Urban Agriculture Guidebook - Wisconsin

URBAN AGRICULTURE
Introduction
Urban agriculture, at first glance, may appear to be a fairly simple topic: Scatter a few plots about the
City and let residents start gardening. In reality, however, urban agriculture impacts a community in a
variety of ways, from providing food security, environmental benefits, and even modifying a city’s
urban form. Similarly, in spite of its seeming simplicity, urban agriculture does not just happen. To
foster the development and growth of urban agriculture, a city may have to consider implementing
techniques that include zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans and, in some cases, state legislation.
Urban agriculture plays an important role as part of an environmental sustainability program.
Physically, it increases green space, which reduces the urban heat island, stormwater runoff, and
improves air quality. Because food is produced locally, urban agriculture also reduces energy
consumption and pollution associated with transportation. Urban agriculture also provides social
benefits by providing inexpensive access to locally-grown produce.
The increasing population growth of recent years has brought the issue of sustainability to the
forefront. Urban agriculture is one way to significantly impact not only people’s lives, but also
environmental sustainability.
What Is Urban Agriculture?
According to the 2002 American Community Survey, the population of the United States is
280,540,303 (US Census), 80 percent of which are living in metropolitan areas (Community Food
Security Coalition [CFSC] 2003). This growing population has created a number of questions over
how to deal with sustainability in terms of transportation demand, housing needs, recreational
interests, food supply.
Because the global urban population is expected to double by 2038, urban agriculture has an
opportunity to make a positive impact on the world’s food systems. Cities must generate food security
for themselves, since food distribution becomes more complicated as a metropolitan area grows (Smit
et al. 1996). Urban agriculture also contributes to a community’s nutritional self-reliance, reducing
hunger and malnutrition in urbanizing areas around the world.
Food must travel through a complex network in order to supply cities. Generally speaking, food
travels between 1,500 and 2,500 miles from farm to plate, about 25 percent farther than in 1980
(Halweil [n.d.]). At the same time, people’s expectations of a food’s freshness continue to increase.
Only food with a high durability can make a long journey and still appear fresh on the supermarket
shelves. Consequently, appearance often trumps taste and nutrition in many supermarkets.
A few local governments around the nation have been trying to address the problem of supplying
quality food with produced within reasonable distances for transportation. One solution is to bring
agriculture near to or even within urbanized areas, creating urban agriculture. A simple definition of
urban agriculture is provided by Bailkey and Nasr (2000): “[urban agriculture] is the growing,
processing, and distribution of food and other products through intensive plant cultivation and animal
husbandry in and around cities.” This decreases the transportation time of food, which means that it
reaches consumers more quickly, in a fresher state, and with less fuel consumption for shipping. The
United Nations provides a more in-depth definition of urban agriculture.
[Urban agriculture] is an industry that produces, processes and markets food and fuel, largely
in response to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on land and

Literature Review / Urban Agriculture / 2
water dispersed throughout the urban and peri-urban area, applying intensive production
methods, using and reusing natural resources and urban wastes, to yield a diversity of crops
and livestock. (Smit et al. 1996)
The urban agriculture also has numerous benefits in terms of environmental sustainability. Besides
beautifying city landscapes, urban agriculture can also aid environmental restoration and remediation
through reusing abandoned areas, vacant lots, and certain waste streams, such as yard waste compost,
from the urban landscape. In addition, urban agriculture reduces fuel consumption and air pollution
because of the decreased travel distances for produce. A greener urban landscape can also provide
psychological, emotional, and general health benefits (Beatley 1997).
Urban Farms
Urban farms, which can vary widely in size and scale, are the primary form of urban agriculture.
Urban farms into three categories: recreational farms (which sell less than $10,000 worth of product
annually and consist of less than 100 acres); adaptive farms (which sell more than $10,000 annually
and range in size from 100 to 200 acres); and traditional farms (which sell more than $10,000
annually and are larger than 200 acres); (CFSC 2003). According to the CFSC most urban agriculture
programs operate on fewer than 25 acres. Not surprisingly, farm size is the limiting factor in
developed areas—finding sufficient area for a farm is a major problem for urban farms. Many urban
farms receive core funding from local government, but they are also required to supplement these
funds through the sale of agricultural goods and products (Beatley 2000).
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a newer example of the urban farming enterprise. The
CSA model began in rural areas, and has now worked its way into more urban areas. A person
participating in a CSA program buys a share in a local farm, paying up-front dues to receive produce
regularly throughout the growing season. Many CSAs directly respond to food security issues by
offering shares to low-income households through grants, adopt-a-share programs, and other
subsidies (CFSC 2003).
Community Gardens
Community gardens are another example of urban agriculture. The main objective of a community
garden is to provide land for family gardening use. This usually means that the land is divided into
smaller plots for individual household users, where each gardener is responsible for maintaining his
or her plot. Community gardeners are generally not permitted to sell the products of their labor for
profit—most community gardens are for personal use only. Community gardens can have a variety of
owners: institutions, community groups, land trusts, or private citizens.
According to the Community Food
Figure 1.1: Portsmouth Community Garden
Security Coalition, community gardens
have helped families grow their own food
according to their personal needs, thereby
providing a cost savings. In Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, for instance, community garden
plots helped families save from $100 to
$300 a year. In Philadelphia, community
gardeners reported annual savings of $700
dollars per family—a significant amount
for lower-income households. Community
gardens also provide greater access to fresh
and nutritious vegetables. As a result,
Source: http://www.parks.ci.portland.or.us

community gardens have a significant role in addressing public health and livability issues (Twiss et
al. 2003).
One of the greatest benefits of community gardens is that they help build the character of a
neighborhood through sustainable community development. Community gardens are sites for a
combination of activities: food production, sharing of basic resources such as land and water, and
recreation. As a result, community gardens provide many opportunities for social and cultural
exchange (Raja 2000).
The Foodshed
Most of the food eaten in the United States arrives at the table after crossing state, and sometimes,
national boundaries. Though food remains inexpensive, it comes to us with many hidden
environmental, social, and human health costs. In order to anticipate and mitigate these costs,
producers and consumers need to develop sustainable, self-reliant, local and regional food systems.
That is, residents must work to reduce the area that supplies our food, otherwise known as the
“foodshed” (Wisconsin Foodshed Research Project).
Understanding how food is produced, processed, distributed, and accessed, as well as how food waste
is disposed of is integral to a well-run food system (URPL 2003). Since urban agriculture is most
often an informal activity, it faces maintaining production from year-to-year can be challenging.
Increasing corporate consolidation of agriculture, the loss of farmland and farm jobs close to cities,
and the scarcity and insecurity of existing community gardens are several emerging problems in
urban agriculture.
For a local food system to work, farmers must be linked to food processing, distribution, and the end
of the “food chain”: consumers. Local consumers often struggle to support local farmers because it
can be difficult to find local food in grocery stores or restaurants. Similarly, groceries and restaurants
sometimes find access to local farmers difficult because of the lack of local storage and distribution
sites. Connections need to be made between all members within a food system to increase citizens’
access to local farm products in everyday supermarkets, as well as increase local farmers’ ability to
sell products to those supermarkets.
The Benefits of Urban Agriculture
Urban farms and community gardens both produce benefits for the city and the region. The typical
urban system is an ecological dead end. Instead of a healthy ecosystem, where nutrients are largely
recycled, most cities dump, haul, or pipe away tons of organic garbage and sewage (Nelson 1996).
Cities generate organic waste from food preparation, defecation of people and pets, and clearing of
leaves or clippings from yards and parks. Urban agriculture can address these issues and many other
environmental, economic, and social concerns.
Environmental Restoration
Many of the environmental or ecological benefits of urban agriculture are not quantified in the current
literature. Nugent (1999a) addresses costs and benefits of urban agriculture in Hartford, Connecticut,
but she restricts her analysis to a comparison of monetarily measurable inputs and outputs. Although
Nugent concludes that the monetarily measurable benefits exceed the costs, she is quick to
acknowledge the limitations of her study. Exclusion of important factors such as environmental
externalities, multiplier effects, social effects, and restriction to the Hartford area provides only a
partial conclusion concerning urban and peri-urban agriculture. The difficulty in measuring benefits is
reflected throughout the urban agriculture literature. For the most part, the environmental benefits are
listed as given rather than as a theory that requires proof.

The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems at the University of Wisconsin, Madison has specified
some of the environmental and social costs associated with different farm products (see Table 1.1).
Oftentimes, consumers are unaware of the differences between commercial and locally-grown
produce. Commercial mass production often relies upon pesticides or other farming practices that
deplete the natural environment and yields less flavorful food options. In addition, the longer
distances for commercial produce from food source to consumption yield environmental costs by
reducing energy use (De Zeeuw et al. 2000).
Some “ecological manifestations” of urban agriculture are: improved hydrology, better air and soil
quality, biodiversity, and energy savings through local production (Hall). In addition, specific
initiatives in urban agriculture focus on organic gardening and waste reduction, which are beneficial
to the environment. Barrs ([n.d.]) further breaks down many of the above benefits. For instance, there
are several benefits to reduced energy consumption through urban agriculture: less pollution because
of the proximity of food to consumers and the greater intensity of labor used to produce food (hence a
less dependence on fossil fuels), and the reduction of waste heat from roofs on residential and
commercial buildings because of rooftop gardens or greenhouses.
The animal and plant population also potentially stand to gain from urban agriculture (Barrs [n.d.],
Woodsworth). Urban gardens can add value by creating animal, bird, and insect habitats within the
traditional urban form. For example, the bee population on Vancouver Island, which is crucial to
pollination for area farms, has fallen by over 80 percent in recent years (Woodsworth). The addition
of urban gardens could provide a long-term habitat for these and other insects, thereby benefiting the
entire agricultural system.
The Food Project in Boston works on two urban mini-farms, which originated as part of the Dudley
Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI). Although DSNI views its major accomplishment to be the
organization and empowerment of the community, their conversion of vacant and abandoned land
was integral to the revitalization of the neighborhood. The combined 3.6 acres of mini-farm property
are part of the 1,300 parcels acquired through eminent domain for DSNI. The Food Project has
committed to environmental sustainability through using remediated land and sustainable agricultural
practices, such as using healthy alternatives to pesticides and fertilizers.
Though the benefits of urban agriculture clearly outweighs its social and economic costs, the issue of
food waste resulting from urban farms is an important element to consider. The food system cycle, no
matter how efficient, will still produce waste food products. This food waste fills landfills, impacting
environment quality. Food waste can cause foul odors, attract pests, and contribute to water pollution
that can threaten public health. In anticipation of these matters, local government and residents need
to work together to support food waste recycling systems to reduce the amount of food waste
disposed of in landfills and prevent the accompanying environmental problems.
Food Security
As with many urban agriculture programs in North America, the Food Project is an important part of
developing sustainable agriculture and sustainable food systems. Whereas the developing world has
used urban agriculture to increase the supply of food, urban farming and gardening in the developed
world is geared towards issues of equity and providing a good source of food for the poor, elderly, or
sick. Nelson (1996) argues that farmers produce enough food to provide the world with an adequate
diet, and therefore attributes the hunger problems to the distribution of food, where wealthy
consumers increasingly squeeze the poor out of the market. Barrs, however, indicates that, based on
recent population trends and our current approach to agriculture, “the food security most of us enjoy
is not guaranteed to last far into the next century.”

Power (1999) classifies urban agriculture movements as a sustainable food systems approach to food
security, which is also known as community food security (CFS). By developing skills and self-reliance
and fostering direct connections between farmers and urban residents, the sustainable foods
systems approach provides food for the hungry. Allen (1999) argues that urban agriculture is not, in
itself, a solution for food security problems. Urban agriculture can only minimally improve income
distribution, but it can still be a source of important nutrients for overall health and an important
addition to “regular” production. The solution to meeting the food security needs of the entire
population must also include traditional food programs that provide food access through standard
approaches.
There are several factors that can hamper consumers’ access to quality food. Transportation to
grocery stores and markets is important—many people do not have a car to drive themselves to the
supermarket every time they need to shop for groceries. This requires both re-thinking the locations
of food stores and modifying the transportation system to ensure that consumers can reach
supermarkets. Household income is another issue that affects food access; without adequate jobs or
wages, many households lack the finances to provide food security (Fisher 2001). Community
gardens clearly benefit such households, but many already have long waiting lists. Addressing the
problem of food security in a citywide plan would ensure inexpensive access to healthy food for all
sectors of society.
One example of a multi-tiered approach to food security is the Hartford Food System (HFS). HFS
relies on a mix of approaches to create and sustain an equitable food system that addresses causes of
hunger and poor nutrition in Connecticut. HFS projects include farmers’ markets, urban agriculture,
non-farm food distribution, and policy advocacy. By using financial resources of government and
organizing and food store development within the city in combination with urban agriculture, HFS
has been able to further food security for the past 25 years.
Community Development
Multiple studies have shown that urban agriculture draws community members together. Carole
Nemore, in her report to the New York State Senate, surveyed community gardeners (with 738
responding) in the five New York boroughs about garden attributes and significance. For all five
boroughs, social activities (either neighborhood gatherings or a meeting place for friends) were listed
as the most common non-planting use of the garden. Sharp et al. (2002) also found cooperative
networks among producers in their analysis of a single CSA. A leader of the CSA reported that the
organization enabled trades between three producers who were unaware of the others’ existence
before participating.
In addition, urban agriculture can empower neighborhoods in the process of “greenlining” (Bjornson,
in Malakoff). Neighborhoods “redlined” by banks and insurance agencies can gain access to social
capital, economic resources, and public policy through “greening.” The process enables interaction
between non-profit, government, and community members and sets up gardening as a forum for
social change. Gardening provides opportunities to establish a community voice and to access local
government that may not otherwise be available to all neighborhoods.
Many proponents of urban agriculture stress the physical connection it establishes between humans
and nature. For example, Growing Power seeks to address both the issue of food security and the goal
of community development by rooting people to the earth and healthy food. Will Allen, co-director of
Growing Power, also notes the positive effect of gardening on children: “when kids come in here,
they’ve got their pockets full of candy, and they’re pretty wild. But when they get their hands on the
soil, they just mellow out … This is a place where they can come and get hands-on experience,”
(Penn 2003). The community has benefited through the project’s training, networking, and food

production. Likewise, the Ground Up organization in Washington D.C., has focused its programs on
taking kids off the streets. By providing training in business skills and education on nutritional,
environmental, and food security issues, the gardening organization has prevented neighborhoods
from being victims of crime (Nelson 1996). Surveys of project leaders in project YE’ES (Youth
Economic and Educational Sustainability) also mentioned the importance of community gardens as a
safe place, particularly for youths, which sometimes coincided with a reduction in crime or drug sales
(Feenstra et al 1999).
Economic Development
While most forms of urban agriculture are not for profit, participants, and sometimes units of
government, can benefit economically (Herbach 1998). Furthermore, community supported
agriculture and involvement in farmers’ markets are two opportunities to share benefits between
consumers and producers (Barrs [n.d.]). Farmers’ markets have a locational advantage over
commercial producers since the distance of transport is shorter and there is less need for packaging
(Nugent 1999). The gross returns to farmers’ market participants are generally 200 to 250 percent
higher than the returns from wholesaler or distributor sales (Abel et al 1999). In addition, the markets
provide an alternative for consumers who value “quality and variety” or who wish to support local
agriculture (Lyson et al. 1995).
Madison area farms have been participating in community-supported agriculture since 1992. Madison
Area Community Supported Agriculture Coalition (MACSAC) seeks to build a relationship between
farmers and consumers, and also between consumers and the land. Each growing season CSA
members purchase a share from a farm, and, on a weekly basis throughout the growing season, they
can pick up food at the farm or at certain drop-off points. The direct link between farmer and
consumer supports small and moderate scale family farms and may help them resist development.
Ostrom (1997) has criticized MACSAC for being farmer-driven, lacking a consumer sense of
involvement, and not involving low-income people in the organization. Those factors have made it
difficult to get members involved in issues of land acquisition and in ensuring the social and
economic foundations.
Recreation and Leisure
Although Nugent (1999) does not consider recreational benefits a factor for commercial farmers, she
does point out the prevalence of recreational gardening in the United States. Leisure Trends (2002)
listed gardening as the fifteenth and twentieth highest “did yesterday” recreational activities for
women and men, respectively. A 1994 Gallup poll reported one percent of total American gardeners
as community gardeners, but with 14 percent interested in community gardening if it became
available. In addition, Patel (1992) found that 26 percent of participants in Newark, New Jersey, and
surrounding communities gained personal satisfaction and enjoyment from community gardening.
Landscape Beautification
Depending on location, a community garden or urban farm can enhance the aesthetic environment. In
the case of Havana, Cuba, many gardeners started their gardens in abandoned lots or trash dumps,
which greatly improved the beauty and safety of the surrounding neighborhood (Moskow 1999).
Many agricultural programs have utilized abandoned or vacant lots, converting “eyesores—weedy,
trash-ridden, dangerous gathering places” into gardens (CFSC 2003). Furthermore, 130,000 to
425,000 additional vacant industrial sites and brownfields have been declared safe for conversion to
agricultural use by the US General Accounting Office (CFSC 2003).

The Real Cost of Food
Table 1.1 illustrates some of the real costs of several common foods. Many of the nation’s crops come
from a few select areas, and have to be shipped cross-country before they reach the local supermarket.
Only a small selection of varieties of each product is grown—a boon for pests, which necessitates
increased pesticide use. The social costs, health costs, and environmental impact of our food system
are not always reflected in the price we pay at the supermarket.
Table 1.1 Price Tag/ Cost Tag of Selected Foods
Product
Food Miles Genetic Diversity Social and Health
Environmental Impact
(Price)
Costs
Apples
($.99-
$2.99/lb)
80% of the
nation’s 2001
apple crop came
from WA, NY,
MI, CA, PA,
VA.
Resurgence of
interest in unique
varieties in the last
decade; some
nurseries offer up to
200 varieties.
US apple farmers
down 23% (from
1987 to 1997).
USDA found 35
different pesticide
residues on 99.6% of
samples (1996).
Increasing use of integrated
pest management (IPM) and
organic farming, which keeps
pesticides out of food, lakes,
streams, and groundwater.
Potatoes
($.35-$.99/lb)
ID, ME, MN,
ND, OR, WA,
and WI are main
producers, but
20% chipping
plants are in the
east.
Only four major
commercial
varieties, but over
5,000 varieties
worldwide, many of
which are naturally
pest resistant.
Farmers receive about
2 cents for the
average $1.50 retail
price for potato chips.
Chips account for ¼
of potatoes consumed.
Farmers receive exemptions to
spray chemicals that are
potentially hazardous due to
persistence of pests and blight.
Many chemicals end up in the
groundwater since potatoes
are grown in heavily irrigated,
sandy soils.
Tomatoes
(around
$0.79/lb)
About 2,500
miles. From FL,
CA, TX, and
Mexico.
Tomatoes are bred
for durability, not
flavor or nutrition,
to endure long
transport.
Farm workers are
directly exposed to
pesticides. Day
laborers can earn as
little as $2.50 a day.
California tomatoes use
irrigated water from hundreds
or thousands of miles away,
affecting water levels and
wildlife in other regions.
Irrigated water contains soil-degrading
minerals that are
reducing the productivity of
soil.
Strawberries
($.89-
$4.99/pint)
Out of season,
strawberries
come from CA
(83% of
production from
1998-2000) or
Mexico.
Strawberries grown
for processing or
wholesale
distribution are bred
for size and
durability, as
opposed to flavor.
Most reported
pesticide poisonings
by laborers than for
any other crop.
Dependence on
migrant workers.
Local berries may
contain more vitamin
C than those shipped
from a distance.
Use more pesticides per acre
than any other crop in CA.
Extremely toxic chemical,
methyl bromide, which causes
health problems and depletes
ozone still used in FL and CA.
Source: Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, UW-Madison
Urban Form and Urban Agriculture
Extensive urban development has meant the loss many green spaces in the cities of the United States
(Beatley 2000). Urban agriculture can be part of an effort to provide more land for green space.
Unfortunately, urban agriculture is not commonly mentioned in most cities’ zoning ordinances or
comprehensive plans. Doing so would raise the profile of urban agriculture, making it easier to

operate gardens and urban farms, and making people more aware of the option of utilizing urban
agriculture.
There are many types of urban agriculture that may not fit with traditional concepts but are already
benefiting many cities. Some examples of nontraditional urban agriculture include: horticulture in
vacant lots; raising fish and other aquatic products in tanks, ponds, rivers, and estuaries; farming
small livestock like chickens, rabbits, and guinea pigs; growing vegetables in hydroponic solutions;
and developing market gardens in green wedges between urbanized corridors or along highways and
railroads (Smit et al. 1996).
The following section discusses how urban agriculture physically affects urban form, providing
examples of different urban agriculture types in relation to urban density.
The Role of Urban Agriculture in Shaping Urban Form
Urban agriculture can take place on different types of urban land. The Urban Agriculture Network has
adopted a four-zone model that outlines the broad categories of land where urban agriculture can take
place. Core zones have the highest density and the greatest mixture of land uses, followed by corridor
zones. The nature of the zone
affects what type of urban
agriculture can be practiced.
According to Smit et al. (1996),
because of the density of the
core area, urban agriculture
usually takes place on rooftops,
balconies, temporarily vacant
lots, in converted buildings, and
sometimes in public parks.
There are also examples of
small-scale plastic greenhouse
farming systems, including
hydroponics. Urban agriculture
may be forced out of core-city
areas, considering the increasing
focus of using vacant lots in
urban revitalization programs.
The corridor zones are similar
to, though less dense than, the
core. In the context of urban
agriculture, they basically have
the same characteristics of use.
Farming in corridor zones
usually takes place along main
Figure 1.2: The “four zones” city model
Source: Smit et al. 1996, Urban Agriculture Network
roads and railway lines because there are often large lots that have not yet been built out in those
areas (Smit et al. 1996). Ornamental horticulture, grazing, market gardening, greenhouse vegetables
and flowers, poultry, and other types of small livestock can all be found in corridor zones. These
types of agricultural locations usually have low-intensity crops, recycle little waste, and produce low
returns on labor. Low returns result because farmers in these areas often have little security

concerning how long they can continue farming, which prevents long-term planning or investment
(Beatley 2000).
Wedge zones are generally classified as having an extensive amount of land not suitable for
development, such as steep slopes and wetlands (Smit et al. 1996). In larger cities, it is this type of
land that is typically used for urban agriculture. Milk production, egg production, orchards, and fish
ponds also take place in this zone. Keeping wedge land in high intensity agriculture may have a high
opportunity cost because built use yields higher land rents than agriculture, but successfully achieves
environmental conservation (CFSC 2003).
The periphery zone is the rural-urban fringe characterized by small and medium-size farms oriented
to the metropolitan market that are more diverse than those in rural areas (CFSC 2003). The
agricultural industry in this type of land adapts to the new demands of urban markets. The acreage of
agriculture on the periphery depends on the transportation efficiency and landscape features (Smit et
al. 1996). This zone usually is earmarked intensive vegetable production because of lower
transportation costs compared to more rural areas.
Urban Agriculture and Urban Density
As mentioned earlier, the type of urban agriculture depends on urban density. According to the four-zone
model of the city (Figure 1.1), core zones and corridor zones have the highest density, meaning
there is not much land available for urban agriculture (Smit et al. 1996). Even if land can be found in
those zones, it tends to be used for gardening on a temporary basis. More land for agricultural
purposes can be found in wedge and periphery zones. Land otherwise unsuitable for building can be
set aside for
agricultural
activities. Each
zone has its own
characteristics
which dictate the
appropriate type
of urban
agriculture.
Agriculture in
low density
urban areas is
commonly
located near
riversides and
floodplains,
water bodies,
wetlands, and
steep slopes.
These areas are
Figure 1.3: Community gardens in an urban neighborhood
usually not built up due to natural disaster threats such as floods and landslides. Hillsides can also be
prohibitively expensive to develop. Methods of urban agriculture for steep slopes include forestry-related
activities and terrace horticulture, which can help stabilize slopes, reduce erosion, and mitigate
urban heat island effects (Beatley 2000). Riverside areas and floodplains, in addition to being close to
water, usually have the most fertile soils (Hough 1995). Water bodies and wetlands are other possible
locations for urban agriculture in low density areas. Possible environmental contamination, which can

turn up in urban areas, can be mitigated by using aquatic plant and fish production for biological
treatment of the contaminants (Smit et al. 1996).
Types of urban agriculture found in high density urban areas are community gardens and green roofs,
roadsides, and other rights-of-way (Smit et al. 1996). Community gardening is the most well-known
type of urban agriculture (Twiss et al. 2003). Green roofs are a method of gardening that is gaining
more attention in the US. Green roofs (or eco-roofs), as the name implies, contain plantings on roofs
of buildings. They have become increasingly common in European cities, especially in Germany and
the Netherlands (Beatley 2000), where roughly 350 million square feet have been installed. Green
roofs provide many benefits: they are aesthetically pleasing, reduce city heat island effects, reduce
carbon dioxide impact, reduce summer air conditioning costs, reduce winter heat demands, lengthen
roof life by two to three times, remove nitrogen pollution in rain, neutralize acid rain effects, reduce
noise, reduce stormwater runoff, and provide songbird habitat (http://hortweb.cas.psu.edu). The many
advantages of green roofs have an important role in any environmental sustainability agenda.
Beatley (2000) lists some prominent examples of green roof implementation in European cities, such
as the Cosmos Building in Saarbrücken, Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, the main library at the
Technical University of Delft, and the GWL-Terrain housing projects in Amsterdam. Though green
roofs have taken hold in Germany and the Netherlands, Austria has the most extensive green roofs
program in Europe. The city of Linz frequently requires building plans to compensate for the loss of
greenspace occupied by the building footprint with the installation of greenroofs. A number of
buildings in Britain also have applied the technology.
In comparison, the United States has relatively few examples of green roofs: Chicago City Hall
(Figure 1.4), Ford’s River Rouge renovation in Detroit, and a few scattered projects in the cities of
Atlanta, Phoenix, and Minneapolis (http://hortweb.cas.psu.edu). In the United States, the idea of
green roofs is relatively new
and is just beginning to be
Figure 1.4: Chicago City Hall’s green roof
promoted.
Promoting Urban Food
Production through
Planning
The food system is an
element generally taken for
granted in the urban
environment, yet it is as
necessary a function as
housing or transportation.
Some would go as far as to
compare it to such essential
elements as air and water.
Pothukuchi and Kaufmann
(1999) explain that the
historical development of
cities led to the definitions of
“urban” problems as
predominate over rural or
agricultural ones. The
industrial revolution and modern technologies have made it possible for problems in the food system
Source: http://www.hrt.msu.edu/faculty/Rowe/ ChicagoCityHallAerial%20062702.jpg

to be overlooked. Since food has never been perceived as “in crisis” in the US, it has been less visible
in comparison to other problems our cities face, and its connections to other urban elements have
often gone unnoticed as well.
Today, recognition of and interest in urban agriculture is still low among planners and politicians, and
cities rarely have an established approach to food security. There is an emerging group of
practitioners, however, who are beginning to realize the need to integrate urban agriculture programs
with best practices in urban and regional planning, adding to established concepts of sustainable city
development (Drescher 2000). The job of planners is to create a livable city, and the job of ecological
planners is to create a healthy one. The World Health Organization describes a healthy city as “one
that is continually creating those physical and social environments and expanding those community
resources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing all functions of life and
in developing to their maximum potential” (URPL 1997).
Planners today are finding practical arguments for the formal recognition of urban agriculture and its
inclusion into municipal zoning and policies. Since urban agriculture is, by definition, within the city,
it does not fit the popular understanding of farming. It is a different sort of farming that requires the
assistance of urban planning mechanisms in order to thrive in the urban environment. Urban farmers
often have few tenure rights over land or water, and are usually pushed out by land development as a
result. Urban planners can contribute to urban agriculture by identifying appropriate zones for
farming activities, encouraging the infrastructure developments needed by farmers, and implementing
protective measures to provide land security (Drescher 2000).
In addition, urban farms challenge urban residents’ learned disconnection from their food source and
their environment. Urban agriculture can be a community activity that fosters environmental
education, which is an essential element in the building of sustainable communities.
Tools for Promotion of Urban Agriculture
Land is a key element of urban agriculture, and agricultural land in urban areas suffers unique
ecological and economic pressures that rural agriculture does not (Drescher 2000). Land in urban
areas is almost always of much higher value than rural farmland, and development pressures can
override many forms of land occupancy. While access to land is vital to the survival of urban farms
and community gardens, the question of how to treat urban agriculture in planning is still up in the
air. Currently, many of these urban farming activities are being conducted informally and gardening
organizations have little to no power in the political arena. Therefore, many are leaning towards a
more policy-based approach.
Zoning
Planners have the ability to implement policies and land-use planning tools, such as zoning, to
support urban agriculture. However, there is some argument over the issue of zoning for urban
agriculture. For instance, some consider the treatment of gardens in community planning codes to be
one more thing for the planning staff to handle. Members of the P-Patch organization in Seattle prefer
to treat gardening as an allowed interim land use, since gardening is relatively benign and can be
consistent with any other surrounding land use (Felsing 2002).
In most cases, gardens are a permitted use for open space and public lands which does not protect the
land from being taken over by development pressures. Naming community gardens as a permitted use
in zoning code clarifies city policy, provides a shared reference point for all parties, and makes
explicit the mutual understanding of city staff, gardeners, and city residents (Felsing 2002).

Accessing land and other resources is a major concern for community gardeners. Garden lands in
some jurisdictions are publicly owned. Vacant lands may be leased, specified by various authorizing
laws, for certain time periods of one, two, and five years, but these leases are usually terminable on
short notice (Felsing 2002). Gardeners sometimes seize control of privately owned vacant urban lots
by beginning to use them after they fall out of use, which can result in prosecution for trespassing.
Outright ownership of garden land provides the most control, but unless the ownership organization is
non-profit, property taxes may be a burden.
The most secure ownership option is to have the assistance of a land bank or land trust to hold the
title for a gardening organization. In addition to assistance needed to secure the land for long-term
agricultural use, community garden organizations may require legal assistance in obtaining other
required resources like water, materials, technical expertise, or approval from local municipalities.
Familiar land use review processes, like zoning, can mediate competition for the same parcel and
provide the context for accessing many of these resources.
Formal recognition of urban agriculture in the zoning code enhances its viability. By naming
community gardens in codes and ordinances, support can be solidified across a range of city
departments and public agencies, which may not happen in the absence of a clear directive or formal
city policy. Zoning districts have proven extremely effective in Boston, where zoning provisions for
community gardens have been put into place. If a private garden group dissolves, the city has a
process for disposition of land, where lots revert back to city ownership and get redistributed. This is
a powerful tool for gardeners, because the deed restrictions used by private groups are not as strong as
Boston’s zoning ordinance. Zoning is a solution which helps urban agriculture in more ways than one,
and is best used to mediate compromises between the needs of the gardeners and the needs of the
surrounding community. Many officials involved in urban agriculture note that zoning will work best
in the context of a package of reinforcing policy elements (Felsing 2002).
It is usually the responsibility of urban planners to identify locations for urban agriculture, while local
municipal councils are largely responsible for permitting urban agricultural activities. City planning
should incorporate an understanding of household food security and nutrition, agricultural research,
and economic, as well as the marketing and distribution of food from rural areas into cities (Drescher
2000). The coordination and facilitation of all the decisions affecting urban land uses is just as
important as a master plan. Therefore, an important first step is to define the complex interaction of
land uses and to inform all interested stakeholders.
Axel Drescher (2000) recommends these steps to a successful and comprehensive policy approach to
urban agriculture:
• Incorporate mechanisms for effective coordination of urban agriculture activities and direct
stakeholder participation in planning and implementation.
• Provide a legal framework for urban agriculture activities.
• Regulate access to land and water as well as urban organic wastes and wastewater.
• Define environmental and health standards: minimum quality standards for agricultural soils
and irrigation water, and health standards tailored to the ultimate consumers of the product
produced.
• Institutionalize administrative procedures to get access to the above-mentioned resources.
• Institutionalize procedures to monitor the positive and negative effects of urban agriculture
with regard to social, economic, and environmental conditions, and define responsible bodies.

Zoning is still the common system used for most urban planning elements; therefore, the more it is
used as a policy and regulation tool for urban agriculture, the more urban agriculture will be taken
seriously and have a secure future.
Comprehensive Plans and Urban Agriculture
The comprehensive plan can be an important tool in accomplishing urban agriculture related goals.
Integrating urban agriculture into a comprehensive plan gives notice to the community of a city’s
support of agriculture and gardening, officially recognizing the practice as an important to the city’s
well-being. Currently, relatively few cities include urban agriculture in their comprehensive plans.
There are, however, a few examples that stand out. One of those is Berkeley, California. The City of
Berkeley has 17 community gardens, 11 of which are government owned (meaning they are owned
by the city, the university, or a school district), while the remainder are run by private organizations
or non-profits. In its comprehensive plan, the City of Berkeley states that “additional space is desired
for community gardens [and] farmers markets”. The plan deals directly with the need for agricultural
land within the city by designating community gardens and open space as the highest priority for a
14-block area of City-owned right-of-way. Community gardens and open space are given a higher
priority than affordable housing for that particular plot of land (City of Berkeley, CA).
Furthermore, Berkeley designates a portion of their open space plan to Community Gardens. Under
section OS-8, there are six goals for community gardens in the city that include encouraging
neighborhood groups to organize, designing and manage community gardens, including community
gardens in the planning for the Santa Fe Right-of-Way (the aforementioned 14-block area), pursuing
community gardens in high-density areas, increasing support for community gardens through
partnerships with other government agencies, and supporting school-based gardens (City of Berkeley,
CA).
The City of Berkeley also has a policy that deals with food systems, which states that the City needs
to “increase access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate foods for the people of Berkeley
by supporting efforts to build more complete and sustainable local food production and distribution
systems.” This policy comes with eight recommended actions that range from promoting seed
distribution to encouraging buildings to incorporate rooftop gardens and providing sites for local
farmers’ markets and community gardens (City of Berkeley, CA).
Another city that effectively promotes urban agriculture in its comprehensive plan is Burlington,
Vermont. The City of Burlington Parks Department maintains 350 plots that serve 1,400 people.
According to their comprehensive plan, Burlington is currently in the process of updating the 1991
“Burlington Area Community Gardens Master Plan.” Not many communities, even now, have a
section of their comprehensive plan dedicated to community gardens or urban agriculture, let alone a
specific plan for community gardens that has been in place since 1991. The comprehensive plan
identifies needs for future garden space, and recommends relocation of some current gardening
activities that are not convenient to residents (City of Burlington, VT).
Several cities in Canada are also leading the urban agriculture movement. Notes Regnitter, “at the
local level in Canada the citizens of three cities, Toronto, Saskatoon and Prince Albert have become
so conscious of and concerned about basic food insecurity that they have created Food Charter
Movements and have brought their respective City Governments to pass Food Charters.” This is
especially important in Prince Albert, where a quarter of families make less than 50 percent of the
average Canadian yearly income. The introduction of Prince Albert’s Food Charter states that,

[T]he ‘local’ food retailer is now likely to be a large corporate operation located half a city
away from where we live. Domestic back yard gardens are virtually extinct, and the
connection between rural food producer and urban consumer exists only by way of very
complex and remote connections … . Having economic means will not ensure our health and
food security if there is no food available or we cannot access it … . These concerns are real
to all our citizens, and a responsible and responsive community will consider the situation
and act prudently in the present to ensure the well being of our citizens into the future.
(Prince Albert Food Charter)
It is important to note that the impetus for the Prince Albert Food Charter started with community
organization, not city initiative. However, once citizens had expressed their interest in food systems,
the City responded with support and expertise. As the Food Charter is still new to Prince Albert,
having only been approved by the mayor and the city council in March of 2003, it is too early to tell
what the effects have been (Regnitter).
State and Local Legislation on Community Gardens
In the United States, any city is subject to the broader realm of state law, and urban agriculture can
use state law to build upon its policy support base. Legislators who wish to start the process of state
promotion of urban agriculture should focus on how community gardening is consistent with
community health and welfare, environmental protection, economic development, education, youth
employment, and tourism (Schukoske).
Some state laws recognize gardens as a permissible public use of state and local land, and others
specifically mention gardens within their provisions on food production and agriculture, education,
parks and environment, and social services. State legislation typically focuses on providing clear
authorization of the use of public lands, limiting time for garden use by providing short lease periods,
and protecting governments from liabilities. There are some examples of state regulations that have
also led to other efforts to enable urban agriculture. New York State, for example, uses state resources
to compile an inventory of vacant lots, permits the use of public lands for community gardens, and
coordinates gardening groups and state and local agencies to facilitate the use of vacant public lands.
The state’s current statutory scheme provides for interagency, intergovernmental, and public/private
coordination of community gardens through the state’s Office of Community Gardens.
There are three ways that state legislation can affect community gardens. First, there are grants of
permission to use vacant state lands for gardening purposes. Second, states can create a system for
tracking vacant lots and their assignment to garden organizations. Third is the necessary step of
protection of the state from liability for personal injury and property damages while the land is being
used by the community garden.
Schukoske recommends a list of 20 “best practice” local ordinances for community gardens. Some of
these include:
• Inventory vacant public and private lots and make such information publicly available.
• Authorize contracting with private landowners for lease of vacant lots.
• Authorize use of municipal land for minimum terms long enough to elicit commitment from
gardens (five years recommended) and provide for the possibility of permanent dedication to
the parks department after five years use.
• Provide for interagency coordination of resources for the creation of gardens.
• Provide for the clearing of rubble and contamination, as well as regular trash pickup.
• Provide for tilling and building of raised beds.

• Provide water access at no charge.
• Provide technical assistance to support programs.
• Provide for liability insurance against personal injury.
Lessons from Europe
Cities in Europe have a tradition of gardening on small plots for personal vegetable and flower
gardening. Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Berlin are large cities that illustrate this cultural practice.
Berlin has more than 80,000 allotment gardens in public use (Beatley 2000). One important feature in
many of the new development areas planned in the cities mentioned above is the provision for
community gardens, in both rural and urban sites. Many European cities, like Helsinki, provide more
than just garden space, but services like lending tools and providing information.
“City farms” are municipally-owned and operated farms, which are usually on the outskirts of the
city, and are used for recreational, educational, and other purposes. The United Kingdom has its own
network of city farms, with a National Federation of City Farms made up of sixty members (Beatley
2000). These farms are often in urban environments, integrated with development, and consequently
get a fair number of recreational and educational users who are local residents—something that is not
as feasible for a rural farm. City farms are also able to obtain direct customers for their products more
readily than traditional farms.
Personal gardens have always been a cultural tradition in European culture, and it is easy to forget
that the predominance of large-scale industrial agriculture is uniquely American. In addition to
acceptance of urban gardens as a valid land use, there is also political support for urban agriculture
found in the policies of the European Union and the United Nations. Many of these international
sustainability goals trickle down into each country to become integrated into national and municipal
government. It is recognized in Agenda 21 that “major adjustments are needed in agricultural,
environmental and macroeconomic policy, at both national and international levels, in developed as
well as developing countries, to create the conditions for sustainable agriculture and rural
development,” (United Nations). This goal is also linked to the promotion of sustainable
development, addressing the need for internal resource development, integration of environmental
infrastructure, sustainable land-use planning and management, and access to land resources as an
essential component of low-impact lifestyles. The eco-villages located throughout Europe
demonstrate the “human settlement” concept and the adoption of these goals in a complete and
holistic manner.
Role of City Institutions
There are three potential city institutions that could offer a more comprehensive look at urban food
systems: a Municipal Department of Food, the City Planning Agency, and a Food Policy Council.
Municipal Department of Food
A Department of Food might offer a new focal point for local food issues and perform multiple
functions associated with outreach and community education, regulation, capital programming, and
food-related services development. It could also play a role in facilitating market operations for food
system functions, framing and revising food system functions of local government, timing private and
public food security programs, and analyzing the consequences of programs and project activities
(Pothukuchi and Kaufmann 1999).

The City Planning Agency
The city planning agency, or metropolitan planning organization, typically takes a comprehensive
look at communities, and could have a complementary function with a Food Policy Council. Planners
can pay particular attention to linkages among functional sectors, between the public and private
sector, and among multiple perspectives on community life. According to Pothukuchi and Kaufmann
(1999), planners have an important role because they are oriented towards taking “a more
comprehensive look at what is going on in cities, on how a myriad of issues confronting cities could
be dealt with, and on planning for a city’s future.”
Food Policy Council
A Food Policy Council (FPC) is usually comprised of representatives from different segments of the
food system including farmers, hunger prevention organizations, food retail, nutritional education
programs, sustainable agriculture groups, and government officials. Most FPCs function in an
advisory capacity and pursue the goals of a more equitable, effective, and ecologically sustainable
food system. FPCs typically exist outside of government structures, though the Toronto Food Policy
Council operates as a subcommittee of the Board of Health. FPCs are often under-funded due to a
lack of legitimacy, and currently there is no political constituency that exists beyond issues that deal
with food security and hunger prevention (Pothukuchi and Kaufmann 1999). Food insecurity,
however, is symptomatic of larger, deeply rooted problems in our current food system. Some food
system scholars prefer to address root causes and take a systemic approach to food system issues,
rather than simply addressing its symptoms (URPL 1997).
Some of the roles of an FPC include: analyzing the impact of the private food industry on low-income
communities, improving food access through improved transportation or grocery store location,
establishing community gardens and food related entrepreneurship, encouraging environmentally
sustainable food production and distribution, and strengthening urban-rural links by connecting local
farmers with local consumers. Given their resource limitations, most FPCs have not yet shown the
capacity to deliver a more comprehensive understanding of the urban food system (Pothukuchi and
Kaufmann 1999).
The best FPCs in the US are linked both to government through official action, and to a non-profit
organization that champions the same issues. Representatives of FPCs in Austin, Knoxville, St.Paul,
Hartford, Los Angeles, and Toronto all said that the closer the FPC is linked to governmental power,
the more clout the FPC will have (URPL 1997). Toronto’s FPC has had the most success, mostly
because it has been well funded and is located in a progressive city health department that takes a
holistic approach to food systems. The Toronto FPC is immediately responsible to the Department of
Health, and ultimately responsible to the Toronto City Council, so it can be directly linked with both
areas of government.
Interviews with food system academics done by the UW-Madison Department of Urban and Regional
Planning concluded that establishment of any FPC must be county-wide. The importance of including
both rural and urban stakeholders—private wholesalers and retailers, agricultural interests, low-income
families, government officials, planners, and land-use professionals—is emphasized. If such a
council only addressed urban issues, key rural and agricultural voices would be lost. Interviews with
community members done by the same researchers concluded that FPCs can link food security issues
with land-use planning and can develop a stronger link between rural interests in the county and the
city by beginning a dialogue with key decision makers. FPCs can also encourage economic
development by helping farmers organize to sell produce more efficiently to large institutions in city
regions (URPL 1997).

A successful FPC must formulate a clear mission at its inception, must invite all who are willing to
help achieve its mission to participate, and must be willing to make politically difficult choices about
powerful, but potentially subversive, stakeholders. NGOs and government agencies need to work
collaboratively with FPCs for the good of the whole. Planners, governments, and non-profits must
think across departmental lines for an interdepartmental food system planning model to work (URPL
1997). A city that is overspecialized cannot easily resolve problems that cross departmental lines, and
in order to handle the complexity of food systems.
An excellent illustration of the Food Policy Council concept can be found in a Toronto plan. Entitled
“Food Secure City”, and written by Sean Cosgrove (2000) of the Toronto Food Policy Council, the
plan outlines measures that are key to improving Toronto’s food security. Broadly speaking, the
report covers five areas:
• Urban intensification and agricultural land preservation.
• Further development of agricultural initiatives.
• Making quality food retail an essential service.
• Developing an affordable housing policy.
• Integrating ecology into the urban infrastructure.
Established in 1990 by the City Council, the Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC) has a diverse
membership. It includes representatives from the business community to farmers to community
development groups. Their mission is “to end hunger and the need for food banks in Toronto and to
work with all sectors to establish a food system that is just and ecologically sustainable.” A lofty goal,
considering it involves coordinating issues of “hunger, health, food quality, safety, production,
processing, distribution, and ensuing environmental issues, such as agro-ecosystem sustainability.”
The plan points out that many cities have a sizable “food economy”—dealing with urban agriculture
cannot only be an environmental issue, but an economic one as well. Another way to link urban
agriculture to economics is to adopt some form of “full cost accounting,” which internalizes the
ecological externalities of urban food production (Cosgrove 2000).
The TFPC encourages a regional approach that “is dedicated to balancing the urban and rural
character of our region in a long-term sustainable manner.” The phrase they use for this idea is “think
regionally, act neighborly.” The plan combines suggestions on urban intensification (high-density
redevelopment) with preservation of prime agricultural lands to try to ensure regional sustainability of
food systems (Cosgrove 2000).
On a more local scale, the TFPC says that “access to food is a basic prerequisite to health.” Often,
low-income residents, as well as other sensitive populations like people with disabilities or illness,
seniors, immigrants and the homeless do not have the same type of access to nutritional foods as
middle or upper-income residents. Cosgrove’s report says that community gardens can play a vital
role in local provision of healthy food. Finally, another way of making sure all sectors of society have
equal access to reasonably-priced, good-quality food is to have an affordable housing policy. If
people of different income levels are in the same proximity then food stores cannot avoid certain
sectors of the population (Cosgrove 2000).
Lastly, the report deals with community gardens and “ecological infrastructure.” Taking urban
agriculture into account in a citywide planning effort can result in much more than just local
gardening. Brownfield remediation, food waster recovery, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
reduction of landfill leachate from food waste, and composting of food waste are all beneficial side-effects
that can be incorporated into any food policy program. Overall, the TFPC provides an

excellent example how food systems and urban agriculture can be related to urban planning and
environmental sustainability (Cosgrove
2000).
Distribution Programs and Partnerships
Farmers’ Markets
Farmers’ markets are one way to address
both inner-city food access and boost
income for farmers. With a farmers’
market, growers sell their product directly
to the customer, which provides an
immediate source of income. Since 1994
the number of farmers’ markets has
increased by almost 50 percent (Fisher
2001). Markets can take many different
forms, from centralized locations to a
handful of vendors for specific housing
developments.
The Farm Fresh Atlas lists four major
farmers’ markets in the City of Madison:
the Dane County Farmers’ Market, the East
Side Farmers’ Market, the Hilldale
Farmers’ Market, and the South Madison
Community Market. The largest of these
markets is the Dane County Farmers’
Market, which has over 300 vendors that
sell everything from fresh produce to
plants, flowers, and baked goods. Held
outdoors from late April to early
November, the market takes place two days
a week. On Saturdays the market rings the
capitol square (Figure 1.5) and, on
Wednesdays, a smaller market is assembled
on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. All
products sold at the market must be
Wisconsin-grown (Dane County Farmers’
Market).
The market was initiated by former mayor
Bill Dyke in 1972 to provide a place for
City residents to enjoy the benefits of the
rich and varied agricultural activities that
took place in the surrounding rural areas.
The City worked with the Dane County
Extension Office and the Central Madison
Committee of the Chamber of Commerce
to develop the market. A Dane County
farmer named Jonathan Barry was hired as
the first Farmers’ Market manager, and the
Figure 1.5: The Dane County Farmers’ Market on
the Capitol Square
Source: http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/images/ schuette.urban.mkt.jpeg
Figure 1.6: The Dane County Farmers’ Market
promotes cultural interaction
Source: http://www.dcfm.org

Capitol square was chosen as the site (Dane County Farmers’ Market). The first market in 1972 had
only eight vendors. The market quickly grew, however, and by the next year there were three hundred
different vendors. Through the 1970s, 80s and 90s the market continued to grow in popularity while
adjustments were made in management and rules. Rules to ensure vendor participation in the
production of the products sold at the market were tightened and strictly enforced (Carpenter 2003).
Carpenter (2003) lists many benefits of the market to its three-hundred plus vendors and 20,000
weekly visitors. Foremost, she says, the market has become a social event. Attendees interact with
friends and “become acquainted to the Madison Community.” The “fun of food shopping ranks high,”
says Carpenter, since “the tense, ‘lets get this over with attitude’ ” of supermarkets is gone. Food as
culture is another important impact of the market—the vendors and customers are extremely diverse,
and the specialty products that are sold encourage interaction and learning between cultures (Image
1.5). Education is another benefit of the market. People learn about food production and interact with
the people who actually do the growing. And for the vendors, there is an “opportunity to sell directly
to the consumer without the middle stages of distribution and processing that spell higher prices for
consumers with continued low income for producers.” On average $400,000 is spent at the market
every Saturday.
Throughout the 1990s the Dane County Farmers’ Market gained national notoriety from many
magazines, including Food and Wine and Good Housekeeping. It also played “a key role in
Madison’s ‘Best Place to Live’ award from Money Magazine,” (Capenter 2003). In his book, Making
Places Special, Gene Bunnell (2002) says that
No other farmers’ market equals the ‘happening’ that takes place in Madison’s Capitol
Square on Farmer’s Market Saturdays. The sheer quantity and mind-boggling array of
agricultural products piled up on hundreds of long tables, lined end to end around the entire
perimeter of the Capitol Square, gives full expression to the fact that Wisconsin, perhaps
more than any other state, defines its identity and character in terms of its farmland and
agriculture.
As a remarkably successful farmers’ market, the Dane County Farmers’ Market’s mission statement
could represent the goals for local agriculture in general. The mission statement incorporates the
following goals:
• To give growers and producers of Wisconsin agricultural commodities and other farm-related
products alternative marketing opportunities.
• To promote the sale of Wisconsin-grown farm products.
• To improve the variety, freshness, taste and nutritional value of produce available in the
Madison area.
• To provide an opportunity for farmers and people from urban communities to deal directly
with each other rather than through third parties, and to thereby get to know and learn from
one another.
• To provide an educational forum for consumers to learn the uses and benefits of quality,
locally grown or prepared food products.
• To provide educational opportunities for producers to test and refine their products and
marketing skills.
• To enhance the quality of life in the Greater Madison area by providing a community activity
which fosters social gathering and interaction.
• To preserve Wisconsin's unique agricultural heritage and the historical role which farmers'
markets have played in it (Dane County Farmers’ Market).

Farms-to-Schools
Recent literature focused on planning for food systems includes a call for policies and programs to
stimulate the purchase of locally-grown and produced food products by public institutions such as
schools, hospitals, universities and others. It aims to replace the current food-institution linkages that
are ecologically unsustainable with local and sustainable production and distribution linkages. Farms-to-
schools initiatives often involve collaborative arrangements between two or more of the following:
farmers, non-profit organizations, universities, school district staff and interested citizens (Stouder
2004).
Farms-to-schools programs have been springing up across the country as a result of efforts to link
public and private school systems with the food system and to incorporate food and environmental
education into the curriculum. In 1995, renowned chef Alice Waters of the Chez Panisse restaurant in
Berkeley, California started a program called “The Edible Schoolyard” at Martin Luther King, Jr.
Middle School. In the school garden, which was originally an abandoned lot, kids could learn to
prepare plant beds, plant and harvest produce, and compost food waste. In the kitchen classroom,
children were taught to prepare lunches from their harvest, share meals, and cook with fresh
ingredients and seasonal recipes. The program, developed with a “seed to table” philosophy, has been
a success. According to Waters, “producing, preparing, and sharing food teaches us that actions have
consequences, that survival requires cooperation, and that people and nature are interdependent”
(Edible Schoolyard).
The Wisconsin Homegrown Lunch Project is a similar program in Madison, Wisconsin. This program
incorporates locally grown food products into Madison Metropolitan School District’s foodservice
(Stouder 2004). Opportunities to eat local and organic produce are not readily available to many low-income
households, and this program attempts to reach that population.
Health and Food Security Partnerships
Non-profit groups and municipal councils can play a part in securing essential services to people,
such as easy access to grocery stores or alternative food sources, and can also coordinate food
provisioning programs. The location of quality, affordable food stores can be included as a key
element of neighborhood development plans. Organizations and planners will need to work together
to develop such plans. In addition, the systemic elements of food security should also be considered,
including diverse and dependable transportation options, affordable housing, and urban employment
(Cosgrove 2000).
The Dane County Hunger Prevention Council has been an active player in the region’s food security
initiatives. In Madison, efforts should build on the work of the Hunger Prevention Council, which has
already been doing much of the work. Their mission is to “coordinate and improve efforts to prevent
hunger and promote food security throughout Dane County through information sharing, public
education and advocacy” (URPL 1997).
Conclusion
It is apparent that urban agriculture has the potential of being at least a partial solution to many of the
problems that plague urban areas. Urban agriculture is about connecting people to the land by giving
them a chance to grow their own food. It is also about health and nutrition, and making sure that
lower incomes residents have access to quality food. The impact of urban agriculture goes beyond
food security, though, and provides environmental, economic, and social benefits. The wide-ranging
positive effects of urban agriculture show its importance to a city’s well-being, and the need to
incorporate urban agriculture in a city’s comprehensive plan.

Bibliography
Abel, Jennifer, et al. 1999. “Extension’s Role with Farmers’ Markets: Working with Farmers,
Consumers, and Communities,” Journal of Extension 37 (5). Available on-line at
http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a4.html; accessed 24 March 2004.
Allen, Patricia. 1999. “Reweaving the Food Security Net: Mediating Entitlement and
Entrepreneurship,” Agriculture and Human Values 16: 117-129.
Barrs, Robert. [n.d.] “Sustainable Urban Food Production in the City of Vancouver.” Available online
at http://www.cityfarmer.org/barrsUAvanc.html; accessed 3 March 2004.
Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington D.C.: Island
Press.
Bunnell, Gene. 2002. Making Places Special. Chicago: Planner’s Press.
Carpenter, Mary. 2003. The Dane County Farmers’ Market: A Personal History. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Press.
City of Berkeley, California. City of Berkeley General Plan. Available on-line at
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/planning/landuse/plans/generalPlan/gppdfs.html; accessed 3
March 2004.
City of Burlington, Vermont. City of Burlington Municipal Development Plan. Available on-line at
http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/planning/mdp/07comfacserv.pdf; accessed 8 March 2004.
City of Prince Albert, [Province?]. [n.d.] Prince Albert Food Charter. Available on-line at
http://www.votenga.ca/Common%20Pages/BackgrounderTextFiles/princealbertcharter.pdf;
accessed 6 February 2004.
Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC), North American Urban Agriculture Committee. 2003.
Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the
City Center to the Urban Fringe. [City]: North American Urban Agriculture Committee.
Available at http://www.foodsecurity.org/PrimerCFSCUAC.pdf; accessed 8 March 2004.
Cosgrove, Sean. 2000. Food Secure City—Submission to the Toronto Official Plan. Toronto, ON:
Toronto Food Policy Council.
Dane County Farmers’ Market. Home page. Available on-line at http://www.dcfm.org/; accessed 8
March 2004.
De Zeeuw, Henk, Sabine Guendel, and Hermann Waibel. 2000. “The Integration of Agriculture in
Urban Policies,” in Bakker, N. et al (ed.) Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture
on the Policy Agenda, 161-180. Feldafing, Germany: Zentralstelle fur Ernahrung und
Landwirtschaft (ZEL) Food and Agriculture Development Centre.
Drescher, Axel. 2000. “Urban and Periurban Agriculture and Urban Planning”. University of
Freiburg, Germany.
The Edible Schoolyard. The Edible School Yard History and Overview. Available online at
www.edibleschoolyard.org; accessed 7 March 2004.
Feenstra, Gail, et al. 1999. “Entrepreneurial Community Gardens: Growing Food, Skills, Jobs and
Communities,” University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication
21587. [City]: University of California.
Felsing, Richard. 2002. “The Pros and Cons of Zoning for Community Gardens.” Madisonn, WI:
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin Madison.

Fisher, A. 1999. “Hot Pepper and Parking Lot Peaches: Evaluating Farmers’ Markets in Low Income
Communities. Available on line; http://www.foodsecurity.org/pubs.html; accessed 9 March
2004. [City]: Community Food Security Coalition.
Hall, Emma. [n.d.] “Manifestations of Community Based Agriculture in the Urban Landscape: A
Canadian Compendium and Four Winnipeg Case Studies.” Available online at
http://www.cityfarmer.org/winnipeg.html; accessed 3 March 2004.
Halweil, Brian. Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market. Worldwatch Paper #163.
Available online at http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2002/11/21/; accessed 4 March
2004.
Herbach, Geoff. 1998. Harvesting the City: Community Gardening in Greater Madison, Wisconsin.
Madison Food System Project Working Paper Series MFSP-1998-01. Madison, WI: Madison
Food System Project.
Hough, Michael. 1995. Cities and Natural Resources. London: Routledge.
Leisure Trends. 2002. The Loaf Book 2: Americans at Leisure. Available at
http://www.leisuretrends.com/local/pdf/free_downloads/The_Loaf_Book_2.pdf; accessed 8
March 2004.
Lyson, T. A., G. W. Gillespie, Jr., and D. Hilchey. 1995. “Farmers’ Markets and the Local
Community: Bridging the Formal and Informal Economy,” American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture 10 (3): 108-113.
Malakoff, David. [n.d.] “What Good Is Community Greening? Research Supports All Those
Common Sense Answers You’ve Been Using for Years—But There Is Still More to Learn.”
Available at http://www.communitygarden.org/pubs/whatgood.html; accessed 8 March 2004.
Moskow, Angela. 1999. “The Contribution of Urban Agriculture to Gardeners, Their Households, and
Surrounding Communities: The Case of Havana, Cuba,” in For Hunger-Proof Cities:
Sustainable Urban Food Systems, ed. Koc et al., 84-94. Ottawa, ON: International
Development Research Center.
Nelson, Toni. 1996. “Closing the Nutrient Loop,” World Watch 1996 (November/December): 10-17.
Nugent, Rachel. 1999a. “Is Urban Agriculture Sustainable in Hartford, CT?” in Contested
Countryside: The North American Rural Urban Fringe, eds. O. Furuseth and M. Lapping,
207-230. Avebury, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
———. 1999b. “Measuring the Sustainability of Urban Agriculture,” in For Hunger-Proof Cities:
Sustainable Urban Food Systems, ed. Koc et al., 95-99. Ottawa, ON: International
Development Research Center.
Ostrom, Marcia. 1997. “Community Farm Coalitions,” in Farms of Tomorrow Revisited, T. Groh and
S. McFadden, 87-102. Kimberton, PA: The Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association,
Inc.
Patel, Ishwarbhai C. 1992. “Socio-Economic Impact of Community Gardening in an Urban Setting,”
in The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National
Symposium, ed. D. Relf. Portland, OR: Timber Press.
Penn, Michael. 2003. “Will Power,” Wisconsin Academy Review 49 (1):10-15.
Pothukuchi, K. and J. L. Kaufman. 1999. “Placing the Food System on the Urban Agenda: The Role
of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning,” Agriculture and Human Values 16 (2):
213-224.

Power, Elaine M. 1999. “Combining Social Justice and Sustainability for Food Security,” in For
Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems, ed. Koc et al., 30-37. Ottawa, ON:
International Development Research Center.
Regnitter, Gerald. [n.d.] “A Food Charter for Prince Albert: A Model for Positive Political and Social
Evolution.” Available online at
http://www.votenga.ca/Common%20Pages/BackgrounderTextFiles/FoodCharters.htm;
accessed 3 March 2004.
Schukoske, Jane E. “Community Development through Gardening: State and Local Policies
Transforming Urban Open Space,” Legislation and Public Policy 3:351.
Sharp, Jeff, et al. 2002. “Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): Building Community among
Farmers and Non-Farmers,” Journal of Extension 40 (3). Available online at
http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a3.html; accessed 3 March 2004.
Smit, J. and Joe Nasr. “Farming in Cities,” Context 42: 20-23.
Smit, J., et al. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs, and Sustainable Cities. New York: United
Nations Development Programme.
Stouder, Heather. 2004. “Linking the Land and the Lunchroom: Insights for Planners from the
Wisconsin Homegrown Lunch Farm-To-School Project,” Progressive Planning 2004
(Winter).
Twiss, J, et al. 2003. “Community Gardens: Lessons Learned From California Healthy Cities and
Communities,” American Journal of Public Health 92 (9):1435-1438.
Urban and Regional Planning Department, University of Wisconsin–Madison. 1997. “Fertile Ground:
Planning for the Madison/Dane County Food System.”
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development.
“Agenda 21.” Available online at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/index.html; accessed 23
March 2004.
United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 2002. American Community Survey.
Available online at http://www.census.gov; accessed 4 March 2004.
Wisconsin Foodshed Research Project. Home page. Available online at
http://www.foodshed.wisc.edu; accessed on 4 March 2004.
Woodsworth, Alexandra. [n.d.] “Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Cities,”
http://www.cityfarmer.org/alexandraUA.html#alexUA; accessed 8 March 2004.

Urban Agriculture Guidebook - Wisconsin

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Urban Agriculture Guidebook - Wisconsin

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

Recently uploaded

Urban Agriculture Guidebook - Wisconsin