vacant Lot Tiers of criteria used to evaluate community and youth farms.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARM TIER 1B CRITERIA

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARM TIER 2 CRITERIA

A parcel ranked as desirable if it met the following:

Sites were given priority in the Tier 2 analysis if:

• all of the Tier 1a criteria were met. • has a vacant lot directly adjacent for possible expansion. • is a corner lot which offers increased visibility and increased solar access. • is near other gardens to support a network of gardening resources. • is less than a half mile from a center of community (places of worship, schools, universities, soup kitchens and food pantries, health centers) to increase integration of the farm into the social structure of the surrounding community. Stakeholders expressed that this criterion was significant for community and youth farms and was therefore weighted twice that of the other criteria. (See Appendix IV for detailed explanation).

• there is a sidewalk along the property. This was used to determine some amount of neighborhood walkability.

Tier 1b Criteria

Old Hill, Six Corners, Bay, Boston Road, Sixteen Acres, and Pine Point

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

This map shows in red the 11 parcels that met the Tier 1b Criteria located in the Old Hill, Six Corners, Bay, Boston Road, Sixteen Acres, and Pine Point neighborhoods. 46

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

COMMUNITY AND YOUTH FARM TIER 3 CRITERIA Tier 3 is a combination of relational criteria including: • environmental justice • food deserts • proximity to open space The function of the Tier 3 analysis was to identify priority sites to be ground-truthed. (See Appendix V Tier Analysis Findings.)

Tier 1a Tier 1b Tier 2 Tier 3

13 sites 11 sites 7 sites 3 sites

Of the over 500 structure-free, city-owned, vacant lots evaluated using the previously outlined criteria, 13 met the Tier 1a Criteria. Of those, 11 met the Tier 1b Criteria. Of those, 7 met the Tier 2 Criteria. Three sites met the Tier 3 Criteria. This process was developed to identify sites that meet a full compliment of criteria identified in the tiers. Therefore this process identified 3 sites that have the most positive attributes for community and youth farms. However, the 13 sites that met the Tier 1a Criteria may be suitable for community and youth farms.

Old Hill, Six Corners, and Bay

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

Tier 2 Criteria

This table illustrates the number of sites identified in each tier analysis.

This map shows in red the 7 parcels that met the Tier 2 Criteria. Four are located in the Old Hill, 2 in Six Corners and 1 in Bay. URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARM TIER 3 CRITERIA

FOOD DESERTS The Food Desert map shows three areas of food insecurity: residents who have limited vehicle access, residents who live more than a half mile from a supermarket, and residents who live more than a mile from a supermarket. Three of the 7 Tier 2 parcels were located in areas identified as both low vehicle access and at least a half a mile from a grocery store. If these sites are developed into community farms, the populations in the areas around these sites may see improved food security and access. A community farm whose mission is to improve food access specifically may want to focus on these sites.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources 48

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The Environmental Justice map shows how the 7 Tier 2 parcels overlay with populations that are at risk for environmental health issues. All sites are located in environmental justice areas where there are a high percentage of people of color and residents with low income. Building gardens on any or all of these sites may improve the ecological and environmental health of those areas and the residents who live there. Community farms whose mission involves education about urban farming, environmental issues, food access, or improving ecological functioning of a city may be most appropriate for these sites.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

OPEN SPACE The Open Space map shows the spatial relationship between the six parcels identified in Tier 2 and Springfield City parks other parks with public access. All sites are within a quarter mile of a publicly accessible park. However, one is identified as a park, Rebecca Johnson Park. Revitalizing this park as a community farm may have benefits for the community around that park.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

GROUND-TRUTHING Three of the seven parcels meeting the Food Desert criteria overlapped with the Environmental Justice Criteria. These three parcels were prioritized in the Tier 3 analysis because residents in those areas: • live at least a half mile from a supermarket. • have limited vehicle access. • meet the Environmental Justice criteria for minority and low income. An initial examination of these sites using GoogleEarth ortho photography revealed that one site was wooded. The remaining two sites were visited and one site on Walnut Street emerged as the site with the highest priority for community and youth farms. The following observations were made during ground-truthing at 206 Walnut Street: • open, covered in grass and forbs • two sides of property have fence • sits on a two-lane street with no on-street parking • two existing curb cuts will allow for vehicle access • old boat will need to be removed from the property • a utility pole is on the edge of the site

A view of 206 Walnut Street, Springfield, MA Southwest URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

Data verification of the ground-truthing identified this open space as the city-owned parcel: 11952-0051 Gardening the Community submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP) for this property.

Next Steps for Springfield

• Identify which centers of community near the Tier 1b sites could support a community or youth farm. • Assess which “at risk” populations would benefit most from a community or youth farm. • Hold community meetings in these priority neighborhoods to educate and to raise awareness about the opportunities for community and youth farm development. • Identify the local resources, such as colleges within a half mile of Tier 1b sites, and look at their class offerings. • Create connections for community farms to green jobs, social work, and business resources. • Form partnerships with local institutions. • Assess the possibility of an incubator farm in partnership with an interested college.

Aerial view of parcel at Walnut Street, Springfield, MA COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

URBAN ORCHARDS Urban orchards are areas planted primarily with food-producing perennial trees and shrubs. Orchards can range from a few apple trees on a few hundred square feet to many species of berry bushes and fruit trees on several acres. Though this land assessment focuses on city-owned vacant parcels, urban orchards and food forests can be sited on many other lands.

WHY URBAN ORCHARDS IN SPRINGFIELD?

Public orchards open to the general public provide fruit and nuts for residents. In areas identified as food insecure, fruit and nut trees which can provide high yields of produce with infrequent maintenance,

can be an inexpensive way to access healthy foods during the growing season. Furthermore, much of American culture is divorced from the knowledge that food truly does grow on trees. Urban orchards and perennial food forests can be an innovative way to reintroduce city populations to their food’s origins. Many fruit and nut bearing trees and shrubs, once established, can yield produce for decades. Other ways orchards may be of benefit to Springfield is through ecological services. Orchards absorb water and filter air, they reduce carbon dioxide and heat island effect. Often property values increase in the surrounding area.

Photo credit: Philadelphia Orchard Project

Springfield currently has two urban orchards: Johnny Appleseed Orchard Corner of Dickinson & Hancock Streets Berkshire Orchard at Kennedy Farm Kennedy Junior High School TD Bank’s Green Streets Grant Program, in partnership with the National Arbor Day Foundation, awarded grants to plant the Berkshire Orchard at Kennedy Farm (located at Kennedy Junior High School) and an orchard at Johnny Appleseed Park, along the Mill River in Springfield. The general care and maintenance of the Johnny Appleseed Park orchard will rely greatly on neighborhood volunteers. Researchers from The University of Massachusetts and the US Forestry Service ran Urban Orchard education workshops at Springfield Technical Community College. These workshops were made possible by a partnership between ReGreen Springfield, The City of Springfield and TD Bank. Those who completed the two care workshops received a “ReGreen Orchard Tender” certificate, allowing them to help with the care and maintenance of both Berkshire Orchard and the orchard at Johnny Appleseed Park (regreenspringfield.com).

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

CASE STUDY PHILADELPHIA ORCHARD PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT AND MISSION Founded in 2007, the Philadelphia Orchard Project (POP) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to plant orchards in the City of Philadelphia which will grow healthy food, create green spaces, and improve community food security. The fifth largest city in the United States, Philadelphia has over 40,000 vacant lots and one of the highest poverty rates among large cities. The POP targets lowincome neighborhoods because there is frequently a correlation between the residents’ income and their ability to access affordable and nutritious food. Over the last 7 years POP has planted 35 orchards in Philadelphia. While the POP does not own or maintain any of these orchards, they provide important technical support to the groups and organizations with whom they partner. Community groups and organizations interested in developing an orchard can complete a POP Partner Application (phillyorchards.org). PARTNER CRITERIA When POP was first established, nearly all orchard requests were granted without question. They quickly determined that an application process based on a set of criteria would help evaluate the potential successfulness of a project. POP looks at four important criteria when selecting partners: 1. Partner’s capacity. What existing programs do the partners have that will ensure care and maintenance of the orchard? Are volunteers available through the partner organization? 2. Land access. Who owns the land? Can the partner organization complete the steps outlined on the application to begin site preparation? 3. Site suitability. Site analysis includes soil testing, sun/shade, water access, vandalism, fencing. 4. Food security. is the partner organization planning to use the orchard as a way to improve food security for the surrounding areas? Where will the produce go?

PREPARATION TO PLANT After a partner organization is selected there is a nine-month period for POP to assist the partner organization in education and site preparation. The POP provides the orchard design, organizes planting material, and offers technical support to partners. POP’s work is completed by one staff, the board members, and many dedicated volunteers from both POP and the partner organizations. FUNDING POP is largely funded through grants and donations. Partner organizations pay on a sliding scale and the city’s parks and recreation department pays POP for orchard consulting work. POP strives to add four to six new orchards each year, to expand their nursery operations to sell plants to local nurseries, and to establish a gleaning program. LESSONS LEARNED: • Analyze probable success before entering into a partnership. • Utilize public areas for orchards. • Communicate and work with the municipality on projects which will be accessible to the public. • Provide support immediately following the establishment of a new orchard. • Support partnering organizations in developing skills. • Take time to create criteria integral to the success of the project and projects like it. Only move forward if the criteria is met (POP. Forsyth. Philadelphia).

Photo credit: Philadelphia Orchard Project 54

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

TIER RESULTS URBAN ORCHARD TIER 1A CRITERIA Sites with wetlands and those which were not vacant, city-owned lots were excluded in the Tier 1a analysis. A parcel was identified as a priority if it met all of the following: • greater than 1000 square feet, because orchards can be that small and still quite productive. • slope is less than 10 percent, because orchards can tolerate a slope. It should be noted though that if an orchard will be open to the public, it will need paths of five percent slope or less for handicapped accessibility. • not listed as Commercial P, the only district where urban agriculture is prohibited by the zoning ordinances.

Tier 1a Criteria > 1000 SQ FT

Tier 1b Criteria

< 10 % Slope

Adjacent Vacant Lot

Not Zoned Commercial P

Corner Lot

Not Hazardous

Not Priority Habitat

Tier 3 Criteria Sidewalks along site

Near Gardens

Not a Flood Zone Not a Wetland

Tier 2 Criteria

Near Markets Near Centers of Community

Permeable Surface City-owned Vacant Lot

Environmental Justice Forested Land Food Deserts

Ground-truthing

Land Assessment Criteria

URBAN ORCHARDS

Priority Sites Identified

Tiers of criteria used to evaluate urban orchards. URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 1B CRITERIA

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 2 CRITERIA

A parcel ranked as desirable if it met the following:

Sites were given priority in the Tier 2 analysis if:

• all of the Tier 1a criteria were met. • has a vacant lot directly adjacent, for possible expansion • is a corner lot which offers increased visibility and increased solar access • is less than a half mile to a grocery store, farmers market or mobile market location to facilitate ease in distribution of produce. • is near another garden to support a network of gardening resources. • is less than a half mile to a center of community (places of worship, schools, universities, soup kitchens and food pantries, health centers) to increase integration of the orchard into the social structure of the surrounding community. Stakeholders expressed that this criterion was significant for urban orchards and was therefore weighted twice that of the other criteria. (See Appendix IV for explanation).

• there was a sidewalk along the property. This was used to determine some amount of neighborhood walkability.

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 3 CRITERIA Tier 3 is a combination of relational criteria including: • environmental justice • food deserts • proximity to wooded forest The function of the Tier 3 analysis was to identify priority sites to be ground-truthed. (See Appendix V Tier Analysis Findings).

Tier 1 Criteria

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

The map above shows in red the 132 parcels that met the Tier 1b Criteria in located in 9 of the 17 neighborhoods. 56

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

This table illustrates how many sites were identified in each tier analysis.

132 sites 76 sites 69 sites 10 sites

Of the over 500 structure-free, city-owned, vacant lots evaluated using the previously outlined criteria, 132 met the Tier 1a Criteria. Of those, 76 met the Tier 1b Criteria. Of those, 69 met the Tier 2 Criteria. Ten sites met the Tier 3 Criteria. This process was developed to identify sites that meet a full compliment of criteria identified in each tier. Therefore this process identified 10 sites that have the most positive attributes for urban orchards. However, the 132 sites that met the Tier 1a Criteria may be suitable for urban orchards. A complete listing of site information can be found in Appendix V.

The map above shows the one parcel that met the Tier 2 criteria in the Boston Road neighborhood.

The map below shows the 68 parcels that met the Tier 2 criteria in Old Hill, Bay, Memorial Square, Six Corners, McKnight and the South End neighborhoods.

Old Hill, Bay, Memorial Square, Six Corners, McKnight, and South End

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

Tier 2 Criteria West

Boston Road See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

Tier 1a Tier 1b Tier 2 Tier 3

Tier 2 Criteria East

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 3 CRITERIA FOOD DESERTS The Food Desert map shows three areas of food insecurity: residents who have limited vehicle access, residents who live more than a half mile from a supermarket, and residents who live more than a mile from a supermarket. Of the 69 Tier 2 parcels, twenty are located in low vehicle access and a half mile from grocery. Public or private urban orchards should be prioritized on these sites. These orchards could provide fresh fruit in the neighborhood and therefore may improve the residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; access to fresh fruit.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The Environmental Justice map shows how the 69 Tier 2 parcels overlay with populations that are at risk for environmental health issues. Ten of these sites are located in environmental justice areas where there is a high percentage of people of color, where residents with low income live, and where no one over the age of 14 speaks only English or speaks English less than â&#x20AC;&#x153;very wellâ&#x20AC;? per household. This means these households have low English fluency. These sites should be considered first when planting an orchard. Funding may be available depending on the scope and mission of the project. An opportunity exists to improve the environmental health of these areas through urban orchards. In addition to the ten parcels that met all three criteria, those which met less than three criteria may also provide opportunities for improving environmental health and gaining access to funding.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

FORESTED LAND The Forested Land maps shows the spatial relationship of the 69 Tier 2 parcels to the wooded areas documented in the 1999 Land Use map. One parcel is located in an area identified as wooded or forested. This site should be considered last as a possible location for an orchard because of the cost of tree removal and because the existing ecological services of the site should be valued.

See Appendix III. Map Data Sources 60

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

GROUND-TRUTHING Ten of the twenty parcels that meet the Food Desert criteria overlapped with the Environmental Justice Criteria. These ten parcels were prioritized in the Tier 3 analysis because residents in those areas: • have limited vehicle access • live less than a half mile from a grocery • meet the Environmental Justice criteria. An initial examination of these sites using GoogleEarth ortho photography revealed that two sites were wooded, and therefore not visited in person. The remaining eight sites were visited and one site on Brigham Street emerged as the site with the highest priority for urban orchards. The following observations were made during ground-truthing at Brigham Street: • • • • •

located on a narrow road no existing fence lot cleared and covered in grass good solar access shallow site (sidewalk to rear of property)

Data verification of the ground-truthing identified this open space is actually three contiguous cityowned parcels: 01870-0008 01870-0007 01870-0006

Aerial view of parcel at Brigham Street looking Northwest, Springfield, MA URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

According to orchardist Bill Lattrell, 20,000 pounds of apples can be produced on one acre. Therefore, if these three parcels (0.19 acres) were planted as a high-intesity apple orchard, once mature, the trees could yield approximately 4000 pounds of apples per year.

Next Steps for Springfield

• Gauge residents responses to the orchard at Johnny Appleseed Park and the Berkshire Orchard to understand support and interest for involvement in planting and maintaining orchards and particular edible plants of interest. • Document the strengths and weaknesses related to these planted orchards in Springfield. • Hold community meetings in each neighborhood which has Tier 1b sites to educate residents about urban orchards and the opportunities for more urban orchards in these neighborhoods. • Create partnerships to gain support for resources needed to implement and maintain urban orchards. • Ground-truth Tier 1b sites in neighborhoods which have expressed interest in an urban orchard. • Consult with a permaculturist about design.

Aerial view of the parcels at Brigham Street, Springfield, MA URBAN ORCHARDS

ROOFTOP GARDENS Gardens and farms on rooftops can be used for private consumption, commercial business, or an educational resource. This type of urban agriculture is becoming more common, especially as urban areas attempt to manage stormwater runoff and heat island effect more adeptly. Water catchment systems on green roofs can collect stormwater which can be reused for irrigation purposes. Gardening on a rooftop can happen in many way, such as, hydroponically, in containers, or directly on the roof. Hydroponic rooftop gardens involve built systems like greenhouses. These systems grow produce in a soilless medium fed with fertilized water. Container gardening has containers and drip trays placed directly on top of the roof surface and planted. Raised beds require a waterproof membrane and a root-proof barrier between the bed and the roof. Non-container gardening imports soil to cover the entire roof and plants are planted “in” the roof.

WHY ROOFTOP FARMS IN SPRINGFIELD?

As the world’s population becomes more urban, the urban structures needed to shelter people, and to provide spaces for manufacturing and business, crowd out pervious and wooded green spaces, replacing them with impervious tar, concrete, and asphalt. Thus the need to replace this lost green space, and the ecological, social, and psychological functions it performs, becomes ever more important. Rooftop farms therefore, as seen in cities such as New York City and Toronto, are becoming more popular, and could benefit Springfield, Massachusetts. The size of the farm can vary depending upon the size of the rooftop, and provide a relaxing green space above the chaos of the city. But green roofs can also be spaces to grow food.

Criteria For Rooftop Farms

Analyzing priority sites/roofs for rooftop farms can be done using a similar methodology and process as applied to the first four types of urban agriculture, highlighted at the beginning of this section. Below are some site criteria. All buildings considered for a rooftop farm need to be evaluated by a structural engineer for their ability to withstand the weight of the plants and growing medium when wet, equipment, people, and all other materials used in the growing operation. Modifications such as adding roof joists, or reinforcing walls, may need to be made before operations are implemented. • 1% - 15% roof slope • Stairway to roof-Building Code Regulations If outside maximum 6” riser, and minimum 14” tread (wider is better) If inside and enter through roof, there must be a fire resistant structure above the entrance to stairwell • Adequate sun (6-8 hours/day during growing season); no buildings or trees to south which are tall enough to block sun • Wind protection (height and type may vary depending on stories of building and prevailing winds • Water access- tap on roof, or inside and accessible from roof, or if the building is only one story, may be on the ground with long enough hose Additional Criteria May Be:

• • • • •

Safety precautions, such as railing or fence Insurance Outside stairs to ensure access to building not hindered Regulations and weight bearing capacity for season extension structures Freight elevator or winch and pulley

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

ROOFTOP GARDENS

CASE STUDY PHILADELPHIA ROOFTOP FARM (PROOF)

Philadelphia, PA

MISSION Inspired by vast amounts of unused space above the city, the Philadelphia Roof Top Farm (PRooF) created a pilot planter to sit above the roof of a row house. These planters were originally to be used to produce vegetables to sell at market. PARTNERSHIPS PRooF contacted Community Design Collaborative (CDC), an organization which puts designers, engineers, and cost-estimaters in contact with volunteer projects. The challenge of the project was to create a design that could work on roofs which cannot carry large amounts of weight such as the row houses. The design created suspended planters from “party walls,” weight bearing walls that carried the planter instead of the actual roof.

than for private gardens, and insurance is required. But much of what was learned about building codes, commercial ventures, and insurance is considered to be valuable by PRooF. Now, PRoof plans to use what they’ve learned to help residents to build their own home roof gardens. LESSONS LEARNED • Follow professional design advice to reduce time and financial losses. • Hold workshops (which may help fund projects) to share gained knowledge. • Research local and state regulations and codes before building. • Collaborate with an organization such as the CDC to assist in networking qualified professionals (Mandel, 2013).

IMPLEMENTATION PRooF experimented with a different building and planting technique than was designed by the CDC. They rebuilt according to the original design after the experiment resulted in leaks. A member of PRooF who lives in the row house grows food in the planter. During the research and build process PRooF discovered that building and architectural codes for commercial ventures are more stringent

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

ROOFTOP GARDENS

AQUAPONICS Aquaponics is a system of growing food and fish together in a closed system. Fish waste is used to fertilize crops while crops clean water so it can be recycled back into fish tanks. Growing Power in Milwaukee primarily uses gravity-fed aquaponics systems. Water drains from fish tanks into a gravel bed planted with watercress. Bacteria break down the fish waste into nitrogen, a needed fertilizer for crops. The nitrogen-rich water is then pumped back into the growing beds where the plants absorb the nitrogen. This process simultaneously benefits the plants and filters the water. The filtered water then drains back into the fish tanks (growingpower.org).

WHY AQUAPONICS IN SPRINGFIELD?

Aquaponics can be implemented on your countertop, in your backyard, in a greenhouse, on a vacant lot, in a structurally sound abandoned building, or a privately owned lot. Space needed for an aquaponics set-up can range from 1-square foot (a goldfish and some basil) to half an acre or more. Fish are considered a very healthy source of protein and vitamins. Raising tank grown fish in conjunction with vegetables can save space, resources, and provide much of a communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s food needs locally (growingpower.org).

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

Criteria for Aquaponics

The criteria necessary for a successful aquaponics system is variable, and depends greatly on what kind of system you want to set up. It is not easily applicable to the site analysis method used in this report. However, all aquaponics systems should have some protection from the elements, ideally some sort of structure over them and a heating system (type and how much depend on fish being raised) in the winter time to avoid freezing. If you are considering aquaponics, investigate the local regulations around fish culture. Massachusetts has information about aquaculture at http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/ divisions/aquaculture-program-generic.html. As of the writing of this report, Springfield MA has no ordinances regarding aquaponics. However, investigation into relating ordinances, ie: commercial ventures etc, should be done.

AQUAPONICS

CASE STUDY FOOD FOREST FARM, HOLYOKE, MA ESTABLISHMENT Jonathan Bates, Owner of Food Forest Farm in Holyoke, had his unheated hoop house greenhouse crushed by snow and branches in the winter of 2012. He took this as an opportunity to build something better. The initial goals of the project were to provide season extension and “to show that a systematically complex yet simply erected greenhouse is possible” (permaculturegreenhouse. com). It was important to keep costs down and he wanted to use as much recycled or repurposed material as possible. Sourcing building materials was time consuming and involved cold calling local businesses asking if they had certain materials in their warehouses. He also sourced materials from craigslist, Eco-Bargain buildings and family and friends. PARTNERSHIPS He kept costs down by recruiting volunteer help in the building process. Family and acquaintances were recruited for skilled and detailed work, and the general public helped with the building. Jonathon, a permaculture business owner, had a client list who might be interested in what he was doing. He sent out quarterly reports detailing progress. He also held bioshelter building workshops. Individuals paid for the workshop and then helped in the construction of the shelter, learning as they built. These workshops were advertised through his quarterly updates of his clients, which he asked them to forward on to their networks, as well as on facebook, and through friends’ networks. SUCCESS AND SETBACKS Although Jonathan sees the bioshelter as successful as a space for season extension, a place for contemplation and for education, there were a few decisions made in the interest of time and cost which may cause trouble in the future. No underground barrier was put in to keep out burrowing mammals, the aquaponics tanks are placed on the ground, with no structurally sound foundation beneath them, and the structure is built of wood. He based his design on a similar shelter that has been standing for at least twenty years (built of wood) in good condition. However, rot may URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

eventually cause problems. As the shelter is heated by passive solar only, when the temperature drops at night in the winter, condensation often forms and drips onto the plants and the lack of airflow promotes the growth of mold. AQUAPONICS The aquaponics system within the bioshelter serves a dual purpose. The water in the fish tanks holds heat from the day, keeping the temperature warmer during the night. One of the main types of fish that can survive the northeast’s temperature fluctuations are catfish and Jonathan is experimenting with them in his bioshelter. Most of the fish have survived the winters, but not many have grown to a size suitable for eating yet. He will consider the aquaponics experiment a success if the fish breed successfully, therefore making it cost effective to eat them. NOW Jonathan’s original goals have expanded. He continues to hold workshops but the shelter is not large enough to hold the volume of people interested in participating in the workshops. He is planning a social space which could be used for education and workshops, while also serving as a private gathering area for his friends and family. LESSONS LEARNED • Recruit friends and family to help with building. • Sourcing recycled and repurposed materials may take longer and involve more energy, but can save money in the long run. • Hold workshops to help build your farm. • Plan today for future goals. • Stack functions. The aquaponics tanks serve both as a heat battery and as a place to grow fish. • Take advantage of your existing networks, business and private (Bates, 2012).

AQUAPONICS

HOMESTEADING Homesteading focuses on living a simple life, increasing self-sufficiency, and conserving resources. A homestead may include small livestock, produce, and orchards. They usually focus on collecting and recycling rain and grey water for irrigation of crops, and will compost on site if regulations permit. Season extension structures may include hoop houses, cold frames, or greenhouses. Most homesteaders grow produce only for their families sustenance, but some may sell excess produce through a CSA, or to local markets.

Criteria for Homesteading

Criteria for urban homesteading is difficult to quantify and homesteads cannot be assessed in the same mapping method used at the beginning of this section. Criteria should include city zoning, ordinances, local regulations, and clean soil.

WHY HOMESTEADING IN SPRINGFIELD?

Some benefits of homesteading are, availability of healthier, chemical-free foods; improved financial autonomy; strengthened relationships with neighbors; and less reliance on institutions to provide for basic needs. Less reliance on cars and reduced water and electric usage also reduce stress on city infrastructure.

Kristin & Danielâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s homestead 66

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

HOMESTEADING

CASE STUDY 127 MARLBORO STREET, SPRINGFIELD, MA ESTABLISHMENT Kristin and Daniel moved to Springfield to homestead. They live on half an acre of land and, with the help of their three children, grow fruits and vegetables in their backyard. They believe that it is possible to create a community with a focus on selfsufficiency, resource conservation and community inter-dependence. MISSION Their original personal goals were to create “ a village within the city” by providing as much of their own food and energy as possible, and to do this while also living in a city. They compost almost everything, they grow productive varieties of vegetables, focusing on the most food/square foot. They water with captured rain-water, and (in the orchard) recycled dishwater. They would like to recycle grey water back into the house system but currently Springfield plumbing regulations do not allow it. COMMUNITY INTER-DEPENDENCE Kristin and Daniel choose to keep their household costs down which support their homesteading choices. They formed partnerships with neighbors, bartering extra vegetables for fresh bread and fish. They do not own a car, a computer, or cell phones. They have a landline and use the computer at the library. They ride bicycles, walk, or take public transportation. A small, attached greenhouse on the south wall of their house serves both to start seedlings in the late winter, overwinter some hardier plants and heat the house on sunny days. Part-time jobs helped them through at the beginning of their project but as time has gone on and they became more knowledgeable about farming, most of their needs can be met from the farm, either directly or through barter, or through CSA shares. GROWTH Their CSA sells 13 full shares. The CSA shares are responsible for about three-quarters of the family’s needed annual income. They also sell some vegetables to local restaurants.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

SUCCESS AND SETBACKS Most of the setbacks they faced were due a lack of knowledge about farming. These mistakes were turned into learning opportunities. They see their experiment as both a success, due in part to taking time and building slowly, and involving their children in work and discussions about lifestyle choices, as well as a place for more growth.

“We would like to be able to provide for all of our cash needs from our farm or other endeavors in which we provide directly for our community with homemade or home grown goods. We are not quite there, but we are pretty close. Whether that’s acquiring another lot to expand the farm, or selling some other product, we’re not sure. We believe that moving [towards self-sufficiency], even if it does not mean eliminating our existing technologies or industries would be both possible and positive for our cities, as we have found it to be in our own lives.”

- Daniel Staub

LESSONS LEARNED • Educate neighbors and communities on the practice of homesteading and possible lifestyle changes. • Encourage partnerships with neighbors and the city. • Create neighborhood organizations to facilitate interactions with both the city and community. • Reassess city regulations, such as greywater recycling. • Encourage the creation of an incubator forum to teach urban farming techniques, seed saving and preserving. • Create ordinances to support homesteading efforts, such as keeping chickens or bees, which help build soil and pollinate, respectively.

HOMESTEADING

SCHOOL GARDENS A type of urban agriculture that can take place right on school properties. From elementary schools to campuses and institutions of higher learning, on-site gardens offer experiential â&#x20AC;&#x153;hands-onâ&#x20AC;? education. They incorporate the full cycle of learning associated with healthy food, from growing, to nutrition and cooking.

WHY SCHOOL GARDENS IN SPRINGFIELD?

Education about what is a healthy food, where does it come from, and how does one get it is an important aspect of improving food security. School gardens introduce children to gardening, where food comes from, how to get it, how to grow it where they live, and often, how to cook it. Healthy eating habits are created as children eat the produce they grew. School curriculum is strengthened by grounding science, math, and even social studies in practical hands on instruction.

Criteria for School Gardens

Often a school garden is not limited by size constraints, they can be planted in small or large spaces. They can be planted in containers, and often raised beds are preferable in an urban environment as they prevent contamination and procure proper drainage. School gardens need 6 to 8 hours of direct sun. Shade should be provided as well. School gardens should be relatively flat to be inclusive of all people including those in need of handicapped access. Visibility is important for security, however, a barrier to the street, such as a fence or hedge is an important safety precaution.

Photo credit: Edible Schoolyards (Grow Pittsburgh) 68

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

SCHOOL GARDENS

CASE STUDY EDIBLE SCHOOLYARDS, PITTSBURGH, PA

http://www.growpittsburgh.org http://edibleschoolyardpgh.org

MISSION To promote healthy lifestyles in children, enhance their academic achievement, encourage environmental stewardship, engage children In their school community, and instill in them a sense of wonder in the natural world. The Edible Schoolyard is a project of Grow Pittsburgh. Grow Pittsburgh’s mission is to promote the benefits gardens bring to people and neighborhoods. WEBSITE RESOURCES Edible schoolyards has a website with resources for those wishing to begin school gardens. Layout plans, details of what to plant at what time of the year, information cards on common insects, garden plants and weeds, a calendar for what to plant when (Pittsburgh specific), instructions on composting, seed starting, and food safety guidelines are provided.

Photo credit: Edible Schoolyards (Grow Pittsburgh)

SUMMER CARE The Edible Schoolyard asks families to volunteer one week in the summer to care for the garden. They hold an hour long workshop for the volunteers on care for the garden. They communicate throughout the summer with the volunteers through email and a Garden Educator. Each volunteer signs a waiver and can take home any of the produce ripened at the time of their shift. INTEGRATION INTO SCHOOL CURRICULUM The Edible Schoolyard has created lesson plans to be used in tandem with the garden. Their lesson plans are aligned with the Pennsylvania Science and Technology, and Environmental and Ecology Standards. Lessons in the garden include cooking and culture classes. A monthly newsletter advertises workshops and keeps families and fans up to date with the happenings at the garden. LESSONS LEARNED: • Use families of students to provide summer care for the garden. • Have a signed waiver and provide a training time for volunteers. • Provide a website which is searchable by students and others interested in school gardens. • Plan a detailed curriculum to align with teachers’ curriculum and state standards.

Photo credit: Edible Schoolyards (Grow Pittsburgh) URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

SCHOOL GARDENS

BUILDING CAPACITY: NEXT STEPS There are many efforts underway in Springfield in support of urban agriculture. However, from interviews with urban agriculture stakeholders, and research about urban agriculture from other cities, a number of common obstacles have been identified that hinder urban agriculture from fully taking root. The following is an overview of these barriers, and strategies to address them and build capacity on multiple levels ranging from individual, to institutional, to societal.

BARRIER #1: LACK OF LAND SECURITYTENURE/OWNERSHIP

Often when urban agriculture is built on vacant land, there is little security for long-term access because the city plans for eventual redevelopment of the land. If a developer wants to purchase the land, there is often little to no protection from eviction for farmers. An example of this challenge was observed in the case of the fourteen-acre South Central Farm/South Central Community Gardens in Los Angeles. The farm was lost when the city sold the land to a previous property owner under a right-to-repurchase clause in the original contract the city used to acquire the land. The landowner had the farm razed and the farmers evicted, resulting in multiple court battles and protests by the farmers. Similar to Los Angeles, a community farm site managed by Gardening the Community in Springfield was lost after much labor was put into it. The current Springfield Ordinances state that the City or the Springfield Redevelopment Authority (SRA) may enter into a five-year license agreement (after a one season probation period of compliance with the ordinance regulations) with a community garden to allow that land to be used for five years as a garden (7.70, sec 7.70.050, 4). However, the City reserves the right to withdraw from the tenure agreement, â&#x20AC;&#x153;if there is a significant change in the conditions, neighborhood, marketability, or opportunity for development occurs which calls for a different use of the landâ&#x20AC;? (7.70, sec 7.70.050, 6b). In general, many growers do not have the money to buy these lands outright, and often because of this lack of land security, growers are reluctant to invest in or improve the infrastructure inputs such as water line access and facilities. Additionally,

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

securing a loan for start-up costs of infrastructure investment is nearly impossible without long-term land tenure. One recent survey found that only 5.3 percent of gardens in 38 cities were permanently owned (National Community Gardening Survey). Strategies to secure long-term use of land: The City could arrange for land use dedicated to urban agriculture on city-owned vacant plots. Under the current community gardening ordinance passed by the city, people can petition for the use of city-owned vacant lands for gardening. The City can hold land in trust for the use of urban agriculture. The City of Springfield could help develop a community-managed open space/agricultural land trust to support residents interested in urban agriculture. In Chicago, the City Council created a city-funded entity called NeighborSpace, which operates as a land trust and is authorized to purchase properties to protect them as open spaces, including urban agriculture. In Providence, Rhode Island, Southside Community Land Trust (SCLT) holds title to five acres of inner-city land in trust for community farmers to use. Its initial holdings were both purchased for a low price and received as donations from individuals. In addition, SCLT has supported the development of a network of community gardeners, farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; markets, and school gardens built on land owned by churches, city parks, the state, schools, and businesses. Currently around 750 lowincome families grow food in 37 Providence-based community gardens and seven limited-resource farm businesses collaboratively manage a fifty-acre farm on the outskirts of the city. Growers could partner with businesses that own vacant lands, using a long-term lease agreement. Growing Power in Milwaukee and Chicago has multiple sites, some of which they own and some which they lease or have permission to use. One site was established in partnership with the Chicago Parks District and a private landscaping firm, Moore Landscapes, Inc. In Springfield, Mitchell Machines owns land that Gardening the Community farms on.

BUILDING CAPACITY

Based on the success of Gardening the Community, other businesses with land may be agreeable to letting farmers grow food on these lands. The City of Springfield could develop an “Adopt-aLot” Program to improve land leasing initiatives for urban agriculture. Power in Dirt is an initiative out of Baltimore, Maryland, that helps interested people to adopt a vacant lot, start a revitalization project on it, and connect with resources and services to help implement the urban agriculture. Similar programs exist in New Jersey, and in Detroit, Michigan among other places. Many of these programs work through the creation of a city “Land Bank,” which keeps an inventory of used and vacant, city-owned lots. The City of Cleveland and the nonprofit Neighborhood Progress in 2009 created a competitive vacant land reuse grant program to empower neighborhood residents and community leaders to turn vacant lands into community farms and gardens. Currently 30 urban agriculture pilot projects are in effect creating gardens, orchards, and vineyards. Available lands could also be marked on-the-ground by a certain type of fence or sign to let interested people know that they are available. In Boston, available vacant lands are marked by a white picket fence. Growers could plant their crops in mobile, low-cost earth boxes or crates/containers, and/or vertical frames on wheels. With this strategy it wouldn’t be too difficult to relocate if necessary. Growers could have a usufruct arrangement with private land-owners and the city, where they are granted a legal right to use the land as long as it is well maintained.

BARRIER #2: INSUFFICIENT OR EXPENSIVE WATER ACCESS

In Springfield, the issue of water access is a determining factor as to whether or not a vacant lot can be turned into a site for urban agriculture. If water access is not readily available for a vacant lot, tapping into a water main for urban agriculture can be very expensive costing as much as $3,000 to $20,000 dollars.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

Strategies to identify ways to access water: Growers could work with neighbors for access to water for urban agriculture. In cases where use of land for a garden or farm is not permanent, some farmers arrange with a neighboring resident to pay them for use of that home’s water. If a contract is written up and signed, and payments are made, then farmers and gardeners are less likely to feel awkward about going onto a neighbor’s property to use their water. The City could provide resources for sites without a water meter pit. In Cleveland, Ohio, the City water department allows people to access fire hydrants for urban agricultural use. This is a temporary, creative stopgap measure until the city can address issues of land tenure, which will encourage farmers to invest in linking to the city water main. For sites that have a live meter, the City could offer winter water access to help with season extension and year round growing methods. The City could create an appropriate fee and incorporate this option into lease agreements for vacant lots used for urban agriculture. Any agreement for year-round water access will need to address potential freezing to prevent water line breaks. The City could begin a “Garden Irrigation Fund” to award to parties trying to start urban agriculture in the city of Springfield. In Baltimore, a Garden Irrigation Fund exists as a competitive fund that provides up to $3000 in services to install irrigation in approved projects. The City could help preserve existing water infrastructure. When completing demolition on new sites, at least one water supply line in a cluster should be preserved at the meter, rather than at the main. This would leave important infrastructure intact and could save a grower thousands of dollars in water access expenses down the road. If a demolition cluster is divided by a road or alley, the demolition process should preserve at least one live meter in each section.

BUILDING CAPACITY

The City and partner organizations could help support the development of rainwater capture systems. Rainwater catchment could provide a great amount of rainwater needed for irrigating urban agriculture. It could also reduce the amount of water that enters the sewers and contributes to the combined sewer overflows. The Springfield Water and Sewer Commission could reduce the price of water hook-ups for urban agriculture.

BARRIER #3: SOIL CONTAMINATION AND CLEANUP

Urban soils on vacant lands are often heavily compacted and contaminated with lead or other toxic chemicals from former industrial uses. It is expensive to clean contaminated soil. Conventional brownfield cleanup, where contaminated soils are removed and disposed of in toxic waste facilities, is cost-prohibitive without state and federal funding. Yet soils are among the most important factors that determine the success of food production. Therefore, ensuring tillable, safe, quality soils is an important part of expanding urban agriculture in Springfield. Strategies to build safe, urban soils and increase access to equipment, compost, and local soil testing: Urban agriculture organizations could develop soil standards and guidance around identifying and managing contaminated soils, in a central location. The City or another organization could create a website for urban agriculture in Springfield that guides growers on testing and amending soils when starting urban agriculture on a vacant lot. Created guidelines could be incorporated into gardener and farmer training programs. Growers could partner with university extension labs, for example UMASS, to test the soil for heavy metals and look at nutrients, pH, and other qualities important for growing plants. Growers could use remediation techniques for cleaning soil, such as phytoremediation (using highly absorptive plants to take up heavy metals, bioremediation (using microbes to eat certain

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

harmful chemicals), and mycoremediation (using fungi to remove toxins from the soil). Urban agriculture also commonly uses raised beds for planting because it more directly avoids problems of potential soil contamination. Growers could build raised beds or develop a hydroponic system to protect food from contaminated soil. According to City Farmer News, the cost of constructing a raised bed ranges from about $50 to $125 (CityFarmer, 2013). Raised beds help ensure a high-quality growing environment and help keep out weeds and some common garden pests. Organizations could create a tool-sharing initiative could be started in Springfield to increase equipment availability. Farmers can work together to share resources. In Missoula, MUDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Truck Share allows the community to borrow a truck for occasional use for a small fee, and Urban Tilth in Richmond, California, is working to offer a tool lending library that allows community gardeners to borrow tools instead of purchasing them permanently. The City and organizations could support composting at all levels. Composting is an important tool for improving soils, developing successful agriculture, and reducing waste. When done responsibly, in such a way that doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t harbor odors and pests, it is nuisance-free and of great value. All scales of composting should be promoted from backyard compost bins to commercial composting operations, along with information about how to compost responsibly. This could lead to urban agriculture-related compost business pursuits. In order to get compost happening in Springfield, the City could revise codes where necessary, collect and disseminate information and host compost bin giveaways or sales. Organizations could share information and host composting workshops to teach people the benefits and process of composting.

BUILDING CAPACITY

Growers could use mulch to reduce airborne exposure to questionable soils, and sheltered production methods to avoid contact with soil and air in contaminated sites, such as greenhouses, indoor production, and hydroponics.

BARRIER #4: LACK OF ACCESS TO CAPITAL TO PAY UP-FRONT COSTS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

There are a lot of costs associated with the start-up of urban agriculture, such as expenses associated with soil, seeds, soil testing, initial clean-up, labor, and water access. Often unexpected costs arise in the process of beginning an urban agriculture endeavor, and there are often fees related to city permits and policies. Strategies to leverage local and regional resources to help growers start-up and expand urban agriculture in Springfield: Local lending agencies could launch new grant and loan programs to support urban agriculture. Partner organizations could work with lenders to help facilitate increased access to capital for urban farmers through facilitating conversations between lenders and growers to help identify next steps to creating access to capital. Urban agriculture efforts that support the homeless and ex-offenders could use federal grant money. City Slicker Farms in West Oakland was awarded a $4 million federal grant, made possible by the McKinney-Vento Act (1987), to construct a new 1.4 acre urban farm, designed through a community-based planning process. Organizations could work with the USDA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the EPA. Many of these government agencies can offer funding or technical assistance. The City can provide services at reduced costs. This would save growers money from their overhead expenses and make the process of developing urban agriculture in Springfield easier.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

BARRIER #5: SUPPORTIVE AGENCIES, REGULATIONS AND TRAINING ALL NEED TO BE BOLSTERED TO EXPAND AND STRENGTHEN URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

Supportive networks and resources exist for urban agriculture in Springfield and the Pioneer Valley, but they need to be strengthened in order to really launch urban agriculture as a growing movement in Springfield. Strategies to streamline operations, regulations, and staffing to support growers: The City of Springfield could create an Office of Sustainability that could oversee urban agriculture and other sustainability efforts in Springfield, Massachusetts. Baltimore created an Office of Sustainability through the Department of Housing & Community Development that oversees urban agriculture. Within this office a designated staff position could oversee City support for urban agriculture in Springfield. On-the-ground support is critical for successful urban agriculture. This position could alternatively be funded through an experienced non-profit organization, and also seek grants and funding opportunities to aid the support for urban agriculture, and cover the salary of the position. Local institutions, organizations or the City could support the development of incubator farms and training programs. Technical instruction in food production, distribution, marketing and business planning through an incubator farm would improve the success of urban growers and their ability to make a profit. Just Food in New York offers an adult Farm School, which provides professional training in urban agriculture through a two year certificate program. The Kansas City Center for Urban Agriculture (KCCUA) runs programs to train urban farmers. In addition to teaching farming skills, KCCUA trains farmers in financial management, customer communication, marketing, and setting up CSAs. The Latino Farmers Cooperative of Louisiana, based in New Orleans, provides education and training assistance in Spanish to address the needs of emerging Latino farmers, so that they can ultimately run their own sustainable urban

BUILDING CAPACITY

agriculture micro enterprises. Participating families also receive access to farmland, tools, and other types of support. State extension services have traditionally supported individual farmers and can provide technical assistance. Organizations, institutions or the City could also develop on-line web trainings for urban farming in Springfield. The City of Springfield could assess and revise animal regulations. Stakeholders in Springfield have identified micro-livestock and beekeeping as desired types of urban agriculture within the city of Springfield. New revisions to animal regulations in the city of Springfield would ensure the regulations are clear and supportive. Institutions and organizations could incorporate regulation changes into training and education materials. The City and urban agriculture organizations in Springfield could take on exploring liability insurance options and build relationships with an insurance agency for farms and gardens. The City and urban agriculture organizations can support citizen education and engagement. Currently the community gardening ordinance of Springfield encourages residents to actively garden on city-owned vacant lands, if they would like to. But stakeholders, including representatives from the City have explained that there is not enough campaigning or information available to the public to inform them of this opportunity. Thus informational materials, and a website, could be created and distributed to the public. These materials could provide support resources for urban agriculture in Springfield. They could also encourage residents to support urban agriculture in Springfield by buying food from local producers and connecting local producers to local institutions for distribution of produce. Local garden sites that are already set up, such as Gardening the Community, could have signs and information available to interested people to go about establishing a community garden plot, or get involved with an existing effort.

GENERATION

Often urban agriculture generates only a small supplemental income for limited amounts of people, and urban agriculture cannot be carried out year-round. Strategies for increasing income: Growers could increase production and extend the growing season with simple technology. Expanding the size and growing season for urban agriculture will help to increase production and profits. Farms such as Growing Power, use hoop houses to extend the growing season. Other farms use greenhouses for year-round production. Also value-added food production is another way to increase profits. Nuestras Raices processes foods on site for added value to market. Growers could extend their seasons by utilizing otherwise unused buildings or basements in buildings. These spaces could be converted for indoor agriculture activities such as mushroom and worm cultivation, fish tanks, sprouts, etc. Workers processing food could share the use and cost of a community kitchen. Farm-to-institution contracts could be arranged directly between farmers and institutions. The City of Springfield could develop a food system plan that aims for a certain percentage of food to be produced locally. Marketing and public education efforts could be bolstered in Springfield by organizations, institutions, and the City to encourage local food consumption. Schools could create more nutrition and gardening programs on-site to spread local food awareness.

The City can incorporate urban agriculture in land use and open space strategy plans.

BARRIER #6: INSUFFICIENT INCOME

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

BUILDING CAPACITY

CONCLUSION Urban agriculture has the potential to fully take root in Springfield. Awareness and interest in the possibilities and promise of urban agriculture in Springfield is growing. Projects including community-oriented and commercially-oriented youth farms, home gardens, orchards, and community gardens are already underway. The city government has acknowledged many benefits of urban agriculture and has expressed a willingness to discuss the possibility of supporting agricultural land uses within the city boundaries. A wide range of governmental initiatives and non-profit organizations provide important resources to support urban agriculture efforts, and Springfield can build on the stories of cities with successful urban agriculture projects across the country. Urban agriculture in Springfield could improve the lives of many residents. Urban agriculture increases access to healthy food, provides jobs, strengthens the economy, and improves the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecological resilience in the face of climate change. Yet significant challenges remain to making urban agriculture in Springfield accessible, sustainable, and successful. Land tenure, access to water, and soil remediation must be addressed. Zoning ordinances that address and support the full range of urban agricultural are also needed. A partnership between the City and those who are currently working to make Springfield an agricultural city must be a priority moving forward. City support, in the form of the Community Gardening Ordinance of 2012, has helped with initial steps in support of urban agriculture. The Rebuild Springfield plan also acknowledges the role of urban agriculture in revitalizing Springfield (developspringfield.com). However, in order to address the barriers to implementing successful and sustainable urban agriculture in Springfield, the residents of Springfield need their city government to become a more active partner. Increasingly, people are understanding urban agriculture as a key element in the development of livable, healthy, and resilient cities. Based on the input of stakeholders across Springfieldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban agriculture community, and from multiple city agencies, this report examines the evidence

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

in support of urban agriculture as a community development and sustainability tool. This report proposes locations for different types of urban agriculture to take place on city-owned, vacant lots throughout Springfield, based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of compiled criteria. This report also assesses barriers faced by urban growers and offers strategies to address these barriers to build capacity for urban agriculture. The analysis of these city-owned vacant lots has resulted in a noticeable density pattern of priority sites for urban agriculture in the neighborhoods of Old Hill and Six Corners. These neighborhoods are flat, have a dense number of vacant lots, and a population of residents that are identified as underserved in many ways. Can the city work with community groups to support urban agriculture expansion, whether through tax incentives, land donation, education, or an agricultural community land trust? Can community groups in these neighborhoods really use urban agriculture as a catalyst to address food insecurity? The active participation and support of the City is needed to create sustainable urban agriculture in Springfield. Perhaps more importantly, it is necessary for the many groups working towards a more equitable city through urban agriculture to form a central office of urban agriculture. This office could maintain a website, taking the contents of this report as a basis, with lists of vacant lots and their suitability for urban agriculture. It could provide information on the many types of agriculture appropriate for Springfield, as well as a list of current city and state regulations. Resource lists and education seminars could be organized and advertised by this office, and partnerships with neighboring cities, such as Holyoke, could be explored. Springfield is one of the largest cities in New England, and now it is uniquely situated to transition from a post-industrial New England city, hampered by its vacant land, into a sustainable city where various forms of agriculture are woven into the urban fabric. Through the development of a diverse mix of small-scale sites, urban agriculture

CONCLUSION

can contribute to the vibrancy and autonomy of Springfield and its residents, while maintaining the many social, economic, and environmental benefits. It will be an important ongoing task to develop and maintain a vision for urban agriculture in Springfield over time, and a commitment to protecting urban agriculture for both gardeners and farmers, and for the city as a whole. The fruits of this labor are likely to be well worth the effort. The people of Springfield are already implementing agriculture in vacant lots, schools, and parks throughout the city. Hopefully the information contained in this report assists them in implementing urban agriculture, and its many benefits, on a broader-scale in Springfield.

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

I. FUNDING SOURCES II. PROCESS

III.

IV. GIS RASTER ANALYSIS

MAP DATA SOURCES

V. TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS VI. SOURCES

Photo credit: Greensgrow Philadelphia Project

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDICES

I. FUNDING SOURCES American Community Garden Association https://communitygarden.org/resources/ EPA Brownfield Program Grants Eligible projects turn brownfields into productive community (asset) http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ The Department of Labor Work Opportunity Tax Credit Tax credit available for employers who hire people from certain target groups http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/ Federal Bonding Program Cover first six months of employment for “at risk” job applicants. Fidelity bonds guarantee honesty for employees http://bonds4jobs.com/ Department of Justice Second Chance Reentry Grants Available to programs which help reduce recidivism among individuals leaving prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. http://csgjusticecenter.org/government-affairs/ The Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program For projects which address and improve food insecurity through community food projects. Targets projects specifically focuses on building selfsufficiency in low-income groups http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/in_focus/ hunger_if_competitive.html The Value Added Producer Grants Program To assist farmers or other agricultural producers beginning a value-added operation. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_VAPG.html Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food United States Department of Agriculture loans and grants for farmers. http://usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/ usdahome?navid=GRANTS_LOANS

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

The Healthy Urban Food Enterprise Development Center Grants and assistance to entrepreneurs who improve healthy food access with an emphasis on regional and locally produced food. http://www.hufed.org/ SARE Farmer Grant Commercial producers with an innovative idea needing field trial testing, on-farm demonstration, marketing initiative, or other technique. A technical advisor - often an extension agent, crop consultant, or other service professional - must also be involved. All projects must have the potential to add knowledge about effective sustainable practices. http://www.nesare.org/ USDA Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) To enhance competitiveness of specialty crops. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/SCBGP Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) For agriculturists who use innovative conservation approaches with agriculture production. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/ national/programs/financial/cig/ Matching Enterprise Grants for Agriculture Program (MEGA) New and beginning farm businesses help with startup or expansion costs. Technical and business planning assistance to support beginning farmers. Financial assistance for equipment, infrastructure or other capital improvements. http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/ divisions/mega.html APR Improvement Program (AIP) To help sustain active commercial farming on land that has been protected through the Department’s Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) Program. Farm Energy Discount Program Discounts on electricity and natural gas bills of 10% to eligible entities engaged in production agriculture.

APPENDIX I: FUNDING SOURCES

Mabel Louise Riley Foundation Grant Program for Massachusetts, has supported Urban Agriculture in Boston http://www.rileyfoundation.com Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Provides grants to local and state government to address community development needs. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)National Agricultural Library Grants and Loans for Farmers http://afsic.nal.usda.gov/farms-and-community/ grants-and-loans-farmers Healthy Food Access Portal Funding and Resources www.HealthyFoodAccess.org Obama’s “Fresh-Food Financing Initiative” www.Letsmove.gov American Community Gardening Association Provides funding and resources www.communitygarden.org/resources/fundingopportunities North Shore Workforce Investment Board http://www.northshorewib.com Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program http://www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/ communityfoodprojects.cfm The Reinvestment Fund http://www.trfund.com The Food Trust http://thefoodtrust.org National Institute of Food and Agriculture http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/business. html

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund New Markets Tax Credit- Treasury http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_ id.asp?programID=5 Pew Charitable Trusts Philanthropy http://www.pewtrusts.org Local Initiatives Support Corporation LISC http://www.lisc.org Community Foundation of Western Mass http://www.communityfoundation.org Mass Workforce Alliance http://www.massworkforcealliance.org Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) http://www.buylocalfood.org Pioneer Valley Grows (PVGrows) http://www.pvgrows.net Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) http://www.pvpc.org Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (NESAWG) http://www.nefood.org/page/nesawg Northeast Organic Farmers (NOFA) http://www.nofamass.org Massachusetts Grown http://www.mass.gov/agr/massgrown/ CRAFT (Collaborative Regional Alliance for Farming Training) http://www.craftfarmapprentice.com The Farm School http://www.farmschool.org Seeds of Solidarity http://seedsofsolidarity.org

APPENDIX I: FUNDING SOURCES

USDA Microloan for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home &subject=fmlp&topic=dflop Carrot Project Small farm loan program, loans from $3,000$35,000. Accion Small business loans for business owners who cannot borrow from the bank.

This project will educate residents about strategies used in reducing toxic substances in soils while teaching them innovative approaches for soil restoration to help foster sustainable urban gardening and green infrastructure. Ironbound Community Corp. seeks to transform two vacant, under-utilized lots into community green spaces that will serve to educate, improve air quality and enhance the quality of life for residents of the Ironbound neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey.

Brewing the American Dream Fund Loan program for female entrepreneurs. Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation (MGCC) Hosts a loan program for loans over $100,000. Connects micro-lenders with entrepreneurs Contact: Jose Luis “Pepe” Rojas at 617-337-2815 Sprout Lenders Investment club, where members pool their funds and accept applications for loans up to $5,000 for start-up businesses. Cooperative Fund of New England (CFNE) Loan products for cooperative, nonprofit’s serving basic human needs, employee owned businesses and co-housing developments and community land trusts. Fair Food Fund Northeast Provides patient loans, royalty financing, and equity capital to growing food enterprises in the Northeast. Share Fund Provides loans of up to $50,000 for new entrepreneurs that are looking for responsible ways to put natural resources to work. Environmental Justice Small Grants Available to projects which address the environmental health of an identified Environmental Justice Population. Example: Ironbound Community Corp., Newark, New Jersey

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX I: FUNDING SOURCES

II. PROCESS This section outlines the process used in this project. A land assessment process was developed in order to identify priority vacant lots with positive attributes for different types of urban agriculture in Springfield. This process included identifying types of urban agriculture and their potential benefits for the city of Springfield, based on case studies and stakeholder input. In February of 2014 a community/stakeholder meeting was held and participants identified places of interest for urban agriculture in Springfield and types of urban agriculture they felt suitable for these places. The participants of this meeting are all a part of the local food system in Springfield—from growers, to market managers, to people working with public health and non-profit organizations, and officials from the City of Springfield. Approximately half of the participants were teenage growers with the organization Gardening the Community.

Identify Urban Agriculture Options • Types of Urban Agriculture • Potential Benefits • Advantages and Disadvantages • Precedents

This meeting was constructive for establishing the scope of urban agriculture types for Springfield based on known potential sites in the city. The next step in the process was to establish the important site considerations associated with the types of urban agriculture identified. The site considerations, or criteria, were found through interviews with experts and research into national best practices. Part of the process to refine the criteria for the different types of urban agriculture in Springfield included a second community meeting held in March of 2014. Here the participants, again members of the local food system, discussed the selected criteria presented to them, and highlighted the importance of especially understanding the dynamics of the neighborhoods in Springfield, on the ground. Locational relationships emerged as important considerations for identifying where to establish urban agriculture. For example, it was decided that community gardens might be more successful if they were located near existing gardens so people exposed to gardening in one place may have the opportunity to engage in gardening nearby.

Site Considerations Criteria Based on Best Practices and Expert Interviews

Land Assessments Case Studies

Stakeholder Input

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

• Identify Potential Site • Physical Land Criteria • Relationships Criteria

Site Visits

Recommendations

Case Studies

Priority Sites with Positive Attributes in Springfield

APPENDIX II: PROCESS

Next, with the thoroughly refined criteria, vacant lots were mapped using GIS software. The methodology and results of the GIS land assessment were discussed in the earlier sections of this report. The end products of this assessment are maps that show city-owned, structure-free vacant lots with the most positive attributes for each type of urban agriculture. It is the recommendation of this report to prioritize urban agriculture on vacant lots with the most positive attributes. However, all sites that met the Tier 1a criteria may be suitable for each type of urban agriculture.

STAKEHOLDERS WORKING TOGETHER AT A COMMUNITY MEETING IN FEBRUARY 2014

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX II: PROCESS

III. MAP DATA SOURCES Data used in the production of this report comes from different sources outlined in following pages. In some instances the layers were processed and combined in various ways to assist in the analysis process.

SPRINGFIELD BASEMAP

The Springfield Basemap was the foundation for all other maps used in this study. Datalayers and sources include: Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) Shaded Relief (1:5,000) MassDOT Roads EOT Roads MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000) USDA NRCS: Hampden County Ortho photos City of Springfield, Planning Department: Neighborhood Boundaries

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MAP

The Environmental Justice Map was used to identify candidate parcels in areas of greatest need related to Environmental Justice. Datalayers and sources include: Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Datalayers from the 2010 U.S. Census Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) City of Springfield, Planning Department: Neighborhood Boundaries Vacant Parcels Pages: 9, 29, 39, 49, 59

FOOD DESERTS MAP

The Food Desert Map was used to identify candidate parcels in areas of greatest need related to food security. Datalayers and sources include: Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Datalayers from the 2010 U.S. Census Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) City of Springfield, Planning Department: Neighborhood Boundaries Vacant Parcels USDA Food Access table joined to Census tracks Pages: 12, 28, 38, 48, 58

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX III: MAP DATA SOURCES

The Springfield Vacant Parcels map shows the distribution of structure-free, city-owned vacant lots with data from February 2014. Datalayers and sources include:

SPRINGFIELD VACANT PARCELS

Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) Shaded Relief (1:5,000) MassDOT Roads EOT Roads MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000) City of Springfield, Planning Department: Neighborhood Boundaries Vacant Parcels Pages: 20, 26, 27, 36, 37, 46, 47, 56, 57

RENTER DENSITY The Renter Density Map was used to identify candidate parcels in areas with a high percentage of home-renters. Datalayers and sources include: Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) Datalayers from the 2010 U.S. Census Joined SF1 table City of Springfield, Planning Department: Neighborhood Boundaries Vacant Parcels The Impervious Surfaces Map was used to assess the concentration of impervious surfaces near candidate parcels. Datalayers and sources include:

IMPERVIOUS SURFACES

Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) Impervious Surface City of Springfield, Planning Department: Vacant Parcels Page 40

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX III: MAP DATA SOURCES

OPEN SPACE MAP The Open Space Map was used to identify the relationship between candidate parcels and areas of open space. Datalayers and sources include: Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) Protected and Recreational Open Space City of Springfield, Planning Department: Neighborhood Boundaries Vacant Parcels Pioneer Valley Planning Commission: Springfield City Parks Pages: 30, 50

FORESTED LAND MAP The Forested Land Map was used to identify the relationship between candidate parcels and areas of wooded forest. Datalayers and sources include: Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) Land Use (2005) City of Springfield, Planning Department: Neighborhood Boundaries Vacant Parcels Page 60

HAMPDEN COUNTY MAP The Hampden County Map was used show Springfieldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional context. Datalayers and sources include: Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): County Boundaries Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) State Outlines

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX III: MAP DATA SOURCES

MASSACHUSETTS STATE MAP The Massachusetts State Map was used show Springfieldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional context. Datalayers and sources include: Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS): Community Boundaries (Cities and Towns) State Outlines

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX III: MAP DATA SOURCES

IV. GIS RASTER ANALYSIS Binary layers were created using several geoprocessing tools in ArcMap10.2. Each layer has only two values: either it DOES or it DOES NOT meet the criteria and a corresponding score of 1 or 0 was assigned. There are a few exceptions, specified in this section, where a higher score was assigned a value when a stronger weight was applied. Once the following layers were created, they were added together using the Raster Calculator tool in the Map Algebra toolbox. The returns generated showed which cells had the highest scores; those areas were designated as priorities. The following information outlines which datalayers were used for each section and how they were manipulated before the Raster Calculator was applied.

TIER 1A LAYERS The Raster Calculator tool was used to generate returns for these. The values of each layer were assigned a score of 1 or 0 except the Wetlands and Vacant Lot layers. A score of 1000 was assigned to the Wetland value so that it would be coded in such a way that it could be easily identified after the Raster Calculator tool was used; any area that scored 1000 or higher would be coded as a wetland and therefore excluded. The same applies to the Vacant Lot layer. A score of 100 was assigned to the Vacant Lot value; any area that scored 100 or high could be easily identified as NOT city-owned and vacant and excluded. Priority Habitat

1. MassGIS datalayer: NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species 2. Clip Priority Habitat layer to Springfield town boundary 3. Merge Clip and Springfield boundary 4. Convert to Raster 5. Reclassify

0 = Area in a priority habitat 1 = Area NOT in a priority habitat

Hazardous

1. MassGIS Datalayer used: MassDEP Tier Classified Chapter 21E Sites 2. Clip 21E layer to Springfield town boundary 3. Convert 21E clip to Raster 4. Reclassify by value

0 = Area reported under 21E 1 = not 21E 5% Slope 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

MassGIS datalayer: Shaded relief (1:5,000) Convert Hillshade to slope using Slope tool Specify breaks under Properties then Classify Classify 2 breaks manually as <5 % and >5 % Reclassify

0 = > 5 % slope 1 = < 5 % slope 8 % Slope 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

MassGIS datalayer: Shaded relief (1:5,000) Convert Hillshade to slope using Slope tool Specify breaks under Properties then Classify Classify 2 breaks manually as < 8 % and > 8 % Reclassify

0 = > 8 % slope 1 = < 8 % slope 10 % Slope 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

MassGIS datalayer: Shaded relief (1:5,000) Convert Hillshade to slope using Slope tool Specify breaks under Properties then Classify Classify 2 breaks manually as <10% and >10% Reclassify

0 = > 10 % slope 1 = < 10 % slope

Impervious Surface

1. MassGIS datalayer: Impervious Surface 2. Create a Mosaic Dataset 3. Add Impervious surface mosaics to Mosaic Dataset 4. Reclassify

0 = Impervious surface 1 = Permeable surface Flood Zone

1. MassGIS datalayer used: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer 2. Clip FEMA Flood polygon to Springfield boundary 3. Merge Clip with Springfield boundary 4. Convert to Raster 5. Reclassify

0 = in a Flood Zone 1 = NOT in a Flood Zone 88

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX IV: GIS RASTER ANALYSIS

Vacant Lot

1. Springfield vacant lot shape file (from Springfield Planning Department) 2. Merge Vacant Lot polygon with Springfield boundary 3. Convert to Raster 4. Reclassify

1 = city owned and vacant 100 = NOT city owned and vacant

Wetland Binary

1. MassGIS datalayer used: MassDEP Wetlands (1:12,000) 2. Clip statewide Wetland layer to Springfield boundary 3. Merge that Clip with Springfield town boundary 4. Convert to Raster 5. Reclassify to isolate wetlands

1000 = Area in a Wetland 1 = Area NOT in a Wetland

Less than 5000 Square Feet

1. Springfield vacant lot shape file (from Springfield Planning Department) 2. Create polygon of vacant lots less than 5000 square feet 3. Merge new polygon with Springfield boundary 4. Convert to Raster 5. Reclassify

1 = < 5000 sq feet 0 = > 5000 sq feet

Greater than 1/4 Acre

1. Springfield vacant lot shape file (from Springfield Planning Department) 2. Create polygon of vacant lots over a half acre 10,890 sq feet 3. Merge that polygon with Springfield boundary 4. Convert to Raster 5. Reclassify

1 = > Âź Acre 0 = < Âź Acre

Greater than 1000 Square Feet

1. Springfield vacant lot shape file (from Springfield Planning Department) 2. Create polygon of vacant lots 1000 square feet 3. Merge that polygon with Springfield boundary 4. Convert to Raster 5. Reclassify

1 = > 1000 square feet 0 = < 1000 square feet Commercial P Zoning

1. Springfield vacant lot shape file (from Springfield Planning Department) 2. Create polygon of vacant lots that are listed as Commercial P zoning 3. Merge new polygon with Springfield town boundary 4. Convert to Raster 5. Reclassify

1 = Zoned as other 0 = Zoned as Commercial P

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

TIER 1B LAYERS In order to build the Corner Lot and Vacant Adjacent layers, data was collected. The Springfield Planning Department shared a vacant parcel shapefile. Each site was assessed with the town road layer and then coded in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet had 3 fields: Street-Parcel number, Corner Lot, Vacant Adjacent. Table was joined to Vacant Lot attribute table. Then by using the select by attribute tool, separate polygons were made: one showing only vacant corner lots, and one showing vacant adjacent lots. Corner Lot

1. Springfield Planning Department vacant lot shapefile 2. Create spreadsheet to code corner lots 3. Join spreadsheet to attribute table 4. Create polygon of vacant corner lots 5. Merge that polygon with Springfield boundary 6. Convert to Raster by Town 7. Reclassify by Value

1 = Corner Lot 0 = other

Vacant Adjacent

1. Springfield Planning Department vacant lot shapefile 2. Create spreadsheet to code vacant adjacent 3. Create polygon of vacant adjacent lots 4. Merge that polygon with Springfield boundary 5. Convert to Raster by Town 6. Reclassify by Value

1 = Vacant Adjacent 0 = other

APPENDIX IV: GIS RASTER ANALYSIS

Centers of Community

1. Drop into GoogleEarth points from Western Mass Food Bank addresses of local food pantries and member agencies 2. Convert to layer (from kml) 3. Merge with other point layers: Schools K-12, Health Centers, and Colleges (these were shared by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission) 4. Buffer ½ mile around points 5. Clip to Springfield Boundary 6. Merge with Springfield Boundary 7. Convert to Raster 8. Reclassify

2 = < ½ Mile to Center of Community 0 = > ½ Mile to Center of Community Near Garden ½ mile

1. Drop into GoogleEarth points for Gardening The Community garden sites and listed Community Gardens 2. Convert to layer (from kml) 3. Buffer ½ mile around points 4. Merge with Springfield Boundary 5. Convert to Raster 6. Reclassify

1 = < 1/2 Mile to other gardens 0 = > 1/2 Mile to other gardens Near Garden ¼ mile

1. Drop into GoogleEarth points for Gardening The Community garden sites and listed Community Gardens 2. Convert to layer (from kml) 3. Buffer 1/4 mile around 4. Merge with Springfield Boundary 5. Convert to Raster 6. Reclassify

1 = < 1/4 Mile to other gardens 0 = > 1/4 Mile to other gardens Near Markets

1. Merge Point layers from Pioneer Valley Planning Commission: farmers markets, mobile markets, select grocery stores. 2. Buffer ½ mile 3. Clip to Springfield boundary 4. Merge with Springfield boundary 5. Convert to Raster by town 6. Reclassify

1 = < ½ Mile to farmer’s market, mobile market, select grocery stores 0 = > ½ Mile to farmer’s market, mobile market, select grocery stores

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX IV: GIS RASTER ANALYSIS

COMMUNITY GARDENS

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

Tier 1a Criteria Minimum score accepted: 9/9 Layers used: Priority Habitat Hazardous 5% Slope Impervious Surface Flood Zone Vacant Lot Less than 5000 Square Feet Commercial P Zoning Wetland

Tier 1a Criteria Minimum score accepted: 9/9 Layers used: Priority Habitat Hazardous 5% Slope Impervious Surface Flood Zone Vacant Lot Greater than 1/4 Acre Commercial P Zoning Wetland

COMMUNITY GARDENS

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS

Tier 1b Criteria Minimum score accepted: 5/7 Layers used: Near Garden ¼ mile Near Garden ½ mile Centers of Community Vacant Adjacent Corner Lot Vacant Lot

Tier 1b Criteria Minimum score accepted: 4/6 Layers used: Centers of Community Near Garden ½ mile Vacant Adjacent Corner Lot Vacant Lot

COMMERCIAL FARMS

Tier 1a Criteria Minimum score accepted: 9/9 Layers used: Priority Habitat Hazardous 10% Slope Impervious Surface Flood Zone Vacant Lot Greater than 1000 square feet Commercial P Zoning Wetland

Tier 1a Criteria Minimum score accepted: 9/9 Layers used: Priority Habitat Hazardous 8% Slope Impervious Surface Flood Zone Vacant Lot Greater than 1/4 Acre Commercial P Zoning Wetland

COMMERCIAL FARMS

Tier 1b Criteria Minimum score accepted: 2/4 Layers used: Near Markets Vacant Adjacent Corner Lot Vacant Lot

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

URBAN ORCHARDS

Tier 1b Criteria Minimum score accepted: 5/7 Layers used: Centers of Community Near Garden ½ mile Vacant Adjacent Corner Lot Near Markets Vacant Lot

APPENDIX IV: GIS RASTER ANALYSIS

V. TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 1A FINDINGS: 39 PARCELS

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL CODE

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S MAPLEDELL ST

08220-0019

4534

BAY

E S HAYDEN AVE

06460-0023

2678

BAY

E S DAWES ST

03690-0035

4901

BAY

E S COLLEGE ST

03020-0070

4726

LIBERTY HEIGHTS

N TRACY STREET

11600-0013

4498

LIBERTY HEIGHTS

S S HAMLET ST

06220-0015

3825

MEMORIAL SQUARE

14 GROSVERNOR STREET

06090-0003

4825

OLD HILL

UNION ST

11750-0249

2428

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0237

2761

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0220

3819

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0219

3772

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0218

4100

OLD HILL

N S UNION ST

11750-0133

4576

OLD HILL

S S TYLER ST

11715-0110

3198

OLD HILL

W S STEBBINS ST

11125-0015

4393

OLD HILL

255 QUINCY ST

10015-0073

4783

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0033

3930

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0023

3784

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0016

2175

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0007

4242

OLD HILL

E S ORLEANS ST

09362-0043

3014

OLD HILL

W S ORLEANS ST

09362-0020

2158

OLD HILL

W S ORLEANS ST

09362-0017

3705

OLD HILL

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0185

3971

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AVE

04325-0050

2625

OLD HILL

S S BEACON

01115-0006

4497

PINE POINT

E S LOIS STREET

07870-0036

3200

PINE POINT

W S CLORAN ST

02910-0008

3200

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0047

4900

SIX CORNERS

E S SPRUCE ST

11060-0013

3179

SIX CORNERS

N S JAMES ST

07040-0050

4281

SIX CORNERS

S S CLARK ST

02830-0024

4765

SIX CORNERS

SS CEDAR ST

02525-0076

4630

SIX CORNERS

S S CEDAR ST

02525-0057

4491

SIX CORNERS

S S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0017

4383

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0008

2745

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0007

2275

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0002

2720

SOUTH END

N S MORRIS ST

08850-0009

3927

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 1B FINDINGS: 27 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S MAPLEDELL ST

08220-0019

4534

MEMORIAL SQUARE

14 GROSVERNOR STREET

06090-0003

4825

OLD HILL

UNION ST

11750-0249

2428

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0220

3819

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0219

3772

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0218

4100

OLD HILL

S S TYLER ST

11715-0110

3198

OLD HILL

W S STEBBINS ST

11125-0015

4393

OLD HILL

255 QUINCY ST

10015-0073

4783

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0015

2152

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0007

4242

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0003

1915

OLD HILL

E S ORLEANS ST

09362-0043

3014

OLD HILL

W S ORLEANS ST

09362-0017

3705

OLD HILL

S S ORLEANS CT

09360-0007

2539

OLD HILL

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0185

3971

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AVE

04325-0020

3185

OLD HILL

S S CARPENTER CT

02410-0002

2224

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0047

4900

SIX CORNERS

E S SPRUCE ST

11060-0013

3179

SIX CORNERS

N S JAMES ST

07040-0050

4281

SIX CORNERS

S S CLARK ST

02830-0024

4765

SIX CORNERS

S S CEDAR ST

02525-0057

4491

SIX CORNERS

S S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0017

4383

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0008

2745

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0007

2275

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0002

2720

COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 2 FINDINGS: 6 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

MEMORIAL SQUARE

14 GROSVERNOR STREET

06090-0003

4825

OLD HILL

255 QUINCY ST

10015-0073

4783

OLD HILL

W S ORLEANS ST

09362-0017

3705

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AVE

04325-0020

3185

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0047

4900

SIX CORNERS

N S JAMES ST

07040-0050

4281

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

COMMUNITY GARDENS TIER 3 FINDINGS: 3 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

MEMORIAL SQUARE

14 GROSVERNOR STREET

06090-0003

4825

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0047

4900

SIX CORNERS

N S JAMES ST

07040-0050

4281

COMMERCIAL FARMS TIER 1A FINDINGS: 19 PARCELS

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

BOSTON ROAD

E S JAMAICA ST

07030-0054

19831

EAST FOREST PARK

N S SUMNER AV

11280-0258

185565

INDIAN ORCHARD

S E S BERKSHIRE AV

01340-0316

20229

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0032

11235

OLD HILL

N S MARSHALL ST

08305-0007

11805

OLD HILL

N S PENDLETON AV

09630-0015

11373

OLD HILL

S S PENDLETON AV

09630-0073

11468

OLD HILL

N S WALNUT ST

11952-0173

13937

OLD HILL

59 WALNUT ST

11952-0204

16505

PINE POINT

E S HASKIN ST

06390-0030

20010

SIX CORNERS

N S CENTRAL ST

02560-0070

33372

SIX CORNERS

S S CLARK ST

02830-0029

30506

SIX CORNERS

366 HANCOCK ST

06250-0074

13422

SIX CORNERS

206 WALNUT ST

11952-0051

17195

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S CABINET ST

02190-0027

11285

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S MARINE ST

08265-0054

11285

SIXTEEN ACRES

E S TALMADGE DR

11407-0125

111557

SIXTEEN ACRES

REAR WINTERSET DR

12397-0170

98445

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

COMMERCIAL FARMS TIER 1B FINDINGS: 18 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

BOSTON ROAD

E S JAMAICA ST

07030-0054

19831

INDIAN ORCHARD

S E S BERKSHIRE AV

01340-0316

20229

OLD HILL

N S MARSHALL ST

08305-0007

11805

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0032

11235

OLD HILL

S S PENDLETON AV

09630-0073

11468

OLD HILL

N S PENDLETON AV

09630-0015

11373

OLD HILL

N S WALNUT ST

11952-0173

13937

OLD HILL

59 WALNUT ST

11952-0204

16505

PINE POINT

E S HASKIN ST

06390-0030

20010

SIX CORNERS

366 HANCOCK ST

06250-0074

13422

SIX CORNERS

S S CLARK ST

02830-0029

30506

SIX CORNERS

N S CENTRAL ST

02560-0070

33372

SIX CORNERS

206 WALNUT ST

11952-0051

17195

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S MARINE ST

08265-0054

11285

SIXTEEN ACRES

REAR WINTERSET DR

12397-0170

98445

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S CABINET ST

02190-0027

11285

SIXTEEN ACRES

E S TALMADGE DR

11407-0125

111557

COMMERCIAL FARMS TIER 3 FINDINGS: 4 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

SIX CORNERS

366 HANCOCK ST

06250-0074

13422

SIX CORNERS

S S CLARK ST/27

02830-0029

30506

SIX CORNERS

N S CENTRAL ST

02560-0070

33372

SIX CORNERS

206 WALNUT ST

11952-0051

17195

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS TIER 1A FINDINGS: 13 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

BOSTON ROAD

E S JAMAICA ST

07030-0054

19831

INDIAN ORCHARD

S E S BERKSHIRE AV

01340-0316

20229

OLD HILL

N S WALNUT ST

11952-0173

13937

OLD HILL

S S PENDLETON AV

09630-0073

11468

OLD HILL

N S PENDLETON AV

09630-0015

11373

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0032

11235

PINE POINT

E S HASKIN ST

06390-0030

20010

SIX CORNERS

206 WALNUT ST

11952-0051

17195

SIX CORNERS

366 HANCOCK ST

06250-0074

13422

SIXTEEN ACRES

REAR WINTERSET DR

12397-0170

98445

SIXTEEN ACRES

E S TALMADGE DR

11407-0125

111557

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S MARINE ST

08265-0054

11285

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS TIER 1B FINDINGS: 12 PARCELS

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

BOSTON ROAD

E S JAMAICA ST

07030-0054

19831

INDIAN ORCHARD

S E S BERKSHIRE AV

01340-0316

20229

OLD HILL

N S WALNUT ST

11952-0173

13937

OLD HILL

S S PENDLETON AV

09630-0073

11468

OLD HILL

N S PENDLETON AV

09630-0015

11373

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0032

11235

PINE POINT

E S HASKIN ST

06390-0030

20010

SIX CORNERS

206 WALNUT ST

11952-0051

17195

SIX CORNERS

366 HANCOCK ST

06250-0074

13422

SIXTEEN ACRES

REAR WINTERSET DR

12397-0170

98445

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S MARINE ST

07030-0054

11285

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS TIER 2 FINDINGS: 7 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

OLD HILL

N S WALNUT ST

11952-0173

13937

OLD HILL

S S PENDLETON AV

09630-0073

11468

OLD HILL

N S PENDLETON AV

09630-0015

11373

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0032

11235

SIX CORNERS

206 WALNUT ST

11952-0051

17195

SIX CORNERS

366 HANCOCK ST

06250-0074

13422

COMMUNITY & YOUTH FARMS TIER 3 FINDINGS: 3 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

SIX CORNERS

206 WALNUT ST

11952-0051

17195

SIX CORNERS

366 HANCOCK ST

06250-0074

13422

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 1A FINDINGS: 132 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S MAPLEDELL ST

08220-0019

4534

BAY

E S HAYDEN AV

06460-0023

2678

BAY

E S HAYDEN AV

06460-0022

2459

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

BAY

E S DAWES ST

03690-0035

4901

BAY

E S COLLEGE ST

03020-0070

4726

BOSTON ROAD

W S PARADISE ST

09470-0014

5000

BOSTON ROAD

E S MERRILL RD

08565-0050

5000

BOSTON ROAD

E S JAMAICA ST

07030-0054

19831

EAST FOREST PARK

N S SUMNER AV

11280-0258

185565

EAST SPRINGFIELD

E S ST JAMES AV

11170-0227

5468

EAST SPRINGFIELD

E S ARTHUR ST

00660-0068

5000

FOREST PARK

W S SQUIRREL RD

11069-0022

3391

FOREST PARK

S S BURDETTE ST

02075-0028

7455

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 1A FINDINGS: 132 PARCELS (CONTINUED)

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

FOREST PARK

W S BEAUMONT ST

01145-0013

5000

INDIAN ORCHARD

E S MAZARIN ST

08440-0045

5000

INDIAN ORCHARD

S S MAIN ST IO

08132-0263

6475

INDIAN ORCHARD

S S MAIN ST IO

08132-0262

3968

INDIAN ORCHARD

REAR BERKSHIRE AV

01340-0397

4132

INDIAN ORCHARD

S E S BERKSHIRE AV

01340-0316

20229

LIBERTY HEIGHTS

N S TRACY ST

11600-0013

4498

LIBERTY HEIGHTS

S S HAMLET ST

06220-0015

3825

MCKNIGHT

E S WESTMINSTER ST

12201-0059

8640

MCKNIGHT

95 ST JAMES AV

11170-0401

8876

MCKNIGHT

N S MCKNIGHT ST

08460-0007

5700

MCKNIGHT

N S CLARENDON ST

02820-0055

6529

MCKNIGHT

W S BUCKINGHAM ST

02042-0022

8928

MCKNIGHT

W S BOWLES ST

01692-0005

5000

MEMORIAL SQUARE

S S MASSASOIT PL

08355-0012

9089

MEMORIAL SQUARE

14 GROSVENOR ST

06090-0003

4825

OLD HILL

59 WALNUT ST

11952-0204

16505

OLD HILL

N S WALNUT ST

11952-0173

13937

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0249

2428

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0237

2761

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0233

5661

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0231

6806

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0220

3819

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0219

3772

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0218

4100

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0203

5419

OLD HILL

N S UNION ST

11750-0133

4576

OLD HILL

N S UNION ST

11750-0126

7494

OLD HILL

S S TYLER ST

11715-0110

3198

OLD HILL

S S TYLER ST

11715-0081

8004

OLD HILL

N S TYLER ST

11715-0021

7347

OLD HILL

W S STEBBINS ST

11125-0015

4393

OLD HILL

255 QUINCY ST

10015-0073

4783

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0047

4127

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0033

3930

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0023

3784

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0016

2175

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0015

2152

OLD HILL

50 QUEEN ST

10005-0013

2501

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0007

4242

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 1A FINDINGS: 132 PARCELS (CONTINUED) NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0003

1915

OLD HILL

S S PENDLETON AV

09630-0073

11468

OLD HILL

N S PENDLETON AV

09630-0015

11373

OLD HILL

E S ORLEANS ST

09362-0050

6422

OLD HILL

E S ORLEANS ST

09362-0043

3014

OLD HILL

128 ORLEANS ST

09362-0026

7476

OLD HILL

W S ORLEANS ST

09362-0017

3705

OLD HILL

S S ORLEANS CT

09360-0007

2539

OLD HILL

W S OAK ST

09180-0022

3757

OLD HILL

E S NELSON AV

08960-0015

5163

OLD HILL

S S MELROSE ST

08520-0025

5000

OLD HILL

N S MELROSE ST

08520-0012

7495

OLD HILL

N S MARSHALL ST

08305-0007

11805

OLD HILL

S S LEBANON ST

07627-0050

8168

OLD HILL

S S LEBANON ST

07627-0047

5175

OLD HILL

S S KING ST

07295-0142

6077

OLD HILL

N S KING ST

07295-0028

6415

OLD HILL

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0185

3971

OLD HILL

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0183

6246

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0032

11235

OLD HILL

REAR GREENE ST

06032-0027

9458

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0025

5167

OLD HILL

E S EASTERN AV

04325-0175

6199

OLD HILL

E S EASTERN AV

04325-0122

5167

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AV

04325-0050

2625

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AV

04325-0020

3185

OLD HILL

E S COLTON ST

03070-0039

5085

OLD HILL

W S COLTON ST

03070-0021

4900

OLD HILL

S S CARPENTER CT

02410-0002

2224

OLD HILL

S S BEACON ST

01115-0006

4497

PINE POINT

E S MORTON ST

08860-0101

5000

PINE POINT

E S MORTON ST

08860-0092

5000

PINE POINT

E S MORTON ST

08860-0069

5750

PINE POINT

E S LOIS ST

07870-0036

3200

PINE POINT

E S HASKIN ST

06390-0030

20010

PINE POINT

E S GRESHAM ST

06070-0071

5014

PINE POINT

W S CLORAN ST

02910-0008

3200

PINE POINT

N S BOSTON RD

01655-0038

7500

PINE POINT

W S AMBROSE ST

00390-0026

5000

PINE POINT

W S ALMIRA RD

00300-0029

2715

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 1A FINDINGS: 132 PARCELS (CONTINUED)

100

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0065

4078

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0063

6720

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0047

4900

SIX CORNERS

E S SPRUCE ST

11060-0013

3179

SIX CORNERS

W S PINE ST

09715-0052

3679

SIX CORNERS

N S JAMES ST

07040-0050

4281

SIX CORNERS

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0161

7121

SIX CORNERS

366 HANCOCK ST

06250-0074

13422

SIX CORNERS

S S CLARK ST

02830-0024

4765

SIX CORNERS

S S CEDAR ST

02525-0076

4630

SIX CORNERS

S S CEDAR ST

02525-0057

4491

SIX CORNERS

N S CEDAR ST

02525-0012

4178

SIX CORNERS

S S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0017

4383

SIX CORNERS

E S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0016

2036

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0008

2745

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0007

2775

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0006

2764

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0002

2720

SIX CORNERS

REAR ASHLEY ST

00710-0039

5537

SIX CORNERS

N S ASHLEY ST

00710-0009

10355

SIXTEEN ACRES

REAR WINTERSET DR

12397-0170

98445

SIXTEEN ACRES

E S TRAIL CI

11615-0021

10609

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S TRAIL CI

11615-0003

10708

SIXTEEN ACRES

E S TALMADGE DR

11407-0125

111557

SIXTEEN ACRES

E S MARINE ST

08265-0099

10624

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S MARINE ST

08265-0054

11285

SIXTEEN ACRES

N S KEDDY ST

07196-0034

13027

SIXTEEN ACRES

N S JORDAN ST

07140-0009

7500

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S CABINET ST

02190-0027

11285

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S CABINET ST

02190-0026

11378

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S BRADLEY RD

01750-0015

1763

SIXTEEN ACRES

N S ALLEN ST

00280-0711

7500

SIXTEEN ACRES

S S ALLEN ST

00280-0431

10454

SOUTH END

N S MORRIS ST

08850-0009

3927

SOUTH END

N S CENTRAL ST

02560-0013

5442

UPPER HILL

N S WILBRAHAM RD

12282-0059

6477

UPPER HILL

N S WILBRAHAM RD

12282-0057

5746

UPPER HILL

N S WILBRAHAM RD

12282-0046

7466

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 1B FINDINGS: 76 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S MAPLEDELL ST

08220-0019

4534

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

BAY

E S DAWES ST

03690-0035

4901

BAY

E S COLLEGE ST

03020-0070

4726

BOSTON ROAD

E S MERRILL RD

08565-0050

5000

BOSTON ROAD

E S JAMAICA ST

07030-0054

19831

FOREST PARK

W S BEAUMONT ST

01145-0013

5000

LIBERTY HEIGHTS

N S TRACY ST

11600-0013

4498

LIBERTY HEIGHTS

S S HAMLET ST

06220-0015

3825

MCKNIGHT

95 ST JAMES AV

11170-0401

8876

MCKNIGHT

N S MCKNIGHT ST

08460-0007

5700

MCKNIGHT

N S CLARENDON ST

02820-0055

6529

MEMORIAL SQUARE

14 GROSVENOR ST

06090-0003

4825

OLD HILL

59 WALNUT ST

11952-0204

16505

OLD HILL

N S WALNUT ST

11952-0173

13937

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0249

2428

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0237

2761

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0233

5661

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0231

6806

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0220

3819

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0219

3772

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0218

4100

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0203

5419

OLD HILL

N S UNION ST

11750-0133

4576

OLD HILL

N S UNION ST

11750-0126

7494

OLD HILL

S S TYLER ST

11715-0110

3198

OLD HILL

N S TYLER ST

11715-0021

7347

OLD HILL

W S STEBBINS ST

11125-0015

4393

OLD HILL

255 QUINCY ST

10015-0073

4783

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0047

4127

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0033

3930

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0023

3784

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0015

2152

OLD HILL

S S PENDLETON AV

09630-0073

11468

OLD HILL

N S PENDLETON AV

09630-0015

11373

OLD HILL

E S ORLEANS ST

09362-0050

6422

OLD HILL

E S ORLEANS ST

09362-0043

3014

OLD HILL

128 ORLEANS ST

09362-0026

7476

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

101

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 1B FINDINGS: 76 PARCELS (CONTINUED)

102

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

OLD HILL

W S ORLEANS ST

09362-0017

3705

OLD HILL

S S ORLEANS CT

09360-0007

2539

OLD HILL

W S OAK ST

09180-0022

3757

OLD HILL

N S MELROSE ST

08520-0012

7495

OLD HILL

S S LEBANON ST

07627-0047

5175

OLD HILL

S S KING ST

07295-0142

6077

OLD HILL

N S KING ST

07295-0028

6415

OLD HILL

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0185

3971

OLD HILL

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0183

6246

OLD HILL

REAR GREENE ST

06032-0027

9458

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0025

5167

OLD HILL

E S EASTERN AV

04325-0175

6199

OLD HILL

E S EASTERN AV

04325-0122

5167

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AV

04325-0050

2625

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AV

04325-0020

3185

OLD HILL

E S COLTON ST

03070-0039

5085

OLD HILL

W S COLTON ST

03070-0021

4900

OLD HILL

S S CARPENTER CT

02410-0002

2224

OLD HILL

S S BEACON ST

01115-0006

4497

PINE POINT

E S MORTON ST

08860-0069

5750

PINE POINT

E S HASKIN ST

06390-0030

20010

PINE POINT

W S ALMIRA RD

00300-0029

2715

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0065

4078

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0063

6720

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0047

4900

SIX CORNERS

E S SPRUCE ST

11060-0013

3179

SIX CORNERS

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0161

7121

SIX CORNERS

S S CLARK ST

02830-0024

4765

SIX CORNERS

N S CEDAR ST

02525-0012

4178

SIX CORNERS

S S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0017

4383

SIX CORNERS

E S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0016

2036

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0008

2745

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0007

2775

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0006

2764

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0002

2720

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S CABINET ST

02190-0027

11285

SIXTEEN ACRES

W S CABINET ST

02190-0026

11378

SOUTH END

N S CENTRAL ST

02560-0013

5442

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 2 FINDINGS: 69 PARCELS

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

BAY

W S MAPLEDELL ST

08220-0019

4534

BAY

W S HAYDEN AV

06460-0006

145553

BAY

E S DAWES ST

03690-0035

4901

BAY

E S COLLEGE ST

03020-0070

4726

BOSTON ROAD

E S MERRILL RD

08565-0050

5000

FOREST PARK

W S BEAUMONT ST

01145-0013

5000

LIBERTY HEIGHTS

N S TRACY ST

11600-0013

4498

MCKNIGHT

95 ST JAMES AV

11170-0401

8876

MCKNIGHT

N S MCKNIGHT ST

08460-0007

5700

MCKNIGHT

N S CLARENDON ST

02820-0055

6529

MEMORIAL SQUARE

14 GROSVENOR ST

06090-0003

4825

OLD HILL

59 WALNUT ST

11952-0204

16505

OLD HILL

N S WALNUT ST

11952-0173

13937

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0249

2428

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0237

2761

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0233

5661

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0231

6806

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0220

3819

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0219

3772

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0218

4100

OLD HILL

S S UNION ST

11750-0203

5419

OLD HILL

N S UNION ST

11750-0133

4576

OLD HILL

N S UNION ST

11750-0126

7494

OLD HILL

S S TYLER ST

11715-0110

3198

OLD HILL

N S TYLER ST

11715-0021

7347

OLD HILL

W S STEBBINS ST

11125-0015

4393

OLD HILL

255 QUINCY ST

10015-0073

4783

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0047

4127

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0033

3930

OLD HILL

N S QUINCY ST

10015-0023

3784

OLD HILL

N S QUEEN ST

10005-0015

2152

OLD HILL

S S PENDLETON AV

09630-0073

11468

OLD HILL

N S PENDLETON AV

09630-0015

11373

OLD HILL

E S ORLEANS ST

09362-0050

6422

OLD HILL

E S ORLEANS ST

09362-0043

3014

OLD HILL

128 ORLEANS ST

09362-0026

7476

OLD HILL

W S ORLEANS ST

09362-0017

3705

OLD HILL

S S ORLEANS CT

09360-0007

2539

OLD HILL

W S OAK ST

09180-0022

3757

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

103

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 2 FINDINGS: 69 PARCELS

104

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

STREET_PARCEL

SQUARE FEET

OLD HILL

N S MELROSE ST

08520-0012

7495

OLD HILL

S S LEBANON ST

07627-0047

5175

OLD HILL

S S KING ST

07295-0142

6077

OLD HILL

N S KING ST

07295-0028

6415

OLD HILL

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0185

3971

OLD HILL

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0183

6246

OLD HILL

REAR GREENE ST

06032-0027

9458

OLD HILL

S S GREENE ST

06032-0025

5167

OLD HILL

E S EASTERN AV

04325-0175

6199

OLD HILL

E S EASTERN AV

04325-0122

5167

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AV

04325-0050

2625

OLD HILL

W S EASTERN AV

04325-0020

3185

OLD HILL

E S COLTON ST

03070-0039

5085

OLD HILL

W S COLTON ST

03070-0021

4900

OLD HILL

S S CARPENTER CT

02410-0002

2224

OLD HILL

S S BEACON ST

01115-0006

4497

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0065

4078

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0063

6720

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0047

4900

SIX CORNERS

E S SPRUCE ST

11060-0013

3179

SIX CORNERS

E S HANCOCK ST

06250-0161

7121

SIX CORNERS

S S CLARK ST

02830-0024

4765

SIX CORNERS

N S CEDAR ST

02525-0012

4178

SIX CORNERS

S S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0017

4383

SIX CORNERS

E S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0016

2036

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0008

2745

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0007

2775

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0006

2764

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0002

2720

SOUTH END

N S CENTRAL ST

02560-0013

5442

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

URBAN ORCHARDS TIER 3 FINDINGS: 8 PARCELS NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS

PARCEL_STREET

SQUARE FEET

MEMORIAL SQUARE

14 GROSVENER ST

06090-0003

4825

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0065

4078

SIX CORNERS

S S WALNUT ST

11952-0063

6720

SIX CORNERS

S S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0017

4383

SIX CORNERS

E S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0016

2036

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0008

2745

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0007

2775

SIX CORNERS

N S BRIGHAM ST

01870-0006

2764

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX V: TIER ANALYSIS FINDINGS

105

VI. SOURCES American Community Garden Association. “National Community Gardens Survey.” 2010. https:// communitygarden.org American Diabetes Association. “Cost of Diabetes.”http://www.diabetes.org

City of Seattle, Department of Neighborhoods. “Meeting produce needs through the City’s gardening program.” http://www.seattle.gov/ neighborhoods/ City of Springfield. “Community Gardening Ordinance.” http://www3.springfield-ma.gov/cos/

Added Value Farm. Brooklyn, NY. WEB. March, 2014. [http://added-value.org]

City Slicker Farm. Oakland, CA. WEB. March, 2014. [http://www.cityslickerfarms.org]

Arnfield, John. “Review: Two Decades of Urban Climate Research: A Review of Turbulence, Exchanges of Energy and Water and the Urban Heat Island.” Interational Journal of Climatology. 2002.

Coleman, Jensen, A., Nord, M., Sing, A., “Household Food Security in the United States in 2012.” USDA ERS. 2013

Bates, Jonathan.”The Backyard Bioshelter Blog.”Wordpress.Holyoke, 2012.WEB.March,2014. [http://permaculturegreenhouse.com] Blair, D., Giesecke, C., Sherman, S. “A Dietary, Social and Economic Evaluation of the Philadelphia Gardening Project,” The Journal of Nutrition Education, 23: 161-167, 1991. Barnes, Meredith.”An urban green space brings produce - and purpose - to underserved Lynchburg residents.”Edible Communities, Inc.Charlottesville, VA, 2009.WEB. February, 2014.[http://www.ediblecommunities. com/blueridge/summer-2009/garden-power.htm] Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C. The medical care costs of obesity: an instrumental variables approach. Journal of Health Economics. 31(1):219-230. 2012. CDCP. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. 2010 Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance System. http://www.cdc.gov/pednss_tables/tables_health_ indicators.htm Census. United States Census. http://www.census. gov City-Data. “Springfield, Massachusetts Demographics.” 2014. http://www.city-data.com/ city/Springfield-Massachusetts.html City Farmer News. “The Cost of Constructing Raised Beds.” http://www.cityfarmer.info/

106

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

CommunityGarden.org, “National Community Gardening Survey,” retrieved from http:// communitygarden.org/docs/learn/cgsurvey96part1. prf DevelopSpringfield.com, “Rebuild Springfield Master Plan,” retrieved from http://www. developspringfield.com/pdf/1-CITY%20FINALReduced.pdf D-Town Farm: African American Resistance to Food Insecurity and the Transformation of Detroit. Monica M. White Environmental Reviews & Case Studies, Environmental Practice 13 (4) December 2011 406-417 ENYFarms!. Cross-Generational Benefits of Urban Agriculture. WEB. March, 2014. [Eastnewyorkfarms. org.] Edible Schoolyards.”Grow.”Grow Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, .WEB.March, 2014.[http:// edibleschoolyardpgh.org/grow/] Environmental Protection Agency.”Environmental Justice Basics.”EPA.May, 2012.WEB.February, 2014. [http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/ index.html] Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). “Food Hardship in America 2010: Households with and without children.” 2010.

APPENDIX VI: SOURCES

GroceryGap. “Who Has Access to Healthy Food and Why it Matters.” PolicyLink & The Food Trust. http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/ b.5860321/k.A5BD/The_Grocery_Gap.htm Growing Power. “Aquaponics.” Growing Power, Inc.Milwaukee, 2010.WEB.February, Gallagher, Mari. Examining the impact of food deserts on public health in Detroit. Mari Gallager Research & Consulting Group; 2007. Haan M, Kaplan GA, Camacho T. Poverty and health. Prospective evidence from the Alameda County study. Am J Epidermiol. Jun 1987; 125(6): 989-998 Harris, Patricia and Lyon, David. “Companies Cultivating Urban-Farming Initiatives.” Boston Globe 2014<http://www.bostonglobe.com/ lifestyle/2013/02/01/conference-focus-urbanfarming-city/0NpBjnqocbvBtNK6xeCt2K/story.html> Home, Chris.”Lynchburg Grows provides food, education to its community.”Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.2014.WEB. March, 2014.[http://www.vt.edu/spotlight/ innovation/2012-03-19-lynchburg/grows.html]

Moore, L. Roux, A. and Brines, S. “Comparing Perception-Based and Geographic Information System (GIS)- Based Characterizations of the Local Food Environment.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 85, no. 2 (2008) Morland, K., et al. “Supermarkets, Other Food Stores, and Obesity: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30:4 (2006). Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A. The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents’ diets: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Am J Public Health. Nov. 2002; 91 (11) : 1761-1767 Mother Nature Network (MNN). “”http://www. mnn.com Nuestras Raices. “Community Gardens.”2013. http://www.nuestras-raices.org Philadelphia Orchard Project (POP). “Community Orchards.” http://www.phillyorchards.org

Lynchburg Grows.”Our Story.”Lynchburg Grows. Lynchburg, VA, 2014.WEB.February, 2014.[http:// lynchburggrows.org/our-story/]

Pioneer Valley Food Security Advisory Committee and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC). ”The Pioneer Valley food Security Plan.”Pioneer Valley Food Security Advisory Committee and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission.Sept. 2013. WEB.January, 2014.[http://www.mass.gov/eea/ docs/agr/boards-commissions/pvpc-food-securityplan-2013-full.pdf

Malakoff, David. What good is community greening?” 1995. https://communitygarden. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ whatgoodiscommunitygreening.pdf. pg 4

Policylink.org “What is Urban Agriculture?.” 2013 http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/ b.7634055/k.102B/Urban_Agriculture_and_ Community_Gardens.htm

Mandel, Lauren.”Eat Up.”New Society Publishers, 2013.

Regreen Springfield.”Urban Orchards Project Underway.”Regreen Springfield.Springfield, 2014. WEB.February, 2014.[http://regreenspringfield. com/news/urban-orchards-project-underway/]

Klein, Barbara. “Nutritional Consequences of Minimal Processing of Fruits and Vegetables.” University of Illinois. 1987.

Missouri.edu- Tomato Yields per acre.

Sacheck, Jennifer, PhD. “Overweight and Obesity in Massachusetts: A Focus on Physical Activity.” The Massachusetts Health Policy Forum. 2012

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX VI: SOURCES

107

Schroeder, Alex Risley. “Local Food, Local Jobs: Job Growth and Creation in the Pioneer Valley Food System.”Massachusetts Workforce Alliance. February, 2013.WEB.January, 2014.[http:// gallagerdesign.com/MWA-D2E/MWA%20Food%20 Report.03062013.pdf] Springfield Technical Community College (STCC). “Our Plural History.” 2009. Sommers, P., Smit, J. “Promoting Urban Agriculture: Strategy Framework for Planners in North America, Europe and Asia.” 1994. TFBN. Texas Food Bank Network. “What is Food Insecurity.” http://tfbn.org/food-insecurity/ The Conservation Law Foundation. “Growing Green: Measuring Benefits, Overcoming barriers, and Nurturing Opportunities for Urban Agriculture in Boston.” CLF Ventures, Inc.July, 2012.WEB. February, 2014.[http://action.clf.org/site/ Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_ REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=3241]

Urban Agriculture Committee of Community Food Security Coalition of North America (UACCFSC). “Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” 2002. http:// www.foodsecurity.org/ua_home.html Urban Agriculture Task Force. “Urban Agriculture in Providence: Growing our community by growing food.” 2006. pg10 Western Massachusetts Food Bank (WMFB).”Food Insecurity and Meal Gaps.” 2009. http://www. foodbankwma.org U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food-measuring and understanding food deserts and their consequence.” 2009.

The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. “The Case for a Springfield Food Policy Council.” Springfield,. WEB. February, 2014. [http://www. foodbankwma.org] The Food Project.The Food Project. WEB.March, 2014.[http://thefoodproject.org] The Stop.”Mission.”The Stop.Toronto, .WEB.March, 2014.[http://www.thestop.org/mission] Think Progress. “Walmart’s Labor Practices Backfire.” 2014. http://thinkprogress.org/ economy/2014/02/10/3271221/walmartdowngraded-understaffing/ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Food Insecurity & Food Environments in America.” 2013. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/ usdahome

108

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SPRINGFIELD

APPENDIX VI: SOURCES

Winter 2014

Holyoke

West Springfield Food in the City

Springfield Connecticut River

An old way, in a new time A process to assess land suitable for urban agriculture.

The Conway School 332 South Deerfield Road Conway, MA 01341 www.csld.edu

Prepared for the Springfield Food Policy Council Urban Agriculture Committee Emily Berg, Abigail Elwood & Marie Macchiarolo The Conway School April 2014