Greening Vacant Lots in Kenosha Boosts Community

Running head: RECAPTURING VALUE 1
Recapturing Value: Greening Vacant Lots in Kenosha, Wisconsin
John Weston
SMGT 792 Capstone Project
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Sustainable Management
Dr. Steve Dunn
December 06, 2015

RECAPTURING VALUE 2
Abstract
Vacant properties present a unique challenge today to cities of every size all across the U.S.,
especially in the wake of the recent Great Recession. Particularly those once largely dependent
on manufacturing, like most in the industrial Midwest, continue to work toward redefining
themselves while revitalizing their communities more sustainably. Increasingly, these efforts are
incorporating urban greening initiatives that target vacant land to create more sustainable
neighborhood-based amenities. Research on the positive social, economic, and
environmental/ecological impacts continues to grow as the connection between community
development and urban greening are better understood. Growing consensus supports the
assertion that vacant properties provide fertile ground for neighborhood-scale and citywide
greening strategies that can revitalize urban environments, empower community residents, and
stabilize dysfunctional markets. Pioneering cities like Milwaukee, Baltimore, Portland,
Rochester, New Bedford, Flint and several others have developed successful, cutting-edge urban
greening initiatives that could provide other communities, particularly those in the Midwest, with
the foundation for a more sustainable future.

RECAPTURING VALUE 3
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology................................................................................................................................... 7
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions..................................................................................................................... 9
Research Objectives.................................................................................................................. 11
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 11
Previous Findings...................................................................................................................... 11
1) Neighborhood Stabilization & Community/Economic Development........................ 12
2) Public & Social Health ............................................................................................... 16
3) Environmental/Ecological .......................................................................................... 19
Case Studies .............................................................................................................................. 23
Findings......................................................................................................................................... 38
Economic Impacts..................................................................................................................... 39
Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 40
Social Impacts........................................................................................................................... 41
Depth Interview/Sample Survey............................................................................................... 43
5 year action plan.................................................................................................................. 45
Priority Areas ........................................................................................................................ 46
Land Use Goals..................................................................................................................... 50
Implications................................................................................................................................... 51

RECAPTURING VALUE 4
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 52
Future Research......................................................................................................................... 53
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 54
References..................................................................................................................................... 56
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 65
A-Interview with Brian R. Wilke.............................................................................................. 65
B-Interview with Beth Goeppinger........................................................................................... 74
C-Interview with Robert Beezat ............................................................................................... 78
D-Kenosha Residents Sample Survey ...................................................................................... 82

RECAPTURING VALUE 5
Introduction
Urban, suburban, and rural communities across America have struggled with vacant,
abandoned and problem properties for several decades. The current situation is unique, however,
as powerful forces—most notably the recent foreclosure and economic crises—threaten to undo
decades of growth, development, and reinvestment in many communities. Compounding matters
is urban sprawl pushing new development to the edges of many communities. Today, different
types of problem properties can be readily found in most any sized city. According to the Center
for Community Progress (2010), the number of vacant properties measured by vacancy rates has
risen steadily over the past 40 years. The Brookings Institution also reported that in 60 cities with
populations over 100,000, there are an average of two vacant buildings for every 1,000 residents
(as cited in National Vacant Properties Campaign (NVPC), 2005). These properties vary widely
in size, shape, and former use but are most often characterized by overgrown, weeded lots strewn
with trash in blighted, low-income communities. The NVPC defines vacant properties as
residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and vacant lots that exhibit one or both of the
following traits:
 The site poses a threat to public safety (meeting the definition of a public nuisance), or
 The owners or managers neglect the fundamental duties of property ownership (e.g. fail
to pay taxes, default on mortgages).
However, this definition may also be extended to include spaces that, although already
relatively green, remain largely overlooked or underutilized in neighborhoods citywide. As such,
most urban residents would likely consider these spaces blights on their neighborhood. This is
not to say vacant properties must always contain buildings; older cities in particular are dotted
with land where homes, factories, and other structures once stood. Although generally

RECAPTURING VALUE 6
considered less of a nuisance than vacant, abandoned buildings the effects of vacant lots can also
be felt across communities, both directly and indirectly. These spaces are often abandoned as a
result of rapid population shifts, sprawling development, consumer preference, job loss, and
foreclosure. On an individual level, the most common reason properties are abandoned is when
the cost of maintenance and operation exceeds the apparent value of the property (NVPC, 2005).
In any case, vacant lots and abandoned buildings are a destabilizing force in neighborhoods and a
resource drain on taxpayers (OES Milwaukee, 2010). They reduce quality of life, lower property
values, discourage investment, increase crime and inner city decay, and stress municipal budgets
(Center for Community Progress, 2010).
As of September 2015, Kenosha County had just over 900 buildable vacant lots zoned for
single and multifamily homes (Flores, 2015). This does not, however, include those zoned for
business, manufacturing, and other uses. It is also important to note the distinction between city-
owned and privately-owned vacant lots. Although this project focuses on the former within the
City of Kenosha, some cities have also taken measures in addressing land hoarding and
encouraging more productive uses for stagnant, vacant private properties (i.e. taxes). Taken
together, vacant properties represent a wealth of untapped and wasted potential in offering
important social and ecological/environmental benefits to the City of Kenosha. This may
include: providing additional habitat supporting local and regional biodiversity; provisioning of
ecological services; increasing green spaces in low-income neighborhoods; reducing crime and
inner city decay; increasing adjacent property values; providing community garden spaces;
supporting local food production; creating new recreational spaces; improving stormwater
absorption; enhancing the beauty of neighborhoods and creating a sense of place; and increasing
environmental awareness and education (McPhearson, 2012). Cities like Milwaukee, Wisconsin;

RECAPTURING VALUE 7
Baltimore, Maryland; Portland, Oregon; New Bedford, Massachusetts; Rochester, New York;
Flint, Michigan and several others serve as positive examples of the innovative ways in which
cities all across the U.S are recapturing the value of vacant properties.
As evident in the growing number of local government officials, community
organizations, and residents that see vacant properties as opportunities for productive reuse, the
implications of this project are not limited to the City of Kenosha. Vacant land offers
opportunities for any city looking to capitalize on important social, economic, and ecological
benefits. Repurposing vacant lots is also not limited to the green space expansion. A number of
other purposes could also be explored (e.g. low-income housing, parks and playgrounds,
installation of alternative energy facilities, incubators for small businesses and emerging
technologies, etc.), depending on the particular needs and resources of the community. The aim
of this research project is to contribute to the ongoing dialogue of the value and opportunity
inherent in most any type of vacant land when it comes community development and urban
improvement. For the City of Kenosha specifically, it is designed to instigate action on the part
of the City Common Council to consider taking advantage of this largely untapped and
overlooked, yet valuable community resource.
Methodology
The majority of research for this project has been qualitative. The techniques used
included previous research, depth interviews, case studies, and a sample survey. The collected
data was analyzed in an attempt to understand and interpret its full meaning, including the
aggregate effect on individual neighborhoods and the city as a whole. Previous research focused
on the impacts associated with vacant lots in other cities, as well as steps some communities are
taking to address large numbers of vacant lots. This data included external costs such as

RECAPTURING VALUE 8
decreased property values, higher insurance premiums, increased criminal activity, reduced local
tax dollars, and greater concerns of social justice and equity. Benefits include those listed in the
introduction. Essentially, the previous research highlighted many of the potential benefits of
greening these spaces as well as the drawbacks of doing nothing.
Data Collection
Depth interviews were conducted with Brian R. Wilke (Kenosha Development
Coordinator), Beth Goeppinger (Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Naturalist at Richard
Bong State Recreational Area), and Robert Beezat (Sustainable Edible Economic Development
(SEED) Board President). The interview with Mr. Wilke (Appendix A) was to provide
background information and insight into the political and legal systems that govern property and
land reuse in Kenosha, the availability of suitable lots, and to determine if this type of proposal is
compatible with the city’s current redevelopment plan. It was also important to gauge the City
Planning Commission’s stance on the state of vacant lots in the city as well as to identify any
current or future plans for these spaces. The interview with Mrs. Goeppinger (Appendix B) was
to understand the effect urban green spaces have on area wildlife and vice versa. There was also
interest in identifying where green spaces might best support area wildlife and which species
might be the most impacted. The interview with Mr. Beezat (Appendix C) sought to learn more
about the state of the local food system and determine where the need for greening initiatives
was greatest (e.g. low income neighborhoods, food insecure families, food deserts, etc.).
Case studies included greening and other vacant lot repurposing initiatives developed and
implemented by local governments in comparable cities. This provided the bulk of data
regarding the steps other cities have or are currently taking to address vacant lots, as well as to

RECAPTURING VALUE 9
identify any reoccurring themes that would be useful to the vacant lot situation in the City of
Kenosha.
A sample survey (Appendix D) was also created and distributed online to measure the
attitudes of as many local area residents, business owners, and other relevant stakeholders as
possible. The survey consisted of eight structured, Likert scale-style questions designed to probe
respondents about their opinion of the vacant lot situation in Kenosha, in general, and their
attitude toward the proposed greening initiatives, specifically, including their interest in
contributing financially or taking part in some other way. The survey also included one matrix
table question with several statements focusing on how respondents thought converted lots (into
green spaces) would affect them personally, as well as their neighborhood and the city as a
whole. The last five questions in the survey were demographic questions for profiling purposes
and to cross-tabulate and compare subgroups to see how opinions varied between groups of
respondents. The survey was administered through Facebook to Kenosha community-based
groups such as the Kenosha Community Forum, Kenosha Harbor Market, and You Know You’re
From Kenosha If… Essentially, the survey was designed to gauge peoples’ opinions and feelings
about greening vacant lots throughout the city and to help determine whether this initiative
would be favorable with Kenosha area residents.
ResearchQuestions
It was important to examine greening decisions by government officials in other cities to
gauge what actions might be applicable in Kenosha. Research was conducted by a content
analysis utilizing the results of several types of previous research, case studies, and interview
questions.
1) What role might city officials take in greening vacant lots in Kenosha?

RECAPTURING VALUE 10
Question One Proposition: Officials can take a number of different actions with varying
levels of involvement in vacant lot reuse/repurposing programs and other greening initiatives.
It was also important to attempt to determine the number of lots the city currently owned
in order to better access the extent of the problem, as well as the city’s level of involvement or
concern for reusing/repurposing these spaces.
2) How many non-residential lots are there and do city officials already have any current or
future plans for reusing vacant lots in the city?
Question Two Proposition: Based on personal observations after canvassing several
parts of the city, as well as being familiar with the vacancy history of several lots, there appeared
to be a number of vacant lots throughout the city with no current plans for reuse/repurpose.
Based on a thorough review of the literature on this topic, it seemed reasonable to expect
a considerable amount of involvement would be necessary on the part of local city officials in
encouraging reuse/repurpose of vacant lots. It was also important to gauge the attitudes and
opinions of local area residents in greening vacant lots since their involvement would be
essential to the success of any initiative or program.
3) How might the city best encourage greening of private lots and what would city residents
think about such an initiative?
Question Three Proposition: The city could be doing more to inform the public of the
value of greening vacant lots in the city, as well as encouraging action on the part of community
groups, residents, and other relevant stakeholders. It was also expected such an initiative would
be at least somewhat favorable with local area residents due to the growing popularity of various
food movements (e.g. slow food, local food, organic food).

ResearchObjectives
1) Investigate the advantages and disadvantages of developing vacant lots into different
types of green spaces (i.e. community gardens, food forests, urban agriculture, etc.).
2) Investigate whether this type of initiative is realistic and practical for Kenosha.
3) Determine which lots are suitable for these purposes and offer suggestions to the city
council of how to develop such an initiative.
4) Develop a 5 year action plan to convert 50% of current vacant lots.
Literature Review
Much of the literature reviewed for this project comes from non-profit and advocacy
organizations like The Center for Community Progress, the National Vacant Properties
Campaign, and Smart Growth America. Each of these organizations specialize in research and
information resources, tools, and assistance that supports vacant property revitalization efforts.
This project incorporated data taken from a diverse number of other sources as well including
city publications, news articles, and academic journals pertaining to varying characteristics of
blighted communities, strategies for redevelopment, benefits associated with green space in
urban environments, and greening initiatives from other cities. The whole of this data served as
the foundation on which to assess the vacant lot situation within the City of Kenosha and provide
recommendations to the city for going forward.
Previous Findings
The main common key concepts identified in the literature review include ways in which
vacant properties are detrimental to communities and the benefits of reclaiming/repurposing
these spaces. According to the National Vacant Property Campaign (2005), vacant and
abandoned properties impose a number of public health and safety costs upon communities.

Research from across the country has also identified a wide variety of costs, including city
services (i.e. nuisance abatement, crime and fire prevention), lower market property values and
tax revenues, as well as costs imposed on homeowners and issues surrounding urban blight. For
instance, police and fire departments usually bear the brunt of responsibility for crime, fire, and
other public safety issues associated with vacant and abandoned properties. Municipal staff from
several departments also need to work to address the care of vacant properties: legal offices,
public works, housing, and real estate services are all generally involved. As such, vacant
property management necessitates coordination between local governments, such as county
health department, tax collectors, and assessors (NVPC, 2005).
Previous research about the benefits of urban greening can be organized into three
general categories: 1) community development/neighborhood stabilization; 2) social and public
health; and 3) environmental/ecological. Although these categories should not be considered all-
inclusive or even applicable to all the research that has been conducted on this topic, it does offer
a convenient way to organize and frame the range of impacts identified thus far from urban
greening programs on vacant land. A more complete and concise list of impacts will be listed in
the findings section.
1) Neighborhood Stabilization & Community/Economic Development
 Increases Surrounding Property Values
Research into the effect of greening on property values dates back to the early
establishment of the urban park systems. However, most recent studies focused on vacant lot
greening compare property values before and after greening implementation.
 Three studies of Philadelphia’s Land Care program found property values nearby
simple vacant land management treated lots (i.e. removal of debris, grass and trees

planted, erection of a split-rail fence to prevent dumping) increased as a result of the
program (Heckert, 2015; Wachter, 2004; & Wachter, 2006).
 Two of these studies, however, also revealed the potential for greening interventions
to affect neighborhoods differently depending on characteristics of both the
neighborhoods and the greening interventions involved. For instance, when
comparing property values for homes immediately adjacent to greened lots to sale
prices of typical area homes in a neighborhood-specific study, properties adjacent to
greened lots were found to be worth 30% more (Wachter, 2004); while a city-wide
study found increased property values by 11% (Wachter, 2006). On the other hand,
although property values increased in distressed neighborhoods more than in stable
real estate markets, the most distressed areas of the city did not see property value
improvements as a result of greening. The percentage of vacant land greened was also
found to be significant, with higher rates of greening associated with increased
property values (Heckert, 2015).
 Another study conducted in New York City comparing property values around vacant
lots before and after the establishment of community gardens found significant
increases in property values within 1,000 feet of the gardens, with positive gains
increasing over time. However, neighborhood conditions were also determined to be
an important factor, with gardens increasing property values in low-income but not
high-income areas. In addition, garden quality also appeared to influence garden
impact, with high quality gardens leading to higher property value increases (Voicu,
& Been, 2008).

 A study of community gardens in St. Louis found rents increased in close proximity
to newly established community gardens more than in larger surrounding
communities, suggesting a willingness for tenants to pay higher rents to live near
community gardens. Additionally, it found increased rates of owner-occupancy in
areas closest to the gardens (Tranel & Handlin, 2006).
 A University of Minnesota study foundvacant lots resulting from the demolition of
vacant buildings led to a total of $26,397 in lost property tax revenue over a 20 year
period (NVPC, 2005).
These findings are consistent with literature on parks and green spaces showing that
parks, trees, and vegetation are all associated with higher property values. Further, although the
“proximate principle” remains widely accepted, some studies show impacts may vary based on
neighborhood and park characteristics such as crime (i.e. parks are associated with lower
property values in high crime areas), park amenities, and maintenance levels (Heckert, Schilling
& Carlet, 2015).
 Supplements Food Security Efforts
Urban agriculture has received increased support in recent years as a food security and
urban sustainability strategy. Using vacant land as a resource for local food production is
growing rapidly worldwide as a means of combating community food insecurity and urban food
deserts (Gallagher et al., 2013). The economic benefits of food produced either for personal
consumption, sharing, or sale in local communities is becoming more apparent to community
gardeners everywhere.

 Early data suggests urban specialty crop cultivation can be highly productive,
yielding 2-7 kg/m2, depending on crop and conditions (as cited in Beniston & Lal,
2012).
 A study of vacant lots, open space, and underutilized parks in Oakland, California
with agricultural potential estimated that, even in the most conservative scenario, the
potential contribution of these spaces to the city’s current and recommended
vegetable needs contributed between 2.9 and 7.3% of current consumption,
depending on production methods, or 0.6-1.5% of recommended consumption
(McClintock et al., 2013).
 A review of four studies on gardens and vegetable consumption found in three of the
studies that gardeners consumed more vegetables than non-gardeners. Although the
fourth study did not compare gardeners to non-gardeners, gardeners were found to
self-report greater consumption of vegetables while gardening than times when they
were not gardening (McCormack et al., 2010).
 An ethnographic study of gardens in New York City’s Loisaida neighborhood found
that although residents have a variety of reasons for participating in community
gardens, many gardeners see gardens as primarily economic resources for food
production (Schmelzkopf, 1995).
 A study of community gardens in Philadelphia suggests they can be instrumental in
for promoting environmental awareness and “ecological citizenship.” Gardens were
found to promote inclusion of people often marginalized and/or excluded from the
“agrifood system” and as sites of social learning (Travertine & Hunold, 2010).

 A study of gardens in Philadelphia’s Mantura neighborhood found gardeners tended
to share their produce with neighbors and other members of their church communities
(Hanna & Oh, 2000).
2) Public & Social Health
 Promotes social and physical health
Green space is widely regarded as an integral component of a healthy residential
environment, having been linked to health benefits such as reduced stress, lower blood pressure,
and increased physical activity. Urban green space specifically provides ample opportunity for
recreation, social communication, esthetic enjoyments, and education. Moreover, these benefits
can be extended to groups of people with age, gender, profession, culture, and education
differences (Zhou & Masud, 2012).
 A study of participants in a community garden organization in Salt Lake City found
active men and women community gardeners had lower BMIs (body mass index)
than non-participating neighbors, spouses, and siblings. Women community
gardeners had significantly lowers BMIs compared to their sisters (-1.88) and men
community gardeners compared to their brothers (-1.33) (Zick et al., 2013).
 A study in the United Kingdom comparing mental health scores before and after
relocating to greener urban areas found sustained mental health improvements
following the move, suggesting a link between increased urban green space and long-
term public health benefits (Alcock et al., 2013).
 Four studies of community gardeners found they consumed more fresh vegetables
than non-gardeners in similar geographic areas. Another study that did not look at
comparisons to non-gardeners found that gardeners reported consuming more

vegetables while participating in the community garden (McCormack et al., 2010;
Litt et al., 2011).
These studies are consistent with the larger literature on the positive health benefits of
living near parks, trees, and vegetation – including increased physical activity, improved birth
outcomes, improved mental health, and reduced incidence of asthma (Cohen et al., 2007; Lovasi
et al., 2008; Hystad et al., 2014; Hartig et al., 1991).
 Reduces Crime & Inner City Decay
Research indicates greening vacant lots can have a positive influence on neighborhoods
and is sometimes even associated with reductions of violent crime. These results are consistent
with long standing social psychological research on the relationship of physical disorder and
social disorder under the rubric of the “Broken Window Theory” (Wilson & Kelling, 1989). This
theory holds that if one broken window in a building is not repaired then people will assume that
no one cares about the building, or the neighborhood. In turn, this escalates to more and more
windows being broken, possibly even leading to more serious crime. Essentially, it is the nature
of the physical environment that leads to an increase in criminal activity (as cited in NVPC,
2005).
 A study of the impacts of the Philadelphia Land Care program found incidences of
police-reported crimes decreased around greened lots when compared to un-greened
areas surrounding vacant lots. Estimates from a regression model showed vacant lot
greening linked to consistent reductions in gun assaults across four sections of the city
(including 4,436 lots totaling over 7.8 million square feet) and consistent reductions of
vandalism in one section of the city (Branas et al., 2011).

 A study investigating the effect of different landscaping options in urban public housing
found tree plantings and proper grass maintenance had a clear positive effect on
residents’ sense of safety (Kuo et al., 1998).
 Another study looking at the relationship between vegetation and crime in an inner-city
neighborhood found public housing buildings with high levels of vegetation nearby had
48% fewer reported property crimes and 56% fewer violent crimes than buildings with
low levels of vegetation (Kuo et al., 2001).
 Although a study of community gardens and crime in Houston did not find any direct
impacts on property crimes and community gardens, residents reported decreased illegal
activity after the gardens were established. This suggests perceptions of safety and crime
changed even if actual rates did not (Gorham et al., 2009).
Cultural and amenity services refer to aesthetic, spiritual, psychological, and other
benefits people obtain by contact with ecosystems, both direct and indirect. A green view from a
window, for instance, has been shown to increase job satisfaction and reduce stress (Elmqvist,
T., 2010).
 Cultural & Amenity
 Cultural, aesthetics, spiritual, etc. - many of these services are associated with
urban areas and evidence demonstrates the important role biodiversity plays in
enhancing human well-being. Ecosystems also help foster a sense of place in
many societies and has considerable intrinsic cultural value.
 Recreation, tourism etc. – visitation to protected natural areas is also growing at
or faster than international tourism. In 2006, as many as 87 million Americans
participated in wild-life related recreation, an increase of 13% over the decade

(Elmqvist, T., 2010). Although the role of biodiversity varies considerably among
these services, it is considered largely due to ecotourism and educational uses of
ecosystems. Newly created or restored green spaces are also becoming an
increasingly important component of the urban environment for providing this
service.
3) Environmental/Ecological
 Improves Stormwater Runoff & Combined Sewer Overflows
Green infrastructure generally refers to stormwater management systems that mimic
nature by soaking up and storing water, thus leading to improved water recharge for underground
aquifer reserves. This involves the use of vegetation, soils, and other natural processes to manage
water and create healthier, more natural urban environments. By employing green infrastructure
techniques, vacant lots with rain gardens, retention ponds, and/or wetlands help mitigate
stormwater runoff and alleviate combined sewer overflow by helping control runoff volume and
improve water quality, resulting in improved erosion and sediment control (EPA, 2014).
 A report to the Illinois EPA highlighted how green infrastructure techniques can be
employed to effectively reduce stormwater peak flows and runoff volumes, both of
which increase flooding and sedimentation risks. The report investigated the
effectiveness of five green infrastructure features (bio infiltration, permeable
pavement, filtration, green roof, and constructed wetland) on four common
stormwater management challenges (runoff volume, peak flow, total suspended
solids, and total nitrogen). Average peak flow reductions ranged from 52% to 70%
with runoff volume mitigated by 57% to 85%. The report also found green
infrastructure generally succeeded in reducing total suspended solids and total

nitrogen mean concentration, thus improving stormwater runoff quality (Jaffe et al.,
2010).
 A study in Cleveland showed how a properly designed and managed green
infrastructure infiltration system can result in a vacant lot with sufficient capacity for
detention of average annual rainfall volumes for a major Midwestern city. Results
indicate improvements in the demolition and maintenance processes – including
removal of superstructure and debris, applying appropriate infill material, and the
establishment of a protective vegetation cover – can significantly improve infiltration
opportunities. This contrasts a typical vacant lot which is a net producer of runoff
volume.
Provisioning services simply refers to benefits ecosystems provide to people that can be
extracted from nature. This includes services that provide people with food, water, and other
resources.
 Provisioning Services
 Food - agro-ecosystems provide food for human consumption and, together with
associated ecosystems supporting marine and freshwater fisheries, underpin
global food security. Urban areas also have allotment and other forms of gardens
that are important in food production (Elmqvist, T., 2010).
 Water – ecosystems play an important role in the global hydrological cycle,
contributing to water provision (quantity), regulation (timing), and purification
(quality). This is particularly relevant in urban and intensively managed
ecosystems where water quality is altered by the addition and removal of
organisms and substances, then purified as water passes through soils.

 Ornamental resources – ornamentals are typically grown for the display of their
flowers but other common ornamental features include leaves, scent, fruit, stems,
and bark. Considerable effort has been made in the search for and transfer of
species to be enjoyed in parks, gardens, private greenhouses, and zoos. As such,
these resources continue to play an iconic role in the development of human
society.
Regulating services simply refer to benefits ecosystems provide to people by acting as
regulators. This includes regulating air and soil quality, erosion and flood control, pollination,
etc.
 Regulating Services
 Air quality and other urban environmental quality regulation – ecosystems
contribute to several environmental regulation services important for human
wellbeing, particularly in urban areas where vegetation can play an important role
in reducing air pollution and noise, mitigating the ‘urban heat island’ effect, and
reducing impacts related to climate change (Elmqvist, T., 2010). Moreover, urban
ecosystem services may be generated in a diverse set of habitats, including parks,
gardens, and green vacant lots.
 Climate regulation - numerous factors interact in the regulation of climate,
including the reflection of solar radiation by clouds, dust, and aerosols in the
atmosphere. In recent years, however, the Earth’s climate has been changing and
is gradually getting warmer. Current change is driven largely by increases in the
concentrations of trace gases in the atmosphere, principally as a result of changes
in land use and rapidly rising rates of combustion of fossil fuels (Elmqvist, T.,

2010). Although all soils store carbon, the largest stores are in peatlands and
forests are the only major ecosystems where the amount of carbon stored in the
biomass of plants exceeds that in the soil. In relation to climate change mitigation,
urban ecosystems may assimilate non-negligible quantities of carbon, ecosystems
assimilate about 17% of total anthropogenic CO2, and residential trees in the
continental United States may sequester 20 to 40 teragrams C per year (Elmqvist,
T., 2010).
 Pollination – these are services important in any ecosystem, including urban
ecosystems. Pollinating species often depend on natural or semi-natural habitats
for the provisioning of nesting and floral resources not found within crop fields
(Elmqvist, T., 2010). Loss of suitable habitat is a key driver of declines in
pollination services by wild pollinators, and habitat degradation through
agricultural intensification leads to scarcity in critical floral and nesting resources
for many species. Plant diversity and floral abundance in urban environments can
help attract pollinating species, supporting healthy ecosystems (Elmqvist, T.,
2010).
Habitat services simply refer to basic necessities ecosystems provide for plants and
animals to survive. This includes food, water, and shelter.
 Habitat Services
 Migratory Species – these species may use an ecosystem for just a part of their
life cycle. However, a high level of interdependency exists among all species and
any species loss has consequences to the ecosystem. Although some may go
unnoticed by human observers, others are significant for the functioning and

provisioning of ecosystem services for migrating species. Green spaces and
surrounding residential areas should be integrated into urban planning and
development designs to maintain resident avifauna and overall species diversity in
urban environments (Elmqvist, T., 2010).
 Genetic diversity - ecosystems exhibiting particularly high levels of biodiversity
(biodiversity hotspots) with exceptional concentrations of endemic species are
undergoing dramatic habitat loss. “As many as 44% of all species of vascular
plants and 35% of all species in four vertebrate groups are confined to 25 hotspots
comprising only 1.4% of the land surface of the Earth” (as cited in Elmqvist, T.,
2010). In addition to the overall importance of these ‘hotspots’ in maintaining
genetic diversity, supporting genetic diversity is of particular and immediate
importance in preserving the gene-pool of most of our commercial crops and
livestock species.
Case Studies
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Milwaukee has a population of just under 600,000 residents and a
land area of 96 square miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). The city also currently owns
and maintains more than 3,000 vacant lots, largely as a result of the 2008 foreclosure crisis (City
of Milwaukee, 2013). The city created the Office of Environmental Sustainability in 2006 to
improve quality of life in Milwaukee through smart, achievable sustainability principles. By
2011, Milwaukee ranked one of 24 cities globally as an IBM Smarter City in recognition of the
city-supported urban agriculture movement (City of Milwaukee, 2013). At his 2012 State of the
City address, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett announced his intention to collaborate with the

community to build a more sustainable city, while directing the City’s Office of Environmental
Sustainability Director to immediately begin a sustainability planning exercise. As part of this
initiative – and in response to troubling public health statistics citing unhealthy eating, obesity,
and poor access to healthy food – the city is well on its way to building a more sustainable and
resilient community food system.
Coincident with the development of Milwaukee’s Sustainability Plan was the 2012
announcement of the HOME GR/OWN initiative: a plan to “increase healthy food consumption
(demand) and access to healthy food (supply) by using city-owned vacant properties in targeted
neighborhoods, while catalyzing system-wide improvements in the local food supply chain (City
of Milwaukee, 2013). Essentially, HOME GR/OWN seeks to empower residents to transform
neighborhoods by repurposing city-owned vacant lots into new, green community spaces that
spark economic opportunities around local, healthy food production and distribution. As a
catalytic project HOME GR/OWN has set the following targets:
 Five foreclosed structures re-used for residential or commercial end-use that support the
local food supply chain by July 2014
 Ten vacant lots converted to food-based uses by 2015
 Five new corner stores serving fresh food and produce by 2015
 Necessary city ordinances/zoning/ permitting changes passed by July 2014 that remove
obstacles to developing new real estate disposition strategies, repurposing residential
properties to nonresidential uses, expanding urban agricultural uses on vacant lots and
establishing micro-business ventures in the local food supply chain
HOME GR/OWN projects as of 2013 include:
 Passage of major revisions to the city's urban agriculture ordinances

 Aided passage of revised Food Peddler ordinances
 New community gardens and orchards on city vacant lots: with partners Neu-Life,
Groundwork MKE and Infallible Helping Hands
 Gillespie Park constructed summer 2014; named 2015 MANDI finalist
 Fundraising targets met to date
Priority projects for 2015 include:
 Development and construction of two new urban farms: Alice's Herbal Farm and Cream
City Gardens
 Construction of new mini-park at 37th Street and Center Street
 Twenty new orchards and six new mini-parks, including Sunshine Park at 14th Street and
North Avenue, built through Partners for Places grant (200 apple, plum and cherry trees
planted this year)
 Final construction on All People's Church orchard stormwater features
The city has also collaborated with groups like Growing Power (a nationally acclaimed urban
agriculture group founded by former professional basketball player Will Allen) and supports
other local food efforts. This includes the city’s Seasonal Plot Permit Program (involving
individual license grants to land for a single growing season); three-year leases with community
agriculture groups; land leased to Milwaukee Urban Gardens (a non-profit land trust that
acquires land for community gardens while providing educational and community support for
urban gardeners); and the $1 Vacant Side Lot – 15th District Pilot Program (purchased lots are
approved by local alderman for gardens, side yards, or landscaped open space) (City of
Milwaukee, 2015). Milwaukee has also revised its zoning code several times to remove barriers

that inhibit urban agriculture efforts (i.e. expanding zoning districts where urban agriculture is
permissible and the types of uses permitted).
Baltimore, Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland has a population of just over 620,000 and a land area of 81 square
miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). The city also currently has more than 30,000 vacant
lots and abandoned buildings as a result of steady population decline since the 1950s (McHugh,
2012). The city’s Office of Sustainability was created in 2008 with one of its main goals to
enhance the local food system infrastructure. In so doing, the city has sought to increase land
cultivated for agricultural purposes; increase demand for local food used in schools and other
institutions; develop an urban agriculture plan; and implement the Baltimore Food Policy Task
Force’s recommendation for food policy (City of Baltimore, 2013). Included in the Task Force’s
recommendations is to promote farmers markets and CSAs (community supported agriculture),
support community gardens and urban agriculture, continue research of food deserts, and
improve the food environment around schools and recreation centers. In 2010, the Maryland
State Assembly also passed a bill allowing counties and the City of Baltimore to enact an “Urban
Agriculture Tax Credit” for properties used specifically for urban agriculture.
Perhaps at the heart of Baltimore’s vacancy strategy, however, is the Baltimore
Housing’s Vacants to Value initiative launched in 2010. This initiative looks at ways to
streamline the disposition and code enforcement processes to make redevelopment of blighted
properties quicker, more efficient, and economical (McHugh, 2012). Included in the city’s other
programs are: Power in Dirt, which streamlines the adopt-a-lot process by which residents can
use and maintain city-owned lots by reducing systemic barriers preventing residents and
organization from revitalizing vacant lots, while creating and supporting new initiatives; a

Request for Qualifications for Urban Agriculture in the City of Baltimore, allowing farmers to
participate in the development of pre-selected 35 acres of city-owned vacant land for urban
agriculture; and the transfer of lots to Land Trusts for long-term open space preservation.
In response to community support of urban agriculture, Baltimore is also working to
revise a zoning ordinance that adds community gardens as an approved use in many
neighborhoods. It has also taken additional steps to modify policies to improve the legal status of
urban gardens. For instance, the city established a policy to sell community managed open space
for $1 to groups who have a partner organization, such as the Parks and People Foundation. The
new version of the zoning code would simplify the city’s 40 year-old existing code, promote
mixed use development, and protect open space and community gardens. Moreover, it will
provide a definition of a “community garden” and specify the types of uses permitted in
community gardens within the city.
New Bedford, Massachusetts
New Bedford, Massachusetts is home to just under 95,000 residents and has a total land
area of 20 square miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). Despite the size of the city in terms
of square mileage, approximately 24% of commercial space and 38% of retail space in
downtown New Bedford is vacant (HR&A Advisors, 2010). In addition to vacant properties, the
city is also struggling with a considerable number of vacant lots. Although the city does not have
an Office of Sustainability, New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell announced the launch of the Side
Yard Sales Program in 2013 to return vacant lots to productive use. Under this program, eligible
property owners have the opportunity to acquire vacant city-owned lots bordering their property
at a deeply discounted price. Vacant lots available for purchase are generally less than 8,000
square feet in size; located in residential neighborhoods with a privately-owned building on at

least one side; not needed by the city for open space or any other public use; and not part of a
larger, developable vacant parcel (City of New Bedford, n.d.). Acquired lots may be used as a
garden, side yard, landscaped open space, off-street parking, garage, septic improvements, or as
an addition to an abutter’s existing structure. The program is open to any property owner whose
property is located immediately adjacent to an eligible vacant lot. The fixed cost as determined
by lot size is as follows:
1. Lot size: 0 -1,000 square feet $ 250.00
2. Lot size: 1,000 – 3,000 square feet $ 500.00
3. Lot Size 3,000 -$5,000 square feet $ 750.00
4. Lot Size over 5,000 square feet $1,000.00
However, to assist with engineering and recording fees, the city reimburses applicants the
original cost of lot acquisition upon successful completion of the reconfigured lot. Mayor
Mitchell has also taken steps in marketing the program to ensure property owners are aware of
the opportunity to improve their lots and beautify their neighborhood. City Councilor Henry
Bousquet stated, “I support initiatives like the new Side Yard Sales Program to help preserve
green space, aid in getting unbuildable surplus land back on the city tax rolls, and providing a
valuable service to our taxpaying property owners” (as cited in New Bedford Guide, 2013). The
Side Yard Sales Program is operated by the New Bedford Treasurer’s Office with a guidebook,
including the application, eligibility requirements, and sale terms conditions available online at:
http://www.newbedford-ma.gov/treasurers/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/SideYardSales.pdf.
Portland, Oregon
Nestled in the Northwest corner of Oregon, Portland has a population of around 620,000
residents and a total land area of approximately 133 square miles (United States Census Bureau,

2015). In 2008, Popular Science named Portland the greenest city in the United States, the same
year it took first place in SustainLane’s city sustainability rankings (Popovitch, 2014). Also in
2008, the city merged its Bureau of Planning with its Office of Sustainable Development (City of
Portland, 2015). In 1981, an urban growth boundary was approved by the city, forcing dense
population growth into a restricted area and transitioning the city into the savvy social economy
it is today. From decades-old municipal projects to recent efforts in revising its zoning code,
green planning and development (including urban agriculture) are well established and supported
within the city.
Portland has two main programs that support urban agriculture: the Community Gardens
Program (established in 1975 by the Portland Department of Parks and Recreation) and the
Sustainable Food Program. Through the Community Gardens Program, farmers can rent plots
and receive the necessary water, fencing, and other support necessary to start a garden. However,
due to the high popularity of the program and limited growing space, many community gardens
have multi-year waiting lists. As of 2014, the Portland Community Gardens Program included a
total of 50 community gardens covering 22 acres throughout the city (City of Portland, 2015).
The Sustainable Food Program focuses on policy and projects promoting CSAs and farmers
markets. Currently, there are a total of 26 farmers markets in the city, including a thriving local
food cart business (Popovitch, 2014). Essentially, the goal of the Sustainable Food Program is to
“promote community resiliency, equity, and environmental, economic, and personal health”
(City of Portland, 2015). According to Community Garden Program Coordinator for the Portland
Department of Parks and Recreation, “It sort of normalizes this idea of food being grown – a lot
of us are very disconnected from how to grow the food we eat” (as cited in (Popovitch, 2014).
The City of Portland also models its commitment to urban agriculture through a green space in

front of the city building devoted to growing vegetables for the Meals on Wheels senior food
program (Popovitch, 2014).
Other government organizations have been developed in conjunction with the
Community Garden Program and the Sustainable Food Program. The Produce for People
Program established in 1995 is another program of the Portland Department of Parks and
Recreation. In partnership with hunger relief agencies, Produce for People seeks to provide city
emergency food shelters with “fresh, nutritious, organic, locally grown food” (City of Portland,
2015). In 2014, 42 of the participating gardens donated a total of 43,693 pounds of produce to 23
community partner agencies (City of Portland, 2015).
The city also explained how it is taking steps to revise and improve its zoning code to
“establish zoning code regulations for urban food production and distribution activities that
support Portlanders’ access to healthy food, while ensuring that surrounding neighborhoods are
protected from impacts such as noise, traffic, and pollutants” (as cited in Goldstein et al., 2011).
The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability’s 2012 Urban Food Zoning Code Update included
zoning code amendments to address the following:
 Market Gardens – gardens or orchards where food is grown to be sold.
o Currently, market gardens are classified as an Agriculture Use and only allowed
in certain zones (e.g. employment, open space, and very low density residential
zones).
o The amendments allow market gardens in all zones while ensuring any negative
impacts on neighbors are minimized.
 Community Gardens – gardens where several individuals or households grow for
personal consumption or donation.

o Currently, community gardens are allowed in all zones.
o The amendments continue to allow community gardens in all zones, but include
regulations to minimize the negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
 Food Membership Distribution Sites – sites where pre-ordered food is delivered and
picked up as part of a food buying club or CSA.
o Currently, the zoning code fails to address the issue of how to regulate a food
distribution site.
o The amendments allow food membership distribution sites in all zones and
include regulations to address the impacts of the distribution activity (i.e.
frequency and number of members, hours of operation, traffic, etc.)
 Farmers Markets – events that occur on a regular basis in the same location with the
majority of vendors as farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural producers selling food,
plants, flowers and added-value products.
o Currently, farmers markets are regulated as temporary uses and the regulations
can be cumbersome and expensive.
o The amendments add regulations in the temporary use specifically for farmers
markets to address location, frequency, number of "non-farmer" vendors, and
when markets may set up on parking lots and vacant residential lots.
Portland also started the Grey to Green initiative in 2008 to boost green infrastructure in
the city. This includes constructed facilities like green streets, ecoroofs, and rain gardens that
capture and mange stormwater with vegetation and soils. The five-year Environmental Services
initiative worked with residents, community organizations, and businesses in building a civic

infrastructure while also greening the city. The Grey to Green initiative incorporated the
following:
1. Land acquisition – protecting natural areas from development while allowing
restoration of sensitive habitat through public ownership. Benefits: provides habitat
for wildlife in the city; protects rivers and streams; prevents flooding, erosion and
landslides.
2. Green Streets – natural, cost-effective management of stormwater runoff. Benefits:
allows water to soak back into the ground while protecting rivers and streams from
pollutants; recharges groundwater to supply cool, clean water to rivers and streams;
adds natural beauty to neighborhoods while also helping calm traffic.
3. Ecoroofs – living, breathing, sustainable alternatives to conventional roofs. Benefits:
manages stormwater on-site rather than allowing washed pollutants to infiltrate
streams and sewer systems; improves air quality; provides habitat for pollinators;
saves energy; reduces urban heat island effect; and provides neighborhood green
spaces.
4. Street and yard trees – intercepts runoff to reduce stormwater runoff while filtering
air pollutants and providing bird habitats. Benefits: stabilizes soil to prevent erosion;
provides shade and absorbs carbon to reduce climate changing greenhouse gases;
improves property values; slows traffic; makes streets safer for pedestrians, cyclists
and motorists.
5. Replacing culverts – improves fish migration; restores degraded land; creates healthy
natural areas for future generations; reduces flooding and erosion during heavy rains.

6. Revegetation – restoring native plants and trees in natural areas and open spaces.
Benefits: provides health habitat and better water filtration; improves urban forest fire
resistance and adaption to climate changes; reduces natural area maintenance costs;
creates healthy natural areas for future generations.
7. Invasive weed control – early detection and removal of new species prevents major
infestations. Benefits: education and outreach limits introduction of new species that
threaten native ecosystems; ongoing maintenance helps keep parks, yards, forests and
streambanks healthy.
Despite all of the strides Portland has made it too has struggled with vacant lots. In 2010,
for instance, there were as many as 384 vacant lots scattered around Portland’s Multnomah
County (Mirk, 2010). Many of these properties were seized several years ago by the county
through property tax foreclosures, with many being oddly shaped or poorly located strips of land
leftover following land sold or donated for county offices, government entities, or to affordable-
housing groups. In response to the vacant lot situation, the county’s Office of Sustainability and
Tax Title has partnered with local area non-profit organizations to bring an innovative program
to the community for the leasing and donation of tax foreclosed properties to qualified (non-
profit) organizations for urban gardens or green space uses. Currently, a total of six community
gardens have been created due to the County Digs Program and Green space Property Donation
Program. The county transfers tax-foreclosed properties to local governments and qualified non-
profit organizations in the community under the condition that the property is put to continuous,
productive use as a community garden, urban farm, teaching garden, and/or as green space
(Multnomah County, 2015). According to the County Digs Program website, the partnership

“reflects the county’s commitment to healthy, equity, local food, and our natural environment”
(Multnomah County, 2015).
Rochester, New York
Rochester, New York has a population of almost 210,000 residents and a total land area
of 36 square miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). Having lost over 120,000 residents
since 1950, Rochester is one of many cities today facing a smaller future. In response to the
decline of its population and limited resources, Rochester is taking bold steps to ensure it
remains a vital, successful, and thriving community. Since the city’s built environment
accommodated more people in the past than it needs to now or in the foreseeable future,
Rochester faces a huge oversupply of housing units and a citywide vacancy rate of 12% to 14%
(City of Rochester, 2009). Project Green is designed to match the footprint of the city’s built
environment with that of its existing and anticipated future population. In so doing, Project
Green seeks to strategically parcel lots for reuse, ranging from single lot community gardens to
block wide redevelopment sites. This will involve demolition decisions of vacant structures over
the next two decades based on the feasibility and opportunities in combining lots to create larger
parcels for future development, or on sites that have high greening potential (City of Rochester,
2009). This includes greening initiatives such as community gardens, urban agriculture
enterprises, urban forests, and central civic green spaces.
At the time of the Project Green report, 300 community gardens – including floral and
produce – had been developed in Rochester (City of Rochester, 2009). The city continues to
provide technical advice, soil, mulch, plant material, and tilling –although hard work, dedication
and labor-hours are provided solely by neighbors (City of Rochester, 2009). In fact, the city
pointed out that it is most often neighborhood groups that develop community gardens on vacant

lots within the city. Garden permits are issued by the city on an annual basis at no charge, with
additional information about starting a community garden available through the city’s website.
One notable example is a former gasoline station site that was transformed into a community
garden after the city, as a partner in the effort, removed and disposed of underground tanks and
370 tons of contaminated soil in its cleanup efforts (City of Rochester, 2009). As positive as the
city considers community gardens, it also acknowledges that not every vacant lot created as part
of its project will find a dedicated neighborhood or community group to maintain a garden. Thus,
it emphasizes the need for other greening options and other ways to deal with vacant land in the
city.
Under Project Green, vacant lots created through demolition may also be combined with
lots of adjacent property owners to create larger yards, as well as large scale public green spaces
in the development of neighborhood park systems and green linkages. Sites reserved for future
redevelopment, however, are to be greened for the short-term with tree plantings and landscaping
to keep areas attractive while complimenting streetscapes. Included in the city’s short-term
strategy are edible landscapes, rain gardens, urban tree/flower farms, bio-remediation,
community gardens, and urban agriculture. Moreover, it is anticipated this will add value to
surrounding properties and improve social connections by providing park-like settings to
residents. The city is also considering medium- to long-term leasing on vacant lots for urban
agriculture to retain control of land should future residential market conditions change.
Essentially, Project Green strives to reduce public service and remedial costs, stabilize property
values in high vacancy rate neighborhoods, and create stronger market demand for remaining
inventories, hereby also benefiting the city’s tax base (City of Rochester, 2009).

Flint, Michigan
Flint, Michigan is home to 99,000 residents with a total land area of just over 33 square
miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). Flint has also experienced severe population decline
to approximately half of what it was in the 1970s. Despite its relatively small size, Flint has more
than 23,000 vacant properties representing one-third of all properties in the city (Detroit Future
City, 2015). Approximately 14,500 of these properties are vacant lots, with half of these owned
and stewarded by the Genesee County Land Bank Authority (Detroit Future City, 2015). In
2013, the Flint City Council unanimously adopted the Imagine Flint Master Plan for a
Sustainable Flint, which provides a 20-year community vision for the city. Under the master
plan, the goal of Flint’s land use plan is to build a community “…made up of distinct and
desirable ‘places’ by integrating a wide range of land uses into a city pattern that is vibrant,
sustainable, livable, and healthy” (City of Flint, 2014).
Part of this unique, place-based approach to land use includes areas of the city designated
as “green innovation” and “green neighborhoods.” Green innovation are designated areas of the
city where redevelopment opportunities in large vacant areas are considered likely. Although
land uses in these areas are intended to be flexible and appropriately selected on a case-by-case
basis, new businesses located within are expected to demonstrate innovative practices that justify
their appropriateness in Green Innovation areas. These areas include an array of possibilities
from local food production, alternative energy, and environmental sustainability to other local
green initiatives such as agricultural research, organic food processing, aquaculture, and/or
renewable energy (City of Flint, 2014).
Green Neighborhoods are designated residential areas with sound housing stocks, but that
have experienced considerable disinvestment and abandonment. These are low-density

neighborhoods with significant amounts of vacant land dedicated to green uses, community
gardens, small-scale urban agriculture, and small open space areas. Flint’s Green Neighborhoods
are designed to be stable, safe and healthy areas, complimented by green and open spaces, and
maintained by local residents, community groups, and other invested stakeholders. Essentially,
these areas necessitate the stabilization of remaining homes while incorporating the introduction
of various green uses. The city’s desired vision of both Green Neighborhoods and Green
Innovation areas also requires revising the city’s zoning code to ensure uses necessary to support
the master plan’s place typology (City of Flint, 2014).
The Land Bank Side Lot Program also provides Flint residents the opportunity to extend
their yard by purchasing vacant properties adjacent to their home. The cost is $25.00 plus the
foreclosure year’s taxes (if foreclosed in or before 2003), a $25.00 administration fee, and a
$14.00 filing fee (Genesee County Land Bank, 2015). The property database and residential
property interest form are available on the Genesee County Land Bank’s website. The specific
requirements of the Side Lot programs are as follows:
 The property requested is located in the City of Flint.
 The property requested is currently owned by the Genesee County Land Bank.
 The property requested is vacant real property with no structure on the site.
 The property requested is next to the applicant’s property with at least a 75%
common boundary line on the right or left side.
 The applicant is the owner and living in the property next to the requested
property.
 The applicant has never received a lot through the Side Lot Program.

The primary intent of the program is to bring vacant properties back onto the city’s tax roll,
while reducing public costs associated with property maintenance. In fact, property maintenance
costs are something the City of Flint and the Genesee County Land Bank are intent on reducing.
According to Flint’s five-year Blight Elimination Framework, it would cost as much as $7
million to maintain all of the vacant lots in Flint once a month (Detroit Future City, 2015). To
reduce maintenance needs and costs, while also attempting to address urban blight, the Lank
Bank has recently started planting Dutch White Clover on as many as 1,800 vacant lots in Flint
(Detroit Future City, 2015). This provides ground cover that is slow-growing and easier to
maintain than typical grass-seeded lawns. Once established, Dutch White Clover requires
mowing just once or twice a year while providing the look of a maintained property. In addition,
it is cheap, widely available, drought- and shade-tolerant, and releases nitrogen into the soil
while also providing food for wildlife, including pollinators. Until lots are sold to adjacent
homeowners through the Land Bank Side Lot Program, the idea is that they will require much
less frequent maintenance. Planting and initial watering of the clover is also required of any
contractor demolishing blighted residential and commercial structures in Flint (Detroit Future
City, 2015).
Findings
To reiterate, the aim of this project was to answer the following research questions:
 What role exactly might city officials take in greening vacant lots in Kenosha?
 How many non-residential lots are there and do city officials already have any current or
future plans for reusing vacant lots in the city?
 How might the city best encourage greening of private lots and what would city residents
think about such an initiative?

In so doing, it sought out to identify the advantages and disadvantages of greening urban vacant
lots in the City of Kenosha; to determine whether such an initiative would be worthwhile
endeavor for the city; and to recommend a course of action through the development of a five
year action plan. Based on a review of previous research and selected case studies, the following
potential impacts were identified:
Economic Impacts
 Increases property values
Previous research has largely focused on determining the impact of parks on property values.
This generally involved property accessed values before and after park establishment. Other
research looking at changes in property values attributable to other forms of greening are positive
as well. This includes impacts of neighborhood green space (i.e. lawns, street trees, vegetated
sidewalk strips) as well as properly managed community gardens. However, studies also suggest
the effect of proximity to green initiatives on property values may vary, depending on location
and type of greening program.
 Promotes tourism and recreation
Many cities rely on parks and recreation activities for attracting tourists. Tourists spent a total
of $181.3 million in Kenosha County in 2014 (VisitKenosha.com, 2015). The Philadelphia park
system also estimated as much as 8% of tourists visit the city for parks or park-related events,
totaling $5 million annually for the city in taxes and $40 million in profit from tourism
(Travaline & Hunold, 2010). Several other cities attribute substantial portions of city tax revenue
and profit from tourism to park systems, protected open spaces, and recreation activities. Other
studies suggest a link between retail sales levels and resident/business retention and greened
vacant lots, parks, and other greening activities (as cited in Heckert, 2012).

Environmental Impacts
 Reduces stormwater runoff & improves water quality
Stormwater runoff is generally higher in urban areas due to more impervious surfaces.
Pervious surfaces characteristic of greened lots increase the natural infiltration of stormwater in
urban areas. Additional trees (in the case of food forests and other greened areas incorporating
trees) help intercept water in canopies and lessen flows, enabling slower and steadier stormwater
infiltration. Philadelphia’s Land Care program, for instance, was found to decrease stormwater
runoff by reducing soil compaction and increasing infiltration (Travaline & Hunold, 2010).
 Mitigates Air pollution
Trees improve air quality directly through uptake of pollutants and indirectly through
pollutant emission reductions due to decreased energy use. Trees remove pollutants including
carbon monoxide, nitrous dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter of less than 10
µm (as cited in Heckert, 2012). Studies estimating annual air pollutant reductions from trees and
shrubs report 711,000 metric tons of pollutants were removed from the air annually in the United
States, and as much as 772 tons of particular matter (as cited in Heckert, 2012).
 Reduces Energy Use
Trees can lead to lower energy use through direct shading (blocking sunlight and reducing
temperature), transpiration (lowering overall temperatures and reducing air conditioning use),
and reducing cooling through wind reduction (reducing energy use for heating). One well-placed
tree can reduce household energy use for air conditioning by as much as 8-12% (as cited in
Heckert, 2012).
 Sequesters Carbon

Trees store carbon in biomass aboveground in trunks and branches and below ground in root
systems. Studies calculating Chicago’s urban forest found it stored 716,000 tons of carbon and
sequestered 25,0000 tons annually, while trees in Washington DC were found to store 526,000
tons of carbon and sequester 16,000 annually (Beniston & Lal, 2012).
 Mitigates Urban Heat Island Effect
Cities are often hotter than surrounding suburban and rural communities. As mentioned in the
energy use section, however, trees can decease ambient temperatures through shading and
transpiration. Urban parks are generally one to two degrees cooler than surrounding
environments (i.e. the ‘cool island’ effect), and are more pronounced in larger parks with more
trees (as cited in Heckert, 2012). Park temperature differences of up to 5 degrees Celsius in
Vancouver, British Columbia and 7 degrees Celsius in Sacramento, California have been
reported (as cited in Heckert, 2012).
 Supports/Increases Biodiversity
The view that cities are separate from nature continues to change as biologists better
understand and recognize the connection between cities and species diversity. Urban forests in
particular are showing to be significant in supporting and promoting biodiversity, with some
cities providing habitat to endangered species (Alvey, 2006). Street trees are also proving to be
very beneficial in this regard.
Social Impacts
 Promotes human health
Studies noted in the literature review pointed to lower BMIs, improved mental health scores,
and increased consumption of vegetables. Studies also show positive impacts between green
spaces and healthy childhood development, mental and physical health, and alleviating stress and

reducing mental fatigue (as cited in Heckert, 2012). The link between physical activity, obesity
prevention, and proximity to green space has thus far yielded inconsistent results. This will be
discussed further in the social justice/equity section.
 Benefits Communities
Several studies have looked at residents’ satisfaction with neighborhoods and preferences for
green spaces. This may be due to aesthetic reasons or indications that areas are cared for. The
literature suggests that well maintained green spaces enhance the lives of area residents and
increase levels of happiness and perceptions of quality of life. New parks and higher numbers of
trees were also found to contribute to improved quality of life, sense of safety, and association
with higher levels of resident satisfaction. Consistent reductions in the rate of gun assaults in
areas surrounding greened vacant lots were also reported in the study of the Philadelphia’s Land
Care program (Branas et al., 2011). Lastly, trees and green spaces were found to contribute to
more positive interactions between community members, serving as more inclusive social
environments than non-green urban areas (as cited in Heckert, 2012).
 Social justice/equity challenges
Measuring access to parks and other green spaces has proven complex and challenging.
Attempts to quantify differences in access to these spaces based on race and class reveal mixed
results. However, geographic access alone may not fully capture the impact of parks on physical
activity or obesity. While most studies used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in measuring
accessibility, GIS alone may fail to account for potential congestion of park space, which may
deter use (Wolch et al., 2014). In fact, park congestion was found to be more acute in low-
income and minority neighborhoods. Instead, it may depend more on park characteristics and
programs offered since these spaces differ considerably in terms of size, quality, range of

facilities, organized recreation availability, or even perceptions of safety among area residents.
These spaces are designed to serve diverse communities with wide-ranging recreational needs
and reflect use, repute, upkeep, and design quality (Wolch et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, evidence reveals unequal access in the distribution of urban green space across
racial/ethnic and socioeconomic lines (as cited in Wolch et al., 2014). Several studies show
racial/ethnic minorities and low-income populations have less access to green spaces, parks, and
recreational programs than white, more affluent populations. Conversely, there are also concerns
of the impact new green spaces can have on housing costs and property values, as they relate to
gentrification and displacement of existing neighborhood residents. One proposed approach to
counter this undesirable effect is green space project design decisions shaped by community
concerns, needs, and desires rather than conventional urban design formulae or ecological
restoration approaches (Wolch et al., 2014).
Depth Interview/Sample Survey
Based on an analysis of previous research, the City of Kenosha may benefit from
greening city-owned vacant lots in at least the following ways: increasing surrounding property
values; supplementing food security efforts and supporting local food production; promoting
healthy people and vibrant neighborhoods; reducing crime and inner city decay; mitigating
stormwater runoff and improving water quality; providing additional habitat supporting local and
regional biodiversity; provisioning and regulating of ecological services; increasing green spaces
in low-income/minority neighborhoods; providing community gardens and recreational spaces;
promoting tourism; enhancing the beauty of neighborhoods; and supporting positive social
interactions among community members.

Analysis of the depth interview with Mr. Wilke suggests the Kenosha City Planning
Commission is uncertain of exactly how many vacant lots the city currently owns in total; nor
was any information collected pertaining to the cost to the city of vacant property upkeep. There
was some mention of the use of the city’s GIS interactive mapping system in identifying and
researching properties throughout Kenosha County, however, the system does not appear to
allow for a search of city-owned vacant properties specifically. As such, the number of vacant
lots the city oversees at this time is unclear, aside from the approximately 900 buildable lots
zoned for single and multifamily homes noted in the introduction. In addition, it was determined
infill lots within the city are indeed being developed, but also that the city’s future plans for its
vacant properties are primarily for either homes or new businesses. This corresponds with other
information collected from Mr. Beezat suggesting the city’s plan for these properties supports
economic and residential redevelopment through new housing and businesses. However, the city
also appears to be interested in redeveloping inner city lots with affordable housing options. This
sort of redevelopment in the inner city could be complimented with corner parks and other types
of green spaces on land unsuitable for residential housing units. In turn, Mrs. Goeppinger
emphasized the value in concentrating native plantings within close proximity to the lakeshore to
support migrating bird and insect populations. Mrs. Goeppinger noted significant loss of habitat
in this area of the city in particular, as well as the economic potential to the city in attracting
additional birdwatchers to the area.
A sample survey of 106 Kenosha area residents revealed 35% strongly agreed (and 24%
agreed) that vacant (empty) lots were a problem in Kenosha. Survey data also indicated
considerable support for community gardens (24% would very likely participate; 29% would
contribute in some way), food forests (38% would very likely participate; 31% would contribute

in some way), urban agriculture (49% in favor of using vacant lots for this purpose); and other
natural spaces such as corners parks and gardens, green corridors, amenity green spaces and
natural/semi natural green spaces (50% strongly in favor of using vacant lots for this purpose;
41% agree to using vacant lots for this purpose) by local area residents. The matrix table
question (including 12 statements designed to measure respondents’ opinions of the effect
converted vacant lots would have on them and their community) also showed largely positive
feedback across the board (see question nine in Appendix D). Finally, when asked what they
thought of converting vacant lots in Kenosha into different types of green spaces, 58% of
respondents said they loved the idea and 32% said they liked it.
Overall, the survey data reveals considerable support for repurposing/reusing vacant lots
in the city for urban agriculture and other green spaces. Although this does not necessarily
contradict Mr. Beezat’s view of little interest in urban farming in the area (particularly with new
farmers), it does suggest community support for urban agriculture operations located in the city.
It also supports information provided by Mr. Wilke of interest in community gardening, as well
as highlighting the issue of the city’s zoning code in defining community gardening as
agriculture (restricting community gardens to certain districts of the city). Lastly, although the
sample population in this case should not be considered a perfect representation of the larger
population, it does provide a good approximation of the number of Kenosha area community
members interested in and willing to support urban greening initiatives.
5 year action plan
The proposed action plan includes three categories of vacant land repurpose/reuse based
in part on actions taken by comparable cities and highlighted in the case studies:

1) Stabilization and retention strategies for areas of Kenosha where new development is
planned and anticipated;
2) Economically productive uses for urban agriculture; and
3) Green space expansion and green infrastructure designed to improve ecological systems,
increase public access to green space, and improve public health.
Priority Areas
Between 1980 and 2000, the amount of land used for urban uses in Kenosha increased by
approximately 2,800 acres, from about 8,000 to 11,000 acres (City of Kenosha, 2010). The
number of acres of open lands (lands that are vacant and unused) also increased by about 1,100
acres during this same period. By 2000, open lands made up about 14% of the total in the city
(City of Kenosha, 2010). As such, short-term, long-term, and permanent uses for this land should
be determined based on clear strategies and criteria. This section identifies areas of the city for
alternative land uses including urban agriculture, green space expansion, and stormwater
management.
Neighborhood Stabilization
Scattered vacancies can be addressed through small scale interventions like pocket parks
and community gardens, as well as lot consolidations to incrementally reduce neighborhood
density. For instance, a side lot program allows interested property owners the opportunity to
pursue the acquisition of vacant and abandoned, adjacent properties. Lots are typically available
for yard expansion or other residential needs, with the purpose of eliminating blight and
returning properties back to productive use. Milwaukee’s $1 Vacant Side Lot Program and
Flint’s Land Bank Side Lot Program are two examples. However, since vacancy conditions are

prone to changing often, it would be prudent to evaluate vacant properties and track changes
using a consistent and regularly updated set of indicators. These may include:
 Vacant sites
 Recent demolitions
 Vacant/condemned buildings
 Short-term vacancies
 City land bank properties
Concentrated, large-scale vacancy may include areas with high development potential,
such as land bank areas, or those with low development potential, such as tracts of land with
little development demand and no apparent use in the foreseeable future. Stabilization efforts
should focus on maintaining these areas to keep them clean, safe, and ready for future
development.
Urban Agriculture
The number of Kenosha households enrolled in federal food aid programs increased from
fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010 (RKCAA, 2010). In addition, city school districts reported
increased enrollment in free or reduced lunch and breakfast programs during this same period,
while food pantries in the city also reported increased usage. The percentage of Kenosha
FoodShare participants (both adults and children) also remains higher than the state average and
continues to rise, based on the latest 2012 data. The Kenosha News also reported a slight
increase in the percentage of adults in Kenosha considered obese, up from 28% in 2010 and 2011
to 29% in 2012 (Flores, 2012). This too is higher than the 2012 national benchmark of 25%
(RKCAA, 2010).

Growing food on vacant lots in Kenosha can help address concerns of hunger and
malnutrition, obesity, and physical inactivity. There also appears to be growing interest in and
support for urban agriculture and food forests in the city (based on the survey data). While
scattered sites in an urban environment are not likely to produce large economic returns from
agricultural uses, community gardens, urban farms, and food forests could play an important role
in increasing access to healthy food. Moreover, vacant land within the city could accommodate a
variety of agricultural operations, including small gardens, large farms, green houses, and
agriculture incubators. These various uses can be established on strategically selected sites,
perhaps complimenting community kitchens and other food processing facilities that add value
and profitability to urban agriculture efforts. In turn, agricultural production patterns may be
integrated into select neighborhoods across the city to increase access to healthy food while
creating compelling places that support urban redevelopment efforts. Urban food production on
vacant land may also be reconfigured to be more compact (i.e. greenhouses, vertical farming,
aquaponics), particularly as the population in the city increases over time. More compact
agriculture would better enable food production to coexist with more traditional urban
redevelopment efforts. Strategic vacant land management will help build resiliency into
transitional neighborhoods.
The city could begin by setting a goal of working toward establishing a community
garden, urban farm, or food forest within walking distance (about a quarter-mile radius) of all
city residents. However, it would be prudent to develop a more detailed set of criteria for
determining the most suitable locations in the city for food production, taking into account soil
conditions and social factors such as proximity to schools and supermarkets.

Green Space
Vacant land can also be strategically used to expand and enhance urban biodiversity
while providing additional ecosystem services urban residents rely on for daily living. Vacant
land can be used to create new public green spaces, particularly in neighborhoods that are under-
served in terms of existing opens spaces, public parks and other green spaces. The urban
ecosystem includes public open lands and green spaces such as parks, pathways, and natural
areas that contribute to the livability and sustainability of Kenosha neighborhoods. Pursuing
these goals will improve the quality of the built environment and help protect the city’s natural
areas. Vacant lots can be transformed into useful community spaces, either through
redevelopment or the creation and maintenance of open or other forms of green space.
Convenient, consistent, and safe access to well-maintained green space also provides
opportunities for passive to active recreation from sitting, resting, and gardening to creative play,
nature exploration, and sports. All are critical to the health and livability of any community.
City-owned vacant properties can be returned to productive use through a streamlined
process for selling city property and adopting sales policies and priorities with input from
community-based stakeholders. Sales of vacant lots to adjoining owner occupants can be
increased to create larger lots in identified neighborhoods by conducting research to identify
those neighborhoods, and revising city real estate policy on the sale of buildable lots. The city
may also explore developing incentive programs that match landscaping funds with vacant land
purchases for neighbors looking to increase green space or gardens. The result is reduction in the
city’s inventory and additional tax base to be reinvested back into city neighborhoods.
In any case, it is important vacant lots are stabilized, through proper cleanup and removal
of debris and basic landscaping, to prevent further deterioration until future land uses are

determined. Stabilization may also include regular maintenance and the installation of barriers to
deter illegal dumping. The city could also establish a new fee schedule, to be charged to absentee
property owners, in covering the costs of maintaining their vacant, privately owned lots and
strengthening the enforcement of dumping and litter laws. Stabilization and maintenance efforts
may also lead to more local jobs. The adoption and community stewardship of public land
through adopt-a-lot programs may also be considered.
Reviewing, analyzing, and updating zoning codes to promote land use policies for
sustainable urban design is essential. Nodes and multi-modal corridors for rezoning should be
identified to allow for high density, mixed-use, transit-orientated development. A revision to the
zoning code should also be explored to allow for other temporary uses, such as art installations
and exhibits, to provide temporary reuse of vacant lots and create more welcoming public spaces.
Urban land and ecosystems, which are well maintained and nurtured, raise the value of
surrounding properties and create potential for reuse and development. When this land is
managed with community support there are added benefits of social interaction, increased pride,
and additional community stabilization. Although there is a tendency to view vacant land as a
problem, it could also be considered an opportunity for land use transformations that contribute
to neighborhood stabilization and community development.
Land Use Goals
Based on an overall assessment of the aggregate data collected, the following goals have
been identified as recommended priority areas to be implemented through local city planning
processes:
1) Inventory city-owned vacant lots
Target: Inventory and identify suitable lots for repurpose/reuse by 2016.

2) Realign policies and codes to support vacant lot revitalization efforts
Target: Update city zoning code to allow community gardens and urban agriculture in all
residential districts; develop and implement public outreach strategy outlining city vacant
lot revitalization plan by 2016-2017.
3) Repurpose/reuse vacant and under-used land
Target: 50% of vacant lots converted to benefit neighborhoods, including uses such as
food production, parks, stormwater management areas and open spaces by 2017.
4) Increase connections to public green and recreational spaces
Target: Ensure all residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, greenway, or other
green/amenity space by 2020.
Implications
Much of the previous research reviewed for this project focused on the outcomes of
individual greening efforts, largely as a means of revealing the economic implications. The aim
of this project was to better understand the combined social, economic, and environmental
outcomes of urban greening decisions, with particular emphasis on greening city-owned vacant
properties. Perhaps the main benefit of adopting a sustainability-based approach to vacant lot
revitalization research and policy development is that it offers a new way of framing policies and
assessing programs in terms of both scope and scale. While traditional assessments of
revitalization efforts focused primarily on growth, either economic or population, a sustainability
approach seeks to uncover a wider range of impacts, and rejects a growth model with a narrow
focus on economic growth as the central goal of revitalization efforts. A sustainability-based
approach also stresses a more holistic approach in terms of scale while recognizing that social,
environmental, or economic processes at one scale may be felt at multiple and different scales.

As such, it is important differences across scales are taken into consideration as well when
assessing the advantages and disadvantages of any urban greening efforts. Sustainability focuses
on balancing the needs of people at different places and times while providing an alternative
frame of reference for questioning the current trajectory of urban environments, measuring the
impacts of new policies and practices, and weighing alternatives to the status quo.
Perhaps the most important implication of this project is in changing the way people tend
to think about vacant properties as areas associated with crime, trash, weeds, pests,
abandonment, depressed real estate values, and general economic and/or social failure. An
alternative perspective is viewing these spaces as opportunities for land reuse/repurpose as urban
green spaces that can contribute to community development and urban improvement in a number
of different ways. The whole of the data collected adds to the growing literature on the potential
for vacant land to provide important social, economic, and environmental/ecological benefits to
surrounding communities. For the City of Kenosha specifically, this project identified a number
of ways in which government leaders can initiate greening initiatives in the city by community-
based organizations, local businesses, individual residents, and other stakeholders. The action
plan proposed in this project serves a starting point on the part of the City Common Council in
developing a more detailed plan, based on a more comprehensive assessment of the vacant lot
situation in Kenosha.
Limitations
Due to the qualitative, exploratory nature of the research approach it is important to note
the challenge in drawing conclusive inferences about the data presented. In other words,
understanding and interpreting the full meaning of the data presents a challenge. Many of the
benefits outlined in this project are dependent on thoughtful, well-designed, and appropriately

located greening projects for them to be successful and advantageous to communities. In
addition, it should be noted that many greening initiatives in other cities began only fairly
recently in the wake of the Great Recession. As such, there is limited data and a fairly short
history of most city programs and their overall, long-term impacts thus far.
Depth interviews were also expected to be conducted with city officials from Milwaukee
and Cleveland, as well as with the Executive Director of Garden of Eatin’ (a nonprofit, Kenosha-
based community garden organization). Although their input would have likely contributed a
great deal with respect to program development and implementation, unfortunately, scheduling
and availability issues were encountered which prevented the interviews from taking place.
Finally, although there is sufficient evidence to support the finding vacant and abandoned
properties are detrimental to communities, research on the design and development of different
types of urban greening interventions is necessary in gaining a better understanding of what the
specific goals and benefits are of these interventions.
Future Research
Future research on urban greening of vacant properties should focus, in part, on creating a
framework in which to compare different urban greening interventions and the potential tradeoffs
associated with each. This might help communities better understand and articulate the goals,
potential outcomes, and benefits of urban greening interventions under consideration. Longer
term research is also needed in realizing and communicating the potential that urban greening
can provide across time and space, particularly those pertaining to environmental/ecological and
social benefits.

Conclusion
To suggest not too long ago Rust Belt manufacturing giants like Detroit or Philadelphia
would need one day need to rethink traditional growth models and concentrate on becoming
smaller but stronger cities would have been unthinkable. Times have changed. Many cities now
recognize they will not return to their one-time peak populations, nor to their history as
manufacturing centers. This sort of realization is fundamentally changing how cities think about
themselves and their future; it is unleashing, as the case studies have shown, a host of creative
initiatives across the country that are challenging traditional ideas of city planning, and opening
the door to a new way of thinking. This includes ways in which to build more sustainable,
resilient urban communities based on connectedness between people and ecosystems, and for
providing high quality urban living environments. With the proportion of urban vacant land
remaining fairly persistent in spite of population growth in many urban areas, it appears the issue
of vacant properties is here to stay, at least in the U.S. This suggests the need for thoughtful and
innovative management of these spaces in meeting current and future needs of urban residents.
With increasing numbers of cities developing and pursuing sustainability agendas, this will likely
result in the need to find low cost investment/high rate of return urban spaces with the potential
to meet a wide range of objectives. The results of this project suggest greening initiatives
targeting vacant land may be one means of doing just that.
Overall, this research project has demonstrated a wide range of benefits from urban
greening efforts like community gardens, urban farms, and food forests to neighborhood
revitalization and urban sustainability efforts. It has also highlighted a number of greening
projects and other initiatives developed by just some of the forward thinking cities sprouting up

across the U.S. Conversely, it has shown the complexity and importance of considering both the
potential short- and long-term impacts on communities.
Though these benefits suggest many of these programs could be advantageous in other
communities, they have local and regional policy implications as well. Prioritizing program
implementation will help answer questions of where in the city these benefits will be strongest.
Although this research does not directly measure and quantify the potential tradeoffs in terms of
action or inaction, it represents a starting point for constructive dialogue for cities in considering
how implementation decisions might affect the distribution of program outcomes. Perhaps most
importantly, this project points to the changing role of vacant land in municipal policy in both
shrinking and growing cities. Traditional approaches to vacant lots view these spaces as problem
properties to be solved, whereas the alternative approach adopted here favors a more optimistic
outlook as potential sites for urban greening and as community assets in creating healthier, more
sustainable and resilient communities.

References
Alcock, I., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Fleming, L. E., & Depledge, M. H. (2014).
Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban
areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(2), 1247. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1492272674?accountid=8289
Alvey, A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 5(4), 195-201. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003
Beniston, J. & Lal, R. (2012). Improving soil quality for urban agriculture in the north central
u.s., in carbon sequestration in urban ecosystems. In Carbon Sequestration in Urban
Ecosystems. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/johnn_000/Downloads/Beniston%20and%20Lal%202012_published%20
version.pdf
Branas, C.C., Cheney, R. A., MacDonald, J.M., Tam, V.W., Jackson, T.D. & Ten Have, T.R.
(2011, July). A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant
urban space. American Journal of Epidemiology, 174(11), 1296-1306.
doi:10.1093/aje/kwr273
Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., & et al. (2007). Contribution of
public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 509-14.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215081082?accountid=8289
City of Baltimore. (2013). Greening: Food systems. Retrieved from
http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/greening/food-systems
City of Flint. (2014). Imagine flint master plan. Retrieved from
http://www.imagineflint.com/Documents.aspx

Greening Vacant Lots in Kenosha Boosts Community

Greening Vacant Lots in Kenosha Boosts Community

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Greening Vacant Lots in Kenosha Boosts Community

Similar to Greening Vacant Lots in Kenosha Boosts Community (20)

Greening Vacant Lots in Kenosha Boosts Community