Urban food systems project by Tyler Elmore

The Positive Impact of Urban Agriculture

GrowNYC map of all community gardens, urban farms, and rootop gardens.

The Positive Impact of Urban Agriculture

Emma Stephan Grayson Gingerly June Jhong Tyler Elmore Zachary Yindra

Table of Contents Introduction..........7 Section 1..............10 Section 2..............17 Section 3..............23 Section 4..............27 Section 5..............33 Conclusion...........42 Index....................44

Introduction

Urban agriculture can provide an effective means by which to improve food access to underserved urban populations. The purpose of our booklet is to identify and evaluate examples of these successes, and policy and planning pathways to integrate food production into the urban landscape of the future so that the successes can be duplicated indefinitely throughout the country. With knowledge of the sociological and historical aspects of food insecurity and current food and agricultural policies, there can be a more calculated and well fitted approach to a specific locations problem. The booklet will address two types of urban planning in agriculture specifically: rooftop gardens and school or community learning gardens. Rooftop gardens are defined as any garden that is cultivated and growing from a permanent location on the roof of an already existing non-agricultural building. School/Learning gardens are defined as gardens with the purpose of providing education about the processes of choosing, planting, and growing seeds or bulbs with the goal of creating food. While none of these options we speak about are new ideas, there are some aspects that can be changed to make these practices even stronger. These practices, much like other social movements, often come from times of strife and/or hardship. Cecilia Tacoli, says that food insecurity in general comes from income poverty (Tacoli, 17). For example, in the United States, the school garden and community garden movements really started gaining steam during World War I. The purpose of these early American school gardens was to produce food to offset a need created by the war effort, as part of a united effort called the United States School Garden Army (Child, 2002). Also, during WWII â&#x20AC;&#x153;Victory Gardensâ&#x20AC;? took on a popular role within society because it allowed for 7

the people who were home, to effectively help the war effort. (Barthel) Rooftop gardens that are seeming to appear more frequently throughout the US, also are not a new idea. Ancient Civilizations such as the Maya, documented the use of both urban community farms and rooftop gardens. (Barthel & Isendahl 5). This pamphlet is intended to educate, to provide a thorough overview of these topics, and to create a thoughtful experience by which the reader may begin to think of places in their own community where rooftop and/or school gardens may be appropriate. The pamphlet will reinforce popular ideas while also offering new ways to advance the practices presented. The essays will also argue that Urban planners need to consider policies that allow cities to grow their own food to supplement global foodways. Along with urban planners, food activist need to take as much active participation in food policy creation that is allowed in order to benefit from them. Food security will be protected in case disasters stop the flow of food into the city. In addition, there will be more local sovereignty over the nature of the food. Planners should explore several options, including community gardens, school gardens and rooftop gardens. The solution that best fit with each unique urban situation should be incorporated into that cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operating plan.

Section 1

Urban Farming: A Means of Social Justice and Intervention By June Jhong Food insecurity is the direct result of a set of a community’s problematic caste values that in turn, are the very foundations of a poor food system. As Cecilia Tacoli states in “Urban Poverty, Food Security and Climate Change”, “The root cause of urban food insecurity is income poverty” (Tacoli, 17).1 Therefore, it can be understood that food insecurity really comes down to food inaccessibility to the marginalized — it is crucial that food is not only attainable in the tangible sense, but also to ensure that food purchases become all-inclusive transactions. In Why Farm the City? Theorizing Urban Agriculture Through a Lens of Metabolic Rift, Nathan McClintock offers Marxian theory as a way to frame a theoretical understanding of food inaccessibility. McClintock

states that Marxian theory explains the very cause of income poverty — that the root issue is displaced value.2 The birth of industrialization, McClintock argues, has created a hierarchy of values, the highest placed on commoditization.3 Through this construction of a broken value system, humans have since experienced a metabolic rift, a sense of displacement not only in wages but in their human relationship to nature, food and its agriculture, all while producing harmful effects to the environment through consumerism and exhaustive use of natural resources:4 “… this process also cleaves a biophysical rift in natural systems (such as nutrient cycles), leading to resource degradation at points of production and pollution at 10

points of consumption. Finally, this rift reifies a false dichotomy between city and county, urban and rural, humans and nature, obscuring and effacing the linkages between them.” (192193)5 Examples of wealthy and poor neighborhoods are especially easy to assume in current day Brooklyn, areas such as North Williamsburg and South Greenpoint (the surrounding areas of McCarren Park), look especially unassuming in terms of food accessibility to the average bridge and tunneler. The main street of Bedford Avenue boasts expensive “historic” brownstones and new luxury high rises with high end “quirky” features such as custom made communal pool tables, private pools, and miniature private gyms with fingerprint recognition software. These glitzy apartment complexes are scattered amongst romanticized, artisanal restaurants that offer menus priced comparably to a Michelin star restaurant in the Upper East Side. Undoubtedly, the cost of living in Williamsburg has sky rocketed, especially in the past 10 years. The face of North Williamsburg has and is changing at a rapid pace; long gone are most of the Latino and Hasidic Jewish communities along with many of their homes. Most of these “pioneer” communities have moved south of the Bedford Avenue madness, cultivating their communities just

south of the Williamsburg Bridge. Gentrification brings with it, not only shiny new apartment complexes that force locals to seek shelter elsewhere, but also a distinct caste system in food accessibility. Surprisingly, case studies show that south Williamsburg is amongst the poorest areas in Brooklyn, with a poverty rate as high as 67.5% of the population,6 which is higher than notoriously poor Brooklyn neighborhoods like Brownsville and East New York.7 Accompanying income inequality, is poor health due to the restricting nature of procuring healthy foods.8 With the stirrings of gentrification also came a noticeable increase in interest in urban farms and agriculture in Williamsburg as means to address food inaccessibility. Farms such as Eagle Street Rooftop Farm and North Brooklyn Farms are examples of how urban farming and agriculture is a progressive solution in aiding the alleviation of food insecurity through building closely-knit communities that have knowledge about and an affinity for the foods that they literally reap. In doing so, this act dismantles the antiquated caste food systems that exist in this area, allowing food transactions and processes to be accessible and all-inclusive while providing job opportunities and education to the underrepresented and historically oppressed groups. North Brooklyn Farms (pictured 11

below) and Eagle Street Rooftop Farm provide physical accessibility to urban farming and healthy foods. Both urban farms provide volunteer programs, encouraging locals to earn free experience and education about foods through agriculture.9 North Brooklyn Farms offer free workshops while

attempt at design and system suggestions for Williamsburg/ Greenpoint farms and how these considerations could help build a more personable food system to the marginalized locals of Williamsburg by addressing metabolic rifts (social, individual, and ecological), through creative,

Image of North Brooklyn Farm. Photo by North Brooklyn Farm.

Eagle Street Rooftop Farm offers an adult and university education program. Although these farms could be seen as local pioneers of sorts, it is apparent that there is room to grow, especially in providing job opportunities within their own respective farms and/ or allocating independent popup shops/events close to specific areas in Williamsburg that have little or difficult access to healthy, fresh produce. This essay is an

sustainable systems. Williamsburg farms can adopt certain practices and design strategies from other urban farms, such as Growing Power, a successful non-profit urban farm in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. McClintock defines ecological rift as: â&#x20AC;&#x153;â&#x20AC;Śboth the rift in a particular biophysical metabolic relationship (such as nutrient cycling) and the 12

spatio-temporal rescaling of production that follows in its wakeâ&#x20AC;Śâ&#x20AC;? (McClintock, 193).10

the farm (and the community at large), such as recycled food waste, farm waste, brewery waste, coffee grounds, and worms as well as products of vermicomposting, farms are able to produce fertile soil and fertilizers.13 This sustainable practice allows farms to use waste as an input in the systems of production and as sellable resources to help with the funding of production. Aquaponics is another system that Williamsburg farms could integrate into their systems of production. On the Growing Power webpage, a thorough explanation is given regarding their aquaponics system: â&#x20AC;&#x153;By using gravity as a transport, water is drained from the fish tank into a gravel bed. Here, beneficial bacteria break down the toxic ammonia in fish waste to Nitrite and then to Nitrogen, a key nutrient for plant development. On the gravel bed, we also use watercress as a secondary means of water filtration. The filtered water is pumped from the gravel bed to the growing beds, where we raise a variety of crops from specialty salad greens to tomatoes. The water is wicked up to the crops roots with the help of coir, a byproduct of coconut shells and a sustainable replacement for peat moss. Finally, the water flows from the growing beds back into the tank of fish.

Williamsburg farms looking to expand their enterprises and their reach, could adopt several energy initiatives being taken at Growing Power such as: solar panel cells, anaerobic digestion, compost and vermi-compost production, aquaponics, and apiaries.11 These initiatives could help Brooklyn farms save money, use wastes and outputs in production, and open up the possibilities of selling other products using wastes and surplus inventory. By installing solar panel cells, farms in Williamsburg (Eagle Street Rooftop Farm and North Brooklyn Farms) could not only provide the farm with clean energy but also reduce their energy costs significantly. Another source of sustainable energy to consider is anaerobic digestion, where micro-organisms break down compost in the absence of oxygen. This manages waste and creates a methane usable for energy production, ultimately replacing the use of fossil fuels. Solids and by-products of anaerobic digestion could also be used as fertilizer.12 Farms could sell this fertilizer as one of many ways to help finance the farm and use it on their gardens. Williamsburg/Greenpoint farms could benefit from cultivating compost and vermicompost. By using outputs of 13

Image of Eagle Street Rooftop Farm in September of 2010. Photo by Eagle Street Rooftop Farm.

Growing Power uses this type of aquaponics system because it is easy to build and only needs a small pump and heat to get the system running.”14 Aquaponics becomes another way of farming and of integrating “wastes” into production but using compost to feed the fishes: worms are a part of the Yellow Perch’s diet and the Tilapia are fed salad greens.15 The Yellow Perch and Tilapia could also be sold as a way to supplement income as well. Farms in Williamsburg/ Greenpoint can benefit from the addition of apiaries. The inclusion of bees not only helps with

pollination of crops on the farms, but with the city at large. Honey and better crop production are obvious resulting resources from the addition of apiaries. But with honey, comes wax, and farms could benefit from selling wax products.16 Growing Power organizes youth workshops to produce wax goods such as lip balm, candles, and soaps as another way to fund the farm and its programs.17 Lastly, both Eagle Street Rooftop Farms (pictured above) and North Brooklyn Farms could extend their reach and services by implementing a farmer’s market or pop-up shop events in specific 14

areas within Williamsburg that have a dearth of fresh and healthy produce. This allows the farms to truly test their potential of influence and to directly aid a neighborhood experiencing poor diet. Instead of expecting the poor and marginalized communities to come to them, both farms could attempt to directly provide access from inside the area of which these poor diets and fresh, healthy produce inaccessibility occurs. Transportation costs such as an MTA pass (bus or subway transit), cab fare, gas prices, accessibility to public or private transportation, time constraints, etc. are all sacrifices and tolls that not many can afford, particularly those of poor, marginalized groups. It is imperative of all urban farms to consider and acknowledge these restraints that are embedded in the very physical landscape in every neighborhood where the poor and marginalized populate. Thinking about how to become a social intervention through spatial landscape and physical urban design is a practical way for both urban farms to literally show and become a truly accessible healthy foods source option. The proposed initiatives not only directly acknowledge ecological rifts, but also speak to social and individual rifts â&#x20AC;&#x201D; they are constructing new systems where new jobs could be offered (particularly to the marginalized), constructs a space where

education could be dispersed in a public, accessible way (which further pushes the possibility of marginalized groups to allocate jobs), and allows individuals of communities to gather and bond with each other and with their foods. By providing opportunities, be it through accessible workshops, careers, education, and direct hands-on shopping and agriculture experience, both Eagle Street Rooftop Farm and North Brooklyn Farms have the potential to expand their reach and influence to the greater Williamsburg area, specifically to the often forgotten marginalized groups populating South and East Williamsburg. Through the implementation of these suggested systems, farms in Williamsburg and Greenpoint could address social justice issues in a sustainable manner that could also help fund farming, production, and programs.

Footnotes 1 Tacoli, 17. 2 McClintock, (192-193) 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Iverson, The Poorest Parts of Brooklyn Are...In Williamsburg?, 1. 7 Iverson, 1. 8 Iverson, 1. 9 ”The Farm on Kent: Opens July 2015.” North Brooklyn Farms. Accessed November 04, 2016. http://www.northbrooklynfarms.com/. 10 McClintock, (193) 11”Together We Are Growing Power.” Growing Power. Accessed November 04, 2016. http://www.growingpower.org/. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.

Section 2

How Effective Food Policy Can Change NYC’s Urban Landscape By Tyler Elmore Food policy in America has taken a back seat for many years, but if politicians were to consider food policy more seriously, our entire political climate would change. Food policy can take many forms and is created at many different levels. There are federal food policies that impact the entire country, state food policies, and municipal food policies made at a community level. Food policy is the area of public policy concerning how food is produced, processed, distributed, and purchased. The governmental agencies that control food at a national level are the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). While there are many different independent agencies that have ties

to American food policy, these are the departments that are publicly funded by taxpayers. In an article by Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman, Ricardo Salvaodor, and Olivier De Schutter for The Washington Post in 2014, they address how simple reforms in our national food policy can dramatically alter the landscape around us. “A national food policy would do that, by investing resources to guarantee that: • All Americans have access to healthful food; • Farm policies are designed to support our public health and environmental objectives; • Our food supply is free of toxic bacteria, chemicals and drugs; • Production and marketing of our food are done transparently; 17

•

The food industry pays a fair urban agriculture movement. They wage to those it employs; spoke to many different activists • Food marketing sets within NYC to see how they are children up for healthful impacting food policy. With an lives by instilling in them a almost resounding effort they habit of eating real food; said that it was through political • Animals are treated with alliances. Different groups would compassion and attention to organize together to help combat their well-being; a certain issue, thus giving a more • The food system’s carbon community oriented perspective. footprint is reduced, and It also gives the initiative the the amount local voice that it of carbon needs in order to sequestered accurately address on the problem at farmland is hand. A community increased; activist that was • The food interviewed in the system is book named Ray sufficiently Figueroa (pictured resilient to to the left), thinks withstand that activist need to the effects do more than just of climate collect signatures change. on petitions and Only those with speak at public a vested interest assemblies. in the status quo Reynolds and would argue Ray Figueroa at Community Garden. Photo Cohen said that by New York Times. against creating “[The activists] public policies with Carrying out tactics these goals.” (Pollan, 2014) similar to those of generations While Pollan, Bittman, of community gardeners that Salvador, and De Schutter speak came before them, they employ about addressing Food policy on a social-movement and communitynational level, New York can take organizing methods of coalition active steps to do the same without building, re-framing issues so having to wait for a national policy they are politically salient, and to be passed. In Beyond the Kale, forming strategic, if temporary, Kristin Reynolds and Nevin Cohen partnerships to accomplish talk about the changing climate in common policy objectives.” New York City in respects to the (Reynolds, Cohen, P.75) It is 18

through these practices that real changes begin to be seen. New York City is beginning to take steps in alleviating some of these problems created by poor policy (or lack thereof) by encouraging community members to actively participate in the creation of said policies. More and more community activists are working together to create policies to impact positive change in neighborhoods throughout the city. The biggest initiative for social change in New York City is ONENYC, that is a multifaceted plan to direct New York City into a more sustainable and socially just future. It tries to encompass everything that an ideal urban system would have. The plan addresses, diversity, housing, and sustainability. The major flaw within this plan is the fact that it really doesn’t address Urban Agriculture. There is small section on page 135 of the plan that speaks about how the city will support the development of Urban Agriculture in different ways but gives no specifics. The plan talks about how important urban agriculture is in developing resilient neighborhood. Urban agriculture is even more prevalent in underserved communities and the city says that they recognize that and will support them with infrastructure. Beside these general statements the plan doesn’t address how exactly it will be supporting urban agriculture.

There are some barriers set in place that most people wouldn’t think about when it comes to actually facilitating these programs. Zoning is a very big issue for people who want to start a community garden or rooftop gardens, especially in NYC. Zoning pertains to the laws that regulate land use across both metropolitan and rural areas. These requirements usually encompass not only square footage but height and what types of structures can be built where. In 2012, a plan amendment was ratified to allow rooftop gardens to not be limited by zoning on top of commercial buildings. It allows an extra 25ft being allotted to commercial, non-residential spaces height so that green houses could be build atop the building. (Cohen, Urban Food Policy). This new law did not apply to residential or buildings that have sleeping quarters such as a hotel because they are afraid that people will end up using that space as a living space rather than a garden. Another one of the major issues that is being battled with food policy in New York City is food sovereignty. Because the Bronx is one of the biggest distributors of food in the state of New York it is very strange that it is also be one of the biggest food deserts. So activists like Figueroa are trying to get local governments to reevaluate the use of public land. “Some activists have critiqued the 19

methods used to evaluate future land use and introduced to their advocacy platforms the notion that gardens play a critical role in urban sustainability and public health, a role that has been overlooked or insufficiently valued by public agencies.” (Reynolds, Cohen, P. 82) Tanya Fields (pictured on page 21) of the BLK ProjeK in the South Bronx, also believes that ill-used or empty land is a strong form of injustice. She specifically thinks that privately owned land that the owners just sit on for years is especially hurtful for the community environment. ““This idea that you can say, ‘Okay, I’ve got this land and I paid my taxes and I’m going to sit on it for twenty or thirty years waiting for an upswing; in twenty, thirty years I’ll give it to my kid who will sit on it for fifteen to twenty years and they’ll sell it.’ And then the community in which [the land] exists has no place [in decision making]. This is the very basis of injustice. We all live in this community, we are investors in multiple ways, we are stakeholders in multiple ways. And somehow, something that sits here [and] lays fallow around us for decades at a time, we have no say about it because some person living in [nearby] Westchester or Putnam County owns it?! That’s bullshit, right?!” (Reynolds, Cohen, P. 83) Cohen and Reynolds describe Fields’ way of thinking to be inline with many of those indigenous

cultures from around the world. The belief that “land is different from other commodities in that its use has an effect on other people, that humans have a biological and ecological connection to the land, and that we cannot be separated from it. “ (Reynolds, Cohen, P. 83) Our current food policies also disproportionally affect lowerincome families and people of color. People who live in food deserts often spend more money on their food and have fewer options for fresh food. Janet Poppendieck and JC Dwyer write about the economic disparages in low-income neighborhoods, specifically East Harlem. They talk about how in poorer neighborhoods there are less likely to be big stores, so when the size of the store decreases the prices of food increase making it more cost efficient to shop for the cheap processed foods. (Dwyer, Poppendieck, P. 311) That is why there has been a relatively big movement with community gardens and urban farms in lower income neighborhood. There are roughly 600 registered gardens with GreenThumb NYC making it the biggest network of community gardens in the United States. The Bronx, being the largest food desert in America, houses 50 plus gardens alone to help counteract the food disparages within the neighborhoods. One way that New York City is personally trying to change this is 20

Tanya Fields of the BLK ProjeK. Photo by Speakoutnow.org.

through Grow NYCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health Bucks While community gardens or program. This program allows gardening programs to educate people who use the Supplemental students are good, no major Nutrition Assistance Program change will happen until we can (SNAP) that have EBT cards to change the food policy within our trade some of their money in to be government. When we are able to able to be used at farmers markets change the way the government around the city. Customers allocates food subsidies to not only are given token either $1 or $5 include produce for manufacturing (pictured on the right) depending other goods, or when we can on how much money they want convince local government that to use from their public spaces card to then go should be left to to the different the public to decide booths at the what happens to farmers market it, that is when we to purchase fresh will be able to see produce. The real change within farmers then at the the communities. end of the day turn When food policy in the tokens that begins to take they received to into account the Grow NYC to get environment in a actual cash. (Grow more serious way, NYC, website) then we will see The Health Buck more change. New program is an York City has the added bonus to potential to be a entice more EBT huge player in the GrowNYC Greenmarket tokens. Photo by NPR. users to buy at political climate farmers markets. surrounding food For every $5 a customer spends policy. If communities continue using EBT, they receive one $2 to fight to be able to produce their Health Buck coupon. Health own food and be self sufficient Bucks can be used at any farmers then others will see, and want to market throughout New York City change as well. New York City has to purchase fruits or vegetables. a lot of weight when it comes to This program that was created in social change, if the people want it New York City has now grown to enough, they can change the failing become a national phenomenon food system. and can be seeing at farmers markets in many states. 22

Section 3

The Implementation, Impact, and Future of School Gardens in New York City By Zachary Yindra School gardens are an important and valuable type of Urban Agriculture, and are becoming more popular nationwide as a means of experiential education with food production. These types of gardens provide a rare connection to food production at a very impressionable age. This type of experiential engagement with agriculture and nature is increasingly important as the small number of natural spaces in cities grows increasingly smaller BLAIR, and provides a number of positive benefits to the schools, students, teachers, volunteer sand communities who participate. Perhaps the most studied outcome, and the most often invoked by proponents of the movement public health benefits from the documented ability of school gardens to improve nutritional habits of the students and families

of students who participate. (Bronx Academy of Letters students are shown in their garden on pg. 24). There is also and increasing body of evidence to support positive educational outcomes of school gardens across all subjects. There are also economic benefits to schools, and positive nutritional and educational benefits to students as a result of fresher produce and greater variety. These outcomes are far from universal but the positive benefits are documentable both quantitatively and anecdotally. It can hardly be denied, however, that the overall effect of school garden projects is to engage populations without access to land to agriculture and healthy diet practices and therefore has a great deal of value. A great variance in scale, participation, curriculum etc. exists, and may be the cause in the varied 23

Students at Bronx Academy of Letters in the Applegate Garden. Photo by Ali Annunziato.

effectiveness of school gardens. Urban planners must work to ensure that school gardens are an available educational resource into the future. Possible planning solutions include making sure that land is available and properly zoned for school gardens. The school garden movement began in Europe at the beginning of the 19th Century, and legislation existed mandating the implementation of school gardens in Prussia in 1869 (Subramanian, 2). Leading up to and during this point in the school garden movement a number of notable proponents voiced their support for garden-based education. These included Maria Montessori, Mahatma Gandhi, and John

Dewey (Subramanian, 2002.) The movement began gaining ground in the United States around the time of World War I. The purpose of these early American school gardens was to produce food to offset a need created by the war effort, as part of a united effort called the United States School Garden Army (Child, 2002). The popularity of the movement was sustained during post-war development and during the Second World War as part of the Victory Garden movement and waned thereafter. There was a resurgence around the time of the beginnings of the environmental movement which has since subsided (Subramanian, 2002). Interest in school gardens remains 24

strong, and a resurgence in popularity is currently taking place (Child, 2002). The Bronx Academy of Letters, pictured above, has a large student garden on their campus. Strong interest remains in part because school gardens

increased preference for fruits and vegetables, and all around improved attitudes toward healthful food choices (Ratcliffe, et al, 2009). A 2005 study showed that participants in school garden programs at seven elementary

Bronx Academy of Letters school garden. Photo by Ali Annunziato.

are considered to be effective tools to assist in the nutritional education of those urbanites whose health is considered to reflect poor nutrition choices. They are, of course, countless other factors affecting public health and the effect of a single garden on a community would probably escape the notice of a study of an entire neighborhood (Alkon et al, 2012). It has been established quantitatively, however, that participation in school gardens program leads to

schools in Texas scored significantly higher on science achievement tests than a control group who experienced only classroom based learning (Klemmer, Waliczek, Zajicek, 2005). This was one of the first studies of its type to establish a quantifiable benefit to school gardens specifically, rather than the increased effectiveness of hands-on learning more generally. Due to the great variation in the ways and scale by which school gardens are implemented, these 25

types of studies are difficult to conduct and the body of quantitative analysis is still relatively small. Methodological issues are widespread in the existing research, and as a result a high level of skepticism exists (Blair, 2009.) For this reason observational and anecdotal evidence are still among the most common and strongest impetus for the continued expansion of the school garden movement and the benefit to having a garden in every school (Ozer, 2007.) Problems facing the implementation and sustainability of school gardens are typically related to the lack of financial, human, or spatial resources available to those who wish to begin or continue to operate a school garden. Many possible solutions lie in the planning sphere, on the dockets of zoning boards. Gardens should also be a fundamental and included element of the design of every new school. Ozer explains and describes other factors contributing to closure: “Reasons given for the closure of the garden program were lack of (a) time on the part of teachers or maintenance staff “overloaded” with other duties, (b) funding, (c) support on the part of parents or volunteers, (d) gardening experience, and (e) space (e.g., space previously available for the garden lost because of an increase in portable classrooms). Other factors contributing to program

closure were ineffective integration into the curriculum, vandalism, challenges in maintaining the garden during school vacations, illness or death of the teacher leading the program, and the garden program not being valued as a teaching tool in a time of increased accountability for student achievement (Ozer, 2007).” It is the hope of the large community of teachers, administrators, volunteers and students who participate in school gardening that these problems can be overcome as individual issues arise. It seems that anecdotal evidence regarding the ability of school gardens to connect students with the natural world would be enough to make them more prolific nationwide. With the growing body of evidence to support the positive educational, behavioral and nutritional effects it will become difficult for schools to justify their absence from curricula.

Section 4

The Necessity of Rooftop Gardens in the 21st Century By Grayson Gingerly Due to expected population growth in the coming years, which will also be concentrated in cities, rooftop gardens will be necessary in order to provide food security to the world’s population. In the next few decades, 75% of the world’s population is expected to live in cities, and the total population of the world is expected to reach nine billion people (Barthel & Isendahl 9). Today there is just over seven billion people in the world, and already we are facing crises with food production. With other future challenges such as climate change and limited resources, then we will have to show more ingenuity with how we provide food for populations around the world (Lovell & Taylor 1447). As this section will demonstrate, rooftop gardens can create numerous benefits in ecological, social, cultural and economic spheres of

life, and can contribute to greater food security within cities. Cities are never really separate from their wider surroundings, but rather exist as part of the greater ecosystem. Cities impact the air quality and climate of their regions for instance, and take in materials and resources from outside themselves. However, most cities in the modern industrialized world have become fragmented and appear to be separated from their wider surrounding environments (Barthel & Isendahl 1). As Barthel and Isendahl write, “Modernist ideology underpinning the emergence of urban planning during the early decades of the 1900s distinctly separated local agricultures as obsolete in futuristic and normative understanding of the city as an autonomous social system” (1). The modernist city has developed 27

Rothenberg Rooftop Garden NYC. Photo by Rothenberg Rooftop Gardens.

according to an ideal of focusing entirely on social and economic production while negating the aspect of ecological production. In today’s age as well as in the age of the future, this split will no longer be possible, and the rooftop garden is one measure which can help remake the city as a holistic, selfsufficient urban eco-system. In order to create food security in cities, the inhabitants of cities must turn their cities into agrourban landscapes, which means to create numerous farmsteads around the city. The problem with modern cities is that there is a scarcity of space. The Maya civilization integrated farmsteads into the design of their cities, but in their time, there were not as many people as today (Barthel &

Isendahl 5). With less physical space readily available in the form of empty lots, the obvious alternative is to turn to the roofs of the buildings themselves. Some refer to the utilizing of rooftops for gardens as “zero-acreage farming”, or “Z-farming” (Grard et al. 2015). Rooftop gardens are seen to be a form of “multifunctional green infrastructure,” as they serve a variety of purposes in different dimensions of life including ecological, social, cultural, and economic (Lovell & Taylor 1448). Rothenberg Rooftop Garden, pictured above, is an example of one of many rooftop gardens in New York City. Ecologically, rooftop gardens provide benefit to the world by incorporating plant 28

biodiversity, increasing food production, helping to control the microclimate, and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere (Lovell & Taylor 1456). Further, rooftop gardens improve the immediate environmental state of the city as well by improving storm water management, filtering out airborne pollutants, and improving quality of run-off (Liu 1). Through these functions, which are also known as “eco-system services,” life is improved both within cities and throughout the world, as cities are in fact connected to the wider biosphere. With climate change as perhaps the greatest issue facing humanity in the 21st century, there is great necessity to create more green spaces throughout the world. Just as cities do not exist separately from their wider environment, the social dimension of human life should not be considered separate from ecology. Rooftop gardens can reintegrate these two parts of life by strengthening the social-ecological resiliency of cities (Lovell & Taylor 1450). Rooftop gardening can provide a great way for people in cities to come together and cooperate in providing for their needs. Most people in cities live in separate apartments within common buildings, so rooftop gardens atop those buildings provides a way to unite people within a greater social sphere. When people self-organize together like this, positive feedback

loops form as social bonds strengthen (Lovell & Taylor 1450). People are empowered to manage their own resources and can learn to work together to gain further self-determination in political, economic and other dimensions of their lives (Lovell & Taylor 1451). Rooftop gardens can help people see that the welfare of the community is related to personal welfare, since food security benefits everyone. The cultural benefits of agroecosystems in cities can be seen in the practices and worldviews of the ancient Maya. Some have observed from the intentional designs of Maya cities that their choices for garden plot locations suggest that their gardens held meaning in their mythology. As Barthel & Isendahl say about the Maya; “the farmstead garden mapped out an entire life-world, forming a micro-cosmos and essential guiding spatial ontology” (5). For the Mayans, cultivating food was a way to deepen their connectedness to nature, which held powerful spiritual meaning for them. In modern times, since cities and many other aspects of people’s lives have become so detached from nature, many people could benefit from connecting with nature through agro-production. People’s lives could further benefit culturally by rooftop gardens if people from various cultures were engaged in the production, and even more so if creative art 29

projects were integrated into the designs of the gardens. Economically, rooftop gardens provide productive benefit through the food they produce as well as the aesthetic improvement to the city. The actual product of rooftop gardens can be sold within cities and provide revenue (Lovell & Taylor 1451). If people

property values likely increase when the air quality and other environmental components of cities improve. Rooftop gardens are also a great way to improve the urban metabolism of cities, especially when local resources are utilized. Urban metabolism is defined as the interrelated group of energy,

Brooklyn Grange Rooftop Farm. Photo by Brooklyn Grange.

are compensated for their work in the gardens then that is another economic benefit, and considering the other professionals and industries that could provide materials or services to building and maintaining the gardens brings other possible economic benefits. Rooftop gardens also make cities more visually appealing which effectively raises property values (Liu 2). Likewise,

resource, and information flows that maintain life in the city (Gandy 363). The metabolism of a city is similar to that of the human body which always taking energy in, processing the energy and emitting energy. Rooftop gardens can help to save energy and diminish the necessity of transporting food into cities, which in effect strengthens the resiliency of the urban social30

ecological metabolic system. (See image above) This benefits not only the city itself, but also the greater world, as carbon effects of transportation are bypassed. A project undertaken by researchers Grard et al. in Paris, France further demonstrates how the rooftop gardens can further benefit the urban metabolism when materials are sourced locally. In their project, Grard et al. used green waste compost from urban public parks and green spaces, local crushed wood, and coffee grounds from around the city (24). No chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or insecticides were used in this project, and these local materials proved worthy in creating good food yields with soil that showed low amounts of heavy metals and other pollutants (24, 29). Some people argue that with so many people in the world today that the best way to feed everyone is through massive, centralized agriculture projects which produces huge amounts of food to be transported into cities, but this a misguided and dangerous view. It is misguided because it is not true that cities are unable to provide enough food for their inhabitants. For instance, during World War I, allotment gardens in British cities provided 2,000,000 tons of vegetables by 1918 (Barthel & Isendahl 8), and in Havana, Cuba, due to the fall of the Soviet Union and blockades from the United States, Cubans created

400 horticulture collectives which collectively produced 8,500 tons of vegetables, 7.5 million eggs, and 3,650 tons of meat (Barthel & Isendahl 9). And the view that food should be produced non-locally in centralized designs is dangerous because the resiliency of such methods is very low. If there is a disaster that causes crop failure or inhibits the transportation systems, then huge populations of people will be left without access to food. When inhabitants of cities take control of their own food production through rooftop gardening, food safety for everyone increases. Centralized organization is dangerous for this reason while decentralized, peer-to-peer organization is more safe and resilient. The primary barriers to rooftop gardens are related to the mass agriculture system mentioned above, as well as a lack of knowledge among the public, a lack of financing and resources, and obstacles of private property. The industrial agriculture system, for the time being, maintains a supply of food that is relatively affordable for most people, and so there is not felt an urgency to make changes such as rooftop gardens. As the example from Grard et al. demonstrates, to make a rooftop garden requires agricultural knowledge, resources, and a willingness to maintain the garden. In most Western cities, these resources are lacking. And lastly, 31

the fact that most buildings are privately rather than cooperative owned presents a problem in the accessibility of the rooftop spaces for the gardens. As we proceed into the future, with more awareness of the necessity for alternative food sources, these barriers could be overcome through new educational and legal policies concerning accessibility. With greater population growth and more people living in cities, we need to figure out how to provide enough food for everyone. Increasing food production in cities thus appears to be a necessity as we move into the 21st century, and the roof top garden is an ideal solution. Rooftop gardens are multifunctional, with ecological, social, cultural, and economic benefits. Through helping to transform cities into functional social-ecosystems, rooftop gardens can improve the health of the biosphere as well as the health of people, the strength of social connections, and quality of life in several ways, such as through greater cultural engagement with nature. Rooftop gardens can yield huge amounts of food as demonstrated by the city gardening practices of ancient civilizations such as the Maya as well as modern examples by such people as those in Havana, Cuba. When rooftop gardens integrate the materials of their cities as well as the engagement of local populations, they improve the

urban metabolism of the cities and create resiliency that is far greater than that of non-localized and centralized food systems. By increasing the food supplies of cities and strengthening the social bonds between people, rooftop agriculture can contribute to greater food security. Centralized and distant food producers present a dangerous case of food insecurity because food production is outside of the control of those in cities who consume the food. Rooftop agriculture changes this situation by empowering people to produce their own food in cities which boosts their food security.

Section 5

Community Gardens Are More Than Just Growing Food By Emma Stephen A key aspect of urban planning is to create and maintain ways to protect a cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s food security. A time tested approach is to actually grow food within the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limits, and not solely depend on food brought in from a distance. As community gardens have once again taken hold in the last couple of decades, planners have observed that these gardens do more than just feed our bellies. They feed our community confidence to work together, learn from each other and make a positive impact on a neighborhood. Community gardens can unify city dwellers into a political force. They are being called a new social movement that is helping people of disparate backgrounds work together to bring about positive change. As a result, city planners should actively assess if their urban communities can undertake the development of

one or more community gardens. They will feed the belly and the minds and souls of those who grow food there. Definition: Community gardens are collaborative projects using shared open spaces where a group of people work together in the maintenance of the garden, grow healthful and affordable fresh fruits, vegetables and at times raise small livestock. Gardeners grow their own food, share it or donate it. A Multitude of Benefits Fresh and healthy produce available to a range of urban communities to minimize hunger Urban gardens saved millions of people from starvation in cities in the 1900s, particularly during war

Community Garden in Seattle, WA. Photo by the City of Seattle.

times. In WWI, tons of vegetables were grown in allotment gardens in Britain using parks, sports stadiums and even the grounds of Buckingham Palace. Victory Gardens in the U.K. and the U.S. during WWII fed citizens when food resources were being shipped out to the troops. (Barthel) These gardens were ad hoc solutions to large scale crises. Community gardens started moving onto urban planners and city dwellers agenda in the 1990s when issues around urban sustainability became clearer and more complex as cities exponentially grew. City dwellers were becoming more disconnected from the land and the source of their food. And importantly, as cities grow, the lower income population continues to have a hard time accessing fresh, affordable food. Community gardens provide a very welcome addition to the bodegas and gas station mini-marts.

regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives. (Statement on Peoples’ Food Sovereignty - viacampesina. org) Community gardens deliver on the right of people to define their own food and agriculture. Urban policy would be needed to protect and regulate production and trade. Two examples from Toronto and New York City: There is a Chinese senior citizen garden in Toronto, Canada called the Frances Beavis Community Garden. The gardeners grow herbs and vegetables they ate in China and they use the same trellising farming technique used in their native province. Insert photo Latino community gardens in New York City are another example. The planting structures, design, and plants within these gardens reflect the gardeners’ country of origin (Draper) These examples illustrate how groups that could be marginalized from the formal political process can control their living spaces and their food through the assertion of their cultural identity. In the gardens, cultural diversity becomes connected to biodiversity, demonstrating how urban green space is infused with the cultural and political. This effort of “food citizenship” can lead to a transformation of the urban landscape and the food system. (Baker)

Maximize food sovereignty, grow what you want! The peasant coalition Via Campesina takes a strong stand on the importance of food sovereignty. The right to grow and maintain foods that respect and perpetuate cultural and productive diversity is the fundamental underpinning of the idea of food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and 35

A space where ideas can be shared and coalitions built to battle neighborhood injustices

they grow --- they put the effort into it, and are proud of their results. The result is improved healthy eating, more fruits and veggies, which is particularly good for growing children. In addition, urban kids may have never seen a squash or a tomato on the vine. Working in the community gardens provides an important link back to the earth and how food actually looks and taste before it is overly processed.

Community gardens are well known for providing space for neighbors to grow fresh, healthy food close to home, but beyond improving food access, community gardens provide the space for powerful neighborhood-level social change. (Albornoz) Because community gardens provide a social space for individuals to join together, community organizing often results through the interactions. Community garden participants mobilize themselves and others within the larger community to address further community needs or push back against threats of losing garden land. (Draper) Community gardening can play an important role in maintaining a cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resilience: they support community self-organization so that local residents manage their own resources. (Tidwell)

Bring a green productive space into a world of concrete Gardens look and smell pleasant. They provide a natural break from the brick, asphalt and concrete that cities are built from. Most community gardeners plant decorative flowers as well as produce, and non-gardeners benefit. Often gardens are created out of former vacant lots, not only ugly, dangerous, and depressing places. Some gardens encourage neighborhood youth to plant and grow, they become engaged in productive healthy activity in a space that once sat idle.

Teach children proper eating habits and respect for the farmer

Engage often sedentary city dwellers in physical activity

Community gardens have been found to enhance positive dietary habits, such as increased fruit and vegetable consumption and preference among participants, regardless of setting or population. (Jones) People tend to eat what

Gardening can become a lifelong habit. The satisfaction of planting and ultimately eating the results of your efforts doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t lose its appeal easily. Part of the good feeling is simply, moving 36

around, being outside, digging in the dirt, carrying mulch and water. It is physical labor that many city dwellers no long participate in. As the population ages, more senior citizens have time on their hands, there are cities that now have gardens dedicated to this particular demographic.

to city organizations and government. The land must be available for a long-term garden. • Make sure at least one of the potential gardeners is willing to talk with officials and stand up for the rights of the garden and deal with the red tape.

Issues that gardeners have to address

How to keep the garden’s soil healthy and well-watered?

How to build gardens in new neighborhoods?

• Use local connections to horticulturists who can test the soil • Recycle rain water to save money and conserve water resources

• Do not take the cookie cutter approach. Involve neighbors and institutions like churches and clubs. Keep food sovereignty in mind: make the plantings reflective of the cultures on the nearby block

Success stories: Austin, Texas and Seattle, Washington

What is the best planning approach?

Austin, Texas Austin is a leader in community garden organization. In fact, since they are ahead of the curve in understanding the power of these gardens, their list of why gardens are good for a community actually puts growing food at the BOTTOM… Strengthening communities through community gardens (Sari Albornoz)

• It has been speculated that the best approach to creating community gardens is to do it one at a time, vacant lot after another vacant lot. A citywide initiative to go out and create dozens of gardens would require coordinated planning goals and policies. It is better to use a grass root strategy. (Lovell +Taylor)

1. They are places to befriend your neighbors. 2. They are places to learn. 3. They are sites for restoring

How to get approval? • From the outset it is best to work with those connected 37

and building health. 4. They are a place for children (and adults!) to explore nature in the middle of urban areas. (See image below) 5. They are a place to practice teamwork. 6. They empower us to organize and advocate for ourselves and for our communities.

vegetables for people without space to garden at home. The Austin Garden Coalition recognizes that gardening can extend beyond produce. They teach gardeners how to raise poultry for eggs, create organic fertilizer, and for use as pest control. There are now 94 gardens in Austin, some are specifically run by seniors and

Children at a community garden. Photo by RedTricycle.com.

7. They provide the opportunity for people in marginalized groups to fully participate and to take on leadership roles. 8. They create the opportunity to identify community assets and to build networks. 9. They provide space to carry on our food cultures. 10. They provide a space to grow low-cost, fresh fruits and

others are Latino centric. Seattle, Washington P-Patch gardens are another successful and emulated community garden project. (As shown on page 34). Like their fellow gardeners in Texas, their definition of a community garden focuses on the citizenship aspect of the space: â&#x20AC;&#x153;a community garden is a space where neighbors come together to grow community and 38

steward - plan, plant, and maintain -a piece of open space.” (seattle. gov) The P-Patch gardens in Seattle set standards that ensure the gardeners are involved with their community and the gardens are sustainable and healthy: • P-Patch gardeners are required to complete a minimum of 8 hours of community work per year (not within an individual plot) • Only organic gardening is allowed, no chemicals Seattle now has 88 neighborhood P-Patches. The city estimates at least six thousand gardeners are actively involved, and says many more enjoy the spirit they bring to the community. People are adding bees, chickens and goats to their plots. They have added two gardens with farm stands, another innovation. Many of the gardeners donate food to food banks. These are called giving gardens. “Nearly everyone who gardened in Seattle’s first P-Patch back in the early ‘70s remembers the advice of Rainie Picardo, whose family lent their farm for the community garden: “You get back what you put in.”” (seattle.gov) This is true for community gardens no matter where they are.

Association’s guidelines for launching a successful community garden. 1. Organize a Meeting of Interested People

What kind of garden should it be? Who will be involved and who benefits? Invite neighbors, tenants, community organizations, horticultural societies, building superintendents --- in other words, anyone who is likely to be interested.

2. Form a Planning Committee

Include people who are committed to the creation of the garden and have the time to devote to it. Choose well-organized persons as garden coordinators Form committees to tackle specific tasks: funding and partnerships, youth activities, construction and communication.

3. Identify All Your Resources

Do a community asset assessment. What skills and resources exist in the community that can aid in the garden’s creation? Contact local municipal planners about possible sites, as well as horticultural societies. Look within your community for people with experience in landscaping and gardening.

4. Approach a Sponsor

How to start a community garden --- a step by step guide

Some gardens “self-support” through membership dues, but for many, a sponsor is essential for donations of tools, seeds or money. Churches, schools,

These steps are adapted from the American Community Garden 39

private businesses or recreation departments are all possible supporters .

the best ground rules. Think of it as a code of behavior. Some examples of issues that are best dealt with by agreed upon rules are: dues, how will the money be used? . How are plots assigned? Will gardeners share tools, meet regularly, handle basic maintenance?

5. Choose a Site

Consider the amount of daily sunshine (vegetables need at least six hours a day), availability of water, and soil testing for possible pollutants. Find out who owns the land. Can the gardeners get a lease agreement for at least three years? Will public liability insurance be necessary?

10. Help Members Keep in Touch with Each Other

Good communication ensures a strong community garden with active participation by all. Some ways to do this are: form a telephone tree, create an email list; install a rainproof bulletin board; have regular celebrations. Community gardens are all about creating and strengthening communities. (https://communitygarden.org)

6. Prepare and Develop the Site

In most cases, the land will need considerable preparation for planting. Organize volunteer work crews to clean it, gather materials and decide on the design and plot arrangement.

City planners are becoming more aware that urban dwellers need to take action to maintain food security. One proven solution is the development of community gardens. City planners must assess the feasibility of installing these gardens on a site by site basis. Once all involved parties agree to start digging, the garden must be designed to fit the neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs and be carefully maintained and supervised. The garden community will benefit from more than just food, there will be a stronger sense of community and cultural identity and pride.

7. Organize the Garden

Members must decide how many plots are available and how they will be assigned. Allow space for storing tools, making compost and room for pathways. Plant flowers or shrubs around the gardenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edges to promote good will and beautify the block.

8. Plan for Children

Consider creating a special garden just for kidsâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;including them is essential. Children are not as interested in the size of the harvest but rather in the process of gardening.

9. Determine Rules and Put Them in Writing The gardeners themselves devise

Conclusion

Urban agriculture is one of the easiest ways to foster social food movements. Each type of urban agricultural practice stands to educate people so that they can in turn educate others. Throughout this book we have explored different methods that can be implemented to help alleviate food insecurity and allow communities to slowly become more food sovereign. We also explored the what gentrification means outside of just a rise in housing costs, and how different forms of urban agriculture are combating those negative effects through community gardening projects. School gardening, also instills early on the importance of fresh food, and allows for children who live in disenfranchised areas the ability to produce their own food. With that knowledge, students can take that home or even continue that work in a community garden around where they live, thus keeping the movement cyclical while simultaneously making the circle bigger. Rooftop gardens add a very urban nature to agriculture by utilizing the space that is available within a city. It allows for urban dwellers to have space to grow their own food, without having to find a plot of land. With this knowledge as opposed to community gardens that are on the ground, can potentially lead more people into questioning the current practices of food production and think more creatively about how to address the problems. These types of gardens are an example of forward thinking initiatives that leads to greater change in the policy realm because they go outside of the normal means of food production. With local governments having to change in order to accommodate urban farmers and gardeners, these new ideas about food production will hopefully begin to take more effect in smaller rural areas as well. Especially since, for example New York City is such a huge, progressive metropolitan city, it has the ability 42

to propel certain ideas not just nationally but globally. If NYC is able to set a certain standards for themselves that actively advance their own food system in an economic, social, and ethical manner then more cities will follow suit, or even build upon what NYC has started. If these methods that we presented are implemented and actively maintained, food security and sovereignty will be sustainable and achievable for many different urban landscapes. The communities that have already started implementing more community gardens and good food policy, are already seen increase in the cities resiliency. NYC, Seattle, and Austin are all examples of what an active community involvement in urban agriculture can do with just making relatively simple changes. If these cities and the countless other cities within the US are able to continue with their work, then eventually these methods will become nationally recognized. There are many ways outside of the topics discussed in this pamphlet to advance urban agriculture. We believe that school gardens, community gardens, and rooftop gardens are the beginning stages and plant the seeds for larger social movements. With the knowledge gained from these practices, they can be used as the building blocks for future advancements in urban agriculture on a global scale.

Index and Work Cited

Introduction Work Cited 1. Barthel, Stephan, and Christian Isendahl. “Urban Gardens, Agriculture, and Water Management: 2. Childs, Elizabeth Ann, “Impact of school gardens on student attitudes and beliefs” (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 10393. 3. Tacoli, Cecilia, Budoor Bukhari, and Susannah Fisher. Urban Poverty, Food Security and Climate Change. London: Human Settlements Group, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2013. Print.

Urban Farming: A Means of Social Justice and Intervention Work Cited 1. Ackerman, K. “Urban Agriculture: Opportunities and Constraints.” Metropolitan Sustainability, 2012, 118-46. doi:10.1533/9780857096463.2.118. 2. Bellafante, Ginia. “Brooklyn’s Food Gap.” The New York Times. 2016. Accessed November 04, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/nyregion/ brooklyns-food-gap.html. 3. Durkin, Erin. “Brooklyn Health Statistics Reveal Inequality within Borough.” NY Daily News. 2015. Accessed November 04, 2016. http://www. nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/brooklyn- health-statistics-revealinequality-borough-article-1.2397280. 4. ”Eagle Street Rooftop Farm.” Eagle Street Rooftop Farm. Accessed November 04, 2016. http://rooftopfarms.org/. 5. ”Growing Communities: Integrating the Social and Economic ...” Accessed November 4, 2016. http://www.afsun.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ Battersby-and-Marshak.pdf. 6. Iverson, Kristin. “The Poorest Parts of Brooklyn Are...In Williamsburg? Brooklyn Magazine.” Brooklyn Magazine. 2014. Accessed November 04, 2016. http://www.bkmag.com/ 2014/01/09/the-poorest-parts-of-brooklyn-are-inWilliamsburg/. 7. McClintock, Nathan. “Why Farm the City? Theorizing Urban Agriculture through a ...” Accessed November 4, 2016. http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1092&context=usp_fac. 8. Ralph, Talia. “A Temporary Urban Farm Grows in Brooklyn.” MUNCHIES Comments. 2015. Accessed November 04, 2016. https://munchies.vice.com/en/ articles/a-temporary-urban-farm- grows-in-brooklyn. 9. ”The Farm on Kent: Opens July 2015.” North Brooklyn Farms. Accessed November 04, 2016. http://www.northbrooklynfarms.com/. 10. ”Together We Are Growing Power.” Growing Power. Accessed November 04, 2016. http:// www.growingpower.org/. 11. ”Vice Media.” Brooklyn Grange. Accessed November 04, 2016. http:// www.brooklyngrangefarm.com/vice. 12. Zeman, Frank. Metropolitan Sustainability: Understanding and Improving the Urban Environment. Sawston, Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Pub., 2012.

How Effective Food Policy Can Change NYC’s Urban Landscape Work Cited 1. Bittman, Mark, Michael Pollan, Ricardo Salvador, and Olivier De Schutter. “How a National Food Policy Could save Millions of Lives.” Michael Pollan. The Washington Post, 7 Dec. 2014. Web. 04 Nov. 2016. 2. Cohen, Nevin. “Growing Rooftop Farming in NYC.” Urban Food Policy. Wordpress, 24 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. 3. “Cultivate New York:An Agenda to Protect Farmland for Growing Food and the Economy.” American Farm Trust (n.d.): n. pag. American Farm Trust. Web. 4. Fruedenburg, Nicholas. “How Better U.S. Food Policies Could Foster Improved Health, Safer Jobs, and a More Sustainable Environment - New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College.” New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College. New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College, 07 Oct. 2014. Web. 04 Nov. 2016. 5. Navarro, Mireya. “Q&A: Greening the City’s Zoning Rules.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 May 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. 6. “New and Improved 2016 Zoning Handbook Available for Pre-Order Soon.” Zoning Handbook. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2016. 7. O’Keefe, Ed. “Farm Bill Passes after Three Years of Talks.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 2014. Web. 04 Nov. 2016. 8. Platkin, Charles. “Interview with Food Policy Influencer – Naomi Starkman - New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College.” New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College. New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College, 28 Sept. 2016. Web. 04 Nov. 2016. 9. Pollan, Michael. “Big Food Strikes Back: Why Did the Obamas Fail to Take on Corporate Agriculture?” Michael Pollan. The New York Times Magazine, 09 Oct. 2016. Web. 04 Nov. 2016. 10. Pollan, Michael. “How Change Is Going to Come in the Food System.” Michael Pollan. The Nation, 11 Sept. 2011. Web. 04 Nov. 2016. 11. Poppendieck, Janet, and JC Dwyer. “Hungry City.” Gastropolis: Food and New York City. By Annie Hauck-Lawson and Jonathan Deutsch. New York: Columbia UP, 2009. 308-26. Print. 12. Reynolds, Kristin, and Nevin Cohen. Beyond the Kale: Urban Agriculture and Social Justice Activism in New York City. Athens: U of Georgia, 2016. Print. 48

The Implementation, Impact, and Future of School Gardens in New York City Work Cited 1. Alkon, Alison Hope, Daniel Block, Kelly Moore, Catherine Gillis, Nicole Dinuccio, and Noel Chavez. “Foodways of the Urban Poor.” Geoforum 48 (2013): 126-35. Web. 23 Oct. 2016 2. Blair, Dorothy. “The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative Review of the Benefits of School Gardening.” The Journal of Environmental Education 40.2 (2009): 15-38. Web. 1 Nov. 2016 3. Childs, Elizabeth Ann, “Impact of school gardens on student attitudes and beliefs” (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 10393. 4. Klemmer, C. D., T. M. Waliczek, and J. M. Zajicek. “Growing Mind: The Effect of a School Gardening Program on the Science Achievement of Elementary Students.” HortTechnology (2005): 448-52. Web. 19 Oct. 2016 5. Ozer, E. J. “The Effects of School Gardens on Students and Schools: Conceptualization and Considerations for Maximizing Healthy Development.” Health Education & Behavior 34.6 (2006): 846-63. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. 6. Ratcliffe, M. M., K. A. Merrigan, B. L. Rogers, and J. P. Goldberg. “The Effects of School Garden Experiences on Middle School-Aged Students’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Associated With Vegetable Consumption.” Health Promotion Practice 12.1 (2009): 36-43. Web. 25 Oct. 2016. 7. Subramaniam, Aarti, M.A. “Garden-Based Learning in Basic Education: A Historical Review.” Monograph. University of California, 2002. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

The Necessity of Rooftop Gardens in the 21st Century Work Cited 1. Barthel, Stephan, and Christian Isendahl. “Urban Gardens, Agriculture, and Water Management: 2. Sources of Resilience for Long-term Food Security in Cities.” Ecological Economics (2012): 1-11. Web. 3. Grard, B.J. “Recycling Urban Waste as Possible Use for Rooftop Vegetable Garden.” Recycling 4. Urban Waste as Possible Use for Rooftop Vegetable Garden 3.1 (2015): 21-34. Web. 5. Liu, Karen. “Energy Efficiency and Environmental Benefits of Rooftop Gardens.” Institute for 6.

Research in Construction 44.2 (2002): 1-12. Web.

7. Lovell, S. T., and J. R. Taylor. “Supplying Urban Ecosystem Services through Multifunctional 8. Green Infrastructure in the United States.” Landscape Ecology 28 (2013): 1447-463. Web.

Community Gardens Are More Than Just Growing Food Work Cited 1. Albornoz, Sari (2015), “Strengthening Communities Through Community Gardens”, Sustainable Food Center 2. Baker, L. E. (2005),”Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto’s community gardens”, Geographical Review 3. Barthel, Stephan and Isendahl, Christian (2012), Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities, Ecological Economics 4. Bellows, A., Brown, K. & Smit, J. (2003),”Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture. A Paper from the Community Food Security Coalition’s North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture”, http://www.co.fresno.ca.us 5. Draper, C. & Freedman, D. (2010), “Review and analysis of the benefits, purposes, and motivations associated with community gardening in the United States”, Journal of Community Practice 6.

http://communitygardensaustin.org

http://www.seattle.gov

8. Jones, Lindsay (2012), “Improving Health, Building Community: Exploring the Asset Building Potential of Community Gardens”, University of Washington Press 9. Lovell, Sarah Taylor and Taylor, John (2013), “Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States”, Landscape Ecology in Review 10. Nyland, Kathy (2016), About the P-Patch program – Neighborhoods, Seattle.gov 11. The Food Security Network of Newfoundland and Labrador (2011), Community Garden Best Practices Toolkit: A Guide for Community Organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador 12. 10 Steps to Creating a Community Garden, American Community Garden Association. https://communitygarden.org/resources/10-steps-tostarting-a-community-garden/ 13. Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F. and Taron, C., et al. (2007) Growing urban health: community gardening in South-East Toronto, Health Promotion International, 22: 92–101.